2014-12-23 Planning Comm Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
m PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
December 23, 2014 — 7:00 p.m.
Mendota Heights City Hall
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Adopt Agenda
4. Approve November 25, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes
5. Public Hearings (7:00 p.m. or shortly thereafter):
a. Case No. 2014-36: Dick Bjorklund Properties, LLC. Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and Rezoning at 2511 and 2525 Condon Court.
b. Case No. 2014-37: City of Mendota Heights. Proposed amendments to the
Wetlands System Chapter of the City Code.
6. 2015 Planning Commission Meeting Calendar
7. Verbal Review
8. Staff Annoucements
9. Adjourn
Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours
in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights
will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short
notice. Please contact City Hall at 651.452.1850 with requests.
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 1
1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
2 DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
3
4 PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES
5 November 25, 2014
6
7 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday,
8 November 25, 2014, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
9
10 The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Howard
11 Roston, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson, and Ansis Viksnins. Those absent: Michael Noonan.
12 Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall and Public Works Director/City Engineer John
13 Mazzitello.
14
15 Approval of Agenda
16
17 Chair Field noted a letter dated November 25, 2014 requesting a further layover of Planning Case
18 2014-31 to the December or January 2015 meeting. As there was no one in attendance to speak
19 regarding this case, the Commission accepted the layover request.
20
21 The agenda was approved as amended.
22
23 Approval of October 28, 2014 Minutes
24
25 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON TO
26 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2014, AS PRESENTED.
27
28 AYES: 5
29 NAYS: 0
30 ABSENT: 1
31
32 Hearings
33
34 PLANNING CASE #2014-34
35 Glenn Petersen, 2361 Field Stone Court and 580 Watersedge Terrace
36 Wetlands Permit for construction of a fence within the 100 -foot buffer area of a water resource -
37 related area
38
39 Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was seeking a wetlands permit to construct a fence
40 at 2361 Field Stone Court. The subject parcel is 0.56 acres and contains an existing single-family
41 dwelling abutting a pond in the rear yard. The property is zoned R-1 and guided for low-density
42 residential development in the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant intends to construct a 48 -inch
43 black vinyl chain-link fence along the rear property boundary lines, a portion of said fence would
44 connect into an existing fence on the neighboring property, which is at 580 Watersedge Terrace
45 and has been agreed upon by both parties.
46
November 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 1
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 2
47 The proposed fence is within 100 -feet of water resource related area and does not meet the
48 conditions for administrative approval. The wetlands chapter does require a permit for the
49 construction, alteration, or removal of any structure. The proposed connecting fence is located a
50 few inches onto the neighboring property and, therefore, staff had them be a party to this
51 application since the fence would be connecting onto their property.
52
53 A portion of the proposed fence would be near the ordinary high-water mark of the pond and within
54 the 25 -foot non -disturb buffer area which is recommended to maintain appropriate vegetative
55 buffers and limit soil disturbance. However, the proposed project would not remove any vegetation
56 or cause any soil disturbance beyond the post -digging activities.
57
58 Engineering staff did review the request and they have no issues with the proposed project due to
59 no changes to the existing vegetative buffer and limited soil disturbance. If approved, the fence
60 would be constructed immediately after obtaining a building permit. Additional standards for
61 residential fences would be reviewed as part of the building permit process.
62
63 Staff recommended approval of this application with conditions and based on the Findings of Fact
64 included in the Planning Commission packet.
65
66 Chair Field opened the public hearing.
67
68 Mr. Glenn Petersen, 2361 Field Stone Court and Mr. Dan Larsen of Midwest Fence came forward
69 to answer any questions from the Commissioners.
70
71 Ms. Katie Donovan, 590 Watersedge Terrace had more questions than comments. She asked how
72 far back into the pond would this fence go relative to the fence that is already there and why the
73 proposed fence could not be the same sort of fence that it would be connecting to.
74
75 Planner Wall replied that he looked at the case file from 2011 for the request at 580 Watersedge
76 Terrace as they also had to receive a wetlands permit. The fence on this property is constructed
77 approximately 40 -feet from the ordinary high-water mark of the pond. He referred the
78 Commissioner's to the aerial photograph and explained that there is a different vegetative pattern
79 on the neighboring property than there is on the applicant's property. Both fences follow the
80 contour of the vegetation around the pond.
81
82 Ms. Donovan commented that the neighbor immediately next to the Watersedge property is out of
83 town and is unable to respond to this application. She also stated that she would like to see the
84 properties keep to the open and rural appearance of the neighborhood. Chair Field replied that the
85 Commission is only concerned with the wetlands permit, which is how the soils are treated and
86 handled around the wetland. The Commission has very limited jurisdiction in considering the fence
87 itself.
88
89 Mr. Petersen returned to address Ms. Donovan's comments and stated that as far as the type of
90 fence the neighbor has compared to his, there is quite a bit of price difference and that is why he
91 opted for a black chain-link fence rather than a wrought iron fence. He went with the black chain -
92 link to try and keep to the aesthetics and appeal. The reason for putting up the fence is because his
November 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 2
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 3
93 wife and he just recently had a child and they also have a dog. They would like to keep both
94 contained and not get to the pond.
95
96 Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
97
98 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO
99 CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
100
101 AYES: 5
102 NAYS: 0
103 ABSENT: 1
104
105 COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO
106 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2014-34, WETLANDS PERMIT FOR
107 CONSTRUCTION OF A FENCE WITHIN THE 100 -FOOT BUFFER AREA OF A WATER
108 RESOURCE -RELATED AREA APPLICATION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS
109 OF FACT:
110 1. The project meets the purpose and intent of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the City
111 Code.
112 2. No existing vegetation within the wetland/water resource -related buffer area will be
113 removed.
114 3. Soil disturbance in the buffer area will be limited to post -digging and no part of the
115 wetland/water resource -related area will be disturbed.
116 AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
117 1. A building permit is obtained prior to construction of the proposed fence.
118 2. Area between the proposed construction and the normal water level of the pond is to remain
119 naturally vegetated.
120 3. Construction shall be in compliance with the City's Land Disturbance Guidance
121 Document.
122
123 AYES: 5
124 NAYS: 0
125 ABSENT: 1
126
127 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 2, 2014
128 meeting.
129
130 PLANNING CASE #2014-33
131 T -Mobile, on behalf of the Ridge South Condo Association, 1850 Eagle Ridge Drive
132 Conditional Use Permit for Upgrades to a Wireless Antenna Facility
133
134 Planner Nolan Wall explained that this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for wireless
135 antenna facility upgrades. The purpose of this upgrade would be to increase the data and call
136 capacity in the existing service area. The code does require CUP approval for wireless antennas.
137
November 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 3
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 4
138 The subject parcel is approximately 2.7 acres and contains a multi -family residential condominium
139 building, zoned R-3, and guided for high density residential development. The existing antenna
140 structure and the accessory structure were both approved by a Conditional Use Permit in 2006.
141 The proposed wireless antenna facility upgrades were shown in the submitted plans and include
142 three new antennas, three new RRU's, and a new modular at the base station which would be
143 within the existing fenced in accessory structure area. No exterior modifications were proposed to
144 the existing accessory structure and the improvements would not increase the height of the existing
145 antenna structure itself.
