Loading...
2021-08-24 Planning Commission MinutesAugust 24, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 16 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 24, 2021 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 24, 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, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: Commissioners Michael Toth and Andrew Katz. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of August 9, 2021 Special Meeting Minutes COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 9, 2021. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM NOTED ON PAGE ONE, THE FIFTH PARAGRAPH, IT SHOULD STATE, “…MUD WERE WAS…” ON PAGE TWO, THE SIXTH PARAGRAPH, IT SHOULD STATE, “…AND ASKED WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE DESIGNER WERE TO MAKE…” AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Hearings Chair Field stated that he is going to amend the agenda to consider Case C first. C) PLANNING CASE 2021-15 ZACH ROBINSON, 684 3RD AVENUE – VARIANCE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Zach Robinson, owner, and resident of 684 3rd Avenue, is requesting a variance to expand an existing legal, nonconforming residence in the R-1 One Family Residential District. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site. The applicant provided a list of adjacent homeowners who support his variance request, which are appended to the staff report; and one email letter of support from a neighbor. No other comments or objections were received. August 24, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 16 Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Zach Robinson, applicant, thanked staff for making this process accessible and thanked his neighbors for their support. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that she stopped by the home and was impressed by the garden. She stated that the addition will go closer to the street and asked if there is a reason that was chosen over the existing setback. Mr. Robinson stated that the addition will go forward six inches because of the recommendation of the builder for the garage space. Chair Field thanked the applicant for attending. Misty Becken, 685 3rd Avenue, stated that the Robinsons are great neighbors, and she would hate to see them leave for something so minor. Ken Noack, 677 4th Avenue, stated that they are happy to have the Robinsons into the neighborhood. He noted that they have a smaller lot, smaller house and garage and it would be nice for the family to update the home with an attached garage and front porch. He commented that they are good neighbors, and the updated home will fit well with the neighborhood. Robert Bonine, 688 3rd Avenue, commented that he lives directly next door, and the proposal will enhance the home and property, as well as the neighboring properties. He commented that he strongly supports the proposal. Mr. Robinson thanked everyone that attended in support of his request. He asked the Commission to approve the request. 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 JOHNSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE WITH FINDINGS OF FACTS TO August 24, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 16 SUPPORT THE GRANTING OF SAID VARIANCE TO ZACH ROBINSON OF 684 3RD AVENUE, WITH THE CONDITIONS NOTED THEREIN. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER CORBETT COMMENTED THAT WHILE THIS WOULD REDUCE THE SETBACK IN A FEW AREAS, THIS IS REASONABLE. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON COMMENTED THAT THIS MEETS THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OF CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY, NOT CREATED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. SHE NOTED THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCE IS DUE TO THE LOT SIZE AND PLACEMENT OF THE HOME. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 9, 2021 meeting. A) PLANNING CASE 2021-12 AT HOME APARTMENTS/MENDOTA MALL ASSOCIATES LLC, LOT 1, BLOCK 1 MENDOTA PLAZA EXPANSION 2ND ADDITION – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND WETLAND PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that At Home Apartments, in cooperation with the property owners Mendota Mall Associates, are seeking approval to amend the previously approved Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development (PUD) and its final development plan, in order to provide a new multi-family residential development. City Code Section 12-1K-6:g requires City Council approval for amendments to any approved planned unit development final development plan by conditional use permit. For the purpose of this combined application submittal, this development parcel is generally identified as Phase II of The Reserve of Mendota Village and is generally located to the west of The Reserve apartment complex (720 South Plaza Way). The proposed development is a 58-unit apartment building. 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). Community Development Director Tim Benetti reviewed the actions the Commission could choose to take. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked the impervious surface calculation for the proposed calculation, which would be based on taking away the wetland area. August 24, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 16 Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that the applicant’s engineer could provide that information. Commissioner Johnson asked for clarification on the stormwater standards for The Reserve and whether that meets the current requirements. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that Phase II was designed under the City’s current design standards, noting that there are two underground chambers designed to serve the property. He noted that the new apartment proposed is a slight reduction to the originally planned development. He stated that the 2016 design standard goals were met. Commissioner Lorberbaum noted that she heard two different parking stall references within the report and asked for clarification between the 118 stalls mentioned and the 122 stalls mentioned. