2015-04-28 Planning Comm Agenda Packet
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSIONAGENDA
April28, 2015–7:00 p.m.
Mendota Heights City Hall
1.Call to Order
2.Roll Call
3.Adopt Agenda
4.Approve March24, 2015Planning Commission Minutes
5.Public Hearings(7:00 p.m. or shortly thereafter):
a.Case No. 2015-09: Mark Swenson.Variance at 873 Highway 110.
b.Case No. 2015-11: City of Mendota Heights. Proposed amendments to the
Wireless Antennas, Towers, andAccessory Structures section of theCity
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.
4/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 1
1CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
2DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
3
4PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES
5March 24, 2015
6
7The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March
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 Howard
11Roston, Michael Noonan, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson, and Christine Costello.Those absent:
12Commissioner Ansis Viksnins.Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall andPublic Works
13Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello.
14
Approval of Agenda
15
16
17The agenda was approved as submitted.
18
Approval of February 24, 2015 Minutes
19
20
21COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONANTO
22APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2015 AS PRESENTED.
23
24AYES: 6
25NAYS: 0
26ABSENT: 1
27
Hearings
28
29
30PLANNING CASE #2015-05
31Alltech Engineering/Mendota Management, LLC, 2515 Pilot Knob Road
32Variance Request
33
34Chair Litton Field, Jr. recused himself from this case, due to the fact that his employer does
35business with Alltech Engineering and wished to avoid any perceptions of conflict. Vice-chair
36Doug Hennes lead the discussion of this case.
37
38City Planner Nolan Wallexplained that Alltech Engineering/Mendota Management, LLC was
39seeking a variance from the side yard setback standard to construct an approximate 2,363 square
40foot addition to the existing office/warehouse building located at 2515 Pilot Knob Road. The
41subject parcel is 4.3 acres, located at the southwest corner of the Pilot Knob and Mendota Heights
42Road intersection. The property is zoned and guided as Industrial. The same variance request for
43a similar project was approved in 2008 as part of Planning Case 2008-12. According to the Code,
44a variance is voided after one year if no action is taken. Therefore, since it was never constructed,
45the Planning Commission and City Council must consider a new variance request.
46
47Planner Wall stated that the side yard setback fora structure abutting the street in the Industrial
48District is 40 feet. The building setback along Mendota Heights Road varies from 22.8 feet to 21
March 24, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFTPage 1
4/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 2
5/8
49feet 3inches, which is caused by the buildings angle in relation to the right-of-way across the
50250 feet of frontage. The angle creates an inconsistent setback from Mendota Heights Road.
51
52The proposed addition would extend the northeast corner of the building an additional 40.5 feet to
53the east along the existing north wall, which creates a setback of approximately 21 feet. As a result,
54the variance request was for approximately 19 feet from the side yard, abutting Mendota Heights
55Road. The proposed addition does meet all of other setback, lot coverage, and landscaping
56requirements for the industrial district.
57
58Planner Wall then explained the requirements for a variance request approval and shared images
59of the lot.
60
61Staff recommended approval of this variance request with conditions.
62
63Commissioners asked questions regarding the location of the alternative that was considered.
64
65Mr. Chris Lawrence, Operations Manager of Alltech Engineering, recognized Mr. Bob Lawrence,
66CEO/Founder/Ownerof Alltech Engineering and General Manager of Mendota Management who
67owns the building, and Mr. Greg Merz,CFO of Alltech Engineering,and indicated they wereall
68present to answer any additional questions from the Commission. He explained how this
69expansion would grow their business and discussed plans for expansion of the warehouse portion
70of the building.
71
72Vice-chair Hennes opened the public hearing.
73
74Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Vice-chair Hennesasked for a motion to close
75the public hearing.
76
77COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO
78CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
79
80AYES: 5
81NAYS: 0
82ABSTAIN: 1 (Field)
83ABSENT: 1 (Viksnins)
84
85COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO
86RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-05: SIDE YARD SETBACK
87VARIANCE REQUESTFOR BUILDING ADDITION AT 2515 PILOT KNOB ROAD, based on
88the following Findings of Fact:
891.The proposed addition is a reasonable use of the property, meets the purpose and intent of
90the City Code, and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
912.The improvements to Mendota Heights Road created a unique circumstance upon the
92property not created by the applicant.
