Loading...
2021-04-27 Planning Commission MinutesApril 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 19 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 27, 2021 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 27, 2021 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Commissioners Patrick Corbett, Sally Lorberbaum, Cindy Johnson, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: None Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of February 23, 2021 Minutes COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 23, 2021. Commissioner Lorberbaum noted that she had a few readability type changes: page 4, third paragraph, that phrasing should be changed to state, “two years ago”; page 8, 2nd paragraph, should be changed to, “if there is any appetite for”; page 8, staff announcements, should state “the City completed”; page 8, 2nd to the last paragraph, should say, “Commissioner Lorberbaum asked if the ordinance amendment would apply based on a building size or any specific type of commercial/industrial development”. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 23, 2021, SUBJECT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES AS REVIEWED. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Approval of March 23, 2021 Minutes COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2021. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 April 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 19 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE 2021-01 DALE KRYSTOSEK, 573 HIAWATHA AVENUE – VARIANCE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Dale Krystosek, owner of 573 Hiawatha Avenue, was requesting a variance from the required side-yard and rear-yard setback standards in order to replace an existing legal nonconforming garage with a new garage structure. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; a Neighbors Consent (petition) was submitted. Neighbors on both sides of the property as well as behind Mr. Krystosek have also provided support for this request. No other comments or objections have been 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 the variance request based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Corbett noted that Community Development Director Tim Benetti referenced findings-of-fact on page 5 and he did not see that in his packet. Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the approvals are listed on pages 5, 6, and 7. Commissioner Corbett thanked Community Development Director Tim Benetti for clarifying this now and noted that he was used to seeing it broken out in a different format so missed it when he was looking through the information. Commissioner Katz stated that he does not want to get into too much information regarding alleys, but confirmed that this is kind of a unique situation with having one that is in an unimproved type of situation. He asked what would happen if the Commission were to walk forward with this and this eventually is not an alley anymore. He asked if that meant this would eventually become some of his property. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that this would be correct and explained that usually, when the City vacates an alley, that was probably never improved, such as this one, and was platted as part of the original Cherokee Heights Addition, if a petition is submitted to the City, typically half is vacated to every property on either side, which means they would gain 10 feet of extra property. Commissioner Katz noted that this would further reduce the impact of the garage, but understands that would be at some point in the future and not being considered right now. April 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 19 Community Development Director Tim Benetti agreed that it would in the future and noted that if the Planning Commission approves the 3-foot variance on the back side, with the extra 10 feet, they would clearly make the 10-foot setback off the alley. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Dale Krystosek, 573 Hiawatha Avenue, stated that he would like to add a few things to Community Development Director Tim Benetti’s presentation. He stated that to meet the setback guidelines, it would create difficulty getting in and out of his driveway which is about 130-140 feet long. He explained that the current situation is that there is just enough room to do a 3-point or 4-point turn to get his vehicles out of the garage as opposed to backing out all the way to Hiawatha Avenue. He explained that he has six neighbors who readily signed the consent. He stated that he has spent a lifetime working in conservation and really likes the big trees in his backyard and would prefer not to have to damage their roots. His request is a net reduction in project area and would appreciate it if the Commission would grant the variance. Commissioner Johnson stated that item #4 on the sixth page of the packet refers to grading and construction activity and asked about grading in the side yard that butts up to 583 Hiawatha Avenue. She stated that she would also like to know if the eaves will overhang onto the property since it is so close to the property line and if there were plans for gutters for the new structure. Mr. Krystosek replied that they plan on no disturbance to the neighbor to the south. He stated that there is a privacy fence along the property line and his contractor has assured him that there will be no damage to the fence and noted that he believes the contractor included gutters as part of their project plans. Commissioner Johnson noted that she did not see information relating to gutters in the packet. Mr. Krystosek stated that he believes there are plans for gutters and even though there are no run- off issues in the area, but will make sure that they are added to the project. Commissioner Johnson stated that if gutters are added, she wondered where they would discharge because the new structure will have a larger roofline even though the total project area will be less because of the covered walkway. She noted that this means that there will be more watershed and explained that she had done the calculations for it and found it will add quite a bit more gallons of water towards that neighboring property than the current garage. She explained that she had asked Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek to take a look at the elevations of the property to see which way they drained. