2022-01-25 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda PacketAuxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less
than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may
not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Hall at 651.452.1850 with requests.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
TUESDAY, JANUARY 25 , 2022 - 7:00 PM
Mendota Heights City Hall – Council Chambers
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights MN 55118
1. Call to Order / Roll Call
2. Approve the December 28, 2021 Regular Meeting Minutes
3. Public Hearings
a. CASE No. 2021-23 Wetlands Permit to allow for new landscaping and pond
embankment improvements at Resurrection Cemetery - 2101 Lexington Avenue South
(Southview Design – Applicant / Catholic Cemeteries – Owners) – ITEM TABLED from
DECEMBER 28, 2021 MEETING
b. CASE No. 2022-01 Variance to City Code Section 12-1D-3.C.1.a (Number of Accessory
Structures in a Residential District) to allow a new 20’ x 24’ (480-sq. ft.) attached garage
with an existing 720-sq. ft. detached garage in the R-1 One Family Residential district (Elle
Mason – Owner / Applicant)
4. New / Unfinished Business
5. Adjourn Meeting
December 28, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 16
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
December 28, 2021
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday,
December 28, 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 October 26, 2021 Minutes
Chair Field noted that Commissioner Lorberbaum submitted some minor changes that have been
distributed to the Commission for review.
Commissioner Lorberbaum confirmed that her changes are minor.
COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 26, 2021 WITH THE MINOR CHANGES
SUBMITTED.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Approval of November 10, 2021 Minutes
Commissioner Lorberbaum noted a minor change that she had submitted prior to the meeting.
COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 10, 2021 WITH THE MINOR
CORRECTION.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
PC PACKET Pg. # 1
December 28, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 16
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE 2021-22
MICHAEL AND THERESA SWIGGUM, 796 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY –
CRITICAL AREA PERMIT
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Swiggums are seeking approval
of a new Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit to construct a new single-
family dwelling on property located at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway. The property is situated in
the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District.
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 asked for details on the item that would be revisited during the building
permit.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti identified the three or four significant trees that
are marked for removal. He stated that the applicant would like to propose tree replacement ideas
as part of the building permit process. He stated that staff would ensure that they are native trees
that would be cohesive with the site and explained that staff would work with the applicant on that
item, and it would not return to the Commission.
Commissioner Lorberbaum asked if the documents referenced in condition three are available on
the website or how they would be made available to the applicant.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that he believes that those documents have
been posted on the City website.
Commissioner Lorberbaum referenced the utility plan and asked if the side with a 20-foot length
is the dining room or the garage. She stated that it appears the driveway does not connect with the
garage.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that the house print should be flip-
flopped as the driveway is not shown correctly on the site plan. It was confirmed that the driveway
does connect to the garage.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
PC PACKET Pg. # 2
December 28, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 16
Michael Swiggum, applicant, stated that the drawing was provided by the surveyor who
misunderstood how the house would sit. He stated that the footprint is accurate and explained
where the driveway would connect to the garage.
Commissioner Lorberbaum asked if the sketch would be updated for the Council meeting.
Mr. Swiggum confirmed that he could have that done.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the Swiggums have a landscape plan showing the plants for the
rain garden and other landscaped areas.
Mr. Swiggum stated that they do not have an official plan at this time.
Commissioner Johnson asked if there is a general plan with possible plant species or trees.
Mr. Swiggum stated that he does not have anything written down as they have not entered that
phase of planning. He stated that they plan to remove or change as little as possible. He stated
that they do not have plans for turf grass and would like things to remain as natural as possible,
removing invasive species and diseased ash trees.
Commissioner Johnson explained that the MRCCA ordinance requires proposed landscaped
materials that will be added to be shown on the plan. She stated that while she appreciates the
removal aspect, she is concerned that the items planned to be added are not listed.
Mr. Swiggum commented that at this time they do not plan to add anything.
Theresa Swiggum commented that they would replace the trees that are removed.
Mr. Swiggum asked if that is something that would be desired for the Council meeting as well.
Commissioner Johnson commented that the landscape plan is an important part of the MRCCA
permit. She noted that is one of the items on the checklist for approval.
Mr. Swiggum commented that they would only use native species.
Mrs. Swiggum commented that they could speak with the builder to determine the logistics of
developing a landscaping plan at this time. She stated that they plan to do much of the landscaping
themselves. She stated that they could develop a list of the potential plantings.
Commissioner Toth referenced the existing piece of asphalt on the property and asked if that would
be removed or become part of the driveway.
Mr. Swiggum commented that they would use the existing asphalt as part of the driveway to the
extent possible. He stated that there is another patch of asphalt closer to the living room area that
would be removed.
PC PACKET Pg. # 3
December 28, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 16
Commissioner Toth asked that the removed asphalt be removed and disposed of properly and not
used as fill or buried on the property.
Seeing no one else coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the
public hearing.
COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Commissioner Johnson stated that she would ask that the applicant come back to the next meeting
with a list of potential plantings and trees. She noted that the landscaping plan is an important part
of an MRCCA permit. She stated that she would require a detailed landscaping plan but would
like to see what will be in the beds and rain garden areas.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM,
TO TABLE AND DIRECT THE APPLICANT TO COME BACK TO THE NEXT MEETING
WITH A LIST OF PLANT MATERIALS AND GENERAL OUTLINE OF WHERE THE
MATERIALS MAY BE INSTALLED.
FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER KATZ COMMENTED THAT WHILE HE
APPRECIATES THAT THE HOMEOWNERS WILL DO A LOT OF THE WORK AND
PLANNING THEMSELVES, THERE ARE RESOURCES AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE
THAT RECOMMEND PLANT SPECIES. HE STATED THAT MASTER GARDENERS WILL
ALSO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT FOR FREE TO PROVIDE INPUT.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL ASKED IF THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE STAGING OF
PLANS, AS THIS IS THE SECOND MRCCA APPLICATION THAT DOES NOT HAVE A
LANDSCAPING PLAN FINALIZED. HE COMMENTED THAT IS NOT TRADITIONALLY
FORMALIZED UNTIL THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS AND ASKED IF THERE IS A
PROBLEM IN ASKING THESE TYPES OF QUESTIONS TOO EARLY IN THE PROCESS.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI STATED THAT THIS SITE IS
NOT DEVOID OF VEGETATION, NOTING THAT THIS SITE HAS A LOT OF
VEGETATION. HE STATED THAT THE TREES PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL ARE NOT
IN GREAT CONDITION. HE STATED THAT HE TRUSTS THE APPLICANTS THAT THEY
WILL PLANT TREES IN REPLACEMENT AND STAFF CAN ASSURE THAT IS DONE. HE
REFERENCED CONDITION FOUR, NOTING THAT THOSE PLANTINGS WILL BE DONE
AND CONFIRMED AS PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS. HE DID NOT
BELIEVE THAT THIS WOULD NEED TO COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR THAT
REVIEW, AS CITY STAFF IS CAPABLE OF WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT TO
ENSURE THE PLANTINGS MEET THE NATIVE PLANTINGS AND POLLINATOR
FRIENDLY LIST.
PC PACKET Pg. # 4
December 28, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 16
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL ASKED IN GENERAL, IF THE COMMISSION IS ASKING
FOR THESE DETAILS TOO EARLY IN THE PROCESS. HE STATED THAT THIS IS
BECOMING A COMMON THEME. HE NOTED THAT MANY PEOPLE BEGIN TO BUILD
A HOUSE AND THEM FORMALIZE A LANDSCAPING PLAN ONCE THEY SEE HOW THE
HOME FITS ON THE LOTS, THEREFORE PERHAPS THIS IS UNFAIRLY CONSTRAINING
PEOPLE IN REQUIRING A LANDSCAPING PLAN TO BE DONE BEFORE THE HOME HAS
BEEN FULLY PLANNED. HE NOTED THAT TYPICALLY AT THIS STAGE IN
DEVELOPMENT, AN APPLICANT WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A
LANDSCAPING PLAN IF NOT INSIDE THE MRCCA.
COMMISSIONER CORBETT AGREED THAT THERE APPEARS TO BE A GAP. HE
RECOGNIZED THAT THE REQUIREMENT WAS BORN OUT OF THE MRCCA
ORDINANCE PROCESS AND ASKED THE ORIGINAL INTENT AND WHETHER THAT
WAS MISPLACED IN THE PROCESS.
COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM WAS CONCERNED THAT THIS WOULD BE SETTING
A PRECEDENT. SHE ASKED IF IN THIS CASE THEY WOULD BE TRUSTING THE
APPLICANT BUT NOT TRUSTING OTHERS.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON STATED THAT SHE IS SIMPLY ATTEMPTING TO FOLLOW
WHAT IS REQUIRED IN THE ORDINANCE. SHE NOTED THAT SHE WOULD NOT BE
REQUESTING A DETAILED PLAN BUT JUST GENERAL IDEAS WHERE THE BEDS AND
RAIN GARDEN WOULD BE PLACED AND A LIST OF THE PLANTS THAT ARE BEING
CONSIDERED. SHE NOTED THAT THE SUBJECT PARCEL IS LOCATED IN ONE OF THE
MOST PRISTINE AREAS WITHIN THE MRCCA.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL STATED THAT HE HAS NO PROBLEM WITH THE
PENDING ACTION BUT NOTED THAT THIS IS THE SECOND APPLICANT THAT IS
BEING CAUGHT BY SURPRISE BY THIS REQUEST.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI STATED THAT IN A
PREVIOUS APPLICATION THERE WERE A FEW TREES THAT WERE PROPOSED FOR
REMOVAL IN ORDER TO BUILD A HOME, WHICH IS WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF THE
PROPERTY OWNER. HE STATED THAT THE MRCCA DOES NOT HAVE A STANDARD
FOR TREE REPLACEMENT. HE STATED THAT IT COULD BE SAID THAT THE FOUR
TREES BEING REMOVED IS THE LANDSCAPING PLAN, WITH ADDITIONAL
ASSURANCE THAT TREES WOULD BE REMOVED. HE STATED THAT THE CITY HAS
CAPABLE STAFF THAT CAN ASSURE THAT AND DID NOT BELIEVE THIS
APPLICATION SHOULD BE HELD UP FOR ANOTHER MONTH.
