2020-10-27 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Packet
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2020
7:00 PM- Mendota Heights City Hall
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights MN 55118
1. Call to Order / Roll Call
2. Approve the September 22, 2020 Regular Meeting minutes
3. Approve the October 8, 2020 Special Meeting minutes
4. Public Hearings
a. Case No. 2020-22: Critical Area Permit to allow construction of a new 2nd-Story
addition to an existing residential dwelling in the Critical Area Overlay District –
located at 744 Woodridge Drive. Aaron & Sarah Macke – Applicant.
5. Staff Announcements
a. Update on Previously Considered Applications and Developments
6. Adjourn Meeting
Planning Packet Pg. #1
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 22, 2020
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday,
September 22, 2020 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, Litton Field, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those
absent: None
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of August 25, 2020 Minutes
COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 25, 2020
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Hearings
A)PLANNING CASE 2020-19
KELLY VEAZIE, 2142 FOX PLACE – VARIANCE
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Kelly Veazie is seeking a variance
from the side-yard setback standards to install a new driveway/parking pad next to an existing
attached two-car garage. The subject property is located at 2142 Fox Place.
Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments
or objections to this request were received. The applicant has provided a “Neighbor Signatures of
Consent” from four of her neighbors not objecting to the variance request.
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 reviewed the different options before the Commission which include recommending
approval, denial or tabling the request which would require a 60-day extension of the review
period.
Planning Packet Pg. #2
Commissioner Toth asked if the 10-foot variance would be to the property line, and staff confirmed
that to be true. He noted that the City Code states that a camper could be parked on the backside
of the garage and stated that the fence in the picture appears to restrict the ability to park a camper
in that location as it is less than 10 feet. He asked the elevation between the two properties. He
asked if asphalt in that location would impact the neighboring home under heavy rain.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that typically the reason for a setback is to
require grassy areas between properties to help drainage. He confirmed that placing hard surface
in that area could impact a neighboring property owner. He stated that the applicant could work
with their contractor to ensure that there are not drainage problems for the neighbor. He noted that
there would still be an additional 10 feet past the proposed hardcover before the rain would enter
the neighboring property.
Commissioner Toth asked what would happen if the neighboring homeowner submitted the same
type of request.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that if the neighboring homeowner
requested the same variance that could result in two pads next to each other. He noted that there
are homes in the community that have driveways that abut each other.
Commissioner Mazzitello asked if there is a provision in the Code for parking a camper in the
setback area with the body of the camper hanging over the property line. He noted that within the
report, the dimensions of the body of the camper with the wheelbase could possibly cause the
camper to hang over the property line. He noted that the two-foot reduction in the pavement could
alleviate that problem. He referenced the issue of drainage and asked if there has been discussion
of making this drive pad porous to allow drainage.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that was offered as an alternative
suggestion. He noted that could be suggested as a condition of approval if desired by the
Commission.
Commissioner Corbett asked what would be done to enforce driveways that did not receive
variances.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that this trailer was parked off to the side,
and the applicant did indicate before the meeting that she called the City, and someone indicated
that was an acceptable means of parking with bark mulch. He noted that is not an allowed form
of parking and therefore if the variance is denied, the applicant would no longer be able to park
the trailer in that location.
Commissioner Corbett stated that there are existing driveways that encroach into the setback that
were never permitted and asked what could be done to enforce that.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that those would be considered preexisting.
Planning Packet Pg. #3
Commissioner Toth commented that the camper is sitting right on the property line, or within one
foot. He noted that a letter was received from the adjacent neighbor that had no objection to this.
He noted that if the neighbor sells their home, the next homebuyer may have a complaint.
Commissioner Mazzitello stated that the issue before the Commission is the properties as they
stand today and not whom may own the home in the future.
Chair Magnuson stated that she did not see anything about screening planned and asked if there
have been conversations about that.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that with a ten-foot pad there would be no
room to screen. He noted that with the alternate plan it would allow for a screening measure.
Chair Magnuson asked if the connector pad were removed would this just be considered driveway.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that it would still be considered a pad and
most people would like the connection to prevent marks in the grass when driving the
camper/trailer to the pad.
Chair Magnuson asked if staff has discussed the alternate plan with the applicant.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that he has not been able to discuss that
with the applicant. He stated that the applicant did receive the report and can respond to it tonight.
Kelly Veazie, applicant, stated that she called the City in 2018 when they purchased the camper
and were told that woodchips would be fine for parking as that would be removable. She stated
that she would be fine with the alternate plan as well. She stated that she was told by her contractor
that cement on the other side of the garage would help to prevent further bowing of the wall of
their garage. She confirmed that the contractor has stated that he will pitch the concrete pad to
prevent drainage into the neighboring property.
Commissioner Mazzitello asked if the applicant is familiar with porous pavement.
Ms. Veazie replied that she is not and would have to do some research on that. She stated that if
woodchips were acceptable, they could go back to the woodchips as well. She stated that they
were requesting the cement because of the overall project they are doing.
Chair Magnuson stated that City Code requires hard surface parking. She noted that perhaps two
strips could be hard surface with woodchips in the middle.
Ms. Veazie stated that would leave them without the cement strip on the side of the garage, which
is needed to support the garage wall.
Commissioner Field asked if the applicant would be inclined towards the alternative or whether
the Commission should only be looking at the request.
Planning Packet Pg. #4
Ms. Veazie stated that they would like to be able to park the camper on the side and therefore
would support an alternative if necessary.
Commissioner Toth asked where the applicant would park the camper if the variance is not
allowed.
Ms. Veazie stated that there is an offsite area in North Branch where the camper could be parked,
but that would be inconvenient. She stated that they have also looked at the backyard and talked
with the fence company to check the cost to extend the fence to ten feet. She stated that the cost
to extend the fence would be about $2,500 and may interfere with bushes planted by the neighbor.
Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing.
No comments.
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 FIELD, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL,
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST, BASED ON THE
FINDINGS OF FACT THAT SUPPORT THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED
AND CONDITIONS WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT THE VARIANCE BE AN EIGHT FOOT
SETBACK RATHER THAN A TEN FOOT SETBACK VARIANCE.
FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER CORBETT ASKED FOR JUSTIFICATION ON
CONDITION TWO, AS HE DOES NOT SEE A NEED FOR THIS THAT IS PROPERTY
SPECIFIC. HE BELIEVED THAT THIS IS THE WRONG WAY TO PROCEED.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL STATED THAT WHILE HE UNDERSTANDS THE DESIRE
TO CREATE REGULATIONS FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS, HE BELIEVED THAT THE
COMMISSION ATTEMPTED TO DO THAT DURING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PROCESS AND IT DID NOT MOVE FORWARD.
