2014-10-28 Planning Comm Agenda Packet
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSIONAGENDA
October 28, 2014–7:00 p.m.
Mendota Heights City Hall
1.Call to Order
2.Roll Call
3.Adopt Agenda
4.Approve September 23, 2014Planning Commission Minutes
5.Public Hearings(7:00 p.m. or shortly thereafter):
a.Case No. 2014-30:GreenWood Design Build, LLC.Front Yard Setback
Variance at 750 Hilltop Road.
b.Case No. 2014-31: Boyd Ratchyeand Susan Light. Lot Split and Lot Width
Variance at 2270 Wagon Wheel Court.
c.Case No. 2014-22: City of Mendota Heights. Proposed Code Amendments.
6.Verbal Review
7.Staff Annoucements
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.
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 1
1CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
2DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
3
4PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES
5September 23, 2014
6
7The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday,
8September 23, 2014, 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 Michael
11Noonan, Doug Hennes, Robin Hennessy,Mary Magnuson, Howard Roston, and Ansis Viksnins.
12Those absent: None.Others present were Planner Nolan Wall andPublic Works Director/City
13Engineer John Mazzitello.
14
Approval of Agenda
15
16
17The agenda was approved as submitted.
18
Approval of August 26, 2014Minutes
19
20
21COMMISSIONER HENNESMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSONTO
22APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2014, AS PRESENTED.
23
24AYES: 7
25NAYS: 0
26
Hearings
27
28
29PLANNING CASE #2014-26
30Wayne Cummings, 2054 Acacia Drive
31After-the-fact Wetlands Permit Wetland Permit for Vegetation Removal
32
33 Planner Nolan Wallexplained that the applicant was seeking an after-the-fact wetland permit to
34remove vegetation at 2054 Acacia Drive. The subject parcel is 0.64 acres, contains an existing
35single-family dwelling, and is located along the northwest shore of Lake Augustawithin the
36Augusta Shores Development. A substantial portion of the rear yard is also within a conservation
37easement that was established as part of the developer’s agreement that was approved in 1999.
38
39Staff was made aware of the vegetation removal within the easement area and determined a
40violation of the wetlands system chapter of the code occurred for action without a permit. The
41wetlands chapter does require a permit for vegetation removal within the 100-foot buffer area of a
42wetland or water resource related area.
43
44Planner Wall shared a map of the affected area that showed where the five elm trees that were dead
45or dying that were removed. According to the applicant, buckthorn and dead or dying elm trees
46were removed from the rear yard in 2006 and 2007. The trees ranged in size from six to ten inches
47in diameter and the stumps were left undisturbed. The impacted area is now devoid of significant
48vegetative cover and the 25-foot non-disturb buffer area that the City likes to see directly from the
September 23, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFTPage 1
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 2
49water resource related area is notvisibleduring high water levels. It has been maintained as a
50grassy area since the buckthorn was removed. Since being contacted by the City, the property
51owner is no longer maintaining the impacted area and regrowth is occurring.
52
53The conservation easement area does contain a mixture of mature trees and natural and invasive
54ground cover vegetation, and that is meant to provide a buffer between the development and the
55lake. The extent of the cover does limit access and visibility of the lake from the development, but
56the remainder of the conservation easement area in the development is largely natural and
57unaltered, and it was dedicated to maintain a buffer and reduce unintended run-off into the lake.
58
59It was also noted that Lake Augusta does suffer from poor water quality, which is due to excessive
60nutrients from release of phosphorus from the lake bottom and run-off from streets and yards in
61the watershed. In addition, the lake is land-locked without any outlet structures or streams.
62Continued vegetation removal and degradation of the buffer area is not recommended.
63
64Planner Wall included in his report language on after-the-fact permit requests regarding City Code
65violations and noted that, since becoming aware of the violation, the property owner has been
66responsive to staff’s concerns and through the application process. However, if the Planning
67Commission does feel that citation is necessary they can recommend that to the City Council.
68
69Staff recommended approval of this application with conditions.
70
71Commissioners asked questions about their role in recommending the issuance of citations;
72confirmation that the removal occurred seven to eight years ago and that maintenance of the area
73as a yard has continued until the City was made aware of it; and the possibility of approval if the
74request had come before City staff in the proper sequence.
75
76Mr. Wayne Cummings, 2054 Acacia Drive, came forward to explain that he did not remove the
77buckthorn but paid someone else to do that. However, he did help remove the dead trees. Planner
78Wall replied that the applicant, as with other cases, is ultimately liable or responsible for actions
79on his property.
80
81Commissioners asked if there had been any other kind of significant removals from the area since
822006 or 2007, other than mowing for a path to the lake; if the homeowner was aware of the
83conservation easement agreement at the time of the tree and buckthorn removal; and if he was
84comfortable with abiding with the recommendation that there be no more removal of vegetation
85in the area.
86
87Chair Field opened the public hearing.
