2004-08-24 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Meeting
August 24, 2004
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 24, 2004
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 in the Council Chambers at
City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:30 pm. Chair Lorberbaum noted that there were only three commissioners in attendance, and a
fourth is needed for a quorum. The Commissioners in attendance were Chair Lorberbaum, Commissioners Miller and Dolan.
Commissioner M. McManus would be arriving late. Those Commissioners that are excused include Commissioners B. McManus,
Betlej, and Hesse. City Staff present were Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister and City Engineer Sue McDermott. Also
present was Planner Steve Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Becki Shaffer.
Chair Lorberbaum said the Commissioners present would go through the agenda items that do not require a quorum and wait until
Commissioner M. McManus arrives to officially open the public hearings.
Comments on the Minutes of July 27, 2004
The following corrections were made, which also included comments from Commissioner M. McManus that were previously conveyed
to Chair Lorberbaum.
Page 3, last paragraph, 1st sentence:
"Commissioner M. McManus asked the applicant if i-,he will be filling any more driveway surfaces."
Page 4, third paragraph, first sentence:
"Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. St. Martin to identify €ef the hardship."
Page 4, last paragraph, first sentence:
"Commissioner Betlej said there is also a requirement thin the ordinance that it says if it's a corner lot, it needs to be 30 ft. from the
street."
Page 5, fifth paragraph, first sentence:
"Commissioner Dolan asked if there is an exception that if there ..."
Page 6, after "Further Discussion ":
"Chair Lorberbaum said she seconded the motion with the understanding that the new fence would be placed on the exact place the old
fence is was."
Page 8, 10th paragraph, first sentence:
"Chair Lorberbaum asked if the City allows air - supported structures, as tents and some other certain things structures are not allowed."
Page 10, motion should be corrected as follows:
"COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ONE (1) PERMANENT ACCESSORY BUILDING AND ONE
(1) TEMPORARY AIR- SUPPORTED STRUCTURE, WITH A TIME LIMIT OF 3 YEARS WITH A REVIEW AND
REAPPROVAL AFTER THAT FOR A SECOND 3 YEARS 6 YEARS WITH n n EVIE x AND n vnn nV n r x IT14IN n THREE
n T CP BY THE CITY COUNCIL; AND TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR THE SIZE
AND NUMBER OF ACCESSORY BUILDINGS BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE REASONABLE, INSTITUTIONAL USE
OF THE LARGE SITE REQUIRES ACCESSORY BUILDINGS TO EXCEED THE REGULATIONS WHICH ARE WRITTEN
FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN MIND."
VERBAL REVIEW— Sue McDermott
Planning Commission Meeting
August 24, 2004
PLANNING CASE #04 -13 Robert Alvarez, 1167 Dodd Road Subdivision and Variance
Applicant requested a waiver to a 6 -month waiting period and reapplication fee for a subdivision.
The waiting period was waived and the waiver of the fee was denied.
PLANNING CASE #04 -11 Ron Ettinger, 1588 South Victoria Road Critical Area Permit, Variance and CUP
Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission
PLANNING CASE #04 -25 William St. Martin, 1933 Crown Point Drive Variance
Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission with the condition to add some
landscaping to soften the appearance of the driveway
PLANNING CASE #04 -26 Howard Adams, 1241 Dodd Road Subdivision and Lot Combination
Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission
PLANNING CASE #04 -27 Troy Randolph / David Odlaug, 2122 Theresa Street Conditional Use Permit
Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission
PLANNING CASE #04 -28 Charles Skemp, 1060 View Lane Conditional Use Permit
Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission
PLANNING CASE #04 -29 St. Thomas Academy Lane Conditional Use Permit
Approved as recommended by the Planning Commission
Ms. McDermott said the Klingelhutz Development was also approved as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Chair Lorberbaum said it was her understanding that the Hearings could not begin until a quorum has been established. Therefore,
Chair Lorberbaum invited any presentations that could be made.
The following presentations were made:
PLANNING CASE #04 -30
Eric Miller
1245 Knollwood Lane
Critical Area Permit
Mr. Grittman reviewed the request for a Critical Area Permit to accommodate the expansion of an existing deck. The deck was
constructed earlier this summer for an event that the applicants were planning to hold in early August and have asked for approval of
the Critical Area Permit after the fact. The original structure included a 6 -ft. deck on the north side of the property. The applicant
expanded the deck and added a stairway to the lower section of the deck area. Critical Area Permits are required when any land
altering along the Mississippi River and bluff line to ensure there will be no negative impacts on that area. Mr. Grittman said he does
not believe that the construction of this deck rendered any negative impacts to the critical area and the property itself did not exceed
the threshold for any steep slopes. This construction does not affect any watershed nor has any of the grading affected the property in a
negative way. Staff recommended approval and the construction has met all setback requirements, and there seems to be no need for
changing any of the structure.
Commissioner Dolan asked how this case came to his attention. Mr. Grittman said the applicants came in for a building permit without
realizing they were within the Critical Area. The Building Official told them they would need to obtain this permit. The purpose of
the decking was to accommodate a wedding reception. The timing of the normal City Review Process caused the applicant some
distress given the schedule they had already established.
Commissioner Dolan asked what the triggers were for an applicant to obtain a Critical Area Permit. Mr. Grittman said it would be any
construction that would cause land alteration within that area.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 24, 2004
Commissioner Dolan referred to the Planners Report, which states "The encroachment is within the required setback requirements for
yards as outlined in Section 12 -1D -4 of the Zoning Ordinance ". Commissioner Dolan asked what was the purpose behind using the
word "encroachment ". Mr. Grittman said that was a poor selection of terms, and there is no encroachment. The deck pushes out into
the yard but not into the required setbacks. A better word would be "expansion ".
Commissioner Miller asked if all other necessary permits were pulled. Mr. Grittman said they were. Commissioner Miller asked if
there were any neighbor oppositions. Mr. Grittman said not to his knowledge.
Mr. Ted Kvasnik, 1245 Knollwood Lane, said he would appreciate the Commission's consideration for this deck.
Commissioner Dolan said he is troubled by the fact that the applicant proceeded with the deck without proper compliance with the
City's processes.
Ms. Elaine Kvasnik said their builder had a verbal understanding with either Mr. Grittman or Mr. Hollister that this would be okay and
the deck would be sufficiently away from the river and bluff edge. All materials were ordered and the excavation for the footings had
begun. Ms. Kvasnik said the original deck that was attached to the house did not have any footings underneath. The applicant came
back to the City showing how the original deck did not have any footings, which presented a safety hazard. The applicant contacted the
Mayor and the City Attorney to express their concern to stabilize the deck for an upcoming wedding and reception. The City granted
permission to the applicant to stabilize the deck with the understanding that this was an improper procedure and the applicant would
have to still go through the process. Commissioner Dolan said this makes sense, and his concern was that the applicant proceeded
without any consideration for the City's requirements.
Commissioner Miller said the deck looks very nice.
PLANNING CASE #04 -31
Paul Haggerty
645 Sibley Memorial Highway
Critical Area Permit and Variance Request
Mr. Grittman reviewed a site plan for a proposed porch addition to the existing home. The existing setback from the further most
corner of the house is 86 -ft. from the right of way line. There is an existing detached garage by the bluff, which falls away sharply
more than the 40% slope requirement. The applicant is proposing two construction projects, one being a front porch over the front
portion of the home, and the second is a rear deck. Both projects require a critical area permit. The front porch addition would require
a variance, as it would encroach into the front yard setback area. The zoning ordinance requires a 30 -ft. setback. If the string rule
would play in this case, a new front yard setback would need to be established. In this case, a portion of the house is already forward
of that line and the proposed porch would encroach as well, sitting further back from the house.