COMMISSIONER TOTH STATED THAT IF THE RESIDENT CAME FORWARD WITH A
FULL LANDSCAPING PLAN THAT LOOKS GREAT, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT
WOULD BE COMPLETELY CHANGED IN THE SUMMER WHEN THAT TIME
ACTUALLY COMES. HE NOTED THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD NOT EVEN BE
AWARE OF THAT. HE STATED THAT THE APPLICANT HAS COMMITTED TO
WORKING WITH THE CITY ON REPLANTING IN THE FUTURE.
PC PACKET Pg. # 5
December 28, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 16
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON STATED THAT HER CONCERN IS WITH CONSISTENCY
AND FAIRNESS. SHE STATED THAT SHE IS TRYING TO FOLLOW THE PROCESS IN
ORDER TO PROVIDE CONSISTENCY AND FAIRNESS.
COMMISSIONER CORBETT ASKED THE LANGUAGE WITHIN THE ORDINANCE.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON REVIEWED THE LANGUAGE WITHIN THE CHECKLIST
RELATED TO LANDSCAPING. SHE COMMENTED THAT THIS IS THE MOST PRISTINE
AREA IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS AND THAT IS WHY SHE WOULD LIKE A GENERAL
SKETCH WITH SOME POTENTIAL TREE AND PLANT SPECIES.
COMMISSIONER CORBETT AGREED THAT CONSISTENCY IS IMPORTANT. HE
STATED THAT STAFF HAS MENTIONED THAT THERE IS AN OPTION TO JUST
APPROVE THE PLAN WITH THE REMOVALS AND NO ADDITIONS.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON STATED THAT SHE WOULD HESITATE TO GO DOWN
THAT ROAD AS IT CAN BECOME A SLIPPERY SLOPE. SHE STATED THAT SHE
WOULD NOT WANT APPLICANTS TO BE DISINGENUOUS.
COMMISSIONER CORBETT STATED THAT ON THE OTHER HAND, PEOPLE COULD BE
DISINGENUOUS IN PROVIDING A LIST OF MATERIALS PULLED FROM THE WEBSITE.
HE CIRCLED BACK TO THE CONCEPT FROM COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL THAT
PERHAPS TOO MUCH DETAIL IS BEING REQUIRED TOO EARLY IN THE PROCESS. HE
STATED THAT PERHAPS IF THERE ARE GOING TO BE ADDED PLANTS, THE
APPLICANT WOULD COMMIT TO USING SPECIES FROM THE PROVIDED
DOCUMENTS.
CHAIR FIELD SUGGESTED REOPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE
ADDITIONAL INPUT FROM THE APPLICANT.
COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM STATED THAT IF THE APPLICANT COMES BACK TO
THE COMMISSION, ACCURATE HOME PLANS COULD ALSO BE PROVIDED.
COMMISSIONER KATZ ASKED IF COMMISSIONER JOHNSON WOULD BE
COMFORTABLE APPROVING THE REQUEST WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE
APPLICANT PROVIDE THE ADDITIONAL DETAIL SHE REQUESTED BEFORE THE
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON ASKED IF THAT WOULD UNDERMINE THE JOB OF THE
COMMISSION BECAUSE OF THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE ORDINANCE.
COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM,
TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
PC PACKET Pg. # 6
December 28, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 16
NAYS: 0
MR. SWIGGUM COMMENTED THAT THEY PURCHASE THIS LOT FOR A REASON,
BECAUSE THEY LIKE THE NATURAL BEAUTY OF THE SITE. HE ASKED IF THE
COMMISSION WOULD BE SATISFIED WITH A PLAN NOT TO ADD ANYTHING AT THIS
TIME. HE COMMENTED THAT THEY HAVE NOT THOUGHT HARD ABOUT THE
LANDSCAPING AS THE SITE IS FULL OF OVER STORY TREES.
MRS. SWIGGUM STATED THAT THEY HAVE WALKED THE LOT MANY TIMES AND
CONTEMPLATED WHETHER TO ADD BUSHES OR LEAVE THE SITE AS IS. SHE
STATED THAT THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH CITY STAFF SINCE BEFORE THEY
PURCHASED THE LAND AND WOULD CONTINUE TO WORK WITH CITY STAFF ON
ANY PLANTINGS CONSIDERED AS WELL AS PLANTINGS FOR THE RAIN GARDEN.
MR. SWIGGUM NOTED THAT THE RAIN GARDEN IS A NATURALLY LOWER SPOT
THAT DOES NOT RAIN IN ANY DIRECTION, THEREFORE THEY WOULD KEEP THAT
NATURAL AND THEY DO NOT PLAN ON REMOVING VEGETATION. HE STATED
THAT THEY DO NOT NECESSARILY HAVE A PLAN TO ADD TREES AT THIS TIME
AND WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THE SITE NATURAL.
MRS. SWIGGUM COMMENTED THAT HER HUSBAND HAS KNOWLEDGE OF TREE
HEALTH AND THEREFORE THEY ARE ONLY REMOVING TREES THAT CONFLICT
WITH THE HOME LOCATION OR THAT ARE DISEASED. SHE COMMENTED THAT IT
WOULD NOT BE FEASIBLE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE LIST BECAUSE OF
LOGISTICS AND BUDGETING. SHE STATED THAT WHILE THEY HAVE A SENSE OF
WHAT THEY MAY WANT, THEY WOULD NOT KNOW FOR CERTAIN EVEN IN 60
DAYS. SHE STATED THAT IF THEY DO ADD ANYTHING TO THE SITE, THEY WOULD
USE NATIVE SPECIES.
MR. SWIGGUM COMMENTED THAT THEY WOULD PREFER TO TAKE THE ROUTE OF
NO ACTION IN ADDING PLANTS OR TREES AT THIS TIME AND HOPED THAT WOULD
SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT.
CHAIR FIELD STATED THAT THERE WAS A REPRESENTATION THAT CERTAIN
TREES WOULD BE REMOVED AND THAT IS WAS THE PLAN OF THE APPLICANT TO
REPLACE THOSE TREES, THEREFORE A STATEMENT OF DOING NOTHING WOULD
SEEM TO BE INACCURATE.
MR. SWIGGUM STATED THAT HE IS UNSURE IF THERE ARE PLACES FOR
REPLACEMENT OF TREES BECAUSE THE ENTIRE SITE IS WOODED EXCEPT FOR THE
HOME LOCATION. HE STATED THAT THEY WOULD PREFER TO TAKE THE ROUTE
OF NOT ADDING ANYTHING IN TERMS OF PLANTINGS AND TREES AS THEIR PLAN.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL ASKED IF SHEET FOUR OF 11 WOULD THEN
CONSTITUTE THE LANDSCAPING PLAN, AS THAT SHOWS THE TREE INVENTORY
AND TREES PLANNED FOR REMOVAL.
PC PACKET Pg. # 7
December 28, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 16
MR. SWIGGUM AGREED.
SEEING NO ONE ELSE COMING FORWARD WISHING TO SPEAK, CHAIR FIELD ASKED
FOR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL ASKED IF THE COMMISSION WOULD BE SATISFIED IF
THE APPLICANT CAME BACK WITH THE SAME SHEET, THEY STATED WOULD BE
THEIR LANDSCAPING PLAN.
COMMISSIONER CORBETT STATED THAT IS WHAT HE WOULD EXPECT TO SEE AS
IT WOULD SHOW REMOVAL, INVENTORY, AND NOTHING TO BE ADDED.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON AGREED THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE BUT BELIEVED
THAT THIS COULD BE A SLIPPERY SLOPE BY NOT COMPLETELY FOLLOWING THE
PROCESS AND ORDINANCE. SHE STATED THAT IF THAT IS THE TRUE AND
GENUINE PLAN TO REMOVE THE TREES AND NOT ADD ANYTHING, THAT WOULD
SEEM TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT.
COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM ASKED IF COMMISSIONER JOHNSON WOULD BE
SATISFIED WITH THE PLAN IF THAT WERE BROUGHT BACK NEXT MONTH.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON STATED THAT IF THAT WAS THE GENUINE INTENTION,
SHE WOULD BE SATISFIED BUT BELIEVES THAT IS NOT THE TRUE INTENTION.
COMMISSIONER CORBETT ASKED IF THIS IS WHAT THE COMMISSION EXPECTS TO
SEE IN THE CHECKLIST, OR WHAT THE GAP WOULD BE. HE STATED THAT THIS IS
A PLAN SHOWING THE LANDSCAPING ON THE SITE AND TREE REMOVAL.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON STATED THAT THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL
STATEMENT THAT ADDITIONAL PLANTING WOULD OCCUR.
COMMISSIONER CORBETT NOTED THAT SHEET FOUR STATES THAT TREES
REMOVED WILL BE REPLACED BUT THE SPECIES ARE NOT IDENTIFIED.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL COMMENTED THAT PLANS THAT COME BEFORE THE
COMMISSION ARE NOT UNAMENDABLE DURING THE PROCESS. HE NOTED
CHANGES THAT ARE OFTEN MADE DURING THE DISCUSSION AND REVIEW. HE
STATED THAT THE STATEMENT COULD BE REDLINED AND REMOVED.
PC PACKET Pg. # 8
December 28, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 16
CHAIR FIELD STATED THAT THE APPLICANT HAS TESTIFIED THAT THEY WOULD
AMEND THEIR PLANS TO REMOVE THAT STATEMENT AND NOT ADD ANY TREES.
