Loading...
2014-04-22 Planning Comm Agenda Packet CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSIONAGENDA April 22, 2014–7:00 p.m. Mendota Heights City Hall 1.Call to Order 2.Roll Call 3.Adopt Agenda 4.Approve March25, 2014Planning Commission Minutes 5.Public Hearings(7:00 p.m. or shortly thereafter): a.Case No. 2014-09: Southview Design, Inc. Conditional Use Permit for outdoor storage and display, accessory structure, and fence over six feet at 2385 Pilot Knob Road. b.Case No. 2014-10: Michael Sullivan and Deborah Cuneo. Variance request for detached garage at 993 Delaware Avenue. c.Case No. 2014-11: Steven Olsen. Wetlands Permit for accessory structure at 2469 Westview Terrace. d.Case No. 2014-12: Somerset Country Club. Variance request for accessory structure at 1416 Dodd Road. 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 Hallat 651.452.1850 with requests. Page 1 4 1CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3 4PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES 5March 25, 2014 6 7The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 825, 2013, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. 9 10The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Howard 11Roston, Doug Hennes, Robin Hennessy, and Mary Magnuson. Those absent: Michael Noonan 12and Ansis Viksnins. Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall and Public Works Director/City 13Engineer John Mazzitello. 14 Approval of Agenda 15 16 17The agenda was approved as submitted. 18 Approval of February 25, 2014 Minutes 19 20 21COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO 22APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2014, AS PRESENTED. 23AYES: 5 24NAYS: 0 25ABSENT: 2 26 Hearings 27 28 29PLANNING CASE #2014-07 30Lee Violet and Joe Rueckert, 2334 Swan Drive 31Conditional Use Permit for fence in the required side yard 32 33City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicants requested a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 34to construct a fence in the required yard adjacent to a public right-of-way. The subject parcel is 35located at 2334 Swan Drive, is a corner lot, with driveway access off of Swan Drive and a side 36yard abutting Bluebill Drive. The parcel contained a single family dwelling on 0.39 acres, zoned 37R-1, and guided for low density residential development in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed 38fence would encompass the back yard of the property, be located approximately four feet from the 39property boundary lines, be five feet in height, and vinyl coated. The applicant requested the fence 40in order to provide protection and containment for a future pet dog. 41 42Staff recommended approval of this application. 43 44Chair Fieldopened the public hearing. 45 46Ms. Lee Violet, 2334 Swan Drive, was in attendance to answer questions from the Commissioners. March 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 1 Page 2 47Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public 48hearing. 49 50COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO 51CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 52AYES: 5 53NAYS: 0 54ABSENT: 2 55 56COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO 57RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CASE NO. 2014-07, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 58REQUEST FOR FENCE CONSTRUCTION GREATER THAN 36 INCHES IN A REQUIRED 59YARD ADJACENT TO A RIGHT-OF-WAY, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDING OF 60FACTS: 611.The proposed project will not negatively impact traffic visibility at the Swan Drive/Bluebill 62Drive intersection. 632.The proposed fence-type and height are consistent with Code requirements. 643.The fence is compatible with the established character of the neighborhood and will not 65negatively impact any surrounding properties. 66AYES: 5 67NAYS: 0 68ABSENT: 2 69 70Chair Fieldadvised the City Council would consider this application at its April 1, 2014 meeting. 71 72PLANNING CASE #2014-08 73Linda Dehkes, on behalf of Roger and Grace Pass 74Lot split request for unaddressed property at Oak Street and North Freeway Road 75(Lot 3, Block 3, Jefferson Heights) 76 77City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant requested a lot split for the vacant 78unaddressed parcel located at the intersection of Freeway Road North and Oak Street. The subject 79parcel is 0.92 acres, zoned R-1, and guided for low density residential development in the 80Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has a purchase offer on the parcel contingent on the lot split 81approval. If approved, the applicant intends to construct two new single family homes on the 82proposed parcels, both of which would be proposed to have access onto Oak Street. 83 84The subdivision would create two lots, both of which exceed the 15,000 square foot minimum lot 85size standard for the R-1 district. Parcel A, to the north, is proposed to be 21,140 square feet and 86Parcel B, to the south, is proposed to be 21,088 square feet. Both parcels would have 125 feet of 87frontage on Oak Street, which meets the 100 foot requirement. Both parcels would be compliant 88with the R-1 zoning requirements and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 89 90Staff recommended approval of this application with conditions. 91 92Chair Field opened the public hearing. March 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 2 Page 3 93 94Ms. Linda Dehkes, 1830 Maple Street, Hastings, MN; and Mr. Mark Gergen, Greenwood Design 95Build and Miles Realty, were on hand to answer any questions from the Commission. 96 97Mr. Dominic Alphonso, 697 South Freeway Road, commented that the property in question is very 98steep and goes down very rapidly from North Freeway Road south. He asked how the owner would 99maintain the two proposed residences one from the other and not disturb each other and the 100drainage. 101 102Chair Field pointed out that the topic under consideration is the lot split only and not a site plan 103specific to it. Public Works Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello replied that staff does not have 104any building plans as part of this application and so would not be sure how the applicant is 105proposing to handle construction on the two lots. However, the City has codes that prevent 106drainage from one lot adversely affecting another and the applicant has been made aware of that. 107There are storm drains in Oak Street that they could, through the course of grading and 108construction, route drainage out into the catch basins. 109 110Planner Wall noted that two of the conditions of this application address these concerns. 111 112COMMISSIONER HENNESSY MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO 113CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 114AYES: 5 115NAYS: 0 116ABSENT: 2 117 118COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO 119RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CASE NO. 2014-08, LOT SPLIT REQUEST FOR 120UNADDRESSED PROPERTY AT OAK STREET AND NORTH FREEWAY ROAD (LOT 3, 121BLOCK 3, JEFFERSON HEIGHTS) BASED ON THE FINDING OF FACT THAT THE 122PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY CODE AND 123COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1241.Park dedication fee in the amount of $2,700, in lieu of land, is collected after City Council 125approval and before issuance of any additional permits by the City. 1262.Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of a 127building permit. 1283.The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site plan with 129associated easements, subject to review and approval by the City Engineering Department 130as part of any building permit application. 1314.The land distur 132Guidance document. 133AYES: 5 134NAYS: 0 135ABSENT: 2 136 137Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its April 1, 2014 meeting. 138 March 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 3 Page 4 139PLANNING CASE #2014-03 140Code Amendment for Electronic Display Signs 141 142Chair Field noted that this is a continuation of the public hearing that began at the February 25, 1432014 Planning Commission meeting. 