933.The building’s location on a corner lot with an existing encroachment is a unique
94circumstance not created by the applicant.
954.The proposed addition represents a small increased encroachment into the side yard while
96still maintaining a large front yard setback.
March 24, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFTPage 2
4/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 3
975.The applicant has considered alternatives to the proposed addition.
986.The proposed addition will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
99and with the following conditions:
1001.A building permit be obtained prior to construction of the addition.
1012.The applicant shall submit grading plans and a dimensioned site plan with associated
102easements, subject to review and approval by the City Engineering Department as part of
103any building permit application.
1043.Any land disturbance activities must be in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance
105Guidance document.
106
107AYES: 5
108NAYS: 0
109ABSTAIN: 1 (Field)
110ABSENT: 1 (Viksnins)
111
112Vice-chair Hennesadvised the City Council would consider this application at its April 7, 2015
113meeting.
114
115Chair Field returned to chair the remainder of the meeting.
116
117PLANNING CASE #2015-07
118Nate Wissink, Elevation Homes, 747 Willow Lane
119Lot Split and Wetlands Permit
120
121City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the application, on behalf of the property owners,
122requested a lot split for the existing subject parcel located at 747 Willow Lane. They are also
123requesting a wetlands permit for construction activity within a wetlandsand water resource-related
124area. Planner Wall shared an image showing the location of the proposed split, the 100-foot buffer
125area for the wetlandsarea, and the 25-foot non-disturb area. The subject parcel is 1.12 acres and
126contains an existing single-family dwelling which is zoned R-1 and guided for low-density
127residential development on the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant intends to demolish the
128existing home and construct two new single-family homes on the newly-created lots.
129
130The subdivision would create two lots, both of which are in excess of the 15,000 square foot
131minimum lot size requirement for the R-1 zoning district.Parcel A, the westerly parcel, would be
132approximately 25,903 square feet and Parcel B, the easterly parcel, would include the area that has
133the existing single family home and would be approximately 26,533 square feet. Both parcels do
134have the required 100 feet of frontage on Willow Lane, are compliant with the R-1 lot standards,
135and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
136
137Specific to the wetlands permit itself, the 100-foot buffer area around Marie Creek encompasses
138both parcels. Therefore, based on the proposed new pads, construction of the new dwellings will
139require grading and vegetation removal within that buffer area, which does require a wetlands
140permit. According to the applicant, up to seven healthy trees would be removed within the buffer
141area and associated grading would also disturb ground vegetation on both parcels.
142
143Staff did walk the site with the applicant and identified within that area that there are numerous
144dead and dying trees. Those could potentially be removed through an administrative wetlands
March 24, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFTPage 3
4/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 4
145permit. However, because they would be disrupting that area and taking out some healthy trees,
146staff required them to request a wetlands permit.
147
148It was also noted that vegetation would be replanted on both parcels within the disturbed area post-
149construction. Staff proposed a condition that a landscape plan be submitted for further review at a
150later date. Also, erosion control measures are required and no disturbance would be occurring
151within the 25-foot buffer area.
152
153Staff recommended approval of the subdivision and wetlands permit request subject to conditions.
154
155Commissioners asked if by approving this wetlands permit if they were also approving the location
156of the home construction sites. Additional questions were asked regarding alternative locations of
157the house pad on Parcel A and on Parcel B.
158
159CommissionerRoston, being associated with Streeter and Associates, Inc. (construction company
160serving this property), recused himself from voting on this case.
161
162Mr. Nate Wissink of Elevation Homeswas present to answer additional questions from the
163Commission regarding the construction footprint.
164
165Chair Field opened the public hearing.
166
167Mr. David Burns, currently living in Lilydale but will be residing at 738 Willow Lane, requested
168that the Commission deny this application. He views lot splits by outside buildersas a detriment
169to a way of life that should be preserved in Mendota Heights –property sizes, beauty, and
170preserving what is had. He has no problem with the building of the homes, just to the lot split.