COMMISSIONER CORBETT STATED THAT THE COMMISSION ATTEMPTED TO
CREATE NEW CONFIRMING LOT SIZES BUT IT WAS AGREED THAT THE BETTER
OPTION WOULD BE TO CREATE NEW ORDINANCES THAT WOULD CREATE
DIFFERENT CONDITIONS FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS.
Planning Packet Pg. #5
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL COMMENTED THAT HE DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS
APPLICANT SHOULD BE PUNISHED FOR LACK OF ACTION FROM THE
COMMISSION/CITY.
COMMISSIONER CORBETT AGREED.
COMMISSIONER TOTH STATED THAT THE APPLICANT STATED THAT THERE ARE
OTHER OPTIONS FOR PARKING THE CAMPER OFFSITE AND STATED THAT IF THESE
TYPES OF VARIANCES CONTINUE, IT COULD CREATE A SITUATION WHERE
ASPHALT EXTENDS FROM PROPERTY TO PROPERTY. HE STATED THAT
HOMEOWNERS SHOULD PLAN AHEAD WHEN PURCHASING A HOME AND
ADDITIONAL PROPERTY.
COMMISSIONER CORBETT STATED THAT THE PLIGHT IS BROUGHT ON BY THE
APPLICANT AND THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE. HE STATED THAT THIS
PROPERTY IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO IT.
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO STATED THAT IF THERE WERE ORDINANCES IN
PLACE THAT GOVERNED NONCONFORMING LOTS, A VARIANCE WOULD POSSIBLY
NOT BE REQUIRED. HE NOTED THAT THE UNIQUENESS OF THE PROPERTY IS THAT
IT DOES NOT MEET THE 100 FOOT WIDTH AND THEREFORE HAS LESS LAND TO
WORK WITH THAN IT SHOULD.
CHAIR MAGNUSON STATED THAT ACCORDING TO THE LAW, UNIQUE MEANS
UNIQUE AND THEREFORE HAS DIFFICULTY IN FINDING THIS UNIQUE OR FINDING
A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. SHE STATED THAT SHE WOULD BE INTRIGUED BY THE
COMPROMISE OPTION BUT NOTED THAT IS NOT THE MOTION BEFORE THE
COMMISSION RIGHT NOW.
COMMISSIONER TOTH STATED THAT HE WOULD BE AFRAID THAT THE
COMMISSION COULD SEE A NUMBER OF VARIANCES MOVING FORWARD AND THE
COMMISSION MAY SEE THE SAME SITUATIONS WHICH RESULT IN MORE BOATS
AND TRAILERS PARKED IN NEIGHBORS THAT COULD BE AN EYESORE. HE STATED
THAT IF ONE VARIANCE OF THIS TYPE IS APPROVED, MANY MORE COULD
FOLLOW.
Or 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.
AYES: 2 (PETSCHEL AND MAZZITELLO)
NAYS: 5
Commissioner Field stated that he might have been able to support the alternative. He stated that
the applicant clearly would like to have something done but believed that additional work would
need to be done to allow additional discussion between the applicant and staff.
Planning Packet Pg. #6
COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO TABLE
THIS DISCUSSION TO THE OCTOBER MEETING IN ORDER TO ENABLE STAFF AND
THE APPLICANT TO PURSUE ALTERNATIVES.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 1 (CORBETT)
Chair Magnuson noted that this matter will be tabled to the October 27, 2020 Planning
Commission meeting.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that staff will extend the 60-day review
period in writing to allow that additional review and discussion time.
B) PLANNING CASE 2020-14
CALVIN TRAN W/TEMPO HOMES & VINH TRUONG, 1217 VICTORIA CURVE
– RECONSIDERATION OF CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT
City Administrator Mark McNeill provided background information on the request and the path
that it has followed since the last review of the Planning Commission.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Calvin Tran and Vinh Truong are
requesting reconsideration of a previously considered Critical Area Permit (CAP) and Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) applications on the property located at 1217 Victoria Curve. The CAP is needed
for all major development activities in the critical area overlay district; and the CUP approves an
oversized attached garage up to 1,480 sf in size.
Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; letters
received prior to the meeting have been distributed to the Commission.
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 Corbett stated that he is confused with the timeline and the postponed review by
the Council. He stated that the Commission already reviewed and approved the previous plan. He
stated that the applicant’s builder explained that drainage would be improved from the current
conditions under the last application. He stated that he respects that no one wants to see a home
in their backyard but there is nothing to substantiate that request from the neighbors. He stated
that the report, paid for by the neighbors, was submitted the day before the Council review and
contains vague language that states there is a potential for drainage problems. He was unsure why
that was not talked about publicly at the last Council meeting. He stated that he is also curious as
to whether the applicants really want this plan or feel like they can only move forward with this
Planning Packet Pg. #7
plan. He stated that in his opinion there was no reason to delay the review of the Council and there
is no reason the Commission should be reviewing this again.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that after the July Planning Commission
review, a number of neighbors approached and asked for Councilmembers to meet and/or discuss
with them as well as submitted a number of emails and letters expressing their concerns. He stated
that staff had approached the applicants to alert them that there are concerns being brought to the
attention of the Council and asked if the applicant would be willing to delay the review. He stated
that initially the applicant wanted to proceed to the Council meeting. He stated that the report then
showed up to the City the day before the Council meeting and staff provided the report to the
applicant and their consultant. He stated that staff and the applicant were not prepared to answer
the concerns within the report prior to the Council meeting and the applicant agreed to postpone
the review in order to have additional time to review the report. He stated that since that time staff
met with the applicant and some of the neighbors. He noted that the report from staff now reflects
the new plan, whereas the neighborhood report reflects the old plan. He noted that when staff
coordinated a meeting between the applicant and neighbors, the applicant agreed to move the home
to the south and staff has reviewed and approves of the new plan.
Chair Magnuson stated that at the August meeting the Commission was given the choice whether
it would like to review the plan again or whether it did not feel that necessary and the consensus
of the Commission was to review the plan again.
Commissioner Petschel asked if the CAP and CUP are only required because of the arbitrary lines
of the Critical Area as drawn and if it was not within the Critical Area is would not be receiving
the review. He asked for confirmation that this would not affect the bluff line.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that if this were not within the Critical
Area Overlay it would only require a CUP for the size of the garage. He confirmed that there are
no bluffs or water features in this area.
