2021-08-09 Planning Commission Special Meeting Agenda PacketAuxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less
than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may
not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Hall at 651.452.1850 with requests.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
AGENDA
M ONDAY, AUGUST 9, 2021 - 7:00 PM
Mendota Heights City Hall – Council Chambers
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights MN 55118
1.Call to Order / Roll Call
2.Approve the July 27, 2021 Regular Meeting minutes
3.Public Hearings
a.CASE No. 2021-10: Variance and Conditional Use Permit for 650 Brookside Lane
(Gerald Ziebol – Owner / Applicant) – TABLED from the July 27, 2021 Regular Meeting.
b.CASE No. 2021-11: Interim Use Permit – for Xcel Energy to use part of Resurrection
Cemetery – 2101 Lexington Avenue South as a Temporary Outdoor Storage Yard (Xcel
Energy – Applicant / Catholic Cemeteries as Owners) – TABLED from the July 27, 2021
Regular Meeting.
c.CASE No. 2021-14: Lot Line Adjustment – between the two properties located at 1892
and 1881 Orchard Heights Lane (Jamie L. Anderson – Applicant) – TABLED from the July
27, 2021 Regular Meeting.
4. Adjourn Meeting
Planning Commission Memo
MEETING DATE: August 9, 2021 (Special Meeting)
TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case Nos. 2021-10; 2021-11; and 2021-14
Information
This August 9, 2021 Planning Commission Special Meeting Agenda packet contains the following:
1) Draft minutes from the July 27, 2021 regular meeting;
2) Planning Report for Case No. 2021-10, the variance and conditional use permit (CUP) request from
Gerald Ziebol, 650 Brookside Lane;
3) Planning Report for Case No. 2021-11, the interim use permit (IUP) requested by Xcel Energy and
Catholic Cemeteries to use part of Resurrection Cemetery for outdoor storage yard; and
4) Planning Report for Case No. 2021-14, the lot line adjustment for properties located at 1892 and
1881 Orchard Heights Lane, requested by Jamie Anderson and Josephine Bahl.
These three items were tabled at the July 27th meeting. For this meeting, each item will need to be re-
opened; a hearing reconvened; a motion to close the hearing; and a motion for final recommendation. These
recommendations will then be forwarded to the City Council for consideration at the August 17th meeting.
The reports and their attachments are virtually the same as the ones presented to the commission at the July
27th meeting; with the exception for Case No. 2021-14 (lot line adjustment). City staff has included some
additional maps with contour/elevations, the approved grading plan for The Orchard development in 2018,
and the individual Survey/Site Plans for the new residential dwellings built on each lot.
The commission should be aware that as part of the original presentation on Case No. 2021-11 (Xcel’s IUP)
at the July 27th meeting, a special request was made by Xcel to have the commission provide a pre-
recommendation to the city council, in order for Xcel’s contractors to begin the storage and stockpiling of
materials on the cemetery land, prior to official council approval of this IUP. The recommendation was
provided to the city council at the August 4th meeting, whereby the council unanimously “pre-approved”
the new interim use permit to Xcel.
Please contact city staff if you have any questions or comments prior to the meeting.
July 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 8
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 27, 2021
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 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, Brian Petschel, and Michael Toth (arrived at 7:10 p.m.). Those absent:
Commissioners Cindy Johnson and Andrew Katz
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of June 22, 2021 Minutes
COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2021.
AYES: 4
NAYS: 0
Hearings
A)PLANNING CASE 2021-10
GERALD ZIEBOL, 650 BROOKSIDE LANE – VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT
Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that notice was mailed for all the
public hearings, but it was not published through the Pioneer Press, therefore all public hearings
would be recommended to be continued to a special August 9th Planning Commission meeting to
ensure the full notice process could be completed.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Gerald and Yelena Ziebol,
owners, and residents of 650 Brookside Lane, are requesting a variance to expand an existing legal,
nonconforming residence in the R-1 Zone, and a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow for a
covered porch in the FY setback area.
Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments
or objections to this request were received.
PC Packet Pg. No. 1
July 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 8
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 opening the public hearing and then continuing it to the August 9th special
meeting.
Chair Field invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Gerald Ziebol, applicant, was presented to address any questions.
Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that the report mentions that the extra bedroom would have
access to the bathroom.
Mr. Ziebol stated that on the plan the space labeled as office would have access to the bathroom
and the additional bedroom would also have access to that bathroom.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Phil True, 660 Brookside Lane, stated that he fully supports the variance and recommended that
the Commission support it as well. He noted that the home would fit well with the neighborhood.
Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close
the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
PETSCHEL, TO TABLE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE SPECIAL MEETING OF AUGUST
9, 2021.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
B)PLANNING CASE 2021-11
XCEL ENERGY/CATHOLIC CEMETERIES, 2101 LEXINGTON AVENUE
SOUTH – INTERIM USE PERMIT
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Xcel Energy is seeking an Interim
Use Permit (IUP) to allow for temporary outdoor staging and laydown yard, located at the
southeast corner or Resurrection Cemetery, 2101 Lexington Avenue South. Xcel plans to use this
outdoor staging area for the outdoor storage of electrical poles, equipment, job trailer and
employee/company vehicle parking.
Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments
or objections to this request were received.
PC Packet Pg. No. 2
July 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 8
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 that this item be tabled to the August 9th special meeting. He noted that Xcel
was planning to begin this project on August 5th. He stated that Xcel is asking for a preliminary
recommendation to begin moving items into the storage area on August 5th, which will be slightly
ahead of the official approvals that would be gained. He noted that staff would bring the
preliminary recommendation to the Council at its August 4th meeting.
Commissioner Lorberbaum asked if the City would have the right to do so.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that the City Attorney has stated that
the Council has the ability to grant that preliminary approval.
Commissioner Petschel stated that if the Council is going to hear an action regardless of what is
granted by the Commission, would the action of the Commission be necessary.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that staff would still like the
recommendation from the Commission to go forward to Council for the preliminary review. He
stated that if not approved preliminarily by the Council, the applicant would need to wait for the
August 9th special Commission meeting and August 17th Council meeting.
Commissioner Corbett commented that he would be interested in knowing what the urgency is.
Commissioner Lorberbaum commented that a letter from Xcel was received and asked if there is
something in writing stated that the cemetery supports this.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that the cemetery did sign the
application as the property owner.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that a representative from the cemetery is present
tonight.
Commissioner Corbett stated that his original thought was to table this, but it appears that a
recommendation should also be made.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that Xcel would like to start this
project sooner and therefore if there are no issues related to the outdoor storage yard staff would
ask that the Commission provide a preliminary approval that will be reviewed by the Council. He
did not believe that this would set precedent as this is a special circumstance.
Chair Field invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
PC Packet Pg. No. 3
July 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 8
Chris Berglund, Xcel Energy, commented that they have schedule material delivery dates and if
that needs to be changed it would result in additional costs and delays. He stated that the delay
was not based on the applicant but the fact that the notice was not published in the Pioneer Press.
Commissioner Toth stated that it would be fair to say this project was planned some time ago but
did not happen. He recognized that materials have had delays recently. He asked for more
information on the planning process.
Mr. Berglund stated that they planned for months to move forward but needed a site to store the
materials. He stated that once they found the cemetery was in agreement to allow them to store
materials, he was alerted by the City that an Interim Use Permit would be necessary, and the
process would take five to six weeks. He noted that typically their storage yards do not require
IUP’s.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Ed Henn, 1288 Aspen Way, stated that a reference was made to Sibley Memorial which happened
about five years ago. He stated that during that time Xcel was prompt and neat and the site was
cleaned up when they were finished. He stated that he would be in favor of moving this forward.
Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, asked if this could be documented that this is not intended to set
precedent but is instead caused by extraordinary circumstances.
Dave Kemp, Catholic Cemeteries, commented that this temporary storage will not bother their site.
He stated that he has been working with Xcel and has had no problems or conditions outside of
the things they have already come to agreement on. He stated that the cemetery likes the project
as the towers will be removed and it will become more modern. He recognized that they would
have some disruption but believed that the outcome will outweigh that temporary disruption. He
stated that they 100 percent support the project.
Mr. Berglund thanked the Commission for their consideration.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM
TO TABLE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE AUGUST 9, 2021 SPECIAL MEETING.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that Xcel is asking for preliminary
approval and therefore would be looking for a preliminary recommendation from the Commission
that will go forward to the Council at its August 4th meeting. He noted that this matter will come
back to the Commission at its special meeting on August 9th and then again to the Council on
August 17th. He noted that this would allow Xcel to move forward with bringing materials and
equipment onto the site. He confirmed that this would not set precedent value for other cases.
PC Packet Pg. No. 4
July 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 8
Commissioner Corbett stated that he is not worried about precedent but is worried about what
would occur if this were not eventually approved and the applicant has already brought materials
on site.
Commissioner Development Director Tim Benetti stated that staff is asking the Commission to
forward this to the Council for its consideration.
Chair Field noted that he would see this as the risk of the applicant.
Commissioner Toth referenced the recommended conditions. He stated that there will be some
wet months coming up and construction vehicles would be coming out of a dirt area and asked
who would be responsible for cleaning up the streets.
Chair Field stated that this discussion is only related to the preliminary period through August 17th
and therefore that question should be delayed to the August 9th special meeting.
Commissioner Petschel asked if this preliminary approval should sunset on August 18th which
would allow one day to remove equipment if the final request is denied.
Chair Field confirmed that would be implied.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO
RECOMMEND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE INTERIM USE PERMIT REQUEST
THAT WILL SUNSET ON AUGUST 18, 2021, TO ALLOW DELIVERY OF EQUIPMENT
AND MATERIALS THAT WILL BE SUBJECT BY THE INTERIM USE PERMIT THAT
WILL BE REVIEWED ON AUGUST 9, 2021 AND AUGUST 17, 2021; THIS IS DUE TO
REASONS CAUSED BY THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AND THEREFORE DOES
NOT SET PRECEDENT.
FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER CORBETT ASKED IF THE MATERIAL
WOULD BE SCREENED. HE ALSO ASKED THE INTENSITY OF THE USAGE.
CHAIR FIELD ASKED IF THE CONDITIONS FROM THE REPORT SHOULD BE
INCLUDED IN THE MOTION.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL STATED THAT HE WAS UNSURE THAT THE MOTION
WAS INTENDED TO INCLUDE THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL.
COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM STATED THAT SHE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHAT
THE STORAGE WOULD LOOK LIKE.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL COMMENTED THAT THERE IS A MOTION ON THE
TABLE THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED.
CHAIR FIELD RECOGNIZED THAT THERE WAS AN UNUSUAL ADMINISTRATIVE
ERROR THAT IS CAUSING THIS DELAY.
PC Packet Pg. No. 5
July 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 8
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL STATED THAT HE FEELS THAT IF THE CONDITIONS ARE
INCLUDED AT THIS TIME IT WOULD GRANT THE FULL APPROVAL, RATHER THAN
WAITING UNTIL THE AUGUST 9TH MEETING TO DO SO.
COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM STATED THAT THIS COULD BE REMOVED FROM
THE TABLE IN ORDER TO HEAR ADDITIONAL INPUT FROM THE APPLICANT.
COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO
REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER CORBETT ASKED FOR DETAILS ON HOW THE SITE WOULD BE
USED AND/OR SCREENED.
MR. BERGLUND STATED THAT CONSTRUCTION MATS WOULD BE PLACED TO
AVOID DISTURBANCE OF THE GROUND. HE NOTED THAT THERE IS A TEN FOOT
FENCE BUT THEY COULD ADD ADDITIONAL FENCING/SCREENING. HE STATED
THAT IF ANY MUD WERE DRUG ONTO THE STREET, XCEL WOULD CLEAN IT UP.
COMMISSIONER TOTH COMMENTED THAT THERE ARE GOOD AND BAD
CONSTRUCTION SITES. HE NOTED THAT THIS IS WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL AREA
AND URGED XCEL TO DO AN EXCELLENT JOB. HE STATED THAT THERE ARE
PEOPLE THAT WALK THROUGH THE CEMETERY PROPERTY AND SUGGESTED
THAT SIGNAGE BE POSTED ALERTING PEOPLE TO KEEP OUT OF THE
CONSTRUCTION AREA.
MR. BERGLUND STATED THAT THREE STRUCTURES WOULD BE WITHIN THE
CEMETERY AND DESCRIBED THE PROCESS THAT WOULD BE FOLLOWED.
COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT
TO TABLE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE AUGUST 9, 2021 SPECIAL MEETING.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE CONDITIONS TWO THROUGH SEVEN OF THE
STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
PC Packet Pg. No. 6
July 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 8
C)PLANNING CASE 2021-14
JAMIE ANDERSON, 1892 AND 1881 ORCHARD HEIGHTS LANE – LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Jamie Anderson, in cooperation
with Ms. Josephine Bahl, are requesting consideration of a simple lot line adjustment between two
properties located at 1892 and 1881 Orchard Heights Lane.
Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments
or objections to this request were received.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation
on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s
website).
Staff recommended that this be tabled to the special August 9th Commission meeting.
Commissioner Lorberbaum asked who came up with the shape.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that the shape is unusual but was a
preferred choice between the property owners.
Commissioner Lorberbaum commented that it would have been helpful to have a topography map.
Commissioner Petschel asked if the City approved this platting or whether it came about as a result
of the lawsuit.
Chair Field commented that it was a result of the lawsuit.
Commissioner Petschel asked if the line would be pinned with buried markers.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that would typically be the process.
Jamie Anderson, 1892 Orchard Heights Lane, stated that the curved line is the property that wraps
around the edge of the pond. He noted that they matched the curve to minimize the impact to the
other lot.
Commissioner Corbett asked if there was a width they were attempting to achieve.
Commissioner Petschel asked and received confirmation that the property line would follow the
terrain.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Josephine Bail, 1881 Orchard Heights, stated that she is fully supportive of the line as drawn as
this mirrors the land and provides the Andersons access to the back portion of their land.
PC Packet Pg. No. 7
July 27, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 8
Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close
the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO
TABLE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE AUGUST 9, 2021 SPECIAL MEETING.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
D)PLANNING CASE 2021-12
AT HOME APARTMENTS/MENDOTA HEIGHTS MALL ASSOCIATES LLC,
LOT 1, BLOCK 1 MENDOTA PLAZA EXPANSION 2ND ADDITION –
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDING THE PLAZA OF MENDOTA
HEIGHTS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT & WETLAND PERMIT
Item tabled by the applicant prior to the meeting.
E)PLANNING CASE 2021-13
AT HOME APARTMENTS/MENDOTA MALL ASSOCIATES LLC, LOT 7,
BLOCK 1 MENDOTA PLAZA EXPANSION ADDITION – CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AMENDING THE PLAZA OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT
Item tabled by the applicant prior to the meeting.
