2012-07-24 Planning Comm Agenda Packet
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Agenda
July 24, 2012 - 7:00 P.M.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of the Agenda
4. Approval of the June 26, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes
5. Hearings
a. 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.
b. Case No. 2012-22: Greg Quehl, wetlands permit for 953 Wagon Wheel Trail.
Public Hearing 7:00 p.m.
c. Case No. 2012-23: Thomas Wieser, critical area permit for 1256 Wachtler
Avenue. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m.
d. Case No. 2012-24: David Williams, wetlands permit for 755 Wentworth Avenue.
Public Hearing 7:00 p.m.
e. Case No. 2012-25: Steve Stulz, conditional use permit for wireless facility at
1897 Delaware Avenue. 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.
pg 1
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 2012
1
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 26, 2012
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights planning commission was held on Tuesday, June 26, 2012, in the
council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:03 P.M.
The following Commissioners were present: Chair Norton, Commissioners Hennes, Noonan, Roston, and Viksnins.
Commissioners Field and Magnuson were excused absences. Those present were Assistant to the City
Administrator Jake Sedlacek, Assistant City Engineer Ryan Ruzek, and NAC Planner Stephen Grittman. Minutes
were recorded by Heidi Guenther.
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of May 22, 2012, Minutes
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO APPROVE
THE MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2012, AS PRESENTED.
AYES: 4
NAYS: 0
ABSTAIN: 1 (VIKSNINS)
Hearings
PLANNING CASE #2012-13
City of Mendota Heights
Zoning Amendment Pertaining to new property maintenance code for commercial/industrial properties
Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of the city for approval of a zoning amendment pertaining to new
property maintenance code for commercial/industrial properties.
Mr. Grittman noted that last summer the council authorized staff to pursue a drafting a property maintenance code as
was done for the residential zoning district. The draft ordinance was designed to address current, ongoing
maintenance concerns in addition to providing a means to address future maintenance issues.
This code has been discussed previously by both the planning commission and city council. Mr. Grittman presented
staff’s analysis of the request and recommended approval of the Commercial/Industrial Property Maintenance Code,
as submitted.
Commissioner Noonan explained this item was tabled last month to allow time for staff to address the code
amendment with the commercial/industrial property owners. He questioned if this was completed by staff. Mr.
Sedlacek explained the Dakota County Regional Chamber of Commerce published the information three weeks in a
row. The matter also received publicity from Patch.com and the Pioneer Press.
Commissioner Noonan asked how issues of concern would be addressed without a maintenance code. Planner
Grittman stated extreme code enforcement issues would have to be addressed through existing nuisance ordinance,
which could require a lawsuit against the property in the court system.
pg 2
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 2012
2
Commissioner Viksnins questioned how the maintenance code language was developed. Planner Grittman indicated
the framework was pulled from the international property maintenance code model and followed the city’s
residential maintenance code language. Some of the content was also drawn from surrounding communities’ code,
such as Eagan, Chanhassen and Burnsville.
Commissioner Viksnins inquired if these communities had been challenged concerning the commercial/industrial
maintenance code. Planner Grittman stated the surrounding communities have had this code in place for a number
of years and he was not aware of any legal concerns.
Commissioner Roston asked if the city had ever had to pursue a nuisance lawsuit against a property. Planner
Grittman was not aware of any commercial or industrial property needing action. He recalled a single family home
that had a fire, which needed action taken against it. It was noted that this code would not impact residential
properties.
Commissioner Roston questioned if staff was aware of any properties in violation of the code at this time. Planner
Grittman was aware of a couple properties that would be in violation.
Chair Norton opened the public hearing.
Ruthe Batulis, President of the Dakota County Regional Chamber of Commerce, explained the chamber had 515
members. She indicated the zoning amendment language was sent out to her members. Ms. Batulis discussed the
feedback received with the commission. It was noted that most prudent property owners have, and will continue to
maintain their property to protect their property value. Feedback from chamber of commerce members was that
there was no need for the new law, but businesses could live with it. She questioned if the code had a timeline for
properties to be brought into compliance and described some specific suggestions for the language in the code. She
stated the businesses were willing to form a partnership with the city moving forward.
Commissioner Noonan was in favor of the city being proactive on this issue.
Commissioner Hennes asked if business owners were supportive of the code in concept, and if their concerns were
limited to terms used in the code. He questioned if the maintenance code was an issue in the City of Eagan. Ms.
Batulis stated there is push back from business/industrial property owners when cited for a violation.
Bob Englehart, owner of Fischerville Coffee shop, understood his property was in need of maintenance. His intent
for the site is to demolish the old service building and retaining wall, and completing grading for additional parking.
He was not opposed to the maintenance code and requested the city be patient with businesses while they work to
finance and improve their properties.
Commissioner Roston questioned if the work described on Mr. Engelhart ’s property was going to be completed with
or without the ordinance amendment. Mr. Engelhart stated this was the case.
COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE
PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES 5
NAYS 0
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR NORTON, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL
OF THE COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE BASED ON THE
FINDINGS THAT CURRENT REGULATIONS HAVE SERVED THE CITY ADEQUATELY AND
THERE IS NO NEED FOR FURTHER AMENDMENT.
Commissioner Hennes questioned if the item should be tabled instead of denied allowing staff to work with the
Chamber and area businesses on the language within the Code amendment. He saw value in the maintenance code
going into the future.
pg 3
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 2012
3
Commissioner Viksnins agreed stating there were improvements that could be made but fully supported having the
maintenance code in place.
Chair Norton appreciated the time invested in this code amendment, but this language change was being requested
based on comments received from a few individuals. He did not support the maintenance code for
commercial/industrial properties as current code addressed these matters.
Commissioner Noonan stated the council was in favor of having a commercial/industrial maintenance code in place
and directed the commission in this manner.
Commissioner Roston commented the council appointed the planning commission to act on behalf of the best
interests of the city and independent decisions should be made at this level. He did not oppose staff working further
with the Chamber to refine the language within this code, which could be brought back to the commission in the
future. He did not feel the city needed to create a code for a problem that does not currently exist.
Commissioner Hennes requested further clarification on the council’s direction on this matter and if current code
addressed commercial/industrial properties. Mr. Sedlacek clarified that the current maintenance code only addresses
the residential zoning district.
Commissioner Hennes questioned how an industrial property issue would be addressed by the city at this time. Mr.