Commissioner Corbett asked if it would be possible for the Commission or applicant to consider
the original design, as that has already been approved.
Commissioner Toth stated that is not the issue in front of the Commission.
Chair Magnuson stated that this plan was resubmitted by the applicant and that is before the
Commission.
Commissioner Corbett stated that his question is whether there was a genuine desire to resubmit a
new plan.
Calvin Tran, applicant, stated that they would like to move forward.
Vinh Truong, applicant, stated that ideally his family would like to place the home in the back of
the lot. He stated that after speaking at the last meeting and with the neighbors, they just want to
move forward with building and therefore have submitted the redrafted plan. He stated that he is
Planning Packet Pg. #8
frustrated because he feels like some people are playing this out for him versus his desires as the
property owner.
Commissioner Corbett asked if the applicant felt pressured to put this plan together to get this to
pass, as he did not see a reason to change the plan. He stated that the original plan looked good
and addressed drainage. He noted that the third-party report came in and perhaps the applicant felt
that he needed to placate those concerns or voting members. He stated that he does not want to
slow down the process but does not want the applicant to feel that he must choose this second-
choice home as he feels the applicant has the right to build where he would like.
Mr. Truong stated that he does not want to ruffle feathers and wants to proceed with the build as
efficiently as they can. He stated that they felt that they met the City’s requirements and there
would not be a point to spend time and money to develop a new plan. He stated that this is his
second choice, but he wants to move forward with the build.
Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing.
Kay Jewel, 1948 Glenhill Road, thanked the City and the applicant for the healthy discussions that
have occurred to develop a compromise. She believed that everyone supports the proposed plan
and noted that they are pleased to welcome the Truongs to the neighborhood as the lot has been
overgrown for years. She stated that everything that she has seen presented in the new plan address
the concerns related to drainage and the rate of discharge. She stated that a qualified engineer
reviewed the engineering of the original plan and developed a new plan that presented a more
acceptable rate of drainage and rate of discharge.
Alan Olstein, 1954 Glenhill Road, agreed that they are at a good place following the useful
discussion with the applicant and his builder. He stated that the plan presented addresses all of the
issues that have been brought forward and encouraged the Commission to approve the proposal.
Lynn Burow, 1219 Victoria Curve, stated that she would have preferred the first plan as this plan
will more significantly impact her home. She stated that it appears the drainage that was going
northeast will now go south and west, which is towards her lot noting that her lot is the lowest lot
in the neighborhood. She noted that her driveway will now be 20 feet from the home. She stated
that Mr. Truong purchased the lot and should be allowed to build the home he wants as he will be
there longer than the existing neighbors in this area. She believed that Mr. Truong should be able
to place the home where he wants. She noted that the lot has been vacant for years and someone
finally purchased the lot. She stated that if the neighbors really wanted their privacy, they could
have purchased the lot. She stated that the neighbors have spent their time and money fighting
Mr. Truong’s dream and she is very bothered by that. She stated that she welcomes Mr. Truong
to the neighborhood, and she will welcome him no matter the home placement. She stated that
this is not fair to the property owner and she feels that Mr. Truong was bullied by the neighbors
and perhaps members of the Council. She stated that Mr. Truong does not want to fight, and it
makes her sad that this has occurred.
Edie Bolin, 1215 Victoria Curve, stated that they welcome Mr. Truong and expected a home to be
there. She stated that they are not trying to bully anyone but always expected a home to be built
Planning Packet Pg. #9
in alignment with the other homes on the street. She stated that the report they submitted was not
intended to get to everyone late and was completed as quickly as it could be. She stated that the
neighbors did not feel that the City was hearing their concerns about the water issues and house
placement and the report was the only way they felt they could be heard. She stated that they do
not want to ruin Mr. Truong’s dream home, but they also want to protect their homes and have
developed this as a compromise.
Greg Bolin, 1215 Victoria Curve, echoed the comments of his wife. He stated that they were not
aware of the request until they received the notice for the Planning Commission meeting and
therefore hired an engineer to complete the report which they submitted to the City once
completed. He thanked the builder and owner for the opportunity to meet on September 3rd and
appreciate what they have done to take everyone’s concerns. He stated that the new home
placement has assisted with drainage concerns, continuation or orderly development of the
neighborhood and the character of the neighborhood.
Julie Hunt, 1224 Culligan Lane, stated that there is a higher level of care and concern within the
Critical Area and how variances are approved as water issues are a big deal. She believes that the
second plan has remedied the concerns.
John Faraci with Lake and Land Surveying, stated that he completed the drainage calculations for
the first plan. He stated that the grading plan was directing the drainage to the front of the house
towards Victoria. He stated that the models they use are designed for 250 acres or more. He stated
that the report submitted by the neighbors took a stab at the drainage but was not accurate as they
did not have the house plans and were not aware it was a flat roof and therefore did not put all the
facts together.
Commissioner Mazzitello agreed with the assessment of Mr. Faraci, noting that the report
submitted by the engineer for the neighbors did not have all the facts and therefore had to make
assumptions.
Commissioner Katz stated that he has concerns with the drainage towards the home at 1219
Victoria Curve, as that garage currently collects water. He asked if the new plan would alleviate
that issue or whether it would compound that issue.
Mr. Faraci replied that all of the drainage would be less than the current rates. He stated that there
would be an increase of stormwater because of the construction of a home and garage but that will
be drained towards Victoria Curve. He stated that the rates towards 1219 would be equal to or less
than the current volume of water that drains to the property and described the path drainage would
take.
Commissioner Mazzitello stated that he was not at the July meeting but reviewed those materials.
He stated that he reviewed the original drainage plan and the new grading plan and in every
scenario that he can see, the worst drainage scenario for 1219 is the existing condition; either
development proposal would reduce the rate towards 1219.
Planning Packet Pg. #10
Commissioner Toth asked if there was any thought given to the placement of the home on the
original plan towards using drain tile around the home or within the property that would eliminate
water from flowing to other properties and instead directing that to a pond or settlement area on
the property.
Mr. Faraci stated that could have been done by pipe, but he has elected to do that by gravity towards
the road.
Chair Magnuson stated that the notice to the public was of reconsideration of a new plan and
therefore the Commission needs to take action on that. She stated that notice was not provided for
review of a previous plan and therefore cannot review that option, noting that perhaps the Council
could make that determination.