146
147 The code does contain specific evaluation criteria to evaluate a conditional use permit and the
148 applicant has agreed to comply with all of those applicable provisions. Staff recommended
149 approval of this Conditional Use Permit application with conditions.
150
151 Mr. Chuck Beisner, 4974 Interlachen Drive NE, Alexandria, MN on behalf of T -Mobile came
152 forward to answer questions.
153
154 Commissioners asked questions regarding the coverage map that was included in the packet.
155
156 Chair Field opened the public hearing.
157
158 Mr. Marvin Jacobson, member of the association and owner one of the condominiums, asked if
159 there would be an inspection of the work after it has been completed. Planner Wall replied that if
160 this application was approved, another piece of it would be the potential building permit
161 application and the building official would review it and determine if a building permit is necessary
162 and if/when an inspection would be needed.
163
164 Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
165
166 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO
167 CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
168
169 AYES: 5
170 NAYS: 0
171 ABSENT: 1
172
173 Commissioner Roston disclosed that his wife's parents live in the condominium building but he
174 has not heard from them nor has he spoken with them about this application.
175
176 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON,
177 TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2014-33 CONDITIONAL USE
178 PERMIT FOR UPGRADES TO A WIRELESS ANTENNA FACILITY, BASED ON THE
179 FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
180 1. The proposed project is consistent with the conditional use permit requirements allowing
181 such facilities.
182 2. The proposed project will not negatively affect the public health, safety and general welfare
183 of the community.
November 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 4
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 5
184 3. Upgrading the wireless antenna facility's antennas and equipment will help increase the
185 data and call capacity in the service area.
186 AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
187 1. The applicant abides by all regulations in Title 12-1D-14 of the City Code.
188
189 AYES: 5
190 NAYS: 0
191 ABSENT: 1
192
193 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 2, 2014
194 meeting.
195
196 PLANNING CASE #2014-35
197 Matthew and Mary Paquette
198 Proposed Code Amendment to Allow Chickens in Residential Zoning Districts
199
200 Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was seeking a code amendment that would allow
201 the keeping of chickens in residential zoning districts. Staff was made aware of chickens on the
202 applicant's property, which is currently in violation of the city code. After being notified by the
203 City, the applicants then requested an appeal on the City's interpretation of the code, they requested
204 a variance to allow the chickens and coop to remain on the property. Staff advised the applicants
205 that use variances should not be considered in this case and that applying for a code amendment
206 was an option for presenting this for further discussion.
207
208 A similar request regarding pigeons was considered by the City Council in 2012 and that was
209 ultimately denied. Staff does receive regular inquiries about keeping chickens and other non -
210 domestic animals in residential areas, so this request does present the opportunity to consider
211 addressing that current prohibition.
212
213 The codes does contain two definitions of animals; the first being a domestic animal definition and
214 then a food animal definition. Based on staff's interpretation, chickens are not considered a
215 domestic animal and, therefore not permitted as accessory uses in the residential zoning districts.
216
217 Past determinations have been made that chickens are more appropriately defined as a food animal
218 since they are not a common household pet in most urban residential areas and are typically raised
219 for purposes of food consumption. According to the applicants, the proposed code amendment is
220 intended to permit chickens on residential properties subject to the following conditions:
221 1. Chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) may be allowed on residential properties.
222 2. Only hens (no roosters) are allowed.
223 3. A maximum of four hens per lot are allowed.
224 4. The chicken coop and run shall be setback at leastl0 feet from the rear lot line and at least
225 5 feet from the side lot lines. They must be at least 25 feet from the nearest habitable
226 structure.
227 5. If the chickens are not contained at all times to the coop and run and allowed to freely roam
228 within the yard, the property shall be enclosed by a fence.
229
November 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 5
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 6
230 Also included in the Commission packet was an extensive survey completed by the City of Cottage
231 Grove in 2012. Staff included a list of additional issues for consideration that were not addressed
232 in the proposed code amendment submitted by the applicants.
233
234 Staff noted that this code amendment request raises two questions:
235
236 1. Should the City consider amending the Code to allow chickens in residential zoning
237 districts?
238 2. If so, under what conditions should chickens be allowed?
239
240 Whether or not chickens should be allowed in residential zoning districts is a policy decision that
241 should be considered by the City Council, based on a recommendation from the Planning
242 Commission. Staff does not have a recommendation on this issue, but, if necessary, is willing to
243 work with the applicants and/or other stakeholders to provide any additional information to the
244 Planning Commission or City Council on the issue for discussion.
245
246 Regardless of the Planning Commission's recommendation on the use being requested, staff
247 recommends denial of the proposed code amendment language itself that pertains specifically to
248 this application regarding the proposed code language based on the Findings of Fact; which are
249 largely based on other issues raised that should be considered if the City did want to move down
250 the road of allowing chickens in residential zoning districts. Therefore, a second motion could be
251 considered regarding further discussion and direction to the City Council in consideration of the
252 proposed use.
253
254 Commissioners asked questions regarding how this keeping of chickens came to staff's attention,
255 the survey completed by the City of Cottage Grove, what the process would be if the Commission
256 felt the keeping of chickens might be something worth exploring, past history of this type of
257 application, and the existence of legal non -conforming chicken coops in the City.
258
259 Chair Field noted that the Commission had two tasks:
260
261 1. Deal with the immediate code amendment request, which staff recommended denial based
262 on a variety of technical reasons.
263 2. Decide if they want to pursue the chicken ordinance that would address these other issues.
264
265 Ms. Mary Paquette, 1119 Dodd Road, stated that the actual complaint about the code violation
266 came from an elderly neighbor who loves the chickens and was concerned about the chicken that
267 had gotten out.
268
269 She also stated that they had the chickens for two years and did not know that they were not in the
270 code. They feel the code is very vague in listing that birds are an acceptable pet. She gave reasons
271 why chickens make good pets.
272
273 Chair Field opened the public hearing.
274
275
November 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 6
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 7
276 Ms. Beth Geis, 1116 Dodd Road, lives across the street from the applicant's property and she did
277 not know that the chickens were there because they are obviously very quiet. She commented that
278 the recommendation for denial was based on additional issues not be addressed; however, they
279 addressed all the issues that she had. She asked how staff would propose to re -write the code
280 amendment. Chair Field noted that the amendment needs to fit within the context of the entire
281 code.
282
283 Ms. Christine Solberg, 1062 Chippewa Avenue, has lived in her home since 1955 and her backyard
284 is almost kitty-corner to the applicant's home. She noted that when she moved into the area there
285 were two farms that were two blocks away. They had every animal imaginable on a farm; however,
286 at that time the non -domesticated animals also had their own habitat to live in. Now that everyone
287 has encroached so much on the wild habitat there have been a lot of coyote sightings in the
288 neighborhood. Her main concern with chickens in residential areas is that they would attract more
289 wild animals.
290
291 Ms. Mary Paquette returned and asked if the commission decided to not move forward at this time
292 with the code amendment, if there would be a way for them to obtain a variance until the time that
293 the City Council would have a chance to hear this so they would not have to dispose of their pets.
294 Planner Wall replied that there were two separate issues under consideration; one being the code
295 enforcement issue that the Commission is not charged with dealing with or deciding at this time.