144 145City Planner Nolan Wall explained for the record that this is a request from the City of Mendota 146Heights to amend the City Code that would allow electronic display signage, limited to institutional 147uses in the R-1 and R-1A zoning districts. Staff was directed to bring back additional revisions for 148discussion and the public hearing was to remain open to solicit additional comments. The Planning 149Commission also suggested some additional outreach to promote awareness of the topic and 150encourage additional comments. Staff issued a press release, which was published in the March 9, 1512014 edition of theSouth-West Review, a link with the proposed amendments was provided on the 152 153 154Chair Field also noted that there was a column in the St. Paul paper as well. 155 156Planner Wall continued by stating that the revised code amendment was also then sent out to the 157same previously identified institutional uses for additional comment and feedback. However, 158despite the additional outreach efforts staff did not receive any new comments. 159 160Planner Wall then summarized the proposed changes to the draft ordinance. 161 162Commissioner Roston explained his reasoning for suggesting a minimum lot size standard was to 163attempt to accommodate institutional uses within residential zoning districts without allowing 164them for single-family homes that may qualify under the definition for an institutional use. Planner 165Wall confirmed that all previously-identified institutional uses would comply with the proposed 1662-acre minimum lot size standard. 167 168Commissioner Magnuson suggested specifically excluding scoreboards from the proposed code 169amendment language. Planner Wall noted that scoreboards are not intended to be regulated by 170this proposed amendment, however an exclusion could be added to the electronic display sign 171definition if desired. Commissioner Roston then proposed language for inclusion in the definition 172that exempts scoreboards. 173 174Planner Wall continued to summarize the additional proposed revisions to the draft code 175amendment language, including flexibility for less intrusive sign setbacks from residential uses, 176message change interval, sign aesthetics, and minimum lot size and display size for additional 177electronic displays. 178 179Chair Field opened the floor for additional public comments. 180 181Ron and Dianne Berfelz, 688 W. Wentworth Avenue, are against lighted signs. They live across 182the street from Somerset 19, who went from 100 watt bulbs to sodium vapor 150 watt bulbs. When 183this occurred the lumens went up to 60,000 so they know that light can be very, very invasive. March 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 4 Page 5 184They gave other examples of areas where lighting is invasive. They also asked about enforcement 185of the ordinance and penalties for non-compliance. 186 187Jack Vitelli, 1334 Sylvandale Road and former Councilmember, stated that he was surprised when 188he saw the article in the St. Paul newspaper. He asked about the objective of the ordinance change, 189benefit to the residents, benefit to the sign owners, why only institutions, cost to the City, 190enforcement, future requests for changes, and notification to neighboring residents of these 191institutions. Until these topics are addressed he would recommend denial of the ordinance 192amendment. 193 194Dawn Nichols, Head of School at Visitation, expressed her appreciation to the Planning 195Commission for their attention to this request. She believes that the proposed changes to the 196ordinance allow for reasonable and broader groups of institutional users in a smart and up-to-date 197way. They reflect the changing times and a careful use of digital technology, that is not intrusive 198and is used for a good purpose, would be an acceptable path. 199 200Commissioners asked additional questions in regards to shut-off times for other lighted signs 201within the City, candle strength of lights, and ability of the City to deny a conditional use permit. 202 203Steve VanHout, Watchfire Signs, stated that the federal government just released a study talking 204about digital signage, traffic safety, and other topics brought up this evening. He suggested the 205Commission review that report before making any final decisions. He also mentioned that a LED 206sign has built-in dimming capabilities at night and for a sign to be readable it cannot be 207overpowering or too bright. He offered himself as a resource. 208 209Commissioner Hennes stated that he believes he has learned enough in the last three meetings and 210would be comfortable moving forward and closing the public hearing. Commissioners Magnuson 211and Roston agreed with those comments. 212 213COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO 214CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 215AYES: 5 216NAYS: 0 217ABSENT: 2 218 219COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNESSY, TO 220RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CASE NO. 2014-03, DRAFT ORDINANCE 460 BASED ON 221THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 2221.Electronic display signs may replace handmade temporary and changeable copy signs on 223institutional properties, resulting in a more attractive environment. 2242.Limiting electronic display signs to institutional uses in the R-1 and R-1A Zoning Districts 225with substantial setbacks from surrounding properties will protect against proliferation of 226such signs. 2273.Standards regarding the size of the sign structure and electronic display, message changes 228interval, hours of operation, message characteristics, font size, off-premise advertising, March 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 5 Page 6 229malfunction settings, and brightness of electronic display signs will mitigate potential 230negative impacts to surrounding uses and the general public. 231AND INCORPORAT. 232 233Commissioner Hennes commented that, in his opinion, the objective of this ordinance to provide 234better information to residents as is the case with the request from Visitation. The benefit to the 235sign holder is obvious. The benefit to residents is to be better informed. 236 237Commissioner Magnuson stated that ultimately this is a decision that the City Council is going to 238have to make. She is not troubled by the idea of electronic signs as long as they are adopted in a 239way that is careful and respectful of the surrounding neighborhoods. 240 241 242else is going to be asking for this type of signage. However, he believes the institutional uses that 243fit under this ordinance is pretty narrow and they are responsible institutional uses. 244 245Commissioner Hennessy commented that the example brought forward previously from Visitation 246presents a good illustration of a way to take advantage of the new technology to present a better 247looking sign. 248 249Chair Field echoed the thoughts and comments from the Commissioners. He respected the 250opinions of those that are concerned about it; however, he believes they have deliberately limited 251it to the specific institutional uses where it provides some benefit. 252 253There being no other comments, Chair Field called for the vote. 254AYES: 5 255NAYS: 0 256ABSENT: 2 257 258Planner Wall advised the City Council would consider this application at its April 15, 2014 259meeting. 260 Discussion of Public Hearing Process 261 262 263Chair Field stated that he had discussions with Planner Wall about making adjustments to the 264public hearing process. He had chaired zoning in St. Paul and some of the following rules were 265used for the public hearing process. For consideration by the Commissioners are the following: 266 267After the Staff presentation, the Chair opens the public hearing and provides the following 268proposed rules of procedures: 2691.Comments shall be limited to the plan or application being submitted 2702.Comments shall be limited to 3-5 minutes or a reasonable period of time 2713.Comment shall not be repetitious until everyone else wishing to provide comments 272has testified. 