Sedlacek stated staff contacts the property owner to resolve the issue, which in most cases leads to a resolution. He
noted most issues are dealt with on a case by case basis without requiring formal enforcement action.
Commissioner Viksnins stated there was not a widespread problem in Mendota Heights with the maintenance of its
commercial/industrial properties. However, he was still in favor of having a code in place to assist with
administering this issue. He added that neighboring communities were having success with such an ordinance and
given the council’s directive, he was in favor of adopting the maintenance code.
Commissioner Noonan agreed stating he would rather table action on the code rather than deny it entirely. If the
maintenance code were tabled, staff could work to refine the language with the Chamber and local businesses to
bring forward the best results.
Commissioner Roston questioned if the code would apply to city buildings. Mr. Sedlacek indicated all city
buildings were located on residential property and therefore subject to the residential maintenance code.
AYES 2
NAYS 3 (HENNES, NOONAN AND VIKSNINS)
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO TABLE
ACTION ON THIS ITEM TO ALLOW FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION BETWEEN STAFF, THE
CHAMBER AND LOCAL BUSINESS/COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNERS.
Commissioner Viksnins questioned the timeframe on this matter. Mr. Sedlacek stated the review period for the
matter expires on August 30, 2012.
AYES 3
NAYS 2 (ROSTON AND CHAIR NORTON)
Chair Norton advised the item was tabled to the July 24, 2012 planning commission meeting.
PLANNING CASE #2012-18
Greg Quehl
953 Wagon Wheel Trail
Lot Line Adjustment and Wetlands Permit
pg 4
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 2012
4
Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Greg Quehl for approval of a lot line adjustment and wetlands
permit.
Mr. Grittman noted that the property was zoned single-family residential and the re-subdivision would combine the
two lots, then carve out a new 20,000 square foot lot in the southeast corner of the parcel, with 100 feet of frontage
on Wagon Wheel and 200 feet of depth from north to south. The remaining lot would have approximately 312 feet
of frontage on Wagon Wheel and extend behind the other parcel to the depth of the original lot.
Mr. Grittman explained the applicant proposed to construct a new home on the northeast portion of Lot A1 and gain
access to the new home over a private driveway to be constructed on the unimproved right of way that forms the east
boundary of the subject property. This right of way is also utilized by the adjoining property owner to the east, for
his own private driveway. Construction of a new home in the proposed location would require a wetlands permit.
Staff recommended the commission not take action on the wetland permit this evening until the appropriate plan
details are available from the applicant.
Mr. Grittman presented staff’s analysis of the request and recommended approval of the subdivision with conditions.
Commissioner Viksnins questioned why subdivision approval was required on this Planning Case. Planner
Grittman stated a buildable lot was being created through the lot line adjustment, which is requires public review
and approval as outlined in the subdivision ordinance.
Commissioner Hennes asked for the plans for the home currently located on Lot B1. Planner Grittman explained
this home would be demolished and the lot would be marketed.
Greg Quehl, 1361 Riverside Lane, stated he was a 40 year resident of Mendota Heights. He explained he was
interested in subdividing his property. He further reviewed his plans for the property and discussed the shared
driveway.
Commissioner Noonan requested comment on wetland permit’s status. Mr. Quehl stated city staff did not object to
the wetland permit at this time, but required further detailed information regarding the plans for his property. He
indicated that after he closes on this property, his plans would be finalized and brought back to the city for
consideration.
Commissioner Viksnins questioned how close the new home would be to the existing wetland. Mr. Quehl estimated
the home would be 35+ feet off of the wetland.
Chair Norton encouraged the applicant to investigate the level of fill that would be needed to construct a home on
this lot given the lake’s high water mark. Assistant City Engineer Ruzek explained the home’s lowest level would
have to be built three feet higher than the level of the 100 year flood plain.
Chair Norton opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO CLOSE THE
PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES 5
NAYS 0
COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF
FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
pg 5
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 2012
5
1. THE APPLICANT ENTER INTO A MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR USE OF THE PUBLIC
RIGHT OF WAY WITH THE CITY AND ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER, TO BE
APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
2. THE NEED FOR DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS IS REVIEWED AND ADDRESSED
BY THE CITY ENGINEER.
3. THE APPLICANT OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY WITH FINAL LEGAL
DESCRIPTIONS FOR RECORDING WITH DAKOTA COUNTY.
AYES 5
NAYS 0
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO TABLE
ACTION ON THE WETLANDS PERMIT FOR GREG QUEHL AT 953 WAGON WHEEL TRAIL UNTIL
APPROPRIATE PLAN DETAILS CAN BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED TO STAFF FOR REVIEW.
AYES 5
NAYS 0
Chair Norton advised the City Council would consider the subdivision application at its July 3, 2012, meeting.
PLANNING CASE #2012-19
Scott Cottington
1151 Orchard Circle
Wetlands Permit and Critical Area Permit
Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Scott Cottington for approval of a Wetlands Permit and Critical
Area Permit.
Mr. Grittman noted that the applicant was seeking to construct a 16’ x 20’ screen porch on the northwest side of
their garage. The subject site is zoned single-family residential and is located within 100 feet of a wetland. Section
12-2-6 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a Wetland Permit for any work conducted within 100 feet of a wetland. In
addition, the property is located within the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area and requires a Critical Area
Permit.
Mr. Grittman presented staff’s analysis of the request and recommended approval of the wetlands permit and critical
area permit as the proposed project should not have a negative impact on the wetland, and will have no impact on
the aesthetics or natural resources of the Mississippi River.
Scott Cottington, 1151 Orchard Circle, thanked staff for their presentation this evening.
Chair Norton opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE
PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES 5
NAYS 0
COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WETLANDS PERMIT AND CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AS
REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
pg 6
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 2012
6
1. ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL FOLLOW THE LAND DISTURBANCE
GUIDANCE DOCUMENT.
AYES 5
NAYS 0
Chair Norton advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 3, 2012, meeting.
PLANNING CASE #2012-20
Orlando Ponce
1128 Sibley Memorial Highway
Critical Area Permit
Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Orlando Ponce for approval of a Critical Area Permit.