171
172Ms. Joy Cacicia, 724 Spring Creek Circle, lives on the other side of the proposed Parcel B. She
173understands progress and building of homes, but as she understands, there is no guarantee of where
174the proposed new home will be located on Parcel B. If the builder decides to move the home further
175back on the lot, then sunset view that she has been able to look at every single day for 17 years
176will be gone. She does not want to stop change, but she does not want to start feeling closed-in
177either.
178
179The applicant returned to address the comments made by the public.
180
181Commissioner Magnuson commented that she understands that this lot split is in compliance with
182the City Code and that the applicant is doing everything they need to doto be in compliancewith
183that Code. She requested that they understand that these are very difficult circumstances for people
184who currently live in the neighborhood. While the Commission does not have the authority to tell
185them where to site the home, how to build the home, or what it should look like –she requested
186that they consider what impact their building will have on the existing neighborhood and to the
187extent that they can, integrate it nicely into that neighborhood so that there are fewer disruptive
188things that occur to the other neighbors who currently live there.
189
190Mr. Wissink acknowledged the Commission’s concerns and noted that they have reached out to
191some of the neighbors in the area to discuss the proposed constructionin an attempt to address
192their concerns.
March 24, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFTPage 4
4/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 5
193Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
194
195COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO
196CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
197
198AYES: 5
199NAYS: 0
200ABSTAIN: 1 (Roston)
201ABSENT: 1 (Viksnins)
202
203COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO
204RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-07, SUBDIVISION REQUEST FOR
205A LOT SPLIT AND WETLANDS PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND VEGETATION
206REMOVAL, based on the following Findings of Fact:
2071.The proposed lot split and construction activities meet the purpose and intent of the City
208Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2092.No grading or vegetation removal within the required 25-foot non-disturb buffer area will
210occur as part of the proposed construction projects.
2113.Adequate erosion control measures will be observed during construction.
2124.Vegetation will be replanted in the disturbed areas after construction is completed.
213and with the following conditions:
2141.The existing single-family dwelling is demolished prior to the subdivision being recorded
215by Dakota County.
2162.Park dedication fee in the amount of $2,700, in lieu of land, is collected after City Council
217approval and before being recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any additional permits
218by the City
2193.Street reconstruction assessment fee in the amount of $3,900,as part of Bunker Hills Street
220Reconstruction 95-14/Improvement 96-3, is collected after City Council approval and
221before being recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any additional permits by the City
2224.The applicant shall dedicate the following drainage and utility easements on both newly-
223created parcels to be denoted on the Certificate of Survey submitted to Dakota County: 10-
224foot wide along the front property lines; 5-foot wide along the rear property lines; and
225across the entire 25-foot non-disturb buffer area from the edge of Marie Creek.
2265.Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of a
227building permit.
2286.The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and adimensioned site plan with
229associated easements, subject to review and approval by the City Engineering Department
230as part of any building permit application.
2317.No disturbance, besides installation of erosion control measures during construction, shall
232occur within 25 feet of the edge of Marie Creek.
2338.Any land disturbance activities shall be in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance
234Guidance document.
2359.A Landscape Plan is submitted for review by the Planning Department showing vegetation
236to be re-planted within the 100-foot wetlands/water resource-related area after
237construction.
238
239
240
March 24, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFTPage 5
4/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 6
241AYES: 5
242NAYS: 0
243ABSTAIN: 1 (Roston)
244ABSENT: 1 (Viksnins)
245
246Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its April 7, 2015 meeting.
247
248PLANNING CASE #2015-08
249City of Mendota Heights
250Proposed amendments to the Business and License Requirements Title of the City Code
251
252City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the City was considering various amendments to Title 3,
253Chapter 3 of the City Code pertaining to peddlers, solicitors, canvassers, and transient merchants.
254The Planning Commission review is being sought because the proposed DRAFTOrdinance 475
255does also include new standards (Section 7) that would allow mobile food trucks in the Industrial
256District withconditions. The Industrial District is located in the far southwest corner of the City.
