2013-12-16 Planning Comm MinutesCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES
December 16, 2013
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday,
December 16, 2013, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Howard
Roston, Michael Noonan, Doug Hennes, Robin Hennessy, Mary Magnuson, and Ansis Vilcsnins.
Those absent: None. Those present were City Planner Nolan Wall, Public Worlcs Director/City
Engineer John Mazzitello, and Consultant Planner Bob Kirmis.
AppNoval of A�enda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
AppNoval of OctobeN 22, 2013 Minutes
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON , TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2013 AS PRESENTED.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Hea�in�s
PLANNING CASE #2013-21
Michael McEllistrein, 1349 Knollwood Lane
Lot split of vacant, unaddressed parcel owned by Robert Hocicett of 1335 Knollwood Lane
Consulting Planner Bob Kirmis explained that this application is a combination application
received from Robert Hocicett and Michael McEllistrem to subdivide property and convey it to
an adjacent property. Mr. Hocicett owns the single family lot located at 1335 Knollwood Lane
and also owns the landlociced parcel to the west, which is approximately 25,000 square feet in
size. The two property owners wish to split off the southern 70 feet of the landlociced parcel and
convey to Mr. McEllistrem. This would be a minor subdivision being conveyed to the adjacent
property to the south. Staff has no particular issues with the application. The only condition of
approval recommended is that the split off portion be combined with the McEllistrem property
located at 1349 Knollwood Lane.
Staff recommended approval of this request.
Ms. Diane McEllistrein, wife of Mr. Michael McEllistrein, had nothing to add to the staff report.
Decerixber 16, 2013 lle�rdota Heights� Pla�r�ri�rg C'orixrixissioir lleeti�rg Page 1
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to spealc, Chair Field aslced for a motion to close the
public hearing.
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
RECOMIV�ND APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION FOR ROBERT HOCKETT AND
MICHAEL MCELLISTREM, SPLITTING A 6,994 SQUARE FOOT PARCEL FROM LAND
OWNED BY MR. HOCKETT AND CONVEYED TO MR. MCELLISTREM, WITH THE
CONDITION THAT THE NEWLY CREATED PARCEL IS CONCL]RRENTLY COMBINED
WITH THE MCELLISTREM PROPERTY AT 1349 KNOLLWOOD LANE.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its January 7, 2014
meeting.
PLANNING CASE #2013-22
Dawn Nichols, on behalf of Convent of the Visitation School, or 2455 Visitation Drive
Conditional Use Permit and Variances for signage standards
Consulting Planner Bob Kirmis explained that the applicants have submitted a comprehensive
sign plan that has resulted in the need for a number of conditional use permits and variances.
Presently, there are nine signs existing on this property. The submitted sign plan calls for the
addition of nine new signs and the replacement of two existing signs on the property. Presently,
there are 175 square feet of signage on the property and as a result of the comprehensive sign
plan 478 square feet of signage would exist. Specifically, the application involves two
conditional use permits and four variances.
This particular site is zoned R1 Single-family Residential, which is geared towards residential
uses rather than institutional uses, such as that being considered. Regardless, the sign standards
in that district allow for one 12 square foot nameplate sign, one second nameplate sign by
conditional use permit provided that sign does not exceed 100 square feet. Finally, it allows for a
wall sign by conditional use permit up to 100 square feet. The R1 district in total allows for 212
square feet of signage upon individual parcels of land.
Consulting Planner Kirmis shared an exhibit of the existing signs and another graphic outlining
the new signs, 250 total square feet, as follows:
Decerixber 16, 2013 lle�rdota Heights� Pla�r�ri�rg C'orixrixissioir lleeti�rg Page 2
1. "Entry Gate" sign consisting of an arched set of letters over the main entrance drive,
supported by coluinns. This sign would be more than 16 feet in height to provide
clearance for underpassing vehicles, a total sign area of 136 square feet.
2. Two Secondary Directory signs at 7 feet in height and 30 square feet in area, with both
signs to be installed at a future date. The location of these two signs would be along the
entrance drive between the entrance and the parlcing lot. The purpose of these signs is
traffic direction.
3. A"School Gate" sign consisting of two monument posts with identifying logo marlcings
at the main entry to the school building (north side). This sign is 30 square feet in total
area, and the overall structure height is approximately 12 feet (although the sign location
would be approximately 9 feet at its pealc height).
4. Two "Wayfinding" signs, 12 square feet each, for a total area of 24 square feet. Such
signs are traffic directional signs. The plan indicates one such sign at the southeast corner
of the parlcing lot — a second location is not clear from the materials.
The approvals necessary to accommodate this request would be:
a. Conditional Use Permit for 2nd Nameplate sign
b. Conditional Use Permit for wall sign in addition to nameplate sign
c. Variance for size of 2nd Nameplate sign
d. Variance for total number of signs
e. Variance for total square footage of signs
f. Variance to allow electronic digital messages
g. Variance for sign height
Staff recommended the following actions:
1. Approval – Conditional Use Permit to allow a second nameplate sign of up to 100 square
feet for non-residential uses in an R-1 zone
2. Approval – Conditional Use Permit to allow wall signage in excess of the standard 12
square feet for non-residential uses in an R-1 zone
3. Approval – Variance to exceed the maximuin number and square footage for signage (3
signs at 212 square feet maximuin, 15 signs at 478 square feet proposed)
4. Denial – Variance to height for Entry Gate Sign (20 feet � over the standard of 9 feet in
height)
5. Approval – Variance to School Gate Sign (12 feet � over the standard of 9 feet in height)
6. Denial – Variance to Sign Display (Electronic Digital Message Board)
Chair Field aslced if the entry arch being on a public right-of-way influenced staff's
recommendation. Consulting Planner Kirmis replied that staff was made aware of that on the day
of this meeting and there would need to be a special permit granted. Typically cities do not
encourage private structures within rights-of-way. However, it is also his understanding that
Visitation Drive is a bit unique as it functions as a private drive. City Planner Nolan Wall
commented that particular sign is proposed to be brought forward with sign permits, if approved,
at a later date. Staff would aslc that if that sign was brought forward that in addition to the sign
permit that it would also need a right-of-way permit, depending on the actual location of the sign.