New/Unfinished Business
Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that approval was received from the
Metropolitan Council on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and noted that the plan will be forwarded
to the Council for final adoption in August. He provided an update on recent Council review of
recommended actions by the Commission.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:01 P.M.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
PC Packet Pg. No. 8
Planning Case 2021-10 (Ziebol-VAR & CUP) Page 1 of 8
PLANNING STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 9, 2021 (Special Meeting)
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2021-10
VARIANCE & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPLICANT: Gerald Ziebol
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 650 Brookside Lane
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: September 12, 2021
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Gerald “Jerry” & Yelena Ziebol, owners and residents of 650 Brookside Lane, are requesting a variance
to expand an existing legal, nonconforming residence in the R-1 Zone, and a conditional use permit (CUP)
to allow for a covered porch in the FY setback area. The subject property is located at 650 Brookside Lane.
This planning case is actually a partial continuation of an original variance requested by the Ziebol’s in July
2018. An explanation of this delay is provided in the “Background” section – below.
A public hearing notice for this item was published in the local newspaper and notice letters were mailed
to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. The applicant provided a list of
adjacent homeowners who support his variance request, which are appended to this report. There have
been no other comments or objections received from neighboring residents.
BACKGROUND
The subject parcel is generally located at
the southeast corner of Brookside Lane and
Laura Street. The site is 125-ft. deep by
120-ft. wide, or 15,000 sq. ft. in area. The
property contains an existing 706-sf.
(foundation size) single-family dwelling
with 994-sf. of finished floor area, built in
1927.
According to the applicant’s survey
(attached), the existing house sits 23.1 to
23.6 feet off Laura Street to the west; 17.0
–17.3 feet off Brookside Lane to the north;
approx. 77-ft. from the east line; and
approx. 60-ft. from the south line.
PC Packet Pg. No. 9
Planning Case 2021-10 (Ziebol-VAR & CUP) Page 2 of 8
The site also contains an existing (non-conforming) 20’ x 30’ two-car detached garage, which sits 5.9-ft.
from Laura Street and 2.2-ft. off the south line.
On July 24, 2018, the applicant appeared before the Planning Commission requesting consideration of a
separate variance application (Case No. 2018-19), whereby he presented a plan to construct a new 1,008-
sf. addition of living space on the east side of the dwelling; a full-extension deck along the south; plus a
new 22’ x 24’ (528-sf.) two-car attached garage addition. The addition with new garage was shown with
only a 10-ft. setback off Laura Street. The applicant further requested an allowance to keeping the existing
detached garage, whereas under City Code Sect. 12-1D-3: Accessory Structures, any residential parcel
under 0.75 acres in size is not allowed to have a second detached garage if an attached (or detached) garage
is present.
At the July 24th, 2018 hearing, it appeared a majority of the commissioners were not supportive of the
requested variances by Mr. Ziebol; and suggested he table this request, work with city staff to come up with
possible alternatives, and return to the commission when ready. Staff began working with Mr. Ziebol on
these alternatives; however, due to some personal and medical reasons, Mr. Ziebol requested an open-ended
delay and deadline to bring his request back at a later date; and city staff agreed and accepted a written
waiver from Mr. Ziebol on the statutory (60-day) review period.
Now three years later, Mr. Ziebol has
revised his original plans to provide a
substantial single-story addition of
approx. 1,550-sf. in size on the east
and south sides of the existing
dwelling (yellow highlighted area –
image right), along with a new 5’ x
10’ open covered porch on the north or
front elevation with Brookside Lane
(green highlighted area – image right).
The original planned two-car garage
addition of 2018 has been eliminated.
The elevation plans for the new
addition and porch are appended to
this planning report.
ANALYSIS
The minimum lot and setback standards are noted in the table below:
Height
Lot
Area
Lot
Width
Front
Yard Side Yard Rear Yard
1 and 2
stories
15,000
sq. ft.
100' 30' 10' on each side or 1/2 height of the
structure, whichever is greater, to a
maximum of 15'.
30' or 20% of the
average lot depth,
whichever is greater
•Side yards abutting a street shall not be less than 30-feet in width.
PC Packet Pg. No. 10
Planning Case 2021-10 (Ziebol-VAR & CUP) Page 3 of 8
The new addition is shown with a slightly reduced setback or “indent” from the existing home’s setback
along Laura Street. The south side of the addition is approx. 44-ft. from the south line; approx. 49-ft. from
the east line; and 30-ft. from the north line. The new addition does not exceed the setbacks already
established by the existing house, which is commendable.
Pursuant to City Code 12-1D-4: Yards and Open Spaces, “Covered and/or enclosed entryways (porches,
decks, stoops, or similar)” that extend into the front yard setback shall require the approval of a conditional
use permit, subject to compliance with the following conditions:
1. Such structure may not extend into the front or side yard more than five feet (5').
2.Such structure shall be limited in size to fifty (50) square feet.
3. Such structure may not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building.
The plans call for an approximate 5’ x 10’ (50-sf.) covered porch, which extends five-feet into the 30-ft.
FY setback. At this time, the proposed front porch meets these parameters and conditions, and city staff
does not have any other comments or analysis to provide on this structure improvement.
Nonconforming Uses, Structures and Land
Title 12-1D-1(D)(4) allows for the normal maintenance of a legal nonconforming structure, which does not
intensify the nonconformity. In this case, the applicant is seeking an addition with significant structural
improvements, but maintain the pre-existing (reduced) setbacks established by the existing house.
The subject property is currently identified with the following (general) zoning standards:
Standard Existing Condition Conforming
Lot Area 15,000-sq. ft. 15,000-sq. ft. YES
Lot Width 100-ft.120-ft.YES
Front Yard 30 ft. 17-ft. / 23.6-ft..NO
Side Yard 10 ft. or ½ of the height of the structure 77-ft. (east YES
Rear Yard 30 ft. or 20% of the average lot depth 70-ft.YES
As noted previously, the parcel is 15,000 sf. in area with 125-ft. of width (along Brookside Ln.). This
property meets/exceeds the 15,000-sf. min. lot area and 100-ft. lot with standards for R-1 zoned properties.
However, the existing house does not meet the required 30-ft. setbacks from both Brookside Lane and Laura
Street, and therefore must be considered nonconforming. Since the applicant is expanding this existing
nonconforming structure, a variance is in order.
Variance Process
City Code Section 12-1L-5 governs variance requests. The city must consider a number of variables when
recommending or deciding on a variance, which generally fall into two categories: (i) practical difficulties;
and (ii) impact to the community.
The “practical difficulties” test contains three parts: (i) the property owner proposes to use the property in
a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance; (ii) the plight of the property owner
is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner; and (iii) the variance, if
granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality or neighborhood. It is also noted that economic
considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. In addition, variances are only to be
permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance
and consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Section 12-1L-5(E)(1) further provides other issues the city may consider when granting or denying a
variance, noted as follows:
•Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community.
PC Packet Pg. No. 11
Planning Case 2021-10 (Ziebol-VAR & CUP) Page 4 of 8
•Existing and anticipated traffic conditions.
•Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety.
•Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan.
•Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate undue
hardship or difficulty.
When considering a variance request, the Planning Commission must determine if these standards have
been met in granting a variance, and provide findings-of-facts to support such a recommendation to the
City Council. If the Planning Commission determines the Applicant has failed to meet these standards, or
has not fully demonstrated a reasonableness in the granting of such variance, then findings-of-fact
supporting a recommendation of denial must be determined.