Mr. Grittman said the applicant was before the City last year requesting the same things. Mr. Grittman said that the hardship could be
justified by the fact that the home already has an extensive setback from Sibley Memorial Highway, and that the porch would not be
any closer than the already existing established setback of the home. The City has approved open porches similar to this that would be
placed over front entryways; the most common would be for something smaller in square footage. Many of the other similar requests
that the City has approved were in the 40 to 60 sq. ft. range. The proposed porch is requesting 105 sq. ft. The City has also established
that these types of porches are deemed to be a reasonable use of the property when it is constructed to provide weather protection to
the front entryway. Staff recommends that this porch addition could be approved, but with a smaller square footage.
The Critical Area Permit is the more difficult issue in this case as when this case was originally brought to the City as there is a
concern over the clear cutting the applicant has done last year along the bluff area. The applicant has submitted a proposed vegetation
plan for the bluff area, showing 11 trees. Mr. Grittman said it was understood that there were significantly larger trees that were taken
from the bluff and it was recommended to the applicant to replace those trees with the largest trees possible. The applicant rejected the
Staff recommendation of the 3 -in. caliber trees and has instead offered this plan (the one provided the Commission at this meeting).
Staff's recommendation of the larger trees still stands, as it is believed that the vegetation that was lost on this bluff is a concern, and
that the purpose of the Critical Area Permit is to insure adequate vegetation preservation.
Mr. Grittman said Staff has offered an alternative that if it were not possible or practical to plant directly on the hillside with larger
Planning Commission Meeting
August 24, 2004
materials, it would be okay to plant smaller materials on the bluff and larger materials on the top of the bluff. Staff believes that
planting on the hillside is the most appropriate course.
Mr. Grittman said there is some justification from a variance standpoint to approve the front porch, but believes that all of this ties to
the Critical Area Permit and would not recommend that the porch addition go forward without some restoration on the bluff side of the
home, even though the two projects are not necessarily related. The Critical Area Permit calls for restoration of the lost vegetation.
Staff recommends approval of the variance for a smaller front porch addition subject to the restoration of the lost vegetation, which
would include a total of 19 3 -in. caliber trees planted on the bluff.
Commissioner Miller asked what dimension would satisfy the string rule. Mr. Grittman said no dimension would satisfy the string
rule, but open porches, which the City has previously granted variances for, have been more than the 40 to 60 square foot range. If an
extension of 6 -ft is necessary to protect the front entryway, a 6' x 10' would be consistent with what the City has approved in the past.
Commissioner Miller said both the property lines along the neighboring properties are heavily wooded and shrubbed. To go back to
the intent of the string rule, would this allow the adjourning neighbors the proper privacy? Mr. Grittman said the string rule was
established before his tenure with the City, and he believes that the original purpose of the string rule was to avoid having buildings
placed where it would seem to be the back yard of other buildings. The string rule is to create uniformity to all the homes.
Commissioner Miller asked if the requests before the Commission at this time are any different than the requests that were presented
and denied last year. Mr. Grittman said they are the same requests.
Chair Lorberbaum said she was wondering why the applicant is coming back with these requests, which were no different than before.
Chair Lorberbaum asked if the applicant is hoping to get different results. Mr. Grittman said that would be a question for the
applicant. He is not aware of any changed conditions other than the applicant has indicated there has been some natural growth.
Chair Lorberbaum said the application, which is in front of the Commission at this time, is for 10 trees with unknown dimensions, and
it is unknown what has actually been clear -cut. Mr. Grittman said it was his best guess that the trees that have been planted were of a
species different from those that were removed. Mr. Grittman said the applicant was not interested or not willing to plant larger trees
at the last review. Chair Lorberbaum said the application is for different species and different sizes.
Commissioner Dolan asked if the Commission, during the review last year, expected the applicant to replace some of the planting, and
was there a plan that was suggested for the applicant to follow? Mr. Grittman said the applicant indicated he had done some plantings
from the materials that were submitted. Mr. Grittman said he is not aware of any additional steps taken.
Mr. Paul McGinley, Loucks McLagan of St. Paul, is the surveyor /planner for this case and is working on behalf of Mr. Haggerty. Mr.
McGinley said the plan is very similar and that Mr. Haggerty hired Loucks McLagan to make sure the survey was done and the facts
were clear in terms of where things are and were the structures are to be built, and how they relate to the variance.
Mr. McGinley read Section 12 -1D -4, Section D -2 of the ordinance, which says, "whenever buildings have been built on one side of the
street between two intersections, no building shall hereafter be erected to extend so as to project beyond a line drawn between the
forward most portion of the nearest building of each side ". Mr. McGinley said it was clear to him that the ordinance anticipates a
condition where you have a vacant lot with a home on each side of it, and the purpose of the ordinance is to keep the home being built
in the middle no further forward than the two existing homes on each side so that you have a consistent line of houses on the block.
This is standard planning criteria. Mr. McGinley said this condition pertains to a vacant lot.
Commissioner Dolan asked if it was Mr. McGinley's position that in this situation, the addition could be constructed all the way to the
setback line since that rule would not apply in this case. Mr. McKinley said he is not arguing that the ordinance does not apply, but is
giving a justification for a hardship in this case. Mr. McGinley said it's just the reverse of what the ordinance seems to anticipate. Mr.
Haggerty's house was built in 1880. The home to the north was built in 1938, and the home to the south was built in 1929. Mr.
McGinley said the ordinance that is being applied to Mr. Haggarty's home has been created by the construction of the two homes built
on either side of him, and built further back than his home. Mr. McGinley said the hardship would be that the ordinance does not
anticipate this situation as a reverse scenario. Furthermore, the proposed porch would not extend any further forward than the existing
house does, and is actually 'h -ft. further from the street than the existing home. Mr. McGinley said in terms of impeding anyone's
views and going against the spirit of the ordinance, it does not change that condition, and doesn't change the visibility of the two
4
Planning Commission Meeting
August 24, 2004
homes on either side. Mr. McGinley said he does not see where this porch would negatively impact the neighborhood and in fact, it
would only be an enhancement to the home.
Mr. McGinley said the deck on the back of the home meets the requirements of the Critical Area Permit, with a 58 -ft. setback from the
bluff. The deck will not affect the views of the river bluff.
Commissioner Miller asked about the plantings. Mr. McGinley said those questions would have to be addressed to Mr. Haggerty.
Mr. Paul Haggerty, 645 Sibley Memorial Highway, said it is important to inform the City that there has been some growth since his last
appearance to the City. To date, he has planted 14 native shrubs and 12 native trees from the list he received from the DNR and the
Dakota County Soil and Conservation. Mr. Haggerty shared some photographs he has taken to show there has been some growth. Mr.
Haggerty referred to the invoice from Outback Nursery, Inc. dated April 30, 2003, which lists the shrubs and trees he has planted.
Chair Lorberbaum asked for copies of this invoice to be provided to the Commission and Staff. Mr. Haggerty reviewed the landscape
plan in which he had obtained the services of Lilydale Nurseries. This plan showed the biggest trees that Lilydale Nurseries
recommended, and has been working with David Harick, a licensed landscaper with Lilydale Nurseries. Mr. Haggerty said in the
beginning, he was reluctant to drag the larger trees down the hill, but he has since reconsidered and is willing to plant them.
Mr. Grittman said they would defer to the local nursery's recommendation. He was surprised to see birch trees as a native planting to
that area. Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Haggerty if the 12 trees were actually on the slope. Mr. Haggerty said they were.
Mr. Haggerty provided letters from neighbors, in which he has explained to them what his plans are. In addition to signatures
obtained from surrounding residents in support of this project, letters were also received from the residents of:
=> 647 Sibley Memorial Highway (immediate neighbor on the west side of his home)
=> 649 Sibley Memorial Highway
=> 635 Sibley Memorial Highway
Mr. Haggerty said he is pleased with the recent growth of natural vegetation and is willing to comply with the City to plant the trees
that are needed.
