2023-01-24 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
JANUARY 24, 2023 - 7:00 PM
Mendota Heights City Hall – Council Chambers
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights MN 55118
1.Call to Order / Roll Call
2.Approval of Minutes
a.Approve the October 25, 2022 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
b.Approve the September 28, 2022 Planning Commission Workshop Notes
c.Approve the November 17, 2022 Planning Commission Workshop Notes
3.Public Hearings
a.CASE No. 2023-01 Lot Line Adjustment – to authorize the creation of a new parcel
to be adjoined to Applicant’s homesteaded property at 1170 Dodd Road (Henry (Vic)
Holec – Applicant/Owner)
b.CASE No. 2023-02 Lot Line Adjustment – to authorize the creation of a new parcel
to be adjoined to Applicant’s property at 1941 Glenhill Road (Michelle Culligan on
behalf of Larry and Mary Culligan – Applicant / Owner)
4.Zoning Ordinance Update Project
a.Zoning Update Workshop Date Discussion
5.New / Unfinished Business
6.Adjourn Meeting
October 25, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 5
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 25, 2022
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October
25, 2022 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 6:55 P.M.
The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Commissioners Patrick Corbett,
Sally Lorberbaum, Cindy Johnson, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. No absents.
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of August 23, 2022 Minutes
Commissioner Johnson noted on page three, the seventh paragraph, it should state, “She stated that
because Tamarack trees lose their needles and if the area became overgrown with weeds…”
COMMISSIONER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 23, 2022 AS AMENDED.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Commissioner Lorberbaum asked that when a question is asked, the answer is provided in the
minutes. She noted that there were two action items for staff, referencing page four and asked if
those actions have occurred.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that he did send the letter to MRCCA
property owners as discussed.
Commissioner Lorberbaum also referenced page 11, which had an action item and asked staff for
an update.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that he did not have an update at this time
unless someone had a question.
Chair Field noted that he would prefer to hold the public hearing prior to the presentation tonight.
Hearings
A)PLANNING CASE 2022-22
DROP SHOT LLC/LAMAR LLC, 1415 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD –
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Planning Commission | Tuesday, January 24, 2023 | Page 1 of 19 2a
October 25, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 5
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the applicant is seeking a
conditional use permit (CUP) to place a new indoor athletic club facility inside a vacant space
within an existing multi-tenant building, located at 1415 Mendota Heights Road. The proposed
name of the facility is Twin City Racquet & Squash Club. The property is generally located at the
northwest corner of Mendota Heights Road and Pilot Knob Road and is situated in the I-Industrial
district. City Code Section 12-IG-2 allows certain defined “commercial recreation” uses by means
of a conditional use permit in the Industrial 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 if the indoor rule would have to do with the fact that this would be
located in an industrial area.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that is a requirement by Code, to contain
all elements inside the building.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Jeff Mulligan, representing the applicant, stated that he is present to answer any questions.
Commissioner Lorberbaum asked for details on potential signage.
Mr. Mulligan replied that he is unsure. He stated that they would want something identifying the
business. He believed that signage on the building would be appropriate. He confirmed that they
would meet City Code.
Commissioner Lorberbaum noted the 24-hour facility and asked if staff would be onsite at all times
in case someone is injured.
Mr. Mulligan replied that they would not have staff 24 hours per day. He stated that there would
be staff during the typical hours, but the other hours would be accessible through the key system.
Jeff Nath, 1911 Knob Road, stated that his concern is the number of people that will be pulled into
an industrial area on the outside of town. He had a concern with lighting as it could attract
unsavory characters. He noted that perhaps there is a blue box to alert police if needed, similar to
a college campus.
Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close
the public hearing.
Planning Commission | Tuesday, January 24, 2023 | Page 2 of 19
October 25, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 5
COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE PROPOSED
TWIN CITY RACQUET AND SQUASH CLUB FACILITY AND COMMERCIAL
RECREATIONAL USE IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS-OF-
FACT AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. ALL RACQUET OR ATHLETIC ACTIVITIES SHALL BE CONDUCTED ENTIRELY
WITHIN THE ENCLOSED BUILDING. THE OUTDOOR PADEL COURT SHOWN
ON THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN IS NOT APPROVED AND WILL NOT BE
ALLOWED UNDER THIS CUP APPROVAL.