As part of any variance request, Applicants are required to prepare and submit their own responses and
findings, which for this case, are noted below (in italic text), followed by a brief staff response:
1.Are there any practical difficulties that help support the granting of this variance? (“practical
difficulties” means the owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted
by City Code)
Applicant’s Response: “The proposed variance request denoted in building plans, would address a
practical difficulty by providing bedroom access to the existing bathroom. Additionally, if approved
the existing attached deck connected to the home at the South-West corner would be removed,
decreasing the current building footprint that extends past the city setback.”
Staff’s Response: County Assessor records indicate the property was built over 94 years ago, probably
at a time where setbacks may not have been followed very closely - or quite possibly may not have
existed at that time. In any event, the existing home does not meet required setbacks, and is therefore
considered a legal, non-conforming structure in its present state.
The owner/applicant is making a noticeable attempt to reduce any further impact(s) caused by the
current location of the home with the reduced setbacks along both road frontages, by placing the
addition on the opposite sides, thereby eliminating any obvious visual impacts from the road. The
property is also fortunate to have adequate or extra lot space to put the addition, and still meet all other
setbacks (front, side and rear yard).
Although the owner could easily tear down the old home and start from scratch (especially with the
larger lot and other physical aspects of the lot), he has chosen to keep and maintain the old and add on
accordingly. As such, an expansion of any existing single-family dwelling, especially where it creates
additional living/usable space and value to the existing home, can be (and should be) viewed as a
reasonable use of the property, and considered compliant with the Comprehensive Plan. In light of this,
staff feels a new addition proposed by the applicant is a reasonable request and the property will remain
to be used in a reasonable manner as prescribed by Code.
2.The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by
the property owner.
Applicant’s Response: “There is occupied space that currently extends past the city setbacks,
specifically a bathroom and living space and deck that was constructed prior owners purchase of the
home.”
This property is one of many located in the “North End” neighborhood, which contain a number of
non-conforming issues throughout this area. The reduced setbacks or non-conforming standards are a
common and shared trait among many other properties in the “North End” neighborhoods of the city.
PC Packet Pg. No. 12
Planning Case 2021-10 (Ziebol-VAR & CUP) Page 5 of 8
Even though it may have been recommended favorably in other planning reports where variances were
considered, these approvals do not add any precedent value to a new variance request (i.e. variances
should stand on their own merits and be determined individually), but it is acceptable for the city to
allow or grant some flexibility and favorable weight to such physical circumstances with certain
properties.
The city acknowledges there are somewhat unique circumstances that exist on this property, due in
large part to the location or placement of the home on the parcel, which was not created by the applicant.
This property consists of two platted lots, which were likely combined a number of years ago to form
one single parcel. Staff assumes the original house was built on one lot and the second interior lot
contained a home at one time, which has since been removed.
The current location of the dwelling on the subject parcel only creates a practical difficulty in expanding
the structure as an existing legal, nonconforming structure. The applicant was recommended by the
Planning Commission in mid-2018 to seek other alternatives or work with city staff in working out this
expansion. Staff believes the applicant has adequately addressed this and presents a very reasonable
alternative under this application. Staff finds there may be some or enough unique circumstances
related to this property, particularly with the reduced setbacks on the home – which were “not created
by the owner...” that lend support in the granting of a variance in this case; and also gives some added
weight to creating or supporting the practical difficulties argument for the property owner.
3.The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Applicant’s Response: “Updates to existing home would better align with adjacent and neighboring
homes. The proposed expansion of kitchen, living room and bedroom would raise finished square
footage of the home to a level commensurate to adjacent homes. Lastly, if the variance is granted the
existing attached deck connected to the home at the South-West corner would be removed, which
would decrease the current building footprint that extends past the city setback.”
The surrounding neighborhood is all but residential in character, and is not expected to see or experience
any major changes in the foreseeable future. This new home addition represents a considerable
investment by the Applicant to provide adequate and needed living space with the older home. Staff
believes the Applicant has demonstrated through their architectural design plans that the new addition
is nice and attractive; will not look out of place; or would detract from the overall design and feel of
the existing dwelling, neighboring properties or the overall neighborhood. Staff believes the essential
character of the neighborhood would not be altered by granting this variance.
4. Restrictions on Granting Variances.
The following restrictions should be considered when reviewing a variance:
a)Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
When weighing the economic factor(s) of a variance application, taking economic considerations
alone should not be the only reason for denying - or even approving a variance. In this particular
case, the property owner is simply requesting to add living space that better suits his family’s needs.
Adding to the back of the home does not add any reduced setbacks along the roadways. The new
addition should not impact any neighboring properties.
Although one can conclude this new and larger residential structure will provide some economic
value to the owner by increasing the property value of the home and/or marketability (future sale),
the Applicant has demonstrated other practical difficulties in this case, and some reasonable
explanations for requesting this variance. It is not clear how economic considerations alone may
affect the outcome of this variance request, as they do not appear to be the sole reason for rejecting
this variance.
PC Packet Pg. No. 13
Planning Case 2021-10 (Ziebol-VAR & CUP) Page 6 of 8
b) Variances are only to be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and
intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Staff finds that the request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the R-1 One Family
Residence district, as this proposed home addition (and porch) is consistent with and allowed as a
permitted use in the underlying zoning. The city is not allowed to permit a variance on any use not
allowed in the district where the property is located (i.e. “use variance”); and this variance is not
requesting such use. The R-1 districts are most predominant throughout the community, and this
district is intended to maintain the character of even older neighborhoods, like the North End in the
community.
The subject property is designated as LR-Low Density Residential in the current 2030
Comprehensive Plan, and the same is called for proposed 2040 Plan. Certain land use goals and
policies are noted below:
• LUG #1: Maintain and enrich the mature, fully developed residential environment and
character of the community.
• LUP #5: Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high general aesthetic level
in community development and building.
• LUP #2.2.2: Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high general aesthetic
level in community development and building.
• LUP # 2.2.6: Provide a mechanism to allow for the maintenance and reinvestment in select
non-conforming properties.
The guiding principles in the comprehensive plan provide for maintaining, preserving, and
enhancing existing single-family neighborhoods. The requested variance would preserve the
residential character of the neighborhood and would provide a substantial investment into a
property to enhance its overall use and enjoyment by the owner.
The proposed addition creates no additional impacts or poses any threats on light and air, as well
as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety. This new home addition and request for variance
can be viewed or considered in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance and
consistent with the current and proposed land use plans for the community.
ALTERNATIVES for ACTION
1. Recommend approval of the variance and conditional use permit, based on the following
findings-of-fact that support the granting of the variance and conditional use permit as requested
herein, noted as follows:
A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may grant variances from the strict application
of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the
strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i)
the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the
Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.”
B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to
justify the granting of the Variance for a reduced setbacks by the following supporting statements:
i.) the proposed 1,550-sq. ft., single-floor addition to the existing property is consistent with other
homes and properties throughout the surrounding neighborhood, and the overall use and
enjoyment of the home and property does not change even with the variance to allow the
PC Packet Pg. No. 14
Planning Case 2021-10 (Ziebol-VAR & CUP) Page 7 of 8
reduced setbacks on the structure, and therefore the requested variance is considered a
reasonable request.
ii.) the subject property was originally built in 1927, creating some unique circumstances not
created by the owner today, particularly with the placement of the existing home with reduced
setbacks from the adjacent road ROW’s, which in turn generate some unique circumstances,
difficulties or impediments to the Applicant for making a reasonable residential living space
addition to an existing nonconforming structure, except by means of a variance.
iii.) approving the Variance does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as the
neighboring properties and residential neighborhood area should not be affected by the
approval of this variance; and
iv.) This new addition authorized by this variance is considered in harmony with the general
purpose of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the current and proposed land use plans,
goals and policy statements contained in the 2030 and 2040 Comprehensive Plans of the
community.