Mr. Grittman noted that the applicant is seeking approval to construct and pave a new driveway parking pad on his
property. The property is zoned R-1 single family residential and was unique, in that the slopes severely limit access
to the site, and parking is difficult to accommodate. In addition, the site has an easement with the neighboring
property to the west to utilize the Ponce driveway for access to Sibley Highway.
Mr. Grittman reviewed the location of the proposed parking pad noting it would be located to the east of the existing
driveway, in front of the home. It was noted that landscape work for the construction of the driveway was started,
including grading and installation of a retaining wall.
Mr. Grittman presented staff’s analysis of the request and recommends approval of the Critical Area Permit to
construct the proposed patio subject to conditions.
Commissioner Noonan questioned how the city would be assured the applicant would finish the project according to
the city’s conditions. Planner Grittman stated a driveway permit would be required for the project and the plans
would then have to be followed or a stop order would remain in place.
Commissioner Roston asked how the permeable pavers held up over time. Planner Grittman stated the pavers are
successful if installed correctly and can reduce water runoff.
Chair Norton inquired if staff would have supported the driveway improvements if the work had not already begun.
Planner Grittman indicated the applicant has a strong case and reasonable need for additional parking. The site does
not have another location available for additional parking given its slope and close proximity to Sibley Memorial
Highway.
Orlando Ponce, 1128 Sibley Memorial Highway, described the location of the existing easement with the
neighboring property. He added parking was not allowed on Highway 13.
Commissioner Hennes questioned how long Mr. Ponce had owned the property. Mr. Ponce explained he purchased
the property on May 15th of this year. He was not aware of the easement issue until the day of closing.
Commissioner Hennes asked if the applicant was in favor of using permeable pavers instead of concrete. Mr. Ponce
stated his preference for concrete, stating that the existing driveway was concrete and the pavers would not match
the current surface.
Chair Norton opened the public hearing.
Mr. Sedlacek explained he received an email from the neighboring property owner Michael Corbett at 1132 Sibley
Memorial Highway, stating he was unable to attend the meeting this evening but supported of the expanded parking
pad.
pg 7
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 2012
7
COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNEN, TO CLOSE THE
PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES 5
NAYS 0
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE
FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
1. THE APPLICANT VERIFIES THAT THE PARKING AREA WILL BE CONSTRUCTED NO
CLOSER THAN FIVE FEET TO THE FRONT LOT AND SIDE LOT LINES.
2. A LANDSCAPING PLAN SHOWING COVER FOR ALL EXPOSED AREAS OF THE SITE IN
ORDER TO CONTROL EROSION AND BUFFER THE VIEW OF THE PARKING AREA AND
CONCRETE RETAINING WALL FROM THE STREET.
3. THE APPLICANT PAVES THE ADDITIONAL PARKING AREA WITH PERMEABLE PAVERS
DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE SURFACE RUNOFF FROM THE SITE.
4. THE APPLICANT COMPLIES WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY’S LAND
DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT, AND ANY OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE
CITY ENGINEER.
AYES 5
NAYS 0
Chair Norton advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 3, 2012, meeting.
New Business
A. Evaluate Property Acquisition: 2454 Lemay Lake Road
Mr. Sedlacek indicated staff was contacted by the family of Doris Bohlig regarding the residential property located
at 2454 Lemay Lake Road earlier this year. The family was aware that the city has been acquiring land in the area
and expressed interest in receiving a purchase offer from the city on the parcel. This property was one of many
wedged in between Highway 55 and our industrial park north of Mendota Heights Road. The Bohlig property is one
of two privately held properties remaining in the area. The property is guided B-Business and the present residential
use is existing non-conforming. The city has been acquiring residential properties on Bourne Lane from willing
sellers with the intent to consolidate and redevelop the parcels for business use.
Mr. Sedlacek explained the city council discussed the acquisition of this parcel and voted to extend a purchase offer
to the Bohlig family, which has been accepted. In accordance with Minnesota Statute, any time a city acquires or
disposes of property, the planning authority of that city must find that the action is consistent with the
comprehensive plan. Staff found the purchase to be consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan and
recommended the acquisition of the property.
Commissioner Hennes questioned if this property was currently occupied. Mr. Sedlacek stated the property was
occupied from time to time.
Commissioner Viksnins understood the only remaining parcel within the block was the Sinclair property. Mr.
Sedlacek stated this was the case.
COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO FIND THAT
THE ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY AT 2454 LEMAY LAKE ROAD WAS CONSISTENT WITH
THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
pg 8
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, 2012
8
AYES 5
NAYS 0
Chair Norton advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 3, 2012, meeting.
Verbal Review
Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review:
PLANNING CASE #2012-12 Carol Strojny Conditional Use Permit
Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING CASE #2012-13 City of Mendota Heights Zoning Amendment
This item was tabled by the Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO ADJOURN
THE MEETING AT 8:25 P.M.
AYES 5
NAYS 0
Respectfully submitted,
Heidi Guenther, Recording Secretary
pg 9
DATE: July 24, 2012
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2012-13, Zoning Amendment, Commercial Property
Maintenance
BACKGROUND
A planning application was presented to the planning commission on May 22, 2012 to amend
Title 12 of City Code to include a chapter on commercial property maintenance. The proposed
ordinance would impact all properties in the Business and Industrial zoning designations.
The planning application was deemed complete April 30, 2012. The 60 day review was
extended an additional 60 days and will expire on August 28, 2012. This matter has been tabled
twice by the planning commission in order to garner feedback from commercial property owners.
Public notice was published in the City’s legal newspaper. Notice of the proposed ordinance was
also featured in weekly updates from the Dakota County Regional Chamber of Commerce,
Mendota Heights Patch.com and the Pioneer Press.
At the June 26, 2012 planning commission meeting, City Planner Steve Grittman described the
proposed ordinance as new regulation, based upon our current residential code. The code sets a
standard for maintenance of the exterior of all structures, as well as landscaping for parcels in the
Business and Industrial zoning designations.
Ruthe Batulis, President of the Dakota County Regional Chamber of Commers spoke on behalf
of local businesses, stating that commercial properties in Mendota Heights are currently very
well maintained. Ms. Batulis questioned the need for new regulation but understood that the city
may want regulation in place prior to problems arising. Ms. Batulis shared feedback on language
in the ordinance which was provided by local businesses. The chamber is not in favor of the
amendment, but would be willing to work with staff to refine the current draft.