Commissioner Miller asked if the rains have affected the slope. Mr. Haggerty said the vegetation has grown and reduced a lot of
runoff.
Commissioner Miller said asked if the front porch addition can have its own Critical Area Permit, and the back yard become its own
issue. Mr. Grittman said the Commission could approve the variance for the porch can be approved separately with a percentage of the
Critical Area Permit included. Mr. Haggerty said he was comfortable in making concessions to the front porch and downsize if
necessary as it is merely a cosmetic addition.
Commissioner Dolan said the issue could be raised by asking if the plantings are adequate given what was cut down. Mr. Haggerty
said he planted 12 trees, and will be planting an additional 11 trees, the largest he can find. Mr. Grittman said there were 19 trees that
were cut down. Chair Lorberbaum said the total of 23 trees would exceed the requirement.
Commissioner Dolan asked Mr. Haggerty if he feels the issue of the replanting has been resolved by coming back to the City at this
time. Mr. Haggerty said the process he went through last year was very confusing which included some neighbor disparity that had no
involvement with this and he wishes to take a fresh look at this project.
Mr. Burt Anderson, 643 Sibley Memorial Highway, is the neighbor directly next to Mr. Haggerty, and said he is the neighbor most
affected by this project. Mr. Anderson said he expressed his reservations about this last year, and it was not a neighbor dispute. Mr.
Anderson said this was a genuine issue he had with what had been done to his property, what Mr. Haggerty did to his own property,
and the bluff and what has been proposed. Mr. Anderson said nothing has been done to correct the bluff situation.
Mr. Anderson said in the past, there have been houses in a row, and the string rule was applied where there were no vacant lots. Mr.
Anderson said Mr. Haggerty's house was built in 1880, but he had only lived there for two years. Mr. Anderson said he believes the
Sciboras at 647 Sibley Memorial Highway rents their home and they do not actually live there. Mr. Anderson said Mr. Haggerty's
house stood there for 120+ years and for that length of time, no one thought there would be any hardships to cause the need for a
Planning Commission Meeting
August 24, 2004
variance to put a porch on the front to protect it. Mr. Anderson said the porch is not to protect the front entrance, but only a cosmetic
addition. Originally, Mr. Haggerty said he had heirlooms in the house and was directed by the Smithsonian Institution that these
heirlooms needed to be protected by sun damage by putting a porch on the front of the house, and used that as his basis for a hardship.
Mr. Anderson questioned the reasoning of the porch to protect from the sun, and why the applicant then cut down a lot of trees in the
front yard. There are no curtains or blinds on the windows as well.
Mr. Anderson said the DNR report found that Mr. Haggerty's proposed plantings were inadequate. Mr. Anderson said he has lived in
his house for over 20 years, and feels he has some idea of what the native trees are along the bluff. According to Mr. Anderson's
statement, Mr. Haggerty said he cut 19 trees, but would be replanting more, but not as big as it would counter the purpose of the
original clear cutting to open the view to enhance the value of the property. Mr. Anderson said Mr. Haggerty also cut trees on Mr.
Anderson's property, in which Mr. Anderson feels had not increased the value of his property.
Mr. Anderson said the Court of Appeals of the State of Minnesota made their ruling of $157,000 in which Mr. Anderson has a
judgment against Mr. Haggerty for assault and damage done to the Anderson property. Mr. Anderson said this information is relevant
to this case because Mr. Haggerty does not want to plant large trees because he wanted to open up that area. Mr. Anderson said the
Court of Appeals determined that Mr. Haggerty cut down 17 trees on the Anderson property. Mr. Anderson said the total of what
needs to be replanted on the Haggerty property (19) plus the Anderson property (17) comes to 36. Mr. Anderson said the DNR
indicated the plans were totally inadequate. Mr. Anderson said Mr. Haggerty has not planted any decent sized trees along the hillside.
Mr. Anderson said there are no birch trees on the bluff, so that would not be native to the area.
Mr. Anderson said the variance for the front porch is now using the hardship of the string rule and there is no indication of the hardship
that was previously used, that being the Smithsonian story. Mr. Anderson said he opposes the porch addition in front because of sight
line issues and privacy from his property. Mr. Anderson said this would affect his privacy more than any other neighbor.
Mr. Anderson said he feels that Mr. Haggerty is acting in bad faith and urged the Commission to deny this request.
Commissioner Dolan asked Mr. Anderson to indicate his property on the map. Commissioner Dolan asked Mr. Anderson to describe
how he feels the sight line would affect him.
Mr. Hollister announced the arrival of Commission M. McManus, indicating that a quorum is now present.
Chair Lorberbaum officially called the meeting to order at 8:30 pm.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF
JULY 27, 2004 AS CORRECTED.
4 AYES
0 NAYS
MOTION CARRIED
HEARINGS
Chair Lorberbaum officially opened Planning Case #04 -30 and #04 -31.
PLANNING CASE #04 -30
Eric Miller
1245 Knollwood Lane
Critical Area Permit
Planning Commission Meeting
August 24, 2004
Chair Lorberbaum said the presentations were heard and opened the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward wishing to speak,
Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
4 AYES
0 NAYS
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR
THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR EXPANSION OF A DECK FOR PLANNING CASE 04 -30 AS RECOMMENDED BY
THE PLANNER.
4 AYES
0 NAYS
MOTION CARRIED
PLANNING CASE #04 -31
Paul Haggerty
645 Sibley Memorial Highway
Critical Area Permit and Variance Request
Chair Lorberbaum said the presentations were heard, and at this point, the Commission is hearing public comments. Chair
Lorberbaum opened the public hearing.
Cliff Tim, a resident of West St. Paul, said he is very much interested in the bluff. Mr. Tim said he pulled together a petition of about
300 signatures to make fishing better at Pickerel Lake and they will be putting in a boat landing. Mr. Tim said he told the Parks
Department Director of these 300 people who want to keep the bluff line as it is, and feels that the bluff line is sacred. Mr. Tim said
that 300 people would be happy if the restoration of the Haggerty property is completed.
Celeste Riley, 1013 London Road, said she is in support of the project and feels the changes of the house are great. She said she is not
commenting on the bluff at this time. Ms. Riley said Mr. Haggerty has shown good judgment in the changes he has proposed for the
house.
Phyllis Dosch, 1028 Brompton, said she has watched the development of this property and wants to speak in favor of this project. Ms.
Dosch said Mr. Haggerty deserves a lot of credit for the work he has done, and hopes the City will allow him to continue.
Seeing no one come forward wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
4 AYES
0 NAYS
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing.
CHAIR LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE
VARIANCE FOR THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE
CITY HAS BEEN SHOWN A PLAN THAT SHOWS COMPLETE RESTORATION OF THAT AREA WITHOUT
NECESSARILY HAVING THE APPLICANT COMPLETE BUT SHOWING THAT IN A SHORT TIME EXPANSE, THE
Planning Commission Meeting
August 24, 2004
SHRUBBERY AND LANDSCAPING WOULD COME UP TO CLOSE TO WHAT IT WAS. THE SHRUBBERY WOULD
NOT NEED TO BE PUT IN BUT THE APPROVAL WOULD BE BASED ON THE PLANS AND THE APPLICANT
COULD GO FORWARD ONCE THE PLANS HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED.
Further Discussion
Commissioner Dolan asked Mr. Grittman asked if the DNR letter that indicated whether the restoration plan was sufficient is available.
Commissioner Dolan said he feels he does not have enough information to determine whether this is a sufficient plan or not. Mr.