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that he spoke with Commissioner Johnson earlier because she had questioned the drainage pattern on the property. He noted that it looks like the area on the south side drains back to the alley and then to some other property. He noted that their analysis did not get into volume of water. Mr. Krystosek noted that the current carport does have a roof that sheds water so he believes Community Development Director Tim Benetti was correct when he stated that the total roof and April 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 19 structure area will be smaller. He explained that he is managing his land so it absorbs water and noted that he had planted about 150 trees on the borders for a hedge and tries to maintain the water on the site. He stated that he knows that there is eventually some drainage off the property that goes to the Mississippi River, but believes most of it will be absorbed on his property. He shared his willingness to put in a rain garden as a way to address this potential issue. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2021-01, THE VARIANCE WITH FINDINGS-OF-FACT ON PAGES 5, TO SUPPORT THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE TO DALE KRYSTOSEK OF 573 HIAWATHA AVENUE, WITH THE CONDITIONS NOTED THEREIN ON PAGES 6 AND 7. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM STATED THAT SHE WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION INCLUDE IN THE CONDITIONS THAT GUTTERS BE ADDED TO THE GARAGE AND ASKED IF THE MAKER OF THE MOTION WOULD ACCEPT THAT AMENDMENT. COMMISSIONER CORBETT STATED HE DID NOT THINK THAT WAS NECESSARY BECAUSE THIS SITUATION HAS ALREADY BEEN WELL DISCUSSED. HE NOTED THAT HE APPRECIATED THE COMMENTS MADE EARLIER ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR A LARGER ROOF BUT DOES NOT THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE CONCERN ABOUT THE NEIGHBORS PROPERTY OR THAT THIS CONDITION NEEDS TO PUT ON THE APPLICANT. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its May 4, 2021 meeting. B) PLANNING CASE 2021-02 MICHAEL CASHILL, 806 BACHELOR AVENUE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Michael Cashill, 806 Bachelor Avenue, was requesting a conditional use permit for an over-sized detached garage, with multiple variances to the following detached accessory structure standards: (a) allow garage to exceed the April 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 19 maximum area of 1,800-sq. ft. up to 2,400-sq. ft.; and (b) allow garage to exceed the maximum height of 15-ft. up to 17.5-ft. / 24-ft. in overall height. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; there were two letters of support/no objection from the neighbors. He noted that he had neglected to get these letters out to the Commissioners participating virtually and offered to read them into the record, if necessary. He noted that the City had also received one call from a neighbor. No additional 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 is deferring the final recommendation on this case to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Corbett asked if this is an all or nothing type of approval or denial. Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that he had consulted with the city attorney earlier today and that same question came up during the discussion. In the city attorney’s opinion, and as indicated in the report, typically when applications are run together, they should either rise together or fall together. However, in this case, if the Commission felt that Mr. Cashill did not meet the granting or awarding of a variance in this case, the Commission could still ask Mr. Cashill to reduce it and make the CUP work for him at the 1,800 square foot threshold or 1,500 square feet where he would not even need a variance or a CUP, provided he can still meet all the other standards. He stated that if Mr. Cashill would like this to be altogether as one application, the Commission can do that and approve or deny together, but they could be separated out if they chose. Commissioner Katz asked about the proximity of the proposal to the golf course. He stated that he understands that the neighbors do not feel that they will be impacted and are supportive of this request, but has concerns about when people are on the golf course, especially at that particularly hole and whether they will suddenly feel as though they are seeing an encroaching structure that is only 20 feet away from the property line. He noted that he had not gotten the opportunity to get over and see how dense those woods are or get a sense of the elevation differences in the area. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that in his opinion, after visiting the site, the location that Mr. Cashill is proposing to place the garage is in a lower part on the east side of the property, which is a good thing because it will help minimize the site impacts from the golf course. He stated that in walking over on the golf course side and looking over, the golf course has a higher elevation at that point on the western edge of the golf course, so people will basically be looking over the structure. He reviewed photographs of the proposed areas and the tree cover in the area. Commissioner Katz asked if Community Development Director Tim Benetti felt that trees along the along the back side would be helpful in order to cover the roof line. April 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 19 Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated if the Commission feels that is warranted, they could ask for additional buffers or screening as part of the CUP approval. Commissioner Katz asked if they should be considering asking for a berm in this location. Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that a berm can get a bit tricky because it has the potential to mess up natural grading that may already exist. He stated that, in his opinion, trees are a better option. Commissioner Katz stated that perhaps Mr. Cashill could work with the City experts in terms of landscaping on what might be the best types of trees to put in place. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that he assumed that Mr. Cashill would be more than happy to do that. Commissioner Petschel asked if he was reading the application correctly that the structure will be 24 feet at the peak and 17.5 feet mid-point. He asked if the City specifies a maximum or just an average. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that he has been holding accessory sheds or garages to 15 feet at their high point because they have had a number of sheds and garages that look higher than they should. He stated that as a Zoning Administrator, most of the sheds or garages that have been approved are usually under 15 feet from peak down. According to code, the City measures building height for a typical gabled type roof such as this, at mid-point which is why he provided the Commission with both the 17.5 feet at mid-point and 24-ft. at highest point. He stated that if he gets the mid-point measurement to 15 feet, the argument could be made that it met the building height requirement, however, when you look at the upper point, that did cause him a bit of concern because he thinks that is a bit more than what an accessory structure should be. Commissioner Johnson asked what species of trees will be removed for the building as well as the driveway to the garage. She stated that she looked at the site and noted that the hole for the golf course has no trees in that location. Community Development Director Tim Benetti admitted that he was not a tree expert, but believes Mr. Cashill may be able to answer more specific questions regarding trees. He stated that during his site inspection he did not think they looked like significant trees that were doing very well in that area. He stated that he does not believe any of the newer trees will be removed, but will defer the question to Mr. Cashill. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that the Zoning Ordinance says that the garage cannot exceed 15 feet and does not say mid-point, average, or anything similar. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that this is correct, but noted that under the definition section, building height is defined on a gable type roof structure and the mid-point is how structure height is measured. He stated that this is the reason that if you take the mid-point April 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 19 measure on an accessory structure, it could be higher than 15 feet, but noted that he has typically asked people to hold it down to 15 feet total from the tip. Mike Cashill, 806 Bachelor Avenue, explained that he lives on an 8-acre parcel of land and is requesting a variance to build a 60 x 40 storage shed. He stated that his property is unique in that it is one of the larger private parcels in the community and it takes a substantial amount of equipment to properly care for it. Therefore, it is necessary to build a storage garage of this size to store and maintain the equipment necessary to care for and maintain this parcel. He listed off some of the equipment such as snow blowers, and noted that he has three of them. He explained that he has four boys and puts an ice rink in his side yard every year. He stated that he has a long driveway and uses a John Deer tractor to clear that with a 4-foot blower attachment. A carry-all, similar to the golf course, to help with landscaping projects or tree removal or clean-up, as well as back pack blowers, fertilizer spreaders, lawnmowers, wood chippers, trimmers, trailers, and equipment for caring for apple trees. He stated that he likes to have a clean yard and likes to take care of the equipment, does not like to store anything outside, but also wants to be respectful of those in the neighborhood to keep his yard clean and free of clutter and debris. The structure is designed to match his existing home with a similar roof, stucco/stone exterior and explained that the height of the garage is designed to match the steepness of the garage. He stated that his proposed location is in a valley and noted that it is about the lowest on the entire property and the top of the roof will be lower than the foundation of his house. He stated that he feels his variance request is reasonable because the structure and size is necessary to store all the equipment that is necessary to properly maintain 8 acres. He stated that he has 4 drivers in his home, which means 4 cars, so 2 of the vehicles sit outside because all of the equipment is in the garage. He explained that his property backs up to a valley and the Mendota Heights Par 3 golf course so he has very few neighbors. The proposed structure will not be able to be viewed by the neighbors and will not affect the health, safety and welfare of the community, nor will it pose any risk to the public safety or effect the value of properties in the surrounding area. He stated that one of the Commissioners had asked about tree removal and noted that there are no trees from his existing driveway up to the front of this shed, so the only trees he is planning to remove are in the immediate footing area of the structure. He stated that he loves beautiful trees and plans to place this so any really nice tree will not be affected. He stated that there are a number of boxelders and scrub trees that have grown in this area because it has not been maintained other than with buckthorn removal. He stated that he plans on planting a number of white pines around the perimeter of the structure and areas where they can get the proper sunlight to survive and noted that his goal will be to have it screened as much as possible and reiterated that it is in a naturally low spot on the property and feels it will be screened with the current environment and location. Commissioner Petschel stated that he loves the way it looks especially since it is derived from the other building, but asked if it would be possible to reduce the pitch of the roof to 4 over 12 for the entire length of the roof. Mr. Cashill stated that he is certainly possible, but given the look of the structure, he was hoping that it would look similar and match the structure of his house as opposed to looking like a structure that was there before his home was built. April 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 19 Commissioner Johnson stated that Mr. Cashill mentioned that he wanted to preserve and protect some trees and asked what measures he would be taking during the construction process to ensure that they are being protected. Mr. Cashill stated that he will oversee that with his contractor. He stated that there are 4 beautiful white pines that are 5 to 8 feet to the southeast of the structure that he wants to make sure