296 However, if the ultimate decision by the Council were to maintain the code as it currently stands,
297 staff would work with the applicant on a reasonable timeline to accommodate the removal.
298
299 Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
300
301 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO
302 CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
303
304 AYES: 5
305 NAYS: 0
306 ABSENT: 1
307
308 Commissioners had discussion and comments regarding their desire to see this policy issue come
309 before the Council, especially in light of the fact that the larger urban cities that surround Mendota
310 Heights do allow the keeping of chickens as pets.
311
312 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO
313 RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW
314 CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING
315 FINDINGS OF FACT:
316 1. Keeping of chickens is not appropriate on residential properties in the City.
317 2. The proposed code amendment does not address all of the necessary regulations to prevent
318 nuisances and mitigate potential negative impacts to the surrounding properties.
319
320 Commissioner Roston asked if the Commission was going to send their recommendation to the
321 Council with the first Finding of Fact as listed above.
November 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 7
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 8
322 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS AMENDED HIS MOTION, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
323 ROSTON, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT TO
324 ALLOW CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS BASED ON THE
325 FOLLOWING FINDING OF FACT:
326 1. The proposed code amendment does not address all of the necessary regulations to prevent
327 nuisances and mitigate potential negative impacts to the surrounding properties.
328
329 AYES: 5
330 NAYS: 0
331 ABSENT: 1
332
333 COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES,
334 THAT IT IS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT THE
335 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER AND EXPLORE THE IDEA OF ALLOWING A CODE
336 AMENDMENT TO PERMIT THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS AND
337 ADVISE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THEIR DECISION.
338
339 Commissioner Viksnins wanted it to be known to the City Council that there is a division of
340 opinions by the Planning Commission on allowing chickens to be kept as pets in the City of
341 Mendota Heights.
342
343 Chair Fields recommended the motion be amended to include, KEEPING IN MIND THAT THE
344 COMMISSION IS DIVIDED ON THEIR OPINION OF WHETHER CHICKENS SHOULD BE
345 ALLOWED TO BE KEPT AS PETS.
346
347 Planner Wall suggested, in simplifying the original motion, SHOULD THE CITY CONSIDER
348 AMENDING THE CODE TO ALLOW CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.
349
350 Commissioner Viksnins reiterated that he wanted it to be clear to the City Council that he would
351 not be in support of amending the code to allow the keeping of chickens as pets, just as he was not
352 in favor of allowing the raising of pigeons. However, he does feel that it would be appropriate for
353 the City Council to consider the issue.
354
355 Commissioner Magnuson recommended that the motion be phrased as a statement rather than a
356 question.
357
358 Chair Field recommended the following:
359
360 THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS CONFLICTED ON THE ISSUE OF KEEPING
361 CHICKENS AS PETS WITHIN THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AND WOULD LIKE
362 THE CITY COUNCIL TO PROVIDE INDICATION OF WHETHER THEY BELIEVE
363 CHICKENS SHOULD BE PERMITTED IN THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AS PETS.
364
365 Commissioner Magnuson withdrew her motion from the table.
366
November 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 8
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 9
367 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, AS
368 THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS CONFLICTED, THE PLANNING COMMISSION
369 RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL MAKE A POLICY DETERMINATION ON
370 WHETHER OR NOT TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE
371 TO PERMIT CHICKENS AS A DOMESTIC ANIMAL IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
372
373 AYES: 5
374 NAYS: 0
375 ABSENT: 1
376
377 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this motion at its December 2, 2014 meeting.
378
379 Verbal Review
380
381 Planner Wall gave the following verbal review:
382
383 PLANNING CASE #2014-30
384 GreenWood Design Build, LLC, 750 Hilltop Road
385 Front Yard Setback Variance
386 • The Planning Commission made a recommendation to table this application. The
387 application was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant. Staff did receive a building
388 permit to construct the single family dwelling within the setbacks, as displayed during the
389 discussion on case.
390
391 PLANNING CASE #2014-22
392 City of Mendota Heights, Proposed Code Amendments
393 • Approved by City Council and adopted as ORDINANCE NO. 467 AN ORDINANCE
394 AMENDING SECTIONS 12-1D, 12-1E, 12-1L, AND 11-5 OF THE CITY CODE OF
395 THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY,
396 CONCERNING VARIOUS AMENDMENTS with some minor wording changes to one
397 of the proposed code amendments.
398
399 Discussion occurred concerning the reasons for the withdrawal of PLANNING CASE 2014-31.
400
401 Staff Announcements
402
403 • Tentative schedule for filling the vacant seat on the Planning Commission;
404 o December 29 - Letter of Interest and a Resume must be submitted to the Assistant
405 City Administrator, Tamara Schutta. She can be reached with questions at 651-452-
406 1850
407 o Council to review the applications and have interviews on January 20
408 o The first meeting of the new Planning Commission member would be February 24
409 • City Administrator Justin Miller has accepted a position as the City Administrator in the
410 City of Lakeville:
411 o Assistant to the City Administrator Tamara Schutta will serve as the Interim City
412 Administrator until a new City Administrator is hired
November 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 9
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 10
413 o The job has been posted
414 o A personnel committee has been put together to review applications
415
416 Adjournment
417
418 COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO
419 ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:05 P.M.
420
421 AYES: 5
422 NAYS: 0
423 ABSENT: 1
November 25, 2014 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 10
.r.••••""'
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
ZONING/GUIDED:
ACTION DEADLINE:
December 23, 2014
Planning Commission
Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 11
1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax
www.mendota-heights.com
Planning Case 2014-36
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning Requests
Dick Bjorklund Properties, LLC
2511 and 2525 Condon Court
R-1 One -Family Residential/LB Limited Business -PUD
February 1, 2015
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning of the parcels located at 2511
and 2525 Condon Court. In order to proceed with a proposed future development, as described in the
attached application narrative and shown on the concept development plans, the specific requests
concerning the subject parcels include:
1. Amend the future land use designation in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan from LB Limited Business -
PUD to MR Medium Density Residential.
2. Rezone from R-1 One -Family Residential to R-2 Medium Density Residential.
BACKGROUND
The subject parcels are owned by the applicant and encompass approximately 1.26 acres (54,878 square
feet) on Condon Court, south of Mendota Heights Road and west of Dodd Road (see aerial site map). The
parcels are zoned R-1 One -Family Residential, guided LB Limited Business -PUD, and contain two existing
single-family dwellings.
If the initial requests are granted, the applicant intends to demolish the existing structures and bring forward
a subdivision application to replat the property into five lots. As shown in the attached concept development
plans, the applicant proposes to construct two 2 -unit townhomes and a single-family dwelling.
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
The Land Use Plan, as included in the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, is intended to depict the general
desired locations of future land uses in the City. As part of the proposed amendment request, a
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 12
determination should be made that the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding existing and future
land uses. According to Title 12 -1L -9(B) of the City Code, an affirmative vote of four-fifths (4/5) of the
City Council is required to adopt amendments to the comprehensive plan.
The proposed comprehensive plan amendment also requires approval from the Metropolitan Council. In
addition, adjacent governmental units and affected school districts are typically required to be notified and
given the opportunity to comment. In this case, the proposed amendment was determined to be "minor"
and meets the adjacent review waiver criteria. However, due to the site's proximity to Eagan, the proposed
amendment was sent to their Community Development Department for review; no comments were offered.
