Loading...
2012-05-22 Planning Comm Agenda Packet CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Agenda May 22, 2012 - 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of the Agenda 4. Approval of the April 24, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes 5. Hearings a. Case No. 2012-12: Carol Strojny, conditional use permit for a fence within 30 feet of a right of way, Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. b. Case No. 2012-13: City of Mendota Heights, zoning amendment pertaining to new property maintenance code for commercial/industrial properties. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. 6. Verbal Review 7. 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 Administration at 651-452-1850 with requests. Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 24, 2012 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 24, 2012, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7 :00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Commissioners Field, Hennes, M agnuson, Noonan, Roston, and Viksnins. Those absent: Chair Norton. Those present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, Public Works Director/City Engineer Mazzitello, City Attorney Tami Diehm and NAC Planner Stephen Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Heidi Guenther. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved moving Item 6A after Item 6C. Approval of February 28, 2012, Minutes Commissioner Magnuson requested a change on Page 3, third paragraph, it should state the sign was “not” resized by the city. Commissioner Viksnins requested a change on Page 6, in first paragraph stating the second line needs revision. Assistant to the City Administrator Sedlacek read this sentence aloud for the record stating it should read, “Mr. Bader purchased Lot 3 of Foxwood and brought a subdivision application to the City.” Commissioner Viksnins stated his comment at the bottom of Page 9 should read, “The applicant was requesting an advisory opinion.” COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY NOONAN, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 28, 2012, AS AMENDED. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 (Roston) Approval of March 27, 2012, Minutes COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 27, 2012, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Hearings PLANNING CASE #2012-10 Joe Igo 862 Wagon Wheel Trail Variance to the Side Yard Setback for a Driveway Expansion Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Joe Igo for approval of a variance to the side yard setback for a driveway expansion at 862 Wagon Wheel Trail. Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 2 Mr. Grittman noted that the applicant currently has a two-car garage with a setback from the side property line consistent with the minimum requirement of 10 feet. The current driveway edge lies approximately 11 feet from the side property line. The setback regulation for driveway surfaces is five feet from side property lines. The applicant wishes to expand the width of the driveway toward the side property line to create an additional parking space on the paved surface. Mr. Grittman presented staff’s analysis of the request , noting staff did not recommend approval of the variance as the available six feet was adequate to park a typical passenger vehicle. Staff understands that a wider surface would be more desirable; however, the requirements for a variance do not appear to be present, including a unique condition of the property, in that the five-foot setback standard has been routinely applied to new driveways throughout the community. Joe Igo, 862 Wagon Wheel Trail, presented the Commission with a sketch of his property stating the additional driving space would assist with storing vehicles in his driveway. For this reason, he was requesting an eight-foot driveway expansion, to the right side of the existing driveway, to assist in keeping his cars off the street and on his property. He explained the eight-foot expansion would better serve his needs than the six-foot expansion, while allowing for snow storage and doors of vehicles to be opened. Commissioner Hennes questioned if the applicant would be pleased with a one-foot variance. Mr. Igo stated he would be pleased with the one-foot variance. Vice-Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Vice-Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A ONE-FOOT VARIANCE FOR THE DRIVEWAY SETBACK. The motion failed for lack of a second. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR A DRIVEWAY EXPANSION BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Commissioner Roston requested an additional Findings of Fact be added to this case stating : “THIS PROPERTY HAD NO PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES AND THE PROPERTY WAS NOT UNIQUE .” The Commission agreed with Commissioner Roston’s requested addition. AYES 5 NAYS 1 (Hennes) Vice-Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its May 1, 2012, meeting. PLANNING CASE #2012-11 Dick Davern on behalf of the Convent of the Visitation School 2455 Visitation Drive Conditional Use Permit and Variances to Construct Softball Dugouts Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 3 Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Visitation School and Convent for approval of a variance for accessory building size and number to allow for two dugouts for the softball field in the northwest corner of their property. Mr. Grittman explained the Visitation property is zoned R-1 and guided as an institutional use. City Code was quite restrictive with regard to accessory structure size and number in the R-1 zoning district. Staff noted a proposed ordinance amendment that would allow non-residential uses in the R-1 district to exceed the normal residential limits have not yet been adopted by the city. He commented that Visitation would be well within the limits of this ordinance with the addition of the dugouts. Mr. Grittman indicated the proposed dugout s would complement an existing use on the property. With an enclosed with a roof, the dugouts qualify as accessory buildings, requiring a conditional use permit. The current ordinance retains the accessory building requirements for such uses under the r esidential regulations. Under current code, additional accessory building space will require a variance. Mr. Grittman presented staff’s analysis of the request and recommended approval of the variances. Staff found the structures to be consistent with the current use of the site, will have little or no visual impact on adjacent properties, and would be consistent with the terms of the proposed code amendment for accessory building construction. With these conditions, the request meets the required tests for variance approval, including reasonableness and practical difficulties. Commissioner Viksnins questioned why the dugout was considered an accessory structure. Mr. Grittman explained that structures with roofs meet the zoning codes definition for an accessory structure. Commissioner Viksnins asked for the practical difficulty in this case. Mr. Grittman noted the limitations within the R-1 zoning district given the fact this was an institutional use. Commissioner Roston requested further information on the ordinance amendment. Mr. Sedlacek explained the