2734.The applicant shall be allowed to speak last to address any comments. 274 March 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 6 Page 7 275Commissioner Hennes suggested that Item 2 be a specific amount of time, not 3-5 minutes, and 276would not include the time taken by the Commission to ask questions. 277 278Commissioner Magnuson suggested adding Item 5: The Chair shall have the ability to amend 279provisions on a case by case basis to allow for extenuating circumstances. 280 281Commissioner Roston asked if this was a solution without a problem. He has not observed any 282abuse 283 284Commissioner Magnuson believes this would be helpful so people coming before the Commission 285would know what to expect. 286 287Planner Wall will draft a formal statement that the Chair would read before the public hearings. 288This draft statement will be brought to the next Commission meeting for review. 289 Verbal Review 290 291 292Planner Wall gave the following verbal review: 293 294PLANNING CASE #2014-04 Rod and Sue Stombaugh Conditional Use Permit 295Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. 296 297PLANNING CASE #2014-05 Alden and Joyce Landreville Lot Split Request 298Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. 299 300PLANNING CASE #2014-06 United Properties Preliminary and Final Plat, 301Conditional Use Permit, 302Planned Unit Development Amendment 303Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. 304 305COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO 306ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:16 P.M. 307 308AYES: 5 309NAYS: 0 310ABSENT: 2 March 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 7 Page 8 5a DATE: April 22, 2014 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP – Planner Tina Goodroad, AICP – Consulting Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2014-09 Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage and Display,Accessory Structure, and Fence APPLICANT: Southview Design, Inc. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2385 Pilot Knob Road ZONING/GUIDED: I-Industrial/I-Industrial ACTION DEADLINE: May 25, 2014 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicantis seeking conditional use permit approval for outdoor storage and display of materials and equipment, an accessory structure,and a fence exceeding six (6) feet for the existing, vacant parcellocated at 2385 Pilot Knob Road. BACKGROUND The subject parcelis 3.25 acres (141,590square feet) and is located on Pilot Knob Road, east of State Highway 13 and north of Interstate 494 (see attached Site Map).The parcel is zoned I-Industrial and guided for industrial development. The applicant owns the parceland intends to construct a 17,064 square foot corporate headquarters facility. Ordinance No. 457was approved by the City Council in November 2013.It amended the Code to allow “landscaping and building design and construction” as a permitted nonmanufacturing use and to allow “outdoor storage and display of materials and equipment accessory to landscaping and building design and construction” as a conditional use in the I-Industrial District. In addition, the applicant is seeking to construct an accessory building and a privacy fence to enclose the outdoor storage yard over six (6) feet in height, which also require a conditional use permit. ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan The subject parcel is guided I-Industrial in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant’s request to construct the proposed permitted and conditional uses on the parcel areconsistent with the City’s goal to promote aesthetically-pleasing industrial development and landscape standards. Page 9 I-Industrial District and Additional Requirements The proposed permitted and conditional uses will be reviewed under the applicable I-Industrial District requirements and related performance standards. Site and Structure Requirements Title 12-1G-7 contains the following applicable standards: RequirementStandardProposed Building Coverage50%12.22% Principal Structure Height45 ft.29 ft. Floor Area Ratio0.50.12 Lot Area1 acre3.25 acres Lot Width 100 ft.176.34 ft.at ROW Front Yard40 ft.213.90 ft. 30.67(south) Side Yard 30 ft. (interior) 100.36 (north) Rear Yard50 ft.230ft. The proposed development meets the site and structure requirementsfor the I-Industrial District. Off Street Parking Titles 12-1D-16 and 12-1G-5 of the Code containoff street parking and loading regulationsapplicable to the proposed development, including the following standards: RequirementStandardProposed 1 space/200 sq. ft. Office (6,000+ sq. ft.) (9,072sq. ft./200 = 45.36) 54spaces 1space/2,000 sq. ft. Warehouse (7,992sq. ft./2,000 = 4) Space Width9 ft.9 ft. Space Length20 ft.20 ft. Drive Aisle Width24 ft.25 ft. Front Yard Setback20 ft.62.4ft. 21ft.(south) Side/Rear Yard Setback10 ft. 39ft.(north) ROW Setback20 ft.21ft.(south) The proposed parking area will be curbed and paved with standardand heavy-duty bituminous surfaces. In addition, the Code requires parking areas containing more than 6 spaces facing a public street to have a solid screen, wall or fence not less than 4 feet nor higher than 6 feet. The proposed Landscape Plan (see sheet L-1) includes acombination of Regent Serviceberry, Cardinal Dogwood, and Dwarf Korean Lilac shrubs, ranging from 4-8 feetin height,and four Autumn Blaze Maple treesto provide the required screening for the 14-space parking row fronting Pilot Knob Road. The proposed development meets the applicable off street parking requirements of the Code. Spaces provided for equipment and vehicle storage in the proposed outdoor storage and display area are addressed in other sections of this report. Landscaping and Screening Title 12-1D-13-2(D) includes landscaping requirementsfor the proposed development. The Code requires at least 25% of the land area and 5% of the parking area be landscaped with grass, approved ground cover, Page 10 shrubbery or trees. According to the Site Plan(see sheet C3),25.2% of the land area and 15.16% of the parking area will be landscaped. According to the proposed Landscape Plan (see sheet L-1), the applicant is proposing a mix of 366 new trees and perennial,grass, and shrub plantingsas well as mulched and sodded areas with drip irrigation throughout the front and side yardsof the proposed development. In addition, a rock retaining wall will be constructed on portions of the proposed development along the south and west property boundary lines and a row of existing trees will be preserved lining the outside of the proposed outdoor storage yard. The extensive landscaping planis compliant with the Code requirements andprovides necessary screening of the parking areas along Pilot Knob Road and the Perron Roadright-of-way. The proposed landscaping also enhances the building with landscaping planned along the entire east and south sides of the building. Building Design and Construction The proposed principal building will contain 9,072 square feet of office space on two levels and 7,992 square feet of warehouse space. Title 12-1D-13-2(C) of the Code includes additional standardsfor commercial and industrial developments, including exterior building surfaces and screening of mechanical utilities. The building location on the site differs slightly from conceptual design layouts. This is due in large part to the geotechnical conditions of the site discovered during the design process. The site was used in the past as a construction debris fill site from the construction of the new Highway 13. As a result, according to the applicant, underlying soil conditions are widely varied and construction quality soils are intermittent. City staff has not been provided witha geotechnical report, but one is required to be submitted as part of the building permit application. The Code requires exterior surfaces to be face brick or natural stone. As shown in architectural exterior elevations (see sheet A3.1), the proposed office/warehouse building will consist of a 12-inch VersaCore + green insulated