the structure is placed in a manner that does not affect those trees. Commissioner Johnson asked about equipment when they are building the structure. Mr. Cashill explained that in front of the garage is a sledding hill and noted that he has a 12-foot enclosed trailer that he uses to move the equipment that will sit out there. Commissioner Johnson explained that she was referring to the construction equipment when they are building the structure and if he has plans to keep a certain distance from the canopy of the trees or whether there would be enough room to do that. She stated that in order to preserve and protect trees, many people do not understand that the weight of the equipment on the root systems even when you are not near the tree, is what can cause problems. Mr. Cashill stated that the entire area to the west and to the south of the garage is flat and wide open, so that is where any equipment will be and it will not be necessary to be outside of about 5 feet of the foundation of the structure. He stated that there will not be a lot of commotion around the sides and back of the building during the construction process. Commissioner Johnson asked if there were any plans to replace trees for the 15-18 that will be removed. Mr. Cashill stated that he plans to plant a number of trees around the perimeter of the structure. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked if there was an existing detached structure on Mr. Cashill’s property. Mr. Cashill answered that there was not a detached structure on his property. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that it seems to her that the variance request for roof height is an aesthetic convenience and noted that she would be more in favor if the roof height was lowered. Mr. Cashill agreed that the reason for the building design was purely due to the aesthetics of matching his existing home. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that she loves his roof, but thinks that the two buildings are far enough away that if the detached structure was just slightly lower it would not look odd. She stated that she would be more in favor of granting the variance if he came back with a lower height. She stated that staff had reported that Mr. Cashill could get two detached structures without a variance and asked if it would make sense to put an accessory structure near the ice rink as a second building. April 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 19 Mr. Cashill stated that the ice rink is on the west side of the home in a completely different location and noted that the ice rink area is the only flat area on his property for baseball, football, soccer, and hockey. He stated that he is not interested in building another structure and noted that he didn’t understand what was shared earlier in the meeting by Community Development Director Tim Benetti. Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that right now this is a detached accessory garage, and applicants with larger lots get a secondary or second detached garage as part of an approval if they choose. He stated that when it comes to other accessory structures such as utility sheds, bigger lots are also entitled to have additional secondary structures if they chose. He stated that is not the case with this particular application. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked for Mr. Cashill’s thoughts about housing some of the equipment for the ice rink near the ice rink. Mr. Cashill stated that he does not think there was a real good location for a structure in that area because the area is very steep and it would be difficult to access it off of the driveway. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked if she heard Mr. Cashill say that this was being built on the lowest part of his property. Mr. Cashill stated that he is not sure that it is actually his lowest point because the ravine plays out to the valley, but it is the lower portion of his property. Commissioner Lorberbaum read aloud a portion of the ordinance that talked about the floor of the garage being at least 1.5 feet above the street grade unless a deviation is granted by the Public Works Director. She asked Community Development Director Tim Benetti if this was in a lower area and if that detail should be added to the findings. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that it could be, but isn’t sure if that requirement would be for detached or an attached garage. He asked for a minute to look up that information. Commissioner Lorberbaum noted that the portion of the ordinance she was referring to was 12.1D.3C.1. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that based on the size of this lot and the location, he thinks that it would be challenging to relate the street elevation to the elevation along this property. He stated that much of what Commissioner Lorberbaum was referring to was for a typical subdivision. He stated that he would like to review the grading plan and noted that the one included in the packet was very small and difficult to read. He stated that when the applicant submits for a building permit for this structure, he would do a grading review and make sure that the grading will not negatively affect this area. April 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 19 Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that would be perfect and makes this not an obstacle that cannot be overcome and is just something to be aware of. Commissioner Corbett stated that the applicant had stated that 2 of his cars are currently displaced because of the equipment which makes him think that Mr. Cashill needs about 300 square feet of space for his equipment. He asked if Mr. Cashill was planning to buy another 2,100 square feet worth of equipment or if there was other equipment that is not currently in the garage that will be filling this space. Mr. Cashill stated that his trailer sits outside and he shuttles equipment to other locations that are off property. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Richard Wicka, 1650 Wachtler Avenue, stated that he has had a chance to review the planning report and noted that he is the closest house to the proposed building. He stated that during the winter months, as they look out through the woods, they can see the roofline of the Cashill’s house and it is just a beautiful vertical roof. Given the fact that the structure is being placed down low and that the roofline is mimicking the existing house, they are actually kind of excited by this proposal. He stated that there is really something kind of romantic about looking through the woods and seeing the Cashill’s house. He stated that he feels this is a legacy property in the City and it was really nice to see it being cared for the way the Cashill family takes care of it. He stated that the Cashill’s are also really good about having kids over to their house and using the outdoor space. He stated that they can hear that from their house and really enjoy it because the kids are outside having fun playing. He stated that he and his wife are completely in support of this project without any of the revisions that have been discussed tonight. Seeing no one additional coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DENY THE VARIANCES TO ALLOW A PROPOSED DETACHED OVERSIZED GARAGE UP TO 2,400-SQ. FT. IN AREA AND UP TO 17.5-FT. (MID-POINT MEASURE) AND 24-FT. IN OVERALL HEIGHT, BASED ON THE ALTERNATIVE IDENTIFIED ON PAGE 7. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that he would like to make sure that if the Planning Commission as a collective body feels that this project does not warrant a variance, they can recommend that the variance be denied, but if they feel that Mr. Cashill has a right to come back with a CUP, he believes it would be prudent to bring that plan back to the Commission to April 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 19 ensure they are approving something that meetings the code and ordinance. If the Commission feels the variance is not warranted tonight, staff would ask that the Commission request that Mr. Cashill withdraw the variance and have the CUP tabled to the next meeting and have staff work with him to bring back a different plan. The other opportunity is for a proposed text amendment. He stated that if Mr. Cashill, or other property owners that have a larger lot, wished to provide a larger scale garage of this nature, he could work with staff and present an amendment and there could be, for example, another line added to the table that could be applied to parcels over 5 acres for a permitted and CUP. He stated that the Commission cannot approve a CUP based on a plan that they have not yet seen. Commissioner Corbett stated that the reasoning behind his motion was that while he agrees that the property is unique, he feels things are being misinterpreted. He gave the example of the admission by the applicant that part of this is for an ice rink that has been added to the property, which means that the property is not causing the issue, but the homeowner. He stated that he thinks this request is based mainly on convenience, which is why he does not think the variances hold, but the CUP would. Commissioner Petschel stated that he would agree because it seems intuitively obvious to him that for a property this size, the footprint of this proposed project would be like him putting an outhouse on his property. He stated that he feels that there is an additional line that could and probably should be added to the table. He stated that, in general, he supports the scale of this project but he cannot find his way to make this work, given their instructions on practical difficulty. He reiterated that he would support a text amendment to add a line to the table. Chair Field stated that unfortunately that is not what is in front of the Planning Commission this evening. He stated that while he appreciates Commissioner Corbett’s reasoning, he feels the variances kind of rises and falls with the entire case. He stated that he is a bit troubled and stated that if the City goes through the variance with a CUP and it is denied, his recollection is that no action can be taken for 6 months on the property because the CUP would have been denied. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that this was correct and explained that the CUP application process is the only one that has a provision that says if the CUP is denied, you must wait 6 months after the denial period to reapply. John Hartman, 812 Deer Trail Point, stated that he thinks the Cashill’s did a spectacular job. Chair Field respectfully pointed out that the public hearing has been closed and asked him to allow the Planning Commission to do their job. Mr. Hartman stated that his backyard borders Ms. Cashill’s northern extremity. Chair Field repeated his request that Mr. Hartman allow the Planning Commission to follow their procedures and asked for a motion to reopen the public hearing to confer with the applicant. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. April 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 19 AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field asked Mr. Cashill to address the Commission following some of the discussion that has happened tonight. He stated that it has been suggested that a code amendment may be a better approach to this situation and, in his opinion, has more potential for gathering approval based on the conversation this evening. Mr. Cashill stated that he understands the dilemma of the Planning Commission and is open to pursuing a text amendment and was amenable to tabling this issue. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the action deadline for this application is May 28, 2021, so the review period would also need to be extended. He stated that Mr. Cashill would also need to waive the 60-day rule. Chair Field asked if Mr. Cashill would be willing to table the matter and to extend the review period beyond May 28, 2021. Mr. Cashill stated that he would be willing to do both of those things. Chair Field noted that he also owns property in excess of 5 acres and has this same issue, however at the moment, has no desire to build on it. He stated that he believes there are probably about ten parcels or so within the City that this could potentially affect and believes a code amendment is a better way to approach this issue. Mr. Cashill reiterated that he was definitely willing to work with staff on a possible text amendment. Commissioner Corbett asked if this item should be tabled or actually withdrawn by Mr. Cashill and resubmitted as a different application. Chair Field stated that there is an application and the Commission can see where it goes and for now, the Commission is tabling this application, which would be the chair’s ruling. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that since the public hearing has been reopened, she would like to hear from the person in the Council Chambers that had attempted to speak earlier. John Hartman, 812 Deer Trail Point, noted that he was on the Mendota Heights City Council for twelve years. He stated that his backyard runs up against Mr. Cashill’s northern boundary and he has never had a problem. He stated that he doesn’t see anything that could be done that would make his proposal any better than what Mr. Cashill has brought before the Commission. He stated that it is an old farm which means you have to deal with some of the things that occurred on an old farm. He stated that this is the way the property is configured and as long as it does not harm any of the neighboring properties, he does not see any problem with what Mr. Cashill is planning and reiterated that what is being proposed could not be done any better. April 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 19 Chair Field thanked Mr. Hartman for his past service to the City, for coming to tonight’s meeting and suggested that he come back and visit the Planning Commission again. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, COMMISSIONER CORBETT SECONDED TO TABLE DISCUSSION ON CASE 2021-02 MICHAEL CASHILL, 806 BACHELOR AVENUE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING TO BE KEPT OPEN, TO NO SOONER THAN THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON MAY 25, 2021. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field recommended that staff and Mr. Cashill begin working together as soon as possible Commissioner Katz recommended that Mr. Cashill also come back with a detailed plan that showed vegetation so they know exactly what will be added and taken away. Board of Appeals A) PLANNING CASE 2021-03 JULIE A. OLSON (APPLICANT) AND MIKE & JULIE GEREND (OWNERS), 2159 DELAWARE AVENUE – APPEAL OF ZONING DECISION REGARDING PROPOSED MASSAGE THERAPY USE AS A HOME OCCUPATION IN THE R- 1 ZONE IN AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Julie A. Olson was requesting an appeal of an official zoning decision made by the City’s Zoning Administrator regarding the allowance or licensing of a massage therapy business in the R-1 One Family Residential zoning district. The applicant is requesting said business be allowed as a permitted home occupation use, and to operate from an accessory structure on the subject property. The item was presented under a duly noticed public hearing process; copy of notice was published in the Pioneer Press; and notice letters were mailed to all neighboring property owners within 350- feet of the subject property. No comments or objections were received from the neighbors. 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 denial of the appeal of the zoning administrator’s decision that a massage therapy use or business can and should only be licensed in an established and recognized business district. Staff is also recommending that the Board of Appeals denying the request to allow massage therapy as a Home Occupation Use in a residential district. April 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 of 19 Commissioner Katz stated that he had a question related to other businesses that request to operate out of the home. He stated that he understands that this is massage therapy in this case, but asked how the City deals with people who want to, for example, cut hair out of their home. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that issue does come up periodically and typically the standard has always been whether you would normally find a barber chair or a salon chair inside of a normal residential home. He stated that equipment that would normally be found inside of a home can be part of a Home Occupation. He stated that it is a gray area and the City typically limits the Home Occupational uses that are, for all intents and purposes, very benign. They do not want to see a lot of traffic or deliveries, no employees, no retail sales, and uses one room of the home, and gave the example of an insurance agent or an accountant. He stated that they tend to keep it to a low level and low activity for a home occupation. Commissioner Katz asked if the City had granted any permits like that before. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that Home Occupations are an allowed permitted accessory use as long as they meet the requirements of the City’s definition of a home occupation. He stated that people have called and asked him about various services and noted that the pandemic made home occupation requests much more popular. He gave examples of requests to operate lawn mower repair services or auto services which are ones that are not wanted in residential areas because they are just trouble from the day they begin. Commissioner Katz stated that his understanding is that in the past the request has always come from the homeowner itself, but in this case, it is coming from someone else who uses the property. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that was correct and this is a situation where this individual has to be licensed by the State of Minnesota and has to be site specific to the license and the City is the only issuer of the license and the City cannot issue the license unless they approve the location. He stated that if she is not approved for the location, the City will not issue the license. Chair Field clarified that the owner of the property is part of the application but the person who is requesting to provide the massage therapy is not the owner of the home. Julie Olson stated that she is a massage therapist currently working in Mendota Heights where she has worked for 9 years. She stated that she has been a massage therapist for almost 19 years. Part of the reason she wants to share a bit with the Commission about her education and background is to support the idea of why the City should consider doing this in a residential area. She stated that she realizes it is not a normal thing that happens and has had some bad connotations with it in the past. She explained that she had graduated from Center Point School of Massage in Minneapolis and also got some of her education in San Diego, California as a prenatal therapist. She noted that she has also done some additional trainings since she has graduated from massage school to maintain her continuing education credits. She stated that she is also licensed