C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5.E.1 of the City Code, including but
not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community,
existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the
risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the
Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will not impact or pose any negative threats
upon the neighborhood or the community in general.
D. Approval of the Variance is for 650 Brookside Lane only, and does not apply or give precedential
value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and
provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed
independently by city staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code.
E. Pursuant to City Code 12-1D-4: Yards and Open Spaces, a covered entryways or porch may extend
into the front yard setback with approval granted by means of a conditional use permit, subject to
compliance with the following conditions: (i.) such structure may not extend into the front or side
yard more than 5-feet; (ii.) such structure shall be limited in size to fifty (50) square feet; and (iii.)
such structure may not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building.
The city hereby determines this new porch/entryway as proposed under this application meets these
parameters and conditions, and therefore can be approved.
F. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2021-
10, dated and presented July 27, 2021 (on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully
incorporated into Resolution No. 2021-____. (final number to be assigned later)
G. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to this variance
request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by
the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows:
1) The new addition must match the architectural plans and designs presented in this variance
request on the subject property.
2) The proposed residential addition and all other related improvements shall be constructed
in compliance with all applicable City Code and State of Minnesota Building Code
standards.
PC Packet Pg. No. 15
Planning Case 2021-10 (Ziebol-VAR & CUP) Page 8 of 8
3) The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to any excavation or construction of the
new addition and/or porch improvement.
4) 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. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to
and during grading and construction work activities.
5) Approval of the variance is contingent upon City Council approval of the application and
corresponding site plan. If the variance is approved by the City Council, the Applicant
shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed addition within one (1) year
from said approval date.
2. Recommend denial of the variance request and the related conditional use permit, based on the
findings-of-fact that confirm the Applicant failed to meet the burden(s) of proof or standards in
granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows:
A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict
application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying
out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part
test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted
by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of
the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.”
B. The Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order
to justify the granting of a variance for reduced setbacks. The proposed living space addition is not
essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and therefore this variance is
not considered a reasonable request on the property; and furthermore the applicant failed to
adequately justify the need for granting this variance.
C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the property) is
not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique
circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood).
3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days,
in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration to Alternative No. 1, approval of
the variance and conditional use permit, with findings-of-facts to support the granting of said variance and
conditional use permit to Gerald Ziebol of 650 Brookside Lane, with the conditions noted therein.
Attachments
1. Aerial/Site Location Map
2. Planning Application – with Variance Response (Narrative)
3. Petition List of Neighbor’s Support of Variance
4. Survey/Site Plan/
5. New Addition/Porch Elevation Plans
PC Packet Pg. No. 16
650 Brookside Lane (Ziebol)
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.
Map Scale
1 inch = 60 feet
7/19/2021
PC Packet Pg. No. 17
2021-10
$ 300.00 (VAR) *
350.00 (CUP)200.00 **
* Variance Fee from remaining escrow - PC Case #2018-19 / ** escrow remaining from PC Case #2018-19
07/13/2021 09/12/2021
HOf Victoria Curve ! Mem:.lot.i Heights, MN SS118
651.452.1850 phone f 651452,$940 fax
www.mendot<1 ·he1ghts.com
,t#~jc,noe IJ/F 1] 14 • MEr--DDTA HEIGHTS
PLANNING APPLICATION
Office Use Only:
Case #: Fees: (App) $ (Escrow): $ ------
Application Date: 60-Day Review Date: . ___ ........., _______ ____
Property Address/Location: ~ ~ Yi!IO,k. s,,J f. LIMie... 1 /11~u k ffe_,~J,,~MN <;s/16
Applicant Name: LJ-e.r-o-t cf ~ • e.JJ:J f
Applicant Mailing Address: C, 5V f'jrot>ly.)J c_ L,t-,,.1~1'1. e.J<Jk.. fki~ ~ f:; I MliJ rr-1 / p
Daytime Phone: & /2--7 'I 7 -9 BO K Cell Phone: S ~
E-Mail: f:j • 'l;; ,•e.Jool ct ~ j l,Vl-&c..i, '"/. ~ _____ ;;;;..._ _______ _
(If different from Applicant above):
Property Owner-----------------------------------
Owner Mailing Address:-------------------------------
Daytime Phone: Cell Phone: --------------
E-Mail: --------------------------------------
Legal D~s. cription & PIN of Property: ,r~o["plete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided)
~ (\'\lf1-, TT S u..bot 111, s r ~N NO '3 7 (p
;:Jy::.,v Z?-t:,9702-0~-010
Type of Request (fees noted on following page):
D Rezoning ~ Conditional Use Permit D Interim Use Permit
l}(I Variance D Lot Split / Lot Line Adjustment D Preliminary/Final Plat Approval
D Zoning Appeal D Zoning Code Amendment D Comprehensive Plan Amendment
D Wetlands Permit D Critical Area Permit D Other
D Standard D Standard
D Administrative D Administrative
I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true and to the best of
my knowledge. I/We further authorize city officials, including staff, planning commissioners and city
councilmembers to inspect the above-referenced property during daylight hours.
~ 6/;,/~r---/(~
s· Date
Planning Application (2020) Page 1 of4
PC Packet Pg. No. 18
Please answer the following questions as they relate to the variance request.
You may fill-in this form or create your own.
1. In your opinion, does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable
manner?
eYES ONO
Why or why not?
The proposed variance request denoted in building plans, would address a practical difficulty by
providing bedroom access to the existing bathroom . Additionally, if approved the existing attached
deck connected to the home at the South-West corner would be removed, decreasing the current
building footprint that extends past the city setback.
2. Please describe the circumstances unique to the property (not created by
you).
There is occupied space that currently extends past the city setbacks, specifically a bathroom and living
space and deck that was constructed prior owners purchase of the home .
3. In your opinion, will the variance, if granted, fit with the character of the
neighborhood?
e YES ONO
Why or why not?
Updates to existing home would better align with adjacent and neighboring homes. The proposed
expansion of kitchen, living room and bedroom would raise finished square footage of the home to a
level commensurate to adjacent homes. Lastly, if the variance is granted the existing attached deck
connected to the home at the South-West corner would be removed , which would decrease the
current building footprint that extends past the city setback.
The City Council must make an affirmative finding on a// of the criteria listed above in
order to grant a variance. The applicant for a variance has the burden of proof to show
that all of the criteria listed above have been satisfied.
Variance Application (modified
41512016)
Page3of3
PC Packet Pg. No. 19
PC Packet Pg. No. 20
PC Packet Pg. No. 21
PC Packet Pg. No. 22
PC Packet Pg. No. 23
PC Packet Pg. No. 24
PC Packet Pg. No. 25
PC Packet Pg. No. 26
PC Packet Pg. No. 27
PC Packet Pg. No. 28
PLANNING STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 9, 2021 (Special Meeting)
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2021-11
INTERIM USE PERMIT
APPLICANT: Xcel Energy / Catholic Cemeteries
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2101 Lexington Avenue South
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: September 28, 2021
INTRODUCTION
Xcel Energy is seeking an Interim Use Permit (IUP) to allow for a temporary outdoor staging and laydown
yard, located at the southeast corner of Resurrection Cemetery, 2101 Lexington Avenue South. Xcel plans
to use this outdoor staging area for the outdoor storage of electrical poles, equipment, job trailer and
employee/company vehicle parking.