sandwich precast panel with imprinted aggregate finish. The proposed exterior features four bands of dark brown-colored unexposed aggregate alternating between three rows of light brown- colored exposed aggregate. The building’s roofline is lined with prefinished metal coping. The east elevation features the building’s main entrance with storefront and numerous windows. The west elevation features a 14-foot tall overhead door with access to the warehouse space from the outdoor storage yard below a row of windows. The north elevation features another similar-sized overhead door with access to the warehouse space from the north side of the outdoor storage yard. It also features two rows of windows and an access door to the office area. Lastly, the south elevation is identical to the north elevation with the exception of the overhead door. The exterior elevations do not show the location of mechanical utilities. The Code requires ground level and rooftop mechanical utilities to be completely screened or be of a low-profile variety. Staff has included a condition that further information is provided to verify compliance with these requirements prior to issuance of a building permit. The proposed principal building’s design meets the Code requirements and will match existing structures within the immediate area and the larger Industrial District. Lighting Title 12-1I-15 of the Code limits lighting for parking and loading areas or yards for safety and security purposes to 0.2 foot-candles at the shared property line with acommercial or industrial use or public right- of-way and zero foot-candles at the shared property line with residentially-zoned property. A lighting plan was not included as part of the conditional use permit application, therefore a condition has been added that a full lighting plan be submitted and approved based on the Code requirements. Page 11 Accessory Structure The applicant is proposing an approximately 3,149-square foot, 8-bin accessory structure located within the outdoor storage and display area to contain and provide shelter for landscape materials for use on the applicant’s projects. Accessory structures are allowed by conditional use permit in the I-Industrial District and within an outdoor storage and display area by Ordinance 457. Title 12-1D-13-2(C)(3) of the Code requires accessory structures to be of a similar type, quality and appearance as the principal structure. The applicant has not indicated the exact materials and colors to be used for the proposed accessory structure. The example pictures provided with the application include concrete interior and exterior walls that appear to be approximately 8-10 feet tall with painted metal siding and pitched roof. Based on the proposed principal building’s dark and light brown coloring, Staff recommends similar colors be used for the siding and roofof the accessory structurein order to comply with the Code requirements. The Code limits the height of accessory structures in all nonresidential districts to not exceed the height of the principal building. The proposed principal building is 29 feet high, but an exact height of the accessory structure was not providedwith the application. According to a note on the Site Plan(see sheet C3), the height of the accessory structure (peaked roof) will not exceed 29 feet and the exact height will be determined prior to submitting final plans for building permit review. Fence According to Title 12-1D-6(C)(2), fences over 6 feet in height within the Industrial District require a conditional use permit. The proposed development will include two fence styles, both 8 feet in height, to completely enclose and screen the outdoor storage and display area(see attached example pictures). A wooden cedar fence will face Pilot Knob Road along the eastern portion of the yard, which is the most visible portion of the site from the road. A chain link cyclone fencewith privacy slatswill be located along the north, west and southern property lines. The proposed fence locations and designmeet the Code requirements. Outdoor Storage and Display Area Ordinance 457 requires a conditional use permit for the outdoor storage and display area component of the proposed development. The ordinance contains the following conditions: The site shall be occupied by a principal building of no less than 15,000 square feet. 1. The proposed principal office/warehouse building is 17,019 square feet. All storage and display is located in the rear or side yard of the property and behind the front building 2. line of the principal building, and shall not be located in a yard that abuts any local public street. The proposed storage and display area is located inthe rear and sideyardsand behind the front building lineof the proposed development.While the site does border State Highway 13 to the west and the Perron Road right-of-way to the south, neither is considered a local public street. No storage and display shall be located on any parcel that is within one thousand five hundred (1,500) 3. feet from any residentially-zoned property, measured from the closest point of the lot lines. The subject parcel and proposed outdoor storage and display area is located over 2,000 feet from the nearest residentially-zoned property. The storage and display area shall not be open to retail sales, and shall be utilized only for stock and 4. supply for clients of the landscape or building design and construction business. Page 12 The proposed storage and display will be limited to stock and supply,no retail saleswill be conducted. All storage and display is located on paved surfaces, which shall be properly maintained to prevent 5. deterioration. The proposed storage and display area will be completely hard-surfaced. The storage and display area shall occupy no more than sixty percent (60%) of the total lot area. 6. The proposed storage and displayarea is 51.8% of the total site area. The storage and display area shall be setback from all lot lines no less than ten (10) feet. 7. The proposed storage and display areameets all setback requirements. The storage and display area shall be screened from surrounding property by fencing, walls, and/or 8. landscaping. As noted, the entirety of the proposed storage and display area will be enclosed by privacy fencing, retaining walls, and existing vegetation. All storage and display shall be located under three-sided, covered structures, with the exception of 9. landscape plant materials and trucks or equipment as shown on a specific and detailed site plan. Storage binsand an accessory structureare proposed for the storage of landscape materials. Compliance will be verified upon submission of final plans with the building permit application. Trucks and equipment kept within the storage and display area shall be located within designated 10. striped parking spaces and shall not be used for storage. According to the Site Plan, the proposed storage and display area will contain 26 striped parkingstalls for trucks and equipment along the north property line. Fencing utilized for screening purposes shall be constructed of wood or other materials as approved 11. by the City Council. As noted, the proposed fencing materials meet the Code requirements. Circulation and water service on the property shall meet the requirements of the City’s Fire Chief for 12. access and fire protection. Compliance to be verified upon submission of final plans with the building permit application. Covered structures used to protect stored materials or equipment shall meet the following 13. requirements. Structures greater than eight feet in height shall be designed and constructedof materials a. consistent with the requirements of Section 12-1D-13-2 of this Code. The proposed accessory structurewill be greater than 8 feet in height. As noted, the applicant has not indicated the exact materials and colors to be used for the proposed accessory structure. Staff recommends that similar colorsto those used on the principal structurebe used for the siding and roof of the accessory structure. Page 13 Structures of eight feet in height or less may be constructed