The URL can be used to link to this page

2014-03-25 Planning Comm Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA iiMarch 25, 2014 — 7:00 p.m. Mendota Heights City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Adopt Agenda 4. Approve February 25, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes 5. Public Hearings (7:00 p.m. or shortly thereafter): a. Case No. 2014-07: Lee Violet and Joe Rueckert of 2334 Swan Drive. Conditional Use Permit for fence in the required side yard. b. Case No. 2014-08: Linda Dehkes, on behalf of Roger and Grace Pass. Lot split request for unaddressed property at Oak Street and North Freeway Road (Lot 3, Block 3, Jefferson Heights). c. Case No. 2014-03: Code Amendment for Electronic Display Signs. 6. Discussion of Public Hearing Process 7. Verbal Review 8. Adjourn Auxiliary 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. Page 1 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2 DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3 4 PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES 5 February 25, 2014 6 7 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, 8 February 25, 2014, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. 9 10 The following Commissioners were present: Vice -Chair Doug Hennes, Commissioners Howard 11 Roston, Michael Noonan, Mary Magnuson, and Ansis Viksnins. Those absent: Chair Litton 12 Field, Jr., Robin Hennesey. Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall and Public Works 13 Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello. 14 15 Adopt Agenda 16 17 The agenda was approved as submitted. 18 19 Approval of January 28, 2014 Minutes 20 21 COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, 22 TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2014, AS PRESENTED. 23 24 AYES: 5 25 NAYS: 0 26 ABSENT:2 27 28 Election of Chair and Vice Chair 29 30 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO 31 APPOINT LITTON FIELD, JR. AS CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 32 33 AYES: 5 34 NAYS: 0 35 ABSENT:2 36 37 COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, 38 TO APPOINT DOUG HENNES AS VICE -CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 39 40 AYES: 5 41 NAYS: 0 42 ABSENT:2 43 44 Introduction of Consulting Planner 45 46 Vice -Chair Hennes recognized City Planner Nolan Wall to introduce the City's new consulting 47 planner and noted that this also represents a change on the part of the City in terms who it hires 48 for its consulting firm. February 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 Page 2 49 Planner Wall gave a brief background on the RFP process in determining the City's planning 50 consulting firm: 51 • Council authorized an RFP for planning services in October 2013 52 • Seven proposals were received; three firms were interviewed in December 2013 53 • Staff was directed to contract with Stantec Consulting Services as the City's new 54 consulting planner 55 56 Planner Wall then introduced Ms. Tina Goodroad, Project Manager with Stantec Consulting 57 Services. 58 59 Consulting Planner Goodroad provided a brief background on her history and experiences. 60 61 Hearings 62 63 PLANNING CASE #2014-04 64 Rod and Sue Stombaugh, 2266 Field Stone Drive 65 Conditional Use Permit 66 67 City Planner Nolan Wall explained that this application is a request for a CUP to construct a 68 covered front porch entryway within the front yard setback on the property located at 2266 Field 69 Stone Drive, owned by Rod and Sue Stombaugh. 70 71 The parcel contains a single family dwelling on 0.49 acres, is zoned R-1 and guided for low 72 density residential use in the comprehensive plan. The lot is located on a partial cul-de-sac, 73 which causes a curvilinear front yard setback line. The existing dwelling is compliant with the 74 setback; however, the proposed construction would encroach. The code does allow for this type 75 of encroachment as long as certain conditions are met. 76 77 Staff recommended approval of this application. 78 79 Commissioners asked questions regarding the conditions necessary for approval. 80 81 Vice -Chair Hennes opened the public hearing. 82 83 Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Vice -Chair Hennes asked for a motion to close 84 the public hearing. 85 86 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO 87 CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 88 89 AYES: 5 90 NAYS: 0 91 ABSENT:2 92 93 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO 94 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR COVERED 95 FRONT ENTRYWAY BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: February 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 Page 3 96 1. The existing use of the subject parcel as a single-family residential dwelling is consistent 97 with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. 98 2. The partial cul-de-sac frontage creates a curvilinear front yard setback line to parallel the 99 street and the current location of the dwelling results in the encroachment in the proposed 100 design of the covered front entryway. 101 3. The proposed covered front entryway cannot be accommodated within the required 102 setbacks without altering the design given the location of the existing dwelling. 103 4. The encroachment, as designed, is not incompatible with the uses and character of the 104 neighborhood or for a single-family residential dwelling. 105 5. The proposed structure is compliant with the conditions included in the City Code that 106 allow it by conditional use permit. 107 108 AYES: 5 109 NAYS: 0 110 ABSENT:2 111 112 Vice -Chair Hennes advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 4, 2014 113 meeting. 114 115 PLANNING CASE #2014-05 116 Jerry Trooien, on behalf of Alden and Joyce Landreville, 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway 117 Lot Split Request 118 119 City Planner Nolan Wall stated that this request is for a lot split at 1010 Sibley Memorial 120 Highway. The parcel is owned by Alden and Joyce Landreville and contains an existing single - 121 family dwelling on 5.0 acres with access on Sibley Memorial Highway. 122 123 The applicant has entered into a contract to purchase the entire subject parcel. If approved and 124 recorded, the applicant intends to construct a new single-family home on the newly created 125 parcel, utilizing the existing driveway access from Sibley Memorial Highway. 126 127 The subdivision would create two lots, both of which meet the 15,000 square foot standard for 128 this particular zoning district. Parcel A would be the existing parcel with the existing dwelling. 129 That parcel would be reduced to 3.41 acres. Parcel B would propose to be 1.63 acres. Both lot 130 widths on Sibley Memorial Highway would meet the 100 -foot standard. Both parcels would also 131 be compliant with the R-1 zoning district and consistent with the comprehensive plan. 132 133 Planner Wall noted that the subject parcel is entirely in the critical corridor area of the 134 Mississippi River so an additional set of standards were reviewed. However, the larger context of 135 improvements as a result of this lot split would have to be dealt with under a conditional use 136 permit application — which is not being considered at this time. The applicant has been made 137 aware of this, has had discussions with staff, and has provided information based on those 138 additional regulations. 139 140 Parcel B would share access from Sibley Memorial Highway. The possibility of creating a new 141 access onto Parcel A was discussed; however, there would be concerns with MnDOT about 142 allowing additional access onto a state highway. In addition, it would require significant land February 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 Page 4 143 disturbance in order to make a driveway that would comply with the standards needed for an 144 additional driveway. Staff is comfortable with the shared driveway. 145 146 In addition, the applicant provided some lengthy documents regarding easements and covenants 147 that would be in place at this time, moving forward, to answer some of the questions about a 148 shared driveway and know that some of those issues would be discussed and would be available 149 and agreed upon before that parcel is sold and developed in the future. 150 151 Staff recommended approval of this application subject to the following conditions: 152 1. Park dedication fee in the amount of $2,700, in lieu of land, is collected after City 153 Council approval and before issuance of any additional permits by the City. 154 2. Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of a 155 building permit. 156 3. The applicant shall submit a critical area permit application prior to any applicable 157 improvements on Parcel B. 158 4. The applicant shall dedicate 10 -foot wide drainage and utility easements along the front 159 property lines and 5 -foot wide drainage and utility easements along the rear property 160 lines to be denoted on the map submitted to Dakota County. 161 5. The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site plan with 162 associated easements, subject to review and approval by the City Engineering 163 Department as part of any building permit application. 164 6. The shared access easement agreement must be agreed to by both property owners, and 165 signed, notarized, and recorded against both properties prior to the issuance of a building 166 permit. 167 7. Any land disturbance activities must be in compliance with the City's land Disturbance 168 Guidance document. 169 8. The applicant works with the Fire and Police Departments to ensure access to the gate 170 securing the shared driveway prior to any construction on Parcel B. 171 172 Vice -Chair Hennes opened the public hearing. 173 174 Mr. Alton Todd, 991 Caren Court, asked for clarification on the distance between the proposed 175 building pad and the property line. Planner Wall replied that the distance is 20.2 feet. He also 176 explained that the building pad is only the area where a home could be built within to comply 177 with setback and slope requirements. It is not the house footprint. 178 179 Mr. Todd also asked if the requirement for separation of other potential structures would be the 180 same with respect to the property line. Planner Wall replied that accessory structures are bound 181 to different setback standards than a dwelling would be. Any structure within the critical area, 182 besides a building permit, would need to go through the critical area permit process. 