City Council was reviewing the amendment and had concerns with the ultimate size of an individual accessory structure within the larger square footage requirement for institutional uses within the R-1 zoning district. He stated setbacks were also being discussed. After reviewing a follow up report from staff, the City Council will take action on the amendment. Dr. Dawn Nichols, 2455 Visitation Drive, thanked staff for their presentation this evening and for the commission’s time in considering her request. She noted the dugouts would be a great addition to the softball field and would be painted in the schools colors of red and white. The dugouts would also provide safety to the players and hospitality to visiting teams. Vice-Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Vice-Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR ACCESSORY BUILDING SIZE AND NUMBER AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF F ACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT, WITH THE ADDITIONAL FINDING THE APPLICANT FACES PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IN COMPLYING WITH THE CURRENT CITY CODE. AYES 6 Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 4 NAYS 0 Vice-Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its May 1, 2012, meeting. PLANNING CASE #2012-07 Michael and Michelle Bader Variance to the Right-of-way Width for Foxwood Lane Planner Stephen Grittman explained this Public Hearing was continued from the February 28, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. He indicated the item was tabled due to the fact a number of questions were raised by the planning commission and those in attendance at the February meeting. Staff provided a summarized response to these issues. Mr. Grittman noted the first concern was the impact of approving a variance without the benefit of a subdivision plan from the applicant. Staff agreed the lack of a subdivision complicated the decision on the variance ; however, the approval of the variance does not confer any guarantee of subdivision approval. The applicant’s subdivision would need to stand on its own. Mr. Grittman stated it was suggested that a better approach to this application might have been through a Planned Unit Development (PUD) rather than a variance. Staff again agreed with this suggestion, however, the applicant has chosen to request the variance to test the acceptability of using Foxwood prior to investing significant sums in engineering a plat that might be acceptable but for the access issue. Mr. Grittman commented a neighbor raised concern with the Comprehensive Plan, and that approval of the variance would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He reviewed the Somerset Area of the Comprehensive Plan noting parts of the area have the potential to be further subdivided and the possibility exists to either extend cul -de- sacs or provide a connection between Ridgewood Drive and the cul -de-sac located in the northeast quarter of this section. From this description, the Comprehensive Plan appears to contemplate the possibility of both future subdivision and the extension of the existing roadways in the neighborhood. It would appear that the Comprehensive Plan can be read as allowing the use of Foxwood. Mr. Grittman indicated there were other issues with construction of Foxwood and the ability to make required improvements within the existing right-of-way. Staff found it was not uncommon that street and utility construction occurs outside of the existing right-of-way limits through temporary construction easements. The applicant would need to demonstrate that the street and utilities can be constructed within the right-of-way and that any necessary easements are obtained. He noted the acquisition of such easements would be a private party requirement and not a municipal responsibility. Mr. Grittman explained the applicant has provided staff with additional material related to the impact of the construction of Foxwood Lane, along with a more detailed subdi vision layout. He discussed the new 30-foot roadway alignment. Mr. Grittman presented staff’s analysis of the request and found that the requirements for variance consideration were present with this case. Staff indicated it appears that the applicant could develop the property to the extent of four new lots with a number of configurations. While the proposed subdivision results in an overly long cul -de-sac, it also appears to have the least impact on the land, in relation to grading and tree loss. Be cause the conditions resulting in the narrower right-of-way for the existing Foxwood Lane are not the result of any actions by the applicant, staff believes that the variance request can be found to be consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Viksnins questioned if the four conditions for approval had been revised by staff since the February meeting. Mr. Grittman noted the conditions were the same. Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 5 Commissioner Viksnins asked if there were any other conditions that could be added to minimize the impact on the surrounding landowners. Mr. Grittman stated the variance only addresses the construction of a 30-foot street and perhaps additional conditions should be added to the plat request. Commissioner Magnuson inquired how the applicant would proceed if the 30-foot roadway would be impossible to complete once the plat information was complete. Mr. Grittman opined that the 30-foot roadway could fit; however, the expense and need for construction easements were another issue. Commissioner Magnuson indicated Ms. Gray noted an expansion of Foxwood Lane would violate City Code 12 -1D- 4, which relates to the size of an open yard or other space. She requested further information from staff on this issue. Mr. Grittman stated this code relates to the side yard setbacks and depending on the location of the roadway, the Gray Home may not meet the City’s current requirements. The setback requirements would be addressed with the subdivision approval and not with the variance request before the commission this evening. Commissioner Hennes questioned if the subdivision would allow for four or five new buildable lots. Mr. Grittman commented Lot 1 was an existing lot and the new buildable lots would be Lots 2-5. Commissioner Roston asked if the proposed traveling surface of the road for Foxwood Lane would be 30 feet. Public Works Director Mazzitello stated current city policy has normal city streets 33 feet from face of curb to face of curb. However, based on each individual project this can be adjusted within reason to meet the engineering needs of the project. He stated the additional right-of-way, beyond the 30 feet, allowed for snow storage and utility line storage. Commissioner Roston inquired if the fire department or police department expressed concern with the roadway width. Mr. Mazzitello was not aware of any concerns. Vice-Chair Field explained this evening was a continued public hearing from the February 28, 2012 meeting. Paul McGinley, Loucks & Associates, addressed the commission speaking to the concerns raised by the commission and public at the February meeting. He noted a meeting was held with the Dakota County Transportation staff. Dakota County was not committal on this issue but provided preferences stating a through street