2. THE 24 PARKING SPACES LOCATED ON THE BACK SIDE OF THE BUILDING
AND THE 16 SPACES LOCATED ON THE EAST EDGE OF THE EXISTING
PARKING AREA, AS ILLUSTRATED ON THE SITE PLAN, MUST ALL BE
STRIPED.
3. OUTDOOR STORAGE AND DISPLAY OF MATERIALS IS PROHIBITED.
4. A SIGN PERMIT SHALL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY
ADDITIONAL TENANT SIGNAGE ON THE SUBJECT PARCEL/BUILDING. NO
BANNER OR TEMPORARY SIGNS WILL BE ALLOWED.
5. A BUILDING PERMIT SHALL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO ANY APPLICABLE
DEMOLITION OR TENANT SPACE IMPROVEMENTS.
6. NO ON-STREET PARKING OR BLOCKING OF LOADING AREAS IS ALLOWED.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its November 1, 2022
meeting.
Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that he will work with the property
owner to ensure the lighting is sufficient for the nighttime hours.
Public Presentation
B) MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE OVERVIEW
AND PRESENTATION
Dan Petrik, Lake and River Shoreland Program Manager with MN Department of Natural
Resources, reviewed the purpose of the MRCCA which was established in 1976 and regulates 32
communities along the river corridor. He explained the purpose and intent of both the MRCCA
Ordinance and Plan and how the two work together. He identified the different primary
conservation areas noting that the bluff impact zone and vegetation are the two most impactful in
Planning Commission | Tuesday, January 24, 2023 | Page 3 of 19
October 25, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 5
Mendota Heights. He provided more details on bluff and bluff impact zone, vegetative areas, and
public corridor views identifying where they exist within the community. He reviewed the
different MRCCA districts noting that the district determines the allowed height and setbacks. He
noted that one of the most common requests the Commission may review would be variances and
explained how those should be considered against the MRCCA standards and regulations and the
criteria that should be considered. He reviewed the vegetation removal that is allowed without a
permit as well as that which would require a permit. He explained the difference between that
selective vegetation removal and intensive vegetation removal. He reviewed the performance
standards for a vegetation removal permit and provided details on the vegetation restoration that
would be required. He also provided details on land alteration within the MRCCA and the related
requirements. He provided information on permit administration and resources available online.
Commissioner Corbett asked if removal of one tree to improve the view of the property owner
would be allowed without a permit.
Mr. Petrik replied that as long as a whole swath of trees is not removed, it would be allowed. He
stated that perhaps that should be done in consultation with neighbors as neighbors appreciate trees
as well.
Commissioner Lorberbaum commented that she has been walking neighborhoods and listening to
concerns of residents. She asked if a community would need to follow the ordinance or issue
variances.
Mr. Petrik replied that is technically true most of the time but noted that a planned unit
development would be a tool a community could use to provide variances and flexibility.
Commissioner Katz commented that the community has a lot of natural springs that run along the
bluff which could be impacted by development and asked how that would be regulated.
Mr. Petrik replied that there is some standard speak to hydrological systems in terms of land
alteration that was not included in his presentation. He noted that the City Engineer would need
to review the plans to determine the stability of the soil.
Commissioner Katz asked if the location of the springs is tracked.
Mr. Petrik replied that the DNR does not map that information, but a local community could choose
to do so.
Commissioner Petschel asked if there has been case law on the delineation between selective and
intensive vegetation removal.
Mr. Petrik noted that language is fairly new and there has not yet been case law on that topic. He
explained the difference between the selective and intensive vegetation removal.
Commissioner Johnson stated that the City has underground springs classified as a primary
conservation area and asked if Mr. Petrik would find that appropriate.
Planning Commission | Tuesday, January 24, 2023 | Page 4 of 19
October 25, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 5
Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that language was added in response to
a potential development that encountered that scenario.
Mr. Petrik agreed that was a good addition for this landscape.
Commissioner Johnson asked if there is a way to map the underground springs.
Commissioner Katz commented that property owners were asked by the DNR to provide
information on springs on their property at one time but was unsure where that process led. He
stated that the information is available on the Minnesota spring inventory.
Chair Field noted that unfortunately that suffers from being voluntary in submission, therefore
information has only been provided by those that voluntarily contributed their data. He thanked
Mr. Petrik for the presentation.