Bob Engelhart also spoke at the public hearing – Mr. Engelhart is the owner of Fischerville
Coffee Shop and Bella Boutique. Mr. Engelhart was pleased to announce that he would soon be
purchasing the property at 2156 Dodd Road. Mr. Engelhart stated his opinion that the proposed
code was intended to address the Fischerville property. Mr. Engelhart shared his plans to
improve the property, with or without new code. Work will include a new parking area,
removing the deteriorating retaining wall on the property and landscaping all sides of the
property. Mr. Engelhart is not in favor of the amendment, but is also willing to work with staff
to refine the current draft.
The planning commission discussed whether or not current code language is sufficient to ensure
property compliance. Staff reported that if property maintenance enforcement were an issue,
stronger language would be helpful.
pg 10
The commission asked Mr. Grittman to describe how current properties may be grandfathered in.
Mr. Grittman replied that a timeframe could be set for current properties to address deficiencies.
After that timeframe, all properties would need to be in compliance.
The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Roston moved, seconded by chair Norton, to
recommend denial of the commercial/industrial property maintenance code based on the findings
that current regulations have served the city adequately and there is no need for further
amendment. The motion failed on a 2:3 vote.
Commissioner Noonan moved, seconded by commissioner Viksnins, to table action on this item
to allow for further discussion between staff, the chamber and local business/commercial
property owners. The motion passed on a 3:2 vote.
Staff met with Ms. Batulis and Mr. Engelhart on the matter, who provided the following
feedback on behalf of Mendota Heights businesses:
Subjective terms in the code, i.e. defining “neat and orderly” landscaping will depend
upon the eye of the beholder.
12-8-4 needs better definition to discern between a building which is currently
unoccupied and one that is “vacant.”
o 12-8-4.B cost to cover windows and doors with materials “designed to
complement or match” the existing building may be unreasonable.
12-8-5 (landscaping) includes no provision for natural areas.
12-8-5.A question of legality of holding respective agents responsible for maintenance.
Staff recommends striking this language as shown in attached draft.
12-8-5.E (parking lots) concern about a subjective standard for pavement conditions and
striping.
12-8-5.F (fences) is also concerning – proposed code goes beyond current requirements
listed in 12-1D-6. Staff recommends modifying this language as shown in attached draft.
Enforcement – the amendment does not define how enforcement actions start – city-
initiated, or complaint driven
o Concern that it could pit neighboring businesses against each other.
o 12-8-10.E would like some language around “reasonable expenses.”
Grandfathering for existing conditions – proposed language could prove costly for
businesses which have not been subject to complaints.
Property maintenance standards should be equally applied to city-owned properties.
BUDGET IMPACT
Adopting an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance will have costs for recording and
codification.
RECOMMENDATION
The city council directed staff to develop a draft ordinance and make planning application. Staff
recommends the planning commission discuss further concerns about the proposed amendment,
and make a recommendation to city council to act on.
pg 11
1
Draft 7/24/12
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:
pg 12
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 regardle ss 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 including, 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
pg 13
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 match 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.
pg 14
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: Shall be maintained in a condition of reasonable repair as described in 12 -1D-6.
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.
pg 15
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 produced
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 be 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 dangerous 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.
pg 16
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.
12-8-10: ABATEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES:
pg 17
7
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 officer
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 financial 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 necessary
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 penalty 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
the property upon which the violation was located, and such special tax shall, at the time
pg 18
8
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.
pg 19
Friday, July 20, 2012
Jake Sedlacek
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118-
City of Mendota Heights Planning Commission
Subject: Commercial/Industrial Property Maintenance code
Dear Jake:
The DCR Chamber of Commerce has further reviewed the proposed
commercial/ industrial property maintenance code draft developed by the City
of Mendota Heights. The DCR Chamber is opposed to the implementation of
this maintenance code for the following reasons:
1. We believe that property owners in Mendota Heights are proud of their
businesses and interested in the maintenance and upkeep of their
properties even without this code change.
2. We believe that adoption of this ordinance sends two warning signals to
businesses outside Mendota Heights.
a. Mendota Heights is not business friendly.
b. Mendota Heights may have many properties in a state of disrepair.
3. We believe that regulatory codes are contained in other areas of the city
code, and can be used for enforcement should the need arise.
4. Adoption of this code must be applied to city property equally.
Sincerely,
Ruthe Batulis
President
Dakota County Regional Chamber of Commerce
651.288.9201
rbatulis@dcrchamber.com
pg 20
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen W. Grittman
DATE: July 18, 2012
MEETING DATE: July 24, 2012
SUBJECT: Subdivision and Wetlands Permit
CASE NO: Case No. 2012-22; NAC Case 254.04 – 12.14
APPLICANT(S): Gregory Quehl
LOCATION: 953 Wagon Wheel Trail
ZONING: R-1, One Family Residential
GUIDE PLAN: Low Density Residential
Background and Description of Request:
The applicant received approval to re-subdivide two existing parcels along Wagon
Wheel Trail to create two buildable parcels as part of an application heard at the June
Planning Commission meeting. The two lots both have their frontage on Wagon Wheel
Trail.
The re-subdivision created a new 20,000 square foot lot in the southeast corner of the
parcel, with 100 feet of frontage on Wagon Wheel, and 200 feet of depth from north to
south. The applicant’s materials refer to this parcel as Lot B1. The remaining lot
(labeled “A1” in the subdivision application) has approximately 312 feet of frontage on
Wagon Wheel, and extends behind the other parcel to the depth of the original lot. This
lot has more than 4 acres of land, although much of that would be covered by the
wetland as noted. About half of that 4 acres would appear to be upland.
The applicant proposes to construct a new home on the northeast portion of Lot A1, and
gain access to the new home over a private driveway to be constructed on the
unimproved right of way that forms the east boundary of the subject property. This right
of way would be shared by the adjoining property owner to the east, who utilizes a
pg 21
portion for his own private driveway. Construction of a new home in the proposed
location requires a wetlands permit, the subject of this report.
Analysis:
Wetlands Permit. For any construction or land alteration within 100 feet of a wetland,
the City requires a wetlands permit to ensure that the activity is completed in a manner
that has no negative impact on the water body. In this case, the applicant would
construct a new home within about 35 feet of the wetland edge, indicating also that the
25 feet along the wetland would be retained and treated as buffer to minimize direct
runoff.