Mr. Tran stated that his client would want to know if this goes forward, could there be two options
to present the original and amended plans to the Council. He noted that the original plan received
approval from the Commission and therefore if this is also approved, would the property owner
have the option of presenting both options.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that technically there is a favorable
recommendation on the first plan, which was never officially presented to the Council. He stated
that the application was extended and therefore within the statutory review time which would allow
a review of the Council. He stated that by making a recommendation on the second option, both
options could be presented to the Council. He noted that he would review that with the City
Attorney as it would be unusual to present two options to a Council and have the Council make
the choice. He, however, believed that the Commission could make the choice to present both
options.
Chair Magnuson stated that it is her opinion that the Planning Commission can only take action
on the matter before it tonight and therefore would be uncomfortable making a recommendation
for the Council to review both options. She noted that the Council could notice both applications
and make the choice itself.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the report indicates that this is a redo
or reconsideration of another plan and that is why the notification was completed again. He
believed that it would be a good idea to present one option to the Council and the Council can
make the choice. He agreed that the recommendation tonight should only be on this plan presented
tonight.
Commissioner Field stated that the only thing to consider tonight would be the reconsideration,
you cannot have two outstanding plans proposed for the same location. He noted that the Council
can make the choice to review both options if it desires.
Commissioner Mazzitello stated that the case heard in July was 2020-14 and this is an amendment
to that case.
Planning Packet Pg. #11
Chair Magnuson stated that the question can be deferred to the City Attorney and the Council can
make the determination on what it would like to do.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the
public hearing.
COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 1217 VICTORIA CURVE, WHICH WOULD ALLOW
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN OVERSIZED
ATTACHED GARAGE UP TO 1,480 SF IN SIZE, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. A BUILDING PERMIT, INCLUDING ALL NEW GRADING AND DRAINAGE
WORK, MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PRIOR TO
THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION WORK.
2. FULL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION MEASURES WILL BE PUT IN PLACE
PRIOR TO AND DURING GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION WORK ACTIVITIES.
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. A COMPLETE AND DETAILED LANDSCAPING PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED TO
THE CITY FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL AS PART OF ANY NEW BUILDING
PERMIT PROCESS. THE APPLICANT AGREES TO REPLANT ONE NEW TREE
(MINIMUM 2.5” CALIPER SIZE FOR DECIDUOUS AND 6’ FT FOR EVERGREENS)
FOR EACH SIGNIFICANT TREE REMOVED FROM THE SITE FOR THIS HOME
PROJECT. AS PER THE CITY’S POLLINATOR FRIENDLY POLICY, ALL NEW
TREES AND LANDSCAPING SHALL MEET THE CITY’S NATIVE PLANT LIST.
5. ALL WORK ON SITE WILL ONLY BE PERFORMED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF
7:00 A.M. TO 8:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY; 9:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. ON
WEEKENDS.
6. ALL DISTURBED AREAS IN AND AROUND THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE
RESTORED AND HAVE AN ESTABLISHED AND PERMANENT GROUND COVER
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 7, 2020
meeting.
Planning Packet Pg. #12
Staff Announcements / Updates
Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review:
• Special Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, October 8th to review the Culligan
request
• Concern was raised over a shed constructed on Lilac Lane, but it meets the ordinance
requirements. It was noted that staff will be presenting possible amendments to the
ordinance in the near future.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:39 P.M.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Planning Packet Pg. #13
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 8, 2020
The special meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October
8, 2020 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, Litton Field, Michael Toth, and Brian Petschel. Commissioner
Andrew Katz was absent.
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE 2020-15
MICHELLE CULLIGAN (ACTING ON BEHALF OF LARRY AND MARY
CULLIGAN), GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NW QUADRANT OF
VICTORIA CURVE AND GLENHILL ROAD – PRELIMINARY PLAT,
CRITICAL AREA PERMIT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Michelle Culligan, acting on behalf
of her parents and property owners Larry and Mary Culligan, is seeking to subdivide an existing
vacant parcel into nine new lots, to be titled “Valley View Oak 3rd Addition”. The plat would
create eight new single-family building lots and one existing lot for the Culligan home. This
preliminary plat includes a request for a critical area permit (CAP) due to the location of this site
in the Mississippi River Critical Area, a conditional use permit (CUP) to develop and disturb areas
on slopes between 18 and 40 percent throughout the site, and variances to certain roadway
standards, retaining wall standards, structure setbacks and other standards related to proposed
construction activities.
Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; and noted
that the concerns and responses were included as a part of the packet.
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 reviewed the possible actions the Commission could take.
Commissioner Corbett asked staff for additional details on the secondary DNR letter received
related to this request. He stated that in his interpretation of the letter, it states that the City has
antiquated ordinances for what defines a bluff; therefore, this plan is based on antiquated and poor
definitions. He stated that the City should be using this guidance for its decision, as the City
ordinances will need to be updated in the future to match these 2017 regulations of the DNR.
Planning Packet Pg. #14
Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that although the DNR did update its
rules, the City has an identified amount of time to update its ordinance and is currently operating
under the existing ordinances.
Commissioner Corbett commented that based on the new definitions, this whole area would be a
bluff and undevelopable.
Chair Magnuson stated that she shared those same concerns. She stated that there is a rule that
requires cities to adopt ordinances that meet the new standards but until that is done, cities are
required to review requests under their existing ordinances. She stated that notice has been
provided to the City and the City has one year to update its ordinances.
Commissioner Petschel asked if it is known when the subsequent Braun Intertec report would be
available. He stated that it appears the report makes no statement about the stability of the land
post-project.
COMMISSIONER FIELD, MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO REOPEN
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Michelle Culligan, applicant, stated that they took the feedback, questions and concerns raised in
July and made the changes to the plan as proposed tonight. He stated that the objective has been
to approach this in an environmentally conscious method with a focus on preservation of wooded
lands, stormwater management/drainage/grading, retaining walls, soils analysis and slope stability.
She provided some pictures of the existing conditions on the site.
Tom Goodrum, Loucks, stated that he was part of the DNR Task Force and Met Council related
to the rules process and confirmed that cities are intended to follow their existing rules until their
ordinances are updated. He stated that within the critical area, this property is identified as CASR
(critical area separated from river) and noted that all of the adjacent properties are within the same
CASR area and are developed. He stated that the DNR expects development within this area of
the critical area, as long as it is sensitive and follows the appropriate regulations. He stated that
this project is focuses on the goals of the CASR as it minimizes development impacts and focuses
on erosion and stormwater control. He stated that the variances are requested in order to minimize
development impacts on erosion and stormwater control.
Commissioner Petschel asked if Mr. Goodrum is a civil engineer.
Mr. Goodrum replied that he is a City Planner.
Commissioner Petschel asked if these statements should then be considered statement of fact.