88
89Mr. Tom Hanschen,2158 Lemay Lake Drive, current president of the Augusta Shores
90Homeowners Association, explained that he was the one who called the City. The Association has
91been operating under the conservation easement which says you may remove noxious species,
92which includes buckthorn. The wetlands permit was new to him and was unaware of having to
93comply with that as well. He believes that if the buckthorn returns the homeowner should be able
94to remove it. However, the continued mowing of the impacted area is inappropriate,so he would
95be in support of the after-the-fact wetlands permit.
96
September 23, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFTPage 2
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 3
97Planner Wall commented that staff is not saying that the homeowner could not continue to remove
98the buckthorn,but as part of this application further removals are not allowed and he would need
99to apply for an additional wetlands permit to do that.
100
101Mr. Gerald Reed, 2050 Acacia Drive, asked if the need for a wetlands permit to remove buckthorn
102including poison ivy. Planner Wall indicated that the permit would be required and he made a
103suggestion that the homeowners association apply for a blanket wetlands permit and have the
104buckthorn, etc. removal done by a professional organization.
105
106Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
107
108COMMISSIONER ROSTONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO
109CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
110
111AYES: 7
112NAYS: 0
113
114COMMISSIONER VIKSNINSMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
115RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2014-26, AFTER-THE-FACT
116WETLANDS PERMIT WITH THE CONDITION THAT FURTHER TRIMMINGWITHIN THE
117EASEMENT AREA IS PROHIBITED,THE NATURAL VEGETATION IS ALLOWED TO RE-
118GROW, AND FURTHER REMOVAL BE THE SUBJECT OF A SEPARATE WETLANDS
119PERMIT APPLICATION.
120
121AYES: 7
122NAYS: 0
123
124Chair Fieldadvised the City Council would consider this application at its October 7, 2014
125meeting.Chair Field suggested that the next two items be presented together since they are related,
126and can be broken down into two issues for voting purposes. Planner Wall and the Commission
127agreed.
128
129PLANNING CASE #2014-27
130Sarah and Aaron Macke, 744 Woodridge Drive
131Critical Area Permit for various improvements
132
133PLANNING CASE #2014-28
134Sarah and Aaron Macke
135Proposed Code Amendment to allow an exception for swimming pool fencing requirements
136
137In regards to Planning Case #2014-27, Planner Wall explained thatthe applicantsareseeking a
138Critical Area Permit to construct improvements within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical
139Area, which requires City approval prior to construction. The subject parcel is zoned R-1 and
140guided for low density residential development. It currently contains an existing single-family
141dwelling, which was approved by a Critical Area Permit and constructed in 2010. The proposed
142project includes a swimming pool, a retaining wall, patio, fence, and expansion to the existing
143screen porch.
144
September 23, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFTPage 3
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 4
145Planner Wall explained the purposes of the Critical Area Overlay Zoning District, which included
146the development standards, natural resource management, and grading and drainage. He also
147shared the portion of the City Code pertaining to swimming poolregulations, the retaining wall,
148landscaping, and the screen porch expansion.
149
150The applicants are also proposing a code amendment that would allow an automatic pool cover as
151an exception to the fencing requirements. If denied, they would propose to construct a 5-foot tall
152black ornamental three-rail aluminum fence, which would surround the entire pool area.
153Compliance would be verified with the building permit application.
154
155Staff recommended approval of the Critical Area Permit based on the finding that the application
156meetings the policies of the critical area district, with conditions. Planner Wall noted that the
157Department of Natural Resources was noticed and they responded that they had no comments on
158the application.
159
160In regards to Planning Case #2014-28, Planner Wall explained that the applicants areseeking a
161code amendment to allow automatic pool covers as an exception to the swimming pool fencing
162requirements. As noted above, the applicants would construct a fence if this code amendment was
163not approved. If approved they would not construct a fence.
164
165The Letter of Intent included in the Commissioner’s packet of information included the rational
166for consideration for their proposed amendment, which Planner Wall explained. Draft Ordinance
167469 was also included in the Commissioner’s packet of information.
168
169Planner Wall noted that the proposed code language is the same as in affect in the City of Inver
170Grove Heights. There are other jurisdictions that allow exceptions to the fencing requirements for
171automatic covers, including Maplewood, Sunfish Lake, Rochester, and Scott County. The City
172Council did consider a similar amendment in 2005 and that proposed code amendment included
173two additional conditions. That proposed code amendment was denied by the City Council.
174
175Planner Wall then reviewed the intentions of the Safety Barrier Requirements for private outdoor
176swimming pools.
177
178Staff recommended denial of the Proposed Code Amendment.
179
180Commissioners asked the need for a code amendment if the City Council has the discretion to
181allow pool covers in lieu of fencing if they determine that automatic pool covers; when properly
182used, provide the same protection as a compliant fence and gate system; how would an automatic
183cover work; why the Council denied the code amendment request previously; and excavation and
184the potential for degradation of the bluff during the pool installation.
185Specific to the Chair’s question regarding excavation activities, Public Works Director/City
186Engineer Mazzitello responded that upon review of the preliminary grading plan, none of the
187grading is taking place in any areas over 12% slope, which is in compliance with the Critical Area
188guidelines. In addition, the proposed pool and patio are being built in the excavation mark for the
189house that was constructed 4 years ago. No evidence of any bluff degradation has been observed
190as a result of construction of the house, so there is no reason to believe any degradation will occur
191as a result of the excavation for the pool.