from Delaware was preferred. Mr. McGinley reported that a second preference would be to extend Foxwood. Vice-Chair Field stated these comments were based on Mr. McGinley’s interpretation of the meeting and that no facts were before the commission this evening. Mr. McGinley stated he was advised in February to provide context on the subdivision. He stated the Bader’s have considered reducing the proposed subdivision to four total lots, the one existing lot with three new lots. He then reviewed the proposed location of Foxwood stating the Gray property side yard setback would be met through the proposed alignment and a landscape buffer would be created in this space. Mr. McGinley reviewed the survey data regarding the Lutz property noting all setbacks would be met through the proposed roadway location. Mr. McGinley noted Foxwood Lane was a public dedicated right-of-way dedicated to the public for use. A private drive surface was allowed to service the homeowners. A 10-foot drainage and utility easement ran along the west side of the roadway, which was dedicated to the public. Mr. McGinley discussed the feasibility of reconstructing the street within the available 50-foot right-of-way. He reviewed several housing developments that were created within a 50-foot right-of-way in Plymouth and Stillwater. He noted all city utilities would be located under the pavement with other utilities located adjacent to the pavement in a 30-inch trench. The impact of the reconstruction on the 50-foot right-of-way was discussed. He noted a water main was the only utility that would be brought down this roadway, along with small utilities. Storm sewer would not be extended to the new roadway. Sanitary sewer, if needed, would be brought to the new subdivision from Ridgewood. Vice-Chair Field stated the relocation of the sanitary sewer lines was the opinion of Mr. McGinley and not fact. Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 6 Mr. McGinley commented that the proposed roadway expansion would not harm the character of the neighborhood. He reviewed the comprehensive plan stating the location was guide d for R-1A zoning with 1.1 units per acre. The proposed plan by the Bader’s was .6 units per acre, which was half the density required within the comprehensive plan. Mr. McGinley then discussed the zoning code stating the proposed plan met all parcel size requirements. Mr. McGinley read the conclusions from Planner Grittman indicating the possibility exists to extend Foxwood or Ridgewood to service the Bader’s property. He added that it would not appear that the comprehensive plan can be read as precluding the use of Foxwood. Demand exists for these properties and he asserted that if the variance were not approved it would be difficult to find a reasonable way to accommodate the needs of the land locked 35 acres. Mr. McGinley provided comment on the five findings of fact for denial. He discussed the grading of the lot stating there would be a continuous 6.5% grade if access was made from Delaware, which was a difficult grade. In addition, he noted there would be heavy tree loss if access was provided from Delaware. Another alternative would be a roadway to Ridgewood and would require two or three other homeowners to agree to this 1,200-foot long roadway. It was his opinion that this alternative was impractical and unlikely. He discussed the setbacks on Lot 1, the Lutz property, stating that protecting the wetland forced the home closer to the roadway. It was his opinion that because a variance was not required with the original Foxwood Lane road width, a variance was not required at this time. This was only further stalling the development of the superblock area. Mr. McGinley indicated the extension of Foxwood would increase the length of the cul -de-sac, but was staff’s preferred location given the grading and tree loss that would be required if access were required along Delaware. Mr. McGinley thanked the commission for its time this evening and for hearing his comments based on the concerns raised at the February meeting. He requested the commission recommend approval of the variance request. Mr. Sedlacek provided clarification that examples cited by Mr. McGinley, such as the Somerset Area plat predates city code by 20 years. In addition, staff was unable to locate roadways within Friendly Hills with less than 60 feet in right-of-way. Mr. McGinley stated the roadways near the fire department had 50-foot rights-of- way. Mr. Mazzitello noted that this plat also predated the city. Vice-Chair Field thanked staff for the clarification. Mr. Sedlacek verified for the commission that contrary to the applicant’s assertion, the city would require full utilities be built at this time and not delayed until a future date. Mr. McGinley felt that this could be addressed in the subdivision plans. Commissioner Roston reiterated that the request before the commission this evening was for a variance and not the subdivision. Mr. Mazzitello provided comments to the commission based on the meeting held with the County on March 23 rd with the Baders. He stated roadway alternatives were discussed and the County found it unlikely they would approve a cul-de-sac off a County Road. There was no second preferred option noted at that time. At no time did county staff state that a through street was preferred. Vice-Chair Field thanked staff for this clarification. Bill Griffith, 1500 Wells Fargo Plaza, representing the neighbors, provided comments to the commission. He directed his comments to the 1993 plat conditions, the applicant’s inability to meet the variance requirements, and that what is being proposed may not be buildable. Mr. Griffith expressed on behalf of his clients a fair amount of frustration that a plat was not presented for this proposal. This fact was leaving the neighbors from u nderstanding the full impact of the potential plat. Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 7 Mr. Griffith explained he read all city minutes addressing the 1993 plat conditions. The concern of the residents was the protection of open spaces and natural areas. This subdivision had specific cond itions to address these areas of concern. He read the conditions aloud stating a scenic easement was required for the Gray property. This scenic easement was established in lieu of a utility easement. Vice-Chair Field questioned if the concerns being raised by the neighbors were private matters. City Attorney Diehm stated these issues were flowing into the future subdivision request. However, because this was a public hearing, she recommended the testimony be taken. Mr. Griffith continued stating the next condition of the Foxwood Plat addresses the 20-foot surface area and private drive. While a public right-of-way was provided to the city, a private drive was installed by the homeowners. This would protect the Lutz family, in particular. He stated there was a reference to the 35-foot right-of-way easement, which also protects his clients’ interests. Mr. Griffith noted the difficulty in assessing the impact on the neighbors would be impossible. This burden was to be placed on the applicant, and the applicant needed to prove there would not be a negative impact on the neighboring properties. He stated the original subdivision was approved in 1993 with three lots, several conditions and a 20-foot private