183 184 Mr. Andrew Garner, 1631 James Road, asked if there was a proposed structure and if it would 185 definitely be residential. Planner Wall replied that there is no proposed structure but that it would 186 be residential. He then asked about guidelines in regards to the height of the structure. Planner 187 Wall reminded everyone that the request before the Planning Commission was related to the lot 188 split. There are standards that the applicant would need to adhere to at the point in time they do 189 intend to build a new single family dwelling. February 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 Page 5 190 Mr. Daren Carlson, 992 Caren Court, had a few questions in terms of bluff setbacks. Planner 191 Wall again reminded everyone that the critical area requirements themselves were not being 192 discussed as part of this lot split — only in the fact the building pad that the applicant has shown 193 would comply with the critical area setbacks and slope requirements. However, he believes that 194 initially forty feet from a bluff line is the standard for the setback [bluffs would be slopes greater 195 than 40%]. There are also requirements for any grading or improvements within 18% slope 196 areas. 197 198 Mr. Carlson then asked about the condition listed in regards to a 'park dedication fee'. Planner 199 Wall replied that any new residential lot in the City of Mendota Heights is required to pay that 200 $2,700 park dedication fee, no matter the size of the lot. 201 202 In regards to the actual critical area application, Mr. Carlson asked if that would go through 203 another hearing process and be approved or not approved based on the actual design of the 204 structure. Planner Wall highlighted the critical area application process. 205 206 Ms. Peggy Gibbs, 1657 James Road, asked if somewhere in the discussions and plans for the 207 proposed parcel if staff and the planning commission could discuss burying the power lines in 208 the area as there are multiple power outages. 209 210 Commissioner Roston recused himself from this particular portion of the discussion. 211 212 City Engineer John Mazzitello replied that the electrical utilities within Mendota Heights are 213 privately held. They are the property of Xcel Energy. In this particular case, he would be willing 214 to provide contact information to the applicant or any resident who are interested in investigating 215 having those lines buried. He noted that typically Xcel Energy would typically want to have all 216 of the adjacent property owners concur to as they would charge the property owners for that 217 service. 218 219 Vice -Chair Hennes asked for a motion to close the public hearing. 220 221 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 222 CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 223 224 AYES: 5 225 NAYS: 0 226 ABSENT: 2 227 228 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO 229 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE LOT SPLIT REQUEST BASED ON THE 230 FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 231 1. The newly -created parcel meets the R-1 One Family Residential Zoning District 232 standards for lot area and width. 233 2. The newly -created parcel will have adequate building area for a conforming single - 234 family dwelling within the Critical Area Overlay Zoning District and without the need for 235 setback variances. 236 3. The proposed lot split will not create any nonconformities with the existing parcel and 237 improvements. February 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 Page 6 238 4. The proposed shared driveway is necessary to allow access to the newly -created parcel 239 without creating an additional access onto a State Highway. 240 AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 241 1. Park dedication fee in the amount of $2,700, in lieu of land, is collected after City 242 Council approval and before issuance of any additional permits by the City. 243 2. Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of a 244 building permit. 245 3. The applicant shall submit a critical area permit application prior to any applicable 246 improvements on Parcel B. 247 4. The applicant shall dedicate 10 -foot wide drainage and utility easements along the front 248 property lines and 5 -foot wide drainage and utility easements along the rear property 249 lines to be denoted on the map submitted to Dakota County. 250 5. The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site plan with 251 associated easements, subject to review and approval by the City Engineering 252 Department as part of any building permit application. 253 6. The shared access easement agreement must be agreed to by both property owners, and 254 signed, notarized, and recorded against both properties prior to the issuance of a building 255 permit. 256 7. Any land disturbance activities must be in compliance with the City's land Disturbance 257 Guidance document. 258 8. The applicant works with the Fire and Police Departments to ensure access to the gate 259 securing the shared driveway prior to any construction on Parcel B. 260 261 Commissioner Roston suggested the following changes to the conditions: 262 6. The shared access easement agreement must be agreed to by both property owners and 263 approved by the City Attorney, and signed, notarized, and recorded against both 264 properties prior to the issuance of a building permit. 265 Reason: so the City has the right to enforce the shared access easement agreement 266 8. The applicant works with, and obtains approval of, the Fire and Police Departments to 267 ensure access to the gate securing the shared driveway prior to any construction on Parcel 268 B. 269 270 Commissioner Magnuson asked that the following be put into the record: 271 • That it be made clear that in voting on and potentially approving this lot subdivision in no 272 way rendering any decision whatsoever on any aspect of the Critical Area Permit. That 273 will stand on its own when it comes before this body and the City Council, 274 • That the Planning Commission is not approving or offering any opinion whatsoever on 275 the driveway easement. The Planning Commission may have reviewed it but is making 276 no suggestion that it is appropriately draft or an appropriate document for these purposes. 277 278 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS APPROVED THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONDITIONS 279 AS SUGGESTED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON. 280 281 AYES: 5 282 NAYS: 0 283 ABSENT: 2 284 February 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 Page 7 285 Vice -Chair Hennes advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 4, 2014 286 meeting. 287 288 PLANNING CASE #2014-03 289 City of Mendota Heights 290 Code Amendment for Electronic Display Signs 291 292 City Planner Nolan Wall explained that this request is a City proposal to amend the code to allow 293 electronic display signage. He then provided background on how this proposal came to be. 294 295 Included in the packet of information provided to the Commission before this meeting was a 296 table comparing similar regulations from other communities. 297 298 Planner Wall noted that the draft amendment was sent to institutional uses in the City for 299 comment and responses received were included in the information packet. It is believed, at the 300 present time, that there are sixteen uses in the City that would be classified as an institutional use 301 within the R-1 and R -1A district. 302 303 The proposed amendment would allow electronic display signs for institutional uses by 304 Conditional Use Permit in the R-1 and R -1A zoning district. Potential applicants would have to 305 come to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation to the City Council as part of 306 a Conditional Use Permitting process. 307 308 The proposed amendment also includes two definitions: 309 • SIGN, ELECTRONIC DISPLAY: A sign or portion thereof that displays electronic, non - 310 pictorial, text information in which each alphanumeric character is defined by a small 311 number of matrix elements using different combinations of light emitting diodes (LEDs), 312 fiber optics, light bulbs, or other illumination devices within the display area. Electronic 313 display signs include computer programmable, microprocessor -controlled electronic 314 displays. 315 • INSTITUTIONAL USE: Uses operated as schools, places of worship, cemeteries, or 316 government facilities. 317 318 Conditions proposed in the draft ordinance are meant to mitigate potential negative impacts 319 while still allowing utilization of the newest technology. As noted in the staff report, additional 320 conditions and standards may also raise enforcement issues so the potential impacts of the 321 standards and conditions need to be considered in light of enforceability. 322 323 324 Planner Wall then reviewed the conditions of the proposed code amendment: Condition Sign Area Standard Not to exceed 100 square feet per surface Sign Height Not to exceed 9 feet from sign base Electronic Display Area Not to exceed 50% of total sign area, only one contiguous display area per surface Property Line Setback Distance 10 feet from external property lines, no closer than 50 feet from a surrounding residential property line February 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 Page 8 Condition Standard Not more than once/four hours, except for emergency warnings and time/temperature readings Message Change Interval Hours of Operation 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. Message Characteristics Static letters and numbers only, no animation, video or audio, scrolling, flashing, twirling, fading, or color change Electronic Display Characteristics Black background, one -color font Font Size Minimum 4" in height or larger Message Limitations No off -premise messages Malfunction Settings Automatic turn-off when malfunction occurs or when notified by City of noncompliance Sign Aesthetics Monument -style, natural stone/brick/masonry base, and landscaping Brightness Not to exceed 0.3 foot-candles at a specified distance depending on the sign size, must be equipped with auto -adjust brightness settings Additional Signage Parcel 40+ acres, 300 -foot setback, screened from surrounding residential uses 325 326 Commissioners provided feedback, comments, and suggestions after each one. Additional 327 discussions were had on the draft ordinance. 328 329 Vice -Chair Hennes opened the public hearing. 