192
September 23, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFTPage 4
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 5
193Ms. Sarah Macke, 744 Woodridge Drivecame forward to address the Commissioners and
194explained how a pool cover would work.
195
196Commissioners asked questions regarding the “automatic” pool cover.
197
198Chair Field opened the public hearing.
199
200Seeing no one comingforward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public
201hearing.
202
203COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
204CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
205
206AYES: 7
207NAYS: 0
208
209COMMISSIONER MAGNUSONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON,TO
210RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2014-27 CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR
211VARIOUS IMPROVEMENTS,BASED ON THE FINDINGTHAT THE APPLICATION
212MEETS THE POLICIES AND STANDARDS OF THE CRITICAL AREA OVERLAY
213DISTRICT,AND
214with the following conditions:
2151.Building, fence, and gradingpermits are approved bythe City prior to constructionof the
216proposed improvements.
2172.Construction of the proposed improvementsshall be in compliance with the City’s Land
218Disturbance Guidance Document.
2193.The swimming pool is not to be drained toward any bluff line.
220
221AYES: 7
222NAYS: 0
223
224COMMISSIONER MAGNUSONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON,
225TO RECOMMEND APPROVALOF PLANNING CASE 2014-28, PROPOSED CODE
226AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AN EXCEPTION FOR SWIMMING POOL FENCING
227REQUIREMENTS,BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
2281.The proposed exception for automatic pool safety covers meets industry safety and weight-
229bearing standards.
2302.Automatic pool covers, when closed, cover the entire pool surface and can enhance safety
231if access is gained to the pool area.
2323.The proper use of automatic pool covers can save water by retaining heat and reducing
233evaporation.
2344.Swimming pool fencing can disrupt natural areas and animal movement.
235
236Chair Field recommended that the additional conditions mentioned by Planner Wall earlier be
237included in the motion:
238A.The property owner shall provide proof of insurance specific to the Pool Safety Cover.
239B.The property owner shall provide proof of inspection of the Pool Safety Cover by the
240installer to the City on an annual basis.
September 23, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFTPage 5
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 6
241Discussions took place regarding the need for the additional conditions in light of the proposed
242code amendment language; the possibility of changing the language in the conditions; and what
243other items require recurring inspection reports on private properties.
244
245Commissioners Hennes, Roston, Hennessy, and Magnusonexplained their reasons for
246recommending approval of the application.
247
248Chair Field and Commissioners Noonan and Viksninsexplained their reasons for denying the
249application.
250
251For means of clarification, the conditions being added to the motion are:
252A.The property owner shall provide proof of liability insurance coverage.
253B.The property owner shall provide proof of inspection of the Pool Safety Cover by an
254experienced installer to the City on an annual basis.
255
256AYES: 3 \[Magnuson, Hennes, Roston\]
257NAYS: 4 \[Viksnins, Hennessy, Chair Field, Noonan\]
258
259The motion did not pass.
260
261COMMISSIONER VIKSNINSMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
262RECOMMEND DENIALOF PLANNING CASE 2014-28, PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT
263TO ALLOW AN EXCEPTION FOR SWIMMING POOL FENCING REQUIREMENTS,
264BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
2651.The current City Code swimming pool fencing requirements are consistent with safety
266barrier guidelinesfrom the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and are appropriate
267for the majority of residential properties in order to provide protection against potential
268drownings and near-drownings by restricting access.
2692.Automaticswimmingpool covers donot alone provide adequate safety measuresand
270should only be used to complement the existing regulations.
271
272Ayes: 4 \[Viksnins, Hennessy, Chair Field, Noonan\]
273Nays: 3 \[Magnuson, Hennes, Roston\]
274
275Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 7, 2014
276meeting.
277
278PLANNING CASE #2014-29
279Convent of the Visitation School
280Conditional Use Permit for an electronic display sign at 2455 Visitation Drive
281
282Planner Nolan Wall explained that the application was seeking a Conditional Use Permit to erect
283an electronic display sign on the Visitation Campus. The City recently amended the code to allow
284this type of signage for qualifying uses in the residential districts, subject to numerous conditions.
285
286As per the signage application package that wasreviewed by the Commission and City Council,
287this is an existing sign that would be refurbished to have the capability of having an electronic
288display component.
September 23, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFTPage 6
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 7
289Planner Wall briefly reviewed the requirements and conditions necessary for this type of signage
290and how the proposed signage relates to them and would be in compliance.
291
292Staff recommended approval of this application.
293
294Chair Field asked that the staff report provided by Planner Wall be included in the public record
295on this.
296
297Commissioners asked questions regarding the required hours of operation and the need for
298additional applications for additional signage.
299
300Mr. Greg Engel, Director of Operations at the Convent of the Visitation,along with Dr. Dawn
301Nichols, Head of School came forward to address the Commission.
302
303Commissioners asked questions regarding how many days a week the sign would be operational.
304
305Chair Field opened the public hearing.