Current Future Land Use Designation
All three parcels on Condon Court are guided as LB Limited Business -PUD. According to the 2030
Comprehensive Plan (p. 44):
Commercial land uses are typically divided into two general categories; (1) office and (2) retail.
The office category includes land uses generally considered to be of a limited business nature,
typically a daytime office use. The Land Use Map identifies these areas as "LB -Limited
Business" or "LB -PUD". The corresponding zoning district classifications are B-1 (Limited
Business), B -1A (Business Park) and B-2 (Neighborhood Business).
The abutting land, west of Dodd Road and north/south of Mendota Heights Road, is owned by Visitation
Monastery and guided as PS Private School. The land east of Dodd Road is guided LR Low Density
Residential and MR Medium Density Residential (see attached maps).
Proposed Future Land Use Designation
The applicant is requesting to amend the Land Use Plan to designate the future land use for the subject
parcels as MR Medium Density Residential. According to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (p. 43):
This land use provides for townhome and attached housing development at urban densities
of up to 4.35 units per acre. There is no vacant land within this designation. The corresponding
zoning district classifications are: R-2 (Medium Density Residential District) and MR -PUD
(Medium Density Residential Planned Unit Development).
The concept development plan includes five units on 1.26 acres, which yields a density of 3.97 units/acre
and complies with the maximum density for the MR designation.
Rezoning
The subject parcels are currently zoned R-1 One Family Residential. The remaining parcel on Condon
Court, which is not included as part of either request, is zoned B-1 Limited Business and contains a single-
family residential dwelling used for a residential program for treatment of chemically -dependent adults.
The existing uses on all three parcels are compliant with their respective zoning districts.
The applicant is requesting to rezone the subject parcels to R-2 Medium Density Residential in order to
construct the concept development plan included as part of the application submittal. Dwelling structures
containing 2-24 units and one -family detached dwellings are both permitted uses in the R-2 District.
Consideration of a rezoning of property is reviewed as to its conformance with the comprehensive plan.
The corresponding zoning districts for the current "Limited Business -PUD" future land use designation are
not consistent with the current zoning of the subject parcels. However, the R-2 District is consistent with
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 13
the "MR Medium Density Residential" future land use designation being proposed as part of the
comprehensive plan amendment request.
Concept Development Plan
In an effort to provide a vision for the site, based on the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and
rezoning requests, the applicant has provided a concept development plan as part of the application
submittal. These are preliminary plans and are not meant to represent a formal subdivision application.
As shown on the concept preliminary plat, the two existing subject parcels would be subdivided into five
lots for construction of two 2 -unit townhomes and a single-family dwelling. The existing properties on
Condon Court are not served by the City's sanitary sewer or water systems. As part of the development,
the applicant will extend the infrastructure, at his cost, along Mendota Heights Road to the site.
Lots 3 and 4 of the concept preliminary plat do not meet the R-2 District's minimum lot size requirement.
If the comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning requests receive the required approvals, the applicant
intends to acquire a portion of excess MnDOT right-of-way which contains Condon Court to gain additional
square footage for all of the proposed lots.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning requests with the
following conditions:
1. The proposed comprehensive plan amendment is approved by the Metropolitan Council.
2. The applicant submits the necessary complete applications in consideration of the proposed
concept development plan within twelve (12) months of receiving approval from the Metropolitan
Council.
3. If the deadline is not met, the current future land use designation and existing zoning for the
subject parcels may remain in place.
Limited business development in this area, in compliance with the goals and policies of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan, is unlikely at this time due to access, visibility, infrastructure, and market constraints.
In addition, the existing zoning and land uses on the subject parcels are not consistent with the current
future land use designation. The required rezoning, in order to consider the proposed concept development
plan, provides for increased residential density in the area and is consistent with the surrounding existing
and planned land uses.
While each request should be considered on its own merits, approval of both by the City Council is required
for the proposed project to proceed to the next step. As noted, the Metropolitan Council also has to approve
the proposed comprehensive plan amendment. Approval of the comprehensive plan amendment can be
adopted by resolution, but the rezoning request requires adoption of an ordinance. However, it is
recommended that the Planning Commission consider action on both requests in a single motion.
ACTION REQUESTED
Following the public hearing and further discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following
actions:
1. Recommend approval of the comprehensive plan amendment, subject to review and approval by
the Metropolitan Council, and Ordinance 470, based on the attached findings of fact.
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 14
OR
2. Recommend denial of the comprehensive plan amendment and Ordinance 470, based on the finding
of fact that the requests are inconsistent with the future land use designation in the City's 2030
Comprehensive Plan and with surrounding existing and planned land uses.
OR
3. Table the request.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. DRAFT Ordinance 470
2. Aerial site map
3. Current planned land use map
4. Proposed planned land use map
5. Planning applications
6. Concept development plans
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 15
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning
2511 and 2525 Condon Court
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request:
1. Limited business development in this area, in compliance with the goals and policies of the City's
2030 Comprehensive Plan, is unlikely at this time due to access, visibility, infrastructure, and
market constraints.
2. The proposed future land use designation is consistent with the surrounding existing and planned
land uses.
3. The existing zoning and land use on the subject parcels are not consistent with the current future
land use designation.
4. The required rezoning, in order to consider the proposed concept development plan, provides for
increased residential density in the area and is consistent with the surrounding zoning districts.
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 16
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 470
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain:
Section 1.
The Official Zoning Map of Mendota Heights, as referenced in Title 12, Chapter 1, Article C of the City
Code and known as the "Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance," is hereby amended in the following
respects:
The following land is to be rezoned to R-2 Medium Density Residential and subject to the same
restrictions pertaining to other R-2 zones:
Those described in Exhibit A and Exhibit B.
More commonly, these properties are known as 2511 Condon Court and 2525 Condon Court
Section 2.
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, 2015.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor
ATTEST
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
Ord #470 — DRAFT for Planning Commission Review page 1 of 3
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 17
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description — 2511 Condon Court
PT OF SE 1/4 COM INT S LINE & C/L HGWY W ON S LINE 450 FTN 1092 FT TO PT OF BEG N 273
FT E PARR S LINE 301.8 FT TO CL HGWY S ON C/L 273.3 FT W PARR S LINE 295.3 FT TO PT OF
BEG EX PARCEL 2B OF STH R/W PLAT NO 19-53 CONT 0.08 ACS
Ord #470 — DRAFT for Planning Commission Review page 2 of 3
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 18
EXHIBIT B
Legal Description — 2525 Condon Court
PT OF SE 1/4 COM INT S LINE & C/L STH 1149 W 450 FT N 932 FT TO PT OF BEG N 160 FT E 295.3
FT TO C/L HGWY S ON C/L 160 FT TO PT ON LINE PARR S LINE & PASSING THRU PT OF BEG
W 306 FT TO PT OF BEG EX PT HGWY
Ord #470 — DRAFT for Planning Commission Review page 3 of 3
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 19
Planning Case 2014-36
Comp Plan Amendment/Rezoning
2511 & 2525 Condon Court
Date: 12/15/2014
0
160
SCALE IN FEET
City of
Mendota
Heights
GIS Map Disclaimer:
This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,
survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained
in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors
or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 20
Planning Case 2014-36
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
2511 & 2525 Condon Court
Current Planned Land Use
Date: 12/5/2014
0
340
SCALE IN FEET
City of
Mendota
Heights
PLANNED LAND USE
Current
LB -PUD
LR
MR -PUD
PS
0
SAP
v,.• -.