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied there would be 118 stalls. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked for clarification on the number of two-bedroom units. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that there would be 30 two-bedroom units. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Leanna Stefaniak with At Home Apartments, stated that they are present to address any questions the Commission may have on the two housing proposals. She stated that they are requesting a PUD amendment for the two housing parcels. She stated that the proposes uses approved in 2016 never came to be, but The Reserve fully leased within six months which proves that is a desired housing type in the community. She noted that The Reserve continues to be fully leased with additional interest. She stated that the additional restaurant and retail components never came to be, and the undeveloped portion of the site continues to be an eyesore. She stated that they intend for this to be a second phase of The Reserve. She noted that they have seen a lot of demand for two-bedroom units, which allows the older population to move into the apartment home option and turns over the single-family homes for new families in the community. She stated that they would treat this as one property together noting that the residents could access all the amenities from the different buildings. Commissioner Corbett asked the breakdown of units within The Reserve. Ms. Stefaniak replied that she believed that 65 percent of the units are one bedroom while 35 percent of the units are two bedroom. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked for details on impervious surface. She asked the impervious surface of the entire PUD. Ms. Stefaniak stated that she does not have that information for the entire 21-acre PUD. August 24, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 16 Lee Copy, architect representing the applicant, stated that the impervious surface calculation is provided within the stormwater report. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that the stormwater report is a very large book and noted that this proposal would be a slight reduction of about 2,000 square feet from what was previously approved. He stated that the stormwater reports submitted are specific to this parcel and not the entire PUD. Mr. Copy stated that he could provide that calculation as a follow up with staff or could attempt to gain that information tonight. Commissioner Lorberbaum commented that she would want that information in order to consider the application complete. Commissioner Johnson referenced the landscape plan and asked if the darker shaded area around the perimeter is where the wildflower is mix proposed and whether sod would be in the lighter shaded areas. Ms. Stefaniak confirmed that the lighter shaded areas are sod, and the darker shaded areas are the wildflower mix. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that it is her understanding that a lighting plan has not been submitted, which is supposed to be provided. Ms. Stefaniak replied that she does not have the lighting plan with her, but that information could be provided. Commissioner Lorberbaum commented that she could not recommend approval without that information. She stated that it is her understanding that a circulation diagram should be provided for traffic, which she did not see. Ms. Stefaniak asked if that is related to the entire PUD or this parcel. Commissioner Lorberbaum replied that it would need to be for the entire PUD. Ms. Stefaniak asked for clarification if that is required as this is already a PUD and whether that would be required for the CUP requested. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that Bolton and Menk provided the third-party traffic review and will be completing the site circulation prior to the Council meeting. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that the parking study is based on information from three years ago, although there were updates. She stated that things have changed, and she was concerned that the study does not compare the current conditions to the proposal. Ms. Stefaniak asked if that is related to traffic or parking. August 24, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 16 Commissioner Lorberbaum clarified that she was referring to traffic. Ms. Stefaniak replied that they provided their proposed use to the previously approved uses and would not compare the proposed use to Vikings Lakes. She explained that the trip generation compares the proposed residential uses to the previously approved restaurant and daycare uses. She stated that if a full-fledged market study would be required, they could entertain that, but that direction was not provided. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that she has driven by The Reserve a number of times. She noted that staff has said that less than the required parking stalls were allowed, and it has worked out just fine. She noted that when she has visited the site, she has seen all the outdoor parking stalls used, along with the spaces along the curb, and there are also vehicles parked in the triangle that is going to be an addition to The Reserve. She commented that it appears there is not sufficient parking already and this would remove parking and make the situation worse. Ms. Stefaniak replied that she cannot say that all the parking in the dirt is a result of The Reserve. She noted that this proposal would increase parking from 1.6 stalls to 2.03 stalls and would add a significant surface lot. She stated that the additional surface lot would be shared with the existing Reserve building. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that she spoke with a resident of The Reserve and the resident commented that they love living there but it can be difficult to park there. She stated that the resident commented that people do not want to pay for underground parking which is why the surface parking is full. Ms. Stefaniak replied that each unit of The Reserve receives one underground parking stall included in their rent. She stated that there are additional spaces that can be rented for an additional cost. She noted that there are an additional 22 guest stalls in the underground parking as well. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that her thought was that if a lesser number of parking stalls are allowed, people would need to find a place to park which would put additional burden on the restaurant parking area. Ms. Stefaniak commented that there is not a parking shortage for the commercial space and did not believe there was a complaint from the residents utilizing commercial stalls. She again reviewed the proposed parking for this request, which would provide additional parking for the existing Reserve building. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked for details on the request for the shorter parking stall length. Pete Keely, architect representing the applicant, stated that the stalls would be 18 feet deep and nine feet wide, while some would be deeper, and handicap stalls would meet the required dimensions. August 24, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 16 Commissioner Lorberbaum commented that it appears there are only three handicap spaces for The Reserve. Mr. Keely replied that two percent of the parking stalls are required to be handicap per the guidelines from the State and generally speaking those stalls are not heavily utilized. Commissioner Lorberbaum believed that handicap stalls in Mendota Heights would need to be 12 feet by 20 feet, not including the access aisle. She believed that the stalls would need to be adjusted to meet that requirement. Mr. Keely replied that they met the State of Minnesota standard. He noted that if that is the requirement, it could be made a condition. Commissioner Johnson asked and received confirmation that this proposal would include 2.03 parking stalls per unit. She stated that information was included in the packet which included comments from the Department of Transportation, specific to noise standards for residential uses adjacent to highways. She stated that the comment was made that the noise from the highway in this location could exceed the standards. She asked what would be done to mitigate noise. Mr. Keely stated that noise is something they are always concerned about and provided details on the elements that they incorporate in order to mitigate for noise. He stated that noise has not been a complaint and the tests have exceeded the standards from the State. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that a review from the Fire Department was included in the packet and asked if those concerns would be addressed. Mr. Keely provided additional details, noting that fire hose connections are included in the building permit review. He commented that there is fire access around the property and did not note any concern with that. He was not aware of any specific concerns noted in that report. Commissioner Corbett stated that it has been brought up that the last amendment is not working as planned. He asked the effort that was given towards those uses. Mike Sturdivant with Paster Properties, stated that they have been marketing all of the undeveloped lots since 2009. He noted that there were issues with access from retailers as there is not direct access from 62. He stated that Mendota Plaza is currently 22 percent vacant, therefore the market is showing there is not sufficient demand to develop additional commercial space on that parcel. Commissioner Petschel commented that a deviation was granted on the number of parking stalls for the original Reserve property and asked if there is any data available that would help inform whether that plan worked. He asked if there is any parking utilization data for the remainder of the Paster property. Mr. Sturdivant stated that since The Reserve was developed in 2016 there have been no complaints. August 24, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 16 Commissioner Petschel asked if there is any data or methodology to review current utilization of the parking. Mr. Sturdivant commented that the video he has seen shows parking available at any given point. Commissioner Petschel stated that he would like to have the data to support that the parking is sufficient. Ms. Stefaniak stated that she does not have quantitative data to provide tonight but could provide that information. Commissioner Petschel explained that the City deviated from its parking requirement on The Reserve and would like to see those results before deviating again. Ms. Stefaniak stated that from a general Code perspective and what occurs in other communities. Commissioner Petschel interrupted and stated that Mendota Heights is no other communities, and he does not want to hear that information. Ms. Stefaniak asked if there has been any analysis done by the City on the 2.5 stalls required in the 1980s and whether that continues to be necessary. She stated that she was simply attempting to show the current development trends compared to the standards set in the 1980s. Commissioner Petschel acknowledged that the standard may be outdated but that is the standard the Commission has to use until it is shown to be outdated Ms. Stefaniak asked if that should be an analysis by the other properties that used a smaller ratios or whether that would fall to only this property. Commissioner Petschel stated that a deviation from the standard was granted and there has been some discussion as to whether it worked, and that information has been provided. Ms. Stefaniak stated that deviation was granted for other developments as well. Commissioner Petschel acknowledged that deviation may have worked but he would like to have the data before continuing to make the deviation. Commissioner Lorberbaum commented that it would be great to have data that shows that it worked. Commissioner Corbett asked how the data would be defined or measured. He stated that the City has deviated on multiple