Grittman said the DNR is the agency that is in charge of monitoring the Critical Area and it would be useful information. Mr. Grittman
said he would assume the present landscape plan is different than the one presented last year.
Commissioner Dolan said he agrees with Chair Lorberbaum that once the City is satisfied that the plantings are sufficient, then he
would be in favor of granting the variances for the front porch and back deck.
Commissioner M. McManus apologized for being late for the meeting, and asked for a summary of the discussions that were held
during the presentation/resident comments. Commissioner M. McManus said she would like to have the motion separated into two to
have the compliance of the restoration plan resolved before allowing variances to take place for the front porch.
Mr. Grittman summarized his statements for Commissioner M. McManus.
Mr. McGinley clarified his statement regarding the hardship
Commissioner Miller said that the second rationalization of the hardship is much stronger than the first. If the first one is applied, then
one could say that the two adjacent properties were certainly beyond the string line of the original property. That does not carry much
weight, as the ordinances were not in place at the time of construction of those homes. When laying out the line, Commissioner Miller
said he does not agree that reducing the line of the porch would accomplish anything. When applying the string rule, he sees no
blocking of any view at this time.
Commissioner Miller said he would favor breaking the motion apart.
Chair Lorberbaum withdrew her motion to combine the front porch and rear deck issues into a single motion.
COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR THE FRONT PORCH IN ITS CURRENT APPLICATION WITH THE
HARDSHIP BEING THAT THE ADDITION WOULD NOT PROJECT FURTHER FROM THE EXISTING HOUSE, THE
YEAR THE HOME WAS BUILT, AND THE ASSOCIATED CRITICAL AREA PERMIT THAT ONLY RELATES TO THE
FRONT PORCH ADDITION. SECONDLY, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR THE
BACK YARD DECK UNTIL THE RESTORATION AS BEEN COMPLETED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MAY
21, 2003 LIST.
Further Discussion
Commissioner Miller said the string rule has been applied generally. Commissioner Miller said this is an odd piece of the ordinance,
and there have been cases in which the City granted additions such as this. Commissioner Miller said this should be judged on a case -
by -case basis.
Chair Lorberbaum said this motion would indicate that the motion of the front yard approval is independent of what happens in the
back with the plantings. Commissioner Miller said this is his intent of the motion.
Commissioner Dolan said it is his preference to condition both of the variances on the completion of the restoration of the landscape in
the back.
2 AYES (Commissioners Miller and M. McManus)
2 NAYS (Chair Lorberbaum and Commissioner Dolan)
MOTION FAILED DUE TO A TIE
Planning Commission Meeting
August 24, 2004
Chair Lorberbaum said in the absence of another motion, the Planning Commission would send this information to the City Council
and present a deadlock tie to allow the City Council to make their decision.
PLANNING CASE #04 -32
Valarie Namen
964 Kay Avenue
Conditional Use Permit
Mr. Grittman reviewed the request in which the applicant wishes to construct a 6 -ft. fence on the corner of Kay Avenue and Victoria
Road. Mr. Grittman said there is a walking path along this property, and the applicant wishes to construct this fence for privacy
reasons. The zoning ordinance states that any fence within the 30 -ft setback are required to be no greater than 3 -ft in height, however
Conditional Use Permits will allow a higher fence on a comer or a through lot to increase privacy and security for the property owner.
Mr. Grittman said the proposed fence meets all the requirements of the code and Staff recommends approval as submitted.
Ms. Valarie Namen, 964 Kay Avenue, indicated that she would be sharing the fencing between her and her neighbor, and her newly
constructed fence would attach to the existing fencing on the neighbor's property. Ms. Namen said her initial application requested a
6 -ft fence with alternative boards and a lattice top. Since then, she has decided to remove the lattice top and the alternating boards
would run the entire 6 -ft height. Ms. Namen provided a new sketch of the proposed fence. Mr. Grittman said the new fence is in
compliance with the requirements.
Commissioner Dolan asked if the neighbor's fence was 6 -ft. Ms. Namen said it was not, but his landscaping caused his 4 -ft fence to
fluctuate with the ground and keeping in line with the 6 -ft. fence that Ms. Namen is requesting.
Chair Lorberbaum said she visited the site and agrees that the noise level causes a concern and a need for the higher fence. Chair
Lorberbaum said she appreciated that the applicant will be doing some landscaping outside the fence as well.
Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to
close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
4 AYES
0 NAYS
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED UPON THE FINDING THAT THE FENCE MEETS ALL ORDINANCE
STANDARDS AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CLAUSE
ALLOWING SUCH FENCE LOCATIONS.
4 AYES
0 NAYS
MOTION CARRIED
PLANNING CASE #04 -33
Planning Commission Meeting
August 24, 2004
Lawrence Goff
675 West Marie Avenue
Variance and Wetland Permit Request
Mr. Grittman reviewed the application for the construction of an above — ground swimming pool and fencing to surround that pool in
the rear yard of the existing home. Mr. Grittman said the applicant applied for the variance, but upon reviewing the application, Staff
believes a variance is not required for this project.
The applicant has also applied for a Wetland Permit as the construction of the pool is within the 100 -ft. wetland buffer. The proposed
fencing meets all requirements. Mr. Grittman said it does not appear that there will be any negative impact to the wetland.
Commissioner Miller asked about the fencing. Mr. Grittman said the fence would be 6 -ft. height and will meet the 30% open standard.
Chair Lorberbaum asked who designates where the wetlands are, and does the wetland change if the water table has changed due to
construction nearby? Mr. Grittman said the findings are based on the City's GIS mapping. Chair Lorberbaum said there was some
previous discussion about the accuracy of GIS based maps. Mr. Grittman said his map identifies the edge of the wetland, and these
maps are typically accepted for this purpose on anything that seems to be over the 80 -ft mark. Anything proposed to be built closer
would warrant further delineation information.
Chair Lorberbaum said depending on how old this map is, if the water table has shifted, the applicant may no longer be in the critical
area and would not be required to obtain a wetlands permit. Mr. Grittman said it is conceivable that wetlands change over time except
for the fact that things that don't look like wetlands actually turn out to be wetland upon further investigation. The wetlands ordinances
apply to all wetlands that are on the official wetlands map regardless of where those wetlands actually are. All applications are based
on this map.
Mr. Lawrence Goff, 675 Marie Avenue, said he has decided to place the pool in this location as it gives more room without having to
disturb existing trees, and there is more sunlight in this area. Mr. Goff said he explained to Chair Lorberbaum upon her visit to the
site, how the wetland area was affected after the Hidden Creek Estates was constructed. Along with this construction, and other
construction that was completed the year before just behind the Goff s, the creek was 4 -ft wide, and now it's just a dried weedy bed.
Mr. Goff said he has about '/2 acre in the rear of his home and cannot do much with this piece as the wetlands are there, and feels that a
swimming pool will give his family some use of the back yard. Mr. Goff said he would build the fence to meet all the standards.
Chair Lorberbaum told Mr. Grittman that she recalled asking the developers of Hidden Creek to be very careful of the creek and not
change the runoff and water table. Chair Lorberbaum asked what the procedure is to go back to these developers to see what can be
done. Mr. Grittman said he assumes this was a condition of the plat approval. Chair Lorberbaum said she recalled Commissioner B.
McManus being very concerned about the water. Mr.Grittman said Staff would have to investigate this concern.
Mr. Goff said when the Ridder property project notified the 350 -ft surrounding neighbors; Mr. Goff was told that he was 485 -ft. from
the line. Mr. Goff said they measured from the property line to Mr. Goff s house and not his property line. If they had measured from
property line to property line, Mr. Goff would have been well within the 350 -ft. range. Ms. McDermott said she would have her staff
take a look into this concern. Ms. McDermott said the applicant could also hire a private firm to obtain delineation if he wishes to
dispute, and it is true that wetlands can change over time. Chair Lorberbaum asked Ms. McDermott to contact Mr. Goff with her
findings.