330 331 Mr. Mark Fortman, Director of Operations for Independent School District 197, stated that at this 332 time the school district has no plans for a monument type sign. As mentioned in the letter sent to 333 staff, the district believes that the change rate, color, and the animation may be a little too 334 restrictive. They would like to see a more frequent change rate and maybe another color; 335 however, they are very appreciative of the consideration the City is taking on this issue and, 336 again, they have no plans for monument type sign at this time. He also addressed the issue of 337 screening and mentioned the changes being made this summer to their property. 338 339 Mr. Richard Davern, Director of Finance and Operations at Visitation School, expressed their 340 appreciation for consideration of this issue. The addition of technical capabilities would be very 341 helpful. The school is basically very supportive of the guidelines; however, they would like the 342 capability of changing the sign a little more often than four times per day to maybe once per 343 hour. 344 345 Mr. Ed Joseph, representative of Holy Family Church, also expressed his appreciation. He 346 encouraged the Commission to move rapidly on this issue as there is enough history in the other 347 local communities and this is not new technology, it has been around for quite some time. He 348 believes it could be moved on any issues could be addressed more specifically when the 349 applications are considered. The church is interested in putting up a sign as soon as possible as 350 they have a lot of different benefits, banquets, sales, etc. They would also like to be able to 351 change the sign more often. February 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 Page 9 352 The Commissioners and staff discussed various ways of communicating with the residents 353 surrounding the institutions uses within the City informing them of the proposed code 354 amendment to give them an opportunity to provide their feedback and comments. 355 356 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO 357 LEAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND TABLE THE REQUEST TO ALLOW 358 PLANNER WALL TO INVESTIGATE ANSWERS TO THE COMMISSIONER'S 359 QUESTIONS AND MAKE EDITS AND ADJUSTMENTS TO THE PROPOSED 360 AMENDMENT AS NECESSARY FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION. 361 362 AYES: 5 363 NAYS: 0 364 ABSENT :2 365 366 PLANNING CASE #2014-06 367 United Properties, Vacant parcels on Northland Drive in the Mendota Heights Business Park 368 Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Amendment 369 370 Consultant Planner Tina Goodroad explained that United Properties has submitted an application 371 for a Preliminary and Final Plat to be known as Mendota Technology Center 4th Addition, which 372 would combine two existing lots into a single lot. They also asked for a Conditional Use Permit 373 to amend an existing Planned Unit Development that was originally approved in 1997, with a 374 few different amendments since for other projects within this industrial developed area for 375 building designs etc. 376 377 The property is located just north of I-494, south of Northland Drive, and just west of Pilot Knob 378 Road. The proposal is to combine into one single new subdivision an existing outlot and existing 379 lot that would become Lot 1, Block 1, Mendota Technology Center 4th Addition. The property is 380 zoned I — Industrial and is guided industrial on the comprehensive plan. 381 382 The original PUD included the existing outlot and for that reason a PUD amendment needs to be 383 completed. That is the reason for the Conditional Use Permit; otherwise this would most likely 384 go through as a straight site plan. 385 386 When the original PUD was approved and Outlot A was part of the original plat with five other 387 lots, a park dedication was determined at that time based on the Park Dedication Contribution 388 formula at that time; equating to $26,800 to be paid when it developed. According to City 389 records no park dedication payment has been made, therefore the park dedication fee will be 390 required with the approval of and before release of the Final Plat. The applicant is aware of this 391 condition. 392 393 Planner Goodroad reviewed the site analysis, development chart, parking and loading dock 394 requirements, landscaping and screening, site lighting, building materials and architecture, and 395 signage; all of which had been provided to the Commissioners in their information packet. 396 397 Staff recommended approval of this application. 398 399 Commissioner Roston asked why this parcel was originally platted as an outlot. February 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 Page 10 400 Brandon Champeau, Assistant Vice President Development Manager at United Properties was 401 available to answer questions. 402 403 Vice -Chair Hennes opened the public hearing. 404 405 Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Vice -Chair Hennes asked for a motion to close 406 the public hearing. 407 408 COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, 409 TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 410 411 AYES: 5 412 NAYS: 0 413 ABSENT: 2 414 415 Commissioner Viksnins noted that although he is unaware of any direct involvement in this 416 application, he would abstain from voting as his law firm does a lot of business with United 417 Properties. 418 419 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 420 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF 421 MENDOTA TECHNOLOGY CENTER 4TH ADDITION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING 422 FINDINGS OF FACT: 423 1. A Planned Unit Development (PUD) was originally approved in 1997 for the 424 development of the Mendota Heights Business Park. 425 2. The plat of Outlot A and proposed construction of an office/warehouse building nearly 426 completes development within the Mendota Heights Business Park. 427 3. The proposed building meets the lot area, setback, and green area requirements of the I- 428 Industrial Zoning District. 429 4. The proposed reduction in parking stall length for a portion of the site is consistent with 430 other uses in the Business Park and will allow for a reduction in impervious surface and 431 assist with storm water runoff drainage and treatment. 432 5. The proposed landscaping plan meets the overall intent of the ordinance with additional 433 screening. 434 6. The building elevations provide for a high quality addition to the business park and are 435 compatible with surrounding properties. 436 7. The applicant will ensure all necessary easements are identified and agreed to, to include 437 drainage and utility easements over storm water treatment ponds and utility easements as 438 required by the utility companies, prior to approval and recording of the final plat. 439 8. A 2 -foot reduction in the codified depth dimension of parking stalls is allowed for stalls 440 that abut 90 -degrees to a curb in order to facilitate a reduction in impervious surface and 441 assist with storm water runoff drainage and treatment. 442 9. A Development Agreement is signed between United Properties and the City of Mendota 443 Heights. 444 445 AYES: 4 446 NAYS: 0 447 ABSTAIN: 1 (Viksnins) February 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 Page 11 448 ABSENT: 2 449 450 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, 451 TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED 452 UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF 453 FACT 454 1. A Planned Unit Development (PUD) was originally approved in 1997 for the 455 development of the Mendota Heights Business Park. 456 2. The plat of Outlot A and proposed construction of an office/warehouse building nearly 457 completes development within the Mendota Heights Business Park. 458 3. The proposed building meets the lot area, setback, and green area requirements of the I- 459 Industrial Zoning District. 460 4. The proposed reduction in parking stall length for a portion of the site is consistent with 461 other uses in the Business Park and will allow for a reduction in impervious surface and 462 assist with storm water runoff drainage and treatment. 463 5. The proposed landscaping plan meets the overall intent of the ordinance with additional 464 screening. 465 6. The building elevations provide for a high quality addition to the business park and are 466 compatible with surrounding properties. 467 7. The applicant will ensure all necessary easements are identified and agreed to, to include 468 drainage and utility easements over storm water treatment ponds and utility easements as 469 required by the utility companies, prior to approval and recording of the final plat. 470 8. A 2 -foot reduction in the codified depth dimension of parking stalls is allowed for stalls 471 that abut 90 -degrees to a curb in order to facilitate a reduction in impervious surface and 472 assist with storm water runoff drainage and treatment. 473 9. A Development Agreement is signed between United Properties and the City of Mendota 474 Heights. 475 AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 476 1. The landscaping plan shall be revised to provide additional plantings to meet the ninety 477 (90) percent opacity along the west property line and a performance bond collected as 478 allowed for by the City Code. 479 2. A final lighting plan shall be submitted and approved prior to installation. 480 3. The applicant shall provide additional information regarding any potential visibility of 481 rooftop mechanical units to ensure compliance with the ordinance. 482 4. Final sign package shall be submitted for review and issuance of a sign permit. 483 5. Park dedication fee of $26,800 is collected prior to issuance of a building permit. 484 6. The applicant shall comply with the conditions provided by Xcel Energy in the 485 encroachment approval letter dated January 31, 2014. 486 AYES: 4 487 NAYS: 0 488 ABSTAIN: 1 (Viksnins) 489 ABSENT: 2 490 491 Vice -Chair Hennes advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 4, 2014 492 meeting. 493 494 Verbal Review 495 Planner Wall gave the following verbal review: February 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 Page 12 496 PLANNING CASE #2014-02 497 Mark Gergen and Ruth Richardson Lot Split at 1134 Dodd Road 498 • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. 499 500 PLANNING CASE #2013-22 501 Visitation School Conditional Use Permits and Variances 502 • Resolution 2014-08; Approval of a CUP for additional wall sign; Variance for 503 number of signs and sign area; and Variance for sign height of the new school gate 504 sign 505 o Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. 506 • Resolution 2014-10; Denial of a CUP for a second nameplate entry gate sign and 507 Variance for a new entry gate sign 508 o Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. 