2015-03-24 Planning Comm Agenda Packet
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSIONAGENDA
March 24, 2015 – 7:00 p.m.
Mendota Heights City Hall
1.Call to Order
2.Roll Call
3.Adopt Agenda
4.Approve February 24, 2015Planning Commission Minutes
5.Public Hearings(7:00 p.m. or shortly thereafter):
a.Case No. 2015-05: Alltech Engineering/Mendota Management, LLC. Variance
at 2515 Pilot Knob Road.
b.Case No. 2015-07: Nate Wissink, Elevation Homes.Lot Split and Wetlands
Permit at 747 Willow Lane.
c. Case No. 2015-08: City of Mendota Heights. Proposed amendments to the
Business and License Requirements Titleof the City Code.
6.Verbal Review
7.Staff Annoucements
8.Adjourn
Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours
in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights
will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short
notice. Please contact City Hallat 651.452.1850 with requests.
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 1
1CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
2DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
3
4PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES
5February 24, 2015
6
7The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February
824, 2015 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
9
10The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Michael
11Noonan, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson, Christine Costello and Ansis Viksnins.Those absent:
12Commissioner Howard Roston.Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall, Consulting Planner
13Phil Carlson, City Administrator Mark McNeill,andPublic Works Director/City Engineer John
14Mazzitello.
15
16Chair Field acknowledged and welcomed City Administrator Mark McNeill, the new City
17Administrator for the City of Mendota Heights.
18
Approval of Agenda
19
20
21The agenda was approved as submitted.
22
Approval of December 23, 2014 Minutes
23
24
25COMMISSIONER HENNESMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSONTO
26APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 23, 2014, AS PRESENTED.
27
28AYES: 6
29NAYS: 0
30ABSENT: 1 (Roston)
31
Planning Commission Appointments
32
33
34Chair Field introduced the new addition to the City of Mendota Heights Planning Commission,
35Ms. Christine Costello and explained that she comes with a wealth of experience from the City of
36Richfield.
37
Election of Chair and Vice-Chair
38
39
40Commissioner Viksnins moved to re-elect Chair Litton Field, Jr. and Vice-chair Doug Hennes,
41seconded byCommissioner Noonan. As there were no other motions, the nominations wereclosed.
42
43AYES: 6
44NAYS: 0
45ABSENT: 1 (Roston)
February 24, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFTPage 1
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 2
Hearings
46
47
48PLANNING CASE #2015-01
49Jacqueline Chase, 1680 Mayfield Heights Road
50Critical Area Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and Wetlands Permit
51
52Consultant Planner Phil Carlson explained that this application was to build a new single-family
53home with attached garage at 1680 Mayfield Heights Road. There were four separate applications
54or actions requested; the Critical Area Permit and the Conditional Use Permit are required for
55development in the Critical Area, the Variance request is to allow grading on the lot, and the
56Wetlands Permit because it is near and will disturb some ground near the wetland.
57
58Staff approached this application with a few key ideas in mind:
591.This lot is already built on; there is an existing home and garage.
602.There is significant development on the bluff in the vicinity, especially downhill towards
61the river.
623.The slopes in question and is the subject of the variance request is believed to be man-made
63and were not part of the original slope or bluff of the river.These slopes do not drain to the
64river; they drain to the storm pond that is west of the site.
654.The total impervious surface would be reduced with this application compared to the
66existing condition.
67
68Planner Carlson shared an image of the site inits current condition and a rendition of the site, as it
69would appear afterwards. He then explained the purpose of each application request and how the
70City Code applies to each one.
71
72Commissioners asked questions regarding the new footprint on the site, the need for fill to be added
73to the site, the standards for granting variances in the critical area, and the site disturbance
74restoration plan.
75
76Ms. Jacqueline Chasecame forward to answer any additional questions from the Commission.She
77introduced her construction team members.
78
79Chair Field opened the public hearing.
80
81Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public
82hearing.
83
84COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO
85CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
86
87AYES: 6
88NAYS: 0
89ABSENT: 1 (Roston)
90
February 24, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFTPage 2
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 3
91COMMISSIONER VIKSNINSMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO
92RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-01, CRITICAL AREA PERMIT,
93CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE, AND WETLANDS PERMITBASED ON THE
94FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
951.The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District,
96including the conditional use permit and variance standards.
972.The grades in excess of 18% impacted by the proposed project appearto have been man-
98made and drain away from the Mississippi River and will not negatively impact the
99character of the surrounding neighborhood.
1003.The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of
101the City Code and adequate erosion control measures will be observed during
102construction.
103AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1041.The landscape plan shall be revised to provide additional plantings to meet the intent of the
105DNR’s request, in consultation with the City Planner and City Engineer.
1062.Construction of the proposed improvements shall be in compliance with the City’s Land
107Disturbance Guidance Document.
1083.Building and grading permits are obtained from the City prior to construction.
109
110AYES: 6
111NAYS: 0
112ABSENT: 1 (Roston)
113
114Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 3, 2015meeting.
115
116PLANNING CASE #2015-02
117James and Mary Waldvogel, 2540 Arbor Court
118Wetlands Permit
119
120City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was seeking a Wetlands Permit to construct
121an addition and remove vegetation at 2540 Arbor Court. The subject parcel is 2.42 acres, contains
122an existing single-family dwelling abutting a wetland to the north. Planner Wall shared an image
123of the site indicating the wetland area. The property is zoned R-1 and guided for low-density
124residential development in the Comprehensive Plan.
125
126The applicant intended to construct an approximately 390 square foot addition to the existing
127single-family dwelling and an approximately 352 square foot deck on the east side of the dwelling
128extending into the rear yard. The entire structure is located within the 100-foot wetland or water
129resource related area and received a Wetlands Permit in 2005, prior to construction as part of
130Planning Case 2005-30.
131
132Planner Wall then explained the Wetlands System Chapterrequirements for construction,
133alteration, or removal any structure and for the removal of vegetation.