306Ms. Sonja Hauter, 2371 Rogers Avenue, has just moved into her home which is located right across
307the street from Visitation School. She asked how the LED lumens compare with the current parking
308lot lights. Public Works Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello replied that a lumen is the
309measurement of the intensity of light and is not specific to a light source. The LED’s being
310proposed are dimmer than the surrounding light in the parking lot and, therefore, should not add
311any brightness to what is already there.
312Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
313
314COMMISSIONER MAGNUSONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS,
315TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
316
317AYES: 7
318NAYS: 0
319
320COMMISSIONER MAGNUSONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNESSY,
321TO RECOMMEND APPPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2014-29, CONDITIONAL USE
322PERMIT FOR AN ELECTRONIC DISPLAY SIGN, BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE
323APPLICATION MEETS THE ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTSANDWITH THE
324CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT OBTAIN A SIGN PERMIT.
325
326AYES: 7
327NAYS: 0
328
329Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 7, 2014
330meeting.
331
332PLANNING CASE #2014-22
333City of Mendota Heights
334Proposed Code Amendments
335
September 23, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFTPage 7
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 8
336Planner Nolan Wall explained that the City is considering various amendments to the Zoning and
337Subdivision Ordinances within the City Code. Over the past year, staff has identified a number of
338potential amendments packaged into a single application for consideration. The goal would be to
339clean up, clarify, and simplify certain sections in order to improve the interpretation and
340implementation of those ordinances.
341
342The proposed amendments were summarized in the staff report and were included in Draft
343Ordinance 467. Staff recommended that the Commission consider this either as a first reading of
344all or some of the components, any questions or additional conditions or changes that the
345Commission would like to make could be brought back.
346
347Planner Wall then reviewed each of the proposed amendments:
3481.Fence Encroachment \[12-1D-6(D)\]
3492.Traffic Study Requirement \[Proposed Amendment 12-1D-17\]
3503.Variances \[12-1L-5\]
3514.Beekeeping \[12-1E-4(C)\]
3525.Park Dedication Procedure \[11-5-1\]
353
354Commissioners asked questions and made suggestions regarding traffic studies.
355COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO
356TABLE ORDINANCE NO. 467 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 12-1D, 12-1E, 12-
3571L, AND 11-5 OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA,
358DAKOTA COUNTY, CONCERNING VARIOUS AMENDMENTS.
359
360Ayes: 7
361Nays: 0
362
Verbal Review
363
364
365Planner Wall gave the following verbal review:
366PLANNING CASE #2014-17
367Ned Rukavina and Leslie Pilgrim, 1704 Vicki Lane
368Front and Side Yard Setback Variances
369•Tabled by the City Council at the July 1 and July 15 City Council Meetings
370•Application has been withdrawn
371
372PLANNING CASE #2014-20
373Paul and Shannon Burke, 645 Sibley Memorial Highway
374After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit for Clearcutting within the Mississippi River Corridor
375Critical Area
376•Per request by the Planning Commission, reports have been received from a Geotechnical
377Engineer and from a Landscape Architect. The DNR has reviewed the documents.
378•In order to allow for extended review timeandfor the applicant to attend the meeting, this
379topic has been scheduled for the October 21, 2014 City Council Meeting.
380PLANNING CASE #2014-21
381Tom Christ, on behalf of Will and Katie Stewart, 667 Ivy Falls Court
382Wetlands Permit
383•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission
September 23, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFTPage 8
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 9
384PLANNING CASE #2014-23
385SAC Wireless on behalf of AT&T, 1196 Northland Drive
386Conditional Use Permit for Upgrades to Wireless Antenna Tower
387•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission
388
389PLANNING CASE #2014-24
390SAC Wireless on behalf of AT&T, 894 Sibley Memorial Highway
391Conditional Use Permit for Upgrades to Wireless Antenna Tower
392•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission
393
394Some form of administrative approval for the Conditional Use Permit for Upgrades to Wireless
395Antenna Tower was met with much agreement by the City Council. Commissioners can expect to
396see that topic at a future meeting.
397
Staff Announcements
398
399
400The “Stand Up for Scott” benefit for slain Police Officer Scott Patrick’s family willbe held
401on Saturday, September 27 from 1:00 – 10:00 P.M.at Moose Country with live music and
402raffle drawings.
403This was Commissioner Robin Hennessy’s final meeting as a member of the Planning
404Commission. She began her term in 2013 and staff expressed their appreciation for her
405service to the community and wished her and her family the best of luck in their new
406community.
407The next Planning Commission meeting is October 28, 2014.
408
Adjournment
409
410
411CHAIR FIELD ADJOURNEDTHE MEETING AT 8:31 P.M.
September 23, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFTPage 9
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 10
DATE:
October 28, 2014
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT:
Planning Case 2014-30
Front Yard Setback VarianceRequest
APPLICANT:
GreenWood Design Build, LLC
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
750 Hilltop Road
ZONING/GUIDED:
R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE:
December 12, 2014
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant isseeking a variance from the front yard setback standards to construct a new single-family
residential dwellingat 750 Hilltop Road.