Commissioner Mazzitello stated that he would ask that the geotechnical engineer to address that
issue.
Planning Packet Pg. #15
Commissioner Petschel stated that he is attempting to consider the comments as statement of fact
but wanted to ensure that he has the proper credentials.
Mr. Goodrum provided details on the slope analysis. He stated that their proposed development
is designed to focus on erosion and stormwater control issues.
Michael St. Martin, Loucks, stated that he has been involved for the past eight months, along with
Braun Intertec. He reviewed the project area summary identifying areas that would be placed in
conservation easement through the HOA, areas that would be used for development of homes and
infrastructure, and the area designated for the pond. He provided details on the stormwater
management and drainage plan, including the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
and ongoing maintenance duties. He described the path that the drainage currently follows to
Mendota and noted that the majority of that water post development would be captured through
this system and its storm sewer. He reviewed the proposed rates of reduction for the property
under the proposed conditions. He described details of the grading plan and retaining walls as
related to the soils and slope analysis.
Commissioner Petschel asked for input on the statement that the City’s retaining wall ordinance
having no basis in engineering best practices.
Mr. St. Martin replied stated described the challenge with a five-foot wall height and 20-foot
terrace. He stated that with that design they would never catch grade and would have had to
remove many more trees.
Commissioner Petschel recognized that the ordinance is not as flexible and adds design challenges.
He asked if the City is violating engineering best practices or whether there would be a reason
someone would want 20-foot separation.
Mr. St. Martin replied that it is very conservative and would consider that a landscaping wall to
make up grade.
Commissioner Toth confirmed that the road would be the first element and asked the number of
yards of soil that will be removed in order to put in the base and where the soil would be stored.
Mr. St. Martin explained that this would be almost an entirely imported project. He described the
process they would follow and where they would stockpile soils. He reviewed the timeline of
when the different site improvements would be completed.
Commissioner Toth asked what would be put in place to prevent the soil from moving down the
hill when constructing the retaining walls.
Mr. St. Martin explained how the retaining wall construction process would occur. He stated that
he is confident that during a rain event, the soils would be held in place and described the materials
that could be used to reinforce the soils. He provided details on possible landscaping species.
Planning Packet Pg. #16
Commissioner Toth stated that over a period of time the tree root will grow down and could find
the weakest point of the retaining wall, which could cause it to collapse.
Mr. St. Martin stated that the root mass itself helps to stabilize the wall.
Commissioner Toth asked when excavation would begin if this project is approved.
Mr. St. Martin replied that would occur in the spring.
Commissioner Toth commented that this parcel will be open and the soil will absorb next year’s
moisture but asked if after a point of time, because of the freeze/thaw cycle, the layers of rock
could expand and cause a failure in the wall system.
Mr. St. Martin replied that the key component is to control the water and provided details on the
freed raining rock system that would be tied into the geosystem.
Commissioner Toth asked the maintenance that would be completed on the walls and who would
be responsible.
Mr. St. Martin provided details on the maintenance and noted that would be the responsibility of
the HOA. He provided details on the drainage system that would be installed as a part of the road
construction. He explained that they are intercepting the drainage at multiple locations. He
compared the existing condition to the proposed conditions.
Commissioner Toth commented that the drain tile would only be efficient when it is not frozen
conditions. He noted that under spring melt conditions that water would flow down to the wall.
Mr. St. Martin stated that the drain tile under the street would not be frozen and would still intercept
that water and direct that to the pond and downstream storm sewer.
Commissioner Petschel asked why a barrier is not shown in one location and asked for details
related to liability.
Mr. St. Martin commented that fences could be installed atop the walls and at the ends of the walls
which would prevent people from accessing that area without climbing a fence. He stated that it
would be a question related to foot traffic and noted that they would review those details further.
He provided photographic examples of different retaining walls and fencing.
Commissioner Corbett asked if this project could be completed without variances.
Mr. St. Martin commented that they would never catch grade without the retaining wall variance.
He noted that without the three-tier system they would be using the house as the first tier.
Commissioner Corbett stated that there are so many variances requested and that one could wonder
if this is the right fit if it cannot meet the requirements of so many ordinances. He asked for input
on the DNR letter.
Planning Packet Pg. #17
Mr. St. Martin replied that he has built projects on very challenging sites with bluffs and noted that
the key is controlling the water. He described the measures that are put in place to ensure it is
done right.
Commissioner Corbett asked if the applicant has any thoughts as to why the DNR recommendation
changed to lead in that way. He commented that the City has experienced many failures along the
bluff line in the past five years.
Mr. St. Martin replied that the DNR is charged to protect natural resources and therefore will take
a conservative approach. He stated that they would like to build a development in the proper
manner to ensure that there are not problems down the road, and they believe that can be done.
Commissioner Corbett asked who would be responsible for the holding pond and ensuring that is
working.
Mr. St. Martin commented that the front entry landscaping and pond would be a part of the HOA
owned land. He stated that the walls would technically be owned by the homeowner whose
property it would lie on, but the HOA would maintain the walls.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that in a typical development, the roadway,
utilities, and stormwater ponds do become an asset of the City. He stated that he requested that
the pond be in an accessible location and that is why this location was chosen.
Commissioner Corbett noted that his question was in attempt to determine whom would be
responsible in terms of liability if things were to fail. He asked if there has been any work with
the citizens of Mendota to benchmark the existing conditions and ensure that this development
does not exacerbate those conditions.
Mr. St. Marin noted that they heard the comments from the residents in Mendota and provided
examples of how some of that water will be intercepted through the project.
Commissioner Corbett asked what would happen if a pylon for a retaining wall tapped into an
underground spring and exacerbated the current flow. He believed that a plan should be in place
for the what ifs.
Mr. St. Martin explained the process that would occur to build the wall and noted that everything
would be visible throughout the process.
Commissioner Toth referenced the base of the wall and asked the depth at which that would be
buried.
Mr. St. Martin replied that it would be two to three courses below grade. He provided details on
the type of block that is being considered, noting that it would most likely be eight inches high and
16 inches in length.
Planning Packet Pg. #18
Commissioner Mazzitello asked where the bedrock is on the diagram.
Mr. St. Martin replied that they did not hit bedrock and their deepest coring was 63 feet.
Chair Magnuson commented that having the material prepared earlier rather than receiving it
tonight would have been helpful to allow additional review and research. She stated that she
appreciates the comments, but it would have been helpful to have the information earlier.
Mr. Goodrum acknowledged that this request includes a number of variances and provided further
detail on why each variance is required.