of alternative materials as b. approved by the City Council, provided such structures are not visible from surrounding property or public streets. Any additional storage bins included on the final plans will be reviewedfor compliance with the Code requirements as part of the building permit approval process. All structures shall comply with applicable Building and Fire Codes. c. Compliance to be verified upon submission of final plans with the building permit application. Perron Road ROW The applicant is proposing to access the development through a private driveway constructed within the Perron Roadright-of-way along the southern property boundary line, which is currently unimproved and owned by the City. The right-of-way is unplatted and exists as a remnantfrom the platting of the surrounding properties. In addition, the existing office buildingto the south at 2401 Pilot Knob Road is currently utilizing a portion for access to the parking lot. The applicant pursued alternatives with Dakota County for direct access to Pilot Knob Road on the north end of the site. However, the County was not willing to approve access in that location due to safety concerns with an off-set access on the other side of Pilot Knob Road for an existing use. As a result, the applicant approached the City for approval to utilize the unimproved Perron Road right-of-way for a private driveway until the right-of-way is improved in the future. The likelihood of an improved Perron Road right-of-way is largely dependent on the future development of an existing, vacant 4.59-acre parcel to the south owned by Lloyd’s Barbeque Company. Perron Road is the only accessible right-of-way adjacent to that parcel, so if it develops the Perron Road right-of-way may need to be improved to provideaccess to and from Pilot Knob Road. Therefore, the City recommends against vacating any portion of the right-of-way at this time. In order for the applicant to utilize the right-of-way as proposed, the City will need to negotiate a right-of- way license agreement for approval by the City Council. Similar agreements have been approved for residential uses but this would be the first license agreementproposed for commercial/industrial uses. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit request with the following conditions: 1.A Right-of-Way License Agreement is signed between Southview Partners I, LLC and the City of Mendota Heights. 2.A performance bond, with security satisfactory to the City, is supplied by the applicant for the proposed screening and landscaping improvements. 3.The applicant shall provide additional information regarding any potential visibility of rooftop mechanicalunits to ensure compliance with the Code prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4.A final lighting plan shall be submitted and approved prior to installation. 5.Final building elevations forthe accessory structure and storage bins shall be submittedwith the final plans as part of the building permit applicationand approved to ensurecompliance with the Code requirements. 6.A final sign package shall be submitted for review prior to issuance of a sign permit. Page 14 7.Circulation and water service on the property shall meet the requirements of the City’s Fire Chief for access and fire protection. 8.The applicant shall dedicate 10-foot drainage and utility easements adjacent to all property boundary lines and over stormwater treatment facilities to be recorded by document with Dakota County. 9.Geotechnical report and final stormwater model calculations shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to the issuance of Building Permit(s). 10.Final plans submitted for building permit shall include structural design details of the retaining wall and fence. 11.All soil disturbance, development, and construction activities shall comply with the City’s stormwater ordinances and Land Disturbance Guidance Document. ACTION REQUESTED 1.Recommend approval of the conditional use permit request for outdoor storage and display of materials and equipment, an accessory structure, and a fence exceeding six (6) feet, based on the attached findings of fact, with conditions. OR 2.Recommend denial of the conditional use permit request for outdoor storage and display of materials and equipment, an accessory structure, and a fence exceeding six (6) feet, based on the finding of factthat the proposed developmentis not consistent with the City Code. OR 3.Table the request. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1.Aerial Site Map 2.Planning Application, including supporting materials 3.Pictures of proposed fences 4.Pictures of proposed accessory structure/storage bin Page 15 FINDINGS OF FACT FORAPPROVAL Conditional Use Permit Request for outdoor storage and display of materials and equipment, an accessory structure, and 8-foot tall fence Southview Design, Inc. 2385 Pilot Knob Road The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1.The proposed use is permitted in the Industrial District and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2.The proposed permitted nonmanufacturing use for “landscaping and building design and construction” meets the off street parking, landscaping and screening, and site and structure requirements of the Code. 3.The proposed outdoor storage and display area is compliant with the conditional use permit requirements contained in Ordinance 457 and will be heavily screening by privacy fencing and landscaping from surrounding uses and public roadways. 4.Utilization of the unimproved Perron Road right-of-way by license agreement with the City allows for the safest access and most efficient vehicle circulation on the site. Page 16 2385 Pilot Knob Road City of Planning Case 2014-09 Mendota 0120 Heights Date: 4/15/2014 SCALE IN FEET 2359 2359 2 4 8 2360 842 8 4 0 2418 2401 8 4 2 Aerometrics 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 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST Office Use Only: Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission and/orCity Council only after all 2014-09 Case #:_____________________ required materials have been submitted. Application submittal deadlines are available on the City’s website SouthviewDesign,Inc. Applicant:____________________ Late or incomplete or by contacting the City Planner. 2385PilotKnobRoad applications be put on the agenda. will not Address:_____________________ APPLICATIONREQUIREMENTS: 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 largerthan 11 x 17, please provide 24copies, folded to 8 ½ x 11. Any drawing in color –must submit 24copies. The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete: Fee, as included in Fee Schedule (check payable to City of Mendota Heights) NOTE: Planning Application fees donot 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). n Sketch plan showing all pertinent dimensions, and including the location of any easements n having an influence upon the variance request. Letter of Intent. Site Development Plan, including: Location of all buildings, including existing and proposed. n Location of all adjacent buildings located within 350’ of the exterior boundaries of the n property in question. Floor area ratio. n Location and number of existing and proposed parking spaces. n Vehicular circulation. n Architectural elevations (type and materials used on all external surfaces). n Sewer and water alignment, existing and proposed. n Location and candle power of all luminaries. n Location of all existing easements. n Conditional Use Permit Request(modified 12/6/2013) Page 1of 2 Page 22 Dimension Plan, including: Lot dimensions and area. n Dimensions of proposed and existing structures. n “Typical” floor plan and “typical” room plan. n Setbacks on all structures existing or proposed on property in question. n Proposed setbacks. Grading Plan, including: Existing contour. n Proposed grading elevations. n Drainage configuration. n Storm sewer catch basins and invert elevations. n Spot elevations. n Proposed road profile. n Landscape Plan, including: Location of all existing trees, type, diameter and which trees will be removed. n