New/Unfinished Business
Community Development Director Tim Benetti referenced a previously requested update from
Commissioner Lorberbaum and noted that staff did go out to further evaluate the property and
noted that there was not a lot of cutting. He noted that the tree removal was a result of cutting
dead trees. He noted that staff identified a number of additional trees that should be removed
because they were dead, dying, or invasive. He stated that staff also identified the areas that should
be restored. He also provided an update on the progress of that site, noting that it will remain
under the three-year maintenance period and the property owner has continued to be very
cooperative. He also asked that the Commission begin to use the Mendota Heights issued emails
for Commission business. He noted that the workshop for this week has been canceled. He stated
that staff has not yet received any applications and therefore if there is not business to hold a
regular meeting, the Commission may hold a workshop instead.
Chair Field stated that if there is not a planning case, perhaps a workshop be held the week earlier
to avoid the holiday.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:11 P.M.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Planning Commission | Tuesday, January 24, 2023 | Page 5 of 19
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP NOTES
SEPTEMBER 28, 2022
A special workshop relating to the Zoning Code Update was held on Wednesday, September 28,
2022 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 5:30 P.M.
The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Commissioners Sally
Lorberbaum, Cindy Johnson, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz
Also present: Community Development Director Tim Benetti; Planning Consultant Jennifer
Haskamp; City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, City Engineer Ryan Ruzek
Commissioner Lorberbaum made a motion to approve the workshop notes from July 27, 2022;
Commissioner Katz seconded. Motion carried.
Commissioner Lorberbaum made a motion to approve the workshop notes from August 24, 2022;
Commissioner Katz seconded. Motion carried.
Character, Design and Building Standards Discussion
Planner Haskamp introduced the Character, Design and Building Standards topic.
Planner Haskamp started with the Residential Zoning Districts. The Commission discussed the
reason for the Traditional Neighborhood Overlay instead of a new zoning district.
Planner Haskamp discussed the existing residential standards in the Code and requested feedback
from the Commission on the potential of adding character, design and building standards. The
Commission discussed that the City doesn’t want to allow Accessory Dwelling Units.
Planner Haskamp and the Commission discussed landscape standards for the R-1 District. The
Commission discussed tree requirements and the lack of the tree removal/replacement standards.
A resident attending the meeting commented that landscape standards, including ground
vegetation and tree requirements, change the character of the street. The resident asked the question
about how the City would respond to the question of residents about why the City would require
residents to plant trees if the City itself is not planting trees.
The Commission discussed adding a tree requirement to the front yard (in new development) and
impervious surface coverage maximums (to allow for flexibility for sod, mulch, native plants in
yards). Planner Haskamp discussed that the landscape requirements would cross reference the
Environmental Ordinance. A resident attending the meeting asked about tree species allowed.
Planner Haskamp answered that the ordinance would reference an approved and prohibited list of
species.
The Commission discussed the potential differences of a tree requirement in the different zones.
The Commission agreed that a tree requirement in the front yard (in new development) would be
based on street frontage.
Planning Commission | Tuesday, January 24, 2023 | Page 6 of 19 2b
Planner Haskamp presented the R-2 district for discussion. The Commission would like the same
tree requirements. Planner Haskamp asked if the Commission would like to add an articulation
requirement to R-2. A resident asked the question about turning a duplex into a fourplex. Planner
Haskamp answered that if the parcel meets dimensional standards, a fourplex would be allowed.
Planner Haskamp presented the R-3 district for discussion. The Commission would like to add
standards for a landscaped islands in parking lots, an articulation requirement, an impervious
surface coverage maximum. The Commission brought up the topic of limiting a large parking lot
and encouraging underground parking. A resident asked about pervious pavement for parking lots
and brought up the potential longevity of pervious pavement. The Commission would like to
change the parking standards to 1 parking space per bedroom.
Planner Haskamp presented the TN-O Overlay district for discussion. Planner Haskamp discussed
the option of front yard setback averaging or a build-to line. Planner Haskamp discussed the option
of height averaging as well. The Commission would like to implement a front yard setback
averaging, height averaging, and an impervious surface maximum.
Planner Haskamp asked if the Commission would like to allow for parking in front of the principal
structure. The Commission discussed and the majority would not like to regulate for it.
Planner Haskamp presented the Retail/Commercial districts for discussion. Planner Haskamp
asked the Commission if they would like to change the accessory building standards for the
districts. The Commission discussed keeping the residential requirements. The Commission
discussed the location of parking lots and would like to keep parking lots in front of the business.
The Commission would like landscape requirements, impervious surface maximum, increased
setbacks and screening adjacent to Residential districts.