134
135He continued by explaining that the proposed addition/deck would be approximately 29 feet from
136the edge of the wetland. There is one tree within the rear yard they are proposing to remove. The
February 24, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFTPage 3
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 4
137deck would be constructed on posts, resulting in minimal impact to the existing grades and would
138be reviewedas part of the final grading plansubmitted with thebuilding permit application.
139Appropriate erosion control measures will be used to protect the adjacent wetland during
140construction and no disturbanceor vegetation removalwill occur withinthe 25-foot non-disturb
141buffer area, and the proposed addition/deck meets the required side and rear yard setback
142requirements. If approved, the applicants intend to begin construction this summer.
143
144Staff recommended approval of this application.
145
146Commissioners asked questions regarding the thresholds applicable to a wetlands permitandthe
147purpose of the Wetlands System Chapter.
148
149Ms. Mary Waldvogel came forward to answer any additional questions from the Commission.
150
151Chair Field opened the public hearing.
152
153Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public
154hearing.
155
156COMMISSIONER VIKSNINSMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON,
157TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
158
159AYES: 6
160NAYS: 0
161ABSENT: 1 (Roston)
162
163COMMISSIONER MAGNUSONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
164RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-02, WETLANDS PERMIT
165APPLICATION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1661.The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the
167City Code.
1682.Soil disturbance within the 100-foot wetland/water resource-related area will be minimized
169by the construction techniques utilized for the proposed project.
1703.No grading or vegetation removal within the required 25-foot non-disturb buffer area will
171occur as part of the proposed project.
1724.The proposed project complies with the setback requirements.
1735.Adequate erosion control measures will be observed during construction.
174AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1751.Building and grading permits are obtained from the City prior to construction.
1762.No disturbance, besides installation of erosion control measures during construction, will
177occur within 25 feet of the edge of the wetland.
1783.Construction shall be in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance
179Document.
180
181AYES: 6
182NAYS: 0
February 24, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFTPage 4
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 5
183ABSENT: 1 (Roston)
184
185Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 3, 2015meeting.
186
187PLANNING CASE #2015-03
188Steven Mangold, on behalf of Verizon Wireless and ISD 197, 1897 Delaware Avenue
189Conditional Use Permit
190
191City Planner Nolan Wall explained that Verizon Wireless was seeking a Conditional Use Permit
192to upgrade an existing wireless antenna facility to incorporate advanced wireless service. The
193subject parcel is the Henry Sibley High School Campus and District 197offices. The property is
194zoned R-1 and guided as a school in the Comprehensive Plan.
195
196The existing equipment consists of building-mounted antennas and related equipment for this
197specific carrier. It is located on the roof facing south. It was originally approved in 1998 as part of
198Planning Case 1998-09. The building also houses cellular antenna mounts for other carriers.
199
200Planner Wall shared images of the current antenna mounts and explained details of the upgrade
201plans.
202
203Staff recommended approval of the application.
204
205Commissioners asked questions regarding whether or not this application could have been
206approved administratively and why the representative for Verizon Wireless was not present.
207
208Chair Field opened the public hearing.
209
210Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public
211hearing.
212
213COMMISSIONER VIKSNINSMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO
214CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
215
216AYES: 6
217NAYS: 0
218ABSENT: 1 (Roston)
219
220COMMISSIONER HENNESMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
221RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-03, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
222BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
2231.The proposed project is consistent with the conditional use permit requirements allowing
224such facilities.
2252.The proposed project will not negatively affect the public health, safety and general welfare
226of the community.
2273.Upgrading the wireless antenna facility’s antennas and equipment will help increase the
228data and call capacity in the service area.
February 24, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFTPage 5
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 6
229AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
2301.The applicant shall abide by all regulations in Title 12-1D-14 of the City Code, as outlined
231in the staff report.
232
233AYES: 6
234NAYS: 0
235ABSENT: 1 (Roston)
236
237Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 3, 2015meeting.
238
239PLANNING CASE #2014-37
240City of Mendota Heights
241Proposed amendment to the Wetlands System Chapter of the City Code
242
243City Planner Nolan Wall noted that this application was brought forward at the December 2014
244meeting; however, due to the attendance at that meeting and no real need to rush this application
245through, it was subsequently tabled to bring before the full commission tonight.
246
247The City is considering various amendments to Title 12, Chapter 2 of the City Code, which is
248concerning Wetlands Systems. Staff identified potential amendments concerning the
249administrative approval process that is undertaken for Wetlands Permits. The reason for going
250through this effort would be to accommodate additional eligible activities. The proposed
251amendments were summarized in the staff report.
252
253Planner Wall highlighted some of the proposed revisions and additions to the Code.
254
255Commissioners asked questions regarding the application process for administrative approval, the
256processing time for an administrative approval, and if other areas of the Code have the same
257wording as Section 4 \[City Administrator or designee may issue an administrative approval\].
258
259Staff recommended approval of Ordinance 471 for consideration by the City Council.
260
261Chair Field opened the public hearing.
262
263Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public
264hearing.
265
266
February 24, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFTPage 6
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 7
267COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO
268CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
269
270AYES: 6
271NAYS: 0
272ABSENT: 1 (Roston)
273
274COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS,TO
275RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE 471, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
276SECTIONS 12-2-6 AND 12-2-10 OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA
277HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTACOUNTY, CONCERNING WETLANDS PERMIT
278REQUIREMENTS.
279
280AYES: 6
281NAYS: 0
282ABSENT: 1 (Roston)
283
284Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 17, 2015
285meeting.
286
287PLANNING CASE #2015-04
288City of Mendota Heights
289Proposed amendment to the Zoning Chapter of the City Code
290
291City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the City was considering various amendments to Title 12,
292Chapter 1, Article L of the City Code concerning Fees and Deposits. Staff identified potential
293amendments concerning after-the-fact permit fees.
294
295In 2014 the City processed two After-the-fact Permits involving non-permitted vegetation removal
296activities within the City. Currently, the City only has authorityto charge additional fees for after-
297the-fact Building Permits and Sign Permits. In order to charge additional fees for after-the-fact
298Zoning Permits; whichcould include Critical Area Permits, ConditionalUse Permits, Variances,
299and Wetlands Permits; the Code must be amended to actually grant that authority. Actions
300regarding after-the-fact permits are also subject to the general penalties provision of the Code.