509 510 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 511 ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:53 P.M. 512 513 AYES: 5 514 NAYS: 0 515 ABSENT:2 February 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 Page 13 CITY OF ++� nu MENDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: March 25, 2014 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner 1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 9 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com SUBJECT: Planning Case 2014-07 Conditional Use Permit for a Fence APPLICANT: Lee Violet and Joe Rueckert PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2334 Swan Drive ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: May 2, 2014 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is seeking approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) for construction of a 5 -foot tall fence in a required yard adjacent to apublic right-of-way. Title 12 -1D -6(D) of the Code requires a conditional use permit for fences over 36 inches in such a location. BACKGROUND The subject parcel is 0.39 acres and contains a single-family residential dwelling on a corner lot with access from Swan Drive and a side yard abutting Bluebill Drive. In addition, it is zoned R-1 and guided for low density residential development. The applicants are proposing to construct a fence encompassing their backyard to provide protection for their child and contain a future pet dog. ANALYSIS As previously noted, the proposed fence will exceed 36 inches and will be located within 30 feet of the public right-of-way. According to the applicant, the proposed fence will be black vinyl -coated chain link and will be set back approximately 4 feet from the side and rear lot lines (see attached drawings). The CUP provision for such fences was established to allow the City to evaluate the property conditions before a fence can be constructed to ensure public safety and appropriate aesthetics. According to Title 12-1D-5 of the City Code, no fences, structures, man-made berms or plantings may exceed 36 inches in height above the center grade of the intersection within any front or side yard area on a corner lot which may interfere with the visibility across the corner. The proposed fence will not impact visibility at the Swan Drive/Bluebill Drive intersection. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit request, based on the findings of fact. Page 14 ACTION REQUESTED Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following options: 1. Recommend approval of the conditional use permit request for fence construction greater than 36 inches in a required yard adjacent to a right-of-way, based on the finding of facts. OR 2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit request for fence construction greater than 36 inches in a required yard adjacent to a right-of-way, based on the finding of fact that the proposed fence will have a negative impact on traffic visibility and neighboring properties. OR 3. Table the request. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Findings of Fact 2. Aerial Site Map 3. Planning Application, including supporting materials Page 15 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit Request for Fence 2334 Swan Drive The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1. The proposed project will not negatively impact traffic visibility at the Swan Drive/Bluebill Drive intersection. 2. The proposed fence -type and height are consistent with Code requirements. 3. The fence is compatible with the established character of the neighborhood and will not negatively impact any surrounding properties. Page 16 1101 Victoria Curve. I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1860 phone I 651:452.8940 fax www: mendota•heights_com CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS. APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Office Use ..On! y: Case.#. Application Date: Applicable Ordinance #: Existing Zoning . Existing se;, 5�� Y i Fee Paid: Staff Initials: Section: Proposed Zoning: iii Proposed Use: u Property Address/Street Location: ,31/ `-bill V=t , Applicant Name: 'V to LE -1— Phone: (0S1 • g - C9 Applicant E -Mail Address: 1,— N -E V t0\ -e- 1 GeSwL Applicant Mailing Address: 8.33,4 svopnv D uu:-E , m -fit ) 14T5 , Si ?-0 Property Owner Name: ► v olitT/. (o -el -M ' Phone: Lost•'D-08-c/c, Property Owner Mailing Address: S irvi c% Legal Description & PIN ofProperty: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) IZ �?e,,:,j G � le- 51,0v -e- //l -d el r' f i o t.. / L-41 '{ Type of Request: ❑ Rezoning ❑ Variance ❑ Subdivision Approval ❑ Code Amendment Conditional Use Permit ❑ Conditional Use Permit for PUD ❑ Wetlands Permit ❑ Preliminary/Final Plat Approval ❑ Critical Area Permit ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑ Lot Split ❑ Other I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above property during daylight hours. re of Applicant Date Signature of Owner Date Signature of Owner (if more than one) Date Planning Application (modified 1/28/2014) Page 1 of 1 Page 17 1101 Victoria Curve. I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651:452:1650 phone. 1 651.452.8940 fax www,mendpto•heights:com CITY OF MIENDOTA HEIGHTS. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission and/or City Council only after all required materials have been submitted. Application submittal deadlines are available on the City's website or by contacting the City Planner. Late or incomplete applications will not be put on the agenda. .............. _............ Office Use Onlj Case Applicant: '.1 ti Address: 2: 3 3 Li . S L-- ». Q r-• APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: • Dated original of all the materials checked must be submitted by the end of the business day the Monday before the first Tuesday of the month. • If all original materials are 11 x 17 or smaller — only submit originals. • 'If materials are larger than 11 x 17, please provide 24 copies, folded to 8 1/2 x 11. • Any drawing in color — must submit 24 copies. The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete: XFee, as included in Fee Schedule (check payable to City of Mendota Heights) NOTE: Planning Application fees do not cover building permit fees, utilities, or other fees which may be required for you to complete your project. Completed Application Form (only original needs to be submitted). Sketch plan showing all pertinent dimensions, and including the location of any easements having an influence upon the variance request. getter of Intent. Site Development Plan, including: D Location of all buildings, including existing and proposed. ❑ Location of all adjacent buildings located within 350' of the exterior boundaries of the property in question. ❑ Floor area ratio. D Location and number of existing and proposed parking spaces. ❑ Vehicular circulation. D Architectural elevations (type and materials used on all external surfaces). D Sewer and water alignment, existing and proposed. ❑ Location and candle power of all luminaries. ❑ Location of all existing easements. Conditional Use Permit Request (modified 12/6/2013) Page 1 of 2 Dimension Plan, including: ❑ Lot dimensions and area. ❑ Dimensions of proposed and existing structures. ❑ "Typical" floor plan and "typical" room plan. ❑ Setbacks on all structures existing or proposed on property in question. ❑ Proposed setbacks. Grading Plan, including: ❑ Existing contour. ❑ Proposed grading elevations. ❑ Drainage configuration. ❑ Storm sewer catch basins and invert elevations. ❑ Spot elevations. ❑ Proposed road profile. Landscape Plan, including: ❑ Location of all existing trees, type, diameter and which trees will be removed. ❑ Location, type and diameter of all proposed plantings. ❑ Location and material used of all screening devices. NOTES: Conditional Use Permit Request (modified 12/6/2013) Page 2 of 2 Page 18 Page 19 2334 Swan Drive Planning Case 2014-07 Date: 3/19/2014 0 50 SCALE IN FEET City of Mendota Heights GIS Map Disclaimer: This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. Page 20 City of Mendota Heights - 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 February 28, 2014 City Officials and Council Members: My husband and I purchased our home at 2334 Swan Drive in December of 2013. In anticipation of the coming spring, we would like to install a fence in our backyard. Our proposed 5 -foot high, chain-link fence would be a safety precaution for our toddler son and future pet dog. We hope to run the fence along Bluebill Drive within the area that falls between 15 and 30 feet of the street. Since the ordinance states that a fence in this zone be no higher than 36", we are requesting this Conditional Use Permit. We fear that as our child gets older, 36" will not be adequate to keep him safely within the backyard. This height is also easily scaled by most medium-sized dogs, which is the size of dog we anticipate getting. A fence at this height becomes even easier to scale in the event snow piles and drifts along side of it. For the safety of our child and future pet, as well as the safety of our neighbors, we hope you will grant us this Conditional Use Permit. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, Lee Anne Violet 2334 Swan Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 651-208-9962 \_\:) 441, C.4 s Lx -p- LetJon-j- Page 21 'CD .„jE Disclaimer: Map anti parcel data are believed to be accurate. bat accuracy is not guaranteed. This +s not a legal docarreent and should not be substituted fora title search,appraisa!, surrey. or for zoning Yorlfcation.. Dakota County assumes no legal responsibility far the information contained in this data, Oup,,r t) I i - ;= TF1))raci-)€-)e-Fril Map Sca 1 inch = 2/25/20: Page 23 Affidavit of Publication State of Minnesota SS County of Dakota ANNE THILLEN , being duly sworn, on oath, says that he/she is the publisher or authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as SOUTH-WEST REVIEW , and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualification as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. (B) The printedNOTICE OF HEARING which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week, for 1 successive weeks; it was first published on SUNDAY , the 9TH day of MARCH , 2014 , and was thereafter printed and published on every to and including , the day of , 20 ; and printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used in the composition and publication of the notice: *ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ *A BC D E FG H IJ KLM N O PQ RSTU V WXYZ *abcdefg hijklm nopq rstuvwxyz Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 10TH day of MARCH0 14 .1► .L.. k'I L Notary Public BY: rim TITLE LEGAL COORDINATOR *Alphabet should be in the same size and kind of type as the notice. TONYA R. WHITEHEAD Notary Public -Minnesota v't;;. Y M Commission Expires Jen 31, 2015 RATE INFORMATION (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space $25.00 per col. inch (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter $25.00 per col. inch (3) Rate actually charged for the above matter $ per col. inch 1/14 Page 24 -CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING A PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. FOR A FENCE TO WHOM IT MAYCONCERN: NOTICE Is hereby given: that the Planning Commission:- of Mendota so Heightsonas`.wilipmeeossibt'at 7.therea0p P.Mfter., or,on` as' ie.': Tuesday, March 25 2014 inthe City's Hall Council Chambers ;1101'' Victoria Curve, Mendota'Heights;' Minnesota, to consider, , an appiication from.LeeVlolet.