roadway. The extension of the roadway was not contemplated, nor was the development of the property to the south. It was his opinion that the Baders had reasonable use of their property as a home site. Mr. Griffith indicated the roadway expansion has two major conflict points, as it will require construction easements from his clients. These easements will not be granted under any circumstances. This means the roadway cannot be built as proposed by the applicant. He requested the commission acknowledge the existence of the covenants for this neighborhood and how these covenants would affect potential building pads. Mr. Griffith recommended other alternatives be sought by the applicant, as there were no practical difficulties with this request. Commissioner Viksnins questioned how the plat conditions were tied to the variance requests. Mr. Griffith stated the essential character of the neighborhood was established through these conditions. The setbacks, wetland protection and narrow roadway created a different look and feel to this development. These essential facts create the character of the neighborhood and the intention of the City Council in 1993. The private covenants match these conditions. Commissioner Viksnins asked if the character of a neighborhood could change over 15-20 years. Mr. Griffith indicated this could happen; however, the restrictions within the original plat created the character of the neighborhood and these covenants were still be held to by the neighbors. Commissioner Noonan explained the commission could not make the determination if the subdivision was buildable at this time because a final plan was not before the city. Mr. Griffith did not agree with this statement. He indicated the limitations and protective conditions within the original plat will not allow for a roadway to be built, as it would be running over scenic easements. The city would have to vacate these easements in order to allow for the roadway to be expanded. Mr. Grittman provided comment on the separation of the variance from the potential su bdivision. Mr. Griffith indicated the plat conditions were designed to protect the character of the subdivision. There was a private drive over a public roadway. He reiterated the fact that several construction easements were needed to complete the roadway expansion and the neighbors were not interested in approving these easements. Mr. Mazzitello clarified that the city would not take responsibility for acquiring the necessary easements to complete the roadway expansion. With all private developments, this was the responsibility of the developer. In this case, that would be Mr. Bader. Michael Bader, 1673 Delaware Avenue, noted he had a written response to Ms. Gray’s letter and submitted those comments to staff. He discussed the restrictive covenants of the neighborhood understanding this was a private matter. Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 8 City Attorney Diehm recommended the commission close the public hearing and allow for comments between staff and the commission. Vice-Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 City Attorney Diehm stated this issue has many layers and encouraged the commission to focus their comments on the variance to the street right-of-way width. She then reviewed the criteria for a variance approval in detail with the commission. She asked the commission to limit the discussion to these criteria and avoid comments on the restrictive covenants or potential subdivision. The item being considered this evening is the variance of the standard street width from 60 feet to 50 feet. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH VARIANCE FROM 60 FEET TO 50 FEET FOR THE EXISTING PORTION OF FOXWOOD LANE AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Commissioner Viksnins requested the second finding of fact remove the word “concerns” and replace it with “practical difficulties.” Commissioner Noonan stated the variance approval would allow for further in-depth review of the case when a plat comes before the city. Commissioner Roston commented the fifth finding of fact refers to a “proposed subdivision.” He suggested this finding of fact be removed or amended. City Attorney Diehm supported this recommendation, as the city does not have a potential subdivision to consider. She recommended the fifth finding of fact read as follows: “USE OF FOXWOOD LANE AS PROPOSED IN THE VARIANCE APPLICATION WOULD CONSTITUTE A REASONABLE USE OF THE SUBJECT LAND CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.” Commissioner Roston offered a friendly amendment to the motion REVISING THE FIFTH FINDING OF FACT AS NOTED BY STAFF. THIS AMENDMENT WAS ACCEPTED BY COMMISSIONERS NOONAN AND VIKSNINS. Commissioner Viksnins reviewed the proposed conditions within the staff report. He recommended there be no more than three new buildable lots. Commissioner Roston suggested the commission not address this issue this evening. Commissioner Noonan agreed stating these conditions deal with the future consideration of a subdivision. City Attorney Diehm indicated the city has the right to place conditions on the variance approval. Then, when the subdivision then comes before the city, these factors can be considered. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Vice-Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its May 1, 2012, meeting. Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2012 9 Verbal Review Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #2012-08 Tim Aune Subdivision Ordinance Amendment Pertaining to Cul-De-Sac Length After direction from the Planning Commission, this case was withdrawn by the applicant. PLANNING CASE #2012-09 Barry Sommervold Wetlands Permit for Pool Construction Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:51 P.M. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Respectfully submitted, Heidi Guenther, Recording Secretary MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: May 17, 2012 MEETING DATE: May 22, 2012 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit for Construction of a Fence CASE NO: Planning Case No. 2012-12; NAC Case 254.04–12.10 APPLICANT(S): Carol Strojny LOCATION: 917 Chippewa Avenue ZONING: R-1 – One Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: LR – Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request: The applicant is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow the construction of a fence along the West and South end of the property. The property is located at 917 Chippewa Avenue, and is zoned R-1, One Family Residential. The Zoning Ordinance allows for fences up to six feet in height to encroach into rear yard and interior yard setbacks abutting a public right-of-way upon approval of a CUP (Section 12-1D-6D). Analysis: The purpose of the CUP is to ensure that the proposed fence will not interfere with the character of the neighborhood or with the general public’s health, safety, or welfare. While a three-foot high fence is permitted without approval of a CUP, the City has established the CUP process to accommodate requests where property owners have lots adjacent to public roadways and who prefer taller fences to allow for added privacy and security. 