Along with the construction, the applicant indicates that he would alter the existing
grade with fill from the excavation for the home to create a look-out basement above
what is a relatively shallow water table. Because details of the grading, construction,
and subsequent landscape cover are not available, the wetland permit was originally
withheld at the June Planning Commission meeting. The concern was that until those
plans can be prepared and reviewed by City staff, a recommendation on the Wetlands
Permit was premature.
Since the original review, the applicant has discussed his plans in more detail with City
staff. Although formal construction details have not yet been developed, the City’s
Engineering staff believes that the extent of wetland buffer impacts is within a range that
can be addressed through final building permit plans.
Action Requested:
Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following
recommendations:
Wetlands Permit.
A. Recommendation for approval, with the condition that the applicant submit final
design and construction drawings for City Staff review and approval.
B. Recommendation for denial, based on a finding that the applicant has not
submitted adequate information for review ensuring protection of the wetland.
C. Recommendation to table the Wetlands Permit, providing time for the applicant to
submit design and construction drawings for staff review, and Planning
Commission consideration.
pg 22
Staff Recommendation:
Although the applicant is still working on final plans, Engineering staff is comfortable
with a recommendation for approval at this time. With this recommendation would be
the condition noted in Alternative A above, requiring final design and construction
drawings for City Staff review and approval prior to construction, grading, or excavation.
Supplementary Materials:
1. Application materials dated 5-23-12
pg 23
Dodd
Road
Le
x
i
n
g
t
o
n
A
v
e
Wagon Wheel Tr
Lake Dr
Ti
m
m
y
S
t
Cheri La
Th
e
r
e
s
a
S
t
Wi
l
l
i
a
m
C
t
Bluebill Dr
Dakota Dr
Sw
a
n
D
r
Pa
t
r
i
c
i
a
S
t
Cullen St
Kay Ave
Sw
a
n
C
t
Carmen La
Ro
g
e
r
s
C
t
Al
i
c
e
L
a
Mendakot
a
D
r
Victoria
C
v
Su
m
m
i
t
L
a
Mary Adele Ave
Wa
l
s
h
L
a
M
e
n
d
a
k
o
t
a
C
t
Crown Cir
953 Wagon Wheel Trail
Site Location Map
Water/Wetlands
Major Roads
City Roads
Municipal Boundaries
pg 24
pg 25
pg 26
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen W. Grittman
DATE: June 22, 2012
MEETING DATE: June 26, 2012
SUBJECT: Subdivision and Wetlands Permit
CASE NO: Case No. ; NAC Case 254.04 -
APPLICANT(S): Gregory Quehl
LOCATION: 953 Wagon Wheel Trail
ZONING: R-1, One Family Residential
GUIDE PLAN: Low Density Residential
Background and Description of Request:
The applicant is seeking to re-subdivide two existing parcels along Wagon Wheel Trail
to create two buildable parcels. The current two lots both have their frontage on Wagon
Wheel Trail. The easterly parcel contains a single family home to be removed if the
subdivision is approved. The westerly parcel is covered by wetland and is currently
unbuildable, although it is a separate legal parcel.
The proposed re-subdivision would combine the two lots, then carve out a new 20,000
square foot lot in the southeast corner of the parcel, with 100 feet of frontage on Wagon
Wheel, and 200 feet of depth from north to south. The applicant’s materials refer to this
parcel as Lot B1. The remaining lot (labeled “A1”) would have approximately 312 feet of
frontage on Wagon Wheel, and extend behind the other parcel to the depth of the
original lot. This lot would have more than 4 acres of land, although much of that would
pg 27
be covered by the wetland as noted. About half of that 4 acres would appear to be
upland.
The applicant proposes then to construct a new home on the northeast portion of Lot
A1, and gain access to the new home over a private driveway to be constructed on the
unimproved right of way that forms the east boundary of the subject property. This right
of way would be shared by the adjoining property owner to the east, who utilizes a
portion for his own private driveway. Construction of a new home in the proposed
location would require a wetlands permit.
Analysis:
Subdivision. The proposed subdivision of the two parcels would result in no additional
lots overall, however, the currently lot line arrangement precludes development of the
westerly parcel due to the wetland. Although the total area of the subdivision is more
than 4.7 acres, there is just over 2 acres of upland, and usable frontage on Wagon
Wheel Trail is also limited due to the extend of the wetland coverage.
The rearrangement as proposed appears to be reasonable, and meets the City’s lot size
requirements of at least 100 feet of frontage and 15,000 square feet of lot area. Both
lots would meet or exceed these dimensions.
The applicant has made two other requests in relation to the subdivision. First, he has
noted a request to remove a street easement that exists in the southwest corner of the
subject property. The process to consider vacation of an easement is separate from
any planning action. As such, staff has directed the applicant to make this request
independently of the planning application.
The second request relates to the construction of the new home and the provision of
public services. The applicant proposes to locate the home to the north along the
unimproved right of way. Access to the home would then be via a private drive within
that right of way, eventually joining with an existing private drive serving the adjoining
property. The City Engineer has expressed a willingness to consider this arrangement.
To accomplish this, the applicant must negotiate a maintenance agreement with the
current driveway user – this agreement should address shared costs of ongoing
maintenance as well as long-term reconstruction. The City Attorney should review the
agreement to ensure that it does not bind the City in any way, including the City’s right
to improve the right of way to City street standards and assess those costs to the
property owners, or to abandon or vacate the right of way in the future. In addition, the
agreement should specify that the property owners hold the City harmless for any
liability relating to the private improvements
The private use of the right of way is accompanied by a request to provide sewer and
water service via private service lines from Wagon Wheel Trail, rather than extend any
new City trunk or main lines. The City Engineer has likewise indicated the acceptability
pg 28
of this service arrangement, so long as the private utilities are not located in any right of
way.
Wetlands Permit. For any construction or land alteration within 100 feet of a wetland,
the City requires a wetlands permit to ensure that the activity is completed in a manner
that has no negative impact on the water body. In this case, the applicant would
construct a new home within about 35 feet of the wetland edge, indicating also that the
25 feet along the wetland would be retained and treated as buffer to minimize direct
runoff.
Along with the construction, the applicant indicates that he would alter the existing
grade with a substantial amount of fill to create a walk-out basement above what is a
relatively shallow water table. Because details of the grading, construction, and
subsequent landscape cover are not available, it would appear that the wetland permit
should be withheld until those plans can be prepared and reviewed by City staff, and a
recommendation can be made to the Planning Commission.