-and Joei Rueckert for a conditional use permit to -construct a fencerat 2334 Swan'? Drive This request has been." assigned Planning Case'number`, 2014-07. This notice Is pursuant to Title 12 (Zoning), Chapter 1 of the Mendota Heights City Code. Such persons as, desire to be heard with reference to tills request will 'be heard at this meeting., Lorri Smith L:City Clerk, (South-West Review: eview Mar. 8;2014) ,' Page 25 Planning Case 2014-07 public Hearing Notice Mailing List (page 1) 1276460002010 O 2308 SWAN DR ABRAHAM HUSAIN 276455000130 0 2350 SWAN DR ALF D & JOAN C WIIK 276455000180 W 2351 SWAN DR DOUGLAS E & KAREN E HENNES 276455000140 m 2356 SWAN DR EDWARD M * KRISTIN M DRIEMAN 276460002260 276460002230 O 903 BLUEBILL DR co 881 BLUEBILL DR BRIAN D & MEGAN L F STANG GUY E & MICHELLE L HEIDE 276455000060 276455000150 ▪ 2371 ROGERS AVE co 2370 SWAN DR CHARLES E TSTE MERTENSOTTO JENNIFER L NAAS 276460002250 276455000110 O 897 BLUEBILL DR Eci 2334 SWAN DR CLARK J & SANDRA L WICKLUND JOSEPH R RUECKERT 276460002270 276455000120 O 909 BLUEBILL DR 2342 SWAN DR CLIFFORD G & LEAH T BROWN KARI L MOELLER 276455000040 276455000080 ▪ 2360 ROGERS AVE ED 2351 ROGERS AVE DANIEL ] & ANGELA M BROOS KRISTEN E LANCASTER 276455000090 276455000190 O 2341 ROGERS AVE co 2343 SWAN DR DAVID W & GEORGIA A GIGUERE MARK & CAROL CEMENSKY 0 10 276455000010 2330 ROGERS AVE DENNIS C & JOYCE E CARLSON RIOUX 276460002030 0 896 CHERI LN MARK 5 & BARBARA KAUFMANN 276455000200 276460002020 2335 SWAN DR 902 CHERI LN DONALD JR & GEORGIA DELICH MATTHEW 3 & KATHRYN MAHONEY Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed, This is nota Map Scale legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning 1 inch = 237 feet •x• .• :l.:l:t.. F . kd,.. ...f .-...-.F:.,.. ......4 :.. 4,1.:.lir Page 26 Planning Case 2014-07 Public Hearing Notice Mailing List (page 2) 276460002240 0 889 BLUEBILL DR MICHAEL A & FRANCES KOSEL 276460001020 2311 SWAN DR RICHARD & DOROTHY B)ORKLUND 276455000020 276460002040 2340 ROGERS AVE 0 888 CHERI LN MICHAEL B MISNER ELIAS ROBT F & JANE M WEIDNER 276455000100 276455000170 2333 ROGERS AVE ED 2357 SWAN DR NATHAN OSTERTAG RONALD & MARY K SMITH 276455000070 276455000160 2357 ROGERS AVE al 2371 SWAN DR PATRICK C & PATRICIA MATHEWS THOMAS M & SALLY MCNAMARA 276460001010 276460001030 2303 SWAN DR ED 2319 SWAN DR PATRICK M HICKEY TIMOTHY W & JESSICA CARLSON 276455000030 2350 ROGERS AVE PAUL WESLEY & DENISE STENSGARD Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but- accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a Map Scare legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning 1 inch = 236 feet verification. Dakota County assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. 3/3/2014 iewios""' :,r- DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: YOF MENDOTA HEIGHTS APPLICANT: PROPERTY ADDRESS: ZONING/GUIDED: ACTION DEADLINE: 1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone j 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com March 25, 2014 Planning Commission Nolan Wall, AICP Planner Planning Case 2014-08 Subdivision Request for Lot Split Linda Dehkes/Roger and Grace Pass Unaddressed — Oak Street/N. Freeway Rd. (PID# 27-38600-03-070) R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential May 4, 2014 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, on behalf of the property owners, is seeking approval to subdivide the existing unaddressed, vacant parcel located at the southeast corner of the Oak Street/North Freeway Road intersection. The request requires City approval before being recorded with Dakota County. BACKGROUND The subject parcel is 0.97 acres (42,253 square feet) and is undeveloped with significant existing vegetation (see attached Site Map). The parcel is zoned R-1 and is guided for low density residential development. The applicant has a purchase agreement for the entire subject parcel contingent on the City's approval of the lot split request. If approved and purchased by the applicant, two new single-family homes would be constructed with access from Oak Street. ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan The subject parcel is guided LR, Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant's request to subdivide the subject parcel into two parcels, consisting of approximately 0.49 acres and 0.48 acres, is consistent with the LR maximum density of 2.9 units per acre. R-1 One -Family Zoning District Title 11-3-2 of the Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district. According to the certificate of survey map included as part of the application submittal, and shown in the table below, both proposed parcels meet the R-1 lot standards. Page 27 Page 28 Standard Parcel A Parcel B Lot Area 15,000 sq. ft. (0.34 acres) 21,140 sq. ft. (0.49 acres) 21,088 sq. ft. (0.48 acres) Lot Width 100 ft. 125 ft. 125 ft. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the subdivision request with the following conditions: 1. Park dedication fee in the amount of $2,700, in lieu of land, is collected after City Council approval and before issuance of any additional permits by the City. 2. Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site plan with associated easements, subject to review and approval by the City Engineering Department as part of any building permit application. 4. Any land disturbance activities must be in compliance with the City's Land Disturbance Guidance document. ACTION REQUESTED 1. Recommend approval of the subdivision request, based on the finding of fact that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan, with conditions. OR 2. Recommend denial of the subdivision request, based on the finding of fact that the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City Code or Comprehensive Plan. OR 3. Table the request. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Aerial Site Map 2. Planning Application, including supporting materials Page 29 JEFFERSON HEIGHTS, LOT 7, BLOCK 3 Planning Case 2014-08 Date: 3/19/2014 0 60 SCALE IN FEET City of Mendota Heights GIS Map Disclaimer: This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. 1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55)18 851.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.59'10 fax www.mendot'a•heighls,corn CITY OP MENDOTA HEIGHTS APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Property Address/Street Location: X `A. X K1 o v;'11 Veci Applicant Name: L i tnc� -P��n £ S Phone: 2 S (. - 3 `�-�► `9 pp �. Applicant E -Mail Address: i ►2 -�fn. -t S (v �u� 'C cf �' Applicant Mailing Address: 12 3 0 VV c - o . S ` -J, t N C YJ. Property Owner Name: r v Gv ,•C:2 't S Phone: Property Owner Mailing Address. Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) Lo 4- —I (c) - 3, ' (-e v-scn -N He -k6 k hf PIP ai3g600D30-1n Type of Request: ❑ Rezoning 0 Conditional Use Permit 0 Conditional Use Permit for PUD O Variance 0 Wetlands Permit 0 Preliminary/Final Plat Approval ❑ Subdivision Approval 0 Critical Area Permit ❑ Comprehensive Pian Amendment O Code Amendment 0 Lot Split l'Other 5f l 1 I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. !further authorize City Officials and agents to,inspect the above property during daylight hours. Planning Application (modified 1/28/2014) Signature of Applicant 3-3ri Date Signa r of Ownerrr//J�� Date Sl9nature of Owner (if more than one) Date Page 1 of 1 Page 30 Page 31 Date: March 3, 2014 To: Nolan Wall City of Mendota Heights From: Linda and Ken Dehkes Miles Realty, Representing Greenwood Design Build Regarding: Property located at: XXX North Freeway Rd and Oak Street Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Interest : We currently have a fully executed Purchase Agreement on the above property with the contingency the property could be divided into 2 parcels. Our Request: Permission to divide the property into 2 single family home sites. Our intention with the property Our intention is to build 2 custom single family, new construction homes by GreenWood Design Build. 30 O DENOTES SET IRON PIPE MONUMENT • DENOTES FOUND IRON PIPE MONUMENT DENOTES LIGHT POLE S DENOTES GUY WIRE 7J DENOTES POWER POLE 8 DENOTES FENCE OHP CATCH BASIN DENOTES OVERHEAD POWER DENOTES BITUMINOUS SURFACE CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR MARK GERGEN NOTE. ALL OF LOT 7, BLOCK 3, IS WOODED CENTER LINE NORTH FREEWAY ROAD 169.33 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER N89.56 32'10 SETBACK INFORMATION: FRONT = 30' S/DE = 10' SIDE ALONG STREET = 30' REAR = 30' OR 20% OF THE AVERAGE LOT DEPTH WH/CH EVER IS THE GREATEST � DRAINAGE \ f PROPOSED EASEMENT „\ 0.9 OU O EBAR 71d NCCb{7NE 0 �& UTIVTYEAS£MENT SETBACK �I v go 10 30 SETBACK LINE Bsz 168.92 589'56 27'W 10 L OHPOHP i 10' SETBACK PARCEL 8 AREA = 21,088 SF L 10' SETBACK LINE FENCE /S 1' NORTH OF PROP. LINE .� FENCE /S 08 PROP. LINE J Y FENCE ON PROP. LINE OHP OHP OHP SHR 08-18 862 EXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTION LOT Z BLOCK3 .7EFFERSON HEIGHTS. DAKO1,! C'OL_N1], MINNESOTA Bohlen Surveying & Associates 31432 Foliage Avenue Northfield, AIN 55057 Phone: (507)645-7768 l om e a ra @ b oh l e n s u rveyl ng.com 1584 Cliff Road E. Burnsville, 12N 55337 A Phone: (952)895-9212 Fax: (952) 895-9259 f86�ti� FENCE 1.572.1' SODUTH I i lT � 168.50 OF PROP. LINE L-�. S89'56?7'W 8 I nT - L_V I 0) F- 0 /5 0.6' EAST PROP. LINE FENCE CORNER 1S 0.25' SOUTH AND 0.25 WEST OF PROP CORNER PROPOSED PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS PARCEI. A: LOT 7. BLOCK., JEFFERS'ONHEFC:HT4. D_-1JCOT 1 COLVTI; MTVIRSOTA. ECCEPTTIJE SOUTH 125.00 FEET THEREOF. S7 EJECT TO. I 1I SF.MFNT FOR DR 116AGE UTILITY PURPOSES OVER AND ACROSS THE SOUTH 5.00 0/1'10'T'.4:ND THE EA.SF5.00 FEE 1.4ND 1%!E NOR EU 10.00 FEET. IND THE WEST /0.00 FRET OF SAID LOT 7 LYING NORTIIERLY OF TILE 501711125.00 FEET OF .641D LOT 7. 