301
302If the ordinance were approved, staff would add the following language into the Fee Schedule; “In
303addition to any other remedies available to the city, a double fee shall be charged if action requiring
304any permit required by this Title is undertaken without first obtaining a permit for such action.”
305
306Staff recommended approval of Ordinance 473 for consideration by the City Council.
307
308Commissioners asked questions regarding the typical range on a double fee, any leeway in
309determining the penalty fee based on the violation, and what remedies are available if a violator
310decides to not apply for an after-the-fact permit.
311Chair Field opened the public hearing.
312
February 24, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFTPage 7
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 8
313Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public
314hearing.
315
316COMMISSIONER MAGNUSONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
317CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
318
319AYES: 6
320NAYS: 0
321ABSENT: 1 (Roston)
322
323COMMISSIONER MAGNUSONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
324RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 473 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
325SECTION 12-1L-10 OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS,
326MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, CONCERNING AFTER-THE-FACT PERMIT
327APPLICATION FEES
328
329Chair Field statedthat he was thinking ‘double the fee but not less than . . .’ $250 or $500 so it
330does have some bite to it. Planner Wall pointed out that the fee for a fence, a wetlands permit, or
331a variance is pretty modest for an application versus a conditional use permit. He asked if they
332should be treated the same or is that built in for the penalty in regards to the original fee in and of
333itself.
334
335Chair Field continued by saying that the fees are intended to be modest so that they are not so
336prohibitive that people might deliberately avoid filing for an application. In this case they may
337have unwittingly or they may have deliberately gone about the activity and avoided the fee. Then
338he would not feel quite so charitable about the fee, and maybe it’s not $500; maybe it’s $250 – but
339some number where it actually does compensate the City for staff time, planning commission time,
etc.
340
341
342Commissioner Noonan agreed with Chair Field’s suggestion so the penalty at least covers the
343City’s expenses.
344
345Commissioner Magnuson commented that she is allright with that with respect to people who
346apparentlyintentionally disregarded the Code or sort of blindly go forward without regard to even
347investigating. However, there are a lot of permit requirements in the City that a lot of people do
348not know about and it could very easily slip into a situation where you do something innocently
349and realize after-the-fact that you should have had a permit and you do everything you can to make
350amends. Those people do not need to be punished with an absolute dollar amount. She would be
351in favor of heftier penalties for those who willfully violate but it would be nice if there was some
352discretion to deal with the situation for the person who innocently does not understand or does not
353know that there is a requirement.
354
355Chair Field noted that trying to differentiate between an innocentor willful violation puts the
356Commission in the position of judge and jury. Arguably it still consumes a fair amount of time to
357go back and reconstruct the situation before the violation or the work that was done without a fee.
358
February 24, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFTPage 8
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 9
359Commissioner Noonan proposed that the Code addition read as follows: “In addition to any other
360remedies available to the city, a double feeor $250, whichever is greater,shall be charged if action
361requiring any permit required by this Title is undertaken without first obtaining a permit for such
362action.” Commissioner Magnuson agreed to this change to the motion.
363
364AYES: 6
365NAYS: 0
366ABSENT: 1 (Roston)
367
368Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 17, 2015
369meeting.
370
2014 Planning Department Summary
371
372
373City Planner Nolan Wall reviewed the list of accomplishments completed by the Planning
374Commission, the Consulting Planner, and the Planning Department –in cooperation with other
375city departments – in 2014.
376
Verbal Review
377
378
379Planner Wall gave the following verbal review:
380
381PLANNING CASE #2014-36
382Dick Bjorklund Properties, LLC, 2511 and 2525 Condon Court
383Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment
384•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission
385•Approved by the Metropolitan Council
386•Applicant is now working on the Preliminary Plat for further consideration of that project
387
Staff Announcements
388
389
390An open house for the Lemay Shores Development was held on January 22, 2015
391Site clearing is finished and surrounding residents have been updated on the
o
392progress
393Site grading and construction of the roadway will commence as soon as the trucks
o
394and equipment can be moved in
395They plan to have the model home open by August 2015
o
396The Council had a broad discussion at their workshop meeting for planning-related items
397They covered the after-the-fact permit request, which will hopefully be brought
o
398forward soon
399The keeping of chickens as pets was addressed and they determined that this was
o
400something that they did not wanted to pursue –so chickens are still not allowed in
401the residential zoning districts
402They discussed the regulations on tear-downs and direction from the City Council
o
403will be brought to the Planning Commission for review this summer
404
February 24, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFTPage 9
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 10
Adjournment
405
406
407COMMISSIONER MAGNUSONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO
408ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:25 P.M.
409
410AYES: 6
411NAYS: 0
412ABSENT: 1 (Roston)
February 24, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFTPage 10
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 11
DATE:
March 24, 2015
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT:
Planning Case 2015-05
Side Yard Setback Variance Request
APPLICANT:
Alltech Engineering Corporation/Mendota Management, LLC
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
2515 Pilot Knob Road
ZONING/GUIDED:
I-Industrial/I-Industrial
ACTION DEADLINE:
May 4, 2015
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant isseeking a variance from the side yard setback standards to construct an addition to the
office/warehouse building at 2515 Pilot Knob Road.
BACKGROUND
The subject parcel is 4.34acres (189,067 square feet) and contains an existing office/warehouse building
on the southwest corner of the Pilot Knob Road/Mendota Heights Road intersection. The parcel is zoned
and guidedas I-Industrial. The applicants intend to construct an approximately 2,363-square foot (40’-6”
by 59’-4”) addition to the northeast corner of the building. The north side of the addition would encroach
into the side yard setback along Mendota Heights Road.
A variance request for a similar project was approved in 2008, as part of Planning Case 2008-12. According
to Title 12-1L-5(F) of the City Code, a variance becomes void one year after approval unless made use of
within the year or a longer period prescribed by the Council. No action was taken since the original approval
and an extension was not granted by the City Council; therefore a new variance request must be considered.