Based on the staff’s preliminary discussions with the applicant, it is presumed that an
acceptable plan can be worked out, however, a more complete application package
would be necessary to make any formal comments.
Action Requested:
Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following
recommendations:
Subdivision.
A. Recommendation for approval, based on findings of fact attached to this report,
and subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant enter into a maintenance agreement for use of the public right
of way with the City and adjoining property owner, to be approved by the City
Attorney.
2. The need for drainage and utility easements is reviewed and addressed by
the City Engineer.
3. The applicant obtain a certificate of survey with final legal descriptions for
recording with Dakota County.
B. Recommendation for denial, based on a finding that the proposed subdivision
would be premature without more detailed development plans for the two
parcels.
pg 29
Wetlands Permit.
A. Recommendation for approval, with the condition that the applicant submit fina l
design and construction drawings for City Staff review and approval.
B. Recommendation for denial, based on a finding that the applicant has not
submitted adequate information for review ensuring protection of the wetland.
C. Recommendation to table the Wetlands Permit, providing time for the applicant to
submit design and construction drawings for staff review, and Planning
Commission consideration.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the subdivision, with the conditions noted. The
subdivision meets the technical dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance and
will provide two parcels with appropriate buildable areas. Access and utility service can
be accommodated, provided the applicant address the maintenance issues noted in this
report.
With regard to the Wetlands Permit, staff recommends tabling action until the
appropriate plan detail can be completed and submitted for review. It appears that
there will be appropriate opportunities for construction and land alteration as describe d
by the applicant in his materials, however, detailed plans need to be submitted to verify
the conditions of any permit to be issued, particularly in this case where a new home,
combined with significant amounts of fill and grading are expected.
Supplementary Materials:
1. Application materials dated 5-23-12
pg 30
Draft Findings of Fact for Approval
Subdivision
953 Wagon Wheel Trail
1. The subdivision results in a net increase of no new parcels.
2. The subdivision provides lots that meet and/or exceed all of the applicable zoning
criteria for lots in the R-1 zoning district.
3. The subdivision can be accommodated with existing public services.
4. The access and services to the parcels are acceptable, provided the required
agreements are executed governing construction and maintenance as noted in
the staff report.
pg 31
Aerial Photo with Existing Lot Lines and Dimensions
pg
32
pg 33
pg 34
pg 35
pg 36
pg 37
pg 38
pg 39
pg 40
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen W. Grittman
DATE: July 18, 2012
MEETING DATE: July 24, 2012
SUBJECT: Critical Area Permit for Construction of New Single Family
Home
CASE NO: Case No. 2012-23; NAC Case 254.04 – 12.15
APPLICANT(S): Tom and Kim Wieser
LOCATION: 1256 Wachtler Avenue
ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential
GUIDE PLAN: Low Density Residential
Background and Description of Request:
The applicant is seeing a Critical Area Permit to construct a new single family home on
a parcel along Wachtler Avenue. The proposed construction site is on a relatively level
portion of the property, generally in the area of a previous structure.
Because the property is located within the Mississippi River Critical Area, a Critical Area
Permit is required for all of the improvements proposed. The structure will utilize the
existing driveway for access to Wachtler, extending it to the new garage. The limits of
construction on the site is an area of about 5,000 square feet, including new home,
garage, and additional driveway.
Analysis:
In the critical area, new construction and other land disturbance is required to comply
with the terms of the Critical Area Ordinance, and includes the following standards
applying to this application:
• Maximum building height of 25 feet (as measured from average front grade to
average roof height).
• No construction on slopes of greater than 18%.
• No construction within 40 feet of the top of the bluff (defined as land that exceeds
40% slope).
• Use of natural, or natural-looking, materials wherever practical.
• Minimize visual impacts of the construction from view of the river.
The proposed home is measured by the applicants at just over 17 feet in height. The
building height is consistent with the applicable zoning regulations.
In this case, the proposed home will be located on an area of the lot that shows slopes
of approximately 2-4 percent. The existing driveway grade (on the west side of the lot)
is minimal, and is not proposed to change. The building area is below the steep slopes
on the lot. The proposed home sits more than 50 feet from the toe of the slope,
consistent with slope setback requirements.
The applicants proposed to use cedar siding, fiber cement siding, and stucco as the
primary building materials. All of these are consistent with the intent of the Critical Area
ordinance.
Finally, the site itself is visible from Sibley Memorial Highway, although it is obscured by
existing vegetation, most of which is to remain on the property. Due to the elevation of
the building site, it is not visible from the river itself, and as such, does not raise issues
for impacts on the river.
Action Requested:
Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following
recommendations:
A. Approval of the Critical Area Permit for 1256 Wachtler Avenue, based on the
draft findings attached to this report. With this recommendation, staff would
suggest the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document
2. Any further recommendations of the City Engineer regarding grading, erosion
and stormwater control.
B. Denial of the Critical Area Permit, based on a finding that alterations to the
property raise concerns over consistency with the Critical Area Ordinance.
pg 42
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the Critical Area Permit as proposed, with the conditions
cited above. The proposal makes use of the property consistent with the R-1 zoning
regulations, and utilizes the property with the least impact on the vulnerable parts of the
property, such as the steeper areas to the rear. Reuse of the existing driveway will also
reduce impacts resulting from the construction.
Supplementary Materials:
1. Application Materials dated 6-29-12
pg 43
Draft Findings of Fact for Approval
Critical Area Permit
1256 Sibley Memorial Highway
1. The required maximum building height of 25 feet (as measured from average
front grade to average roof height) is met by the proposal
2. No construction will occur on slopes of greater than 18%.
3. No construction will occur within 40 feet of the top of the bluff (defined as land
that exceeds 40% slope).