Bob Brewstal, Mendota resident, stated that retaining walls are not containing walls. He stated
that the surface water will filter into the rock and down below. He asked the definition of critical
area.
Chair Magnuson commented that there is a Federal law which gives states and local governments
the ability to regulate the delineated Mississippi Critical Area. She stated that the critical area has
specific requirements that must be adhered to in addition to the other zoning regulations.
Mr. Brewstal stated that the engineer referenced retaining walls, rather than containing walls,
which means that the water will come downhill one way or the other. He stated that he is very
concerned with the water that will drain down to Mendota. He commented that another local
native American group will be providing a letter to Mendota Heights the following day in objection
to the project.
Julie Hunt, 1224 Culligan Lane, stated that they moved to Mendota Heights five years ago and
find the location near the river ideal. She commented that they have been enthusiastically
welcomed to the neighborhood. She recognized the amount of work that the Planning Commission
does in its review of applications and thanked the Commission for their service. She stated that
the 49-page proposal introduced by Loucks in July was technical, as were they answers they
provided tonight related to why the Commission should approve the variances. She commented
that this is within the critical area and expressed concern at the number of variances that would be
required in order to support this project. She stated that the initial July proposal was missing key
components related to the City’s critical area plan. She stated that the neighbors also expressed
concern. She thanked the applicant for addressing some of the concerns that arose and additional
details that were requested earlier. She stated that she is concerned with what could occur from
extensive digging in this area and the impact that could occur to neighboring properties. She
displayed a map stated that this area considered for the project is considered a bowl, which is a
sensitive area. She commented that her home is on the top of the bowl, at the rim, and stated that
the development is proposed to be constructed within the bowl. She explained that she has been
told that when you disturb the land within the bowl it can impact the stability of the properties
along the rim. She stated that has not yet been mentioned in the proposal and that is why the
neighboring property owners came together to have their own report completed. She asked that if
the Planning Commission recommend approval, it include a warranty from the developer that this
development would not impact the neighboring properties in Mendota Heights and Mendota. She
stated that earth movement is not covered by property insurance and therefore any catastrophic
Planning Packet Pg. #19
event would have a large impact. She stated that the report seemed to mention that the DNR is
approving this but found it odd that the DNR is funding and supporting documents that shove that
this area should not be developed. She stated that she finds the new DNR report concerning and
asked why the City is not in compliance with the new rules. She disagrees with the Loucks answer
and believes that the consultant should have an ethical requirement to share that knowledge of the
DNR regulations.
Kelton Barr, Hydrogeologist, stated that he was retained by several neighbors to review the
hydrogeology and context of this project. He stated that the report he sent was preliminary as it
was based on public information as he did not yet have the shallow Braun boring details. He
provided details on the materials that makeup this area, the different layers, and underground
springs. He believed deeper borings should be completed to determine where permeable layers
occur. He commented that there will be flat surfaces constructed to construct the homes and
therefore the area will become trellised and backfilled with sandy material which could result in
more infiltration that existing conditions. He commented that drain tile requires maintenance or it
will become ineffective. He stated that this particular bowl has a lot of the markings of areas that
have experienced failures in the past and wanted to make sure the City is aware of that.
Commissioner Field asked if the biggest impediment to rendering an opinion would be the lack of
deeper borings.
Mr. Barr confirmed that to be true. He stated that he would like to see borings that reach bedrock
to see the lower portion of the drift.
Mendota Mayor Brian Melke thanked everyone for the careful consideration they have put into
the project. He provided a photograph of winter conditions of the bluff area for the adjacent
residents in Mendota, explaining that it is very steep. He stated that water can come from a hose
into the bluff to water lawns. He stated that in July he requested a copy of the DNR report and did
not receive it. He commented that he followed up in July and August without response from staff.
He stated that on September 30th he received the “DNR approval” which is a one sentence
statement that says the DNR reviewed the plans and appears to be consistent with the City’s current
ordinance. He noted that there is no specification on any potential impacts or concerns. He stated
that he spoke to a member of the DNR on September 30th and explained the City of Mendota’s
concern and the potential impact to neighboring property owners. He stated that the DNR stated
that when they received the application, they were short staffed and is why the one sentence reply
was given. He noted that he was told a more in-depth review would occur. He reviewed the most
recent correspondence from the DNR and their position on the original comments of the DNR,
which was not meant to act as a statement of support. He read the language related regulations
from the DNR which would prevent this development plan. He stated that under the new rules
this proposed development would look much different. He stated that the City is now aware that
this is an unbuildable site and is still considering the request. He stated that the two cities have
experiences with bluff failure within the critical area. He stated that it is prudent and essential to
public safety that the City consider the new standards rather than its outdated standards.
Commissioner Petschel asked if CR 13 has been shutdown at all in the past ten years because of
landslides.
Planning Packet Pg. #20
Mayor Melke replied that the road has not been shut down for that purpose within the past ten
years. He stated that the springs in the winter conditions cause very slippery ice patches.
Commissioner Petschel referenced that the fatal landslide incident occurred in Lilydale.
Chair Magnuson reviewed Minnesota State Rule related to changing of DNR regulations and that
cities must continue to follow its ordinances as in place until the update occurs.
Mayor Melke stated that the Commission now has the knowledge that this area is considered
unbuildable and should use that knowledge in making its decision.
Commissioner Field asked if the Mendota ordinances have been updated.
Mayor Melke was unsure.
Commissioner Mazzitello stated that he was on the Mendota Heights staff for eight years and is
very familiar with the critical area regulations and explained that the DNR has review authority
and it is up to the cities as to whether to approve critical area permits.
Steve Golias, Mendota resident and Deputy Mayor, stated that at the last meeting he was told that
the pond would be City owned but at this meeting there appears to be ambiguity. He stated that
he would want clarification on the ownership and maintenance. He also expressed concern that
the water would connect to the MnDOT system across Victoria Curve. He stated that MnDOT has
done nothing with that holding pond since about 1993. He stated that they are relying on a system
which utilizes another entity’s system that is not maintained. He stated that every single one of
the property owners adjacent to this project are on well water. He stated that those residents are
concerned with what could happen to the hydrology of the area as disturbances are made to the
slopes. He stated that he completed more research on Dodd Road and provided a brief summary.
Dave Olson, Culligan Lane resident, commented that when a home was constructed uphill of him
and there was a large rain event, they ended up with a gulley. He stated that there was a landslide
on CR 13 that closed the roadway for a period of time due to tree removal. He stated that this is a
steep and critical area and asked the City to use caution.