through each individual city that she works at and has worked at several over the last 19 years such as Bloomington, Eagan, Mendota Heights, Woodbury, and Shakopee. She stated that she has always April 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 15 of 19 maintained good standing with her licensure and passed all her background checks. This past year, due to COVID, her business was closed for 3 months which was a very difficult situation both professionally and personally, because she works in a therapeutic and healing field. She explained that in times of change and stress, people often come to her to decompress and receive care as well as maintain physical and emotional support. She was unable to offer that service for her clients and spent time focusing on how she could continue in this field and offer a safe place to provide massage therapy when they were able to reopen and move forward. She stated that she wants to be able to provide massage as long as she is physically able. She stated that when they reopened in June, she was presented with a business opportunity by clients Mike and Julie Gerend, who own the property at 2159 Delaware Avenue. She explained that they have a beautiful space that they have created in the converted barn on their property which is a fully modern, free-standing structure, has its own parking, a private room for massage and a sitting area for clients to enjoy to have a space to relax and regroup. The land surrounding the barn butts up to the Dodge Nature Center and the driveway is a long, split driveway going in one direction to the main residence and the other to the barn and parking. The parking can accommodate ample room for massage clients and still maintain privacy for neighbors including the road leading to the property and the Gerend family. She would plan to be open Monday through Friday and Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. with a maximum of 5 clients per day. Some of the time would be for administrative duties that she would complete and explained that she would have not employees. She stated that during COVID and beyond, she will maintain strict sanitation protocols following the CDC guidelines for massage therapists as well as local policies for business owners. Minors would be required to have written consent and be accompanied by a parent or guardian. All clients would be spaced an hour apart, no signs would be visible from the road, marketing would be done from her website, scheduling would be done on-line and through referrals, which is most of her clientele. She stated that she will not sell any retail product and all deliveries will go to her home address in Burnsville. She explained that the reason for her appeal is so she can offer a space that is private, form a small business, and help her continue to maintain a good work environment for herself and her clients on a small scale. She stated that it is her intent to maintain privacy to the residential neighbors and the Gerend family. Commissioner Corbett asked if Ms. Olson could elaborate on the opportunity that was presented to her. He asked if she would be paying to lease this space and asked what is advantageous about this space versus a zoned, appropriate commercial business use space. Ms. Olson stated that she is currently in a business space that is in the appropriate zoning and the benefit of going to a private residential area would be to keep a smaller scale as far as foot traffic. She stated that one of the things that was difficult during COVID was because she had to take into consideration all the foot traffic that was coming in and out, and not just her own clients which really limited what she could do. She stated that having a smaller scale available for both clients and herself would help facilitate keeping it low profile. Commissioner Katz asked how long Ms. Olson was hoping to be able to use this space for her work. Ms. Olson replied that she is hoping to have the space as long as she can. She stated that she is a seasoned therapist and the reality is that her body will not be able to do this work forever. She April 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 16 of 19 stated that she is hoping to maintain this small business as she ages for as long as she can and as long as the Gerend’s are willing to have her in that space. She stated that to answer Commissioner Corbett’s earlier question, when this opportunity was offered to her, it was offered from the Gerend’s just as she was getting started back working after being closed, as an alternative for her business. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Mike Gerend, 2159 Delaware Avenue, stated that Ms. Olson has been a great massage therapist for a number of people that he knows and this whole idea was hatched out of a desire to help. When COVID hit, the people in the health and fitness industry who should have been supported as much or more than anyone as an essential business, were hurt the absolute worst and treated the most harshly. He stated that the individuals that were hurt the most were customers of Ms. Olson and were the kind of people that need massage therapy for both physical and mental healing. He stated that it was an unfortunate situation and he saw Ms. Olson potentially having to look for new space in a very trying situation after a very difficult period of time which brought to mind the possibility of using the barn space since it is not used very often. He explained that they put a lot of tender loving care into the property when it was renovated. He noted that at one point in time he was the President of Lifetime Fitness and has employed thousands of massage therapists across the country and even built studios for them. He explained that he understands the healing benefits that they provide and the conditions that they need and he felt the barn would be the perfect place to provide the kind of healing environment in a time when people need it more than they ever have. He stated that Ms. Olson needed a softer landing and felt like her clients also needed that. He stated that the business terms and length of time are pretty loose because he honestly just said to her that he didn’t really care and asked her to figure out what would be fair along with what would make her business work. He stated that the terms are pretty informal and they are just trying to make something work. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Katz stated that he was thinking of the scenario when the City has people who just call independent contractors to their residence and the massage therapist comes and brings their own chair or table and sets it up at their home, provides the service and leaves. He asked if those people were not licensed in the City if they were in violation of City Ordinance. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that he believes that they would be in violation because the City only allows licensed therapists at a specific fixed location. He stated that if people are hiring someone to come into their home and provide this service, there is really April 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 17 of 19 no way to track it. He stated that he would hope that there are at least licensed massage therapists, but believes under the City’s licensing program, they have to be at a fixed location. Commissioner Katz stated that he questions how other cities handle those situations and whether there are ordinances that allow for individuals to come and work in the home temporarily. Chair Field stated that he believes this line of questioning is going down a line that is not germane to the case at hand. Commissioner Katz stated that he disagreed and wonders if in this case it is a situation where the ordinance does not necessarily match what the application is. He stated that it may be better to go and ask the City Council to take a look at the issue if there is something that may be more appropriate rather than just saying that it isn’t allowed without looking at the overall issue. Chair Field stated that he would object to Commissioner Katz disagreement on the basis that this is not a home business because the applicant does not reside in the home. Commissioner Katz noted that the homeowner is part of this application. Chair Field stated that was true but they would not be performing the service and this is an accessory structure. He stated that he doesn’t want the Commission to go down a rabbit hole that they aren’t being asked to go down. Commissioner Katz stated that he understands Chair Field’s point, but does not necessarily agree with it because he thinks that is the reason that this is being appealed to the Commission. Commissioner Petschel asked for an explanation of the statutory constraints and asked if the Commission was allowed by Minnesota law to grant any kind of use variance. Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that as the report indicates, this is coming dangerously close to allowing for a use variance, but when Ms. Olson approached the City Clerk requesting this license at the residential property that request was denied. He stated that Ms. Olson asked if she could still operate it as a home occupation with different standards applied to her because it is site specific and just for her which is the crux of her appeal. Use variances, as the Commission learned at the last workshop, are not allowed, which State statute makes very clear. He gave the example of a convenience store in a residential area that could not be granted a variance. In this case, because the City does allow for certain levels of professional services under a home occupation and Ms. Olson is clearly a professional that is providing a service, it would meet part of some home occupation, if she lived there and if this was not run out of an accessory structure. He stated that even if she did own this property and was not operating out of the accessory structure, the debate would go on about whether the City would allow a massage therapy license at this residence. The City Council has chosen the three districts as a permitted right for massage therapist services, so this would be going against the home occupation and the massage therapy ordinance. He stated that the Council could consider allowing massage therapy as a home occupation but he believes the ordinance for massage therapy was just gone through a few years ago, so he is not sure if there would be an inclination to change it at this point in time. April 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 18 of 19 Chair Field stated that the Council could do something, but as a Planning Commission, they have some very clear charges. He stated that speaking editorially, he would love to find a way to make this work, but he cannot. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE APPEAL FROM JULIE A. OLSON SEEKING TO OVERTURN THE CITY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S DECISION TO NOT ALLOW A MASSAGE THERAPY BUSINESS AS A HOME OCCUPATION USE IN THE R- 1 ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, SPECIFICALLY AT 2159 DELAWARE AVENUE, AND ADOPT RESOLUTION 2021-31, A DENIAL BASED ON CERTAIN FINDINGS-OF-FACT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION. FURTHER DISCUSSION: CHAIR FIELD REITERATED THAT HE DOES NOT RELISH MAKING THIS DECISION, BUT IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT, GIVEN THE EXISTING CODE, THE REQUEST JUST DOESN’T FIT. COMMISSIONER KATZ AGREED THAT THIS IS NOT SOMETHING HE WANTS TO DO AND WOULD LIKE TO FIND A WAY TO WORK WITH MS. OLSON ON THIS, BUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS TO OPERATE WITHIN THE PARAMETERS THAT ARE SET WITHIN THE ORDINANCES. HE STATED THAT HE THINKS THIS IS ONE OF SEVERAL TYPE OF INSTANCES WHERE THE CITY SHOULD HAVE SOME DIFFERENT ORDINANCES IN PLACE IN ORDER TO HAVE A BIT OF FLEXIBILITY TO WORK WITH SOMEBODY LIKE MS. OLSON. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its May 4, 2021 meeting. April 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 19 of 19 Staff Announcements / Updates Chair Field noted that at the start of Mr. Cashill’s case, Community Development Director Tim Benetti made reference to a letter that didn’t go to the Commissioners and asked that the letter be distributed to those individuals, since the public hearing is still open. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that at the last Council meeting staff presented an administrative Critical Area Permit for a property on Woodridge Drive to fill in a front step area with a covered porch and allow a 12 x 10 shed for Shawn Hoffman. The City has enacted a moratorium, but this was one of the minor developments that met the exemption criteria and was approved. Adjournment COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:07 P.M. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0