2 The applicant is proposing to construct a fence to finish surrounding the west and south ends of the property in continuance of the existing fencing already in place on the north side of the property. The applicant has also proposed to replace the existing fence on the north side of the property from a 4 foot fence to a 6 foot fence. Because the applicant’s property has frontage on Chippewa and a public alleyway, the height restrictions for fencing come into play in the rear yard of this parcel. The ordinance section in question reads as follows: D. 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 by conditional use permit when 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. The applicant is proposing to place a wooden plank style fence extending west from the northeast corner of the rear yard, then turning south and south east and running to the north east corner of the existing garage. At the southeast corner of the garage, the fence will continue and run east, adjacent to the south property line. At that point, the fence will turn north and meet up with the south side of the home. The height of the fencing materials has been proposed between 5 and 6 feet and it is not allowed to be greater than six feet (6’). In addition, the fence is proposed to be comprised of cedar planks with gaps between boards that will comply with the City’s 30% “openness” requirement applicable to all fences. These proposed materials and construction specifications have been noted by the applicant however they should still be a condition of approval because the submitted plan does not show exact fence construction plans. In previous applications of this type, the City has approved fence designs that are aesthetically pleasing in nature or fence designs that created more of a screening effect for the rear yard areas. The proposed fence appears to be visually appealing in nature. The cedar privacy fence along the west facing will provide a screening effect for the applicant’s rear yard from the public alley way. Action Requested: Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: 1. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit as requested based upon a finding that the proposed fence meets all of the Zoning Ordinance requirements and is consistent with the intent of the Conditional Use Permit criteria allowing such fences, subject to the following conditions: 3 a. The applicant shall receive a fence permit prior to installation of the fence; and b. The fence shall meet the regulations established in Section 12-1D- 6, including the six foot (6’) height maximum and the 30% open design requirement. 2. Denial of the Conditional Use Permit based on a finding that the applicant can meet the height and/or setback requirements with a standard fence design. Staff Recommendation: Planning staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed fence within the interior and rear yard setback of 917 Chippewa Avenue. The Ordinance was written to accommodate these types of requests and the proposed fence is consistent with others that have been previously approved by the City. Supplementary Materials: 1. Site Location Map 2. Application materials dated April 20, 2012 4 Draft Findings of Fact for Approval Strojny Conditional Use Permit 917 Chippewa Avenue The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the above Permit: 1. The proposed project will not impact traffic visibility in the area since the tallest portion of the fence is located approximately 15 feet from the alleyway at its closest point. 2. The proposed fence type and height continue and existing fence line along the north property line of the subject property, consistent with the established character in the area 3. The proposed fence encloses a small back yard on a relatively small lot, increasing privacy and security for the property owner. 4. The fence will not negatively impact any neighboring properties. 5. The fence complies with both the general zoning ordinance requirements for fencing as well as the specific Conditional Use Permit provisions of the ordinance. 987 963 532 990 500 1010 530 537 531 530 941 975 537 995 945 541 916 930 995 985 947 953 959 525 941 979 522 999 924 940 529 968 912 531 934 981 968 539 911 940 460 905 937 5 4 6 941 885 950 531 536 530 529 952 963 945 10151012 510 993 939 945 540 997 969 962 932 901 905 933 930 5 4 7 882 994 987 994 998 937 933 543 992 961 9 8 3 923 985 913 886 917 991 999 1007 888 954 950 963 516 536 977 971 959 992 5 5 0 955 987 960 975 993 894 938 956 542 979 993 975 965 969 987 909 913 919 927 933 964 988 926 920 904 910 914 898 1002 977 938 967 1004 1008 484 1013 1003 991 1011 900 906 908 922 928 932 936 964 968 972 976 980 984 986 988 911 1021 540 538 940 9 9 5 990 901 929 931 917 1027 1015 538 917 528 969 967 955 931 909 905 901 895 891 887 482 1000 984 1023 1003 1005 1000 1023 542 1000 1018 1026 1031 554 544 Chippewa Ave Miriam St D ie go La Simard St Fremont Ave Hiawatha Ave Annapolis St Site Location Map H ig h w a y 1 3 City Limits Parcels Water/Wetlands Major Roads City Roads 917Chippewa 917 Chippewa Avenue ^_ CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING A PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A FENCE AT 917 CHIPPEWA AVENUE 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, May 22, 2012 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Carol Strojny for a conditional use permit. The applicant is seeking to construct a six foot tall fence within the 30 foot setback to a right of way. This notice is pursuant to Title 12 (Zoning), Chapter 1 of the Mendota Heights City Code. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to this request will be heard at this meeting. Justin Miller Acting City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen W. Grittman DATE: May 17, 2012 MEETING DATE: May 22, 2012 SUBJECT: Commercial/Industrial Property Maintenance CASE NO: 254.08 APPLICANT(S): NA LOCATION: NA ZONING: NA GUIDE PLAN: NA Background: Attached to this memorandum is a updated draft of a potential Commercial/Industrial Property Maintenance Code. The outline utilizes a list of topics that is loosely designed to parallel the City’s Residential Property Maintenance Code. The proposed ordinance groups maintenance requirement topics to follow both that code, and the issues most likely to be raised based on applicable zoning regulations. As we have noted previously, the proposed code language borrows from both Eagan and Chanhassen property maintenance codes for commercial and industrial land, although streamlined to reflect Mendota Heights’ interest in a more compact code, and the City’s relatively few current maintenance issues. A Property Maintenance Code is designed to address current, ongoing maintenance concerns, as well as to provide a means to address future maintenance issues. From an enforcement standpoint, it is usually not possible to differentiate between “pre- existing” maintenance issues and newly created problems. Thus, it would typically be considered to apply to any discovered violation, regardless of when the condition may have been initiated. Essentially, this type of code is designed to deal with ongoing 2 conditions that may create a nuisance, but adds specificity to the City’s more general nuisance regulations. If a code such as this is adopted, some cities have provided notice of adoption to the subject properties, but then deferred actual enforcement for some time, up to a year. In this way, businesses have the