Location, type and diameter of all proposed plantings. n Location and material used of all screening devices. n NOTES: Conditional Use Permit Request(modified 12/6/2013) Page 2 of 2 Page 23 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 37 tƌğƓƷźƓŭƭƭĭƩĻĻƓźƓŭƦğƩƉźƓŭƭƷğƌƌƭŅğĭźƓŭtźƌƚƷYƓƚĬ The primary shrubs that form the planting screening parking stalls facing Pilot Knob consist of the following shrubs: Regent Serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia 'Regent') - A compact, upright form of this valuable landscape shrub with showy white flowers in spring followed by delicious berries in June. Its unique habit make this a fine choice for garden use or in hedges. It has a height of approximately 6 feet and a spread of approximately 5 feet. Cardinal Dogwood (Cornus sericea 'Cardinal') - An excellent general purpose shrub for northern landscapes, very hardy; good fall color, and bright red stems show up well against the winter snow. It has a height of approximately 8 feet and a spread of approximately 10 feet. Dwarf Korean Lilac (Syringa meyeri 'Palibin') - A beautiful and popular shrub with numerous attributes; striking spikes of fragrant lilac-pink flowers in late spring. It has a height of 4-5 feet and a spread of 5-6 feet. Theses shrubs create a continuous barrier along the front of the parking facing Pilot Knob Rd. There will also be perennial plantings along the hedge row to add color and depth to the planting. ProposedAccessoryStructureexamples Page 38 Page 39 tƩźǝğĭǤCĻƓĭĻIĻźŭŷƷğƓķağƷĻƩźğƌƭ ŷĻŅĻƓĭĻŅğĭźƓŭtźƌƚƷYƓƚĬwķͲğƌƚƓŭƷŷĻĻğƭƷĻƩƓƭźķĻƚŅƷŷĻǤğƩķͲźƭƷƚĬĻğƓБŅƚƚƷƷğƌƌǞƚƚķĻƓĭĻķğƩ ŅĻƓĭĻƭźƒźƌğƩƷƚƷŷźƭʹ ŷĻŅĻƓĭĻƭǒƩƩƚǒƓķźƓŭƷŷĻƩĻƭƷƚŅƷŷĻǤğƩķźƭƷƚĬĻğƓБŅƚƚƷƷğƌƌĭŷğźƓƌźƓƉĭǤĭƌƚƓĻŅĻƓĭĻǞźƷŷƦƩźǝğĭǤ ƭƌğƷƭƭźƒźƌğƩƷƚƷŷźƭʹ Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 5b DATE: April 22, 2014 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2014-10 Variance Request for Detached Garage APPLICANT: Michael Sullivan and Deborah Cuneo PROPERTY ADDRESS: 993 Delaware Avenue ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: May 25, 2014 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants arerequesting a variance from the side yard setback standard to replace an existing legal nonconforming garage with a new structure. BACKGROUND The subject parcelis approximately 0.27 acres (11,973square feet) and contains an existingsingle-family dwelling and detached garage (see attached Site Map). The parcel is zoned R-1 and guided for low density residential development. The survey provided as part of the application submittal shows two parcels owned by the applicants. Those parcels have since been combined and assigned one PID number from Dakota County. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing 390-square foot garage and replace it with a new 680- square foot structure in approximately the same location in order to align with the existing driveway. The existing detached garage is located 1.8 feet from the side yard property line. The Code requires accessory structures greater than 144 square feet to be set back 10 feet from side and rear property boundary lines. The applicants are requesting a variance in order to construct the new garage with a 3-foot side yard setback. ANALYSIS Variance Request When considering a variance from the side yard setback requirementsfor the proposed detachedgarage, the City is required to find that: 1.The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive plan and the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. The Code allows single-family residential parcels, without an attached garage, one detached garage up to 750 square feet as permitted accessory structure, or up to 1,000 square feet with a conditional use Page 44 permit. The existing parcel does not contain an attached garage and the proposed 680-square foot detached garage meets the permitted size requirements.The subject parcel is guided LR, Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Planand a new detached garage perpetuates residential use of the property. A detached garage is considered a reasonable use of property in a single-family residential zoning district. The proposed garage will have the same width, approximately 20 feet, as the existing garage and will be expanded towards the rear yard to accommodate additional storage. In addition, the existing garage’s two-foot side yard setback will be increased to three feet.According to the applicants, the existing garage is in poor and unredeemable condition and is undersized for storage utilization. As shown in the attached pictures, there is significant deterioration to the existing garage floor and foundation which does not allow the garage door to operate properly. 2.The applicant establishes there are practical difficulties with complying with the ordinancedue to circumstancesthat are unique to the propertywhich are not created by the applicant or based on economic considerations. The subject parcel and existing structures are legally nonconformingwith numerous code standards. Among those creating practical difficulties for the applicant in relation to their request are the lot width and accessory structure side yard setback requirements. The R-1 District lot width requirement is 100 feet. The subject parcel is approximately 50 feet wide which causes practical difficulties in replacing existing structures in compliance with current code requirements.Side yard setbacks for structures are intended to ensure that green space existsbetween residential properties and to accommodate common drainage and utility easements along property lines. In order to meet the 10-foot side yard setback, the proposed garage would have to be located further into theexisting back yard and would require expanding portions of the existing driveway. In addition, the proposed garage would remain alignedwith approximately the same dimensions from the dwelling. Staff believes the applicant has established a practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements for a new structure due to the narrow lot width and placement of the existing structure. However, the applicant could make improvements to the existing structure that would not increase the existing nonconformity. In addition, an accessory structure of up to 144 square feet could also be constructed in the rear yard to allow for additional storage that the existing structurelacks. 3.The request will not alter the essential character of the locality. The surrounding neighborhood contains a mix of attached and detached garages. However, the homes fronting Delaware Avenue are dominated by detached garages with similar lot configurations which causes multiple nonconformities with the R-1 District standards. As shown in the attachedmap, the proposed 680-square foot detached garage is slightly larger than most existing detached garagesin the surrounding neighborhood, but is not out of character in the City and meets the permitted detached garage size requirements. Nonconformities Title 12-1D-1(D)(4) allows normal maintenance of a legal nonconforming structure which does not intensify the nonconformity. In this case, the applicants would be allowed to improve and maintain the existing detached garage in the same location without increasing the footprint. According to the applicant, the existing structure is in a state of disrepair that would make continued maintenance an unrealistic option (see attached pictures). As noted, the parcel and structures are legal nonconformities from the following R-1 District and accessory structure requirements: Page 45 StandardExisting ConditionConforming Lot Area15,000 sq. ft.11,973 sq. ft.NO Lot Width100 ft.49.99ft.NO Front Yard 30 ft.34.2 ft.YES 10ft. on each side or ½ of the height of the structure contiguous to the side 3.9 ft. (north) Side Yard NO yard, whichever is greater, to a 19.5 ft. (south) maximum of 15 ft. 30 ft. or 20% of the average lot Rear Yard 155 ft. (approx.) YES depth, whichever is greater Accessory Structure - 26.9 ft. (north) Side and Rear Yard 10 ft. NO 1.8 ft. (south) (over 144 sq. ft.) 750 sq. ft (permitted)390 sq. ft.(existing) Detached Garage SizeYES 1,000 sq. ft.