occasions, but this would be the third deviation within the PUD. He noted that he has been to a restaurant in that development recently and the lot was 85 to 90 percent full. Commissioner Petschel asked if there is a quantitative method in which that could be evaluated. August 24, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 16 Commissioner Corbett agreed that he would like to see the data if that is available. Commissioner Lorberbaum recognized that data would be difficult to obtain. She noted that one of the restaurants is only providing take-out service, therefore it would be difficult to assume what eat in parking would demand. Commissioner Johnson commented that it is difficult as the Commission can only discuss this project and cannot go back to what has been done before. She stated that they are also talking about a community where people need vehicles and therefore that data would be important. Commissioner Lorberbaum clarified the restaurant that is only providing take-out service at this time. Commissioner Johnson referenced the review from the Fire Department and concern with the additional traffic that would utilize South Plaza Drive. She referenced a statement that mentioned traffic would increase 28 percent from the existing conditions. Ms. Stefaniak commented that was an error that they clarified and updated as it did not take into account the current allowed use of the daycare. City Administrator Mark McNeill stated that it would be a local responsibility to add the preemptive traffic measure as that issue already exists. He confirmed that the City would handle that update independent of the application. Bernard Friel 750 Mohican Lane, stated that his comments are not directed just at this project, but both proposed projects. He stated that the planning staff reports on the projects are very disappointing. He stated that he could not tell if the reports were prepared on behalf of the Metropolitan Council or developer but did not believe they were prepared on behalf of the City. He stated that the current staff indicated and made several suggestions that Mendota Heights’ ordinances should be updated to be similar to other communities. He stated that perhaps staff does not understand that Mendota Heights does not want to be like other communities in the area and is known and rated as one of the most desirable metro communities. He stated that residents like that Mendota Heights is characterized as spacious and gracious. He commented that the objective of a PUD seems to have gotten lost in current years as it has become a mechanism to increase density rather than for the purposes PUDs were created in the first place. He provided a historical definition and purpose of PUD. He stated that these two proposals fail badly on the scale test as they do not preserve natural and scenic quality of any area. He stated that the original PUD concept plans for this property were presented in 2003 and was before the Council six more times in 2007. He stated that a long-held contention shared by the Planning Commission and Council was that no part of the PUD be any closer to 62 than the existing McDonalds building. He stated that the applicant at that time proposed relocation of the restaurant and retail space to 70 feet from the right-of-way, which this proposes that the apartments be setback only 15 feet from 62. He stated that in 2008 the City indicated a strong desire to maintain as much greenspace as possible along 110, also supported by Dakota County. He stated that would be an important feature to maintain greenspace for those living in The Reserve. He stated that the City also expressed concern with a lack of usable greenspace for this 12-year-old PUD. He stated that the PUD ordinance devotes August 24, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 16 two pages to usable open space issues, yet said space is hard to find in this PUD. He stated that the City also expressed concern that the developer could cherry pick for certain types of development and does not get around to the other uses and believes that this proposal is an example of that cherry picking. He stated that while there have been several plan amendments, all of those have been consistent in carrying out the original PUD objectives while this amendment proposes to eliminate original uses without benefit of a feasibility study and adds uses at locations not intended for such uses. He stated that one of the most troubling features of PUDs is the willingness of cities to give up open space in return for the payment of money rather than usable open space. He stated that there is a bill pending that would place limits on the use of PUDs. He commented that in the 2008 traffic study, the City had to request that McDonalds be included in the study. He stated if approved, traffic would be the most devastating legacy of these apartments. He believed an updated traffic study should be completed to provide meaningful information for these applications. He stated that the entire PUD should be considered for traffic studies and impervious surface, rather than considering bits and pieces. He stated that the original PUD report states that the total time of completion for the construction shall be within five years from the approval of the final development plan, which was approved in 2009. He stated that a PUD should terminate at the end of the five-year period as only the developer benefits after that length of time expires. He did not believe sufficient context was provided within the staff report. He stated that a PUD has a unified ownership, or all individual owners must be signatories on any potential amendment. He stated that these applications should be treated as applications for new PUDs. He stated that in 2008 there was concern with a percentage of 69 percent of impervious surface for the site. He stated that the staff report mentions that R-3 would be the suitable zoning district but then suggests that those standards do not apply. He did not believe the Commission should consider the requested setbacks or density. He