Commissioner M. McManus said there was extensive discussion regarding the wetland impact from the development. Commissioner
M. McManus said although this has been dry summer, she would like to make sure there is some follow -up on this concern.
Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to
close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC
HEARING.
4 AYES
H
Planning Commission Meeting
August 24, 2004
0 NAYS
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER M.MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF THE WETLAND PERMIT AS PRESENTED.
Further Discussion
Commissioner Miller asked if the applicant paid the fee for the variance and wetland permit. Mr. Goff said he did. Chair Lorberbaum
said the City Council has the discretion to return those fees if they choose to, and Mr. Goff may want to remind them.
4 AYES
0 NAYS
MOTION CARRIED
PLANNING CASE #04 -34
Gregory Hoffineyer
546 Hiawatha Avenue
Conditional Use Permit and Variance Request
Mr. Grittman reviewed a map showing the location of 546 Hiawatha Avenue, which has a single - family home. The applicant is
seeking a Conditional Use Permit and Variance to allow construction of a new two -car detached garage. There is currently a single car
detached garage to the rear of the property. Mr. Grittman said the code requires single - family homes to have a two -car garage.
Mr. Grittman said detached garages are required to be processed as Conditional Use Permits and the applicant is seeking a variance to
relocate the garage as it now sits directly on the property line. Mr. Grittman said the applicant shares the driveway with the neighbor.
Mr. Grittman said the new garage would be consistent with the character of the neighborhood.
The finding of a hardship for the variance has been determined that if the new garage was located further to the center of the rear yard,
it would make it extremely difficult to access that garage due to the narrow lot. Staff recommends approval of the variance based on
these conditions, and also recommends that the new garage be set back an additional 5 -ft. from the property line. Due to the location
of the current garage and the closeness to the neighbor's garage, drainage becomes an issue.
Commissioner M. McManus said the Planners Report also recommends a gutter system as part of the recommendation. Mr. Grittman
said when there are structures such as this so close to the property line, it often happens that proper drainage is needed. Mr. Grittman
said any type of gutter system is acceptable as long as it allows for proper runoff from the roof.
Commissioner Dolan said a larger building would create more runoff.
Chair Lorberbaum said in the Planners Report that a Conditional Use Permit is necessary due to the proposed size of the garage. Is the
Conditional Use Permit necessary because it's a detached garage, as the 576 sq. ft. is well within the recommended size? Mr. Grittman
said that statement is not correct, and that the Conditional Use Permit is necessary because it's a detached garage.
Mr. Gregory Hof Meyer, 546 Hiawatha Avenue, said he is fine with the 5 -ft. setback and the gutter system.
Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to
close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
11
Planning Commission Meeting
August 24, 2004
4 AYES
0 NAYS
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
VARIANCE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE GARAGE IS LOCATED 5 -FT. FROM THE SIDEYARD
SETBACK AND INSTALLATION OF A GUTTER SYSTEM ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE GARAGE.
4 AYES
0 NAYS
MOTION CARRIED
COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY M. MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DETACHED TWO -CAR GARAGE BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE
PLANNERSREPORT.
4 AYES
0 NAYS
MOTION CARRIED
PLANNING CASE #04 -35
United Properties for Cray, Inc.
1340 Mendota Heights Road
Sign Setback Variance Request
Mr. Grittman reviewed a map showing the property at 1340 Mendota Heights Road. Mr. Grittman said the property includes the
northeast corner of Mendota Heights and Enterprise Drive. Mr. Grittman said the applicant is seeking a setback variance to
accommodate a sign adjacent to an existing driveway. Mr. Grittman indicated where the applicant's proposed sign would be.
Setbacks for industrial areas are 20 -ft. from the property line and the applicant is requesting a setback of only 10 -ft.
It is the City's practice to accommodate sign variances in this area due to the amount of development; the majority of them have been
20 -ft. The proposed sign is approximately 8 -ft in width and a total of about 24 sq. ft. This would be a directional sign. Upon finding a
hardship for the variance, identification of the property is part of a reasonable use. Mr. Grittman said it is recommended to keep the
20 -ft. setback, as the sign should be reasonably visible.
Commissioner Miller asked if this would be replacing the old sign. Mr. Grittman said it would.
Chair Lorberbaum said the applicant is requesting the 10 -ft. setback because of the landscaping they put in. Mr. Grittman said that was
true. Chair Lorberbaum said this is of their making.
Commissioner Dolan asked where the old sign was located. Mr. Grittman said it does not show on the plan and the Commission may
have to ask the applicant for that information.
Commissioner M. McManus asked if the landscaping was originally required by the City. Mr. Grittman said he could not answer that
and is not aware of the conditions of the original approvals. Mr. Grittman said it would be common for the City to require
landscaping, but whether or not this landscaping as required or additional, it is not known.
Steve Hirtz, Nordquist Signs of Minneapolis, is the representative for United Properties. Mr. Hirtz said the landscaping was part of the
original development and he does not know if there was a formal landscape plan that was required by the City. Mr. Hirtz said the
landscape has grown up during the years and had created sightlines that would not permit visibility if there were a 40 -ft. setback.
12
Planning Commission Meeting
August 24, 2004
Mr. Hirtz said the existing sign does create better sight lines and they are sympathetic to the setback requirements of the City. Mr.
Hirtz said it is not the intent of the applicant to alter the landscape, as it is very mature at this point. Mr. Hirtz said it was his best guess
that the prior sign, which was removed some time ago, was in the range of the 20 -ft. setback.
Commissioner Miller asked if the sign was parallel or perpendicular to the street. Mr. Hirtz said it was parallel to the street.
Commissioner Dolan asked if a 20 -ft. setback would impair the visibility of the sign. Mr. Hirtz said United Properties feels that it
would because it's a directional sign, which people depend on to, go the right direction for deliveries, visitors, etc.
Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to
close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DOLAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
4 AYES
0 NAYS
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF THE SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW 20 -FT. SIGN SETBACK BASED ON THE FINDING THAT A 20 -FT.
SETBACK WILL CONTRIBUTE TO A REASONABLE USE.
Further Discussion
Chair Lorberbaum asked Commissioner M. McManus if she had a preference for the sign being parallel or perpendicular.
Commissioner M. McManus said she has no preference as long as it's 20 -ft. back.
Commissioner Miller said with the geometry and the location, that would make the setback 28 -ft. on the southern corner, and there is a
tree in that location, making the 20 -ft setback not feasible.
Chair Lorberbaum said the applicant said he could live with it at 20 -ft. The applicant has the opportunity to come back to the City
Council to debate and say the 20 -ft. setback will not work.
Commissioner Miller suggested to the applicant to have a better drawn map indicating the sign location.
4 AYES
0 NAYS
MOTION CARRIED
PLANNING CASE #04 -36
Dominic Alfonso
697 South Freeway Road
Variance Request
Mr. Grittman reviewed a site plan in which the applicant wishes to construct a new two -car garage, and convert his existing single -car
garage into living space. Mr. Grittman noted that the existing garage is a tuck under style garage. Mr. Grittman said because the
ordinance requires single - family homes to have a two -car garage, there is not enough room to build this garage without needing a
variance as the proposed garage would encroach into the 30 -ft. setback. It is noted that the west property line is adjacent to an
especially wide right of way (60 -ft. or more) due to the angle of this block. This would then define the hardship for the variance.
13
Planning Commission Meeting
August 24, 2004
Chair Lorberbaum asked if there was a shed in the yard. Mr. Grittman said the applicant could answer that question.