(CUP)680 sq. ft. (proposed) STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the variancerequest with the following conditions: 1.The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site planwith associated easements, subject to review and approval by the City Engineering Department, as part of any building permit application. 2.Any land disturbance activities must be in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance document. ACTION REQUESTED Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1.Recommend approval of the variance requestto construct a new detached garage within the required side yard setback, based on the attached findings of fact, with conditions. OR 2.Recommend denial of the variance request to construct a new detached garage within the required side yard setback, based on attached the findings of fact. OR 3.Table the request. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1.Aerial site map 2.Planning Application, including supporting materials 3.Detached garage size map Page 46 FINDINGS OF FACT FORAPPROVAL Side Yard Setback Variance for Detached Garage 993 Delaware Avenue The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1.The proposed detached garage is a reasonable use of the subject parcel. 2.The proposed detached garage meets the Code’s permitted size requirements for such a structure and perpetuates the use as a single-family residence in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 3.The existing detached garage is a legal nonconforming structure in poor and unredeemable condition that is undersized for storage utilization. 4.The subject parcel’s narrow lot width and location of the existing detached garage createa practical difficulty inconstructing a new detached garage in compliance with the required side yard setbacks for the R-1 District. 5.In order to meet the 10-foot side yard setback, the proposed detached garage would have to be located further into the existing back yard and would require expanding portions of the existing driveway. 6.The proposed detached garage will increase the existing side yard setback by one-foot and will not increase the structure’s width, which creates a similar view from the street as the existing structure. 7.The proposed detached garage will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Page 47 FINDINGS OF FACT FORDENIAL Side Yard Setback Variance for Detached Garage 993 Delaware Avenue The following Findings of Fact are made in support of denial of the proposed request: 1.The existing detached garage could be repaired and maintained in its existing location, in compliance with the legal nonconforming regulations in the Code. 2.The proposed detached garage is inconsistent with the intent of the Code to promote green space, preserve drainage and utility easement corridors and minimize crowding between residential properties, and could be constructed to meet the side yard setback requirements. 3.The proposed detached garage will alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Page 48 993 Delaware Avenue City of Planning Case 2014-10 Mendota 040 Heights Date: 4/14/2014 SCALE IN FEET 979 120 6 0 985 0 1 120 987 120 119 993 120 119 995 120 999 5 5 1 19 1 15 1003 Aerometrics 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 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Planning Case 2014-10: Existing Conditions Source: Applicant Page 57 993 Delaware Avenue City of Planning Case 2014-10 Mendota Detached Garage Sizes w/in 350' 0110 Heights Date: 4/14/2014 SCALE IN FEET 956 959 400 SF 960 280 SF 961 546 530 550 963 964 965 554 968 969 968 541 440 SF 624 SF 969 975 537 979 531 529 979 975 985 984 240 SF 544 987 988 616 SF 993 994 390 SF 983 995 532 528 SF 1000 999 400 SF 987 987 1003 1002 280 SF 990 1005 990 240 SF 240 SF 991 1012 528 SF 992 1013 440 SF 995 995 1018 396 SF 1023 1000 1000 999 1027 N CT WINSTO 440 SF 1029 10031028 523 531 542 396 SF 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 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 5c DATE: April 22, 2014 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2014-11 Wetlands Permit Application APPLICANT: Steven Olsen PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2469 Westview Terrace ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: May 30, 2014 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is seeking a Wetlands Permit to construct an accessory structure.The proposed structure is within 100 feet of a wetland or water resource-related area and does not meet the conditions for an administrative approval. BACKGROUND The subject parcel is 1.27 acres and contains an existing single-family dwelling abutting a pond in the rear yard. In addition, it is zoned R-1 One Family Residential and guided for low density residential development. The applicant intends to construct an 80-square foot (8 ft.x 10 ft.)accessory structure in the rear yard. Title 12-2-6(A) of the Code requires a wetlands permit for the construction, alteration, or removal of any structure within the 100-foot wetland or water resource-relatedbuffer area. ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan The subjectparcel is guided LR Low Density Residentialin the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant’s request to construct an accessory structure on the property is consistent with the continued use as a single- family residential dwelling. Accessory Structure Building permitsare only required for accessory structures exceeding 120 square feet. Therefore, compliance with the Code standards for accessory structuresin residential zonesarealso being analyzed as part of this request. The standards are contained in Title 12-1D-3(B) and (C) of the Code: Page 64 StandardProposed Side Yard: 10 ft. (approx.) Side/Rear Yard Setback5 ft. (under 144 sq. ft.) Rear Yard : 200+ ft. Setback from Principal Building5 ft.80 ft. (approx.) Height15 ft.8 ft.-10 in. Number1 (property 4 acres or less)1 Size144 sq. ft. (property 4 acres or less)80 sq. ft. Based on the information provided by the applicant, the proposed accessorystructure meets the Code requirements. Wetlands Permit According to the applicant, the proposed accessory structurewill be set back approximately 42 feet from the normal high water mark of the adjacent pond. Various invasive species were removed from the proposed location and additionalexisting vegetation will remain to provide screening. In addition, the proposed accessory structure will be constructed on support blocks and will be removable. The purpose of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the Code is to (Title 12-2-1): Provide for protection, preservation, maintenance, and use wetlands and water resource-related areas; Maintain the natural drainage system; Minimize disturbance which may result from alteration by earthwork, loss of vegetation, loss of wildlife and aquatic organisms as a result of the disturbance of the natural environment or from excessive sedimentation; Provide for protection of potable fresh water supplies; and Ensure safety from floods. The proposed accessory structure’s distance of 42 feet from the normal high water mark of the pond and limited land disturbance within the 100-foot buffer area, other than removal of invasive species, satisfies the purpose and intent of the Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Wetlands Permit with the following conditions: 1.Area between the proposed construction and the normal water level of the pond is to remain naturally vegetated. 2.Construction and restoration activity, to include re-vegetation of disturbed areas, shall be in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. ACTION REQUESTED Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1.Recommendapproval of the Wetlands Permit forconstruction of an accessory structure within the 100-foot buffer area of a water resource-related area, based on the attached findings of fact, with conditions. OR 2.Recommend denial of the Wetlands Permit for construction of an accessory structure within the 100-foot buffer area of a water resource-related area, based on a finding the proposed Page 65 accessory structure willhave negative impacts on the existing water resource-related area and is therefore inconsistent with the Wetland Systems Chapter of the City Code. OR 3.Table the request. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1.Site Maps 2.Wetlands Permit Application Page 66 FINDINGS OF FACT FORAPPROVAL Wetlands Permit for Accessory Structure 2469 Westview Terrace The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1.The proposed accessory structure meets the Code requirements for such a structure. 2.The project meets the purpose and intent of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the City Code. 3.No existing vegetation within the required buffer area, except invasive species, will be removed. Page 67 2469 Westview Terrace City of Planning Case 2014-11 Mendota 060 Heights Date: 4/15/2014 SCALE IN FEET 814 813 815 107 28 216 75 2465 2469 2464 89 2 Building Location (approx.) 8 9 8 900 2475 2475 815 815 809 2482 Aerometrics 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 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 5d DATE: April 22, 2014 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2014-12 Variance Request for Accessory Structure APPLICANT: David DuSchane/Somerset Country Club PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1416 Dodd Road ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/GC Golf Course ACTION DEADLINE: June 2, 2014 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is seeking a varianceto construct an accessory structure. Title 12-1D-3(C)(2)(a)(3) of the Code limits properties of more than four acres within residential districts to three accessory structures not to exceed 425 square feet. In addition, no single structure can exceed 225 square feet. BACKGROUND The subject parcel is 133.67acres and contains a country club and golf course. In addition, it is zoned R-1 One Family Residential and guided for golf course use. The applicant intends to construct a 384-square foot (24ft.x 16ft.)accessory structure at the south end of the driving range to be used for storage. The request requires a variance from the Code standards for the number and size of accessory structures in a residential district. The use pre-dates the Code and the property contains numerous accessory structures which have been approved over the years under the applicable regulations in place at the time of construction. Most recently, as part of Planning Case 2004-41, a similar variance requestwas approved for construction and expansion of accessory structures on the property. ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan The subject parcel is guided GC Golf Course in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant’s request to construct an additional accessory structure for storage of golf course-related equipment on the property is consistent with the continued use as a golf course and country club. Accessory Structure Title 12-1D-3(B) and (C) of the Code contains the following accessory structure standards for all residential districts: Page 78 StandardProposed Front Yard: 2,125 ft. (approx.) Setbackfrom all lot lines (golf course)50 ft. Rear Yard : 480 ft. (approx.) Side Yard: 400ft. (approx.) Setback from principal building5 ft.1,140ft.(approx.) Structure Height15 ft.12ft.-6in. Numberof structures (4 acres or more)31(10 existing) Total size of structures(4 acres or more )425sq. ft.Unknown, over 425 sq. ft. Individual size of structure (4 acres or more)225 sq. ft.384 sq. ft. The proposed accessory structure meets the applicable setback and height standards. However, as previously noted, it exceeds the number and size standards for the R-1 District.According to the applicant, the proposed accessory structure will be white with black shingles to match the existing structures on the property. Variance Request When considering a variance for the proposed accessory structure, the City is required to find that: 1.The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive plan and the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. The use of the property as a golf course and country clubis allowed as a conditional use in the R-1 District and its continued use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant’s desire to construct an additional accessory structure on the property to perpetuate and support the existing use is reasonable and similar variance requests have been approved in the past. 2.The applicant establishes there are practical difficulties with complying with the ordinance due to circumstances that are unique to the propertywhich are not created by the applicant or based on economic considerations; The use of the property as a golf course and country club requires numerous accessory structures for storage of equipment and materials. Applying the existing number and size standards for accessory structures in residential districts creates a practical difficultyin complying with the Code when new structures are required for additional storage. 3.The request will not alter the essential character of the locality. The use pre-dates the City’s incorporation and existed long before significant residential development in the surrounding area. The property already contains numerous accessory structures and is heavily screened by perimeter vegetation from surrounding roads and uses. In addition, the proposed accessory structure will be screened by adjacent existing vegetation and will be located over 400 feet from any surrounding residential uses. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the variance request for construction of an accessory structure to exceed the number and size standards. ACTION REQUESTED Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1.Recommendapproval of the variance request forconstruction of an accessory structure to exceed the number and size standards, based onthe attached findings of fact. Page 79 OR 2.Recommend denial of the variance request for construction of an accessory structure to exceed the number and size standards, based ona finding that the applicant can exploreutilizing existing structures or attach a new structure to the principal buildingin order to comply with the Code standards. OR 3.Table the request. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1.Aerial site map 2.Variance Application,including supporting materials Page 80 FINDINGS OF FACT FORAPPROVAL Variance Request for Accessory Structure Somerset Country Club 1416 Dodd Road The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1.The property’s use as a golf course and country club is reasonable and multiple accessory structures are required for storage of equipment and materials. 2.The Code’s accessory structure standards regarding number and size for residential districts causes a practical difficulty for a golf course/country club use. 3.The proposed accessory structure meets the applicable Code standards for setbacks and height. 4.The property contains numerous accessory structures and is heavily screened by perimeter vegetation from surrounding roads and uses. 5.The proposed accessorystructure will be screened by adjacent existing vegetation and will be located at significant distances from any surrounding residential uses. Page 81 Somerset Country Club City of 1416 Dodd Road Mendota Planning Case 2014-12 0400 Heights Date: 4/15/2014 SCALE IN FEET COLESHIRE LN EMERSON AVE W 2,125 ft. (approx.) B ROOKSIDE LN E 1ST AV 1,140 ft. (approx.) E 2ND AV VE 3RD A VE 4TH A Building Location (approx.) 400 ft. (approx.) 480 ft. (approx.) Aerometrics 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 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 6 DATE: April 22, 2014 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Public Hearing Procedures BACKGROUND As a follow-up to the discussion at last month’s meeting, the following public hearing guidelines are being proposed: 1.Comments shall be limited to the application being considered 2.Comments shall be limited to 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 5.TheChair can amend the procedures if necessary 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.