Alan Olstein, 1954 Glenhill Road, spoke against the proposal and requested variances. He
referenced the instability of the area and noted the risk that the taxpayers and City would be
assuming in allowing the project to go forward. He urged the Commission to deny the variances.
Kay Jewel, 1948 Glenhill Road, stated that tonight they listened to opinions from dueling experts
along with input from residents related to existing problems and changing regulations. She stated
that when there is this level of disagreement on the topic it makes it clear that there are big issues
that have to be considered. She stated that it is known that there are problems with water in
Mendota and known landslides, therefore she would feel that this project would have significant
risk and did not want to see the taxpayers of Mendota Heights supporting this request. She stated
that the Culligans are wonderful neighbors and have developed areas in a responsible way. She
Planning Packet Pg. #21
asked if there would be a solution that would allow the Culligans to sell the property and allow the
area to remain undisturbed.
Ms. Culligan stated that they heard the concerns from Mendota at the last meeting and again
tonight, noting that they do not take this lightly and have brought in experts that can recommend
a method to develop this in a responsible manner. She stated that this would reduce the water
flow. She commented that they cannot anticipate changing regulations and have worked within
the City ordinance. She stated that they have tried to address concerns and provide a significant
amount of information. She stated that her family has lived on the property for over 100 years, in
this bowl, and provided information from other developments that have been built on the bluff
and/or within the critical area. She stated that she is speaking of her specific property and not bluff
areas in general. She stated that the conservation easement would be preserved to protect the slope.
She stated that they appreciated the input of Mr. Barr, but Braun has assumed there was underlying
water the whole time as they want to be on the conservative side to ensure that their development
would hold up. She stated that they have attempted to address the previous comments and build
them into their design.
Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to
close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO,
TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF VALLEY VIEW OAK 3RD
ADDITION, ALONG WITH A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AND VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NW QUADRANT OF
VICTORIA CURVE AND GLENHILL ROAD BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF
FACT INCLUDING IN THE MEMORANDUM FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY DATED
SEPTEMBER 8, 2020 THAT CONFIRM THE APPLICANT FAILED TO MEET THE BURDEN
OF PROOF OR STANDARDS REQUIRED IN GRANTING OF THE VARIANCES AND
OTHER APPLICATIONS REQUESTED HEREIN.
FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL REFERENCED THE FRONT
YARD SETBACKS AND NOTED THAT OTHER PLACES CAN MEET THE
REQUIREMENT AND THERE IS NO PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. HE NOTED THAT THE
STREET VARIANCE IS THE SAME AND DOES NOT MEET PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.
HE STATED THAT IF A PROVISION FOR REVIEW BY CITY PERSONNEL IS GOING TO
BE ALLOWED FOR CONDITIONAL USE, THAT SHOULD BE DONE.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Planning Packet Pg. #22
Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 20, 2020
meeting.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:16 P.M.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Planning Packet Pg. #23
Planning Staff Report
DATE:October 27, 2020
TO:Planning Commission
FROM:Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:Planning Case 2020-22
CRITICAL AREA PERMIT
APPLICANT:Aaron and Sarah Macke
PROPERTY ADDRESS:744 Woodridge Drive
ZONING/GUIDED:R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE:November 27, 2020
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicants areseekinga Critical Area Permit to construct a new addition above anattached garage/sport
court area to an existing single family dwelling.
The subject property is situated in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, also known as the Critical
Area Overlay District. Title 12-3-5 of the City Code requires a critical area permit for all development
activities requiring a building permit or special zoning approvals in this overlay district.
This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing was published
in the Pioneer Press; and notice letters were mailed to all neighboring property owners within 350-feet of
the subject property. The city received no objections or adverse comments from the neighbors.
BACKGROUND
The City approved the “Ivy Ridge Addition” plat in 2008; and the applicants received a critical area permit
(CAP) in 2010 to construct the existing single-family dwelling on the 1.75-acre parcel.
In 2014, the applicants received approval of a separate CAP to construct a new swimming pool, retaining
wall, patio, porch addition and fence (Planning Case No. 2014-28).
The plans under this new CAP call for a new 470-sf. second story addition above the current sport court
area,which sits adjacent to theattached garage structure(see images –next page). The addition will provide
for two new bedrooms and relocation of an existing bathroom in thisadded living space. No new foundation
is needed; and no outward expansion of the existing home will take place.
Planning Packet Pg. #24
Planning Case #220-22 (Macke) Page 2
The gabled roof above the existing screened-in porch below will be converted to a flat-roofed design in
order to accommodate the new windows to the west.
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
The subject parcel is guided LR Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The applicants’
request to construct the proposed improvements are consistent with the continued use as a single-family
residential dwelling.
Critical Area Overlay Zoning District
The purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District is to:
“…prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional and national resource
to promote orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas,
to preserve and enhance its values to the public and protect and preserve the system as an essential
element in the city's transportation, sewer and water and recreational systems…” [Title 12-3-2]
The pertinent provisions of the Critical Area Overlay District that apply to this application are:
12-3-7. Existing Structures and Uses: D. Existing Residential Uses: Residential buildings on parcels
developed and built upon prior to June 1, 2003, that otherwise conform to the standards and regulations
of the zoning ordinance, and which comply with the standards and regulations of this chapter with the
exception of the slope requirements, may be expanded with the addition of attached or detached
structures, provided that:
1. The expansion or accessory structure shall encroach no closer toward the river than the existing
structure.
Planning Packet Pg. #25
Planning Case #220-22 (Macke) Page 3
2. The expansion or accessory structure shall comply with all other performance standards and
regulations of this chapter and the zoning ordinance.
3. The proposed expansion shall be processed in accordance with the procedures for site plan review
as listed in section 12-3-17 of this chapter.
The proposed 2nd story addition meets these objectives, since there will be no encroachment towards the
river than what exists with the principal structure; and all setbacks and height standards will be met under
this new addition.
Title 12-3-8 contains development standards in the Critical Area District in order to maintain the aesthetic
integrity and natural environment. The standards are designed to protect and enhance the shoreline and
bluff areas, provide sufficient setback for on-site sanitary facilities, prevent erosion of bluffs, minimize
flood damage, andprevent pollution of surface and ground water. The following applicable standards apply
to the proposed project:
x Setback From Bluff Line: No structure shall be constructed less than forty feet (40') landward from the
bluff line of the river.