opportunity to address any concerns and “self -police”, or even seek the opinion of the City as to where potential viol ations may arise, with time to correct before a violation would be cited. The business community has been notified of the public hearing for this item, and representatives may respond or be present to discuss the details of the code language. At this writing, staff has not received input or feedback except through internal city officials. This code is designed to apply to the condition of existing structures and site improvements, with the expectation that property is continually maintained, or that violations are brought up to the standards (zoning or building code) required at the time of their original construction. It is not designed to require existing properties to upgrade their facilities to meet newly adopted zoning or building regulations. Thus, landscaping that was planted as required screening at the time of its original approval is required to be maintained to that pre-existing standard. If the City has adopted new screening requirements that render the previous plan obsolete, the property does not need to upgrade just for purposes of maintenance – it need only keep in place what was originally approved. Most of these standards address routine maintenance, and establish a requirement that commercial and industrial property must keep their buildings and grounds in reasonably good shape to avoid becoming a depressing influence on neighboring property values. Enforcement would be by notification, and subsequent issuance of a citation when repairs are not made. A few conditions that result in nuisance, or even hazardous, conditions result in the ability of the City to act more aggressively – these more severe conditions are likely to be eligible to be pursued under existing code (such as nuisance ordinances or hazardous building statutes). The City should weigh the impact and administration of this code against the few maintenance concerns currently in commercial or industrial areas. Action Requested: Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the followi ng actions: (1) Recommendation of approval of the Commercial/Industrial Property Maintenance Code, as submitted by staff and as may be amended by the Commission. This action should include a finding that the Code will better identify maintenance issues and facilitate improved maintenance of commercial and industrial property. 3 (2) Recommendation of denial of the Commercial/Industrial Property Maintenance Code, based on a finding that current regulations have served the City adequately and there is no need for further amendment. (3) Tabling of action on the Commercial/Industrial Property Maintenance Code subject to the submission of additional comment and/or research related to the impacts of the proposed ordinance. Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of the Code as presented. Supplementary Materials: 1. Draft C/I Property Maintenance Code 1 Draft 05/14/12 Chapter 8 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE 12-8-1: FINDINGS AND PURPOSE STATEMENT: 12-8-2: DEFINITIONS: 12-8-3: BUILDING AND STRUCTURE APPEARANCE AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS: 12-8-4: MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR VACANT BUILDINGS: 12-8-5: LANDSCAPING AND GROUNDS MAINTENANCE: 12-8-6: ACCESSORY USES, BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES: 12-8-7: ACCUMULATIONS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL: 12-8-8: RUBBISH, GARBAGE AND TRASH: 12-8-9: STORM DRAINAGE: 12-8-10: ABATEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES: 12-8-1: FINDINGS AND PURPOSE STATEMENT: The City Council finds that it is in the best interest of the City to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of its citizens. To this end, the City believes that by adoption of these commercial/industrial property maintenance regulations, it will further the following objectives: A. To preserve the value of commercial and industrial property within the City; B. To protect the character and stability of commercial and industrial areas of the City; C. To provide for minimum standards of maintenance for commercial/industrial properties within the City and ensure compliance; D. Provide a mechanism to conditions upon commercial/industrial property which do not comply with the standards of maintenance established herein. E. Assist in identification and correction of dangerous or life threatening conditions that may be identified within the City. F. Provide a mechanism to mitigate potential public health issues identified within the City. 12-8-2: DEFINITIONS: All terms not defined herein shall have the meaning assigned to them in Section 12-1B-2 of this Title. If a conflict arises as to the definition of any term between this Chapter and Section 12-1B-2 of this Title, the definition in Section 12-1B-2 of this Title shall control. As used herein, the following words shall have the following meanings: 2 ACCESSORY STRUCTURE: Shall have the meaning stated in this Title. Accessory buildings or structures shall include, but are not limited to: decks, porches, detached garages, and sheds. BUILDING: Shall have the meaning stated in this Title. Buildings shall include, but are not limited to: dwellings, offices, warehouses, and stores and shall include all buildings containing commercial or industrial uses, regardless of zoning district, with the exception of legal home occupations on residentially zoned property. FENCE: Any structure, wall, or gate erected as a permanent dividing marker, partition, visual or physical barrier, or enclosure, excluding any permitted temporary fence as regulated in the zoning regulations of this Code, within a parcel of land regardless if the parcel is platted or unplatted. PROPERTY: Developed or undeveloped land, parcel or platted lot, including any building structures, and accessory structures thereon and shall include all land, parcels, or lots containing commercial or industrial uses, regardless of zoning district, with the exception of legal home occupations on residentially zoned property. STRUCTURE: Shall have the meaning stated in this Title. WEEDS: All grasses, annual plants and vegetation, other than trees or shrubs. This term shall not include cultivated flowers and gardens. 12-8-3: BUILDING AND STRUCTURE APPEARANCE AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS: A. Building Material Condition: Any building or structure is a public nuisance if its exterior does not comply with the following requirements: 1. All exterior property shall be maintained in a clean, safe, and sanitary condition. 