4. Use of natural, or natural-looking, materials wherever practical.
5. There are no visual impacts of the construction from view of the river.
pg 44
Do
d
d
R
d
1st Ave
3rd Ave
2nd Ave
Evergr
e
e
n
K
n
Syl
v
a
n
d
a
l
e
R
d
Va
n
d
a
l
l
S
t
Maple Park Dr
Emers
o
n
A
v
e
M
e
d
o
r
a
R
d
4th Ave
Ivy Falls Ave
C
h
e
r
r
y
H
i
l
l
R
d
K
n
o
l
l
w
o
o
d
L
a
Fa
r
m
d
a
l
e
R
d
Sunset La
Brookside La
Arcad
i
a
D
r
La
u
r
a
S
t
Upper Colonial Dr
So
m
e
r
s
e
t
R
d
Park Place Dr
C
l
e
m
e
n
t
S
t
Wa
c
h
t
l
e
r
A
v
e
Park Cir
Lower Colonial Dr
Ivy Fa
l
l
s
C
t
Bluff Cir
S
y
l
v
a
n
d
a
l
e
C
t
G
r
y
c
C
t
Maple Park C
t
K
n
o
l
l
w
o
o
d
C
t
La
u
r
a
S
t
C
l
e
m
e
n
t
S
t
1256 Wachtler Ave.
Site Location Map
Water/Wetlands
Major Roads
City Roads
Municipal Boundaries
pg 45
pg 46
pg 47
pg
48
pg
49
pg
50
pg
51
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
NOTICE OF HEARING
A PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST FOR A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT TO
CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT 1256 WACHTLER 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, July 24, 2012 in the
City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to
consider an application from Thomas and Kim Wieser to construct a single family home
at 1256 Wachtler Avenue.
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.
Lorri Smith
City Clerk
pg 52
Dakota County, MN
Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not
guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,
appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification.
Map Scale
1 inch = 310 feet
pg 53
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen Grittman
DATE: July 18, 2012
MEETING DATE: July 24, 2012
SUBJECT: Wetlands Permit for New Home and Pool
CASE NO: Case No. 12-24; NAC Case 254.04 – 12.16
APPLICANT(S): Alan Maas/David and Kim Williams
LOCATION: 755 Wentworth Avenue
ZONING: R-1, One Family Residential
GUIDE PLAN: LR – Low Density Residential
Background and Description of Request:
The applicants are seeking a wetlands permit to construct a new single family home and
swimming pool and related improvements at 755 Wentworth Avenue. The project would
cover much of the existing lawn area behind the house. The subject property is just
under 8 acres in size and has been occupied by a house and detached garage.
Although the application is not specific on this point, the existing structures would need
to be removed as a part of the new construction. The area of construction would be on
the north side of a creek that runs through the property from east to west. Nearly all of
the building area is within 100 feet of this creek and associated wetland.
The property is zoned R-1, One Family Residential. Section 12-2-6 of the Zoning
Ordinance requires a Wetlands Permit for any work conducted within 100 feet of a
wetland.
Analysis:
The new home would rely on an existing driveway from Wentworth, to be upgraded as a
part of the project. The driveway crosses the creek over an existing culvert. The
applicants suggest that this crossing will remain – thus little or no impact to the wetland
would be expected from this part of the project. The applicants should otherwise clarify
what is intended for the remainder of the driveway “upgrade”, particularly within the
wetland buffer area.
The site plan shows that the home and pool area will retain a 25 foot setback from the
creek edge. This is typical staff-recommended setback from wetland areas, along with
the recommendation that this area be left in a natural state, or planted with natural
materials to minimize and filter runoff from the project into the water body. The
applicant have not specified what would be done within the setback area, however, the
area is relatively steeply sloped, and it is presumed that the intent is to leave this area in
its current condition. This should be verified with the applicants.
The applicants have provided a topographic survey of the property showing that the
building site lies on steeply sloped portion of the property. Extensive grading is
anticipated to accomplish the project, although no grading plan has been submitted.
The applicants have included a general area of clearing and silt fence line to the west of
the home and pool, along with extensive clearing to the east of the home and driveway,
to within 25 feet of the creek. They have indicated that all cleared areas will be
landscaped and sodded. A total area of about 2 acres will be within the construction
limits of the project.
The Wetlands Ordinance requires that any land alteration or construction within 100 feet
of any designated wetland requires approval of a Wetlands Permit. The purpose of the
Wetlands Ordinance is to ensure that alterations within the buffer area adjacent to
wetlands do not degrade or threaten the water quality of the wetland area. While
grading details have not been provided, the construction and clearing are permissible
provided the applicants comply with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document.
The City’s engineering department staff will evaluate and monitor this aspect of the
proposal.
Action Requested:
Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following
recommendations:
1) Approval of the wetlands permit to construct a new single family home,
swimming pool, associated pool decking and graded lawn area, tree removal,
and driveway improvements - an area of approximately 2 acres of disturbed area
- based on the attached findings of fact, and subject to a the following conditions:
a. Existing structures on the property are removed;
b. Area within the 25 foot setback is left undisturbed and in its natural state;
c. Driveway construction utilizes the existing culvert location and otherwise
complies with city requirements;
d. All cleared areas are landscaped to minimize runoff into the creek;
e. Pool fencing meets the City’s fencing requirements for materials,
openness, height, and other requirements for swimming pool enclosures;
and
pg 55
f. All construction activities follow the Land Disturbance Guidance
document.
-OR-
2) Denial of the wetlands permit, based on a finding that the projected work will
have negative impacts on the existing wetland and is inconsistent with the intent
of the Wetlands Ordinance.
Staff Recommendation:
Planning staff recommends approval of the wetlands permit with the listed conditions.
The proposed project, while extensive in area, should not have a negative impact on the
wetland, especially with the native vegetation plantings which serve to filter the runoff
into the wetland. The project appears to meet the intent of the Wetlands Ordinance and
will not degrade or threaten the water quality of the wetland.
Supplementary Materials:
1. Application Materials Dated 7/2/12
2. Site Location Map
pg 56
Do
d
d
R
d
Marie Ave
1st Ave
3rd Ave
D
i
a
n
e
R
d
Tr
a
i
l
R
d
2nd Ave
Evergreen Kn
Bachelor Ave
Callahan Pl
Va
n
d
a
l
l
S
t
Syl
v
a
n
d
a
l
e
R
d
Emers
o
n
A
v
e
M
e
d
o
r
a
R
d
Sutton La
4th Ave
Stanwich La
C
h
e
r
r
y
H
i
l
l
R
d
K
n
o
l
l
w
o
o
d
L
a
Will
o
w
L
a
Fa
r
m
d
a
l
e
R
d
Sunset La
C
e
l
i
a
D
r
Brookside La
La
u
r
a
S
t
Upper Colonial Dr
Park Place Dr
C
l
e
m
e
n
t
S
t
Wa
c
h
t
l
e
r
A
v
e
Pa
r
k
C
i
r
Nina Ct
Barbara Ct
Ar
v
i
n
D
r
Mager Ct
G
r
y
c
C
t
Bo
a
r
d
w
a
l
k
C
l
e
m
e
n
t
S
t
755 Wentworth Ave.
Site Location Map
Water/Wetlands
Major Roads
City Roads
Municipal Boundaries
pg 57
pg 58
pg 59
Dakota County, MN
Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not
guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,
appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification.