1"=30' EX/STING HOUSE PARCEL R, TILE .SOITH72S.00 FEET OF LOT 7, BLOCKS,, JEFFERSON HEIGHTS; D_AKOTI C'OENT1; MLV_NESOTA. SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR DRAIN4GE & UTILITY PURPOSES OVER AND ACROS,S THE. SOU EH 5.00 FEET A ND THE 104 ST5.818 FEET .4,V7)THE NORTH 3.00 FEET AND THE REST 10.00 FEET OF SAID SOUTH 123.00 FEET OF LOT 7. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY 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. DATE: 2-28-14 Th.orw4 J cfne.o/m. REVISED: 3-10-14 THOMAS J. O'MEARA, LAND SURVEYOR S:\Projects\Mendota—heights\jefferson—heights\dwg\CERT.dwg MINNESOTA LICENSE NO. 46167 Page 33 Affidavit of Publication State of Minnesota SS County of Dakota ANNE THILLEN , being duly sworn, on oath, says that he/she is the publisher or authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as SOUTH-WEST REVIEW , and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualification as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. (B) The printedNOTICE OF HEARING which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week, for 1 successive weeks; it was first published on SUNDAY , the 9TH day of MARCH , 2014 , and was thereafter printed and published on every to and including , the day of , 20 ; and printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used in the composition and publication of the notice: ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ *abcdefg hijklmnopgrstuvwxyz Subscribed and sworn to before me on th's 10TH day of MARCH Notary Public BY: ON14,1.{ /11' I katbin TITLE LEGAL COORDINATOR *Alphabet should be in the same size and kind of type as the notice. TONYA R. WHITEHEAD Notary Public -Minnesota . My Commission Expires Jan 31, 2015 RATE INFORMATION (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space $25.00 per col. inch (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter $25.00 per col. inch (3) Rate actually charged for the above matter $ per col. inch 1/14 Page 34 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING A PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST FOR. A.LOTSPLIT TO WHOM IT MAYCONCERN NOTICE Is hereby glventhat'the nnCommission of;.Mendotas HPlaeights will meet at 7:00 P.M., or a soon aings, possibleomthereafter,. on Tuesday,` March 25,_ 2014 in' the City Hall Council Chambers,: 1101 Victoria 'Curve, Mendota Heights,'' : Minnesota, to '` consider an' application from Linda and Ken Dehkes, on behalf of Roger Pass, to split the lot currently identified as JEFFERSON HEIGHTS, LOT 7, BLOCK ' 3 and ; located ' at ' the' southeast corner: of" Oa k;Street and North FreewayRoad. This request has been assigned; :Planning Case' number 2014-08. This notice is, pursuant to Title 11 (Subdivision), Chapter 2` of : the; Mendota Heights City Code'Suihl• persons as desire to be heard with' ': reference to this `;request will be heard at this meeting.. Lac.,rri Srniith: ity' Clerk. (South-West Review: Mar. 9,'2014) Planning Case 2014-08 Public Hearing Notice Mailing List (page 1) a a 0 0 D a 0 0 10 274833571203 715 LINDEN ST BRAD & KARA L WALLACE 274833570103 701 LINDEN ST 103 BRAD 3 & SUSAN M BRADY 273860003050 ID 670 FREEWAY RD N CONSTANCE 3 FLEMING 274833506020 a) 702 LINDEN ST DAKOTA COUNTY CDA 274833571201 274833570108 715 LINDEN ST 201 ED 701 LINDEN ST 108 BRAD WALLACE DALE E & RUTH E WARLAND 274833570105 273860003121 701 LINDEN ST 105 co 679 FREEWAY RD 5 BRIAN DAVID FUDENBERG DANIEL J & SUSAN K T WILLS 273860002051 273860004080 667 FREEWAY RD N 0 686 FREEWAY RD 5 BRIAN E & REBECCA M TSCHIDA DAVID L & SUZANNE KLEIMOLA 274833570201 701 LINDEN ST 201 CHARLES & MARY B TST FIELD 273860003100 685 FREEWAY RD 5 CHARLES H & MICHELE SNOW 274833500040 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 274833500050 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 274833500070 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 274833571101 IID715LINDEN ST101 DAVID W & MARCIA HIERSEMAN 273860003131 667 FREEWAY RD S DILLON & LIZA WHITMIRE 273860003080 ID 697 FREEWAY RD S DOMINIC M & ANNETTE ALFONSO 274833570106 In 701 LINDEN ST 106 DONNA M KEYES 274833510708 708 LINDEN ST DOUGLAS H KULLER Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. Dakota County assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. Map Scale 1 inch = 334 feet 3/4/2014 Page 35 Planning Case 2014-08 Public Hearing Notice Mailing List (page 2) 274833571107 0 715 LINDEN ST EUGENE C & JOAN M DORSA 274833571106 0 715 LINDEN ST HARRY D & JANE A MCPEAK 274833510710 710 LINDEN ST HENRY J TSTE BRANDIS 274833571103 715 LINDEN ST 103 JACLYN M & MARK D TARMAN 274833571104 715 LINDEN ST 104 JAMES A & PAIGE A KRIEGER en 274833510702 JENNIFER ANN BRUNO 274833511963 0 1963 OAK ST JILL M SKOGHEIM 274833510103 0 1941 OAK ST JOAN F & ROBERT MILLER 273860002080 0 699 FREEWAY RD N JOHN LJERRY 276475101050 ID 692 WESLEY LN JONATHAN A & COLLEEN FREI 274833511951 274833570107 1951 OAK ST ED 701 LINDEN ST 107 JAMES C & BARBARA A PLATTEN JOSEPH A & GLORIA C CASCALENDA 274833510714 714 LINDEN ST JAMES D RISIMINI 274833572210 715 LINDEN ST 210 JAY & GLORIA CHADIMA 274833571207 715 LINDEN ST 207 JAY P & GLORIA J CHADIMA 274833511957 1957 OAK ST JEFFERY T & LINDA M GRAVES 274833571204 715 LINDEN ST JOSEPH KAPLA 274833571102 0 715 LINDEN ST JPRM INVESTMENTS LLC 274833510101 0 1937 OAK ST JUDITH A PENNINGTON 274833510712 0 712 LINDEN ST JULIE A CRAGG Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a Map Scale legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. Dakota County assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. 1 inch = 332 feet 3/4/2014 Page 36 Page 37 Planning Case 2414-O8 Public Hearing Notice Mailing List (page 3) 273860004100 274833506030 698 FREEWAY RD 5ry i 720 MAIN 5T 16" MENDOTA HEIGHTS TOWN CENTER KARN LSCHERFENBERG LLC 274833570202 275475101040 701 LINDEN ST 202 0 688 WESLEY LN KENNETH A & MARIE A IVERSON MICHAEL 5 & KATHLEEN JOYCE 274833571209 274833570102 715 LINDEN ST 209 701 LINDEN ST 102 LAUREL A & MERRILL E ZIEMAN MICHAEL W STANLEY 274833511955 273860004090 1F• 1955 OAK ST co 692 FREEWAY RD 5 LINDA MARIE BYRNE MICHELLE A HENNE 273860002070 274833571108 689 FREEWAY RD N CO 715 LINDEN ST LISA M STARR MITCHELL F & DANA J BERG 274833570207 273860004070 701 LINDEN ST 207 al 680 FREEWAY RD 5 LLOYD H & JOSEPHINE CIZEK NEIL E & LUCILLE M BAKER 274833571205 274833570208 715 LINDEN ST 205 co 701 LINDEN ST 208 MALCOLM M & NANCY L MCKAY NEIL P KITTLESEN 274833510102 274833510106 1939 OAK ST 1947 OAK ST MARK J MCKASY NORMAN & CORRINE GEIGER 273860003090 274833570104 693 FREEWAY RD 5 0 701 LINDEN ST 104 MARY BANG PATRICIA J JOHNSON TST 274833570204 274833570206 701 LINDEN ST 204 C3 701 LINDEN ST MARY C RONZANI PATRICK J & PATRICIA MARREN Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is nota Map Scale legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning 1 inch = 332 feet n 1...4, rI .. Page 38 Planning Case 2014-08 Public Hearing Notice Mailing List (page 4) 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 274833511961 1961 OAK ST PAUL A & JUDY K HELLAND 274833570205 701 LINDEN ST PAUL 0 HAGGERTY 274833510704 704 LINDEN ST PAUL 0 HAGGERTY 274833511953 1953 OAK ST REBECCA L BAUER 273860003040 664 FREEWAY RD N REGENCY HOME HEALTHCARE SERVICES LLC 274833570203 701 LINDEN ST 203 RICHARD B & JANICE M SCHACHTMAN 274833510706 706 LINDEN ST ROBERT G & MARY E JACOBSON 273860003070 ROGER D PASS 274833570101 701 LINDEN ST 101 RONALD L & JANET A ODALEN 274833511959 1959 OAK ST SARA E BRAZILLER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 276475101061 700 WESLEY LN ST PAUL UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 274833510104 1943 OAK ST STEPHEN C GLYNN 274833571105 715 LINDEN ST 105 TERESA A DALY KONAT 274833510105 1945 OAK ST THERESA SEXTON 274833571110 715 LINDEN ST 110 THOMAS A & KAREN BRAMWELL 274833571109 715 LINDEN ST 109 THOMAS E & LAURA L SCHMIDT 273860002060 679 FREEWAY RD N VENKAT & CARLA PRAKASH 276475101062 696 WESLEY LN WADE A & MOLLY E SEDGWICK 273860003060 684 FREEWAY RD N WILLIAM 3 RYAN 274833571206 715 LINDEN ST YEVGENIA VIZELMAN Page 39 iewios""1" CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone j 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com DATE: March 25, 2014 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2014-03 Code Amendment for Electronic Display Signage APPLICANT: City of Mendota Heights PROPERTY ADDRESS: N/A ZONING/GUIDED: N/A ACTION DEADLINE: N/A DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The City is considering an amendment to Title 12-1D-15 of the City Code in order to allow electronic display signage for institutional uses in certain residential zoning districts. Currently, electronic display signs are only allowed for motor fuel stations. BACKGROUND As a result of the discussion at the February Planning Commission meeting, revisions were made to DRAFT Ordinance No. 460. A copy of the revised ordinance was again distributed to the previously -identified institutional uses for additional review and comment. In response to the Planning Commission's suggestion to promote awareness and encourage more comments in the code amendment process, the following additional outreach was conducted: • Press release issued • Information published in the Sunday, March 9 edition of the South-West Review (see attached) • Link provided to the DRAFT ordinance on the City's website (see attached) • Postings on the City's Facebook and Twitter accounts A summary of the public comments from the February 25 public hearing includes the following: • Message change interval, font color, and animation standards may be too restrictive o Higher frequency change rate is more accommodating for numerous activities on campus o Different font colors would allow for creative messages and logos • Understanding that scoreboards will not be regulated under the proposed code amendment • Message change interval of once per hour should be considered in the proposed code amendment • City should move quickly to implement the proposed code amendment • Appreciation for the City in considering the allowance of this type of signage It should be noted that the comments provided during the public hearing were from representatives of various institutional uses within the City. Page 40 ANALYSIS Based on the discussion at the February Planning Commission meeting, the following revisions were made to the proposed code amendment: Minimum Lot Size Staff has identified 16 institutional uses within the City, based on the proposed definition, which may be eligible for an electronic display sign. In order to limit the number of single-family homes potentially qualifying for this type of signage, the Planning Commission discussed including a minimum