0
z
0
•
0
i
i
i
—1i
1
11
�/ I
7
,... r
• `TAIMIPi
/ ir : i
/ V** v ji*
ii-Lii 1 \
\
sib
i -- 1 ------r--; — r—, --r
� p li
til— I �IIII ar 4TT4r.:
J'- — 1 — - '---I-.1
J. �4,
e
494
1494 RAMP
1494 DODD
�1 11!G A N
1
P
• •1.1�1��1�
OIG A N \\
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 21
Planning Case 2014-36
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
2511 & 2525 Condon Court
Proposed Planned Land Use
Date: 12/5/2014
0
340
SCALE IN FEET
City of
Mendota
Heights
PLANNED LAND USE
Proposed
LB -PUD
LR
MR
MR -PUD
PS
0 E=J
1
11
---
Ns
--r35E–RTIV1P
—
- a
mites
lul 1111,111
e
494
1494 RAMP
1494 DODD
P
•
.rh
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 22
1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota. Heights, MN 55118
651.4523850 phone. 1651;452;8940 fax
www.mendota-height*,com
CITY OF
IVIENDOTA HEIGHTS
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST
Property Address/Street Location: Z5/1 4 Z 5 Z s Cenr C/3v R
Applicant Name: n>lz- -wJ46 Phone: I, i — Zl, I -- 9g
Applicant E -Mail Address: dl . Co f,.,
Applicant Mailing Address: "?--ilk-q- fi*LN Ser £ &"tis; , (l'trN -re 11P44. ) ,i' , ssi
Property Owner Name: `,)C)& kfez.RKLU.u6 Phone: ZLD I - g 4 i O
Property Owner Mailing Address: Z32 4- f)f t M-gN1wrA 11Ts /i'!,v SSit,o
Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided)
n►�xJ 3J' � Zn,
2.S1I CoC'� ` �4citon) f u
$ , t3 6-cP4ir1-Y . = Z7 'o
zs2S f. N ('n' = (ste -11.v 1.) 3 .PSn;Y d35oa Sa
Type of Request:
Rezoning ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Conditional Use Permit for PUD
❑ Variance
❑ Subdivision Approval
❑ Code Amendment
❑ Wetlands Permit
❑ Critical Area Permit
❑ Lot Split
❑ Preliminary/Final Plat Approval
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
❑ Other
I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true.
I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above property during daylight hours.
i(te.k
Signature b`f Applicant Date
j 2.4(13
Signature f Owner Date
Signature of Owner (if more than one) Date
Planning Application (modified 1/28/2014) Page 1 of 1
OtAtT
a)
4- ^ a) c0
V) 0 17 •0 •0 U E
co ..--, a) •., 0 C •-•
•-Fr v) CO CO 0 0) V) c0 X
'O W CO v) •-• v) .1) C a) +) O
a) V) s- O Ln
co 0) - U L ....-4 ..• O.
•-• w co C 0 v) -I-) in c0 -o C1
,, S - _c04- 0•-• v) 0 c0
U +) • •—c -0 3 a) >, co
N 0 CO -C .--..--. a) 0)
0)4-Z P a)—• S- S- S- C
'0 0 +) S --CI 0S- 0 0 0 •-•
>, v) 0 •—i 0 s E 4- C
CU c0 a) Z 0 •--• 4- •-•
c') C 3 3 +) co a) 0 ^-+Q ra
N• -•L a) - - O+-) W +)
•--• 0) a) U 10 (0 0 V) 0 V) C:
CD •-•UCC CIE 0) 0
0) >,= C a) c0 a) 4- •0 U
C .-4 (1) L .--i 10 ^ 0 •-•
CO 0s+) C:+) C:M CO
CC a) +- +' a) (0 a) 0) • v) 0)
_ c0 • - L a) s c+') C:
00 0 V) C) 0) v) - N O - C
3. N 0 Lr) a) 4- co c0 C
v1 co 0) 4- 0 W • a0 4- 0) ..-.
0. +) T co O C 0)
•-• a) 0 O 0) a) O •-• a)
L t in - Lr) C 0 c+') • a) •--•
v)+-) a)O•:t•-• C O 0
C Cco C a) 4-Z C 4-
3 4- C 4- C S 0 co .--c 0
c') O 0 •-• 0 •.• +.) >, +• -
0) H Z 0) Cr) a) co in . a) +-'
%- C 0) 0 •^0 3•-•L =
CD ••
CD 04- E 00 +) CL + •
'O�•-
• Lo •-• O a) C: a) co 0) 0 0
0 c+') +> > c0 (4- 0) +) •-• CO 0 0-
U a) 0 +) 0 4- v) 2 V)
C a) C Z v) •-• a)
O V) •-• •.. +) c+') 10 a) 0 0 L
v c •-• •--• 0 '0 C N. +) 4- •-• +J
Is m i--) a) +) •-• N rt7 c0 c0
V) •-• -) O S n 0 O N 3 s
Q C •-• 0 a) 4 - CO L +.) ^ •
4- 0) 0) - 4- L a) +) CI •-• in >,
0 s 0 CL 0 -4. 0 •-• 3 in co
.1
1 -to a) '0 W0 co Lr) 0) —i i-4 -C
< W 4.) S C V) 4-) +) C '0 a) 0)
V) c0 +.' r0 0. C •.• -. •-•
a)+�.r4•.•5-c rp O2
s C 4-) 0 4-)W vim) s_ N s_ 0 O
4-) ..-c •.-c 4- co 4- 4- c0 +)
JCC 4- C 3 C O N 4O 0 0 n E +)
O 0 Lr) •-• 0) O 0 a) •0 0
E co .p a) O 4- a) C C C: ^ a)
+) E in C a-- C ..• •.• c0 +. • -
- 0 C •.• •.• -C .., .--. •--• 0) 0
(0 C.) 0 X •4 4- +-) •—' +) a) 0
t..00. •-• a) O S- s_ S- v) 4- v)
+) >, 0 >, 0 a) 0
N 4-3 • • U '0 .-0) Z 4_3.1_.)3 ••
-C 3 V) (C0 C C Cl) W W W 0 L C) a)
+) 0 -C CO U S U U U C)) S-
.—, '0 '0 +) +) C +) C N U
.--..--• a) = v) a) = Cu a) a) co
— 0 co v) O• -•L 0sss4-
Q 4- in 0 v) -0 +) V) +) +) +) 0 N
d•
0)
SZ5 eon, da Civ 2�-
EXHIBIT "A"
Legal Description
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 24
That part of the SE'/, of Section 35, Township 28, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota,
Described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the South line of the SE'/. of
said Section 35, with the center line of Trunk Highway No. 49, (formerly No. 88) thence
West, along the said South line, 450 feet, thence North 932 feet to the point of beginning;
thence North 160 feet, thence East parallel with the South line of said SE'/., a distance of
295.3 feet, more or less to the center line of Trunk Highway No. 49, as built, (formerly No.