commented that the obligation to the residents of Mendota Heights is greater than the obligation to the Metropolitan Council. He did not believe that these two apartment buildings would be a good fit for the site and instead believed the spaces should be converted to open space in order to help the Plaza achieve the objectives of the PUD. He requested that the Commission recommend to the Council that the PUD be formally terminated and adopted the findings of fact supporting denial of the requests. He asked that the Commission require the two parcels to be developed as open space. He provided copies of his statements to staff. He commented that the staff report was 169 pages and therefore residents should be given sufficient time to make their comments. Gary Fishbach, 2150 Fox Place, stated that he loves his neighborhood and neighbors. He commented that the entrance to the mall property is a mess for those that have to use those roads every day. He stated that the statement was made that retailers are not interested in the site because of the poor access to the property. He noted that he does not agree that this development would generate less traffic than what was originally proposed. He stated that if this is approved the City would be adding onto something that is already a mess. He believed that a representative from MnDOT should have been involved. He stated that if this development moved forward, it would create more of a mess and a situation where the residents have to wait until MnDOT schedules improvements. He asked the Commission to think of the residents that live in that area. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, commented that this lot is part of the mixed-use PUD for Mendota Plaza which includes residential uses and is subject to the general zoning regulations for R-3. She stated that this property is also subject to the guidelines of Mendota Plaza. She stated August 24, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 16 that while the requirements and regulations are mentioned within the report, staff also goes into detail about how those standards would not have to be met. She provided examples of where the proposal does not meet the standards. She reviewed the requirements of a wetland permit and the related site work proposed that would require wetland permitting. She commented that distance to structures is not shown on the sketch. She reviewed the different variances that she believed would be necessary for the proposed project. She commented that these two projects are being shoehorned into the site and an updated traffic study should be provided. She asked where overflow vehicles from The Reserve would park. She believed a circulation study would be needed for Fire Department safety. She asked who would benefit from the proposal outside of the developer, the owner of Mendota Plaza and the residents that choose to live there. She stated that this proposal, however, would negatively impact residents traveling on Dodd Road and residents that live north of 62. She stated that this is Mendota Heights and not another adjacent community and the City should continue to impose its standards in order to keep the City in its excellent standard. She stated that she was a member of the City Council when this PUD was adopted, and it was never envisioned that a PUD would be abused in this manner as a way to eliminate the zoning standards. Dr. Ed Hanton, 1288 Aspen Way, stated that he believes that analysis of traffic volumes works best when what has happened is studied rather than what could happen in the future. He stated that driving up and down Dodd Road is already unpleasant in that area and adding that number of apartments to a confined space would increase that problem. He stated that to say these uses would be better than other potential uses is not an applicable argument. He referenced the 2008 traffic and impact study that was done in preparation for the original Mendota Plaza PUD and read excerpts from the report. He also compared that report to the 2013 report. He stated that the 2020 scenario which reported calm reports. He also referred to a north/south mobility study that provided comparisons to the 2017 existing intersection ratings to the anticipated 2040 build scenario and base conditions. He stated that he is unsure how the Fire Department would get to his property during times of heavy traffic. He stated that when apartment buildings are constructed, those are temporary living conditions, and those people are going out much more than those living in single-family homes. He stated that the Commission has a tough job. Kate Christensen, 2280 Ocala Court, stated that her main concerns for the proposal are related to density and traffic. She commented that the density exceeds the density specified in the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the biggest problem would be traffic and that this density would cause more traffic. She believed that improvements should be implemented before additional traffic is added. She referenced the study completed by the developer that compared what might have been to this proposal. She referenced the incorrect percentage of trips shown in the report and noted that it would be helpful to have the correct number. She stated that Bolton and Menk commented on the improvements to the plaza and not the other roadways but mentioned that the City needs to focus on other improvements to control traffic. She believed that the improvements should occur prior to the additional apartments being added. She stated that many Mendota Heights residents use 149 as their main way out of their neighborhoods and the City should concentrate on those improvements before adding additional density. She asked that the Commission recommend denial of the plans. August 24, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 16 Randy Swenson, 775 Creek Avenue, echoed the comments made thus far including traffic. He stated that he has concern with light pollution. He stated that he is unsure of the impact from lighting from the big apartment