lot size in the proposed code amendment. The previously -identified institutional uses in the R-1 and R -1A Zoning Districts contain the following acreages: Institutional Use Henry Sibley High School Address 1897 Delaware Avenue Lot Size (acres) 72.34 Friendly Hills Middle School 701 Mendota Heights Road 29.90 Mendota Elementary School 1979 Summit Lane 14.53 Somerset Elementary School 1355 Dodd Road 9.14 St. Thomas Academy 949 Mendota Heights Road 47.78 Convent of the Visitation 2455 Visitation Drive 61.47 Children's County Day School 1588 Victoria Road 6.17 Holy Family Maronite Church 1960 Lexington Avenue South 2.66 St. Peter's Church 1405 Sibley Memorial Highway 15.87 Beth Jacob Congregation 1179 Victoria Curve 5.96 St. Paul United Methodist Church 700 Wesley Lane 2.10 Mendota Heights United Church of Christ 680 Highway 110 3.91 Acacia Park Cemetery 2151 Pilot Knob Road 61.81 Resurrection Cemetery 2101 Lexington Avenue South 223.66 Fire Hall 2121 Dodd Road 2.45 City Hall/Police Department 1101 Victoria Curve 9.03 Source: Dakota County The Planning Commission suggested consideration of a 2 -acre minimum lot size. Based on the table above, all potential institutional uses would meet that threshold. The proposed code amendment was revised to include this additional standard for further discussion [see DRAFT Ordinance 460, Section 2(7)(a)]. Property Line Setback Distance The proposed code amendment includes a 10 -foot setback from an external property boundary line; however the sign cannot be closer than 50 feet from any surrounding residential property boundary lines. The Planning Commission suggested allowing for flexibility concerning the residential property line setback provision if a less intrusive sign could be located closer than 50 feet. The proposed code amendment was revised to include this additional standard for further discussion [see DRAFT Ordinance 460, Section 2(7)(e)]. Message Change Interval The proposed code amendment includes a message change interval of no more than once every four hours, with an exception for emergency warnings. Based on the proposed hours of operation, totaling 16 hours per day, an electronic display sign could change messages no more than 4 times per day. Representatives from various institutional uses in the City provided testimony during the public hearing as to the limitations the proposed standard would impose. It was suggested that a message change interval of once every hour would be more reasonable considering the number of potential events held each day. Based on that standard, assuming the same hours of operation (6:00 A.M. — 10:00 P.M.), the sign could change Page 41 no more than 16 times per day. The proposed code amendment was revised for further discussion [see DRAFT Ordinance 460, Section 2(7)(f)]. Sign Aesthetics The proposed code amendment includes the same design standards for an electronic display sign as for an additional nameplate sign, which requires a monument sign with a stone or brick base and landscaping around the sign structure. Upon reviewing the example signs provided in the previous staff report, the Planning Commission suggested consideration of a 24 -inch minimum base height standard. The proposed code amendment was revised to include this additional standard for further discussion [see DRAFT Ordinance 460, Section 2(7)(m)]. Additional Signage The proposed code amendment includes additional standards for a second electronic display sign, including minimum lot size, sign area, external property line setbacks, and landscaping. The Planning Commission suggested the following revisions for consideration: 1. 20 -acre minimum lot size [see DRAFT Ordinance 460, Section 2(8)(a)]. 2. Including the 50% electronic display area standard [see DRAFT Ordinance 460, Section 2(8)(b)]. STAFF RECOMMENDATION If the City desires to allow electronic display signage for institutional uses in residentially -zoned areas, while mitigating potential negative impacts to surrounding uses and the public, Staff recommends consideration of DRAFT Ordinance 460. As previously noted, there is a potential for increased enforcement efforts as a result of additional electronic display signage in the City. ACTION REQUESTED Following the continuation of the public hearing and further discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of DRAFT Ordinance 460 as presented, or as amended by the Commission, based on the findings of fact. OR 2. Recommend denial of DRAFT Ordinance 460, based on the findings of fact. OR 3. Table the request, pending additional information from staff or others. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Findings of Fact 2. DRAFT Ordinance 460 3. Electronic display sign standards comparison table 4. Institutional Uses within R-1 & R -1A Districts map 5. Newspaper/electronic postings Page 42 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL City Code Amendment Institutional Use Electronic Display Signage The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1. Electronic display signs may replace handmade temporary and changeable copy signs on institutional properties, resulting in a more attractive environment. 2. Limiting electronic display signs to institutional uses in the R-1 and R -1A Zoning Districts with substantial setbacks from surrounding properties will protect against proliferation of such signs. 3. Standards regarding the size of the sign structure and electronic display, message change interval, hours of operation, message characteristics, font size, off -premise advertising, malfunction settings, and brightness of electronic display signs will mitigate potential negative impacts to surrounding uses and the general public. Page 43 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DENIAL City Code Amendment Institutional Use Electronic Display Signage The following Findings of Fact are made in denial of the proposed request: 1. Electronic display signs in residential zoning districts will create a more retail/commercial appearance which does fit with the low density residential character of the community. 2. Electronic display signs can create distractions for drivers and endanger public safety. 3. Electronic display signs can create a nuisance to surrounding uses. 4. Electronic display signs can create issues for the City in enforcement of the Code regulations. 5. Proliferation of electronic display signs will negatively affect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. Page 44 Revised for review at 03.25.2014 Planning Commission Meeting CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 460 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 12-1B-2 AND 12-1D-15 OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF ELECTRONIC DISPLAY SIGNAGE FOR INSTITUTIONAL USES IN THE R-1 AND R -1A ZONING DISTRICTS The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: Section 1. Section 12-1B-2 is hereby amended to read as follows: INSTITUTIONAL USE: Uses operated as schools, places of worship, cemeteries, or government facilities. SIGN, ELECTRONIC DISPLAY: A sign or portion thereof that displays electronic, non - pictorial, text information in which each alphanumeric character is defined by a small number of matrix elements using different combinations of light emitting diodes (LEDs), fiber optics, light bulbs, or other illumination devices within the display area. Electronic display signs include computer programmable, microprocessor -controlled electronic displays. Section 2. Section 12 -1D -15(H) is hereby amended to read as follows: 7. By conditional use permit, an institutional use in the R-1 or R -1A zoning district which is allowed either as a permitted or conditional use may install one (1) freestanding electronic display sign, provided that each of the following requirements are met: a. The parcel, or campus containing contiguous parcels, on which the sign is proposed may be no less than two (2) acres in size. -b. The sign shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet in area per surface. bc. The sign shall not exceed nine feet (9') in height from the average natural grade at the base of the sign. The total area per surface for an electronic display is not to exceed fifty percent (50%) of the sign's total area. Only one (1) contiguous electronic display area is allowed per surface. she. The sign shall be set back at least ten feet (10') from any external property boundary line and shall not be located closer than fifty feet (50') to any surrounding residential property Ord #460 — 03.10.14 DRAFT for public review page 1 of 3 Page 45 Revised for review at 03.25.2014 Planning Commission Meeting boundary line, unless a less intrusive sign placement can be accomplished as approved by the City Council. eTf. The electronic display message shall not change more than once every one (1)four ('1) hours, except for emergency safety messages. Time, date, or temperature is considered one (1) electronic display when displayed alone, however it may be included as a component of any other electronic display but cannot change more than once every three (3) seconds. g_The hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. gh.The electronic display message shall be limited to static letters and numbers. No portion of a message may contain animation, video or audio, scroll, flash, twirl, fade, or change color. i. The electronic display area shall be a black background and messages shall not contain more than one (1) font color. i,LThe electronic display message shall be a minimum of four inches (4") in height or larger as necessary to ensure readability. -k. Messages shall be limited to advertisement of products, events, persons, institutions, activities, businesses, services or subjects which are located on the premises only or which give public service information. kA. Malfunctioning signs shall be shut off immediately by the owner. Additionally, the sign owner shall immediately stop the display if notified by the City that the sign is noncompliant. The sign shall be constructed in monument style fashion, including a base of natural stone, brick or other masonry material of at least twenty four (24) inches in height from the average natural grade. The sign are shall be landscaped with materials subject to a plan a submitted with the application approved by the City Council. rro.The sign shall be equipped with a sensor that detects the ambient light level and adjusts the brightness of the sign accordingly. Brightness shall not exceed 0.3 foot-candles above ambient light as measured using a brightness meter from a preset distance depending on the sign size, as indicated in the table below: Sign Area Measurement Distance Sign Area (sq. ft.) Measurement Distance (ft.) 10 32 15 39 20 45 25 50 30 55 35 59 Ord #460 — 03.10.14 DRAFT for public review page 2 of 3 Page 46 Revised for review at 03.25.2014 Planning Commission Meeting 40 63 45 67 50 71 55 74 60 77 65 81 70 84 75 87 80 89 85 92 90 95 95 97 100 100 Measurement Distance = Ai (Sign Area x 100) 8. By additional conditional use permit, an institutional use in the R-1 or R -1A zoning districts which is allowed either as a permitted or conditional use may qualify for one (1) additional freestanding electronic display sign, provided that the requirements of Section H.7. above are met and each of the following additional requirements: a. The parcel, or campus containing contiguous parcels, on which the sign is proposed may be no less than twenty (20)forty (110) acres in size. b. The sign shall not exceed fifty (50) square feet in area per surface and the electronic display area shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the sign's total area. c. The sign shall be set back at least three hundred feet (300') from any external property boundary line. d. Landscaping shall be installed to provide screening of the sign from any surrounding residential uses. Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication. Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this ## day of Month, 2014. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST Lorri Smith, City Clerk Ord #460 — 03.10.14 DRAFT for public review page 3 of 3 7I - a) a) 0) co a ELECTRONIC DISPLAY SIGN STANDARDS STAN DARDS • 2 -minute hold time • 30 -second change interval • Not to exceed 0.5 foot-candle at property line of residential zone • 10 -second hold time • Sign must be off between 9:00 pm and 7:00 am • Minimum of 3 -seconds within the reader board frame • 20 -minute change interval • No continuation of text (scrolling) • 7 -inch minimum text size on roads 25-34 mph • Message that changes more than once per 24- hour period, except displaying only the time and/or temperature. • 45 -second hold time • Must be 50' from residential • Static and maintained for a minimum of 2 -minutes • 200 ft. from any structures for residential purposes or from any park or open space land use district • Main display must be static for 20 minutes • Time/temp/date allowed every 3 seconds • Once every 5 seconds • Images and messages must be static • 100 ft. from any residential use unless they are screened from the adjoining residential property • 32 sf. max sign area (in res. Zones); 64 sf. in PI Zone • 50 -ft. from side and rear lot lines (set back no less than 100 -ft. from residentially guided or used properties) • 15 -minute hold time • Time/temp/date may change • Color amber or white only • Sign must be off between 10:30 pm and 6:00 am • Occupy no more than 35% of the actual copy and graphic area • 60-seconds/static message • Time/date/temp may change every 3 seconds • Non-residential districts: 1 hour and must be a static • Residential districts: 2 hours and must be a static • Residential districts, sign shall use an amber color • 8 -second change interval • Signs must be located 75 ft. apart WHERE ALLOWED Appears to be acceptable in all districts Commercial and Industrial districts CUP in the commercial and industrial districts; and residential areas if applied to a church or school Appears to be acceptable in all districts CUP in residential districts, allowed in all others Appears to be acceptable in all districts By special use permit in all districts except residential — unless sign is for an Institutional Use (churches, schools, hospitals) Business Commercial or Heavy or Light Industrial districts only CUP use in residential districts, all other districts permitted Government buildings and structures, public, quasi -public or private recreation buildings, public parks and recreation areas, public and private educational institutions limited to accredited elementary, middle or senior high schools, and religious institutions such as churches, chapels, temples and synagogues Permitted for non-residential uses in residential zones and in the "Public Institutional Zones" Nonresidential uses in residential districts, all other districts Residential and Business districts Business and Industrial districts CITY Brooklyn Park Burnsville co Q c.) E co 0 Crystal Eagan Golden Valley T a, ui 0 Z. E Minnetonka New Hope Plymouth Richfield Shoreview West. St. Paul 0 0 1.0 0 SCALE IN FEET 9 CD N N U a Date: 2/17/2014 f`_� ;an.••••r�ir��a�� n r'i ,--..... C::'Ili ��:�i/�•�'!'m �,/ 0,11711 r. 441V44:4 N4. g_ •I�►�4pr•l ��iy lagi�- PAQ0%�i Uses (w/in R-1 & R -1A) nstitutiona Zoning Districts Institutional Uses L _c 0 c 0-- a) _cos E.o 0 � 0 (6 (6 a) co -0 co L = E �_ o U c Q co.5O a) >.o-oU-.2 W oTDW=== cn O E� U (n 0_ U o-0 cao—E�coc 011= a�oi.� _ > -cD Ew c >,-cw co a).L o aa) o,� a) a) oma' a),� o b: co 0 u- 0 c,7 c,7=�=Umc,7Q o�N(-v((ico ((ico�aorn \. rJ�LWJ idn 0) 0 O O O O 0 O o - - cLU • U a) O w c 0 a) E+ s 1pl /' 411, p �� L � 0 d 2 0 d 2 1- d a) 65 0 d 7 2 m Document Path: I:\Planning\2014\2014-03 Code Amendment - Electronic Display Signs\Maps\Institutional Uses_Case 2014-03.mxd City code amendment regarding electronic display signs Page 1 of 1 Page 49 LilhieNcws . com YOUR IOCAI I.INj(-.-._.LILl-IE SUBURBAN NFwsrAu'u .-.---.SEkviNG rHF ST PAUL SUBURBS SINCF9:38 Published on Lillie Suburban Newspapers - LillieNews.com (http://www.southwestreviewnews.com) Home > City code amendment regarding electronic display signs Mon 10 Mar City code amendment regarding electronic display signs Submitted by admin on Mon, 03/10/2014 - 8:39pm The City of Mendota Heights is considering amending the city code to allow electronic display signs for institutional uses in certain residential zoning districts. The planning commission will be continuing the discussion at the Tuesday, March 25 meeting at 7 p.m. at the Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. The city invites any interested parties to review the proposed code amendment at www.mendota-heights.com [1] and submit written comments by Wednesday, March 19 or provide testimony at the public hearing at the March planning commission meeting. Copies of the proposed code amendment are also available for review at city hall from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. The city planner can be reached at 651-452-1850 with any questions. The planning commission is advisory to the city council and may take action to make a recommendation in consideration of the proposed code amendment. The city council may consider the recommendation and discuss amending the city code at a future meeting. Rate this article: No votes yet Article category: South-West Review -News [2] Newsbriefs - South-West Review [3] Source URL: http://www.southwestreviewnews.com/articles/2014/03/10/city-code-amendment-regardinq- electronic-display-signs Links: [1] http://www.mendota-heights.com [2] http://www.southwestreviewnews.com/south-west-review [3] http://www.southwestreviewnews.com/articles/newsbriefs-south-west-review http://www.southwestreviewnews.com/print/183486 3/11/2014 Mendota Heights Agenda/Minutes Page 1 of 2 © FIND US ON FACEBOOK © CONNECT WITH US ON TWITTER 40.91 vwfle,41040/4) Ilonw Your Government Mendota Heights Document Center Performance Management Center Community Calendar Latest News & Upcoming Events City Code City Publications Employment On -Line Park and Recreation Registration Documents/Forms/Publit "itinitis Online Interactive Forms Contact City Hall Contact Police Car Seat Inspections Calendar March 2014 S M T W Th F 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 * * * 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 http://www.mendota-heights.com/ Search City Services Small Town Feel in an Urban Setting Mendota Heights is a high quality, family oriented residential community, with the feel of the country and the amenities of a city. While it is centrally located in the metropolitan area, the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers form a natural green belt around it, allowing the community to maintain a quiet, private way of life, unique in the Twin Cities. The community has preserved an abundance of parks and open spaces, encourages spacious residential development, and has planned for diversified, high technology offices and business areas. Excellent schools and a well-educated populace complement the traditional but progressive character of the City. Civic pride and aesthetic excellence are high priorities in Mendota Heights. For these reasons and so many more, Mendota Heights is truly the best kept secret in Minnesota....Shhhh Latest News & Upcoming Events City Code Amendment Regarding Electronic Display Signs The City of Mendota Heights is considering amending the City Code to allow electronic display signs for institutional uses in certain residential zoning districts. The Planning Commission will be continuing the discussion at the Tuesday, March 25 meeting at 7:00 PM at the Mendota Heights City Hall, located at 1101 Victoria Curve. The City invites any interested parties to review the proposed code amendment and submit written comments by Wednesday, March 19 or provide testimony at the public hearing at the March Planning Commission meeting. Copies of the proposed code amendment are also available for review at City Hall from 8:00 AM — 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday. The City Planner can be reached at 651.452.1850 with any questions. Par 3 CONNECT WITH US FACEBOOK © TWITTER Heights Highlights Winter 2014 eS it+.- Smart iii Email Notifications Visitors to this Site 00004254 3/19/2014 Page 50 /r MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY OF DATE: March 25, 2014 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Public Hearing Procedures BACKGROUND 1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com In an effort to improve the public hearing procedure, Staff is proposing an opening statement by the Chair to clarify the process and guidelines. While it is rarely a problem, it may be beneficial to have a more defined procedure in place if a contentious issue arises in the future. After the Staff presentation, the Chair opens the public hearing and provides the following proposed rules of procedure: 1. Comments shall be limited to the application being considered. 2. Comments shall be limited to 3-5 minutes. 3. Comments shall not be repetitious until everyone else wishing to provide comments has testified. 4. The applicant shall be allowed to speak last to address any comments. BUDGET IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION Discuss the current public hearing procedure and direct Staff to formalize any new procedures for implementation at a future meeting. Page 51 El