257
258The Industrial District contains a mix of office, warehouse, and hotel uses. Most notably,it lacks
259certainamenities, especially food service options. As a result, staff does get frequent inquiries to
260allow mobile food trucks in this area. Some of them have been approved administratively for
261special events with few conditions on that use.
262
263The mobile food truck vendors would be required to register with the City, which is different from
264a licensing procedure and would be easier to deal with at the staff level. It’s easier to verify that
265insurance and permits from other agencies are valid and also to provide the vendor with those
266operational requirements that are included in DRAFT Ordinance 475. The operational
267requirements are being proposed to mitigate potential negative impacts to the surrounding
268properties and to the public streets.
269
270Planner Wall briefly described the proposed operational requirements.
271
272Commissionersasked questionsand had discussionsregarding private versus institutional food
273trucks being allowed on the properties; tables, chairs, and other structures being prohibited; the
274potential for an interim use permit instead of registration; the potential for future issues with any
275restaurant wishing tobuild in the Industrial District; how long the registration is good for; if input
276was obtained from the Minnesota Food Truck Association; definition of a mobile food truck; and
277if this would include the business park area.
278
279Planner Wall summarized the proposed edits from the Commission as follows:
2801.Amend the definition of a ‘mobile food truck’ –basically clarifying that instead of “within
281the Corporate City Limits” it reads “the Industrial District” –this should also be amended
282in the “Purpose of this Chapter” sentence
2832.Amendment to 3-3-6(B)(2), replacing the word “proper” with “required”
2843.Amendment to 3-3-6(B)(6), prohibit picnic tables and benches in areas that are public right-
285of-way, designated parking areas, fire lanes, or driveways
2864.Limiting the registration period to one year
287
288
March 24, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFTPage 6
4/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 7
289Chair Field opened the public hearing.
290
291Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public
292hearing.
293
294Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
295
296COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO
297CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
298
299AYES: 6
300NAYS: 0
301ABSENT: 1
302
303COMMISSIONER COSTELLOMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
304RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-08, DRAFT ORDINANCE 475
305SECTIONS 2 AND 7 PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS –PEDDLERS, SOLICITORS,
306CANVASSERS AND TRANSIET MERCHANTS SUBJECT TO THE PLANNING
307COMMISSION’S COMMENTS MADE THIS EVENING.
308
309AYES: 6
310NAYS: 0
311ABSENT: 1 (Viksnins)
312
313Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its April 7, 2015 meeting.
314
Verbal Review
315
316
317Planner Wall gave the following verbal review:
318
319PLANNING CASE #2015-01
3201680 Mayfield Heights Road
321Critical Area Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and Wetlands Permit
322Approved by the City Council, as recommended by the Planning Commission
323PLANNING CASE #2015-02
3242540 Arbor Court
325Wetlands Permit
326Approved by the City Council, as recommended by the Planning Commission
327
328PLANNING CASE #2015-03
3291897 Delaware Avenue
330Conditional Use Permit
331Approved by the City Council, as recommended by the Planning Commission
332
333PLANNING CASE #2014-37
334Proposed amendment to the Wetlands System Chapter of the City Code
335Approved by the City Council, as recommended by the Planning Commission
336
March 24, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFTPage 7
4/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 8
337PLANNING CASE #2015-04
338Proposed amendment to the Zoning Chapter of the City Code
339Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission
340Included approval to amend the PCI codes to include that
341
342PLANNING CASE #2015-06
343731 Woodridge Drive
344Critical Area Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Variance Request
345Related to a slope repair project that, at the request of the applicant in order to expedite
346the review process, the public hearing was conductedlast week at the City Council meeting
347After the public hearing, the City Council ultimately approved the application
348
Staff Announcements
349
350
351City Engineer John Mazzitello made the following announcements:
352The mass grading activities for the LeMay Lake Shores subdivision construction has
353begun; anticipated to be through the end of March or beginning of April. Schedule
354anticipates utility and infrastructure installation to begin as soon as road restrictions are
355lifted –early May, weather dependent.
