Loading...
2021-10-26 Planning Commission MinutesOctober 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 29 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 2021 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 26, 2021 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Commissioners Patrick Corbett, Sally Lorberbaum, Cindy Johnson, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: None Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of August 24, 2021 Minutes COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 2021. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM NOTED ON PAGE SIX, THE THIRD PARAGRAPH, IT SHOULD STATE, “…THAT IS GOING TO BE AN ADDITION TO THE RESERVE.” AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Hearings Chair Field noted that there has been discussion of changing the order of the agenda. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ TO CHANGE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA TO CONSIDER ITEM A AFTER ITEMS B AND C. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 B) PLANNING CASE 2021-18 ERIK AND SARAH IVERSON, 2452 POND CIRCLE EAST – WETLANDS PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Iverson’s are seeking approval of a Wetlands Permit to allow the installation of a new flag-stone fire pit and patio, a walk-out October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 29 entry patio, retaining walls, steps, grading and landscaping work, along with some tree pruning and removal on their property located at 2452 Pond Circle East. This application has been deemed an “after the fact” due to work had already been commenced by the homeowners. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; one email of support from a neighboring owner and one email of concern from another neighboring owner was received. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that the staff report mentions that all disturbed areas shall be restored, and areas shall be replanted, noting that is not very specific. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that there are not set tree replacement requirements and therefore he is relying on the input of the Commission. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Sarah and Erik Iverson, 2452 Pond Circle East, she stated that in addition to the project plan outlined by staff they would like to make a statement. She stated that they moved to the property in June, and they love being outdoors. She stated that the main goal of the backyard project is to maintain the natural landscape and also make it safe for their children and family. She stated that prior to moving in there was little upkeep in the backyard and a rotting wall. She stated that there were also erosion issues, old stumps, diseased trees, and overgrown trees that were dropping limbs on the deck and home. She believed that their landscape plan would address all the issues and would also keep the integrity of the pond. Commissioner Johnson stated that she did not see any grading plans with the landscaping plan. She stated that the material for the wall was not noted on the plan, but she did visit the property and the applicant advised her that the wall would be made of boulders. She stated that she would also be interested in detailed planting information and how the rock spill would be handled. Tim Johnson, contractor representing the applicant, stated that the retaining wall will be made of fieldstone boulders and natural cut stone steps will provide access from the existing patio to the lower parts of the yard. He stated that the current fire pit was neglected and the new fire pit would be shifted west to provide more separate between the deck and trees. He provided details on the other work that would be done to repair the deteriorating backyard elements. He stated that an arborist was retained, and they walked the property to identify the healthy trees that could remain. He stated that the box elder, ash and other unhealthy trees are/were removed. He noted that some of those trees were leaning towards homes and were removed in order to remove that liability. He commented on the work that they have done to ensure the health of the trees that are being saved as they are heritage trees, and they want them to remain healthy during construction. He provided October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 29 details on the three tree species that will be planted to replace the unhealthy trees. He noted that the remainder of the yard was most likely woodchips and dirt because it had been neglected and eroded. He stated that they would be putting in turf grass, similar to the neighboring properties in order to provide ground coverage. He noted that silt fence was also installed for erosion control. Joe Slater, 2464 Pond Circle E, stated that he has been a resident of Mendota Heights for over 27 years. He hoped to know the applicants better in the future. He stated that his concern is that the City did not follow its own rules. He stated that a permit is supposed to be requested prior to work being completed. He believed the City was notified prior to the trees being cut down. He stated that the pond area is very special and home to wildlife. He believed that the City should have done a better job visiting the site and gaining control of the process. He stated that he does not begrudge the residents for wanting to beautify their property but is concerned with the City not following its process to ensure the natural area is protected. 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 LORBERBAUM TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Corbett asked the root cause of why this is an after the fact permit and whether the City was involved before a permit was requested. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the applicant did call the City the day before the tree removal contractor was scheduled to show up. He stated that it was explained that ash and boxelders were being removed and noted that dead and diseased trees can be removed without a permit. He stated that once they received a call from a neighboring property owner, the City visited the property to see which trees were being removed. He agreed that some trees were dead and leaning over the property or were ash trees or other trees that would soon need to be removed. He explained that he told the property owners they could continue with the tree removal but then would need to stop work and apply for a permit for the remainder of the work. He stated that the applicant was instructed that absolutely no work could be completed within the 25-foot buffer area. He stated that the trees that were removed were not quality trees and/or imposed a risk to the home. Commissioner Corbett asked if staff believes that activity was within what was allowed. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek confirmed that the tree removal was allowed but the stop work order was issued on the remainder of the work planned. He commented that homeowners can remove dead/diseased/dying trees without a wetland permit. Commissioner Johnson referenced the landscape plan but believes that would be more appropriately described as a hardscape plan. She stated that specific information is not provided related to the trees, grading, or vegetation. She stated that there would need to be excavation to October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 29 install the boulders. She noted that she would also like more details on the rock spill. She stated that a detailed site plan identifying drainage, grading, and landscaping is required for a wetlands permit. She commented on the other items that she also believed are missing in terms of the existing drainage and grading of the site. She stated that she would prefer to table the request and extend the review by 60 days in order to gain those specific elements. She stated that the Commission needs those items in order to provide an accurate review and ensure reviews are being done consistently. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT TO TABLE THE REQUEST AND DIRECT STAFF TO EXTEND THE REVIEW PERIOD. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL STATED THAT HE AGREES WITH THE READING OF THE ORDINANCES BUT ALSO BELIEVES THAT THE REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE CODE ARE NOT GOING TO ADD MATERIAL INFORMATION TO THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS. HE STATED HE DID NOT BELIEVE A TOPOGRAPHIC MAP WOULD ADD TO THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS. HE STATED THAT HE COULD SUPPORT THE MOTION BUT NOTED THAT THIS WOULD DELAY THE PROJECT AND WOULD THEN POSTPONE WORK UNTIL THE SPRING. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM STATED THAT SHE AGREES WITH WHAT HAD BEEN SAID, NOTING THAT THERE ARE ITEMS MISSING THAT ARE REQUIRED. SHE STATED THAT SHE WOULD LIKE THE APPLICANTS TO PROVIDE DIRECTION RATHER THAN THE COMMISSION PROVIDING THE DIRECTION RELATED TO TREE PLANTING. SHE STATED THAT ABOUT 30 TREES WERE REMOVED AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THREE TREES ARE BEING REPLANTED. SHE STATED THAT SHE WOULD LIKE A MORE DETAILED PLAN FROM THE APPLICANT. COMMISSIONER TOTH ASKED IF IT WOULD BE FAIR TO SAY THAT WHEN THE HOME WAS BUILT, THE AREA WAS PROBABLY CLEAN AND THE YARD BECAME OVERGROWN BECAUSE OF NEGLECT. HE STATED THAT THE NEW PROPERTY OWNER IS ATTEMPTING TO CLEAN UP THE PROPERTY AND REMOVE UNDESIRED TREES. HE STATED THAT TO A POINT THE COMMISSION/CITY SHOULD BE WORKING WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM STATED THAT PERHAPS STAFF SHOULD PLACE AN ARTICLE IN THE CITY NEWSLETTER EDUCATING RESIDENTS ABOUT THE NEED FOR PERMITS FOR THIS TYPE OF WORK. AYES: 6 NAYS: 1 (FIELD) Chair Field noted that this would be scheduled to come back to the Commission at its November meeting. He asked staff to reach out to the applicant and attempt to assist them with ensuring their application is in order. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 29 C) PLANNING CASE 2021-20 STAVE AND MICHELLE MCHALE, 1125 ORCHARD CIRCLE – CRITICAL AREA (MRCCA) PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the McHale’s are seeking approval of a Critical Area Permit to construct a new single-family dwelling on property situated in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District, along with a conditional use permit (CUP) to construct an oversized garage up to 1,444 square feet in size. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Johnson stated that the plan shows four silver maples and asked if that is the extent of the planting that would be done. She asked what the soil would be covered with. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that two trees would be planted in the front yard and two in the backyard. He stated that the applicant can provide additional details but believed that turf and other landscaping would cover the soil. Commissioner Johnson referenced the description of the unkempt shrub and had some concerns. She stated that those are actually native shrubs, elderberry to be specific. Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that could be included in the replacement plan as a condition if desired. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Steven McHale, 1125 Orchard Circle, stated that they began the process to acquire the property with the intent to build a home last January. He stated that since that time they found out the property was within the MRCCA and there was a moratorium on building within the corridor, which placed their plans on hold. He stated that he and his wife have attempted to design a home that would produce as much, or more energy, on the property than they plan to consume. He stated that they also take external landscaping very seriously. He recognized that anything removed would need to be replanted with native vegetation and that is their full intent. He stated that they have had discussions with three landscapers but do not yet have a plan in place as they have spoken with the neighboring property owners and are currently working with those properties in order to create a cohesive landscape over the three properties that works together. He stated that they will replace each tree removed with at least two new trees. He stated that his children like pollinator gardens and they plan to have a pollinator garden and vegetable garden on the property. He noted October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 29 that they need to see how the home will lie on the property and see where sunlight hits in order to plan appropriately for those elements. He referenced the proposed four car garage, noting that they have two vehicles, and the remaining space would be used to create a space for his wife to play basketball. He stated that this has been quite an ordeal as they have been renting a home that has a lease that will expire in the summer of 2022. He stated that they would most likely need to find a second rental until the home construction is completed. Leslie Pilgrim, 1704 Vicky Lane, stated that it would seem that a recommendation for the City and Planning Commission would be to require a landscaping plan from the beginning to prevent further delays. She noted that the last case was tabled and perhaps that could have been alleviated by staff ensuring a landscape plan was provided. 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 TOTH TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Johnson stated that as with the previous case there is a checklist of what is required to review an application. She reviewed the details that would be required in order for the Commission to make its decision that are not included in the application. She stated that she would like to review applications consistently and therefore the required information should be provided. Commissioner Petschel referenced the diameters shown of the trees removed which would provide an indication of the current conditions. Commissioner Johnson stated that information is needed for proposed plantings as well. Commissioner Petschel asked if that information is dictated in the City Code. Commissioner Johnson replied that she believed it is. Commissioner Katz commented that even though some of those items related to landscaping are not shown, this is new construction therefore he would be willing to provide approval for construction and the applicant could bring back details about the landscaping. He stated that the issue he would struggle with is the necessity of the four-stall garage, other than the desire for the property owner to have a large garage. He stated that allowing a large garage for that reason would seem to set precedent for future requests. Commissioner Johnson stated that 36 feet of garage door is allowed, therefore the four nine-foot doors meet that requirement. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 29 Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that any resident in the R-1 district can ask for a garage greater than 1,200 up to 1,500 square feet with a CUP. He stated that there does not need to be a rational reason, other than ensuring the effective standards of the CUP Code are met. Commissioner Johnson noted that this would meet all the requirements for that garage size request. Commissioner Katz asked if it could be required for the applicant to come back with the landscaping plan. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the applicant indicated that he is working on a cooperative landscaping plan with the neighbors. He believed that a recommendation of approval could still move forward, and staff could work with the applicant on the landscaping plan, or it could be brought back for a cursory review. He noted that this is a vacant lot and does not have bluffs or shoreline on the property. Commissioner Johnson asked if a condition could be added that there would need to be approval of the landscaping plan and the other items on the checklist prior to moving to City Council. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that he believes the Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit could be approved to allow this to move forward. He stated that staff could work with the applicant to ensure the landscaping plan is sufficient would be a part of the building permit process and bring it back for the Commission to review. He stated that the applicant is unable to provide that landscaping plan at this time as they are attempting to work cohesively with the neighbors. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that the last request was tabled for lack of landscaping plan and asked how it would be justified to move ahead without a landscaping plan. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that there is technically a landscaping plan showing two trees removed and four additional trees planted. He stated that an additional landscaping plan is being developed and staff will work with the applicant on that. City At torney Elliott Knetsch commented that there is a landscape plan, it would be the decision of the Commission as to whether that plan is adequate. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that the previous applicant submitted a landscape plan. City Attorney Elliott Knetsch replied that the Commission found that plan to not be sufficient. COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR 1125 ORCHARD CIRCLE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A BUILDING PERMIT, INCLUDING ALL NEW GRADING AND DRAINAGE WORK, MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION WORK. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 29 2. FULL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION MEASURES WILL BE PUT IN PLACE PRIOR TO AND DURING GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION WORK ACTIVITIES. 3. ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND CODES, AS WELL AS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. 4. ALL WORK ON SITE WILL ONLY BE PERFORMED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:00 A.M. AND 8:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY; 9:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. WEEKENDS. 5. ALL DISTURBED AREAS IN AND AROUND THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE RESTORED AND HAVE AN ESTABLISHED AND PERMANENT GROUND COVER IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE DWELLING PROJECT IS COMPLETED. 6. THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE A MORE DETAILED LANDSCAPING PLAN AS VERBALLY MENTIONED AFTER WORKING WITH CITY STAFF. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL ASKED THE COMMISSION IF PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO DEVIATE FROM A LANDSCAPING PLAN OR WHETHER THEY ARE BOUND TO THAT. HE ASKED IF PEOPLE COULD CHANGE THEIR LANDSCAPING AFTER BEING IN THEIR HOME FOR A YEAR WHEN THEIR NEEDS OR DESIRES CHANGE. HE STATED THAT HE CAN APPRECIATE THAT THE HOMEOWNER WOULD WANT SOME FLEXIBILITY AND DID NOT BELIEVE THE COMMISSION SHOULD DICTATE OR MAKE DECISIONS ON HOW PEOPLE WANT THEIR YARDS. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM STATED THAT SHE WOULD LIKE TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BUT WOULD FIND THAT THE CONDITION REQUESTING A MORE DETAILED LANDSCAPING PLAN WOULD MEAN THAT THE COMMISSION FOUND THE PLAN SUBMITTED INSUFFICIENT. SHE STATED THAT PERHAPS THAT CONDITION IS REMOVED AND THE APPLICANT CAN STILL WORK WITH STAFF IF THEY WANT TO ADD ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL STATED THAT THIS IS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A HOME AND THE FOCUS IS NOT ON THE PLANTINGS. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON STATED THAT A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIRE A LANDSCAPING PLAN. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL COMMENTED THAT THIS PLAN IS SIMILAR TO ALL THE OTHERS RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSION, NOTING THAT LANDSCAPING PLANS ARE NOT THAT DETAILED FOR HOME CONSTRUCTION. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON COMMENTED THAT THERE SHOULD BE MORE DETAIL AS THIS IS IN THE CRITICAL AREA. SHE STATED THAT SHE STRUGGLES BUT BELIEVES THE COMMISSION SHOULD FOLLOW THE CHECKLIST AND PROCESS OUTLINED TO ENSURE FAIRNESS TO ALL RESIDENTS. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 29 COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL ASKED IF THE ISSUE AT HAND WAS THAT THE APPLICANT STATED THAT THERE WOULD BE ADDITIONAL PLANTINGS ABOVE THOSE SHOWN ON THE EXISTING DRAWINGS. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON STATED THAT THE CHECKLIST SPECIFIES TYPE AND DIAMETER OF ALL PLANTINGS. SHE STATED THAT IN THE CRITICAL AREA, EVEN THOUGH THIS IS NOT ON THE BLUFF OR SHORELINE, THERE ARE STILL CERTAIN PLANTS AND ANIMALS FOUND IN THE AREA. SHE STATED THAT SHE STRUGGLES WITH NOT FOLLOWING THE CHECKLIST. SHE NOTED THAT PERHAPS THAT LIST NEEDS TO BE REVISED BUT THE CITY SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THE MRCCA ORDINANCE AND DID NOT BELIEVE THE CITY WOULD DO THE ENVIRONMENT JUSTICE BY NOT FOLLOWING THE CITY PROCESS. COMMISSIONER CORBETT ASKED IF THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE INCLUDED WITH APPLICATIONS. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI CONFIRMED THAT THERE IS A LIST INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION. HE STATED THAT ONCE RECEIVED, STAFF REVIEWS THE APPLICATION TO DETERMINE IF IT IS COMPLETE AND SHOULD MOVE FORWARD. HE STATED THAT STAFF FELT THAT THIS APPLICATION WAS COMPLETE AND IS NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER TYPICAL NEW FAMILY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE A LANDSCAPING PLAN ALTHOUGH PEOPLE TYPICALLY PUT IN TREES AND LANDSCAPING. HE STATED THAT THE TREE REMOVAL WAS INDICATED, ALONG WITH REPLACEMENT PLANTING OF FOUR TWO INCH BALLED AND BURLAPPED SILVER MAPLES. HE STATED THAT IF THE TREES ARE MOVED, HE WOULD NOT REVOKE A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR THAT PURPOSE. HE STATED THAT THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT THEY ARE GOING TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORS TO CREATE A COHESIVE PLANTINGS PLAN, ALONG WITH A POLLINATOR AND VEGETABLE GARDEN. HE STATED THAT WHILE THOSE THINGS ARE GREAT, IT IS NOT REQUIRED THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE A PLAN WITH THOSE DETAILS. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM ASKED IF COMMISSIONER KATZ WOULD BE WILLING TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION WITH THE ADDED CONDITION, AS THAT WOULD IMPLY THE LANDSCAPE PLAN IS NOT COMPLETE. COMMISSIONER KATZ EXPLAINED THAT HIS MOTION IS BASED ON THE INTENT THAT HE WOULD LIKE THE APPLICANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PERMIT. HE STATED THAT HE ALSO UNDERSTANDS THAT SOME MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE THOSE ADDITIONAL DETAILS, THEREFORE THE ADDITIONAL CONDITION WAS ADDED TO ADDRESS THAT CONCERN WHILE STILL ALLOWING THE HOME CONSTRUCTION TO MOVE FORWARD. CHAIR FIELD ASKED THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR INPUT. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 29 CITY ATTORNEY ELLIOT KNETSCH STATED THAT HE WOULD SUGGEST REMOVING THE CONDITION IF THE COMMISSION FEELS THAT THE PLAN IS ADEQUATE AND THAT STAFF WOULD WORK WITH THE APPLICANT ON THEIR MENTIONED PLAN. HE STATED THAT IF THE COMMISSION IS NOT COMFORTABLE WITHOUT SEEING THE PLAN, THE ITEM SHOULD BE TABLED. HE STATED THAT THE REQUEST COULD BE APPROVED AND THE PLAN COULD BE BROUGHT BACK ON AN INFORMATIONAL BASIS. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL ASKED IF IT WOULD BE PLAUSIBLE TO HAVE THE REMAINING ITEMS ON THE CHECKLIST NOT CURRENTLY ACCOUNTED FOR, PROVIDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR REVIEW. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI REPLIED THAT WOULD BE A FAST TURNAROUND, AS THE ITEM WILL MOVE FORWARD TO THE COUNCIL THE FOLLOWING WEEK. COMMISSIONER CORBETT COMMENTED THAT THIS SEEMS LIKE A CATCH 22 AS THE ADDITIONAL PLAN WILL NOT BE FULLY DEVELOPED UNTIL THE HOME IS CONSTRUCTED. HE STATED THAT HE FINDS THIS CASE AND THE PREVIOUS CASE DIFFERENT AS SIZES, LOCATIONS AND SPECIES ARE INCLUDED ON THIS PLAN. HE STATED THAT PERHAPS THE CHECKLIST REQUIREMENT IS AN ERROR IN THE PROCESS AS IT WOULD SEEM TO FORCE SOMEONE TO CREATE A PLAN THAT WOULD PLACATE THE COMMISSION BUT WOULD THEN HAVE TO BE CHANGED DEPENDING ON THE HOME CONSTRUCTION. CHAIR FIELD STATED THAT THIS IS AN MRCCA CASE AND ASKED IF IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO APPROVE THIS WITH THE EXISTING LANDSCAPING PLAN. HE NOTED THAT IF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES ARE MADE TO THE PLAN, WOULD THE HOMEOWNER NEED TO COME BACK FOR ADDITIONAL APPROVAL BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE MRCCA. CITY ATTORNEY ELLIOT KNETSCH COMMENTED THAT IF THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE AND IF THE ORDINANCE TRIGGERS SUCH ACTION, THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO FOLLOW THAT PROCESS. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI STATED THAT THE ORDINANCE IS MEANT TO ADDRESS DISTURBANCE WITHIN THE CORRIDOR. HE STATED THAT IF ADDITIONAL TREES WERE GOING TO BE PLANTED, HE WOULD NOT REQUIRE A PERMIT AS THAT WOULD BE A BENEFIT TO THE ENVIRONMENT. HE STATED THAT AS PART OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT, STAFF WORKS TO ENSURE THE INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR PLANS MEET CITY CODE. HE STATED THAT IF THE APPLICANT DEVELOPED A PLAN WITH THE NEIGHBORS, STAFF WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT AND PROVIDE COMMENTS, BUT IF THERE IS A PROFESSIONAL WORKING WITH THEM, THEY WILL PROVIDE SOMETHING EFFECTIVE THAT WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT. HE STATED THAT ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING SHOULD NOT NEED TO BE REVIEWED BY THE COMMISSION. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 29 COMMISSIONER KATZ WITHDREW HIS MOTION. COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR 1125 ORCHARD CIRCLE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A BUILDING PERMIT, INCLUDING ALL NEW GRADING AND DRAINAGE WORK, MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION WORK. 2. FULL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION MEASURES WILL BE PUT IN PLACE PRIOR TO AND DURING GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION WORK ACTIVITIES. 3. ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND CODES, AS WELL AS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. 4. ALL WORK ON SITE WILL ONLY BE PERFORMED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:00 A.M. AND 8:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY; 9:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. WEEKENDS. 5. ALL DISTURBED AREAS IN AND AROUND THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE RESTORED AND HAVE AN ESTABLISHED AND PERMANENT GROUND COVER IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE DWELLING PROJECT IS COMPLETED. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER CORBETT NOTED THAT THIS LANDSCAPE PLAN IS VASTLY DIFFERENT FROM THE PREVIOUS CASE IN TERMS OF DETAILS. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its Wednesday, November 3, 2021 meeting. A) PLANNING CASE 2021-12 AND 2021-13 AT HOME APARTMENTS/MENDOTA MALL ASSOCIATES LLC, MENDOTA PLAZA EXPANSION ADDITION AND EXPANSION 2ND ADDITION – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND WETLAND PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the report packet contains additional information submitted by At Home Apartments, the applicant/developer of the proposed Phase II (58-unit apartment) and Phase III (89-unit apartment) development located within The Mendota Plaza development area. At the August 24th meeting, these two planning case items were presented to the Planning Commission under a public hearing process. After discussion with city staff, the applicant and listening to public comments, the Commission determined additional information was needed from the applicant/development and voted to table both cases to a future meeting date. The additional information was determined as follows: October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 29 1) Provide an overall and proposed impervious surface calculation; 2) Provide a lighting plan; 3) Provide a traffic circulation plan; 4) Provide an updated parking analysis or parking data on the existing site; 5) Provide an update traffic analysis; 6) Provide more information or justification on proposed parking stalls, including handicap stalls; 7) Provide an updated landscape plan; 8) Address fire protection and safety measures. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that this report also includes an update on the Wetlands Permit concerns or issues raised at the August 24th hearing; along with a legal opinion from the City Attorney addressing the PUD timeframe completion date. The Site Development and Elevation Plans for this Phase II and Phase III sites remain essentially the same as those presented at the August 24th meeting. The Commissioners should also refer to the information and analysis contained in the original August 24th Planning Reports which were included in the supplemental packet. 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 reviewed the actions the Commission could choose to take. Commissioner Johnson asked if the Commission should first consider the 58-unit development and then consider the 89-unit development. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that even though the applications are being presented as one development, staff would still like to see two motions. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked for clarification on the childcare and restaurant uses and whether those were approved and part of the original PUD. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the approved PUD did include a childcare center use on the Phase III property. He explained that if the developer had an interested childcare business they brought forward, that could move forward without additional approvals. He also confirmed that the Phase II site was approved for a restaurant use and as such, if there was an interested restaurant, the developer could move forward on that in the same manner. He stated that those elements were never built, which is why the developer is requesting the amendment process. Chair Field reopened the public hearing. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 29 Leanna Stefaniak, At Home Apartments, stated that she is available to answer any additional questions. She stated that she believes that they addressed the requests the Commission made at its last review. Commissioner Toth stated that he was not present at the last meeting. He referenced the traffic study and noted that it was said there had been a three percent decrease on Dodd Road. Ms. Stefaniak stated that compared the projected traffic from the current approved uses to the projected traffic from the proposed new uses. She stated that if the restaurant and daycare would add 1,024 trips onto Dodd Road while the proposed uses would add 794 trips on Dodd Road. Commissioner Toth asked if there have been any current studies on Dodd Road. Ms. Stefaniak stated that since 2016 there have been several studies on Dodd Road and at the 62 intersection. She stated that the City conducted its own north/south mobility study in 2017/2018 in addition to the 2016 study they completed. She stated that they completed the analysis for the new uses and then the City’s consultant reviewed those results. Commissioner Petschel appreciated the data provided related to parking. He stated that he has driven through the lot quite a bit since the last review to observe parking. He asked how many parking spaces are paid within the underground parking structure. Ms. Stefaniak replied that each unit receives one underground stall for free, which is a total of 139. She stated that there are also overflow stalls which are available for rental and 20 reserved guest stalls. Commissioner Petschel asked if tenants with two vehicles are allowed to park the second vehicle wherever they want. Ms. Stefaniak replied that tenants are told that the parking stalls out front are available for short- term basis parking only. Commissioner Johnson thanked the applicant for working with the Master Gardener and believed that many good things came out of that. She noted that in the count of native plants, not including the wildflower mix, only 48 percent are truly native for Phase II. She commented that she appreciates that native cultivars were also used as those are also good. She stated that she has some concern with greenspace for residents. She stated that perhaps additional planting could be added. Ms. Stefaniak stated that she would have to defer back to the landscape architect, noting that they would continue to work with the Master Gardener as that plan evolves. She stated that they would want to be concerned that the roots do not impose on each other and/or utilities. Commissioner Johnson stated that she spoke with MnDOT and there is an opportunity for the developer to partner with the City and MnDOT would enter into an agreement, supplying plants. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 of 29 She stated that the developer would install and maintain the plants but would not be responsible for the cost of the plants. Chair Field stated that sounds like an interesting suggestion and perhaps Commissioner Johnson could discuss that with the applicant later. Ms. Stefaniak stated that she is somewhat aware of the program. She stated that she would want to review other concerns, such as vehicle safety. She noted that if a vehicle goes off road, they would go down a grass area and would be concerned with placing a tree where a vehicle could hit that. Commissioner Johnson stated that it appears the planting specs are missing from the landscaping plan. She stated that she would like to see the correction made to the planting style of the trees to ensure the planting style from Mendota Plaza does not continue, as those trees are not doing well. Commissioner Lorberbaum thanked the applicant for providing the additional information as she finds it to be a much more complete plan. She stated that a focus of the last discussion was parking. She stated that when she reviewed the additional parking information, the number of handicap accessible stalls appears to be different in the plans from what is shown in the charts. She noted that a total of eight handicap stalls are shown for Phase I. She stated that she counted the non- handicap stalls and those are also off. Ms. Stefaniak stated that there are 155 stalls and acknowledged that there was a miscount. She stated that it is possible that there is a typo or two as they have made changes since July. She stated that the numbers within the narrative are correct. Commissioner Lorberbaum reiterated that the different plans and number of stalls do not match on the different documents. She stated that she would love to see the spaces match the table. Pete Keely with Collage Architects and for the applicant, stated that there are 155 stalls as opposed to 157 stalls and 117 stalls as opposed to 118. He noted that some of the spaces that Commissioner Lorberbaum may be seeing he may be using for mechanical devices. Commissioner Lorberbaum hoped the plans and charts would match and be more accurate when presented to the City Council. Commissioner Petschel stated that he believes there is an existing parking problem that could conceivably get worse. He stated that if he is a resident and given the choice between renting an additional space or parking in the giant surface lot, he would take his chances on the surface lot. He stated that driving through the site there are sometimes 45 cars in front of the building. He noted that vehicles are also parking on the dirt, road, and demarcated spots. He stated that he also suspects that people are parking in the shopping center lot, as there are vehicles parking in front of vacant tenant space at 5:30 a.m. He stated that he cannot wrap his head around the scenario where spaces are counted towards the main allotment that would require an additional rent charge to be paid. He stated that people could, and most likely would, choose not to use those rental spaces. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 15 of 29 Ms. Stefaniak stated that most buildings charge for parking, but they provide an underground space as a service to residents. She stated that the night there were 45 vehicles there was a parent hosting a Saint Thomas homecoming dinner in the community space. Commissioner Petschel stated that from what he has observed it is typical to see 37 to 40 vehicles in the front lot. Ms. Stefaniak stated that she is not aware of residents parking in the commercial lot and has not received complaints from Pastor or their tenants. She stated that tenants are required to register their vehicles with the apartment, whether they have one or two vehicles. She reported a total of 193 registered vehicles and 223 interior stalls. She stated that some of this is a seasonal and communication issue. She noted that in the summer, some people prefer to park outdoors. She noted that in the winter, people do use the underground stalls. She stated that there was an instance where a vehicle was parked in the dirt lot for a few days, explaining that was a unique situation where a resident’s parents were being treated at the Mayo Clinic and parked their vehicle to be out of the way. She stated that with the addition of Phase II, they would have additional surface stalls that could be used by Phase I residents as well. Commissioner Petschel commented that he feels that there is a parking problem. He stated that if people are parking in the dirt or on the street, that is an issue, and those spaces cannot be used. He agreed that the applicant was very transparent with their data, but that data enforces the interpretation that there appears to be a parking problem. Ms. Stefaniak stated that people park on the dirt because it has been undeveloped since 2016. She stated that the development of the lot and providing additional striped stalls would alleviate that problem. Commissioner Petschel commented that the data the applicant provided looks accurate compared to what he observed. Lee Koppy, engineer for the applicant, referenced the impervious values that were shown in the staff report, noting that those were incorrect. He stated that for Phase II, the numbers are correct, but they did not compare those to the previous design numbers and compared that to the impervious surface that exists today. He stated that gravel is considered impervious surface and therefore the proposed development would reduce the impervious coverage for that lot. He stated that currently the overall PUD has an impervious rate of 62.4 percent and noted that if both developments are considered, the impervious percentage would then be 65.5 percent. Ms. Stefaniak commented that there was a typo in what was presented by staff related to the lot coverage and provided additional clarification. Maurice Lazarus, 1650 Mayfield Heights Road, he referenced the project for Lot 7 and stated that lot has been vacant for some time. Chair Field noted that the Commission is considering the first request at this time and noted that there would be time to provide input on the second request. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 16 of 29 Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, stated that at the last hearing comments were permitted in respect to both sites simultaneously and asked if that pattern is being changed tonight. Chair Field confirmed that the intent is to vote separately and therefore the comments should be reflected separately. Mr. Friel stated that most of the comments would apply to both requests and asked if the Commission prefers to have residents repeat themselves. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that there are two different planning applications, and the Commission could take those separately or accept public input at once. Chair Field stated that if comments apply to both requests, those could be made once. He stated that related to the last speaker, those comments were specific to the second request and should be reserved for that discussion. Mr. Friel commented that his comments apply to both requests. He noted that the comments of Mr. Hanton will apply to traffic and applies to both requests. Chair Field stated that those comments could then be made now and would apply to the second request as well. Ed Hanton, 1288 Aspen Way, stated that two months ago he spoke about traffic and the problems he believed the development may aggravate. He stated that he has since had a chance to test his theories as there was a medical emergency at his home and it took about 15 minutes for the ambulance to reach him home on a Sunday morning. He stated that because of the traffic styles of the prime and secondary accesses for the project, he would be concerned with the traffic that would be generated by this traffic and the health and safety concerns it would impose on the community. He stated that he is concerned of those north of 62. He stated that people go by that Dodd Road and 62 intersection whether they want to or not, and it is terrible. He commented on the traffic studies that have been done and noted that several different companies have been involved in the studies since 2008 and the resources those companies used. He stated that this application is using materials for a project that never happened and the projected traffic numbers mention a decrease compared to the project that never happened. He stated that the City’s north/south study is not even mentioned, which showed the intersection of Dodd and 62 as an F, failing, rating at that time. He stated that the Fire Department comments mention an Opticom system but stated that system would not provide benefit because during times of traffic there is no area for vehicles to move out of the way for an emergency vehicle. Tamara Wills, 788 Hokah Avenue, stated that she shares similar concerns with the last speaker. She stated that the residents do not feel that they are being heard on this matter. She stated that the 2017 north/south mobility study is dated as many things have changed in the area since that time. She referenced areas that were above the critical crash rate within the report with failing ratings. She hoped that the City would learn from those changes, noting that there has been a lot of building and more traffic. She stated that if traffic was bad then, she was unsure why the City October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 17 of 29 is not paying attention to those studies and numbers. She stated that the traffic alone should be showing that this would not work. She appreciated that people buy parcels of land for development, but that should not be at the cost of the safety and convenience of the residents. She stated that she must use Dodd Road daily and hopes that the Commission considers traffic more heavily than it has. She commented that MnDOT would not allow an exit on 62 from The Reserve because traffic moves too fast and because of the proximity to the lights, therefore that would not be allowed for these new developments. She commented that South Plaza Drive and Dodd would then be the only options and those are already bad. She referenced a neighborhood meeting that was held that had representatives from the County and MnDOT, at which time it was stated that Dodd Road was not on their radar because they have higher priorities. John Maczko, 751 Cheyenne Lane, also commented on the traffic on Dodd Road. He stated that if another 800 vehicles are added to Dodd Road, the developer should be required to make improvements. He stated that if traffic issues are caused by a development, the developer should be required to make the necessary improvements. He stated that to add 800 vehicles per day to Dodd Road without making improvements should not be allowed. He referenced the Phase II development and stated that it seems that building this building near the 110 right-of-way would change the character of 110 as there are no other buildings that close to the roadway. He stated that this would seem to be maximizing what can be put on the site to maximize returns. He stated that the Commission does not have to go along with what the developer wants and should instead continue to focus on what the residents want and overall vision for the community is. He stated that it is hard to believe this would be 51 percent impervious. He stated that at his lake place, the gravel driveway is not considered impervious because it is not bituminous or concrete. He stated that just because the site is gravel does not mean it was intended to stay gravel and therefore, he was unsure why a comparison was provided as it is a vacant lot. He stated that there is a lot of parking occurring on the street, on the vacant lot, in the parking facility, and in the commercial area from residents of The Reserve. He stated that he drives by the facility every day and it occurs daily. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked for additional ideas for traffic improvement. Mr. Maczko stated that developers have been required to add traffic control, additional lanes, and other improvements that would support the proposed development. He stated that it is clear that the development would place increased stress on the issue. He stated that the improvements are typically a negotiation between the different entities. He stated that it is clear there is already a traffic problem and adding 800 vehicles would not make it better. He stated that 62 and Dodd Road already has Opticom. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, stated that Opticom is being anticipated for 149 and 62, noting that both are controlled by MnDOT. She stated that any improvements for Dodd Road are very far down on the priority list for MnDOT. She stated that even if this would be needed, MnDOT approval would be required and is not guaranteed. She stated that the Mendota Plaza guidelines were used to support plan consistencies, but the setback set as a standard by McDonalds is not being used for Phase II. Chair Field asked if the setback from 62 has been changed from the original review. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 18 of 29 Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that it has not been changed. Chair Field asked that comments be focused on the additional information. He noted that many of the speakers had an opportunity to speak at the last public hearing and the Commission received those comments, therefore any comments tonight should focus on the new information provided since that time. Ms. Smith stated that the Fire Department previously required access behind the Phase II building and asked if this is no longer needed and how that would impact those residents. She stated that many of the items within the findings of fact are not facts and suggested the Commission review those carefully. She stated that this development would have an impact far beyond Mendota Plaza and asked the Commission to consider the impacts to the overall community. Leslie Pilgrim, 1704 Vicky Lane, referenced the landscaping plan and comments of the Master Gardener. She wanted to ensure that the model landscape ordinance is reviewed more carefully from the standpoint of the developer. She stated that the current ordinance is very gray, and the PUD allows the City to make additional requests. She would want to ensure that the GreenStep Cities model is followed and that the plan of the Master Gardener is followed rather than the plan proposed. Kate Christianson, 2280 Ocala Court, stated that the traffic study completed in 2017 was well done with facts and data. She stated that it includes a summary and conclusion with suggested improvements. She believed that should be considered and the City should work with MnDOT and implement those improvements before additional development is added. Chair Field encouraged the residents to reach out to their State Representatives to put pressure on MnDOT. Ms. Christianson stated that the City should not make the situation more difficult for the residents. Jim Losleben 815 Hazel Court, stated that he uses Dodd Road as the main route to leave his home and the road is already overloaded. He commented that Dodd Road has serious problems with the existing traffic and adding this amount of traffic would only make the situation worse. He stated that he was a member of the City Council from 1973 through 1984, and in 1979 they had some tough times with the Metropolitan Council in attempt to keep Mendota Heights spacious and gracious. He commented that most people like to live in the community because it is an open space area. He stated that four or five years ago, the City began to lose the spacious and gracious attitude and is once again under pressure to give away that vision. He asked that the Comprehensive Plan be used as a guide for new development with a focus on keeping existing residents happy. He stated that because of the proximity to the Twin Cities, developers are attracted to Mendota Heights and there will continue to be pressure placed upon the City. He stated that Dodd Road is in trouble right now and encouraged the City to be cautious with the traffic that is added. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 19 of 29 Thomas Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, stated that the Commission is being asked to possibly approve the revised proposal for these two buildings. He stated that the revised proposal does not deserve serious consideration as it offers very little change from the August proposal. He referenced the staff analysis and stated that he disagrees with some of the proposed findings of fact for approval. He stated that a number of years ago the traffic rating for Dodd Road and 62 was an F, which is the lowest grade you can receive. He referenced the findings of fact listed in the report supporting denial and provided additional comments. He asked what rationale there could be for the Commission to approve the revised project as there is no change from the original project. He considered it to be an insult that the developer would bring back this “revised” proposal and provides opportunity for denial. He did not believe the Commission has a choice other than denying the request. He commented that he doubts that the developer would provide a plan that would change the nature of the proposals. Mr. Friel commented that he would prefer to hold his comments until the presentation is made for the second case. Chair Field stated that the Commission would most likely vote on this request prior to Mr. Friel’s comments if he chooses to make his comments in that fashion. Mr. Friel asked if the actions would be separated rather than making motions at the end of the complete presentations. Chair Field stated that he believes that is the expectation of the