Map Scale
1 inch = 310 feet
pg 60
pg
61
pg 62
Draft Findings of Fact for Approval
Wetlands Permit
755 Wentworth Avenue
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the above Wetlands
Permit:
1. The project meets the intent of the Wetlands Ordinance.
2. The project retains an extensive existing vegetative buffer adjacent to the
wetland edge.
3. The driveway over the creek/wetland will utilize the existing culvert locations,
minimizing grading work within the wetland itself.
4. The wetland itself will otherwise be untouched.
5. With the conditions listed, the project will comply will all zoning and wetland
ordinance requirements of the City.
pg 63
pg 64
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission
FROM: Bob Kirmis/Stephen Grittman
DATE: July 12, 2012
MEETING DATE: July 24, 2012
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit for a Wireless Antenna Modification
CASE NO: Case No. 12.25, NAC Case 254.04 - 12.13
APPLICANT(S): Sprint
LOCATION: 1897 Delaware Avenue (Sibley High School)
ZONING: R-1, One Family Residential
Guide Plan: Public
Background and Description of Request:
Sprint is requesting approval of a Conditional Use permit (CUP) to allow modification to
their existing wireless telecommunication equipment located upon the roof of Sibley
High School located at 1897 Delaware Avenue. The property currently has cellular
antenna mounts for four other cellular carriers including AT&T, Nextel, Verizon and
Qwest.
Specifically, the applicants are proposing to add three antennas (I per sector) and place
two additional cabinets of the existing platform. Once surrounding sites are operational,
Sprint’s existing equipment would be removed.
The Zoning Ordinance allows for wireless communication towers and antenna in all
zoning districts upon approval of a conditional use permit.
Analysis:
The applicants are proposing to add three antennas (I per sector) and place two
additional cabinets of the existing platform. As noted, the applicants intend to remove
the existing cabinets and antennas once surrounding sites are determined to be
operational. The new antennas are to be six feet in height. Some of the existing
antennas being replaced are currently under 4 feet in height, however, the
replacements will not extend above the wall of the building. The applicant anticipates
that surrounding sites will be operational in approximately six months.
While the proposed antenna and equipment upgrades are not expected to have any
significant impacts upon the subject site and surrounding properties, two relatively minor
concerns exist.
For an approximate six month period, the amount of Sprint operated equipment will be
approximately double that which presently exists. From a visual standpoint, this may
not be considered the most desirable condition. To ensure prompt removal of the
existing equipment, it is suggested that a deadline for removal be established. In this
regard, it is recommended that the existing equipment be moved no later than seven
months from the date of CUP approval. To be noted is that the antenna and equipment
removal should include the removal of unused mounting equipment and the repair of
any damaged wall or roof elements (from equipment anchors).
The second issue relates to the appearance of the new antennas and cabinets. For
building mounted-installations, the Zoning Ordinance encourages antennae which are
painted to blend with the building. To minimize the aesthetic impacts of the new
antennas and equipment cabinets, it is recommended that they be painted to match the
color of the high school building.
Action Requested:
Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may recommend one of the
following:
(1) Approve the Conditional Use Permit with conditions based on a finding that the
proposed antenna and accessory equipment modifications meet all of the Zoning
Ordinance requirements and are consistent with the intent of the Conditional use
Permit criteria allowing such features. Conditions may include:
a. The existing equipment (to be replaced) be removed within seven months
of CUP approval. Antenna and equipment removal shall include the
removal of unused mounting equipment and the repair of any damaged
wall or roof elements (from equipment anchors).
b. The new antennas and accessory equipment cabinets be painted to match
the color of the building.
c. The new antennas and related equipment shall comply with all FCC
regulations.
pg 66
d. The new antennas and related equipment shall comply with all applicable
electrical codes.
e. A lease agreement exists between the applicants and the School District.
(2) Deny the Conditional Use Permit, based on a finding from additional information
presented at the public hearing.
Staff Recommendation:
Planning Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit with conditions as
stated in Alternative number (1) above. The proposed antenna and related equipment
upgrades are expected to have no physical impact upon neighboring properties.
Supplementary Materials:
1. Site Location Map
2. Application Materials dated 7-2-12
pg 67
De
l
a
w
a
r
e
A
v
e
.
Do
d
d
R
d
Marie Ave
So
u
t
h
L
a
Tr
a
i
l
R
d
Wa
r
r
i
o
r
D
r
Hillt
o
p
R
d
Evergreen Kn
Callahan Pl
Wesley La
Bachelor Ave
Highway 110 Frontage Rd
Kn
o
b
R
d
Sutton La
Stanwich La
Va
l
l
e
y
C
u
r
v
e
R
d
S Plaza Dr
Ridge Pl
Fo
x
P
l
Az
t
e
c
L
a
Dodg
e
L
a
Wa
c
h
t
l
e
r
A
v
e
Freeway Rd
Sibley Ct
R
i
d
g
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
Ar
v
i
n
D
r
Mager Ct
G
r
y
c
C
t
Wa
c
h
t
l
e
r
A
v
e
1897 Delaware Ave.
Site Location Map
Water/Wetlands
Major Roads
City Roads
Municipal Boundaries
pg 68
pg 69
pg 70
pg 71
pg 72
pg
73
pg
74
pg
75
pg
76
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
NOTICE OF HEARING
A PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
UPDATES TO THE WIRELESS FACILITY AT 1897 DELAWARE AVE.
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, July 24, 2012 in the
City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to
consider an application from Steve Stulz on behalf of Sprint to update wireless antenna
at Henry Sibley High School, 1897 Delaware Ave.
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.
Lorri Smith
City Clerk
pg 77
Dakota County, MN
Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not
guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,
appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification.
Map Scale
1 inch = 773 feet
pg 78