CHAIR FIELD CALLED THE MOTION TO QUESTION.
AYES: 2 (Lorberbaum and Johnson)
NAYS: 5
ABSTAIN: 1 (Corbett)
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE MRCCA CRITICAL AREA PERMIT REQUEST FOR
796 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY 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. ANY NEW TREE OR LANDSCAPING MATERIALS PROVIDED ON THIS SITE
MUST MEET THE CITY’S LIST OF NATIVE PLANTINGS AND POLLINATOR
FRIENDLY TREES AND VEGETATION.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. THE APPLICANT WILL PROVIDE THEIR BEST EFFORT TO UPDATE THE PLANS
PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL MEETING AS DISCUSSED.
FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL STATED THAT HE SUPPORTS
THIS AS THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT THEY ARE GOING TO FOLLOW THE
REMOVAL PLAN, THEREFORE HE HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO BELIEVE THE
APPLICANTS.
COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM STATED THAT SHE ALSO BELIEVES THE
APPLICANT BUT NOTED THAT DOES NOT MEET THE NORMAL RULES AND
THEREFORE SHE WILL HAVE A HARD TIME SUPPORTING THE APPLICATION. SHE
BELIEVES THAT ONE ADDITIONAL MONTH WOULD PROVIDE THE TIME
NECESSARY TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY INFORMATION.
PC PACKET Pg. # 9
December 28, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 16
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL COMMENTED THAT THE APPLICANT CAN PROVIDE
THE SAME DOCUMENTATION AT THE NEXT MEETING AND IT WOULD BE
APPROVED.
COMMISSIONER LORBERBAUM AGREED AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT A
HOMEOWNER COULD ALSO CHOOSE TO CHANGE LANDSCAPING IN SIX MONTHS,
ONE YEAR, OR THREE YEARS AND THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED.
COMMISSIONER CORBETT COMMENTED THAT HE BELIEVES THE PROCESS IS
FLAWED AND LIKELY UNREASONABLE IN WHAT IS BEING REQUESTED AT THIS
POINT IN THE REVIEW PROCESS. HE STATED THAT IF THIS PROCESS IS GOING TO
CONTINUE TO BE FOLLOWED IN THE FUTURE, IT SHOULD BE COMMUNICATED TO
APPLICANTS THAT AN UNREASONABLE REQUIREMENT WOULD BE PLACED TO
PROVIDE A DETAILED LANDSCAPING PLAN AT THIS POINT IN THE PROCESS.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 2 (Lorberbaum and Johnson)
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its January 4, 2022 or
January 18, 2022 meeting.
PC PACKET Pg. # 10
December 28, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 16
B) PLANNING CASE 2021-23
SOUTHVIEW DESIGN/CATHOLIC CEMETERIES, 2101 LEXINGTON
AVENUE SOUTH – WETLANDS PERMIT
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Southview Design, acting on behalf
of Catholic Cemeteries is seeking approval of a Wetlands Permit to allow new landscaping and
pond embankment improvements in Resurrection Cemetery.
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.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Taylor Wald, Southview Design/applicant, commented that he was contacted by Resurrection
Cemetery for the project, and it was explained that the pond was manmade. He stated that the
property owner stated that there was once turf grass up to the pond and over time that maintenance
to the edge stopped which is when the native species and buckthorn began to grow. He stated that
after reviewing the site many willows were rotting and the vegetation was not in good condition,
which is why it was removed. He stated that they planned to use riprap but was open to other
suggestions that should be considered.
Commissioner Katz asked whether the cemetery would be willing to invest in a low growing native
plant buffer around the pond.
Mr. Wald confirmed that could be considered but believed rock should still be used for stability
along the edge.
Commissioner Corbett asked for clarity on the reference to the manmade pond. He asked if there
would have been hesitation to remove vegetation if the pond were not manmade.
Mr. Wald explained that it was his understanding that if the pond were manmade there would be
lesser regulations related to buffer work.
Commissioner Katz asked when they would be resuming work.
Mr. Wald replied that they would begin work again in spring of 2022, perhaps April.
Commissioner Petschel asked if the applicant is willing to commit to a 25-foot buffer around the
pond.
PC PACKET Pg. # 11
December 28, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 16
Mr. Wald commented that he would be open to it but would need to verify with the cemetery.
Commissioner Petschel commented that he believes there would be a requirement for that 25-foot
buffer.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the City has adopted the PCA’s recommended
buffer distances. He explained that those are recommendations rather than buffers. He stated that
the City does want a 15-to-25-foot buffer around ponds, although that is not required. He
commented that he believes that there was wetland that was excavated into the pond in 1978 and
therefore the City would view this as a constructed stormwater pond.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that the City has requested or held a
25-foot buffer standard as a suggestion, but it is not a requirement through ordinance.
Commissioner Lorberbaum commented that the Commission could recommend a 25-foot buffer.
Chair Field stated that it is unfortunate that the property owner is not present.
Commissioner Toth asked when the work would start.
Mr. Wald commented that the removal is completed, and the work would begin in March or April.
Commissioner Toth asked why the disturbance occurred when it did as there is now no buffer
protection. He asked if there was discussion to complete the work in segments.
Chair Field explained that the applicant believed that this was a manmade pond and not a wetland.
Mr. Wald explained that this was planned to be a two-week project to be wrapped up by
Thanksgiving, but they did receive a stop order.
Commissioner Johnson commented that the City’s Surface Water Management Plan includes a
policy for wetlands to have an average 15-foot buffer of vegetation and asked for clarity.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that those policies are related to protected
wetlands. He stated that staff views this as a constructed stormwater pond.
Commissioner Johnson referenced the Land Disturbance Guidance document which states that
seeding around ponds should be the MnDOT standard. She stated that if the applicant were to
comply it would seem the seed mix or equivalent would need to be planted.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek confirmed that would be the preference of staff.
Chair Field asked if Mr. Wald would be comfortable with the Commission recommending the
prescribed buffer.
PC PACKET Pg. # 12
December 28, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 16
Mr. Wald believed that would be acceptable.
Commissioner Corbett commented that if the cemetery did not agree, it could come back to request
a change or could choose not to move forward with the project.
Chair Field stated that the alternative would be to table to allow Mr. Wald to go back to the
cemetery to discuss the buffer and then come back to the next Commission meeting.
Mr. Wald asked if the recommendation would be to not do the rock around the pond at all.
Chair Field replied that he is unsure that is the recommendation and asked staff for clarification.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that the ten-foot rock layer could stay
with a 15-foot planted buffer of the MnDOT seed mix. He stated that if the cemetery has an issue,
they could come to the Council meeting to provide input or could call staff to request that the
matter go back to the Planning Commission.
Chair Field stated that would allow a failsafe for the cemetery.
Commissioner Johnson referenced the fountain and noted that traditionally while fountains can be
aesthetically pleasing, they do not solve the environmental problem that is attempting to be solved
in algae prevention/elimination.
Mr. Wald commented that it is his understanding that the fountain was for aesthetic purposes and
to attempt to address the algae. He stated that he did communicate to the cemetery that the fountain
will help with algae, but other measures would be necessary as well.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the ten-foot rock buffer is an aesthetic desire as well.
Mr. Wald replied that aesthetics is part of that decision, but it also helps with maintenance. He
stated that the water level rises and falls as well, which was a factor for the rocks.
Commissioner Johnson commented that the plants on the edge of the water are needed to keep the
pond clean. She asked if they would be willing to reassess the ten-foot rock buffer in order to
improve the water quality of the pond, which eventually flows to other bodies of water.
Mr. Wald commented that he believes the cemetery would be open to that if that is what is required.
He noted that would most likely be similar to what existed previously and commented that he
believes the cemetery wanted to have more open space and utilize the space around the pond and
keep those views open.
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 CORBETT,
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
PC PACKET Pg. # 13
December 28, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 of 16
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Commissioner Corbett stated that he would like to have discussion related to what is required and
what is suggested. He stated that it would appear the mix would be required.
Commissioner Petschel asked to what degree the Land Disturbance Guidance document
constitutes a requirement of Code. He noted that those are specified as guidelines rather than rules.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the document is codified and therefore any
disturbance activities do need to follow that document. He stated that the buffers are not well
defined as being a requirement. He stated that they would be asking for a wetland seed mix in the
disturbed areas around the pond. He stated that staff would prefer a 25-foot vegetative buffer with
the seed mix but stated that he cannot find within the Code that it would be enforceable.
Commissioner Corbett stated that the seed mix is stipulated as a requirement for disturbed areas,
but the distance of the buffer is not required. He stated that a condition should be used stating that
the seed mix should be used in the disturbed areas at minimum. He was unsure what could be
required above that.
Commissioner Petschel asked if the river rock is prohibited.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek did not believe that was prohibited.
Commissioner Johnson commented that she was unsure if a riprap buffer would be allowed prior
to the plantings under the other noted sources.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that riprap has been used for streams and ponds and do
work for that purpose.
Commissioner Corbett asked for clarification on the concern with the river rock versus the
plantings in that area.
Commissioner Johnson stated that the plants assist with water quality, which will result in a less
green pond and will provide higher quality water flowing to other bodies of water.
Commissioner Petschel asked how the pond is connected to the lake.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that the pond has three stormwater inlets and has an
outlet system that flows to the north and connects to a culvert which goes to the lake.
Commissioner Johnson commented that the pond is receiving water from the property and
additional water flowing in, which supports the need for a vegetative buffer.
PC PACKET Pg. # 14
December 28, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 15 of 16
Commissioner Lorberbaum asked how much of a difference there is between what was proposed
by the applicant versus what Commissioner Johnson is suggesting and whether it would be more
beneficial for this to come back to the Commission.
Commissioner Johnson confirmed that she is suggesting something significantly different.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the applicant did try to fast track the project
as they believed a permit was not required. He stated that because the work is not planned to
resume until April, perhaps the best course of action would be to go back to the cemetery to further
discuss the concerns mentioned tonight.