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
The subject parcel is guided I-Industrial in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant’s request to
construct an addition to the existing building is consistent with the continued use as an office/warehouse.
Side Yard Setback Variance
Title 12-1G-17(G) of the City Code requires a 40-foot side yard setback abutting a street in the Industrial
District. The existing building’s side yard setback along Mendota Heights Road ranges from 22.8’ to 21’-
3 5/8”. Due to the building’s angle in relation to the right-of-way, the setback is inconsistent along the 250
feet of existing frontage (see Site Plan).
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 12
Industrial Zoning District Setbacks
YardStandardProposed Addition
Front Yard (Pilot Knob Road)40’94’-6”
Side Yard (Mendota Heights Road)40’21’-5/8”
Side Yard (Interior)30’167.1’
Rear Yard50’202’
Source: Title 12-1G-17(G)
The proposed addition would extend the northeast corner of the building an additional 40.5 feet to the east
along the existing north wall, which creates a side yard setback of approximately 21’-0 5/8”. As a result, the
variance request is for approximately19 feetfor the side yard abutting Mendota Heights Road.As shown
in the table above, the proposedaddition meets the Industrial District’s other setback requirements.
According to the applicant, the proposed addition is necessary to accommodate additional office spacein
alignment with the existing building. As shown in the attached floor plans, the proposed addition would
expand the existing office areaand better serve the needs of the company and employees.
When considering a variance for the proposed addition, the City is required to find that:
1.The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive
plan and the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner.
An expansion of the existing office/warehouse building in the Industrial District is a reasonable use of the
property and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The existing building is non-conforming from the
required side yard setback along Mendota Heights Road and the proposed addition would encroach only
three inches further than the existing condition.
2.The applicant establishes there are practical difficulties with complying with the ordinance due to
circumstances that are unique to the propertywhich are not created by the applicant or based on
economic considerations;
The building was purchased by the applicantin 1995 and the north building wall has remained in its existing
location along Mendota Heights Road. It is unknown what the Industrial District’s side yard setback
standardswere when the building was originally constructed in 1965. Therefore, the building’slocation on
a corner lot with an existing encroachment is a unique circumstance not created by the applicant.
The applicant has established that practical difficultiesexist in expanding the building to fit their current
needs in compliance with the Code’s side yard setback standards. As noted inthe applicant’s letter of
intent, other design alternatives were considered as part of the 2008 application review process. An
alternate addition constructed on the east end of the building, in compliance with the side yard setback
standards, would require the existing entrance to be relocated, mature trees to be removed, and be disruptive
to the business operations. However, the potential cost of a compliantexpansion project cannot be
considered as a finding for approval of the variance request in this case.
3.The request will not alter the essential character of the locality.
The proposed project to extend the existing north building wall along Mendota Heights Road, with an
insignificant increase in encroachmentfrom the existing condition, will not negatively impact the
surrounding properties. In addition, the property will still maintain a front yard setback of nearly 100 feet
from Pilot Knob Road with a maintained lawn and mature treesto offset the extended encroachment along
Mendota Heights Road.
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 13
ALTERNATIVES
Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions:
1.Recommend approval of the variance request for construction of an addition within the required
side yard setback area based on the attached findings of fact, with conditions.
OR
2.Recommenddenial of the variance request for construction of an addition within the required side
yard setback area based on the findings of factthat a practical difficulty is not established and
expansion alternatives exist that donot require a side yard setbackvariance.
OR
3.Table the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the variancerequestfor construction ofthe proposed addition within the
required side yard setback areabased on the attached findings of fact (Alternative #1),with the following
conditions:
1.A building permit be obtained prior to construction of the addition.
2.The applicant shall submit grading plans and a dimensioned site plan with associated easements,
subject to review and approval by the City Engineering Department as part of any building permit
application.
3.Any land disturbance activities must be in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance
document.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1.Aerial site map
2.Site photos
3.Planning Applications, including supporting materials
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 14
FINDINGS OF FACT FORAPPROVAL
Side Yard Setback Variance Requestfor Building Addition
2515 Pilot Knob Road
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of the proposed request:
1.The proposed addition is a reasonable use of the property, meets the purpose and intent of the
City Code, and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2.The improvements to Mendota Heights Road created a unique circumstance upon the property
not created by the applicant.
3.The building’s location on a corner lot with an existing encroachment is a unique circumstance not
created by the applicant.
4.The proposed addition represents a small increased encroachment into the side yard while still
maintaining a large front yard setback.
5.The applicant has considered alternatives to the proposed addition.
6.The proposed addition will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 15
Planning Case 2015-05
City of
Alltech Engineering
Mendota
2515 Pilot Knob Road
090
Heights
Date: 3/3/2015
SCALE IN FEET
1415
1415
2515
2515
2506
25352535
25352535
Aerometrics
GIS Map Disclaimer:
This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,
survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained
in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors
or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 16
Planning Case 2015-05
Site Photos: 2515 Pilot Knob Road
Source: Staff (03.13.15)
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 17
MENDOTA MANAGEMENT LLC
2515 Pilot Knob Road
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
Cell Phone: (612) 963-4339 Fax: (651) 452-5592
March 4, 2015
Planning Commission
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Attn: Planning Commission
Mendota Management LLC is requesting a variance to the side yard setback requirement of 40’-0” to enable
expansion of its building located at 2515 Pilot Knob Road. The building currently has a setback of 21’- 3 5/8”
or greater on its north side along a length of 250’ of Mendota Heights Road. The proposed expansion would
extend the length of the building no more than 40’6” at the existing setback.At the northeast corner of the
addition the setback would be 21’- 0 5/8”. The building was constructed prior to an extension of Mendota
Heights Road which created the current setback requirement.
This same variance request was granted in 2008 by Mendota Heights City Council, but because of the recession
Alltech Engineering Corp did not move forward withthe addition at that time. Instead, other less costly
improvements were madewithin the existing structurethat expanded office space. Once again, due to growth,
Alltech must expand itsoffice.This location is Alltech Engineering’s corporate headquarters. It is Alltech’s
goal to continue to grow in this location, if expansion is feasible.