buildings. He referenced noise pollution, noting that he has Anderson windows in his 1957 home, along with new insulation and siding but is still awakened by the garbage trucks that empty the mall trash containers. He stated that on the other side of his fence is the south plaza office building and therefore he hears those trash trucks three times per week as well. He stated that there is a taekwondo center adjacent to his home as well, which creates additional noise for his property. He commented that in the winter, the parking lot behind his home causes additional noise from snow plowing. He stated that additional apartment buildings and surface lots would create additional noise for his property. Thomas Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, offered a broader perspective on the comments that previous speakers have made tonight. He pointed out that Mendota Heights is fully developed and furthermore throughout that development history the City has avoided rampant commercial development and rampant density development that is characteristic of other adjacent communities. He stated that as a first-tier community, Mendota Heights is unique in that category because many decades ago, City officials recognized that the community had unique appeal in terms of development. He stated that the first Mayor was a leader in saying the City would not pander to developers and that mantra prevailed over the succeeding decades and therefore the pattern of development has been prudent and careful. He stated that there are numerous flaws with this current proposal including traffic, setbacks, unit size, etc. He stated that it seems that the developer is asking the City to pander to them. He asked who the Commission would rely on to guide the City in the future. He noted that City staff does not seem to have a sense of defending the special character of the City. He stated that developers are also not invested in the future of the City, only making money. He commented that the future of the City and sustaining its pattern of development lies to the Commission and City Council. He believed that the requests for parcel two and parcel three should be denied because of the number of flaws. He commented that residents like the City the way it is. Allen Olson, 2153 Fox Place, commented that he is in awe of the previous speakers who were incredibly prepared. He commented that he agrees with the comments made thus far. He commented that the intersection of 62 and Dodd is already a failure and therefore a study is not needed. He commented that it is often difficult and unsafe to get out of his neighborhood. He stated that the smoke and mirror statistics/study was offensive. He stated that even though he lives close to the Plaza, he does not frequent those businesses because of the traffic problems. He commented that there is a daycare facility on his street and that is enough. He stated that he likes the open space and does not see it as an eyesore. He commented that in his experience wildflowers is a nice way to say weed patch. He referenced median plantings that were done that turned into weed patches. He echoed the comments of the previous speakers and stated that he is adamantly opposed to the request. Beth Henry Olson, 2153 Fox Place, stated that making a left turn onto Dodd Road has always been a struggle and therefore she cannot imagine more traffic. She stated that when she moved to her property, Mendakota Park was still being hayed and people were riding horses in that area. She stated that there is nothing specific about this proposed addition that she would like to address but noted that pieces added to the development have a cumulative effect. She believed that the traffic August 24, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 16 issues should be addressed with communication with MnDOT prior to allowing additional development. She stated that if traffic is not addressed with this proposal, the request should not move forward. Ms. Stefaniak commented that they are not proposing a daycare, that is the current proposed use, and this request is for apartment housing. She stated that they understand the concerns with traffic. She noted that MnDOT was communicated with and chose not to opine on the traffic piece. She acknowledged that there are different owners within the PUD but noted that The Reserve and housing projects proposed would be of the same owner. She stated that there is an OEA and Declaration Agreement that governs the overall PUD and how the properties and uses exist in harmony. She requested that the vote be tabled in order for her to provide the additional information requested by the Commission including an impervious surface study for the entire PUD, a lighting plan, a traffic circulation study, and quantitative parking analysis. She asked if they are being asked to complete a traffic study for the entire 21 acres, as that would be quite an undertaking. Commissioner Lorberbaum deferred to staff, noting that it is her understanding that would be required for what is current. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that staff asked the developer to provide a traffic analysis based on the conditions that would be added to the PUD. She stated that the City review was done independently and separately and was provided in the packet. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that the plans should be adjusted to reflect the required handicap stall dimensions. She also asked that those stalls be marked on the plans. Ms. Stefaniak stated that her request to table would extend to the following case as those same concerns would exist for that proposal. Commissioner Petschel stated that the apartment is proposed to be 15 feet from the right-of-way and asked what concerns would exist for placing an apartment building that close to the highway, below the grade of the road, without barriers. Pete Keely stated that the distance is 15 feet from the right-of-way, which is 75 feet. Commissioner Lorberbaum clarified the location of the traffic study language. Chair Field clarified the request of the applicant to table this request with the public hearing open and forgoing opening the public hearing on the next case at this time. He asked if the applicant would submit a written request to that nature for the public record related to the 60-day review period. Commissioner Johnson stated that it was not mentioned that the unit sizes do not meet the minimum of 750 square feet. She stated that she would like to see balance in that area or for the standard to be met. She noted that for the following plan there is no landscaping plan, and the Master Gardener was not provided the ability to provide input. She noted that request is also August 24, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 of 16 missing the lighting plan. She referenced the Comprehensive Plan which mentions goals and policies in chapters seven and eight related to development and suggested the applicant review that information. She stated that there were comments from the Master Gardener that were received. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that a follow up was received from the Master Gardener related to the hole diagram for the trees and related to the mulching near the base of the tree. He confirmed that staff shared that information with the applicant. Ms. Stefaniak confirmed that they can work with those recommendations from the Master Gardener. She stated that the Master Gardener was helpful in creating the landscaping plan for The Reserve and many of those elements carried over into these plans. Commissioner Johnson referenced the Bolton and Menk review and recommendations for City and MnDOT improvements and asked that the applicant review and address those. Ms. Stefaniak stated that the recommendation of the southbound left turn lane would fall to MnDOT. She noted that they could have another discussion but was unsure what the reply from MnDOT would be. Chair Field commented that statements were made related to the standing of the PUD and stated that it would be interesting to have a comment related to that. City Attorney Elliot Knetsch commented that it is his opinion that the application for the amendment of the PUD would be the proper course to take as the existing 21-acre parcel is zoned PUD and there have been seven amendments within that 21-acre PUD. He stated that because the existing parcel is already zoned PUD there would be no point in requiring a new PUD application as it already exists within a PUD and therefore an amendment would be the appropriate course to take. Commissioner Corbett asked if the City is acting out of its own rules and guidelines and whether the PUD should have been closed after the time period expired. City Attorney Elliot Knetsch commented that whether this was proceeding as a new PUD application or an amendment to the PUD, the City’s regulatory powers are not diminished or lessened. He stated that the standards existing within the City’s ordinances would still need to be met. Commissioner Corbett asked whether this was supposed to be closed five to seven years ago. Commissioner Petschel asked if that is specific to the rights of the applicant to execute against a hypothetically sunset plan. He asked if the project was not completed within the appropriate time, would the approvals expire. Commissioner Corbett stated that the PUD is done in accordance with the wants of the City and developer. He asked if too much leeway has been provided in continuing to amend the PUD to meet the needs of the developer. He stated that units are used as a measure of volume. He stated August 24, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 15 of 16 that when referencing R-3 the square footage is based on bedrooms. He asked if the acreage this is based on is 75 percent of 18 for density. That was confirmed to be true. He stated that The Reserve has gone 15 percent over the threshold for that area, in that there are 618,000 square feet permissible for residential and 694,000 is consumed by The Reserve. He stated that The Reserve exceeds the highest density for that entire site. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that in 2016 when The Reserve was approved, staff presented 139 over the two-acre parcel. He stated that the parcel equates to about 60 units per acre, but staff presented an overall density calculation on the entire 21-acre site, which dropped the density to 10.7 or 10.8 units per acre. Commissioner Corbett stated that perhaps there should be some recollection as to how the density is calculated. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that there are differences between R-3 and MU-PUD. Commissioner Corbett stated that obviously there is leeway but if the proposal exceeds over ten percent past the guidelines it would appear to fail. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO TABLE CASE 2021-12 WITH CONTINUATION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TO TABLE CASE 2021-13. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI NOTED THAT ONE RESIDENT WAS PRESENT TO SPEAK ON 2021-13. THE RESIDENT CONFIRMED THAT HE WOULD POSTPONE HIS COMMENTS. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 B) PLANNING CASE 2021-13 AT HOME APARTMENTS/MENDOTA MALL ASSOCIATES LLC, LOT 7, BLOCK 1 MENDOTA PLAZA EXPANSION ADDITION – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No additional comments as the item were tabled. Staff Announcements / Updates Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review: • All cases recommended for approval at the Commission’s special meeting were approved by the City Council. Commissioner Lorberbaum noted that she did not notice a screen along Lexington. August 24, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 16 of 16 Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that staff is working with Xcel to have that screen installed. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek provided a brief update on road projects. Adjournment COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:58 P.M. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0