Commissioner Corbett commented that it does not seem like there is an urgency to make
contingent approvals tonight. He asked if Commissioner Johnson would be requesting no river
rock and a larger setback.
Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that she would prefer to see a collaboration rather than
drastically changing what has been proposed.
Chair Field stated that Mr. Wald certainly has the input from the Commission tonight to bring back
to the cemetery.
COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO
TABLE THE REQUESTED WETLANDS PERMIT TO CATHOLIC CEMETERIES AND FOR
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2101 LEXINGTON AVENUE SOUTH, AND DIRECT THE
APPLICANT TO WORK WITH NATURAL RESOURCES STAFF TO DEVELOP A NATIVE
PLANT BUFFER THAT ALIGNS WITH THE GOALS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,
THE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE
DOCUMENT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF WATER QUALITY.
FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER CORBETT ASKED IF THE REQUESTED MIX
WOULD SATISFY THE PROGRESSIVE ENVIRONMENT DESIRED BY COMMISSIONER
JOHNSON.
CHAIR FIELD STATED THAT DOES NOT NEED TO BE SOLVED TONIGHT.
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON STATED THAT THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF
BUFFERS THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED AND MAY BE MORE SUITABLE FOR THE
CEMETERY, WHICH IS WHY SHE DID NOT STIPULATE THE MnDOT MIX.
COMMISSIONER TOTH STATED THAT MANY THINGS WERE DISCUSSED TONIGHT,
BUT THERE IS A STORMWATER POND THAT IS OPEN RIGHT NOW. HE ASKED IF
SILT FENCING SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO PRESERVE TOPSOIL FROM RUNNING INTO
THE POND.
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR RYAN RUZEK COMMENTED THAT IF 5,000 SQUARE FEET
HAS BEEN DISTURBED, THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE REQUIREMENTS WOULD
PC PACKET Pg. # 15
December 28, 2021 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 16 of 16
BE TRIGGERED. HE NOTED THAT THE PLAN OUTLINED EROSION CONTROL
MEASURES BUT WAS UNSURE IF THOSE HAVE BEEN INSTALLED.
CHAIR FIELD STATED THAT STAFF CAN FOLLOW UP WITH THE CEMETERY ON
THAT ELEMENT.
CHAIR FIELD STATED THAT HE WILL BE VOTING AGAINST THE MOTION AS HE
BELIEVES THERE ARE TOO MANY ISSUES LUMPED INTO THE MOTION. HE AGREED
THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE TABLED, BUT WITHOUT THE ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 1 (Chair Field)
Chair Field noted that this item will come back to the Planning Commission at its January 25, 2022
meeting for continued review. He asked if the 60-day review should be extended.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that the City can extend the 60-day
review if necessary. He confirmed that he would handle that action administratively.
New/Unfinished Business
Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review:
•The City has filed an appeal on the Culligan versus Mendota Heights ruling to the State
Appellate Court
•Appointment of Chair and Vice-Chair will occur at the next meeting
•Reappointments were accepted for Commissioners Petschel, Toth and Katz
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:52 P.M.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
PC PACKET Pg. # 16
PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALY BLANK
PC PACKET Pg. # 17
PLANNING STAFF REPORT
[Supplemental]
DATE: January 25, 2022
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2021-23
WETLANDS PERMIT
APPLICANT: Southview Design / Catholic Cemeteries
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2101 Lexington Avenue South
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: February 7, 2022
INTRODUCTION
At the December 28, 2021 regular meeting, Southview Design, acting on behalf of Catholic Cemeteries,
presented a Wetlands Permit application for review, which would allow new landscaping and pond
embankment improvements for the memorial pond located in Resurrection Cemetery. This item was
presented under a public hearing, and with no persons wishing to be heard that night, the Commission
closed the hearing on this matter.
Upon subsequent discussion with the Applicant, it was deemed by the planning commission that the
proposed 10-foot wide layer of “3’–7” river rock” surrounding the pond, along with ordinary bluegrass/rye
grass seed mix around the pond edge, was not sufficient to provide added water quality treatment (surface
run-off) or meet certain surface water management and land disturbance guidance standards. The
Commission chose to table this item, and directed the Applicant to work with the city’s natural resources
staff to develop a native plant buffer that aligns with the goals of the comprehensive plan, the surface water
management plan and land disturbance guidance document for the improvement of water quality.
REVISED LANDSCAPE PLAN
Southview Design and Resurrection Cemetery representatives met with city staff to discuss a revised plan;
and staff encouraged the designers to forgo the river-rock layer around the pond, as this material seemed
unnecessary along the pond edge, and encouraged a smaller/lower growing wetland seed mix that is more
suitable to areas in and around wetlands or stormwater ponds.
The updated plan presented back to the Planning Commission now illustrates the rock layer removed; and
the disturbed areas created by the previous vegetation removals around the pond (also shown by the dark-
green hatched areas), will be seeded with a MnDOT Seed Mix #33-261. The types of seed and plant
varieties are noted on the attached seed mix list document.
PC PACKET Pg. # 18
Planning Case 2021-23 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT (Resurrection Cemetery) Page 2 of 3
The city’s Natural Resources Coordinator and other city staff have reviewed this revised plan and proposed
seed mix and planting plan, and we all concur and agree this plan meets the surface/stormwater management
plan and land disturbance guidance standards for the City of Mendota Heights.
City staff has also identified a select number of Goals and Policy statements from the Natural Resource
chapter of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which provide additional support in granting approval of this
requested Wetlands Permit, as follows:
GOAL 1: Develop a professional, comprehensive, strategic Natural Resources Management Plan
for city-wide natural areas and natural resources.
Policy No. 10. Encourage and promote the use of conservation design principles.
GOAL 2: Protect, connect, restore, buffer, and manage natural areas, wildlife habitat, and other
natural resources, for high ecological quality and diversity of plant and animal species.
Policies:
1. Monitor new developments for restoration and invasive plant management.
3. Continue to partner with outside agencies and community groups to monitor and control invasive
species and noxious weeds.
4. Restore areas throughout the city with pollinator-friendly or native species to protect and
enhance habitat for native pollinators and birds
7.Explore the development of ordinances and or policies that establish minimum soil standards for
development and redevelopment that can support turf, plantings, and/or healthy turf alternatives.
9. Emphasize the use of, and identify areas including public open space and park land, that could be
restored to include native species, pollinator plants, wildlife habitat, or turf alternatives.
10. Prior to approval of landscape and development plans, work with applicants to encourage the
preservation and installation of high ecosystem value communities.
GOAL 3: Protect and restore the natural ecological functions of the city’s water resources with
emphasis on the improvement of stormwater management.
Policies:
1. Explore and develop operational and procedural modifications to better enhance and support the
thriving of the natural environment.
2. Work with partners to implement projects and develop and support programs that encourage
infiltration, to reduce stormwater runoff and pollution to water-bodies.
4. Identify areas within the city, including public and private land that are lacking adequate
stormwater treatment, and other stormwater BMPs. Implement projects to establish functioning
stormwater treatment in order to protect and improve the city’s water resources.
5. Implement the city’s Local Surface Water Management Plan (LSWMP) through the use of
ordinances, policies, and development standards.
ALTERNATIVES
1.Approve the Wetlands Permit based on certain findings-of-fact, along with specific conditions of
approval; or
PC PACKET Pg. # 19
Planning Case 2021-23 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT (Resurrection Cemetery) Page 3 of 3
2. Deny the Wetlands Permit based on revised finding(s)-of-facts supporting such a recommendation as
determined by the Planning Commission; or
3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, pursuant
to MN State Statute 15.99.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested Wetlands Permit to Catholic Cemeteries and for the property
located at 2101 Lexington Avenue South, which would allow certain pond embankment improvements and
landscaping around the established wetland feature, based on the attached findings-of-fact and subject to
the following conditions:
1. The revised Landscape Plan for Resurrection Cemetery, dated 01/18/2022, along with the MnDOT
Seed Mix List #33-261 shall be the approved plan and vegetation replacement for this Wetlands
Permit / Planning Case No. 2021-23.
2. Any grading and/or construction activity related to the pond improvement work shall 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.
3. Full erosion/sedimentation measures shall be installed prior to commencement of work and
maintained throughout the duration of the construction project. Erosion barriers shall be placed
along the outer edges of the pond site and pond edge and remain place throughout the duration of
the project and the surrounding lands have been properly restored.
4. Any new site construction or removal shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm
weekdays; and 9:00 am to 5:00 pm weekends.
FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR APPROVAL
Wetlands Permit for Resurrection Cemetery
2101 Lexington Avenue South
Planning Case No. 2021-23
1. The requested pond embankment stabilization work and related landscaping work in and around
the pond is a reasonable request for this very large and open cemetery property.
2. All new work should have very little, if any negative impacts to the existing on-site drainage or the
drainage from the surrounding properties or areas.
3. Owner/Applicant will provide additional and suitable wetland protective vegetation and plantings
around the perimeter of the existing pond, which help ensures storm water run-off quality; and any
soil and contaminant runoff is reduced or minimized from the subject property.
4. The work contemplated under this wetlands permit shall be done in accordance with the rules and
standards of the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance document, and meets a number of goals and
policies established under the Natural Resources chapter of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
PC PACKET Pg. # 20
Resurrection Cemetery Pond Shoreline Project
The purpose of the Resurrection Cemetery Pond Shoreline project is to create more usable space for the
cemetery owners (Catholic Cemeteries) and improve user experience by opening up views across the
cemetery. Upon completion of the project, Catholic Cemeteries plans to put a fountain in the pond to
prevent algae growth and improve the experience for the many people that run/walk through the
cemetery daily. The new design for the pond shoreline will also create a more aesthetic, and
maintainable space for the cemetery.