The request for variance is based on practical difficulties forMendota Management and its sole tenant, Alltech
Engineering Corp. Thesedifficulties include:
1)We have reviewed a variety of options for expanding the building using the open space at the East end
of the property. It is our assessment that all other options beside the proposed expansion would create
significant disruption to Alltech’s operations and/or substantial additional construction cost. Disruption
to Alltech’s operations would be most severe during the construction process, and might require the
company’s temporary relocation.
2)The zoning change limits Mendota Managements ability to expand the building in accordance with
original expansion plans for the property. These limitations include moving the building’s entrance,
potential encroachment on the sidewalk and parking surface, and changes to the property’s landscaping
that will both result in additional cost and degrade the property’s appearance.
Because of our desire to protect our property value, we have also considered the issue of preserving the
neighborhood’s character. The expanded building will still have a 94’6” setback from Pilot Knob Road with a
maintained lawn and mature trees. Other plans we explored do not allow preservation of either a contiguous
lawn near the building’s entrance or preservation of mature trees of similar type and age as those onadjacent
properties.
Thank you for your consideration of our request.
Sincerely,
Robert Lawrence
Mendota Management LLC
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 18
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 19
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 20
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 21
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 22
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 25
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 26
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 27
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/C...33201
o//5
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 28
DATE:
March 24, 2015
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT:
Planning Case 2015-07
Subdivision Request for Lot Split and Wetlands Permit
APPLICANT:
Nate Wissink, Elevation Homes
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
747 Willow Lane
ZONING/GUIDED:
R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE:
May 4, 2015
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant, on behalf of the property owner, is seeking approval to subdivide the subject parcellocated
at 747 Willow Lane. The request requires City approval before being recorded with Dakota County. In
addition, construction of single-family dwellings on the newly-created parcels will causesoildisturbance
and vegetation removal within a wetland/water resource-related area, which requires a wetlands permit.
BACKGROUND
The subject parcelis approximately 1.21acres (52,708 square feet) and contains an existing single-family
residential dwelling. In addition, the northwest corner of the subject parcel is traversed by Marie Creek
(see attached Aerial Map). The parcel is zoned R-1 and is guided for low density residential development.
If the requests are approved, the existing dwelling would be demolished and two new single-family homes
would be constructedwithin the building pads shown on the proposed Building Exhibit.
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
The subject parcel is guided LR, Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.The applicant’s
request to subdivide the subject parcel into two parcels, consisting of approximately 0.60 acreseach, is
consistent with the LR maximum density of 2.9 units per acre.
Lot Split
Title 11-3-2 of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the
resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district. According to the
Certificate of Survey included as part of the application submittal, and shown in the table below, both
proposed parcels meet the R-1 lot standards.
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 29
R-1 Zoning District Standards
StandardParcel AParcel B
15,000 sq. ft.25,903sq. ft. 26,533sq. ft.
Lot Area
(0.34 acres)(0.59acres)(0.61acres)
Lot Width100 ft.106.8ft.105.2ft.
Source: Building Exhibit/Certificate of Survey
The proposed Building Exhibitincludes therequired setbacks for future principal structures on the newly-
created parcels; actual compliance will be verified upon submission of building permit applications based
on the proposed dwellings’ design.
Wetlands Permit
The purpose of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the City Code is to (Title 12-2-1):
Provide for protection, preservation, maintenance, and use wetlands and water resource-related
areas;
Maintain the natural drainage system;
Minimize disturbance which may result from alteration by earthwork, loss of vegetation, loss of
wildlife and aquatic organisms as a result of the disturbance of the natural environment or from
excessive sedimentation;
Provide for protection of potable fresh water supplies; and
Ensure safety from floods.
As shown in the attached maps, the 100-foot wetland/water resource-relatedarea encompasses the
northwest portion of the subject parcel. Based on the proposed building pads, construction of the new
dwellings on Parcels A and Bwill require grading and vegetation removal within this area; therefore a
wetlands permit is required.
According to the applicant, up to seven substantial, healthy trees will be removed. Associated grading will
disturb other insignificant ground vegetation on both parcels, much of which is dead or dying (see attached
photos). In addition, the following is the proposed scope of further disturbance in the impacted area:
“The area is currently a combination of overgrown woods and yard. We anticipate some
re-grading on our sites that would mitigate the topography change currently on the lots
(especially on Parcel A) and allow the yard to be more usable. We would grade into the
100-foot buffer to clean up the vegetation and allow the woods to grow healthier (clean up
brush, noxious weeds, etc). The hope is that at the end of the project the yards would
be more usable, but the trees and woods would be healthier based on us cleaning up
the overgrowth.”
After construction, vegetation is proposed to be replanted within the disturbed area. Proposed erosion
control measures are shown on the Building Exhibit, which will be reviewed in greater detail by the
Engineering Department as part of the building permit applications.
Stream bank erosion has taken place along Marie Creek in the past. The 25-foot non-disturb buffer area
that is now part of the wetlands permit review process helps to protect stream banks from surface runoff
caused by impervious surfaces. With the non-disturb area in place, erosion is more likely to be caused by
the velocity of water moving within the creek itself than is likely from surface runoff.
ALTERNATIVES
1.Recommend approval of the subdivision and wetlands permit requests, based on the attached
findings of fact that, with conditions.
OR
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 30
2.Recommend denial of the subdivision and wetlands permit request, based on the finding of fact that
the proposed subdivision and associated construction activities are not consistent with the City
Code or Comprehensive Plan.
OR
3.Table the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the subdivision and wetlands permitrequests based on the attached findings
of fact (Alternative 1), with the following conditions:
1.The existing single family dwelling is demolished prior to the subdivision being recorded by
Dakota County.
2.Park dedication fee in the amount of $2,700, in lieu of land, is collected after City Council approval
and before being recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any additional permits by the City.
3.Street reconstruction assessment feein the amount of $3,900,as part ofBunker Hills Street
Reconstruction 95-14/Improvement 96-3, iscollected after City Council approval and before being
recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any additional permits by the City.