Mr. Dominic Alfonso, 697 South Freeway Road, said the shed is actually a pigeon coop. Mr. Alfonso said the City previously granted
a variance to allow for this coop and allow Mr. Alfonso to have pigeons. Mr. Alfonso said he no longer has pigeons.
Chair Lorberbaum said the shed is very well kept for being empty and asked if the applicant would be removing it after the garage has
been built. Mr. Alfonso said he would not be removing the shed, but will be using it for storage.
Commissioner Miller said this is a good solution to a unique property.
Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to
close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC
HEARING.
4 AYES
0 NAYS
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing.
CHAIR LORBERBAUM MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE VARIANCE TO THE SIDEYARD SETBACK AS PRESENTED BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND
CONDITIONS OF THE PLANNER.
4 AYES
0 NAYS
MOTION CARRIED
PLANNING CASE #04 -37
City of Mendota Heights
1416 Dodd Road
Wetlands Permit
Mr. Grittman reviewed a map, which showed the location of 1416 Dodd Road, for a proposed wetland permit the City of Mendota
Heights would like to have to accommodate the improvement to some ponds at Somerset Country Club property that will
accommodate storm water improvements being made as part of some street reconstruction in that neighborhood.
Mr.Grittman said the wetlands ordinance requires the City to review changes or construction within the buffer area or the wetland area;
in this case these wetlands are being affected by expansion and some reconstruction. The purpose of the change is to manage storm
water and treat that storm water in a fashion that is better than it currently is.
Sue McDermott, City Engineer for the City of Mendota Heights, said Mr.Grittman presented the case well.
Commissioner Miller said he assumed this refurbishment is similar to the freeway neighborhood, with new curb, gutter and asphalt.
Ms. McDermott said that was correct.
Commissioner Miller wondered why no one attended the meeting tonight to listen to this hearing. Ms. McDermott said she had
received several calls and when the callers found out what was being done, they felt no need to attend the meeting.
14
Planning Commission Meeting
August 24, 2004
Commissioner Miller asked if this was a systematic upgrade of the City's utilities. Ms. McDermott said that was correct. The City is
trying to install concrete curb and gutter in all the neighborhoods. Ms. McDermott said the contracts have been awarded and there is a
pre - construction meeting scheduled for Wednesday, August 25, with construction slated to begin soon.
Chair Lorberbaum said there was an applicant earlier tonight that proceeded with the completion of their work before coming to the
City for approvals. Chair Lorberbaum said it is certain that the City knows the rules, and the bids are already open before Staff has
come to the City for the approvals. Ms. McDermott said it was a matter of getting the plan finalized and wanting to have it done
before this was brought forward to the Planning Commission. Ms. McDermott said staff does not intend to do the work on the golf
course until late September /early October, and it has been assumed that this case would be approved. Chair Lorberbaum asked for
confirmation from Ms. McDermott that no work will be started until the City Council grants final approval. Ms. McDermott provided
that assurance.
Commissioner Dolan asked if this project will result in a lot of water going into the pond and does the City have an easement with the
Somerset Country Club to discharge water into the pond? Ms. McDermott said those plans will be finalized tomorrow, knowing the
Staff and the Country Club staff will come to an agreement, but has not been in writing yet. Commissioner Dolan asked if water
already discharges into the pond. Ms. McDermott said some water does, and they will have engineers do a model of the area to make
sure the expansion is adequate.
Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward wishing to speak, Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to
close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC
HEARING.
4 AYES
0 NAYS
MOTION CARRIED
Chair Lorberbaum closed the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER DOLAN, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
WETLANDS PERMIT FOR THE STREET AND STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS BASED UPON THE FINDING
THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE.
4 AYES
0 NAYS
MOTION CARRIED
PLANNING CASE #02 -11
Ross Fefercorn
Village at Mendota Heights
Civic and Green Space Plan
Mr. Grittman reviewed a map of the location at Dodd Road and Highway 110, in which "The Village" is planned for. The original
name for this project was Town Centre. The applicant has sought approval from the City Council previously, and is now coming to the
Planning Commission for their review and comments of landscaping plans and signage plans for the common areas that would be a
part of next phase of construction.
The proposed plan consists of a series of landscape plans:
=> Outlot A —landscaping consists of planting trees and shrubs around a pond on the southwest corner of the project, and
wildflower seeding along Highway 110.
Outlots B & C — edge areas surrounding the Vet Clinic. Additional plants are indicated on the plan, primarily in the form of
boulevard trees and lawn.
15
Planning Commission Meeting
August 24, 2004
Outlots D & E — consists of "Fen" and "Dell" areas. This is a combination of naturalized plantings that emphasize the native
wetland vegetation.
=> Outlot F — was originally shown as a paved plaza and landscaped space. This would be the "gathering" area.
Mr. Grittman said it appears there is a significant amount of landscaping consistent with the original plan that was approved as part of
the preliminary PUD for the vast majority of the project. On Outlot A, some focus needs to be made on the entrance landscaping as
this is a primary entry. There is very little shrubbery along this area and Staff feels there could be more to be consistent with the
naturalized look. Given the amount of attention to the primary entrance to the west, there may be some opportunities to enhance this
southern entrance as well. The remainder of the site appears to be well addressed. Additional landscaping is recommended around
the bank.
Mr. Grittman referred to a letter in the Commissioners' packets that responds to questions Chair Lorberbaum has previously asked
about how the sign plan might compare to the ordinance requirements. Mr. Grittman said PUD's are not commonly mentioned in the
sign ordinance. Mr. Grittman said signage is usually negotiated with the developer. As a guideline, the City allows 2 -sq. ft. of sign
area per front foot of lot occupied by the building. The remainder of the lot that is not occupied that building gets 1 additional square
foot. The majority of commercial sites is built wall -to -wall, and would qualify for 2 sq. ft. of signage per lot or building. The
applicant provided a sample drawing of a typical tenant building and what the signage would look like.
The ordinance also addresses pylon signage and assumes that most commercial properties will ask for pylon signage. In this case, the
only freestanding signage would be a series of monument signs that would identify entrances to the project. The ordinance allows up
to 100 sq. ft. for freestanding signs — one per business property. The total signage in the project would be expected to be less than
what would be in a business -zoned property.
Mr. Grittman asked the Commissioner to provide their comments on what has been presented.
Commissioner M. McManus
=> At one time there was discussion about the fact that an old village hall rested some place on this property. Has this been
incorporated? Mr. Hollister said Mr. Fefercorn did some extensive research and would most likely have that information. Mr.
Fefercom's staff recently went through some old plat maps at City Hall and found there was a village hall at one point on the
northeast corner of Dodd Road and Highway 110. Mr. Hollister said Mr. Fefercom has begun planning historical markers on
the site.
=> There has been significant discussion on gathering space. Would some of the expansion be on the lawn area?
=> Would like to see more pictures of the benches, refuse containers, etc. that will be used.
Commissioner Dolan
=> Not clear on Outlot A if the Planner was recommending additional plantings or would the natural look be acceptable. Mr.
Grittman said the idea of the naturalized look is fine and it seemed it looks a bit barren and may need some additional planting
on that area. Needs more shrub messing.
=> New Highway 110 exit ramp for Outlot A — has this been approved? Chair Lorberbaum said it was already there. Mr.
Grittman said he was not aware of any others coming forward.
=> Will the City be paying for some of the materials, who will be doing the ongoing maintenance? Mr. Grittman said the City is
responsible for installation costs, but the developer will be taking care of maintenance and upkeep.
Chair Lorberbaum
Chair Lorberbaum thanked the City Council for sending this plan back to the Commission for further review and feedback.
=* When did Town Centre become "The Village "?
=> Who is Carl Hohenstein?
=> Did not see a lot of information relating to the colors of the signs.