The vegetation surrounding the pond is currently comprised primarily of dead/rotting trees, buckthorn,
and thistle. After removing the existing vegetation, we will overseed areas where vegetation was
removed with the MnDot seed mix 33-261 at a rate of 5-7lbs per 1,000 square feet. This MnDot seed
mix is comprised of native plant material and is recommended for stormwater pond edges per the
MnDot Seeding Manual. The newly seeded areas will be covered with a netless erosion control blanket
system to prevent soil erosion and seed runoff. The grading/drainage of the area surrounding the pond
will not be altered as part of this project. The construction process is expected to begin in spring of
2022.
PC PACKET Pg. # 21
PC PACKET Pg. # 22
80'-11 5/8"
16'-6 3/8"
19'-4 3/4"
40'-11 1/8"
48'-2 1/8"
Seeded with MNDOT
Sead Mix 33-261, and
Covered with Netless
Erosion Control Blanket
(Total Area: 49159 sq.ft.)
Pond
Existing Vegetation within
this Area to be Removed
(Buckthorn, Thistle,
Overtaking Area)
Road
Silt Logs Installed During
Construction to Prevent
Soil Erosion
Existing Trees, no New
Trees to be Added
Existing Monument
Existing Concrete Sidewalk
2383 Pilot Knob Rd
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
Phone: 651-203-3000
Fax: 651-455-1734
SouthviewDesign.com
DateDate Issue NotesRevision Notes
Resurrection Cemetary
Landscape plan
2101 Lexington Ave. S.
Mendota Heights, MN, 55120
Scale:
1"=40'
This drawing contains proprietary information which
belongs to Southview Design Inc. Any unauthorized
duplication or use is strictly prohibited.
Released By:______________ Date Released:__/__/____
Taylor Wald
NO.NO.
Sheet
2 of 2
Designer:
Design Associate:
Project Name:
Job #:
Print Date:
File Name:
2021_11_30_Landscape Plan.vwx
PC PACKET Pg. # 23
PLANNING STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 28, 2021
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2021-23
WETLANDS PERMIT
APPLICANT: Southview Design / Catholic Cemeteries
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2101 Lexington Avenue South
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: February 7, 2022
INTRODUCTION
Southview Design, acting on behalf of Catholic Cemeteries, is seeking approval of a Wetlands Permit to
allow new landscaping and pond embankment improvements in Resurrection Cemetery.
A public hearing notice for this planning item was published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters were
mailed to properties within 350-feet of the subject property. City received no comments or communications
regarding this matter.
BACKGROUND / PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The cemetery property consists of over 187 acres of
land, and is generally located south of Hwy. 62 and
the Lexington Business Park, and fronts mainly along
Lexington Avenue South (see Dak. Co. GIS Map
image – right). The entire cemetery property is
located in the R-1 One Family Residential zone.
The pond is identified under the City’s Local Surface
Storm Water Management Plan (LSWMP) as a Type
V Wetland (see map image – below-left); and is
identified on the city’s official Wetlands Systems
Map of 1976. The second image is recent Sept. 2021
aerial map shot of the subject pond area with
volunteer vegetation ring surrounding the pond
(below-right).
This pond provides for stormwater retention for a
large portion of the cemetery lands around the main
office and maintenance buildings, and some drainage
from across the road (Lexington Avenue).
PC PACKET Pg. # 24
Planning Case 2021-23 (Resurrection Cemetery) Page 2 of 7
SITE / LANDSCAPE PLAN
The cemetery hired Southview Design as their landscaper/contractor, and has submitted a Proposed
Landscape Plan for this wetlands permit review.
Initial plans call for the removal of the volunteer vegetation ring that surrounds the pond, which according
to Southview is noted as “Buckthorn, Thistle – Overtaking Area”. The applicants indicated further in their
project narrative that most of the trees surrounding the pond were dead or rotting, and their removal was
needed. The replacement plan is to provide a 10-foot wide layer of 3” to 7” river rock on top of landscape
fabric around the perimeter of the pond. The rock will be held in place with new poly-landscape edging;
and the surrounding areas where the old vegetation is removed will be replaced with grass seed mixture.
The removal of the volunteer vegetation ring and preplacement of river rock will help with pond
embankment stabilization, and provide a suitable views to the reflective/memorial pond feature.
Upon completion of the new landscape and outer pond improvements, the cemetery will install a new
fountain to prevent algae growth and improve the visual and aesthetic appearance of the pond for visitors.
ANALYSIS
Pursuant to City Code Section 12-2-3, the Wetland Systems ordinance applies to wetlands and water
resource related areas, and to adjacent land within one hundred feet (100') of normal high water markers of
wetlands and water resource related areas as delineated on the official city wetlands systems map.
City Code Section 12-2-6 further states that any work or development upon or which would otherwise alter
a wetland or potentially impact a water related resource area, must obtain a written permit from the city;
with the list of activities noted as follows:
1. The deposit or removal of any debris, fill or other material over 100 cubic yards.
2. Any excavation over 100 cubic yards.
3. The digging, dredging, filling, or in any other way altering or removing any material from water
bodies, watercourses, wetlands, floodplain, or natural drainage system.
4. The construction, alteration, or removal of any structure.
5. The removal of vegetation.
6. The altering of any embankment, ponding, or changing of the flow of water or ponding capacity.
7. Permanently storing materials.
8. Disposing of waste materials (including sewage, garbage, rubbish, and other discarded materials).
PC PACKET Pg. # 25
Planning Case 2021-23 (Resurrection Cemetery) Page 3 of 7
9. Installation and maintenance of essential services.
The purpose of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the City Code Title 12-2-1 is to:
• Provide for protection, preservation, maintenance, and use wetlands and water resource-related areas;
• Maintain the natural drainage system;
• Minimize disturbance which may result from alteration by earthwork, loss of vegetation, loss of wildlife
and aquatic organisms as a result of the disturbance of the natural environment or from excessive
sedimentation;
• Provide for protection of potable fresh water supplies; and
• Ensure safety from floods.
The Surface Water Management Plan provides certain guidelines and suggested standards (not
requirements) for the city to follow or implement when dealing with new development near natural water
features. The SWMP recommends – but does not require a 25-foot no-disturbance/natural vegetative buffer
zone from the wetland edge. This buffer is meant to provide an extra level or protection or natural means
in preventing erosion run-off, for silt protection, and reducing any fertilizer or chemical runoff that may
occur from adjacent residential lawns.
Under this plan, the cemetery is not providing any new vegetative buffer, but instead plans to install and
provide the 10-foot wide rock layer as its buffer, along with the replacement of turf grass. There are no
plans or indications of any new plantings or trees to be installed under this pond improvement project.
Per the Wetland Ordinance Section 12-2-7 Standards and Conditions:
• Runoff from developed property and construction projects may be directed to the wetland only
when reasonably free of silt and debris and chemical pollutants, and at such rates such as not to
disturb wetland vegetation or increase turbidity.
• No deleterious waste shall be discharged in a wetland or disposed of in a manner that would cause
the waste to enter the wetland or other water resource area.
• Removal of vegetation shall be permitted only when and where such work within the W district has
been approved in accordance with the standards of this chapter.
• Removal of vegetation within the W district but outside the wetland shall be limited to that
reasonably required for the placement of structures and the use of property.
The Applicants have indicated the removal of the vegetative ring surrounding the existing pond was
necessary due to most of it being invasive plantings (buckthorn) and noxious weeds (thistles); and a small
number of trees that were dead or rotting, probably due to the wet/saturated soils next to the pond.
Although the Wetlands Ordinance does not specifically require the placement (or replacement) of a wetland
buffers, it has normally been suggested in other wetlands permit review cases, that Owners should leave an
area approximately 25-feet from the wetland/pond edge to be left undisturbed; or install (if needed or
requested) suitable and sustainable vegetative plantings that provide a natural buffer to these wetlands.
Vegetative buffers provide additional natural filters for any surface water runoff entering into the wetlands,
and help increase overall water quality entering the pond. Although the rock layers and grass may provide
some or even adequate runoff and buffering protection, the Planning Commission may wish to discuss with
the cemetery owner or landscape contractors in providing some additional vegetation around the outer limits
of the pond, besides turf grass, in order to help reduce any increased silt or fertilizer infiltration; and increase
the water quality entering the pond.
PC PACKET Pg. # 26
Planning Case 2021-23 (Resurrection Cemetery) Page 4 of 7
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the Wetlands Permit based on certain findings-of-fact, along with specific conditions of
approval; or
2. Deny the Wetlands Permit based on revised finding(s)-of-facts supporting such a recommendation as
determined by the Planning Commission; or
3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, pursuant
to MN State Statute 15.99.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested Wetlands Permit to Catholic Cemeteries and for the property
located at 2101 Lexington Avenue South, which would allow certain pond embankment improvements and
landscaping within 100-feet of a wetland, based on the attached findings-of-fact and subject to the following
conditions:
1. Any grading and/or construction activity related to the pond improvement work shall 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.
2. Full erosion/sedimentation measures shall be installed prior to commencement of work and
maintained throughout the duration of the construction project. Erosion barriers shall be placed
along the outer edges of the pond site and pond edge and remain place throughout the duration of
the project and the surrounding lands have been properly restored.
3. The Applicant/Owner shall install new landscaping or plantings in and around the pond area with
suitable plantings and materials consistent with the direction of the Planning Commission, with
final buffer planting plan to be approved by the city’s Natural Resources Technician.
4. Any new trees or landscaping material used under this wetlands permit plan must meet the city’s
list of Native Plantings and Pollinator Friendly trees and vegetation.
5. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored or have an established, protected
and permanent ground cover immediately after the pond area improvements have been installed or
completed.
6. Any new site construction or removal shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm
weekdays; and 9:00 am to 5:00 pm weekends.