BACKGROUND
The undeveloped subject parcel is 0.48 acres (20,862 square feet)and was subdivided from 1925 Dodd
Road in 2010, as part of Planning Case 2010-25. In addition, it is zoned R-1 One Family Residential and
guided for low density residential development. The applicant purchased the subject parcel and intends to
construct a new 2,267-square foot single-family dwelling.
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
The subject parcel is guided LR Low Density Residentialin the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant’s
request to construct a single-family dwelling on the 0.48-acre subject parcelis consistent with the LR
maximum density of 2.9 units per acre.
Variance Request
The creation of the subject parcel was approved by the City Council in August 2010.Included in the staff
reportand minutes werediscussions related to the former “string-line” rule and itsimpact on the front yard
of a future building pad for a single-family residential dwelling. As part of Ordinance 429, also adopted in
August 2010, the front yard setback standards were amended as follows:
Title 12-1D-4(D)(2) Yards and Open Spaces:
Whenever buildings have been built on one side of the street between two (2) intersections, no building
shall hereafterbe erected to extend closer toward the street than the average of the required district setback
and average setback of the adjoining principal structures.
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 11
As shown on the Existing Setbacks Survey, the required front yard setbackfor the subject parcel is57.3
feet.The Proposed Setbacks Survey includes a setback of 30 feet based on the applicant’s preferred location
for the new dwelling, which requires a variance.
When considering a variancefrom the front yard setback standards, 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.
Front yard setbacks for structures are intended to promote a uniform frontage along the street and allow
adequate space between the right-of-way and property boundary lines for utilities or future improvements.
The proposed 30-foot setback iscompliant with the minimum standards for the R-1 District. The
construction of a new single-family dwelling on the subject parcel, which is a vacant lot-of-record, is
compliant with the Comprehensive Plan and a reasonable use of the property.
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 applicant purchased the property after the approved subdivision. The existing front/side yard setbacks
for the adjoining principal structures differ by approximately 92 feet, which creates ahardship for the
proposed structure design to comply with the 57-foot front yard setback requirement. In order to meet the
setback, and due to the topography, the dwellingwould be located in thefar southeast corner of the subject
parcel(see Existing Setbacks Survey). This would also createa large front yard and small backyard, which,
according to the applicant,is not an ideal designfor a new single-family dwelling.Potential negative
impacts tothe adjoiningproperty to the west(764 Hilltop Road),as a result of the proposed 30-foot front
yard setback, could be mitigated by additional landscaping along the shared property boundary line.
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 12
In staff’s opinion, the front yard setback amendment that replaced the “string-line” provisiondid not
envision the unique situationpresentedin this caseand creates a hardship for the applicant. The abutting
developed parcels area corner lot with frontage on a differentstreet(1925 Dodd Road) and a lot with an
existing front yard setbackthat is greaterthan the subject parcel’s averagelot depth and 37,000 square feet
larger (764 Hilltop Road).
Based on the proposed structure design and 57-foot front yard setback requirement, a rear yard setback
variance would also be necessary. However, it appears the required front and rear yard setbacks could be
metby reducing the structure’s footprint or by redesigning and/ormoving the covered front porch farther
to the north; provided it could comply with the conditional use permit requirements in Title 12-1D-
4(C)(2)(a) of the Code.
3.The request will not alter the essential character of the locality.
The character of the neighborhood is unique in relation to both design and frontage (see Site Map). In
addition, the three parcelsto the west fronting Hilltop Road between Wachtler Avenue are much larger and
have significantfront yard setbacks. Staff does not believe the proposed location of a new single-family
dwelling on the subject parcel will alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the front yard setback variance requestfor construction of a new single-
family dwelling on the subject parcel, based on the attached findings of fact, with the following conditions:
1.Building, grading, and utility permits are approved by the City prior to construction of the proposed
improvements.
2.Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of a building
permit.
3.Construction of the proposed improvements 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.Recommend approval of the front yard setback variance request, based onthe attached findings of
fact, with conditions.
OR
2.Recommend denial of the front yard setback variance request, based onthe finding that a new
single-family residential dwelling could be constructed on the subject parcel in compliance with
the required the front and rear yard setback requirements.
OR
3.Table the request.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1.Site map
2.Application, including supporting materials
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 13
FINDINGS OF FACT FORAPPROVAL
Front Yard Setback Variance Request
750 Hilltop Road
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request:
1.A new single-family residential dwelling on the existing lot-of-recordis a reasonable use of the
subject parcel.
2.The proposed 30-foot setback for the new dwelling meets the R-1 District’s minimum
requirements; if not for its location between two adjoining principal structuresand thevarying
existing setbacks.
3.As a result of the required front yard setback and topography, the dwelling would be located in the
far southeast corner of the parcel, which reduces the size of the backyard and buffer area between
adjoining properties to the east and south, as shown on the Existing Setbacks Survey.
4.The neighborhood has inconsistent front yard setbacks and the proposed location of the new
dwelling on the subject parcel, as shown on the Proposed Setbacks Survey,will not alter its
character.