88); thence Southerly, along the center line of said highway, 160 feet, more or Tess, to a
point on a line which is a parallel with the South line of the said SE Y. and passes through
the point of beginning, thence West, parallel with the South line of the said SE Y. a
distance of 305 feet more or Tess, to the point of beginning, Excepting therefrom that part
which lies Easterly of a line run parallel with and distant 162.5 feet Westerly of the
following line beginning ata point on the East and West quarter line of Section 2,
Township 27, Range 23, distant 612.2 feet West of the East quarter thereof; thence run
Northerly at an angle of 88 degrees 5 minutes 30 seconds with said East and West quarter
line (when measured East to North) 325.9 feet, thence deflect to the (eft at an angle of 13
degrees 59 minutes for 2064.8 feet, thence deflect to the right on ten chord spiral curve of
decreasing radius (spiral angle 1 degree 7 minutes 30 seconds) for 150 feet, thence deflect
to the right on a 1 degree 30 minute circular curve (delta angle 22 degrees 54 minutes) for
1526.7 feet and terminating; together with a strip 12.5 feet in width adjoining and Westerly
of the above described strip; beginning opposite a point on the above described line
distant 633.5 feet Southerly of its point of termination (when measured along said line) and
extending Northerly to the North line of the above described tract. •
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 25
Dick Bjorklund Properties, LLC
2324 Field Stone Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55120-1920
Cell No. 651-261-9980
November 22, 2014
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
To the City Planner, Members of the Planning Commission,
and Members of the City Council:
RE: 2511 & 2525 Condon Court ("The Oaks of Mendota Heights")
Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application
I'd like to take this opportunity to express my excitement in making
this application. As a lifelong resident of Mendota Heights, I have seen
many changes over the years in our community. And so for me, this
application represents an idea for improving a unique piece of property and
making it spectacular!
My first request in this application has to do with the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. I am requesting to change it from the existing LB -PUD to MR.
My second request is a Rezoning change. I am asking to change the zoning
from the current Rl to R2.
Background:
I own two existing properties on Condon Court (2511 and 2525 Condon
Court). Both of these properties are older houses. The first property, 2511
Condon Court, is located on the north corner of Condon Court and Mendota
Heights Road and was built in 1940. It is a 932 square foot, 1 1/2 story house.
The second property, 2525 Condon Court, is located just to the south of
2511. It was built in 1948 and moved to this current location in 1964.
It is a one-story rambler with 1156 square feet.
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 26
My Plan:
My proposal is to build five new townhouses on the property. This would
consist of two 2 -unit buildings and one single unit building. I believe with
the great design and layout as well as the landscaping to be used, it will be a
great -looking development and improvement for the City of Mendota
Heights and the neighborhood.
I believe my plan for this property is an improvement to the current
Comprehensive Plan of Businesses for this location. And with the rezoning,
I am barely increasing the density. There are two properties now and with
my plan there will be a total of five. The traffic will have a minimal effect.
The new units will be "state of the art" in construction and efficiency.
The two existing old houses have passed their prime.
I plan to connect all the units to the city sewer and water system at my
expense. The existing water is on the north side of Mendota Heights Road.
The sewer will have to come from the west along Mendota Heights Road
and then have the sewer/water connections on the west side of the property.
The sewer and water proposals and engineering details will most likely be
part of the Developers agreement. I will agree to this.
My proposal for the two 2 -unit buildings does not meet the city requirement
of 20,000 square feet per lot. The middle two -unit building has 19,007
square feet. The southern two -unit building lot has 18,210 square feet.
The front of the middle building is approximately 100 feet behind the curb.
The front of the southern building is approximately 105-109 feet straight
behind the curb. There is a "large area" (approximately 10,000 to 11,000
square feet) of DOT right of way across the front of the property. I have
been in contact with them and they are currently looking into my plan. I
have also been in contact with Xcel Energy to ask them if they could move
two of their power poles to the east side of Condon Court. They said this
was possible, but that it would be at my expense. I will cover this cost. The
power poles are ugly! Then, Xcel Energy would also do the underground
electric services back under the street to get power for each unit. This will be
a fabulous improvement!
The DOT then would not need all the right of way for the power poles
because the poles would be across the street. I would like to pick up
approximately 16 feet across the front. I'm not asking for all the right of
way, just enough so that I would have the 20,000 square feet for each lot.
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 27
The DOT will most likely write a letter to me saying what they can do once
the power poles are gone and then my survey can be revised showing the
changes. If this does not work out, then I believe I would have to apply for a
variance to the 20,000 square foot requirement.
I believe that I have a unique property here. The front setbacks from the
street are huge! Almost all the townhouses that I have seen are just behind
the curb and you can only park one car in the driveway. We are about 100
feet back. The side yard dimensions are also more than required by the code.
When all the trees and evergreen trees are planted, this property will look
great!
As the owner of this property, my goal is to build these homes next summer.
Since I believe in this development with all my heart, and as a lifelong
resident of Mendota Heights, I want to not only see this development
happen, I would also like to live in this new development. Without a doubt, I
want to do a fabulous job. My hope is that people will see this as a fantastic
development and a great place to live!
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
r
l c bC
Dick Bjorklund
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 28
Dick Bjorklund Properties, LLC
2324 Field Stone Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55120-1920
Cell No. 651-261-9980
November 22, 2014
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
To the City Planner, Members of the Planning Commission,
and Members of the City Council
RE: 2511 & 2525 Condon Court ("The Oaks of Mendota Heights")
Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application
Written Statement:
1. Character: Stylishly designed and landscaped. 5 new townhomes.
10 foot ceilings, great flowing floor plan. 2 -2unit buildings, 1 single
unit building.
2. Financing: I prefer to pre -sell two—four of the units before
construction.
3. Ownership: I own the properties.
4. Development Schedule: I'd like to start construction in the spring of
2015 and fmish by the end of the year.
5. Character/Density: Quality built units that will be a welcoming
entrance to southern Mendota Heights. See survey.
6. Industrial: Not applicable, not industrial.
7. Square Footage: Not applicable, not industrial.
8. Developed Open Space: Details in the survey.
VZ9-068(56) XVJ 4409-068(S6) 3N0Hd
Z
MSS NW '3nv�sxing 'OZ16u09 LI, 'ay 'x0 'M OOSaoJ
SAO ]A flS / S2133N19N3 / Sd3NNVld
L \
�� sewer
0
0
F., z d
o
O U
U c7 p
z�
0 U N
oar
p
o=r4 raa
CV59 b
moa a�
infE
c as
0 o
P4
W Q
E
0.'
DRAWN BY
JDJ/CJK
DATE
5/4/14
IREVISIONS
10/0/14 Prop
JX
°
Ury
Z
ao
FILE N0.
1-14-053
2
cifi
(GVOEI aaoZO — - �I-
6P 'ON AYMHOIH )INfIHJ 31V.LS
_J
09L
NO I1 d3JX3
M,IZZru
zonoraa '-
(m3o naW
— n _
i=,°aTI `3
wdm boziaill - asx39rosz
bbZ9-068(56) XVJ 4409-068(LS6) 3NOad
MSc NN'�nlns g 'On liNS 'Lb as +IJ IN 0asz
Sel0A3A2111S / s2133N10N3 / sd3NNVld
�.31111 L \
II�H �� sewer
ti 6
ti�a gL
eeojj�
a
CCQ
11
In U
LV
DRAWN BY
JDJ/CJK
DATE
5/4/14
IREVISIONS
10/0/14 Prop
J
4 o
z
w
'o
FILE N0.