4.The applicant shall dedicatethe following drainage and utility easementson both newly-created
parcelsto be denoted on the Certificate of Survey submitted to Dakota County:10-foot wide along
the front property lines; 5-foot widealong the rear property lines;and across the entire 25-foot non-
disturb buffer area from the edge of Marie Creek.
5.Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall bepaid prior to issuance of a building
permit.
6.The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site planwith associated
easements, subject to review and approval by the City Engineering Departmentas part of any
building permit application.
7.No disturbance, besides installation of erosion control measures during construction, shall occur
within25 feet of the edge of Marie Creek.
8.Any land disturbance activities shall be in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance
document.
9.A Landscape Plan is submitted for review by the Planning Department showing vegetation to be
re-planted within the 100-foot wetland/water resource-related areaafter construction.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1.Aerial site map
2.Site photos
3.Planning Applications, including supporting materials
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 31
FINDINGS OF FACT FORAPPROVAL
Subdivision Request for a Lot Split and Wetlands Permit for Construction and Vegetation Removal
747Willow Lane
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1.The proposed lot split and construction activities meetthe purpose and intent of the City Code
and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2.No grading or vegetation removal within the required 25-foot non-disturb buffer area will occur
as part of the proposedconstructionprojects.
3.Adequate erosion control measures will be observed during construction.
4.Vegetationwill be replanted in the disturbed areas after construction is completed.
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 32
Planning Case 2015-07
City of
747 Willow Lane
Mendota
050
Heights
Date: 3/7/2015
SCALE IN FEET
765
727
724
755
747
720
737
Marie Creek
25-foot Non-disturb Buffer
748
100-foot Wetland Buffer
Aerometrics
GIS Map Disclaimer:
This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,
survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained
in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors
or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 33
Planning Case 2015-07
Site Photos: 747 Willow Lane
Source: Staff (03.16.15)
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 34
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 35
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 36
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 39
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 40
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 41
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/C...33201
o//5
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 42
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/C...33201
o//5
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 43
DATE:
March 24, 2015
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT:
Planning Case 2015-08
Proposed Code Amendments – Peddlers, Solicitors, Canvassers and
Transient Merchants
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 3, Chapter 3 of the City Code concerning peddlers, solicitors,
canvassers and transient merchants. The existing chapter would be repealed and replaced by the proposed
language included in DRAFT Ordinance 475.
BACKGROUND
Planning Commission review and comment is being sought in this case because of the proposed amendment
to permit mobile food trucks in the Industrial Zoning District. Section 7 of the DRAFT ordinancecontains
the proposed regulationsfor review and discussion.
The existing Industrial District contains a mix of office and warehouse uses and lacks certain amenities,
especially food service options. As a result, staff receives occasionalinquiries to allow mobile food trucks
in the City. In the past, mobile food trucks for special events have been approved administratively.
ANALYSIS
As contained in Section 7 of DRAFT Ordinance 475, the following regulations for mobile food trucks are
being proposed:
3-3-6: MOBILE FOOD TRUCKS
For purpose of this Chapter, the intent is to regulate how mobile food truck vendors sell food and or non-
alcoholic beverages to the general public within the corporate city limits.
A.Registration Required.
1.It shall be unlawful for any mobile food truck vendor to sell, or offer for sale, any food or
beverage without first registering with the City Clerk, or his/her designee.
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 44
2.Not later than thirty (30) days after filing of a completed application, the applicant shall be
notified of acceptance or denial of registration.
3.The application shall be accompanied by proof of insurance and approval of any and all health
department requirements whether from Dakota County or the State of Minnesota.
4.Mobile food truck vendors shall carry $1,000,000 of combined single limit Bodily Injury and
Property Damage Auto liability, $1,000,000 of General Liability coverage including Products
and Completed Operations. A certificate of insurance shall be provided to the city prior to the
issuance of a permit.
The intent is to permit the use by registration; not by license, as is the case with other businesses in the City.
The purpose of registering is to verify that insurance and permits from other agencies are valid and to
provide the vendor with the operational requirements in (B) below.
B.Operations requirements. Mobile food truck vendors shall operate under the following conditions:
1.Hours of operation are limited to between 9:00 AM and 2:00 PM.
2.All proper licenses must be valid.
3.Vendors shall be parked on private property with the property owner’s permission and shall
not be parked within any public street, right-of-way or sidewalk unless saidstreet has been
closed for a special event, as approved by the City Council.
4.Vendors shall be responsible for the proper disposal of waste and trash associated with the
operation. City trash receptacles are not to be used for this purpose. Vendors shallremove
all waste and trash from their location at the end of each day or as needed to maintain the
health and safety of the public. The vendor shall keep all areas within ten (10) feet of the truck
clean of grease, trash, paper, cups or cans associated with their operation. No liquid waste or
grease is to be disposed into tree pits, storm sewer drains or onto sidewalks, streets or other
public space. Under no circumstances shall grease be released into or disposed of into the
City’s sanitary sewer system.
5.There shall be no audio amplifier or similar device to attract the attention of the public.
6.No tables, chairs or other structures, except those to hold/display condiments, shall be allowed
outside of the food truck.
7.Advertising consisting of business name, logo, and items available for sale may be displayed
on the food truck. No other form of advertising shall be permitted.
8.The mobile food truck owner or his/her designee shall be present at all times except in an
emergency.
Operational requirements are being proposed in order to mitigate potential negative impacts to public streets
and surrounding properties. Vendors will be supplied with the requirements and held accountable if they
are not followed. Since mobile food trucks would only be located on private property, the property owner
can also establish their own rules and regulations in addition to the proposed Code standards.
C.Location. Mobile food truck vendors may operate within the following zoning district(s): I-Industrial.
As proposed, mobile food trucks would only be permitted in the Industrial District. As noted, this area of
the city contains limited food service options, especially lunch for the current workforce. In addition, it
would limit potential competition with existing brick-and-mortar restaurants in the mixed use and business
zones in the city.
Public Hearing Notice
The attached letter was mailed to all property owners in the Industrial District. In addition, the DRAFT
ordinance is posted on the City’s website and contact was made with property managers to solicit further
review and comment.