Decerixber 16, 2013 lle�rdota Heights� Pla�r�ri�rg C'orixrixissioir lleeti�rg Page 3
Additional discussions occurred on the placement of the monument signs in the public right-of-
way and the need, during the sign permit process, for a right-of-way permit.
Commissioner Magnuson asked for the background on the sign height restrictions. Explanation
was provided on the differences between signs in areas zoned residential rather than commercial.
Commissioners aslced for clarification that digital signs had been requested, and denied, by other
institutions. This was confirmed.
Other discussions occurred regarding other requested signs in the City of Mendota Heights and
the outcomes of those requests. Discussion also occurred around the possibility of changing the
code for institutional uses in residential zones.
Planner Wall provided further information by stating that initially the only sign permit that is up
for consideration immediately is for the `Welcome Digital Display' sign that would be located as
part of the renovation project that is currently going on. In spealcing with the school about their
future plans, instead of coming back for variances and additional conditional use permits over
time, it was suggested that they pacicage every sign improvement that they may want to malce in
the near future as a comprehensive sign plan in order to obtain approvals and recommendations
that the Planning Commission would feel could go before the City Council and be adopted. This
way they would lcnow what they are allowed and not allowed to do when malcing future
investments in signage on their property.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Ms. Dawn Nichols of Visitation School expressed gratitude to City Staff and the Planning
Commission for considering their request. She explained the comprehensive signage plan was
an effort to upgrade the campus to malce it more user-friendly and to beautify it to better serve
the community. She furthered explained, specific to the proposed digital display signs, that the
intent is to utilize new technology. Upon response to a question from the Planning Commission,
Ms. Nichols indicated the proposed comprehensive signage plan would be implemented over 2-3
years.
Mr. Scott Shifflett, representing Visitation School, of Opus Design Build detailed the unique
features of the Visitation campus, including: one-way ingress and egress; significant building
and proposed signage setbacics from property lines; four partnered uses on campus; and public
facilities used by Mendota Heights residents. These unique features require additional signage
and way-finding to navigate the site and ensure safe traffic movements. He furthered explained
the intent of the entry gate sign and showed an example of a similar design at St. Thomas
Academy. He also presented information specific to the proposed digital signage on campus.
Commissioners aslced the applicant and their representatives questions regarding the digital
display sign, the existing signage, the ability to alter the proposed digital sign to malce it
compliant, the restrictions being put on Visitation should any part of this request be denied, and
possible code review and adjustments.
Decerixber 16, 2013 lle�rdota Heights� Pla�r�ri�rg C'orixrixissioir lleeti�rg Page =!
The Commission toolc a five minute intermission to allow the applicants to discuss their options
(continue with the application as is or request a layover on the current application and then worlc
with staff to create a code amendment request for Council consideration).
As a result of their deliberation, the applicants decided to request a layover of this request to the
January 28, 2014 Planning Commission meeting and they would then work with staff to submit
an application for amendments to the city ordinance.
Mr. Glen Unruh and Ms. Jennifer Naas, 2370 Swan Drive, came forward to comment. Mr. Unruh
stated he agreed with staff recommendations on the application, particularly pertaining to the
digital signage. He then shared images of where his property is in relation to the school and the
proposed digital sign. He mentioned that they are already getting quite a bit of light pollution
from Visitation and have no desire to have any more.
Ms. Naas stated that it appeared to her that the Commission was trying to work with Visitation to
get this pushed through — something that would impact all of the neighbors located right across
the street from them. She does not feel that this should be pushed through at the expense of the
neighbors.
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON,
TO LAY THIS MATTER OVER, WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN, TO THE
JANUARY 28, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
2014 Meetin� CalendaN
Commissioners were aslced to review the following proposed 2014 meeting schedule and malce
any recommendations for adjustments:
January 28
February 25
March 25
April 22
May 27 (day after Memorial Day)
June 24
July 22
August 26
September 23
October 28
November 25 (Tharilcsgiving weelc)
December 23 (Hanuldcah/Christmas weelc — was rescheduled this year)
Commissioners directed staff to schedule the meetings as listed, leaving the option open for
possible reschedules as needed.
Decerixber 16, 2013 lle�rdota Heights� Pla�r�ri�rg C'orixrixissioir lleeti�rg Page 5
VeNbal Revierv
Planner Nolan Wall gave the following verbal review:
PLANNING CASE #2013-16 Ken & Mary Paquin Accessory Structure Setbacic Variance
• Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING CASE #2013-17 Southview Design Inc. Zoning Ordinance Amendment
• Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING CASE #2013-18 Willin Consultants CUP for Updates to Wireless Facility
• Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING CASE #2013-19 James & Deborah Povolny Variance Requests
• Approved by the City Council as recommended in part by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING CASE #2013-20 Ed Sweeney After-the-Fact Wetland Permit
• Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN,
TO ADJOi_]RN THE MEETING AT 8:22 P.M.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Decerixber 16, 2013 lle�rdota Heights� Pla�r�ri�rg C'orixrixissioir lleeti�rg Page 6