1-14-053
(aVOEI aaoaY— b ��<
817 ON AVM -OH )INf1ELL 31V1S
fTLZ
$ 091
Inl
_J CJI
J
NdSO ZL bIOZ/lZ/ll - Pdd960£Z
'0N1 "1SNOO aNl1N dOf 9 )IOIG
/I
� 8
d"°SelK"°'ce!
I
•-
• -
• -
L
Ir .9,ir,.B4
r
RIGHT ELEVATION
ELEVATION
Affidavit of
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 35
uublicaflon
State of Minnesota SS
County of Dakota
E. KITTY SUNDBERG being duly sworn, on oath, says that
he/she is the publisher or authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known
as SOUTH-WEST REVIEW , and has full knowledge of the facts which are
stated below:
(A) The newspaper has -complied with: -all of the requirements constituting qualification as a qualified
newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended.
(B) The printed NOTICE OF HEARING
which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each
,-7TH
week, for 1 successive weeks; it was first .published on SUNDAY , the day of
DECEMBER , 20 14 , and was thereafter printed and published on every to and
including
, the day of 20 ; and printed below is a copy of the
lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby acknowledged as being the size and kind of
type used in the composition and publication of the notice:
`ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
*ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
*abcdefghijkimnopgrstuvwxyz
Subscribed and sworn to before me on
this 8TH day of DECEMBER , 20`
1
J` 1 ' l...
Notary Public
*Alphabet should be in the same size and kind of type as the notice.
TONYA R. WHITEHEAD
Notary Public -Minnesota
My Commission Expires Jan 31, 2015
RATE INFORMATION
(1) Lowest classified rate paid by
commercial users for comparable space $25.00 per col, inch
(2) Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter $25.00 per col. inch
(3) Rate actually charged for the above matter $ per col. inch
1/14
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 36
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS.
NOTICE OF HEARING
A -PUBLIC., HEARING
ON ,. A REQUEST FOR A
:COMPREHENSIVE', , PLAN
AMENDMENT AND REZONING AT
2511 AND 2525 CONDON COURT
• TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE Is hereby given that the
Planning Commission of Mendota
Heights will 'meet at 7:00 P.M., or
,'as soon as. possible thereafter, on
Tuesday, .December, 23, 2014, Inr
.the City Hall Council Chambers,
,1101 Victoria , Curve, Mendota
Heights, - Minnesota, to consider an'.
€ application: from -Dick'Bjorkiund . to
amend the Comprehensive Plan to
allow residential uses and rezone the
properties at 2511 and 2525,Condon
Court: to R-2. Medium Density
Residential, (PID# 27-03506780-010
and 27-03500-80-022). This request
has been assigned' Planning `' Case
number 2014-36. ,
,. This notice is pursuant to Title 12
-(Zoning) of the Mendota Heights City
;Code. Such persons as desire to be
; heard with reference to this request
will be heard at this meeting..
Lorr! Smith
• City Clerk
(South-West Review: Dec. 7,12014)
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 37
Planning Case 2014-36 Public Hearing Notice Mailing List
Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a
legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning
verification. Dakota County assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data.
Map Scale
1 inch = 411 feet
12/3/2014
CITY OF
MENDOTA HEFGHTS
DATE: December 23, 2014
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 38
1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 phone 1651.452.8940 fax
www.mendota-heghts.com
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2014-37
Proposed Code Amendments — Wetlands Systems Chapter
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 Title 12, Chapter 2 of the City Code concerning wetlands systems.
BACKGROUND
Staff has identified potential code amendments concerning the wetlands permit administrative approval
process for discussion and recommendation by the Planning Commission. The goal is to clean-up and
streamline the approval process for certain activities.
ANALYSIS
As contained in DRAFT Ordinance 471, the following amendments are proposed; the rationale for each is
provided under the applicable section:
Title 12-2-6(C) ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND EXEMPTIONS
1. All proposals to adjust a W district boundary line shall follow the same administrative procedures
as outlined in section 12 -IL-7 of this title.
2. Permit application shall be processed in accordance with the procedures specified for the
processing of a conditional use permit under the city zoning ordinance.
The revision is necessary to clarify that an administrative approval process under this chapter is not
subject to the same process as a conditional use permit. Conditional use permits require a public
hearing and recommendation by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. The
purpose of an administrative approval process is to expedite the approval of qualifying applications,
in compliance with certain conditions — as in #3 below.
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 39
3. Where a project is proposed within the wetlands district, the city administrator may, at his or her
discretion, direct the appropriate staff member to review the permit request for administrative
approval when all of the following conditions exist:
a. No change from existing grades.
b. No increase in building or structure square footage.
c. Porch enclosure of an existing deck no larger than two hundred (200) square feet.
d. No increase in impervious surface coverage.
e. No reduction in natural vegetation cover.
f Compliance with all other applicable zoning regulations.
g.
Construction or repair of a private residential fence, in compliance with 12-1D-6 of this
title.
If all other conditions included in #3 are met and the fence is compliant with the applicable
construction standards, staff can approve applications for fences within a wetlands/water
resource -related area administratively. A similar process that required conditional use permit
approval for fences encroaching into rights-of-way was recently amended to allow for
administrative approval.
h. Construction of an accessory structure less than one hundred twenty (120) square feet.
The City currently does not require a building permit for an accessory structure under 120
square feet. However, the current Code requires a wetlands permit for the construction,
alteration, or removal of any structure [12-2-6(A)(4)]. As long as all other conditions and
applicable standards are met and a building permit is not required, staff can approve
applications for accessory structures within a wetlands/water resource -related area
administratively.
i. Emergency repairs to an existing structure or land that requires immediate action to
mitigate any additional negative impacts.
An expedited approval process should be allowed in this case. Examples of potential projects
include streambank or infrastructure repair, slope stabilization, or structure reinforcement.
J.
Removal of invasive terrestrial plants and noxious weeds, by agreement with the City and
in compliance with best management practices.
The City encourages this activity because of the potential benefit to native vegetation in
wetland/water resource -related areas. The agreement requirement ensures best management
practices are followed and that the permit can be revoked if violated.
k. Removal of dead, dying, or diseased vegetation, by agreement with the City and in
compliance with best management practices.
The City also encourages this activity to prevent the potential spread of emerald ash borer and
dead vegetation washing into water bodies. The agreement requirement ensures best
management practices are followed and that the permit can be revoked if violated.
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 40
4. The city administrator, or designee, may issue an administrative approval. Such approval may
include conditions if those conditions are necessary to ensure compliance with the intent and/or
specific regulations of the wetlands ordinance or other applicable regulations. If issues are found
in the application that disqualify the request from administrative approval under this section, the
city administrator shall refer the application to the planning commission for review under
subsection C2 of this section. (Ord. 441, 2-21-2012)
The revision is necessary to be consistent with 12-2-6(C)(3) above, which allows the city
administrator to direct the appropriate staff member to review an administrative permit application.