This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item
was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners
within 350-feet of the affected parcels. The city received no comments from the public related to this item.
BACKGROUND & REQUEST
Xcel Energy is an authorized (20-years) electric
franchise operator in the community, approved
under Ord. No. 463 (adopted 11/18/2014).
Xcel is currently in the beginning stages of
replacing and upgrading their existing 115-kV
transmission line running between the Rogers
Lake Substation (next to Mendakota Park) and the
MSP Airport. The plan is to begin work this
August and wrap-up by the end of this year.
Xcel is seeking to rent or use approximately 5-
acres of open, vacant cemetery land, located at the
southeast corner of the cemetery and just north of
the city’s Public Works/water tower site (see
image – right and Street Map View - below).
PC Packet Pg. No. 29
Planning Case 2021-11 (Xcel IUP – Resurrection Cem.) Page 2 of 7
Resurrection Cemetery consists of approximately 180 acres of total land area. This southerly section of
cemetery land is unused and does not contain any graves or burial plots.
The site is currently zoned R-1 One Family Residential. “Essential Service Structures” such as utility
support buildings, power plants, substations, etc. are permitted by conditional use permit (CUP). This
electrical line replacement work does not require any new structure(s), except for some power pole
replacements, and does not require a new or amended CUP. Outdoor storage is not specifically identified
as an allowed or permitted activity when related to such utility services.
City Code Section 12-1D-13-5: Outside Storage In Residential Districts, provides for the outside storage of
recreational equipment in all residential zoning districts; but it does not specifically address or identify this
type of “outdoor storage” as requested by Xcel.
In 2015, the City Council adopted an ordinance that allows interim use permits in certain zoning districts.
The interim use designation allows an identifiable use for a limited period of time that reasonably utilizes
the property where it is not reasonable to utilize it in the manner otherwise provided in the comprehensive
plan or this code; or a use that is seasonal in nature.
ANALYSIS - INTERIM USE PERMIT
Title 12-1L-6-1 of the City Code includes the following standards for consideration of an interim use (Staff
response or comments are noted after each standard):
A. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the
community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will seriously depreciate
surrounding property value.
Staff Response: Staff does not believe the proposed interim use at this vacant section of cemetery lands
would be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community, as this will be a tightly
controlled and monitored area by Xcel. The cemetery has two access points off Lexington Avenue, and
the company vehicles/employees will be using the southerly access near the cemetery’s maintenance
support building. No access will be allowed at the main (dual/split lane) entrance to the cemetery.
Since the 115-kV line is situated in established easement corridors and crosses the cemetery near its
mid-point, it is anticipated most of the work vehicles and work itself will be limited inside these
easement spaces and the cemetery lands only, and not cause any hazards to the surrounding properties.
PC Packet Pg. No. 30
Planning Case 2021-11 (Xcel IUP – Resurrection Cem.) Page 3 of 7
Xcel stated they do not have any plans to fence or screen the site at this time, due to the temporary
nature of this interim use permit. Xcel representatives indicated they do not plan to store any hazardous
chemicals or transformers in this area; however, with the amount of equipment and vehicles and value
of the equipment planned to be stored in this site, the planning commission may wish to discuss or ask
if Xcel would be willing to place a temporary fence to ensure no unauthorized personnel accesses the
temporary storage yard during this period.
B. The proposed use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the city code and comprehensive
plan, including all applicable performance standards, so as not to be in conflict on an on-going
basis.
Staff Response: City Code Title 12-1L-6-1 Interim Uses states that an interim use is allowed for a
limited period of time that reasonably utilizes the property where it is not reasonable to utilize it in the
manner otherwise provided in the comprehensive plan or this code; or a use that is seasonal in nature.
The report acknowledged the subject site is located in the R-1 One Family Residential district, which
allows for certain or defined “Essential Services” under a CUP. It seems reasonable that as part of
Xcel’s efforts to replace and upgrade its electrical service lines in this area, they should be afforded
some amount of special leeway or courtesy to provide on-site storage of their equipment, materials and
job site trailers to help facilitate and serve their needs for conducting this project.
The proximity of this storage yard to the planned work along this overhead power-line corridor,
appears to be reasonable, suitable and adequate area to place such an area – provided it is temporary
only. Since this Interim Use Permit is only granted for a short and limited period of time, there will
be no long-term impacts or concerns by the City that this activity will be expanded, or the site will
become a long-term storage facility that is not normally allowed under this R-1 District.
Staff believe the proposed interim use at this location conforms to the general purpose and intent of the
city code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, so as not to be in
conflict on an on-going basis.
C. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty.
Staff Response: The Applicant has indicated the gas line replacement work will begin in “… summer
of 2021 and completed by end of the current year [2021].” Staff is recommending the IUP will be valid
from date of City Council approval (planned date of review August 4, 2021 to December 31, 2021. Any
extension or allowance to use the storage yard beyond that date will require city council approval.
D. Permission of the use will not impose, by agreement, additional costs on the public if it is necessary
for the public to take the property in the future.
Staff Response: Staff does not believe the City would be burdened by any additional costs or expects
any need for the public to take this property in the future. Xcel is a very well-established and successful
utility company operating and serving this community, the metro area and state, so it seem highly
unlikely the city would ever need to take this cemetery site or any other utility site at this or any other
time in the future. Xcel Energy’s goal in this case is to be prompt and efficient with the electrical line
replacement project, and return and fully restore the vacant cemetery space back to its original
condition.
E. The user agrees to any conditions that the city deems appropriate for permission of the use,
including a condition that the owner will provide an appropriate financial surety to cover the cost
of removing an interim use and any structures upon expiration or revocation of the interim use
permit.
Staff Response: This report provides certain conditions that will be imposed upon the Applicant as
part of any interim use permit approval on this subject site. Most of these conditions are very
PC Packet Pg. No. 31
Planning Case 2021-11 (Xcel IUP – Resurrection Cem.) Page 4 of 7
reasonable; and Staff does not have any reason to believe Xcel will not comply or follow these
conditions as part of any approval related to this permit.
Staff has not finalized any financial surety at this time, but does plan to negotiate a fair and reasonable
amount to ensure that this IUP does cease and desist at the agreed upon expiration date, and the site
is cleaned, restored and returned to its original condition (as needed).
F. The use will not delay anticipated development or redevelopment of the site.
Staff Response: To the best of our knowledge, Staff is not aware that Xcel plans to purchase this site
from Catholic Cemetery; nor are we aware of any plans by Resurrection Cemetery to sell-off or offer
this site for any similar or other development by third parties. Therefore, this new IUP should not
affect or cause any delay to any anticipated development, since there is nothing planned at this time.
G. The property on which the use will be located is currently in compliance with all applicable city
code standards.
Staff Response: To the best of our knowledge, Staff believes the subject property on which the use will
be located is currently in compliance with all applicable city code standards.