The Commission would like to see the same requirements in B-2.
Planner Haskamp presented the Industrial district for discussion. Director Benetti brought up an
issue with Floor Area Ratio. The Commission discussed the potential to change the FAR and
concluded the existing FAR should remain.
Planner Haskamp presented the Public Semi-Public district for discussion. The Commission would
like to see increased setbacks adjacent to Residential uses. The Commission brought up issues with
the size of accessory buildings in this district. The Commission discussed the potential of removing
size standards for PSP. A resident expressed concern if the accessory building standards are
removed, there would be no opportunity for public input.
The Commission discussed potential material standards. Planner Haskamp discussed that similar
cities have implemented that accessory buildings must be compatible, blend into landscape, etc.
Planner Haskamp will work with Director Benetti on accessory structures in PSP.
The Commission discussed the addition of the definition of a tree house, in terms of privacy,
height, safety, etc.
The work session adjured at 8:04 p.m.
Planning Commission | Tuesday, January 24, 2023 | Page 7 of 19
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP NOTES
NOVEMBER 17, 2022
A special workshop relating to the Zoning Code Update was held on Thursday, November 17,
2022 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 5:30 P.M.
The following Commissioners were present: Vice Chair Sally Lorberbaum, Commissioners
Cindy Johnson, Brian Petshel, and Michael Toth
Also present: Community Development Director Tim Benetti; Planning Consultant Jennifer
Haskamp; City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson.
Vice Chair Lorberbaum started the workshop at 5:40 p.m.
Planner Haskamp reiterated that no action is taken at these workshops, and the Commission and
Council will provide feedback on the full draft of the Code.
Administration and Process Discussion
Planner Haskamp introduced the administration section. Planner Haskamp described the key
objectives of editing and drafting the administration section. Planner Haskamp described the
different application types that administration section has to address and the corresponding state
statutes. Planner Haskamp described the types of permits/reports that are not subject to the state
statutes.
Planner Haskamp presented topics for discussion to change/add in the administration section.
Director Benetti described what a site plan review process would do for the City and Planning
Commission, such as seeing proposed development plans, even if the proposed use was allowed.
Planner Haskamp described that the site plan review would give the Planning Commission a
chance to review a development for design and site standards, and the Planning Commission can
give recommendations based on the Code. The Site Plan Review process would not apply to a
single-family/duplex residential property. A Site Plan Review could potentially be used in cases
where a variance would be hard to justify. Planner Haskamp will draft language for a Site Plan
Review process for the Commission to review.
Planner Haskamp presented the idea of a Concept Plan Review process. The Concept Review
process would be adding the ability for applicants and the Planning Commission to have a
conversation with a potential developer. The Commission discussed the potential drawbacks of a
Concept Review Plan, such as the Planning Commission saying an idea would be okay but then
circumstances change with the actual application. The Concept Plan review can potentially go to
Council for feedback, or it can only be the Planning Commission. Planner Haskamp described
that the Concept Plan Review is non-binding and no action is taken. Planner Haskamp will draft
a section for Concept Plan Reviews and it can be taken out of the code if the Commission wants
later.
Planning Commission | Tuesday, January 24, 2023 | Page 8 of 19 2c
Planner Haskamp discussed the potential addition of a Certificate of Compliance/Administrative
Permit. Planner Haskamp described that it’s essentially a way to do code compliance checks. For
example, a home-occupation like an attorney who works from a home office and needs a certain
amount of parking to make sure there are no any adverse effects. Then, if the user is not
following the Certificate of Compliance/Administrative Permit, the City has recourse. Planner
Hakamp will draft language for the COC/AP process for the Commission to review.
The Commission discussed if this would be the way to address treehouses. Planner Haskamp
suggested adding language about size, utility hookups, height, insultation, and making the
distinction between a “primitive” and “advanced” treehouse structure. A more “advanced”
treehouse structure could be considered an accessory structure. Planner Haskamp also suggested
adding some basic standards for play structures, such as setbacks, height requirements, screening
requirements, etc.
The Commission also discussed potential issues with antennas, such as ham radio towers.
Planner Haskamp asked the Commission for other general hot topics for the Code. The
Commission discussed front yard gardens, such as vegetable gardens. There could be issues such
as equipment being left out, irrigation systems, mismatched materials, tall posts, fencing, etc.