2. No part of any exterior building surface shall have significant deterioration includ ing, but not limited to, holes, breaks, gaps, or loose or rotting materials. All exterior surfaces of the structure including, but not limited to, doors, door and window frames, cornices, porches and trim, shall be maintained in a good and safe condition. Exterior wood surfaces on the structures, other than decay resistant woods, stucco or other materials that do not normally require protection from the elements shall be protected from the elements and decay by staining, painting or other protective covering or treatment or other appropriate method acceptable to the City. With regard to broken windows, repair shall require replacement of all broken glass, or in the alternative, remodeling of the exterior by removing the window and its frame and replacing such window with exterior siding to match and blend in with the surrounding siding. B. Premise Identification: All buildings shall have approved address numbers placed in a position to be plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be 3 Arabic numerals. Numbers shall be a minimum of four (4) inches in height or larger as necessary to ensure visibility. C. Architectural Elements: All architectural elements including, but not limited to, cornices, belt courses, corbels, terra cotta trim, wall facings and similar decorative features shall be maintained in good repair with proper anchorage and in a safe condition. 12-8-4: MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR VACANT BUILDINGS: A. Maintenance: 1. Any vacant building or structure in the City that is found by an authorized employee or agent of the City to be dangerous to public safety or health by reason of the following is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and a hazardous structure or condition: a. Damaged by fire, storm, or vandalism; b. Defective chimneys or stovepipes; c. Dilapidated condition or decay; or d. Any other defect endangering the public safety or health. 2. Any vacant structure which is damaged, decayed, dilapidated, unsanitary, unsafe, vermin or rodent infested, presents environmental health risks or which lacks provisions for safe illumination, ventilation, or sanitary facilities to the extent that the defects create a hazard to the health, safety, or welfare of the occupants or of the public, may be declared unfit for human habitation or unsafe to the public by the City. 3. Whenever any vacant building has been declared unfit for human habitation or unsafe to the public, the City may proceed to declare the building a hazardous building or hazardous property and may seek to correct or remove the hazardous condition as authorized by Minnesota law. B. Security Measures. Vacant buildings shall be secured in accordance with Minnesota State Statutes 463.251 and applicable Building Code requirements. 1. Windows and doors shall be covered to prevent entry within a frame, and with covering materials, that are designed to complement or m atch those of the existing building. 2. Any part of the building, such as walls or roof, which is damaged in such a way as to allow possible entry, shall be repaired with materials that match the materials used for that part elsewhere on the building, and in a manner which masks the visible impression of vacancy. 4 12-8-5: LANDSCAPING AND GROUNDS MAINTENANCE: A. Vegetation, Trimming and Replacement (Trees and Shrubs): The owner and respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the trimming and replacement of all site trees and shrubs in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance which is free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan and which have died shall be replaced as soon as seasonal or weather conditions allow. B. Weeds: All premises and exterior property shall be maintained free from weeds or plant growth in excess of eight (8) inches. All noxious weeds shall be prohibited. C. Grass Mowing and Irrigation: All grass shall be maintained at a height not exceeding six (6) inches. All exterior property areas devoted to grass shall be maintained and irrigated (watered) as necessary to ensure vegetative health. D. Sidewalks and Driveways: All sidewalks, walkways, stairs, driveways, parking spaces and similar areas shall be kept in a proper state of repair, and maintained free from hazardous conditions. E. Parking Lots: Unless otherwise approved by the City, every lot or area used for public or private parking shall be maintained in accordance with the following requirements: 1. Pavement. Off-street parking areas shall be paved and maintained so as to eliminate dust or mud and shall be graded and drained to dispose of surface water. 2. Striping. Designated parking spaces shall be indicated and maintained on the surface of off-street parking areas with paint or other striping material approved by the City. 3. Curbing. Curb barriers (around the perimeter or within off-street parking areas) shall be maintained to so as not to exhibit any significant deterioration. F. Fencing: Any fence is a public nuisance if it does not comply with the following requirements: 1. The fence shall be firmly fastened and anchored in order that it is not leaning or otherwise in any stage of collapse. 2. The fence shall be maintained in sound and good repair and free from deterioration, loose or rotting pieces, or holes, breaks, or gaps not otherwise intended in the original design of the fence. The fence shall be free from any defects or condition which makes the fence hazardous. 3. All exterior wood surfaces of any fence, other than decay resistant woods, shall be protected from the elements by paint or other protective surface covering or treatment, which shall be maintained in good repair to provide the intended protection from the elements. 5 4. No fence section shall have peeling, cracked, chipped or otherwise deteriorated surface finish, including but not limited to: paint or other protective covering or treatment, on more than twenty (20) percent of any one linear ten-foot section of the fence. G. Grounds Adjacent to Residential Areas: All grounds adjacent to residential uses shall be maintained in a clean, safe and sanitary condition. Landscaping and screening in adjacent areas shall be maintained such that residential properties are not negatively impacted by lighting, odors, air pollution, noise, dust and other similar features p roduced by the commercial or industrial use. 12-8-6: ACCESSORY USES, BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES: A. Building Materials Condition: The exterior of all accessory structures, including but not limited to, fences and walls shall be maintained in structurally sound condition and in good repair. B. Architectural Elements: All architectural elements accessory to the principal building shall be maintained in a structurally sound condition and in good repair (as similarly required of the principal building). Architectural elements include, but are not limited to, cornices, belt courses, corbels, terra cotta trim, wall facings and similar decorative features. C. Storage and Screening: Except as specifically allowed within the applicable zoning district or as a listed exception, all materials and equipment shall be stored indoors. When allowed, materials and equipment stored outdoors shall be screened from eye level view of abutting residential zoning districts in accordance with the City’s zoning regulations and maintained as follows: 1. Maintenance of required screening (plantings, berm and/or fence) shall be the joint and several responsibility of the individual property owner, its respective agents, and/or, where applicable, the homeowners' association. 2. All fence repairs shall be consistent with the original fence design in regard to location and appearance. 3. Replacement of landscape materials or plantings shall b e consistent with the original screen (buffer yard) design. 