H. The use is allowed as an interim use in the applicable zoning district.
Staff Response: The specific interim use requested by Xcel Energy on this site is not specifically
identified or a use allowed as an interim use under the R-1 Zone; however, the interim use ordinance
provides for limited/seasonal allowance of certain uses, provided they are reviewed and given full
consideration by the Planning Commission under the standard public hearing process, and approved
by the City Council. The use must also meet certain standards as noted herein; fulfill the conditions as
prescribed by the City; and said use or operations must cease upon the approved deadline date.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the interim use permit request, based on the findings-of-fact that the proposed
temporary storage yard for Xcel Energy and their proposed electrical line replacement project, complies
with the policies and standards of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, with
conditions; or
2. Recommend denial of the interim use permit request, based on certain findings-of-fact that the proposed
use is not compliant with the City Code and is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan; or
3. Table the request and direct staff and/or the applicant o bring more information to the next meeting (if
necessary), and extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN
STAT. 15.99.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the interim use permit request in this case, based on the findings-of-fact that
the proposed temporary storage yard for Xcel Energy and their proposed electrical line replacement project,
complies with the policies and standards of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
(Alternative #1), with the following conditions:
1. The interim use permit (IUP) shall terminate by December 31, 2021. Any extension of this IUP
must be submitted to the City of Mendota Heights at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration
date, and approved by City Council.
2. The Applicant shall provide a financial surety in an amount negotiated between Xcel and the City
Administrator, to cover the cost of removing all temporary trailers, vehicles, equipment and
PC Packet Pg. No. 32
Planning Case 2021-11 (Xcel IUP – Resurrection Cem.) Page 5 of 7
materials used under the IUP, and to ensure the subject site is completely restored and returned to
its original condition.
3. No hazardous, caustic, or explosive materials shall be stored on the outdoor area; with no refuse,
garbage or scrapped (junk) materials stored on the site. All electrical poles and related material
shall be stacked or stored neatly, and stored as far away from Lexington Avenue as possible.
4. The Applicant (Xcel Energy and/or its subsidiaries) will ensure the job trailer is secured and well
maintained; and the storage space area is kept clean of trash and debris, free of weeds, and well
maintained throughout the duration of the permit term.
5. Any existing or additional lighting (if provided), shall be temporary only, with downcast, shielded
light heads, and all lighting directed away from any adjacent residential areas.
6. Hours of operation for moving equipment in and out of the site shall be limited between 7:00 am
and 7:00 pm, Monday thru Friday, with allowance of 9:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturday only. Any
expanded hours, including Sunday or holiday hours must be approved by the City Council.
7. The interim use permit is shall comply with the provisions established under 12-1L-6-1: INTERIM
USES and the conditions approved herewith, and shall be periodically reviewed to ensure
compliance with the applicable codes and policies and, if necessary, amended accordingly.
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
INTERIM USE PERMIT TO XCEL ENERGY
Resurrection Cemetery (Catholic Cemeteries)
2101 Lexington Avenue South
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request:
1. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community,
nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor depreciate surrounding property values.
2. The proposed interim storage use conforms to the general purpose and intent of this code and
comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, provided all conditions are met
and upheld by the property owners during the term of construction.
3. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty.
4. Applicant has agreed to any conditions that the city deems appropriate for permission of the use,
including a condition that the owner will provide an appropriate financial surety to cover the cost of
removing an interim use and any structures upon expiration or revocation of the interim use permit.
5. The subject property on which the use will be located is in compliance with all applicable city code
standards; and will remain so upon completion or termination of this IUP.
PC Packet Pg. No. 33
Planning Case 2021-11 (Xcel IUP – Resurrection Cem.) Page 6 of 7
12-1L-6-1: INTERIM USES:
A. Purpose: The purposes for allowing interim uses are to:
1. Allow a use for a limited period of time until a permanent location is obtained or while the permanent
location is under construction.
2. Allow a use for a limited period of time that reasonably utilizes the property where it is not reasonable
to utilize it in the manner otherwise provided in the comprehensive plan or this code.
3. Allow a use that is presently acceptable but that, with anticipated development or redevelopment, will
not be acceptable in the future or will be replaced in the future by a permitted or conditional use
allowed within the respective zoning district.
4. Allow a use that is seasonal in nature.
B. Application For Permit: All applications for an interim use permit are subject to the requirements in
subsection 12-1L-6B of this chapter.
C. Referral To Planning Commission: All applications for an interim use permit are subject to the
requirements in subsection 12-1L-6C of this chapter.
D. Planning Commission Hearing And Recommendations: All applications for an interim use permit are
subject to the requirements in subsection 12-1L-6D of this chapter.
E. Action By City Council:
1. Grant Of Permit: In considering an application for an interim use permit under this chapter, the
council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the planning commission and the effect of
the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants or surrounding lands, existing
and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets, and the effect of the
proposed use on the comprehensive plan. The council may, by an affirmative vote of the majority of
all members thereof, grant such interim use permit imposing conditions and safeguards therein if:
a. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community,
nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will seriously depreciate surrounding
property value.
b. The proposed use conforms to the general purpose and intent of this code and comprehensive
plan, including all applicable performance standards, so as not to be in conflict on an ongoing
basis.
c. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty.
d. Permission of the use will not impose, by agreement, additional costs on the public if it is
necessary for the public to take the property in the future.
e. The user agrees to any conditions that the city deems appropriate for permission of the use,
including a condition that the owner will provide an appropriate financial surety to cover the cost of
removing an interim use and any structures upon expiration or revocation of the interim use permit.
f. The use will not delay anticipated development or redevelopment of the site.
g. The property on which the use will be located is currently in compliance with all applicable city
code standards.
h. The use is allowed as an interim use in the applicable zoning district.
PC Packet Pg. No. 34
Planning Case 2021-11 (Xcel IUP – Resurrection Cem.) Page 7 of 7
2. Denial Of Permit: Interim uses may be denied by resolution of the city council, and such resolution
shall include a finding and determination that the conditions required for approval do not exist. No
application for an interim use which has been denied wholly or in part shall be resubmitted for a
period of six (6) months from the date of said order of denial, except on grounds of new evidence or
proof of change of conditions found to be valid upon recommendation of the planning commission to
the city council.
F. Revocation Of Permit: An interim use permit may be revoked by any of the following; whichever occurs
first:
1. A violation of any condition set forth in an interim use permit, which shall also be considered a
violation of this code.
2. A violation of laws of the United States or the state of Minnesota, or this code.
3. If after approval it is discovered the permit was issued based on false, misleading, or fraudulent
information.
4. An amendment to this code which prohibits the use.
5. The use becomes in conflict with the comprehensive plan.
6. The expiration date or occurrence of any event(s) stated in the permit for termination of the use.
7. The use has ceased for a continuous period of at least six (6) months.
8. The use has not commenced or a building permit for a structure to support the use has not been
issued within one year after approval.
G. Notice Of Revocation: Upon occurrence of the date or event for termination of the interim use permit,
the city shall notify the permittee in writing that the interim use permit shall terminate not later than six
(6) months after the date of such notice.
H. Effect Of Permit: An interim use permit is effective only for the location specified in the application. The
issuance of an interim use permit does not confer on the property any vested right.
I. Permit Review: An interim use permit may be reviewed at any time if the city council is of the opinion
that the terms and conditions of the permit have been violated or if one of the criteria for termination
has been met or any other unintended consequences.
J. Permit Extension: The city council shall have the right to extend the termination date for such additional
periods as are consistent with the terms and conditions of the original permit. (Ord. 479, 7-7-2015)
PC Packet Pg. No. 35
June 27, 2018
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
RE: Interim Use Permit Application
PID: 27-04100-41-012
Hello,
Please find this letter of intent and application for an Interim Use Permit for the Catholic Cemeteries located on
Lexington Ave. Xcel Energy is in the process of rebuilding a 115kV transmission line that runs between the Rogers
Lake Substation and the Minneapolis−Saint Paul International Airport.