Planner Haskamp discussed that aesthetics are difficult to regulate. Planner Haskamp gave the
example of another city that does not allow front yard gardens at all. Planner Haskamp will
research if there are any comparable regulations about front yard gardens. Planner Haskamp will
draft language for the Commission to review.
The Commission also asked about excessive Christmas lights. Additionally, the Commission
discussed the definition of structure and standards, in terms of structures in the front yard.
Planner Haskamp described other cities have addressed it by requiring a Certificate of
Compliance for any structure in the front yard. The Commission also brought up the issue of
covered work trailers being parked on driveways. Currently, the Code does not allow trailers in
the front yard, only in the side yard and rear yard. The existing language will remain in the Code.
Director Bennetti brought up the topic of small/personal WECS (wind energy conversion
systems). Planner Haskamp described that if the small WECS are defined as an accessory
structure, they would be limited to the accessory structure standards. Standards specifically for
WECS would be height, diameter and power level. Planner Haskamp gave an example of a
standard that the WECS setback must be equal to the height.
The Commission would like to see the full draft before the Council sees it.
The work session adjured at 7:36 p.m.
Planning Commission | Tuesday, January 24, 2023 | Page 9 of 19
PLANNING STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 24, 2023
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
Jennifer Haskamp, AICP -Swanson Haskamp Consulting
SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2023-01
Lot Line Adjustment
APPLICANT: Henry (Vic) Holec
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1170 Dodd Road
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One-Family Residential/SF Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: 04/24/2023 (120-day Review Period)
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Vic Holec is requesting consideration of a simple lot line adjustment on a large parcel of land that he
currently owns, located at 1170 Dodd Road.
A public hearing notice for this planning item was published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters were
mailed to all properties within 350-feet of the subject property. The City has received one email inquiry
regarding the potential to further subdivide the land and complete a similar process with an adjacent
contiguous property.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
This 1170 Dodd Road site was formerly
identified as the Hella Mears Estate
properties, which originally consisted of
three separate legal parcels, and included
some dedicated but un-used road right-of-
way segments (Somerset Road and Burr Oak
Avenue) that ran through or near the subject
property. These ROW segments in this
residential block were recently vacated by
the City, and sections were added or
adjoined to the neighboring property
owners. The resulting parcel is now a
unified tract of land approximately 4.3 acres
in area.
Planning Commission | Tuesday, January 24, 2023 | Page 10 of 19 3a
Planning Report: Case #2023-01 Page 2
Mr. & Mrs. Holec own the adjacent 8 Beebe Avenue property (their current homestead) and purchased the
nearby Mears properties a few years ago, with the intention of subdividing the larger land parcel into a
number of new single-family parcels. For now, they have decided to delay a major subdivision of the larger
land area and propose a minor subdivision/lot line adjustment to obtain the back (southeast) portion of the
4.3 acre parcel.
The Holec’s are seeking to subdivide the 4.3 acre parcel by means of a lot line adjustment, to create two
parcels: “Parcel A” to consist of 160,567 or 3.69 acres of land; and “Parcel B” to consists of 26,129-sq. f.t,
or 0.60 acres of area. The Holec’s intend to keep and adjoin Parcel B to their own existing parcel at 8 Beebe
Avenue property, while the resulting Parcel A will be sold or retained by the owner for separate use or
development.
ANALYSIS
Title 11-1-5.C of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows lot line adjustments to take place, provided
the following standards are met:
Lot line adjustment request to divide a lot which is a part of a recorded plat where the division is to
permit the adding of a parcel of land to an abutting lot and the newly created property line will not
cause the other remaining portion of the lot to be in violation with this title or the zoning ordinance.
This request to modify the unified parcel boundary line meets this City Code section, as the resulting parcel
is being added to an abutting parcel; and the resulting adjustment does not cause the other remaining lots
to be in violation of the zoning ordinance.
The Holec’s wish to keep the new Parcel B as an untouched and preserved natural extension to their current
rear yard area with 8 Beebe Avenue. No new or separate single-family development can occur or would
be allowed on this parcel without the required street frontage; and the city has conditioned that this new
parcel must be combined with the Holec’s main homestead parcel to avoid any creation of a “non -
conforming parcel” without any access or frontage on a public roadway system.
The resulting Parcel A will have enough frontage to create one or more lots along this Dodd Road (State
Hwy. 149) frontage; or to have a new single-family subdivision served by a new public roadway system
such as a small cul-de-sac section. However, the Holec’s are not proposing any new lots or improvements
to the larger Parcel A at this time or under this lot line adjustment application.