PC PACKET Pg. # 27
Planning Case 2021-23 (Resurrection Cemetery) Page 5 of 7
FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR APPROVAL
Wetlands Permit for Existing Pond at Resurrection Cemetery
2101 Lexington Avenue South
Planning Case No. 2021-23
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1. The requested pond embankment stabilization work and related landscaping work in and around
the pond is a reasonable request for this very large and open cemetery property.
2. All new work should have very little, if any negative impacts to the existing on-site drainage or the
drainage from the surrounding properties or areas.
3. Owner/Applicant will provide additional, suitable and adequate vegetation and plantings around
the perimeter of the existing pond, which help ensures storm water run-off quality; and any soil
and contaminant runoff is reduced or minimized from the subject property.
PC PACKET Pg. # 28
Planning Case 2021-23 (Resurrection Cemetery) Page 6 of 7
SITE PHOTOS – RESURRECTION CEMETERY
PC PACKET Pg. # 29
Planning Case 2021-23 (Resurrection Cemetery) Page 7 of 7
PC PACKET Pg. # 30
Resurrection Cemetery Pond Shoreline Project
The purpose of the Resurrection Cemetery Pond Shoreline project is to create more usable space for the
cemetery owners (Catholic Cemeteries), and improve user experience by opening up views across the
cemetery. Upon completion of the project, Catholic Cemeteries plans to put a fountain in the pond to
prevent algae growth and improve the experience for the many people that run/walk through the
cemetery daily. The new design for the pond shoreline will also create a more aesthetic, and
maintainable space for the cemetery.
The vegetation surrounding the pond is currently comprised primarily of dead/rotting trees, buckthorn,
and thistle. Our process after removing the existing vegetation would be to place 1,100 linear feet of silt
logs along the shoreline to prevent soil erosion, then install a 10’ wide strip of landscape fabric
surrounding the pond. That fabric would be covered with 200 cubic yards of 3-7” river rock, installed at
an average depth of 6”. Poly landscape edging would be used to define the edge of the new shoreline.
Outside of the new 10’ shoreline, areas where vegetation was removed will be overseeded with a mix of
Fescue, Ryegrass, and Kentucky Bluegrass at a rate of 5-7lbs per 1,000 square feet. The newly seeded
areas will be covered with a netless erosion control blanket system to prevent soil erosion and seed
runoff. After construction is complete, the silt logs will be removed from the water’s edge. The
grading/drainage of the area surrounding the pond will not be altered as part of this project. The
construction process is expected to begin on 12/6/2021, and finish by 12/23/2021.
PC PACKET Pg. # 31
PC PACKET Pg. # 32
),*85(PC PACKET Pg. # 33
Resurrection Cemetery - CONTOURS MAP
Property InformationElevation
December 14, 2021
0 450 900225 ft
0 130 26065 m
1:4,800
Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification.
PC PACKET Pg. # 34
Resurrection Cemetery - SOILS ID MAP
1 Crystal Lake silt loam, 1 to 8 percent slopes 3 Water
2 Udorthents, wet 4 Waukegan silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed.
This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or
for zoning verification.
Map Scale 1 inch = 400 feet 12/14/2021
PC PACKET Pg. # 35
Planning Case 2022-01 (E. Mason-Variance-693 Mulberry Ln.) Page 1 of 12
PLANNING STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: January 25, 2022
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2022-01
VARIANCE
APPLICANT: Elle Mason
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 693 Mulberry Lane
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: March 2, 2022
INTRODUCTION
Elle Mason, owner and resident of 693 Mulberry Lane, is requesting a Variance to City Code Section 12-
1D-3.C.1.a, which regulates the number of accessory structures permitted in a residential district. Ms.
Mason is seeking an allowance to keep a newly constructed 20’ x 24’ (480-sq. ft.) attached garage with an
existing 720-sq. ft. detached garage in the R-1 One Family Residential district.
A public hearing notice for this item was published in the local newspaper and notice letters were mailed
to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. The applicant provided a list of
adjacent homeowners who support his variance request, which are appended to this report. No other
comments or objections were received.
BACKGROUND
The subject parcel is generally located near the intersection
of Mulberry Lane and Oak Street (see GIS image – right) .
The property is 100-ft. wide by 200-ft. deep, or 20,000-sq.
ft. in area (0.46 acres). The property has an existing 3,096-
sq. ft. (finished) split-level single-family dwelling, built in
1970.
The original home was constructed with a 20’ x 24’
attached/two-car garage. A number of years ago, the
previous owners of the property enclosed the attached
garage, and converted it to added living space (note: due to
city’s retention schedule, records or copies of the permit
closing up this garage no longer exists. The home as it
appears pre-construction work is shown on the Dakota Co.
Assessor Records photo – below/left.)
PC PACKET Pg. # 36
Planning Case 2022-01 (E. Mason-Variance-693 Mulberry Ln.) Page 2 of 12
As a replacement for this previous attached garage area, the former owners also constructed a 20’ x 36’
(720-sq. ft.) detached garage in the back yard (see image – above/right). This garage has a 16-ft. wide
double overhead door and an 8.5-ft. wide single overhead door, along with a side-service door.
Ms. Mason purchased the subject property about 4 years ago, and was in the process of remodeling the
home, which included re-installing or putting back the two car attached garage feature to the home, along
with a 2nd-story living addition above the garage area and main living space (refer to plan image – below).
Around late November, the city’s Building Official was notified that some new work was being performed,
and upon checking city records later determined the property did not have an approved building permit.
Upon an immediate site visit, a “STOP-WORK” order was issued, and while meeting with the homeowners,
it was discovered the home remodeling contractor Ms. Mason hired told her that he had permission or had
a permit for said work and inspections were being made by the city - when in fact that was not the case.
Ms. Mason immediately dismissed the contractor, and is now pursuing separate legal (civil) action against
the original contractor. Ms. Mason has now hired a new licensed home contractor, and submitted a new
building permit application for the almost completed and remaining work on the home.
At the time this Stop-Work order was issued, the home remodeling project is roughly 60-70% complete,
with most of the upper new living space framed and enclosed, and the new attached garage space
reconverted from living to vehicle storage space, with a new 16-ft. wide overhead door (see image- below).
PC PACKET Pg. # 37
Planning Case 2022-01 (E. Mason-Variance-693 Mulberry Ln.) Page 3 of 12
In later meetings with the homeowner, city staff informed Ms. Mason that in order to keep the newly
reconverted attached garage space, she would have to remove the 20’ x 36’ detached garage in the back
yard; or the other option would be to remove the new 16-ft. overhead door on the reconverted garage space,
and convert this back to living space (as before).
Ms. Mason, being unaware of the Zoning Code regulations restricting or allowing detached garages on
certain sized parcels in the residential zones, and wanting to keep and maintain both the new attached and
existing detached garage, elected to delay her building project in order to pursue this variance. The variance
is requesting to keep the newly converted attached garage space with the existing detached garage in the
back yard, even though she does not have the required lot area, which will be explained further in the
following Analysis section.
ANALYSIS
Ms. Mason explains in her application narrative and in discussions with city staff, that the existing detached
garage in the back yard is accessed by a narrow, steep driveway leading from the front circular driveway
apron, wraps around the east side of the home and towards the back yard area, where it connects to a large
bituminous apron and garage location (see attached site photos – end of report).
Ms. Mason stated getting to the back garage area, both on foot or in vehicles, especially in winter-time or
snowy/icy conditions, makes traveling up and down this driveway very difficult, hence the reason for
reconstructing the attached garage addition.
City Code Section 12-1D-3: ACCESSORY STRUCTURES states all single-family residential uses are
allowed one attached garage up to 1,200-sq. ft. in size, or a detached garage up to 750-sq. ft. in size, but not
together, unless the property meets certain size standards. For those lots less than 0.75-acres in area, only
one attached or one single detached garage is allowed. For properties less than 0.75 acres in size and to be
allowed to have both an attached and detached garage requires a variance.
Variance Process
City Code Section 12-1L-5 governs variance requests. The city must consider a number of variables when
recommending or deciding on a variance, which generally fall into two categories: (i) practical difficulties;
and (ii) impact to the community.
PC PACKET Pg. # 38
Planning Case 2022-01 (E. Mason-Variance-693 Mulberry Ln.) Page 4 of 12
The “practical difficulties” test contains three parts: (i) the property owner proposes to use the property in
a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance; (ii) the plight of the property owner
is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner; and (iii) the variance, if
granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality or neighborhood. It is also noted that economic
considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. In addition, variances are only to be
permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance
and consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Section 12-1L-5(E)(1) further provides other issues the city may consider when granting or denying a
variance, noted as follows:
• Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community.
• Existing and anticipated traffic conditions.
• Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety.
• Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan.
• Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate undue
hardship or difficulty.
When considering a variance request, the Planning Commission must determine if these standards have
been met in granting a variance, and provide findings-of-facts to support such a recommendation to the
City Council. If the Planning Commission determines the Applicant has failed to meet these standards, or
has not fully demonstrated a reasonableness in the granting of such variance, then findings-of-fact
supporting a recommendation of denial must be determined.
As part of any variance request, Applicants are required to prepare and submit their own responses and
findings, which for this case, are noted below (in italic text), followed by a brief staff response:
1. Are there any practical difficulties that help support the granting of this variance? (“practical
difficulties” means the owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted
by City Code)
Applicant’s Response: Yes -
• We all know the benefits of having an attached garage, especially during MN winter for older
people. The sloped driveway to the detached garage in the back is unusable to function as a garage
during the MN winter months.
• As we get older and move towards retirement, it’s difficult to walk down there, get the snow
blower to plow snow all the way up, then plow the driveway in the front
• It’s more difficult to plow snow around the cars parked in front too.
• We have always used the detached garage for storage during the winter, something we have
relied heavily on ever since we bought the house.
• These days with so much construction materials, leftovers and the kitchen cabinets that got
delivered way too early, along with our own stored items, the entire detached garage is full.