The designee would also be allowed to approve the administrative permit, which would most likely
be the Public Works Director/City Engineer or City Planner.
Title 12-2-10(A): FEES
Proposed Amendment
Base Fees: To defray administrative costs for processing of wetlands permit applications, a base fee as set
by resolution of the city council shall be paid by all applicants. Base fees as set by resolution of the city
council shall also be required for a permit renewal and for an application approved administratively as a
minor development under subsection 12 2 6 12 2 6C3 of this chapter. (1981 Code 402 § 12; amd. 2003
Code)
Rationale
The revision is necessary to clean-up the current reference to a "minor development," which no longer
exists in the Code.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the proposed Code amendments. 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 471, as presented or as amended by the Commission.
OR
2. Recommend denial of DRAFT Ordinance 471.
OR
3. Table the request, pending additional information and revisions from staff.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. DRAFT Ordinance 471
2. Planning application
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 471
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 41
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 12-2-6 AND 12-2-10 OF THE CITY CODE OF THE
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, CONCERNING
WETLANDS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain:
Section 1.
Section 12-2-6(C) is hereby amended to read as follows:
C Administrative Procedures And Exemptions:
1. All proposals to adjust a W district boundary line shall follow the same administrative procedures
as outlined in section 12-1L-7 of this title.
2. Permit application shall be processed in accordance with the procedures specified for the.
processing of a conditional use permit under the city zoning ordinance.
3. Where a project is proposed within the wetlands district, the city administrator may, at his or her
discretion, direct the appropriate staff member to review the permit request for administrative
approval when all of the following conditions exist:
a. No change from existing grades.
b. No increase in building or structure square footage.
c. Porch enclosure of an existing deck no larger than two hundred (200) square feet.
d. No increase in impervious surface coverage.
e. No reduction in natural vegetation cover.
f. Compliance with all other applicable zoning regulations.
g. Construction or repair of a private residential fence, in compliance with 12-1D-6 of this
title.
h. Construction of an accessory structure less than one hundred twenty (120) square feet.
i. Emergency repairs to an existing structure or land that requires immediate action to
mitigate any additional negative impacts.
j. Removal of invasive terrestrial plants and noxious weeds, by agreement with the City and
in compliance with best management practices.
k. Removal of dead, dying, or diseased vegetation, by agreement with the City and in
compliance with best management practices.
Ord #471 — DRAFT for Planning Commission Review page 1 of 2
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 42
4. The city administrator, or designee, may issue an administrative approval. Such approval may
include conditions if those conditions are necessary to ensure compliance with the intent and/or
specific regulations of the wetlands ordinance or other applicable regulations. If issues are found
in the application that disqualify the request from administrative approval under this section, the
city administrator shall refer the application to the planning commission for review under
subsection C2 of this section. (Ord. 441, 2-21-2012)
Section 2.
Section 12-2-10(A) is hereby amended to read as follows:
A. Base Fees: To defray administrative costs for processing of wetlands permit applications, a base
fee as set by resolution of the city council shall be paid by all applicants. Base fees as set by
resolution of the city council shall also be required for a permit renewal and for an application
approved administratively as a minor development under subsection 12 2 6 12 2 6C3 of this
chapter. (1981 Code 402 § 12; amd. 2003 Code)
Section 3.
This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication.
Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this ## day of Month, 2014.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor
ATTEST
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
Ord #471 — DRAFT for Planning Commission Review page 2 of 2
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 43
1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651452.1E350 phone 1 651.45184Qfax
CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST
Property Address/Street Location: N/A
Applicant Name: City of Mendota Heights phone: 651.452.1850
Applicant E -Mail Address: nolanw@mendota-heights.com
Applicant Mailing Address: 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Property Owner Name: N/A
Property Owner Mailing Address: N/A
Phone: N/A
Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided)
N/A
Type of Request:
1:1 Rezoning
L3 Variance
CI Subdivision Approval
IN Code Amendment
CI Conditional Use Permit
CI Wetlands Permit
LJ Critical Area Permit
Ll Lot Split
CI Conditional Use Permit for PUD
0 Preliminary/Final Plat Approval
0 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
0 Other
I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true.
1 further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above property during daylight hours.
12/01/2014
Signature of Applicant
Signature of Owner
Signature of Owner (if more than one)
Planning Application (modified 1/28/2014)
Date
Page 1 of 1
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 44
Affidavit of Publication
State of Minnesota
SS
County of Dakota
E. KITTY SUNDBERG , being duly sworn, on oath, says that
he/she is the publisher or authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known
as SOUTH-WEST REVIEW , and has full knowledge of the facts which are
stated below:
(A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualification as a qualified
newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended.
(B) The printed NOTICE OF HEARING
which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each
week, for 1 successive weeks; it was first published on SUNDAY , the 14TH day of
DECEMBER , 2014 , and was thereafter printed and published on every to and
including , the day of , 20 ; and printed below is a copy of the
lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby acknowledged as being the size and kind of
type used in the composition and publication of the notice:
*ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
*ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
*ahcdefg hijklmnopgrstuvwxyz
Subscribed and sworn to before me on
is 15TH day of DECEMBER 014
Notary Public
BY:
TITLE LEGAL COORDINATOR
*Alphabet should be in the same size and kind of type as the notice.
•
TONYA R. WHITEHEAD
Notary Public -Minnesota
My Commission Expires Jan 31, 2015
RATE INFORMATION
(1) Lowest classified rate paid by
commercial users for comparable space $25.00 per col. inch
(2) Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter $25.00 per col. inch
(3) Rate actually charged for the above matter $ per col. inch
1/14
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 45
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
NOTICE OF HEARING
A PUBLIC HEARING ON A
REQUEST FOR CITY CODE
AMENDMENTS CONCERNING
WETLANDS
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTIQE Is hereby given thdthe'i
t�
Planning, Commission: of Men
Heights will meet at 7:00 ,
as soon as ,possible therei;itenS'Or1V i1
Tuesday, . December 23,,-7Q14 , In;
the City Hall Council Chemtiers,
1101 Viotorla Curve," Mendota
Heights, Minnesota, to cbnplddf eri4l
application from the City Of Meth_.
Heights to amend oeh(ain aectloh
Title 12, Chapter 2 of the .OtrO0dC
concerning wetlands. ..This .leg4.43st,
has been assigned Ptarlhing Ch'se
number 2014.37. F :r`
Thia notice Is putsuagt, to a He'll II. 12r
(Zoning) of the Mendota Heltagltf
Code. Such portions as'deslre tate
heard• with reference to. 015; rersest,
will be heard at this meeting.
Lord Smith/.
CltlhrCllrb
(South-West,Review; Dec. 14, 2Q14)
c M CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
mil
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
December 23, 2014
Planning Commission
Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT: 2015 Meeting Calendar
12/23/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 46
1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax
www.mendota-heights.com
The following are the proposed regular Planning Commission meeting dates for 2015. All dates are the 4th
Tuesday of the month with the normal 7:00 P.M. start time. In an effort to formalize the planning
application submittal due dates for inclusion on the City website, please be prepared to discuss any potential
changes to the 2015 calendar.
January 27
April 28
July 28
October 27
February 24
May 26
August 25
November 24
March 24
June 23
September 22
December 22