=> Who pays for the banners when the weather wears them down?
16
Planning Commission Meeting
August 24, 2004
=> Will there be any winter season lights?
=> Would like to have documentation in the agreements that would not allow pylon signs of any kind.
=> Would like to have documentation in the agreements that there will be no signage listing the tenants
=> Would like to see documentation that details the number of signs there will be, as well as the location of these signs.
=> Creative graphics — Chair Lorberbaum said she is all in favor of graphics, but they also need to be clear and tasteful.
=> Referring to Exhibit G Sign criteria, who is the landlord? Mr. Grittman said the landlord is Mr. Fefercorn's company
=:> Non - illuminating letters - would like more clarification.
=> Bird backs — would like more clarification on the definition of this.
=> The criterion for designated sign area is stated, as the sign will occupy no more than 65% of the area. Would like to know
what the designated sign area is.
=> Item G2 talks about decals that indicate product lines or credit cards not being permitted on the glass windows, and feels this is
tasteful.
=> All illuminating signs must be turned on during the shopping center's normal operating hours. The use of time clocks for sign
and show window lighting is required. When will these be turned off and on?
=> The store cannot put any placards, banners, anything hanging from the door windows — that means no open and close signs as
is typical in many retail environments — what do tenants do to show open and close?
In Item G3, where it talks about certain signs that are not permitted, would like to see pylons included in this list.
=> Noticed the absence of trees to the right of building F, and behind buildings A, B and C. Looking for more landscaping.
Commissioner Miller
=> Would like to see a landscaping schedule by outlot.
=> Would like more information on maintenance, including walking trails, bike paths, etc. and those schedules.
Chair Lorberbaum asked Mr. Grittman that there was a lot of controversy about crowding and being too close to the street, and a lot of
impervious surface. There have since been a lot of changes made and would like to know what percentage of the Village is green
space.
Mr. Ross Fefercorn, Chief Manager of Mendota Heights Town Center, LLC addressed some of the above concerns.
=> The map that was submitted to the Planning Commission shows Outlots A, C, D, E, AND G. These outlots have been
identified because they are outlots that remain as public ownership. None of these outlots and footprints of the buildings have
changed since approval. These are the areas in which the developer has been working with to design and plan for the
appropriate public space. They have a budget of about $400,000 for landscaping, and another $80,000 for paved trails. The
$400,000 includes hard surface materials (brick pavers, fountain structures, trash containers, benches, chairs, public signs).
This is the budget that was identified in the original public budget for this project. This does not mean there are not other
sources to come by should this expand beyond the allowable costs right now.
Referred to Loring Park by example, in which there is a group called "Friends of Loring Park" which have done significant
jobs for the public good in landscaping.
=> Addressing maintenance costs and working with several maintenance contractors.
Historical Reference to the Site: There has been much identification of pieces of history on this site. Would like to add
placards and historical panels to give information and context on Market Square. There is too much information for a small
area such as this, but these appear to have been a City Hall that was torn down around 1920. Dodd Road is a historical road
and there are many references to history in the area and the developer would like to reference that for children and adults.
=> Market Square: Would like to propose some type of paver bricks where people can donate in memory of family members,
which is currently being done at Loring Park. This draws the public's attention to this area and causes family members to go
back generation after generation. This may be a template to what is done and wants the City and public involved in the
planning of this.
Gateway Bank currently has their trailer parked on this particular location and will have that removed in October and
November. This causes the timing of the landscaping to be pushed back.
=> Because this is a tight area, as the structures are being finished, the developer will begin landscaping bit by bit.
17
Planning Commission Meeting
August 24, 2004
=> Market Square was envisioned to have quite a bit of green space in early renditions. These renditions were conceptual in
nature and not very well thought out. It may be more practical to remove the clustering of trees in the center and replace with a
grassy area where people could better use a lawn space for picnicking, and other gathering opportunities.
=> Mr. Fefercorn reviewed the map of Market Square and talked about the choices of benches, trash receptacles, tables and chairs
that may be used. Mr. Fefercorn also reviewed layouts of the storefront and signage that would be done.
Mr. Fefercorn said the developer needs to work with the City on the condition of the ponds as they were supposed to be lined
with either clay or plastic to retain the water. At this time, these linings have not been installed and they need to be addressed
in the future. The developer will also be installing bubblers in the ponds to keep the water fresh, which will come out of the
homeowner association budget.
=> Mr. Fefercorn said the lawn area will not be difficult to maintain and there will be a maintenance scheduled for regular
mowing, irrigated and fertilizing. Regarding Outlot A, the plan does show that the existing sumac will be staying. It is
desired to keep some open spaces along Outlot A and sumac can be added there.
=> Trash collection and routine landscaping maintenance is the responsibility of the developer. Expenses beyond that relating to
any capital improvements will be the responsibility of the City in the public areas.
=> The development became "The Village of Mendota Heights" as the name of "Town Center" is very commonly used in other
cities. The developer feels this project is more a village area. Originally, the developer used the name "Town Center ", and
then made the decision to change the name. The City has never brought up the discussion to why the name was changed, nor if
it was an approved change.
Carl Hohenstein was a property owner. When his wife sold property to the City, part of that arrangement was to name a street
after him.
Colors of signage: many tenants have their own corporate or retail identity. The developer wishes to let people do what they
want within reason as far as the colors are concerned. There are certain types of signage that will be allowed. Mr. Fefercorn
reviewed what the "blade" signs will look like and what the restrictions of the signage will be. Mr. Fefercorn said blade signs
are more for pedestrial traffic.
Banners are not allowed unless they are temporarily used for sales or events. This gives the landlord better control of
appropriateness and timeframe of the banners.
=> Pylon signs will be included in the restrictions of the signage as requested by Chair Lorberbaum.
=> There is no winter seasonal lighting package at this time, but maybe coming in the future.
There will a consistent template for all the doors to show the operating hours of those stores. There will be no need for
"Open" signs.
Placards are defined as a sign taped to the window. There are to be no signage taped to the glass in any case.
Designated sign areas are part of each building's architecture and referred to the map, which shows signage on the building
and sign areas for retail tenants.
=> Noticed the absence of trees to the right of building F, and behind buildings A, B and C. Mr. Fefercorn said this is a fairly
compact area which is a parking lot accessed to the underground parking for Building F. Most of this area is concrete and
limits the planting areas. Mr. Fefercorn said they could re -look at the areas around buildings A, B and C to do some further
landscaping.
Chair Lorberbaum asked if there were any tradeoffs with the trees versus the pavers. Mr. Fefercorn said it was determined that
this that this area would be better served by having pavers installed to allow for more gathering space, whereas the trees would
not give that opportunity for openness. The sumac is quite dense there and will be spreading naturally to provide adequate
aesthetics to the area.
=> Chair Lorberbaum commented on the possibility of having children's handprints cast in concrete to compliment the pavers in
the area. Chair Lorberbaum said this gives the area a very friendly feeling. Mr. Fefercorn said he has seen this in other areas
and was interested in pursing this idea.
=> Mr. Grittman said the best estimated of the calculation of green space would be approximately 40 %, and an additional 20%
based on some of the large spaces around private properties.
=> Mr. Fefercorn explained that a bird back is a mechanism on the back of a sign that deters bird nests.
=> Landscape maintenance schedules: still a challenge because of the on -going heavy machinery that is around as the buildings
are being erected. Mr. Fefercorn gave the best update on all surround areas that he could at this time.
=> Mr. Fefercorn said Outlot A might be a good site to store plowed snow.
=> Mr. Fefercorn said all the residential parking is underground, which gives more to the green space. These residential areas also
have a small semi - private fenced in yard space.
18
Planning Commission Meeting
August 24, 2004
Chair Lorberbaum asked if the developer could disclose any potential tenants for the retail space. Mr. Fefercorn said he could not
do that at this time.