• With the on-going pandemic, the increasing list of to dos from the horrendous construction mess
and significant time commitment needed, we have not been feeling the greatest either. We pray
that we will stay healthy while sorting through all the mess and moving forward.
Staff’s Response: Staff tends to agree with the Applicant’s statement that it is somewhat difficult to
walk and/or drive vehicles to and from the back detached garage area. It is reasonable to assume that
when the former owners closed off the old attached garage, the only reasonable option was to build a
detached garage at the bottom, level area of the back yard. As noted in the Applicant’s narrative and
variance responses; the purposes of this new home improvement project was not only to create
PC PACKET Pg. # 39
Planning Case 2022-01 (E. Mason-Variance-693 Mulberry Ln.) Page 5 of 12
additional living space, but also provide a suitable and safer means of storing and accessing vehicles
within the principal structure. The outer footprint of the home never changed, and the property appears
large enough to support both the attached and detached garage in their respective locations.
In this particular variance application, the case for arguing a practical difficulty was created by the
careless and irresponsible action of another person – not the homeowners. To allow the homeowners
the freedom and flexibility to keep and use the already completed “attached” garage can be viewed as
a reasonable request, especially in these circumstances. Staff therefore states the new attached garage
coupled with the existing detached garage is a reasonable request, and the overall property will remain
to be used in a reasonable manner as prescribed by Code.
2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by
the property owner.
Applicant’s Response: Yes -
• We have been deceived by the contractor we hired. He took advantage of our trust and turned
our life upside down.
• Had he pulled the permit and we were informed of the rules and options, we would have most
likely made different decisions in terms of remodeling vs. moving to a more retirement friendly
house.
• We love this neighborhood and our neighbors. Everyone is kind and supportive. We really didn’t
want to move if we didn’t have to.
• We have neighbors walking by during the remodeling and giving us thumbs up as everyone
enjoys seeing updates being made in the neighborhood.
Staff’s Response: The plight of the landowners requesting the variance is clearly due to the dishonest
and irresponsible actions of a contractor, and clearly circumstances not created by the owners. While
it remains the responsibility of all homeowners to know and check their contractors before hiring them,
many residents have confidence that those they hire are licensed, legitimate, and will do the necessary
check-in with the city prior to starting any work and secure necessary permits. This is one of those rare
occasions where this never happened; and a large project was started and on its way to completion
before the city stepped-in to take action.
Staff hereby finds there may be enough unique circumstances (not created by the owners) in this
variance case to warrant support or allowance of this variance, which would allow the homeowners the
ability to keep the attached garage and detached garage structures together; and also gives some added
weight to supporting the practical difficulties arguments previously noted.
3. The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Applicant’s Response: No -
• The existing detached garage at the bottom of a sloped driveway in the back has been there for
more than 15 years; It’s been part of the neighborhood forever; and since it’s tucked away, some
new neighbors don’t even know it’s there.
• The new attached garage was a conversion from a living room. It is exactly where the old living
room was, but now creates a more consistent attached car garage look all other neighbors on
the street have and blends well with the beautiful and clean neighborhood with a mix of old and
new homes.
Staff’s Response: The surrounding neighborhood is all but residential in character, and is not expected
to see or experience any major changes in the foreseeable future. This new home addition represents a
considerable investment by the Applicant to provide adequate and needed living space with the older
PC PACKET Pg. # 40
Planning Case 2022-01 (E. Mason-Variance-693 Mulberry Ln.) Page 6 of 12
home. The Applicant is not expanding the overall footprint of the home, and is simply adding a small
and tasteful living space above the new attached garage.
Staff made a site inspection of the subject property, and immediately noticed that two neighboring
properties (697 and 679 Mulberry Lane) both have attached garages and detached garage structures on
their properties, and also discovered a third property at 674 Mulberry (see circled properties –
image/below).
Staff could not find any record of a variance(s) given to these three properties; and it may be reasonable
to assume these structures may have been permitted under former accessory structure standards or
allowances. Nevertheless, it remains Staffs’ opinion that the essential character of the neighborhood
would not be altered by the granting this variance.
4. Restrictions on Granting Variances.
The following restrictions should be considered when reviewing a variance:
a) Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
When weighing the economic factor(s) of a variance application, taking economic considerations
alone should not be the only reason for denying - or even approving a variance. In this particular
case, the property owner is simply requesting to add living space and reconvert a garage space back
to its original home design, in order to better fit their personal needs and safety. The current
addition as it exists today (and if completed) does not impact any neighboring properties.
Although one can conclude this new and larger residential structure will provide some economic
value to the owner by increasing the property value of the home and/or marketability (future sale),
the Applicant has demonstrated other practical difficulties in this case, and some reasonable
explanations for requesting this variance. It is not clear how economic considerations alone may
affect the outcome of this variance request, as they do not appear to be the sole reason for rejecting
this variance.
b) Variances are only to be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and
intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan.
PC PACKET Pg. # 41
Planning Case 2022-01 (E. Mason-Variance-693 Mulberry Ln.) Page 7 of 12
Staff finds that the request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the R-1 One Family
Residence district, as this proposed home addition (and porch) is consistent with and allowed as a
permitted use in the underlying zoning. The R-1 districts are most predominant throughout the
community, and this district is intended to maintain the character of even older neighborhoods, like
the North End in the community.
The subject property is designated as LR-Low Density Residential in the current 2040 Plan. Certain
land use goals and policies are noted below:
• Land Use Goal #2: Preserve, protect, and enrich the mature, fully developed residential
neighborhoods and character of the community.
o Land Use Policy #2: The city will emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and
general focus on aesthetics throughout the community, including within existing
developments and buildings.
o Land Use Policy #6: A mechanism will be developed to allow for the maintenance and
reinvestment in identified non-conforming properties
• Housing Goal #1: Preserve and improve existing neighborhoods and housing units.
o Housing Policy #2: Explore options for flexibility in Zoning Code standards and encourage
reinvestment in existing houses
o Housing Policy #3. Provide for housing development that maintains the attractiveness and
distinct neighborhood characteristics in the community.
o Housing Policy #4. Support the maintenance and rehabilitation of the community’s existing
housing stock.
Other guiding principles in the comprehensive plan provide for maintaining, preserving, and
enhancing existing single-family neighborhoods. The requested variance still preserves the
residential character of the neighborhood, and would provide a substantial investment into a
property to enhance its overall use and enjoyment by the owner.
Alternatives to this variance require the homeowner to either choose to keep the detached garage
intact, remove the overhead garage door to the newly converted attached garage space, wall up the
opening, and convert this area back to living space; or keep the new attached garage work as it
exists today, and completely remove the detached garage in the rear yard. The detached garage is
in very nice shape, and it does not seem reasonable to demand the owners demolish a fully
functioning garage structure – even under these unique circumstances.
The proposed addition creates no additional impacts or poses any threats on light and air, as well
as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety. This new home addition and request for variance
can be viewed or considered in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance and
consistent with the current and proposed land use plans for the community.
ALTERNATIVES for ACTION
1. Recommend approval of the variance for 693 Mulberry Lane, based on the following findings-
of-fact that support the granting of the variance as requested herein and noted as follows:
A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may grant variances from the strict application
of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the
strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i)
the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the
Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
PC PACKET Pg. # 42
Planning Case 2022-01 (E. Mason-Variance-693 Mulberry Ln.) Page 8 of 12
the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.”
B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to
justify the granting of the Variance for a reduced setbacks by the following supporting statements:
i.) the newly converted attached garage is viewed consistent with other homes and properties
throughout the surrounding neighborhood, and the overall use and enjoyment of the home and
property does not change even with the variance to allow the attached garage structure with the
existing detached garage structure in the back yard, and therefore the requested variance is
considered a reasonable request.
ii.) unique circumstances related to this special variance case were created by irresponsible and
dishonest actions by others, and not the Applicant/Owners. The attached garage structure is a
desirable and reasonable feature on many other single-family homes throughout a community;
and this alternative to keeping an almost complete garage addition along with the existing
detached garage structure on the subject property is reasonable and can only be accommodated
by approval of this variance.
iii.) approving the Variance does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as this is
a very modest addition and does not change the overall appearance or development of the
property. There appears to be other properties in this neighborhood with similar
attached/detached garage characteristics, so approving this variance should not negatively
impact or affect this neighborhood; and
iv.) allowing this new garage addition and detached garage intact on the subject property by means
of this variance can be considered in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance
and consistent with the current and proposed land use plans, goals and policy statements
contained in the 2040 Comprehensive Plans of the community.
C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5.E.1 of the City Code, including but
not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community,
existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the
risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the
Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will not impact or pose any negative threats
upon the neighborhood or the community in general.
D. Approval of the Variance is for 693 Mulberry Lane only, and does not apply or give precedential
value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and
provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed
independently by city staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code.
E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2022-
01, dated and presented January 25, 2022 (on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully
incorporated into Resolution No. 2021-____. (final number to be assigned later)
F. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to this variance
request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by
the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows:
1) The Applicant/Owner and/or their contractor(s) will ensure that all construction work
already completed and any additional work on the property will be approved by a new
building permit submitted to the city, with final approval and authorization granted by the
City Building Official and Community Development Director.
PC PACKET Pg. # 43
Planning Case 2022-01 (E. Mason-Variance-693 Mulberry Ln.) Page 9 of 12
2)The proposed garage space and residential addition and all other related improvements
shall be constructed in compliance with all applicable City Code and State of Minnesota
Building Code standards.
3)Should this variance be granted, the detached garage structure in the rear yard shall be
considered a non-conforming structure, and subject to the requirements and standards of
City Code Section 12-1D-1: Nonconforming Uses, Structures and Land.
4)Approval of the variance is contingent upon City Council approval of the application and
corresponding site plan. If the variance is approved by the City Council, the Applicant
shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed addition within one (1) year
from said approval date.