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 14
Planning Case 2014-30
City of
750 Hilltop Road
Mendota
0150
Heights
Date: 10/20/2014
SCALE IN FEET
748
7801894
1857
1899
779
7751870
785
755
795
745
1865
1876
H
I
L
L
T
O
P
776 R
D
770
1882
1883
784
750
764
1925
_
1888
780
1887
New Home
1933
1894
1937
1899
122'
781
Aerometrics
_
755
745
1900
782
`
42'
`
65'
191'
_
770
_
_
131'
39'
750
1925
764
a
1920
1933
1937
1940
ST
MAPLE
781
1941
1938
789
765
1944
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.
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 15
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 16
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 17
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 18
Page 19
-
Packet
Commission
Planning
10/28/14
Page 20
-
Packet
Commission
Planning
10/28/14
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 21
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 22
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 23
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 24
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 25
DATE:
October 28, 2014
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT:
Planning Case 2014-31
Subdivision Request for Lot Split and Lot Width Variance Request
APPLICANT:
Boyd Ratchye and Susan Light
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
2270 Wagon Wheel Court
ZONING/GUIDED:
R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE:
December 6, 2014
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicants are seeking to subdivide the subject parcel located at 2270 Wagon Wheel Court and are also
requesting a lot width variancefor thenew parcel containing theexisting dwelling.The subdivision request
requires City approval before being recorded with Dakota County.
BACKGROUND
The subject parcel is 2.89 acres (126,183 square feet), contains an existing single-family residential
dwelling abutting Rogers Lake(see Site Map), and is zoned R-1 and guided for low density residential
development. In order to facilitate the proposed subdivision in compliance with the City Code, a variance
is required from the lot width standardfor the proposed South Parcel (see Site Plan).
Wagon Wheel Court was constructed in 2007 and was facilitated by approval of the Kipp Addition Plat in
2001, which did not include the subject parcel. Outlot A includes a drainage and utility easement, but
restricts additional access to the subject parcel from Wagon Wheel Court. Therefore, in order to comply
with the Code requirements, access for any future development on a newly-created parcel must be from
Wagon Wheel Trail. If both requests are approved, a new single-family residential dwelling with lake
access would be constructed on the North Parcel (see Site Plan).
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
The subject parcel is guided LR Low Density Residential in the 2030Comprehensive Plan. The applicants’
request to subdivide the subject parcel into two parcels, consisting of 2.21 acres and 0.68acres, isconsistent
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 Site
Planincluded as part of the application submittal, and shown in the table below, both proposed parcels meet
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 26
the R-1 lot standardswith the exception of the lot width for the South Parcel.The Site Planalsoincludes
the required setback lines and a potential building pad for a future single-family residential dwelling on the
North Parcel. As noted by the applicants, the future dwelling’s proposed locationis non-binding and would
require wetlands permit approval prior to construction.
StandardSouth ParcelNorth Parcel
Lot Area15,000 sq. ft.29,875 sq. ft.96,308sq. ft.
Lot Width100 ft.99.70 ft.248.18 ft.
Front Yard Setback30 ft.50ft.65 ft.*
10 ft. (up to 15’ depending on
Side Yard Setbacks 40ft./25 ft.172 ft./10 ft.*
structure height)
30 ft. or 20% of the average lot
Rear Yard70ft. (approx.) 150 ft. (approx.)*
depth (whichever is greater)
*measurements based onproposed 3,400 sq. ft. buildingpad as shown on the Site Plan – future dwelling could be
located anywhere within the proposed areaor in another location
Variance Request
As described in the applicants’ narrative, the proposed subdivision request requires a variance from the
R-1 District’s 100-foot minimum lot width standard for the South Parcel. According to Title 12-1B-2 of
the City Code, lot width is defined as the “maximum horizontal distance between the side lot lines of a lot
measured within the first thirty feet (30') of the lot depth.” As shown on the Site Plan, the South Parcel has
a lot width of 99.70 feet.
When considering a variancefromthe lot width standards, 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.
Title 11-3-2(D) of the Code requires that “every lot must the have the minimum frontage as required in the
zoning ordinance on a city-approved street other than an alley.” The proposed South Parcel has a lot width
of 99.70 feet, which is approximately three and a half inches short ofthe 100-foot requirement. Despite
the shortcoming, the purpose and intent of the Code are met, which areto maintain the appropriatewidth
for a dwelling to meet the required side yard setbacks, allow access for emergency service vehicles, and
maintain a consistent density of development. In addition, as noted by the applicants, the proposed lot
width for the North Parcel would be 155 feet if measured from the front face of the existing dwelling.
With the exception of the lot width standardfor the South Parcel, the subdivision request is consistent with
all applicable Code requirements. Single-family residential dwellings on both proposed parcels are
reasonable uses of the properties and are compliant with the Comprehensive Plan.
2.The applicant establishes thereare practical difficulties with complying with the ordinance due to
circumstancesthat are unique to the propertywhich are not created by the applicant or based on
economic considerations.
According to the applicants, additional property was acquired after they purchased the subject parcel in
order to provide ownership of portions of the front yard, driveway, and existing dwelling. As a result of
the creation of Outlot A, as part of the Kipp Addition, the required 100-foot frontageat the 30-foot setback
line along Wagon Wheel Courtwas not provided. For all intents and purposes, the lot width measured from
the front face of the existing dwellingis approximately 155 feet and provides adequate space to meet the
setbacks. The location and design of Outlot A is a unique circumstance and creates a practical difficulty in
this case not caused by the applicant or based on economic considerations.