Commission. Mr. Friel stated that he would make his comments at this time then. He stated that the staff report mentions a five-year completion for the PUD, which was deleted and no longer governs development activities within the PUD. He clarified that the project, not the PUD needed to be completed by 2026. He noted at that time the apartment complexes were not contemplated and therefore cannot be considered. He stated that the extension allowed time for the project and not the PUD. He stated that the PUD appears no longer to be, withstanding the assertions of the applicant, a 21-acre PUD as some land was sold. He stated that the tenants within the plaza have not been made aware of the proposals, which he found unusual. He stated that he also found it troubling that staff and the Commission are not understanding the terrible difficulty people in the first section of Friendly Hills have accessing Dodd Road. He noted that those residents were also not notified of this meeting and proposed development. He commented on the issues that exist in terms of safety and traffic volumes on Dodd Road from the adjacent neighborhoods. He stated that the developer has suggested that it is important to compare the traffic generated by what was proposed in amendment six, the retail space, restaurant and childcare facility and was unsure why that would be relevant to compare something that was not with something proposed. He stated that there never was a plan for the size of the childcare facility, retail facility or restaurant and there was not a plan for the parking that would be available. He stated that the only thing that was approved by the City is amendment six, which was an agreement that those proposals could be made but nothing was ever planned for or submitted. He stated that he has not heard a word of how these projects benefit the people of Mendota Heights. He stated that it would appear that these projects would only hurt the residents by making the traffic issues worse and would make October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 20 of 29 access to the shopping center even worse. He stated that he has comments with respect to the second project when that presentation is provided. Chair Field briefly recessed the meeting. Chair Field reconvened the meeting. Ms. Stefaniak stated that some residents brought up the north/south mobility study, which she also mentioned. She stated that report used assumptions and modeling available at that time which included the retail, restaurant and childcare uses as well as the Trammel-Crow project which was larger than the Linden project. She stated that report highlighted that the most significant area of concern was Dodd and Market Street, not Dodd and South Plaza Drive. She stated that using the modeling and assumptions in that study, which were the higher and more intrusive uses, the results are still valid as these would be less intensive uses. She stated that the recommendations were made for a ten-year period rather than immediate needs. She stated that the report also considered to be built scenarios that were outside of the control of the City, as the assumptions concluded that Inver Grove Heights would be built out as would Vikings Lakes and both of those have not been completed. She stated that MnDOT owns those roads and there would be time to address those concerns over time as originally planned. She stated that she visited four times per day for two weeks at peak times in order to obtain traffic counts as well as non-peak times. She stated that in terms of requiring a developer to complete improvements, that applies to City owned roadways. She stated that their plans were submitted to MnDOT and MnDOT chose not to opine on the project. She stated that it is not their purview to tell MnDOT how to operate their roads. She stated that the Opticom system exists and is located at South Plaza Drive. She stated that the Fire Chief was commenting that it would be helpful to have a trigger closer to the door to trigger the light. She stated that is not their responsibility, but they have been happy to participate in those conversations. She stated that a resident mentioned the GreenStep program, but the City has not developed its own ordinance of that manner. She stated that they have worked with the Master Gardener and have implemented some of her suggestions, but others could not be due to utility and underground water tank storage location. She noted that they would continue to work with the Master Gardener throughout this process. She commented that she lives in Mendota Heights and enjoys the community. She stated that she is not proposing to put apartments in a residential neighborhood or on park property and is instead proposing this development in a business corridor in order to complete the PUD and housing would be the best use. She stated that MnDOT objected to the right-in/right-out access which limits the development opportunity for that parcel. She stated that without that access housing becomes the highest and best use of the property. She stated that they spoke about the mixed-use designation and 75 percent of that should be housing, which this would achieve. She stated that these two parcels were identified in the Comprehensive Plan as underutilized, and this proposal matches the goals of that plan. She stated that many residents of The Reserve sent in supportive emails stating that they wanted this development and believes it would complete the vision and be better than a dirt lot. She stated that business owners within the Plaza would also like to see this development. She stated that details plan for the other proposes uses were included in the 2009 amendment. She stated that they are requesting to change those because market needs have changed. She stated that regardless of the ownership of the property there is an overlying OEA that is encumbered against the entire PUD. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 21 of 29 Commissioner Corbett provided clarification on the statement within the Comprehensive Plan which states that undeveloped land proposed to develop mixed use is at 75 percent. Ms. Stefaniak commented that these lots are undeveloped. She noted that the statement intent is that of the undeveloped land, 75 percent of that should be housing. Commissioner Lorberbaum asked and received confirmation that there would be four handicap stalls would be provided for each of the proposed buildings. 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 JOHNSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Corbett referenced the Comprehensive Plan mixed use section that was discussed along with tabled identifying the dwelling units within mixed use within the staff report. He stated that he was confused on the language used and the related 75 percent. He stated that it seems to be a discontinuity as the majority of the land is developed, and with other uses. He stated that the math seems to be convenient in making the calculations work for mixed use and has concern with the density as proposed. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that this method was used consistently with The Reserve. Commissioner Corbett stated that his concern would be that the convenient math would continue to compound the problem that already exists. He stated that if this is reviewed lot specifically and not under the PUD, perhaps a different calculation should be used and that would still exceed the dwelling units per acre. He commented that he does not believe that math to be appropriate. Commissioner Katz stated that the original PUD includes language related to traffic impacts and that access and exits to the mall could be adjusted if there are impacts to traffic. He stated that there were specific requirements that stated if a traffic grade of such is issued, these specific adjustments/improvements would be made. He noted that it appears those may have been lost through the multiple amendments that have been made. He noted that the primary concern from residents is related to traffic. He asked who would then pay for improvements if deemed necessary. He understood that staff may be unable to answer his question tonight. Commissioner Petschel asked staff for the best assessment of the traffic grade for Dodd and 62. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the City’s north/south mobility study, completed in 2018, showed a level of service at F for that intersection. He stated that the other intersections along Dodd were identified in green. He stated that looking towards 2040, assuming other October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 22 of 29 communities build out, a number of intersections will go to a poor level of service. He stated that the City continues to work with MnDOT as the study includes ideas for improvements. He stated that the City would just need to continue to work with MnDOT to install improvements. Commissioner Johnson stated that the original developer agreement dated March 31, 2008 a degrading level of service D or worse was included, but amendment six stated an overall below level of service F. She asked if an intersection could get below an F. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that F is the lowest level of service. Commissioner Johnson referenced the 2016 amendment and asked how the below level of service F would be obtained. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek clarified that the 2016 amendment mentioned the South Plaza Drive and Dodd Road intersection. He stated that the level of service for Dodd Road and 62 existed before that 2016 amendment. Commissioner Petschel stated that he commutes through this intersection twice per day and The Plaza does not get credit for the southbound traffic as that is moving right or left on 62. He asked the opinion of staff for the direction of traffic attributing to the poor level of service. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the southbound traffic for Dodd Road at 62 provides the worst level of service. Commissioner Petschel asked if there is any data determining where the northbound traffic is originating. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that there is a streetlights program that could track cell phone data, but he does not have that for Dodd Road. He stated that the City met with MnDOT in early September and MnDOT received the feedback from the City and has been watching the cameras. He provided details on the ques for northbound traffic, noting that all vehicles in the que are able to make it through the first traffic light cycle. Commissioner Toth commented that he uses Dodd Road, traveling from the south to the north and has been in traffic behind Mendakota Park, taking 11 minutes to make it through the light, therefore he questions that data. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that MnDOT has asked the Fire Department to provide additional data on their observations and MnDOT would then review the cameras on those dates/times. Commissioner Corbett stated that he struggles with how this is framed. He stated that this is a mixed-use PUD and asked how the appropriate levels of density and setbacks would be determined. He stated that within City Code, it would appear the appropriate underlying zoning standards should be applied for the use. He stated that using R-3, the square footage of units was breeching with The Reserve and therefore the developers have consumed the residential footprint October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 23 of 29 for the site. He stated that when reviewing the mixed-use language within the Comprehensive Plan it appears the numbers are made to work rather than reasonable. He recognizes the input on traffic and noted that he does not experience that firsthand and therefore appreciates those comments. He stated that the traffic backs up past the park every day. He appreciated the comments of the developer comparing what could be versus what is proposed but the comments should have focused on what exists and the current circumstances versus what is proposed. He stated that traffic will increase and there was no plan to mitigate for that. He stated that this plan relies on the City going outside of its ordinances and requirements requesting additional flexibility in return for financial motivation. He believed that consideration should be put into the effort that was put into creating ordinance and guidance for development by previous Councils and residents. COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF CASE 2021-12 BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND FOR THE REASONS HE SPECIFIED. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL STATED THAT HE HAS NO PROBLEMS WITH APARTMENTS OR THE DENSITY. HE STATED THAT THE ENTIRETY OF THE SITE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN TERMS OF DENSITY BECAUSE THIS IS PHASED DEVELOPMENT. HE STATED THAT TRAFFIC IS HIS LARGEST CONCERN AND IT IS ALREADY HORRIBLE. HE STATED THAT THERE HAVE BEEN MANY TIMES HE HAS SAT THROUGH THREE LIGHT CYCLES. HE STATED THAT HE CANNOT IMAGINE MAKING THAT TRAFFIC WORSE AND HE CANNOT IMAGINE A WAY THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT MAKE IT WORSE. HE STATED THAT ULTIMATELY, HE BELIEVES THESE APARTMENTS SHOULD BE BUILT, BUT THE INTERSECTION HAS TO BE FIXED FIRST. COMMISSIONER TOTH AGREED THAT HE IS NOT OPPOSED TO THE DEVELOPMENT BUT HE HAS TO MAKE THE DECISION ON WHAT IS BEST FOR THE RESIDENTS OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS. HE STATED THAT IF A BETTER PLAN CAN BE REACHED TO ADDRESS TRAFFIC, THEN THIS COULD BE CONSIDERED. HE STATED THAT THERE IS ALREADY A CONCERN WITH HOW EMERGENCY VEHICLES CAN MANEUVER THROUGH THE TRAFFIC. HE STATED THAT THE GOAL SHOULD BE TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER AND HOPEFULLY PROPOSE SOMETHING TO IMPROVE THE INTERSECTION. COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM ECHOED THE COMMENTS MADE. SHE THANKED THE RESIDENTS AND BUSINESS COMMUNITY THAT HAVE SUBMITTED LETTERS AND MADE COMMENTS. SHE AGREED WITH THE CONCERNS RELATED TO SETBACKS, DENSITY, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, AND TRAFFIC. SHE STATED THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY AND BELIEVED A SOLUTION COULD BE FOUND THAT IS LESS DENSE THAT WOULD MAKE THE DECISION MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON STATED THAT SHE HEARS THE CONCERNS OF THE RESIDENTS AND SHARES THAT CONCERN. SHE STATED THAT WHEN THEY LOOKED AT SPLITTING THE TWO REQUESTS, SHE HAS CONCERNS WITH DENSITY, October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 24 of 29 SETBACKS, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, AND THE LANDSCAPING PLAN. SHE COMMENTED THAT THERE WOULD BE AN OPTION FOR THE DEVELOPER TO MAKE THIS PHASE MORE APPEALING TO THE RESIDENTS BY USING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND WORKING WITH MNDOT TO DO THAT. SHE STATED THAT SHE WAS PLEASED TO SEE A 2.0 RATIO FOR PARKING FOR THIS PHASE. SHE STATED THAT SHE WAS MUCH HAPPIER WITH THE ITEMS THAT WERE ADDRESSED BY THE DEVELOPER IN THIS PHASE. SHE STATED THAT SHE HAS MANY MORE CONCERNS WITH PHASE III. SHE COMMENTED THAT THIS PHASE WOULD ADD SOME TO THE TRAFFIC, BUT IT IS ONLY 58 UNITS. SHE BELIEVED THE CITY SHOULD WORK DILIGENTLY WITH MNDOT AND REVIEW OPTIONS WITH OPTICOM TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS WITH TRAFFIC. SHE STATED THAT IN HER MIND, SHE WAS OKAY MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS PHASE. CHAIR FIELD STATED THAT TO SOME EXTENT SOMETHING LIKE THIS WILL PUSH MNDOT TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS. AYES: 5 NAYS: 2 (Johnson and Fields) Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented 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 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 purposes of this combined application submittal, this development parcel is identified as Phase III (Lot 7) and is generally located south of The Mendota Plaza main mall building, or the vacant parcel located at the northwest corner of South Plaza Drive and South Plaza Way. The proposed development is an 89-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). Staff reviewed the actions the Commission could choose to take. Chair Field reopened the public hearing. Ms. Stefaniak stated that given the conversations they have already had, she will stand for questions. She stated that the supplemental information they provided applies to this request as well. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 25 of 29 Commissioner Johnson stated that according to the plan it appears a ratio of 1.76 for parking for a total of 155 stalls. She stated that when reviewing the traffic circulation, on the west side of the building there is no yellow or red lines, only traffic. She asked why a sidewalk was not proposed. Pete Keely - architect, stated that the reasoning is based on the connections. He stated that the access is on the east side with another access on the east and both of those would have sidewalks. He stated that those accesses would connect to the sidewalk and then to a sidewalk to the shopping center. He noted that the west side has a parking ramp. Commissioner Johnson commented on the walkability of the entire PUD and believed that would be the shortest path of resistance. She believed people would walk in that street. Mr. Keely replied that they could include a sidewalk. Commissioner Johnson asked if that could be fit in without modifying the landscaping. Mr. Keely replied that the landscaping would need to be moved in that area in order to accommodate additional sidewalk. Commissioner Johnson provided clarity on the actual percentage of native plantings, which would be 52 percent. Maurice Lazarus, 1650 Mayfield Heights Road, stated that he studied this application with friends, and they found this to be wholly noncompliant in terms of the unit square footage, density, and building and setbacks. He also commented on issues with parking and traffic. He commented that this is an excessive development and the allocation for residential development within the Plaza was already filled through The Reserve. He asked the Commission to carefully consider the lot line boundaries for Lot 7. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, referenced the area behind the Plaza building, which she assumed is for employee parking but noted that those stalls are identified and included within the apartment count. She also provided comments related to open space and greenspace, noting that the building could be smaller to accomplish that goal. John Maczko, 751 Cheyenne Lane, stated that he understands that the whole idea is to create a mixed-use PUD, but it is developed piecemeal. He stated that when he looks at this, he cannot help but think of how this is being individually rather than as a whole. He acknowledged that the market desires have changed. He referenced the development across the street that was built as a whole unit with places for people to go and with open space for recreation. He stated that this is concentrated residential development on a portion of the property, and it is not walkable. He stated that every available piece of property is being used, reducing setbacks, and decreasing greenspace. He commented that the density does not match with the vision people had to make that happen. He stated that the setbacks proposed are too tight and are dramatic compared to the original concept. He stated that this is a maximization of what can be developed rather than thinking of people that will live there or use the space. He stated that parking is an issue and employees use the parking behind the Plaza. He did not believe there is enough vision to put this in. He October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 26 of 29 commented that when you continue to deviate from the plan and piecemeal development, it deviates from the original vision. He stated that people have a right to develop property, but it has to be within the vision for what the community is rather than the availability of what developers want. He stated that the longer-term vision does not play out with this proposal that puts buildings on every inch of the property, exceeding density, in order to maximize profits. He stated that there is a reason people come to Mendota Heights and want to live here, and it is not because they develop every square inch. He stated that this would take exception from every ordinance in order to make this fit and the residents deserve better than this. Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, referenced the size of the parcel and property lines. He stated that it appears the two acres includes half the private drive, all of the alley, the parking on the south side of the alley, and all of South Plaza Way. He stated that it seems to utilize parts of the PUD that have already been used to support other portions of the PUD in order to provide additional size on this parcel. He stated that if the delivery access to the Plaza and employee parking would be lost to this development as presented. He stated that he also has concern with the density and parking issues already addressed. Ms. Stefaniak stated that the PUD does allow for accommodations to the underlying zoning code. She stated that the deviations from various zoning code applications are not different or uncommon from other PUD developments. She stated that the Code was written in 1980 and the size of the units was considered in 1980, while apartment trend development has changed since that time. She stated that the deviations requested are similar to The Reserve which was a collaborative process through the developer, Commission and City Council. She stated that also applies to two other recent apartment developments. She stated that she is more sensitive to greenspace because this would be for her residents. She stated that the residents at The Reserve appreciate the greenspace and amenities that are provided. She stated that they would not develop a building where they want people to live without providing the necessary amenities. She stated that the parking stalls employees currently use for the Plaza are on Lot 7. She stated that she cannot speak of how the strip mall will parks its employees when Lot 7 develops but noted there is ample parking in front of the Plaza. Howard Pastor, Pastor Properties, stated that he grew up in Mendota Heights and lived on Douglas Road prior to City Hall being constructed in this location. He stated that he has sat patiently and has not been happy with the way the night has gone. He commented on the changes and expansion of the strip mall throughout the years noting that he and his father before him working cooperatively with the City on the project during that time. He stated that he is open to the comments from the residents. He stated that he is a long-term owner of the Plaza and is not just interested in financial gain or the return on investment. He commented on his involvement in the Plaza and community which shows they are committed to the communities and neighborhoods they invest in and are interested in making more livable and enjoyable developments. He believed that this is a unique and rare opportunity to be able to look at the Plaza and have a vision they have worked with the City to create. He stated that the vision has somewhat changed, as the market conditions have changed. He stated that they took a guess in 2016 and discovered the market was not there to support that change. He stated that part of being a retail and commercial developer is that you can create unique places that bring people together and allow them to congregate. He commented on the businesses that have been a part of the development throughout the years. He October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 27 of 29 commented that perhaps he should have spoken during the first review in August. He noted that positive comments that have been received via telephone and email. He stated that as a long-term owner he looks at the Plaza to determine what could be made to make the area to most attractive and bring people in. He stated that in today’s world, more density adds more vibrancy and energy to an area which is critical to retail in today’s world. He noted that the retail sector has been challenged even before COVID because of the introduction of Amazon into that market. He stated that Mendota Heights is much stronger as the retail node at 110 and Dodd is strong as possible, and density is required in order to make that strong. He stated that perhaps the mindset is shifted to consider that area as a downtown where people can come together. He acknowledged that many have a perspective that they do not want to see change and that the land should stay open. He stated that while everyone appreciates open space, things become denser in a first ring suburb. He believed that the PUD allows this flexibility. He stated that today is a different world than 2009 when the initial PUD was approved. He asked everyone on the Commission how they are shopping differently and visiting restaurants differently than they did in 2009. He ventured that those experiences are pretty different, and those things should be considered when thinking about the vision for Mendota Plaza and what is appropriate. He commented that they are a quality developer, which is reflective in their work not only in this development but in others throughout the metro. He acknowledged that change is hard, especially in a community where things have remained the same for a long time. He believed that the proposal from At Home would increase the housing stock and provide people to come to Mendota Heights as a renters, which is a good thing and would be a good thing for the retailers in the shopping center as well. He stated that if they want to continue to maintain the existing retailers and fill the vacancy, they will need additional density to support that. He stated that he was involved with the PUD in 2009 and he thinks it was a great disservice to include the calculation related to vacant lots and should have been sorted out ahead of time to make that calculation clear. He stated that there is no question that traffic is a problem, noting that it was a problem in 2009 when they began working on the PUD and the intersection was rated a D. He stated that this development is not what is causing the traffic grade and that is an unreasonable standard. He noted that traffic is already at a level F. He noted that they are open- minded as to how that can be fixed, but it should be fair and reasonable. He believed they should be treated as an equal partner, and they should be able to make this work in a reasonable manner. He apologized if his frustration shown through but noted that this is important to him and this is important to the future of Mendota Plaza. Commissioner Corbett referenced the language that was used in terms of the previous amendments being “bad guesses” and commented that he would want to ensure that this was not another bad guess. Mr. Pastor stated that what he referred to was that in 2009 and again in 2016 they could not just leave parcels blank and therefore they planned for childcare, a restaurant and drive-thru coffee. He stated that prior to 2016 they included office and retail, which was somewhat of a guess based on the market. He stated that there is not always a retailer or proposal for those spaces. He stated that the difference is that today there is a viable proposal for viable uses on the two remaining lots rather than a guesstimate on what could be on those parcels. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 28 of 29 Commissioner Corbett commented that there have been a lot of amendments since 2009. He noted that times will change again in another two years and therefore the use has to be considered in the immediate timeframe as well as the future. Commissioner Lorberbaum recognized that Pastor Properties has been a long-term community leader hosting many public events. She hoped that Mr. Pastor heard that many of the Commissioners believe there is a way to get to the desired result, but changes would be necessary. She stated that there was not a no to the concept, but to this plan. COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2021-13 BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AS WELL AS THE REASONS STATED IN THE PREVIOUS CASE. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER CORBETT NOTED THAT THE POINTS HE MADE DURING THE PREVIOUS CASE APPLY TO A HIGHER DEGREE ON THIS PROPOSAL AS THIS IS A MORE INTENSE DEVELOPMENT. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL COMMENTED THAT HE APPRECIATES MR. PASTOR’S INTENSITY AND COMMITMENT TO MENDOTA HEIGHTS. HE STATED THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH DENSITY AND DOES NOT EXPECT THAT THE ENTIRE SITE WOULD BE RAZED TO PROVIDE A CLEAN DEVELOPMENT WHICH WOULD EFFECTIVELY BE THE SAME THING WITH THE SAME DENSITY AS IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A SINGLE PROJECT. HE STATED THAT HE DOES NOT KNOW HOW THE COMMISSION COULD DO SOMETHING TO MAKE THE TRAFFIC WORSE IN GOOD CONSCIOUS. HE AGREED THAT MNDOT HAS TO DO SOMETHING BUT DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE “IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL COME” PLAN AND BELIEVES THE PROBLEM HAS TO BE SOLVED BEFORE DEVELOPMENT IS ADDED. HE STATED THAT HE HAS NO PROBLEM WITH THE PLAN, ONLY WITH THE IMPACT THIS WOULD HAVE ON A SITUATION THAT IS ALREADY BAD IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON STATED THAT SHE HAD MORE CONCERNS ON THIS PHASE DUE TO THE DENSITY AND PARKING. SHE COMMENTED THAT SHE WOULD LOVE TO SEE A COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE CITY AND PASTOR. SHE STATED THAT SHE WOULD LIKE TO SEE 2 PARKING STALLS PER UNIT WITH A SIDEWALK TO MAKE IT MORE USABLE AND WALKABLE, WHILE KEEPING THE GREENSPACE. SHE STATED THAT SHE WOULD LIKE TO SEE A LOWER DENSITY WITH BETTER SETBACKS. October 26, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 29 of 29 COMMISSIONER TOTH STATED THAT HE HAS BEEN IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS FOR 22 YEARS AND PASTOR PROPERTIES BRINGS RESIDENTS TOGETHER THROUGH THEIR BONFIRE. HE STATED THAT HE HOPES THAT THEY COULD COME TOGETHER AND WORK TOGETHER, THE CITY, PASTOR PROPERTIES, AND MNDOT AND FIND SOMETHING THAT CAN WORK FOR EVERYONE. HE STATED THAT TRAFFIC IS THE BIGGEST ISSUE IN HIS MIND. HE THANKED MR. PASTOR FOR WHAT HE HAS DONE FOR THE CITY. AYES: 6 NAYS: 1 (Field) New/Unfinished Business No comments. Adjournment COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 11:43 P.M. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0