2.Recommend denial of the variance request for 693 Mulberry Lane, based on the findings-of-fact
that confirm the Applicant failed to meet the burden(s) of proof or standards in granting
of the variance requested herein, noted as follows:
A.Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict
application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying
out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part
test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted
by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of
the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.”
B.The Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in
order to justify the granting of a variance to allow the attached garage with the existing detached
garage due to lot size limitations. The proposed attached garage contemplated under this
application is determined not to be essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the
property; and therefore this variance is not considered a reasonable request on the property; and
furthermore the applicant failed to adequately justify the need for granting this variance.
C.Because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the property) is
not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique
circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood).
3.Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days,
in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration to Alternative No. 1, approval of
the variance with findings-of-facts to support the granting of said variance to 693 Mulberry Lane, with
the conditions noted therein.
Attachments
1.Aerial/Site Location Map
2.Planning Application – with Variance Response (Narrative)
3.Petition List of Neighbor’s Support of Variance
4.Garage & Living Space Addition - Elevation Plans
PC PACKET Pg. # 44
Planning Case 2022-01 (E. Mason-Variance-693 Mulberry Ln.) Page 10 of 12
SITE PHOTOS – 693 MULBERRY LANE
LOOKING TOWARDS HOME – NEW GARAGE / LIVING SPACE (INCOMPLETE)
LOOKING NORTHWARD TOWARDS BACK YARD – DRIVEWAY - EAST SIDE OF HOME
PC PACKET Pg. # 45
Planning Case 2022-01 (E. Mason-Variance-693 Mulberry Ln.) Page 11 of 12
LOOKING TOWARDS BACK YARD FROM DRIVEWAY – DETACHED GARAGE BELOW
EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE
PC PACKET Pg. # 46
Planning Case 2022-01 (E. Mason-Variance-693 Mulberry Ln.) Page 12 of 12
LOOKING FROM CORNER OF GARAGE UP TO HOUSE (DRIVEWAY TO LEFT)
LOOKING EAST - 679 MULBERRY LN. – (DETACHED GARAGE)
LOOKING WEST - 697 MULBERRY LN. (DETACHED GARAGE)
PC PACKET Pg. # 47
SITE PHOTOS – 693 MULBERRY LANE (source: Elle Mason)
PC PACKET Pg. # 48
Variance Application -Letter of Intent
Context in need of a functional garage
• We purchased the home about 4 years ago in the spring.
• It has a detached garage in the back with a sloped driveway. It has turned out the slope is too
steep for us to drive on during the winter months. We had to park in front of our house.
• As we get older, it's becoming increasingly important for us to have a functional garage so we
can park our cars inside during the winter months.
Brief Chain of Events tackle the project to convert the current living room back to the garage
• June 2021, we saved enough money over the years and finally hired a general contractor I
builder for remodeling, converting the current living room back to a garage, and adding an
addition on top so we don't lose the living space. The project also included a kitchen remodel.
• September 2021, the project started.
• November 2021 found out our builder Earl Rode IV never pulled the permit as he told us he
would according to the contract, and the inspections he claimed he scheduled or the inspection
passing he shared with us was all just his fabrication. There was no record of the permit being
pulled or inspections being scheduled. The City Inspector put a Stop Order at the house to
prevent him from performing additional work. We terminated our contract with Earl when that
happened.
• Since October 2021, no kitchen. House not sealed so it's very cold. We have paid Earl a total
of $86,400 as we trusted him when he asked for various Cash Advances. We have now
discovered many issues of the work performed that need to be fixed. For example, entire
electrical and HVAC systems need to be redone, numerous framing issues etc. The most
recent discovery is that he bought the wrong windows as many of them don't have nail flanges
so no siding can be installed. He never ordered any new windows as he told us he would.
Instead, he simply picked up what's on the floor at Lowe's, the cheapest thing he could find. It's
a complete nightmare.
• On 12/21/2021, we found out from Tim Benetti, that we need to submit a Variance application
to keep the existing detached garage in the back since we now have an attached garage in the
front which we can't use currently as there is a big hole in front and it's full of construction
materials
• We will be pursuing legal actions against Earl and his company. This is not the transition to
retirement we had planned. We wish no one else will ever have to experience what we are
going through.
• We are back to the very beginning of the project, hiring a new project consultanUcontractor,
getting a new engineering plan, and submitting the application for the building permit.
We ask for your understanding of the dilemma and difficulty we are in. We thought the permit was
handled by the contractor Earl and all appropriate rules were checked by him as well. We are
currently using the detached garage as a storage for a lot of the construction leftover, and the kitchen
cabinets that were delivered way too early to the house. They shouldn't be stored in a cold garage,
but we don't have other good options. Need the new attached garage as a working zone. As I am
writing this letter, it's 4 days from Christmas. It's freezing in half of the house, no kitchen and
construction junk/garbage everywhere.
PC PACKET Pg. # 49
1. Are there any practical difficulties that help support the granting of this variance?
Yes
• We all know the benefits of having an attached garage, especially during MN winter for older people.
The sloped driveway to the detached garage in the back is unusable to function as a garage during the
MN winter months.
• As we get older and move towards retirement, it's difficult to walk down there, get the snow blower to
plow snow all the way up, then plow the driveway in the front
• It's more difficult to plow snow around the cars parked in front too.
• We have always used the detached garage for storage during the winter, something we have relied
heavily on ever since we bought the house.
• These days with so much construction materials, leftovers and the kitchen cabinets that got delivered
way too early, along with our own stored items, the entire detached garage is packed full.
• With the on-going pandemic, the increasing list of to dos from the horrendous construction mess and
significant time commitment needed, we have not been feeling the greatest either. We pray that we will
stay healthy while sorting through all the mess and moving forward.
2. Are there any circumstances unique to the property (not created by the owner} that support the
granting of this variance?
Yes
• We have been deceived by the contractor we hired. He took advantage of our trust and turned our life
upside down.
• Had he pulled the permit and we were informed of the rules and options, we would have most likely
made different decisions in terms of remodeling vs. moving to a more retirement friendly house
• We love this neighborhood and our neighbors. Everyone is kind and supportive. We really didn't want to
move if we didn't have to.
• We have neighbors walking by during the remodeling and giving us thumbs up as everyone enjoys
seeing updates being made in the neighborhood.
3. If the variance was granted, would it alter the essential character of the neighborhood?
No
The existing detached garage
• The detached garage at the bottom of a sloped driveway in the back has been there for more than 15
years
• It's been part of the neighborhood for ever
• Since it's tucked away, some new neighbors don't even know it's there.
The new attached garage
• The new garage was a conversion from a living room. It is exactly where the old living room was, but
now creates a more consistent attached car garage look all other neighbors on the street have and
blends well with the beautiful and clean neighborhood with a mix of old and new homes.
PC PACKET Pg. # 50
To:
From:
NEIGHBOR SIGNATURES OF COl'JSEl'JT
FOR VARIANCE REQUEST
The Mendota Heights Planning Commission
F// t. tv/ a.. son
Subject: Application for a Variance at: 6 j 3 J\il •t/ berrv/ Lo. iJ t
The request for a Variance is (please describe accurately): Lfc, v/n_J C l{rYe,,i;t c{e f(\ chd
~ . , r1 . ,
OJ'/,\ < Jl co 7 r+-/ J-Oi :t I/ v'1', roe .
If written consent by all property owners within 100 feet of the boundaries of the subject property is
obtained, the city may wawe the requirement for a public hearing.
We, the undersigned have reviewed the plans for the above-described project, as requested by the
property owner(s) identified above, and understand the terms and conditions of the requested variance.
We have no objections to this variance request, and do hereby give our written consent and waiver of a
public hearing (only one representative of the property is required for signature):
NAME (Please Print) ,, ... ADDRESS Sl<:;NA TURE
' ..... \ _:;> '. . -r'
----_)
'°::) ' f. /.'/!~ c:>'l {) t t.l-·f ....,
PC PACKET Pg. # 51
693 MULBERRY LANE
Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed.
This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or
for zoning verification.
Map Scale
1 inch = 75 feet
1/19/2022
PC PACKET Pg. # 52
27-38600-03-090Parcel ID NumberProperty Card
MENDOTA HEIGHTS MN 55118
693 MULBERRY LN
Mailing Address
ELLE A MASON
Fee Owner
Owner Information
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Municipality
693 MULBERRY LN
Address
Property Address
Tax Description
9 3Lot and Block
JEFFERSON HEIGHTSPlat
Water AcresRESIDENTIALUses
R/W Acres$385,000.00Sale Value
0.46Total Acres06/28/2017Sale Date
Parcel Information
Other Garage3,096Finished Sq FtMultiple Buildings
720Garage Sq Ft1,972Above Grade Sq FtWOODFrame
2.50Bathrooms1,972Foundation Sq FtSPLIT LEVLBuilding Style
4Bedrooms1970Year BuiltS.FAM.RESBuilding Type
2021 Building Characteristics (payable 2022)*
$4,430.00$0.00$4,430.00
Total Tax & Assessments (2021)Special Assessments (2021)Net Tax (payable 2021)
Property Tax Information
$437,100.00$437,100.002020 Total Values (payable 2021)*
$475,900.00$475,900.002021 Total Values (payable 2022)*
$360,600.00$360,600.002021 Building Values (payable 2022)*
$115,300.00$115,300.002021 Land Values (payable 2022)
EstimatedTaxable
Assessor Valuation
FULL HOMESTEADLOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER197
Open SpaceAg PreserveGreen AcresHomesteadWatershed DistrictSchool District
Miscellaneous Information
document and should not be substituted for a title search, appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification.
Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legalDisclaimer:
* Manufactured Homes Payable the Same Year as Assessment.
Parcel data current as of 01/05/2022 Page 1 of 1Dakota County, MN
PC PACKET Pg. # 53
PC PACKET Pg. # 54
PC PACKET Pg. # 55