While it may be unreasonable and/or non-negotiable, a portion of Outlot A could be acquired to increase
the proposed South Parcel’s existing lot width and comply with the 100-foot standard.
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 27
3.The request will not alter the essential character of the locality.
If the variance request were to be granted, the existing conditions on the South Parcel will remain
unchanged. The requests also facilitatethe creation of the North Parcel, which is substantially larger than
the surrounding parcels and would only add one additional dwelling to the neighborhood. Neither request
will alter the character of the neighborhood.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the subdivision and variance requests, based on the attached findings of fact,
with the following conditions:
1.The applicant shall dedicate 10-foot wide drainage and utility easements along the front property
lines and 5-foot wide drainage and utility easements along the rear property lines to be denoted on
the map submitted to Dakota County.
2.Park dedication fee in the amount of $2,700, in lieu of land, is collected after City Council approval
and before being recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any additional permits by the City.
3.Street reconstruction assessment fee in the amount of $8,500, as part ofWagonWheel Trail
Improvement 2010-02, iscollected after City Council approval and before being recorded by
Dakota County or issuance of any additional permits by the City.
4.The applicant, or subsequent property owner, shall submit a wetlands permit application prior to
any applicable improvements on the North Parcel.
5.Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of a building
permit for any activity on the North Parcel.
6.The applicant, or subsequent property owner,shallsubmit 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 for the North Parcel.
7.Land disturbance activities must bein 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 thesubdivision andlot width variance requests, based onthe attached
findings of fact, with conditions.
OR
2.Recommend denial of the subdivision and lot width variance requests, based onthe attached
findings of fact.
OR
3.Table the request.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1.Aerial site map
2.Applications, including supporting materials
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 28
FINDINGS OF FACT FORAPPROVAL
Subdivision and Lot Width Variance Request
2270 Wagon Wheel Court
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request:
1.The South Parcel’s proposed lot width is 99.70 feet, which is approximately three and a half inches
less than the 100-foot requirement for the R-1 District, and is consistent with the purpose and intent
of the Code.
2.With the exception of the lot width standardfor the South Parcel, the subdivision request is
consistent with all applicable Code requirements.
3.Single-family residential dwellings on both proposed parcels are reasonable uses of the properties
and are compliant with the Comprehensive Plan.
4.The acquisition of additional property to provide ownership of the existing driveway and portions
of the front yard and dwelling, as well as the platting of Outlot A as part of the Kipp Addition, did
not provide the required lot width for the proposed South Parcel.
5.The South Parcel’s lot width measured from the front face of the existing dwelling is approximately
155 feet and provides adequate space to meet the setbacks. The location and design of Outlot A is
a unique circumstance, and creates a practical difficulty in this case not caused by the applicant or
based on economic considerations.
6.The existing conditions on the South Parcel will remain unchanged, and the North Parcel is
proposed to besubstantially larger than the surrounding parcels and would only add one additional
dwelling to the neighborhood.
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 29
FINDINGS OF FACT FORDENIAL
Subdivision and Lot Width Variance Request
2270 Wagon Wheel Court
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of denial of the proposed request:
1.The subdivision request does not comply with the R-1 District’s minimum lot width requirement
for the proposed South Parcel.
2.The additional width required for conformance could be acquired by purchasing a portion of
Outlot A.
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 30
Planning Case 2014-31
City of
2270 Wagon Wheel Court
Mendota
080
Heights
Date: 10/7/2014
SCALE IN FEET
WAGON WHEEL TRL
954
954
954
2270
2257
954
2270
2273
954
2270
2275
2275 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.
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 31
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 32
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 33
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 34
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 35
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 36
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 37
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 38
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 39
JT
PJM
W:\\2001\\01790\\CADD DATA\\SURVEY
Plotted: 10 /06 / 2014 11:22 AM
JT
PJM
W:\\2001\\01790\\CADD DATA\\SURVEY
Plotted: 10 /06 / 2014 11:23 AM
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 42
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 43
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 44
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 45
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 46
DATE:
October 28, 2014
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT:
Planning Case 2014-22
Proposed Code Amendments
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 amendments to various sections of the City Code.
BACKGROUND
Staff has identified a number of potential code amendments, packaged in a single application, for discussion
and recommendation by the Planning Commission. The goal is to clean-up, clarify, and simplify certain
sections to improve the interpretation and implementation of the subdivision and zoning ordinances.
Based on the discussion at the September meeting, the proposed traffic study requirement has been revised
for review by the Commission. No other changes are being proposed to DRAFT Ordinance 467.
ANALYSIS
Traffic Study Requirement
Current Standard
N/A
Proposed Amendment \[12-1D-17\]
Traffic Studies
A.An applicant for Aany proposed development or redevelopmentproject that results in the
change or intensification of the existing or planned land usein the Citymay be required to
conduct or submit a recently-completedtraffic study, at the cost of the applicantand prepared
by a licensed engineer, analyzing existing and proposed traffic patterns of thesurrounding area
for review and commentaspart of any permit application.