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 45
ALTERNATIVES
Following the public hearing and further discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following
actions:
1.Recommendapproval of DRAFT Ordinance 475, as presented or as amended by the Commission.
OR
2.Recommend denial of DRAFT Ordinance 475.
OR
3.Table the request, pending additional information and revisions from staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the proposed code amendment, specifically the
proposed regulations regarding mobile food trucks. If acceptable to the Commission, action can be taken
at this month’s meeting. Staff would proposeto bring back any suggested revisions for review at a future
meeting prior to making a recommendation to the City Council.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1.Industrial District map
2.Public Hearing Notice letter
3.DRAFT Ordinance 475
4.Planning Application, including supporting materials
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 46
City of
INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT
Mendota
01,000
Heights
Date: 3/19/2015
SCALE IN FEET
ACACIA BLVD
AVE
URLONG
F
LN
KENDON
AVE
AKEVIEW
L
MENDOTA HEIGHTS RD
DR
NORTHLAND
I-
3
I-5
494E
R
A
M
P
Aerometrics
GIS Map Disclaimer:
This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,
survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained
in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors
or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 47
March 12, 2015
RE: Public Hearing – DRAFT Ordinance 475
Dear Property Owner:
The City is considering adopting regulations to permit mobile food trucks on private property in the Industrial
District, which includes your property. A public hearing on the DRAFT ordinance will be held at the next
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission, .
In order to provide the opportunity to review the proposed regulations and provide comments, a copy of the
DRAFT ordinance will be posted on the City’s website by Monday, March 16:
http://www.mendota-heights.com/
The proposed mobile food truck regulations are contained in Section 7 of DRAFT Ordinance 475.
Please pass this information along to any tenants or other stakeholders who may be interested in providing
comments on this issue. If you have any further questions, please contact me at nolanw@mendota-heights.com
or 651-255-1142.
Sincerely,
Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
Enclosure: Planning Case 2015-08 Public Hearing Notice
cc/ec: Planning File #2015-08
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 48
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 475
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3-3 OF THE CITY CODE OF THE
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, CONCERNING
PEDDLERS, SOLICITORS, CANVASSERS AND TRANSIENT MERCHANTS
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain:
Section 1.
Title 3, Chapter 3 is hereby repealed and replaced.
Section 2.
3-3-1: DEFINITIONS:
Except as may otherwise be provided or clearly implied by context, all terms shall be given their
commonly accepted definitions. For the purpose of this ordinance, the following definitions shall apply
unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning.
PERSON: Any natural individual, group, organization, corporation, partnership, or similar association.
PEDDLER:Any person, whether a resident of the City of Mendota Heights or not, who goes from house-
to-house, door-to-door, business-to-business, street-to-street, or any other type of place-to-place
movement, for the purpose of offering for sale, displaying for exposing for sale, selling or attempting to
sell, and delivering immediately upon sale, the goods, wares, products, merchandise, or other personal
property that the person is carrying or otherwise transporting. For purpose of this chapter, the term
“Peddler” shall have the same common meaning as the term “Hawker.”
SOLICITOR: Any person, whether a resident of the City of Mendota Heights or not who goes from
house-to-house, door-to-door, business-to-business, street-to-street, or any other type of place-to-place
movement, for the purpose of obtaining or attempting to obtain orders for goods, wares, products,
merchandise, other personal property, or services of which he or she may be carrying or transporting
samples, or that may be described in a catalog or by other means, and for which delivery or performance
shall occur at a later time. The absence of samples or catalogs shall not remove a person from the scope of
this provision if the actual purpose of the person’s activity is to obtain or attempt to obtain orders as
discussed above. For purposes of this ordinance, the term “Solicitor” shall have the same meaning as the
term “Canvasser.” For purposeof this ordinance, the term “Door-to-Door Advocate” shall also fall under
the term “Solicitor.”
TRANSIENT MERCHANT:Any person, firm or corporation, who temporarily sets up business out of a
vehicle, trailer, boxcar, tent, other portable shelter, or empty store front for the purpose of exposing or
displaying for sale, selling or attempting to sell, and delivering goods, wares, products, merchandise, or
other personal property and who does not remain in any one location for more than fourteen (14)
consecutive days.
NON-COMMERCIAL DOOR-TO-DOOR ADVOCATE:Any person who goes door-to-door for the
primary purpose of disseminating religious, political, social, or other ideological beliefs. For purposes of
this Ordinance, the term door-to-door advocate shall fall under the term solicitor and include door-to-door
canvassing and pamphleting intended for non-commercial purposes.
Ord #475 – 03.24.15 Planning Commission Review page 1 of 6
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 49
PROFESSIONAL FUNDRAISER:Any person, including a corporation or other entity, who, for
compensation, performs any solicitations or other services for a religious, political, social, or other
charitable organization.
MOBILE FOOD TRUCK: A motorized vehicle or pushcart that is designed and operated for the purpose
of preparing and or selling food and non-alcoholic beverages to the general public within the corporate
city limits.
VENDOR: A person who hawks, peddles, sells or offers food for sale.
Section 3.
3-3-2: EXCEPTIONS TO DEFINITIONS:
For the purpose of this chapter, the terms Peddler, Solicitor and Transient Merchant shall not apply to:
A.Non-commercial Door-to-Door Advocates. Nothing within this ordinance shall be interpreted to
prohibit or restrict Non-Commercial Door-to-Door Advocates.
B.Any person who makes initial contacts with other people for the purpose of establishing or trying to
establish a regular customer delivery route for the delivery of perishable food and dairy products,
such as baked goods or milk.
C.Any person making deliveries of perishable food and dairy products to the customers on his or her
established delivery route.
D.Any person making deliveries of newspapers, newsletters, or other similar publications on an
established customer delivery route, when attempting to establish a regular delivery route, or when
publications are delivered to the community at large.
E.Any person conducting the type of sale commonly known as garage sales, rummage sales, or estate
sales.
F.Any person participating in an organized, multi-person bazaar or flea market.