4. All repair or plant replacement shall be done within forty-five (45) days of written notification from the Zoning Administrator. D. Signage: All signs shall be maintained in a safe, presentable and good structural condition at all times. Maintenance shall include painting, repainting, cleaning, replacement or repair of defective parts, replacement of missing letters and other necessary acts. Any sign which the City finds is in a dangerou s or defective condition shall be removed or repaired by the owner of the sign or the owner of the premises on which the sign is located. 6 E. Exterior Lighting: All light fixtures shall be maintained in good repair. Lights for illuminating parking areas, loading areas or yards for safety and security purposes shall be maintained in such a manner that the maximum illumination levels established within the City’s zoning regulations are not exceeded. 12-8-7: ACCUMULATIONS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL: A. Accumulations: Rubbish, garbage, or other hazardous and dangerous materials shall not be stored or allowed to accumulate in stairways, passageways, doors, windows, fire escapes or other means of egress. B. Hazardous Material: Hazardous substances, refuse, pollutants and contaminants, as those terms are defined by Federal, State, and local laws, shall not be accumulated or stored unless storage complies with the applicable requirements of all laws, rules and ordinances pertaining to the activity, including, but not limited to, the City's Building Code and Fire Prevention Code. 12-8-8: RUBBISH, GARBAGE AND TRASH: A. Accumulation of Rubbish and Garbage: All exterior property areas shall be free from any unreasonable accumulation of rubbish and garbage causing a nuisance. B. Disposal of Rubbish: Every occupant of a structure shall reasonably store and dispose of all rubbish and garbage in a clean and sanitary manner in accordance with all laws. C. Screening: Garbage and recycling containers shall be either: a) stored inside a building such that they are not visible from adjacent public streets or adjoining properties; or b) stored outside but fully screened from view of adjacent public streets or adjoining properties by landscaping or fencing materials. D. Collection: Discarded materials and equipment shall not be left outside for collection and disposal for more than seventy two (72) hours. Materials and equipment not awaiting collection and disposal shall not be placed outside. 12-8-9: STORM DRAINAGE: A. Public Nuisance: Stormwater runoff and drainage of roofs and other hard surfaced areas on property shall not be allowed to occur in a manner that creates a public nuisance. B. Site Grading: Except in the case of approved retention areas and reservoirs, all premises shall be graded and maintained to prevent the erosion of soil and to prevent the accumulation of stagnant water thereon, or within any structure located thereon. 7 12-8-10: ABATEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES: A. Enforcement Officials: The City Council shall enforce the provisions of this Chapter and may by resolution delegate to various officers or agencies power to enforce particular provisions of this Chapter, including the power to inspect private property. B. Notice to Abate: Whenever, in the judgment of City Council or the officer charged with enforcement of this Chapter, it is determined that a violation hereof is being maintained or exists within the City, such officer shall notify in writing the person committing or maintaining such violation and the owner of the property and require them to remedy such violation and to remove such conditions or remedy such defects. Such written notice shall be delivered to the person committing or maintaining violation and the owner of the property or may be delivered by mail. If the property is not occupied and the address of the owner is unknown, service on the owner may be accomplished in the manner specified for service in Rule 4 in the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, except in the case of an emergency and then in such case, service shall be accomplished after posting such notice for twenty four (24) hours. Such notice shall require the owner or occupant of the property, or both, to take corrective steps within a time as defined by the offic er charged with enforcement to remedy such violations, such steps and time to be designated in the notice, but the maximum time to remedy a violation after service of such notice shall not exceed one hundred twenty (120) days. In the case of severe financ ial or physical hardship, the Council may grant an extension to the time limit. Said violation shall be corrected "immediately" in the case of imminent danger to the public health, safety, or welfare. Service of notice may be proven by filing an affidavit of service in the office of the City Clerk setting forth the manner and time thereof. C. Report of Failure to Abate: When notice so given is not complied with, such noncompliance shall be reported forthwith to the city for such action as may be necessa ry and deemed advisable to abate and enjoin further continuation of such nuisance, including referring the matter to the City's prosecuting attorney to pursue a judicial remedy on behalf of the City. A violation of this Chapter shall be subject to a penalt y as provided in section 1-4-1 of this Code. D. Abatement by City: In the event the City chooses to abate said violation, the City shall adopt a resolution setting forth the specific details of the corrective matters to be taken. A copy of the resolution shall be sent to the property owner by certified mail and if the violation is not abated within ten (10) days of the mailing of said resolution, the City shall take all actions necessary to abate said violation, keeping accurate records of the cost of the same. E. Costs to Owner: The Finance Director shall prepare a bill and mail it to the owner of the property for the costs incurred by the City, including, but not limited to, administrative costs, attorney fees and costs and the costs of any outside contractor engaged by the city to correct such violation, and thereupon the amount shall be immediately due and payable to the City (the "bill"). F. Special Tax: If the bill is not paid to the City within twenty (20) days after the mailing of the bill, the City Clerk shall extend the costs of abating the violation as a special tax against 8 the property upon which the violation was located, and such special tax shall, at the time of certifying taxes to the County Auditor, be certified for collection as other special taxes are certified and collected. The City Council may specify an additional penalty for such special tax collections. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING A PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE TO ADD REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPERTY MAINTENANCE IN COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS 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, May 22, 2012 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from the City of Mendota Heights. The city council has directed staff to draft new code language regarding the maintenance of property zoned for business or industrial within the city. This notice is pursuant to Title 12 (Zoning), Chapter 1 of the Mendota Heights City Code. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to this request will be heard at this meeting. Justin Miller Acting City Clerk