The request is to use an existing grassy area located in the southeast area of the cemetery as a staging and laydown
yard. Construction starts in the summer of 2021 and is scheduled to be completed by the end of the current year.
Proposed uses will include a job trailer, storage of poles and equipment and parking for construction workers. Please
review and let me know if you need additional information.
Regards,
Chris Berglund
Senior Land Rights Agent
Xcel Energy
P: 612-330-6471 C:612-964-8827
christopher.d.berglund@xcelenergy.com
PC Packet Pg. No. 36
PC Packet Pg. No. 37
PLANNING STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 9, 2021 (Special Meeting)
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2021-14
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
APPLICANT: Jamie L. Anderson (w/ Josephine M. Bahl)
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1892 and 1881 Orchard Heights Lane
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: November 08, 2021 (120-day Review Period)
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Jamie Anderson, in cooperation with Ms. Josephine Bahl, are requesting consideration of a simple lot
line adjustment between two properties located at 1892 and 1881 Orchard Heights Lane.
This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item
was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners
within 350-feet of the affected parcels. The city received no comments from the public related to this item.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Jamie & Suzanne Anderson are the owners of 1892
Orchard Hts. Ln., while Josephine Bahl is the
owner of the neighboring property of 1881 Orchard
Hts. Ln. These properties are generally located at
the end of Orchard Heights Lane, the cul-de-sac
roadway built under The Orchard subdivision of
2017. Both properties are wrapping up new home
construction projects on each parcel.
A significant amount of grading was needed and
performed in the back areas of these lots as part of
the pre-development work and grading activity for
The Orchard. The Anderson property contains a
large infiltration basin/pond in the rear yard.
Due to the limitations of this pond, and the
topography, landscaping and vegetation between
both properties, the Anderson’s are seeking a better
and safer way to access (by foot) the rear section of
their property. The solution worked out between
1881
1892
PC Packet Pg. No. 38
Planning Report: Case #2021-14 (J. Anderson / J. Bahl) Page 2
both property owners was the creation of this unusual shaped (but precise) parcel, in which Ms. Bahl will
convey to the Andersons for their own benefit (see survey image – below).
The parcel created by this line adjustment is approximately 0.11 acres (4,790-sf.) in area, and will not be
used create a new, buildable lot for a future residential dwelling or any other development.
ANALYSIS
Title 11-1-5.C of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows lot line adjustments to take place, provided
the following standards are met:
Lot line adjustment request to divide a lot which is a part of a recorded plat where the division is to
permit the adding of a parcel of land to an abutting lot and the newly created property line will not
cause the other remaining portion of the lot to be in violation with this title or the zoning ordinance.
The newly described parcel descriptions on the applicant’s survey indicates the Bahl property will result in
1.35 acres of lot area, and the Anderson’s will reflect 4.13 acres of area. This request to modify each
parcel’s boundary line meets this City Code section, as the resulting parcel will be added to the Anderson
parcel only; and the line adjustment does not cause the subject lots to be in violation of the zoning ordinance.
The Applicant’s properties remain unchanged along the public street frontage; and each lot will easily
exceed the minimum lot size of 15,000 sq. ft. for parcels in the R-1 One-Family Residential district.
This lot line adjustment will have little, if any impact upon the neighboring properties, the affected parcels,
nor impede the normal use, enjoyment and purpose of the existing parcel or The Orchard neighborhood.
PC Packet Pg. No. 39
Planning Report: Case #2021-14 (J. Anderson / J. Bahl) Page 3
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the lot line adjustment, based on the attached findings-of-fact, with
conditions; or
2. Recommend denial of the lot line adjustment, based on the findings-of-fact that the proposed
adjustment is not consistent with the City Code or Comprehensive Plan and may have a negative
impact on surrounding properties; or
3. Table the request; and direct city staff to provide more information to the commission at a later
meeting date.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the lot line adjustment based on the attached findings -of-fact supporting the
request, with conditions noted as follows:
1) Applicant shall file lot/parcel combination documents with Dakota County indicating the new
parcel created by this line adjustment shall be added to or combined with 1892 Orchard Heights
Lane, Parcel ID Number 27-7540-001-110.
2) All transfer or deed documents which convey the portion of lands under the lot line adjustment and
lot split process shall be recorded with Dakota County.
3) Due to a majority of this parcel situated in a drainage and utility easement, no physical
improvements (including but not limited to, grading/filling work, landscaping, retaining walls,
fencing, stairways or walkways) are allowed in the parcel created by this lot line adjustment, unless
authorized or permitted by the Public Works Director.
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Lot Line Adjustment
1892 & 1881 Orchard Heights Lane
(Anderson – Bahl Properties)
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1. The proposed lot line adjustment request meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and
is considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Approval of the lot line adjustment will have no visible impact on the subject properties; and poses
no threat or creates any negative impacts on the character of the neighborhood.
3. The proposed adjustment does not cause any non-conformities on either parcel, based on the
applicable zoning district standards for lot size and frontage requirements.
4. The new parcel to be created by the lot line adjustment cannot be used or allowed for separate
development, due to the condition limits placed on this application.
PC Packet Pg. No. 40
PC Packet Pg. No. 41
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY for:
202052
SISU LAND SURVEYING
2580 Christian Dr.
Chaska, MN 55318
612-418-6828
CERTIFICATION
JAMIE ANDERSON
EXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
PROPERTY INFORMATION
PROPOSED PARCEL A DESCRIPTION
PROPOSED SPLIT/MERGE
PROPOSED PARCEL B DESCRIPTION
PARCEL AREAS
PC Packet Pg. No. 42
Proposed Parcel A Description
Lot 10, Block 1, THE ORCHARD, Dakota County, Minnesota,
AND
That part of Lot 11, THE ORCHARD, Dakota County, Minnesota described as follows:
Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 11; thence North 0 degrees 12
minutes 40 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the east line of said Lot 11 a
distance of 130.32 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence
continue North 0 degrees 12 minutes 40 seconds West along the east line of said Lot
11 a distance of 192.88 feet; thence South 34 degrees 25 minutes 46 seconds West
a distance of 56.30 feet; thence South 0 degrees 12 minutes 40 seconds East a
distance of 73.68 feet; thence South 14 degrees 05 minutes 42 seconds East a
distance of 58.40 feet; thence South 48 degrees 12 minutes 24 seconds East a
distance of 24.21 feet to the point of beginning.
Proposed Parcel B Description
Lot 11, Block 1, THE ORCHARD, Dakota County, Minnesota, excepting therefrom the
following:
Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 11; thence North 0 degrees 12
minutes 40 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the east line of said Lot 11 a
distance of 130.32 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence
continue North 0 degrees 12 minutes 40 seconds West along the east line of said Lot
11 a distance of 192.88 feet; thence South 34 degrees 25 minutes 46 seconds West
a distance of 56.30 feet; thence South 0 degrees 12 minutes 40 seconds East a
distance of 73.68 feet; thence South 14 degrees 05 minutes 42 seconds East a
distance of 58.40 feet; thence South 48 degrees 12 minutes 24 seconds East a
distance of 24.21 feet to the point of beginning.
PC Packet Pg. No. 43
1892 - 1881 Orchard Hts. Lane (2' Contour Map)
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.
Map Scale
1 inch = 100 feet
8/5/2021
PC Packet Pg. No. 44
PC Packet Pg. No. 45
PC Packet Pg. No. 46
PC Packet Pg. No. 47
PC Packet Pg. No. 48
CURB CUTS (TYP)PC Packet Pg. No. 49