According to the Site/Elevation Plans, the proposed improvements will take place directly above the
existing (and attached) sport court feature to the existing dwelling. The current home sits approximately
70-ft. from the bluff edge, located along the southerly and westerly edges of the property and illustrated
on the Dakota Co. GIS Map/Bluff Map (image below). No new or expanded foundation is needed,
therefore no outward expansion or encroachment of the structure will take place, either towards the
river or bluff areas. The proposed improvement will be compliant with the bluff setback standards.
x Setback From Normal High Water Mark: No structure or road shall be constructed less than one
hundred feet (100') from the normal high water mark of any water body.
The existing structure and proposed improvements are over 290-ft. feet from Ivy Falls Creek, which is
located southwesterly of the subject property. There should be no impacts to this waterway or the
natural woodland features adjacent to this creek and valley way.
x Height Of Structures: All new structures shall be limited to the lesser of the underlying zoning district
regulations or thirty five feet (35').
The R-1 District structure height requirement is the lesser of 2 stories or 25 feet, which supersedes the
35-foot height requirement in the Critical Area District. The proposed addition appears to be less in
height than the existingdwelling roofline; hence noincrease to the height of the already-approved home
structure.
x Protection Of Natural Features: The governing body may require the preservation of natural features
such as large trees, watercourses, scenic points, historical sites and similar community assets and may
Planning Packet Pg. #26
Planning Case #220-22 (Macke) Page 4
decline approval of a subdivision or other development if provision is not made for preservation of
these assets.
The proposed project will not involve any grading, or removal of any trees or vegetation. There will
be no negative impacts to any significant natural features.
INTERAGENCY REVIEW
In addition to the public and private property owners within 350 feet of the subject parcel, public hearing
notices and application materials were sent to the following agencies for review and comment:
x Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
City received no comments or suggested recommendations on the requested CAP application.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the Critical Area Permit request for 744 Woodridge Drive, which would allow the
construction of a new 2nd-story addition to the existing residential dwelling, based on the findings-
of-fact that the proposed project is compliant with certain criteria, policies and standards of the
Critical Area Overlay District, with certain conditions; or
2. Deny the Critical Area Permit request for 744 Woodridge Drive, based on findings-of-fact that the
proposed project does not meet certain criteria, policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay
District, as determined by the Planning Commission; or
3. Table the request; direct staff to work with the Applicants to revise or refine the project plans,
provide additional information later, and extend this land use application review period an
additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Since there is very little, if any impact to the Mississippi River corridor area, the bluff area, the creek area
and surrounding properties, staff recommends the Planning Commission consider Alternative No. 1 noted
above, which would approve the requested Critical Area Permit for 744 Woodridge Drive, along with the
following added conditions:
1. A building permit must be approved prior to the commencement of any demolition or construction
work.
2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and
construction work activities.
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. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM Monday
through Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM weekends.
5. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established and
permanent ground cover immediately after the project is completed.
Planning Packet Pg. #27
Planning Case #220-22 (Macke) Page 5
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Critical Area Permit
for
744 WOODRIDGE DRIVE
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District, with little
to no impacts to the river corridor, bluff area, adjacent waterway or surrounding properties.
2. The proposed work and disturbance to construct this new second-story living space addition are all
minimal, reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical Area.
3. The proposed addition is in keeping with the existing development and character of the area.
4. The expansion and construction of this new addition is allowed under city zoning ordinance, and
will comply with all standards and regulations of the State Building Code and other applicable
ordinances.
Planning Packet Pg. #28
Planning Packet Pg. #29
66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666""
!*
""*
"
"*
*
*
*!*!
""³
"
""
"
"
"
"
³"
!³!
*
*
"
"
***
"
³
"³
³
³
³
³
³
*
"
"
³
³
³
³
"
³66666
666666666666666666
6
6!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
774
754
734
714
711
727
731
703
709
716
711
782
714
706
701
1199
1157
1133
1149
788
694
1220
704
12321223 741
1198
739
689
1200
691
120066.4'23
3'
22
1
'
2
1
3
'266.8'183'
254.
6
'251.3'
1
6
9
'1
5
0
'
1
4
1
'
1
3
6
'
95'
191.8'
119'
86'
111
'275'173.8'234.6'102'71'
69
'60'97.4'248.9'56'109.5'
42'
28'
744 WOODRIDGE DRIVE
LOCATION MAP
City of
Mendota
Heights0190
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 contained
in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors
or 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.
10/6/2020
Planning Packet Pg. #30
744 WOODRIDGE DRIVE - BLUFF MAP
Land Use/Land Development
Property Information
Elevation
October 20, 2020
0 110 22055 ft
0306015m
1:1,200
Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification.
70-ft. +/-
Planning Packet Pg. #31
Planning Packet Pg. #32
Planning Packet Pg. #33
Planning Packet Pg. #34
Planning Packet Pg. #35
Planning Packet Pg. #36
Planning Commission Memo
MEETING DATE: October 27, 2020
TO: Chair Magnuson and Planning Commissioners
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case Updates
Planning Case No. 2020-19
At the previous September 22, 2020 regular meeting, staff presented for review and consideration Planning
Case No. 2020-19, a request for a variance to side-yard setback (new driveway/camper parking space) from
Kelly Veazie, 2142 Fox Place.
After opening the public hearing and comments from staff and the applicant, the commission made a motion
to table this planning item to the October meeting. After this meeting, staff spoke with the applicant on two
separate occasions to discuss options in reducing or eliminating the variance in question; and upon further
consideration, Ms. Veazie has officially requested her variance application be withdrawn.
Ms. Veazie stated she will keep her camper parked off-site for now; and will explore the option of moving her
rear-yard fence, thereby allowing more space to maneuver her camper for parking in the rear yard, which is
allowed by City Code. Ms. Veazie will be contacting staff next spring to finalize details before completing
this project.
The public hearing (continued) that would have taken place at the October 22nd meeting has been cancelled;
and no further action is needed.
Planning Case No. 2020-15
The application for the Preliminary Plat of Valley View Oak 3rd Addition, along with a conditional use permit,
critical area permit and variances as requested by Michelle Culligan (Larry & Mary Culligan), was reviewed
at the October 8, 2020 Special Meeting, and upon conclusion of the hearing, the commission made a motion
to recommend denial (6-0 vote) the plat and associated applications.
This plat item was intended to be presented to the City Council at the October 20th meeting; however, prior to
this meeting, Ms. Culligan requested the matter be pulled from the council agenda, in order for her team to
address some of the site issues, and possibly revise the plat application for follow-up consideration.
Depending on the changes proposed by Ms. Culligan, this item may be presented with another public hearing
before the Planning Commission either at the November 27th or December 22nd meeting. Ms. Culligan has
extended the statutory review period to January 25, 2021. More information will be provided in the near future.
Planning Packet Pg. #37