Chair Lorberbaum opened the floor to public comment.
Mr. John Bathke, 699 Second Avenue, said he's been watching this project for some time, and added that this has been a
fascinating presentation by Mr. Fefercorn. Mr. Bathke said he would like to see a recommendation going forward for an advisory
committee of some kind including residents on the area for some of the on -going issues and concerns for this whole thing, perhaps
as was done at Loring Park.
Mr. Bathke said for certain maintenance and enhancements in the future, he would recommend establishment of an endowment
fund, possibly funded by public subscription from neighbors and other residents, that would be in the form of a percentage of rent
of taxes.
Mr. Bathke said in all the green space, he would like to see an emphasis on using as much indigenous plants as possible and an
emphasis on conifers.
PLANNING CASE #02 -04
Continued Discussion of Property Maintenance Ordinance
Mr. Hollister said Mr. Bathke indicating he would have some to distribute to the Planning Commission. Mr. Bathke distributed the
"Chapter 5 Property Maintenance" paper in which he highlighted some concerns he would like to see addressed.
Mr. Hollister said based on conversations a month ago, he has revised the Property Maintenance Ordinance and provided to the
Planning Commission in their packets for their review.
Commissioner Miller
z* No comments
Chair Lorberbaum
=> Chair Lorberbaum said she appreciated staff's work.
=> Referring to Section 12- 5- 3:A -4. The language seems to be repeating itself in this paragraph.
=> Thanked Mr. Hollister to passing onto Mr. Grittman her recommendation regarding additional accessory structures in larger
properties.
Commissioner Dolan
=� Referring to Section 12 -5 -3: A -2. Strike out the "Grading and Drainage" heading. Also, "Property" should be "property".
=> Referring to Section 12 -5 -3: A -3. Second sentence should read "All exterior surfaces .... maintained in a good and safe
condition ".
Commissioner M. McManus
=> No comments.
=:> Commended Staff on their good work on this.
Chair Lorberbaum asked the commissioners if they had any comments on her addition to the Property Maintenance Ordinance and if it
should be included.
Note: The discussion from here on refers to Section 12 -5 -6: OTHER OUTDOOR STORAGE., Item A.2. which states
19
Planning Commission Meeting
August 24, 2004
"Not more than three (3) currently licensed and operable vehicles, including trailers, may be parked or stored on property outside a
structure as follows:
a. In the front yard, provided they are kept on an established driveway, entirely on the vehicle owner's property. Except as
provided herein, recreational vehicles may not be parked or stored on public property or street right -of -way.
b. In the rear yard not closer than ten feet (10 ) from the rear lot line, five feet (S ) from the side lot lines, and not within
drainage and utility easements.
c. On a corner lot not closer than twenty feet (20 ) from the property line abutting the street side of the lot and not within
drainage and utility easements. "
Commissioner Miller asked if there would be a time limit. Chair Lorberbaum said her addition is saying that if you have a larger
property, then perhaps you would be allowed to have more vehicles, especially if they can not been seen from the road. Commissioner
Dolan asked if they should be parked in the back yard. Chair Lorberbaum said that in many cases, people have long driveways that are
usually not very visible from the street. And even though you can't see these vehicles from the road, should they be limited to three?
Chair Lorberbaum said she is proposing a way that just as people can have additional accessory structures based on a conditional use
permit; people should also be allowed to have more vehicles because they have a larger plot of land.
Commissioner Dolan asked if the vehicles would need to be in the driveway. Chair Lorberbaum said they would be in the driveway,
rather than limiting someone to three vehicles, trailers, ATV's, current licensed vehicles. If the property is a large piece of land, and if
it's farther from the street and screened that no one else can see, it could be under the conditional use permit mode or some way make
it easy for them to have more vehicles.
Mr. Grittman said this addition is intended to supplement the language that was in the property maintenance ordinance, Section 12 -5-
6:2. The original language states that three cars can be parked or stored and the conditions outlined where those vehicles could be
stored. Those conditions included either in the driveway or the rear yard no closer than 20 -ft. on a corner lot. Those conditions would
continue to apply even on the larger lots; the only change would be to allow larger lots to have more cars but would be subject to the
same locations.
Commissioner M. McManus said she does not see any negative impact on this idea.
Commissioner Dolan said he would love to see this passed onto the City Council, and would like to look at Section 12- 5 -6:A2 more
specifically and see exactly what the affect of this would be. Chair Lorberbaum said the current wording says you can't have more
than three vehicles. Commissioner Dolan said he would like to read the exact language.
Commissioner Miller asked how Mr. Grittman came up with five vehicles in the proposed addition. Mr. Grittman said it is a mystical
threshold number that he cannot explain, other than provide for a basis for discussion.
Chair Lorberbaum said the way the addition is now written, a resident can have five vehicles if it is a larger parcel, can they
automatically have this or do they need to come in for a permit? Mr. Grittman said this language is intended to say if you have a larger
lot, using the four -acre threshold, that threshold already exists in the ordinance for things such as accessory buildings. This language
will make it easier to manage and stay consistent internally.
Commissioner Dolan asked how many single - family residential lots are in the City that are more than four acres? Mr. Grittman said it
would be a small minority.
Commissioner Dolan asked if this was really necessary. Chair Lorberbaum said she believes it is as there are people with larger lots
who see no harm in having extra vehicles as long as no one sees them. Chair Lorberbaum says these property owners should not be
restricted, as it's causing no impact to others. Commissioner Dolan said five vehicles seem to be excessive. Chair Lorberbaum said
this could include a boat, kids' cars, etc. Commissioner Dolan said it seems that people who have single - family lots that are greater
than four acres would most likely not have trailers and boats in their driveway.
Chair Lorberbaum said she wants the City to be the best possible, but does not want to unfairly cause problems for existing issues.
Chair Lorberbaum asked that this addition be included to the presentation to the City Council for them to think about as an option.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 24, 2004
Chair Lorberbaum asked the Commissioners if they were ready to send this to City Council. Commissioner Dolan said he was ready.
Chair Lorberbaum asked if there would be a public notice so that the residents who are affected by this can clearly come before the
City Council and have their chance to be heard.
Commissioner M. McManus asked if this would go with a consensual nodding of heads? Commissioner Miller said not all
commissioners are present at this time.
Mr. Hollister said when this is passed onto City Council, and the City Council is okay with this, they will order a public hearing at the
Planning Commission and this will come right back. For purposes of this evening, Mr. Hollister said a motion would be in order but it
doesn't necessarily have to be a motion of recommendation, but merely a motion to convey this to the City Council.
COMMISSIONER M. MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR LORBERBAUM, TO MOVE FORWARD THE
PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ORDINANCE DRAFT TO CITY COUNCIL FOR DISCUSSION AND REVIEW, WITH
THE INCLUSION OF THE LAST PORTION TO BE INCLUDED IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE ORDINANCE; ALSO
WITH THE SUGGESTIONS AS SUBMITTED BY MR. JOHN BATHKE.
Further Discussion
Commissioner Dolan said the Planning Commission has not had the opportunity to discuss this new change. And as the Planning
Commission has thoroughly reviewed everything else, this is a new proposal that he has not had a chance to get his mind around it yet
and support it. Chair Lorberbaum said in all fairness, it was in the packet and it will be coming back to the Planning Commission
again. Commissioner Dolan said he does not want to see any misunderstanding as to whether the Planning Commission agrees to this
or not, and at this time, he has some reservations about it.
4 AYES
0 NAYS
MOTION CARRIED
COMMISSIONER DOLAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT
11:10 PM.
4 AYES
0 NAYS
Respectfully submitted,
Becki Shaffer, Recording Secretary
21