G.Any person conducting an auction as a properly licensed auctioneer.
H.Any officer of the court conducting a court-ordered sale.
Exemption from these definitions shall not, for the scope of this chapter, excuse any person from
complying with any other applicable statutory provision or requirement provided by another city
ordinance.
Section 4.
3-3-3: PROHIBITION OF PEDDLERS, SOLICITORS AND TRANSIENT MERCHANTS:
A.Prohibition of Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants. The practice of going in and upon
private residences in the City of Mendota Heights, by Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants,
not having been requested or invited to do so by the owner or owners of said private residences for
the purpose of sale, displaying for exposing for sale, selling or attempting to sell, and delivering
immediately upon sale, the goods, wares, products, merchandise, or other personal property that the
person is carrying or otherwise transporting or that may be described in a catalog or by other means,
and for which delivery or performance shall occur at a later time, is hereby declared to be a nuisance
and punishable as a misdemeanor.
B.Authority of Law Enforcement to Enforce this Ordinance. Law Enforcement for the City of Mendota
Heights are hereby required and directed to suppress the activities of Peddlers, Solicitors and
Transient Merchants and to cite any such nuisance as is described in Section 3-3-3(A).
Ord #475 – 03.24.15 Planning Commission Review page 2 of 4
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 50
Section 5.
3-3-4: EXCEPTIONS TO PROHIBITION OF PEDDLERS, SOLICITORS AND TRANSIENT
MERCHANTS:
For the purpose of this chapter, persons engaging in the following activities shall be exempt from the
prohibitory activities in Section 3:
A.Any person selling, or attempting to sell, or to take or attempt to take orders for, any product grown,
produced, cultivated, or raised on any farm.
B.Any person going from house-to-house, door-to-door, business-to-business, street-to-street, or any
other type of place-to-place movement for the primary purpose of exercising that person’s state or
federal constitutional rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and
the like. This exemption will not apply if the person’s exercise of constitutional rights is merely
incidental to what would properly be considered a commercial activity.
C.Any person going from house-to-house, door-to-door, business-to-business, street-to-street, or any
other type of place-to-place movement for the primary purpose of fundraising for a school or religious
function or activity or related service organization for example the Girl Scouts of America or Boy
Scouts of America.
D.Any utility provider licensed or franchised through the City of Mendota Heights attempting to
increase their customer base by attempting to sell to or inform residents or businesses of utility
services and/or promotions.
Section 6.
3-3-5: PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES FOR NON-COMMERCIAL DOOR-TO-DOOR ADVOCATES
AND PROFESSIONAL FUNDRAISERS:
Non-Commercial Door-to-Door Advocates excluded under 3-3-2 of this chapter shall be prohibited from
conducting business in any of the following manner:
A.Calling attention to his or her business or the items to be sold by means of blowing any horn or
whistle, ringing any bell, crying out, or by any other noise, so as to be unreasonably audible within an
enclosed structure.
B.Obstructing the free flow of traffic, either vehicular or pedestrian, on any street, sidewalk, alleyway,
or other public right-of-way.
C.Conducting business in a way as to create a threat to the health, safety, and welfare of any specific
individual or the general public.
D.Conducting business before 9:00 a.m. or one-half hour before sunset.
E.Alleging false or misleading statements including untrue statements of endorsement.
F.Remaining on the property of another when requested to leave.
G.Otherwise operating their business in any matter that a reasonable person would find obscene,
threatening, intimidating or abusive.
Section 7.
3-3-6: MOBILE FOOD TRUCKS
For purpose of this Chapter, the intent is to regulate how mobile food truck vendors sell food and or non-
alcoholic beverages to the general public within the corporate city limits.
A.Registration Required.
1.It shall be unlawful for any mobile food truck vendor to sell, or offer for sale, any food or
beverage without first registering with the City Clerk, or his/her designee.
Ord #475 – 03.24.15 Planning Commission Review page 3 of 4
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 51
2.Not later than thirty (30) days after filing of a completed application, the applicant shall be
notified of acceptance or denial of registration.
3.The application shall be accompanied by proof of insurance and approval of any and all
health department requirements whether from Dakota County or the State of Minnesota.
4.Mobile food truck vendors shall carry $1,000,000 of combined single limit Bodily Injury and
Property Damage Auto liability, $1,000,000 of General Liability coverage including Products
and Completed Operations. A certificate of insurance shall be provided to the city prior to
the issuance of a permit.
B.Operations requirements. Mobile food truck vendors shall operate under the following conditions:
1.Hours of operation are limited to between 9:00 AM and 2:00 PM.
2.All proper licensesmust be valid.
3.Vendors shall be parked on private property with the property owner’s permission and shall
not be parked within any public street, right-of-way or sidewalk unless said street has been
closed for a special event, as approved by the City Council.
4.Vendors shall beresponsible for the proper disposal of waste and trash associated with the
operation. City trash receptacles are not to be used for this purpose. Vendors shall remove
all waste and trash from their location at the end of each day or as needed to maintain the
health and safety of the public. The vendor shall keep all areas within ten (10) feet of the
truck clean of grease, trash, paper, cups or cans associated with their operation. No liquid
waste or grease is to be disposed into tree pits, storm sewer drains or onto sidewalks, streets
or other public space. Under no circumstances shall grease be released into or disposed of
into the City’s sanitary sewer system.
5.There shall be no audio amplifier or similar device to attract the attention of the public.
6.No tables, chairs or other structures, except those to hold/display condiments,shall be
allowed outside of the food truck.
7.Advertising consisting of business name, logo, and items available for sale may be displayed
on the food truck. No other form of advertising shall be permitted.
8.The mobile food truck owner or his/her designee shall be present at all times except in an
emergency.
C.Location. Mobile food truck vendors may operate within the following zoning district(s): I-Industrial.
Section 8.
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 #475 – 03.24.15 Planning Commission Review page 4 of 4
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 52
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 53
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 54
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 55
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/...310201
C//5
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 56
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/...310201
C//5
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 57
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/...310201
C//5
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 58
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/...310201
C//5
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
3/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 59
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/...310201
C//5