This lot line adjustment will have minimal or no impact upon the neighboring properties, the residual parcel,
and it will not impede the normal use, enjoyment and purpose of the entire Hunter Lane neighborhood.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the lot line adjustment, based on the attached findings-of-fact and based
on certain conditions; or
2. Recommend denial of the lot line adjustment, based on the revised findings-of-fact that the
proposed adjustment is not consistent with the City Code or Comprehensive Plan and may have a
negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood and/or properties; or
3. Table the request; and request more information from the Applicant or city staff to be presented
back to the Planning Commission at the next regular meeting.
Planning Commission | Tuesday, January 24, 2023 | Page 11 of 19
Planning Report: Case #2023-01 Page 3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the lot line adjustment based on the attached findings of fact supporting the
request, with conditions noted as follows:
1) Applicant shall file lot/parcel combination documents with Dakota County indicating the newly
defined Parcel B created by this line adjustment shall be added to or combined with 8 Beebe
Avenue, Parcel ID Number 27-71150-04-060.
2) All transfer or deed documents which convey the portion of lands under the lot line adjustment and
lot split process shall be recorded with Dakota County.
3) No single-family development will be allowed or approved on the proposed Parcel B at any time.
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Lot Line Adjustment
1170 Dodd Road
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1. The proposed lot line adjustment request meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and
is considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Approval of the lot line adjustment will have no visible impact on the subject properties; and poses
no threat or creates any negative impacts on the character of the neighborhood.
3. The proposed adjustment does not cause any non-conformities on either parcel, based on the
applicable zoning district standards for lot size and frontage requirements.
Planning Commission | Tuesday, January 24, 2023 | Page 12 of 19
Planning Commission | Tuesday, January 24, 2023 | Page 13 of 19
Planning Commission | Tuesday, January 24, 2023 | Page 14 of 19
PLANNING STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 24, 2023
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Haskamp, AICP -Swanson Haskamp Consulting
SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2023-02
Lot Line Adjustment
APPLICANT: Michelle Culligan, on behalf of Lawrence and Mary Culligan
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1941 Glenhill Road
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One-Family Residential/SF Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: May 4, 2023 (120-day Review Period)
INTRODUCTION
Mr. and Ms. Culligan are requesting consideration of a simple lot line adjustment on a large parcel of land
that they currently own, located at 1941 Glenhill Road.
A public hearing notice for this planning item was published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters were
mailed to all properties within 350-feet of the subject property. The city has received two inquiries from
adjacent property owners requesting additional information regarding the planning item.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Mr. and Ms. Culligan own both properties
that are part of this application. They
would like to obtain the northern portion
of the larger lot to add to their property
at 1941 Glenhill Road.
The Culligan’s are seeking to subdivide the
large 6.28 acre parcel by means of a lot line
adjustment, whereby two parcels would be
created: “Parcel A” to consist of
approximately 5.8 acres of land; and “Parcel
B” to consist of approximately 1.12 acres of
area. The Culligan’s intend to keep and
adjoin Parcel B to their own 1941 Glenhill
Road property, while the resulting Parcel A
will remain vacant.
Planning Commission | Tuesday, January 24, 2023 | Page 15 of 19 3b
Planning Report: Case #2023-02 Page 2
ANALYSIS
Title 11-1-5.C of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows lot line adjustments to take place, provided
the following standards are met:
Lot line adjustment request to divide a lot which is a part of a recorded plat where the division is to
permit the adding of a parcel of land to an abutting lot and the newly created property line will not
cause the other remaining portion of the lot to be in violation with this title or the zoning ordinance.
This request to modify the unified parcel boundary line meets this City Code section, as the resulting parcel
is being added to an abutting parcel; and the resulting adjustment does not cause the other remaining lot to
be in violation of the zoning ordinance.
The resulting Parcel A will have enough frontage and lot area to be potentially further subdivided in the
future, but such request is not a part of the consideration for this application. This lot line adjustment will
have minimal or no impact on the neighboring properties, the residual parcel, nor impede the normal use,
enjoyment and purpose of the entire Valley View Oak neighborhood.
The subject parcels are located within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) and are
subject to the standards contained within this section of the City Code. Title 12-3-11.B.2. (Critical Area
Subdivision and Land Development Standards) provides an exception to the subdivision and land
development standards if it is a minor subdivision that consists of two (2) or fewer lots.