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 47
B.The study shall be prepared in compliance with the most current version of the Dakota County
Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines.
C.When potentially impacted roadways included in the traffic study are under County, State, or
adjacent City jurisdiction, the City reserves the right to request additional review and comment
from those jurisdictions for consideration in evaluating the permit application.
Rationale
Potential development or redevelopment projects may not require a conditional use permit or other planning
application requiring a public hearing. In addition, the Code currently does not require a traffic study to be
included as part of any planning application. The Code does allow the City to consider “existing and
anticipated traffic conditions” and that the proposed use will not “cause serious traffic congestion nor
hazards” in granting a conditional use permit.The proposed amendment would give the City the authority
to require a traffic study, if necessary, as part of any permit review process, even if a public hearing is not
required.
Based on the proposed revision, the situation in which a study may be required is defined in greater detail.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the proposed Code amendmentsincluded in DRAFT
Ordinance 467. If acceptable to the Commission, action can be taken at this month’s meeting. Staff would
propose to bring back any suggested revisions for review at a future meeting prior to making a
recommendation to the City Council.
ACTION REQUESTED
Following the public hearing and further discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following
actions:
1.Recommend approval of DRAFT Ordinance 467, as presented or as amended by the Commission.
OR
2.Recommend denial of DRAFT Ordinance 467.
OR
3.Table the request, pending additional information and revisions from Staff.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1.DRAFT Ordinance 467
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 48
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 467
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 12-1D, 12-1E, 12-1L, AND 11-5 OF THE CITY CODE
OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, CONCERNING
VARIOUS AMENDMENTS
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain:
Section 1.
Section 12-1D-6(D)is hereby amended to read as follows:
Permitted Encroachments Onto Public Ways: Notwithstanding the other requirements of subsection A or
B of this section to the contrary, fences greater than thirty six inches (36") in height but no greater than
six feet (6') in height and no less than thirty percent (30%) open may be allowed to encroach into rear
yards of corner and through lots or side yards of corner lots throughby administrative approval by the
Engineering Department conditional use permitwhen said yard abuts a public street; provided, however,
that in no event shall such fence be allowed to be constructed on a public easement for street, utility, or
drainage purposes.
Section 2.
Section 12-1D-17 is hereby added to read as follows:
12-1D-17: TRAFFIC STUDIES:
A.An applicant for any proposed development or redevelopment project that results in the
change or intensification of the existing or planned land use may be required to conduct or
submit a recently-completed traffic study, at the cost of the applicant and prepared by a
licensed engineer, analyzing existing and proposed traffic patterns of the surrounding area for
review and comment as part of any permit application.
B.The study shall be prepared in compliance with the most current version of the Dakota
County Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines.
C.When potentially impacted roadways included in the traffic study are under County, State, or
adjacent City jurisdiction, the City reserves the right to request additional review and
comment from those jurisdictions for consideration in evaluating the permit application.
Section 3.
Section 12-1L-5(A) is hereby amended as follows:
A.Authority To Grant Variances; Conditions: The council may grant variances from the strict
application of the provisions of this chapter and impose conditions and safeguards in the
variances so granted in cases where there are practical difficulties or undue hardships in the way
of carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of this chapter. "Undue hardship"”Practical
difficulties”, as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner
proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter; the plight of
the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and
Ord #467 – Second Reading page 1 of 2
10/28/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 49
the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic
considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. in question cannot be put to a
reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by this chapter and the hardship is due to
circumstances unique to the property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted,
will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations shall not
constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under this chapter.
Section 4.
Section 12-1E-3(C) is hereby amended as follows:
Keeping of bees on parcels of fifty (50) acres or more in area, provided any accessory structures conform
to the city's requirement for accessory buildings, no more than ten (10) hives may be maintained, and all
buildings, hives, apiaries, or other areas for colonies of bees are located no closer than one hundred feet
(100') from any property line.
Section 5.
Section 12-1E-3(D) is hereby amended as follows:
Keeping of bees on parcels of fifty (50) acres or more in area, provided any accessory structures conform
to the city's requirement for accessory buildings, no more than ten (10) hives may be maintained, and all
buildings, hives, apiaries, or other areas for colonies of bees are located no closer than one hundred feet
(100') from any property line.
Section 6.
Section 11-5-1 is hereby amended as follows:
Pursuant to Minnesota statutes section 462.358, subdivision 2b, as amended, the city council shall require
all developers requesting platting or replatting of land in the city to contribute ten percent (10%) of final
plat gross area to be dedicated to the public for their use as either parks, playgrounds, public open space,
trail systems, or water ponding, or to contribute cash in lieu of land in an amount established by
resolution of the city council, based upon the conditions outlined below. The form of contribution (cash
or land, or any combination thereof) shall be decided by the city council based upon need and
conformance with approved city plans. Payment of cash in lieu of land will be collected prior to any
subdivision or final plat being recorded by Dakota County.
Section 7.
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 #467 – Second Readingpage 2 of 2