Since the proposed minor subdivision and rearrangement and lot line adjustment requires Parcel B to be
adjoined to the property at 1941 Glenhill Road there is no net increase in the number of lots. As presented,
the proposed minor subdivision is not subject to the design standards established. No new structures or
improvements on the lot(s) are proposed as part of this application. A condition is included that states that
all future improvements on the lot(s) are subject to individual MRRCA review and all necessary permits
must be obtained.
ALTERNATIVES
1.Recommend approval of the lot line adjustment, based on the attached findings-of-fact and based
on certain conditions; or
2.Recommend denial of the lot line adjustment, based on the revised findings-of-fact that the
proposed adjustment is not consistent with the City Code or Comprehensive Plan and may have a
negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood and/or properties; or
3.Table the request; and request more information from the Applicant or city staff to be presented
back to the Planning Commission at the next regular meeting.
Planning Commission | Tuesday, January 24, 2023 | Page 16 of 19
Planning Report: Case #2023-02 Page 3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the lot line adjustment based on the attached findings of fact supporting the
request, with conditions noted as follows:
1)Applicant shall file lot/parcel combination documents with Dakota County indicating the newly
defined Parcel B created by this line adjustment shall be added to or combined with 1941 Glenhill
Road, Parcel ID Number 27-81251-01-010.
2)Any future improvements or development on the subject parcels shall be subject to MRCCA review
and all necessary permits must be obtained.
3)All transfer or deed documents which convey the portion of lands under the lot line adjustment and
lot split process shall be recorded with Dakota County.
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Lot Line Adjustment
1941 Glenhill Road
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1.The proposed lot line adjustment request meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and
is considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2.Approval of the lot line adjustment will have no visible impact on the subject properties; and poses
no threat or creates any negative impacts on the character of the neighborhood provided the
conditions are met.
3.The proposed adjustment does not cause any non-conformities on either parcel, based on the
applicable zoning district standards for lot size and frontage requirements.
Planning Commission | Tuesday, January 24, 2023 | Page 17 of 19
CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are
instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely
with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used
on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion
of this project by others without written approval by the
Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be
permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for
information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional
revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be
made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions
or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the
Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
Plotted: 01 /03 / 2023 3:40 PMW:\2018\18524\CADD DATA\SURVEY\_dwg Sheet Files\18524A-COMBOOUCKSL
QUALITY CONTROL
PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE
SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS
CADD QUALIFICATION
VALLEY VIEW
OAK 2ND
ADDITION
1941 GLENHILL ROAD
MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118
LARRY & MARY
CULLIGAN
1941 GLENHILL ROAD
MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118
N
SCALE IN FEET
0 40 80
01/03/23 SURVEY ISSUED
PROPOSED
LOT
COMBINATION
1 OF 1
SPOT ELEVATION
SIGN
LIGHT POLE
POWER POLE
CATCH BASIN
CONTOUR
CONCRETE CURB
STORM SEWER
SANITARY SEWER
BARBED WIRE FENCE
WATERMAIN
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
CONCRETE
ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
UTILITY PEDESTAL
ELECTRIC METER
GAS METER
HAND HOLE
UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE
UNDERGROUND GAS
SANITARY SEWER SERVICE
WATER SERVICE
GUY WIRE
CULVERT
OVERHEAD UTILITY
ELEV @ THRESHOLD
GUARDRAIL
ROOF DRAIN
CURB STOP
FLARED END SECTION
TOP OF CURB
TO BE SET 1/2 INCH X 14 INCH IRON
MONUMENT, MARKED "LS 48988"
FOUND 1/2 INCH X 14 INCH IRON
FOUND CAST IRON MONUMENT
ALUMINUM DISC
PER PLAN
PAVERS
FOUND PK NAIL
AIR CONDITIONING UNIT
TOP NUT HYDRANT
IRON FENCE
WOOD FENCE
EXISTING BUILDING
RETAINING WALL
STORM MANHOLE
SANITARY MANHOLE
HYDRANT
GATE VALVE
UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE
SANITARY MANHOLE
STORM MANHOLE
CATCH BASIN
STRUCTURE RIM & INVERT
MAPPED STORM SEWER
MAPPED SANITARY SEWER
MAPPED WATERMAIN
MEASURED INFORMATION
RECORD DIMENSION PER PLAT OF
VALLEY VIEW OAK 2ND ADDITION
(M)
(VVO2)
INFORMATION AS SHOWN ON PLANS
NOT FIELD VERIFIED
LIGHT POLE
GUY POLE
LEGEND
MONUMENT, MARKED "LS 10943"
YARD LIGHT
(Per Title Commitment File No. 65601 prepared by Old Republic Title Insurance Company, dated June 7, 2020)
Lot One (1), Block One (1), in VALLEY VIEW OAK 2ND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota
County, Minnesota.
Being Registered land as evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 173000.
PARCEL 1
(Per Proposed Lot Split by Loucks dated 01/03/23. The Lot Split has not been recorded as of the date of this
survey.)
That part of Outlot A, VALLEY VIEW OAK 2ND ADDITION, Dakota County, Minnesota, lying north of a line drawn
from the southwest corner of Lot 1, Block 1, said VALLEY VIEW OAK 2ND ADDITION to a point on the west line of
said Outlot A, 119.00 feet southerly of the northwest corner of said Outlot A and said line there terminating.
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION GENERAL NOTES
1. The address, if disclosed in documents provided to or obtained by the surveyor, or observed while
conducting the fieldwork is 1941 Glenhill Road, Mendota Heights, MN 55118.
2. The bearings for this survey are based on the Dakota County Coordinate System NAD 83 (1986 Adjust).
3. Benchmark: MnDOT monument "1918H" (GSID Station 101785).
An aluminum alloy rod located at the southwest corner of Trunk Highway No. 110 and Lexington Ave. S.
Elevation = 921.70 (NGVD29)
Site Benchmark:
Top nut of hydrant located at the northeast corner of the the site along the west side of Glenhill Road.
Elevation = 913.22 (NGVD29)
4. This property is contained in Zone X (areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain) per
Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 270370018E, Community Panel No. 270110 0018 E, and Flood Insurance Rate
Map No. 270370019E, Community Panel No. 270110 0019 E effective date of December 2, 2011.
5. Area Existing Property = 19,855± SF or 0.45± Acres
Area Proposed Parcel = 48,717± SF or 1.12± Acres
Total Property Area = 68,572± SF or 1.57± Acres
6. The field work was completed on March 5, 2020.
Current Zoning: R-1 (One Family Residential District)
Any zoning classification, setback requirements, height and floor space area restrictions, and parking
requirements, shown hereon, was researched to the best of our ability and is open to interpretation. Per the City
of Mendota Heights Zoning Map and City Code, on June 8, 2020, information for the subject property is as
follows:
Current Setbacks:
Front 30 feet
Side 10 feet or 1/2 the height of the structure contiguous to side yard
Rear 30 feet or 20% of the average lot depth, whichever is greater
Height 2 stories or 25 feet, whichever is lesser in height
Width 100 feet
ZONING INFORMATION
License No.
Date
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of
the State of Minnesota.
VICINITY MAP
Field Crew
Max L. Stanislowski - PLS
48988
Project Lead
Drawn By
Checked By
Loucks Project No.18524
MLS
SFM
MLS
DJP, SKS
12/30/22
SITE
Proposed Parcel
Lot 1, Block 1 and that part of Outlot A, VALLEY VIEW OAK 2ND ADDITION, Dakota County, Minnesota, lying north
of a line drawn from the southwest corner of said Lot 1 to a point on the west line of said Outlot A, 119.00 feet
southerly of the northwest corner of said Outlot A and said line there terminating.
PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION
RECORD DIMENSION PER PLAT OF
MnDOT ROW PLAT NO. 19-103
(MnDOT)
UNLESS SHOWN OTHEREWISE
Planning Commission | Tuesday, January 24, 2023 | Page 18 of 19
Request for Planning Commission Action
DATE: January 24, 2023
TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commissioners
FROM: Jennifer Haskamp, AICP – Swanson Haskamp Consulting
SUBJECT: Zoning Update Workshop Date
Introduction
Please come to the meeting prepared to confirm a date for our next Zoning Code Update work shop.
We need a majority of the active Planning Commission members to participate in the discussion so
that we can complete the full draft of the Zoning Code and prepare it for the Planning
Commission’s review prior to scheduling a joint workshop with the City Council. We have
identified the following potential dates for the meeting:
•Thursday February 2, 2023 @ 5:30 PM
•Thursday February 9, 2023 @ 5:30 PM
Planning Commission | Tuesday, January 24, 2023 | Page 19 of 19 4a