356The County’s proposal to investigate design and construction of a pedestrian underpass or
357a grade separated crossing at Highway 110, somewhere between The Village and Mendota
358Plaza –the County has brought a consultant on board, they are starting their research and
359will be having a kick-off meeting for an analysis of the alternatives and preliminary design
360within the next couple of weeks.
361Planner Wall made the following announcement:
362Spring Clean-up Day is Saturday, May 2 at Mendakota Park from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
363
Adjournment
364
365
366COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO
367ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:16 P.M.
368AYES: 6
369NAYS: 0
370ABSENT: 1 (Viksnins)
March 24, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFTPage 8
4/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 9
DATE:
April 28, 2015
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT:
Planning Case 2015-09
RearYard Setback Variance Request
APPLICANT:
Mark Swenson
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
873 Highway 110
ZONING/GUIDED:
R-1 One-Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE:
June 6, 2015
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicantisseeking a variance from the rearyard setback standardsto construct an addition to the
existing dwelling at 873 Highway 110.
BACKGROUND
The subject parcel is 0.41 acres (17,831 square feet)and contains an existing single-family dwelling and
3-car detached garage. Even though it maintains a Highway 110 address, the parcel isa corner lot fronting
Carmen Lane and Crown Point Drive to the east. The parcel is zoned R-1 One-Family Residential and
guided as LR Low Density Residential. The applicantintends to construct an approximately 216-square
foot additionconnecting the dwelling and garage to add a mudroom and bedroom/office. The north side of
the existing structures encroach into the required rear yard setback;therefore the proposed addition requires
a variance.
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
The subject parcel is guided LR Low Density Residentialin the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant’s
request to construct an addition is consistent with the continued use as a single-family residence.
RearYard Setback Variance
The R-1 District’s required rear yardsetbackis 30 feet or 20% of the average lot depth, whichever is greater.
In this case, the required setback is 30 feet.As shown on the Site Plan,as submitted by the applicant,the
existing structures are located approximately 11-14 feet from the rear property boundary line and are
considered legally nonconforming.
As shownon the building plans, the proposed addition would be constructed flush with the existing
dwelling’s north wall and would not encroach any further into rear yard setback. As a result, the variance
4/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 10
request is for approximately 18 feet for construction withinthe existing encroachment area. The proposed
addition would be finished with stucco to match the existing dwelling and meets the R-1 District’s building
height and other setback requirements.
When considering avariance 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.
The applicant’s request to construct an addition to an existing single-family dwelling to addstorage and
living space is a reasonable use of the property. Besides extending the existing encroachment into the rear
yard, the proposed addition is otherwise compliant with the Code and consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
2.The applicant establishes there are practical difficulties with complying with the ordinance due to
circumstancesthat are unique to the propertywhich are not created by the applicant or based on
economic considerations.
According to Dakota County property records, the existing dwelling was constructed in 1945. The Crown
Point Addition, which includesthe subject parcel, wasapproved by the City in 1977 andplatted in 1978.
As a result, the existing rear yard setback nonconformity was created as the subdivision was platted around
the pre-existing structures on the subject parcel. However, the meeting minutes approving the preliminary
and final plats did not include any discussion of creating such a nonconformity.
Based on the existing conditions, the applicant has established a practical difficulty in constructing the
proposed addition in compliance with the required rear yard setback standards. In addition, the existing
encroachment is a unique circumstance not created by the applicant.
3.The request will not alter the essential character of the locality.
The proposed addition to connect the existing dwelling and detached garage will not increase the existing
encroachment into the required rear yardand will be constructed with the same exterior finish and color.
The subject parcel’s structures pre-date the platting of the surrounding subdivision and all of the dwellings
in the neighborhood have attached garages. In addition, the property will still maintain a front yard setback
of nearly 70 feet from Carmen Lane to offset the extended encroachment along the rear property boundary
line.
ALTERNATIVES
Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions:
1.Recommend approval of the variance request for construction of an additionwithin the required
rearyard 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 rear
yard setback area based on the findings of factthat a practical difficulty is not established and
expansion alternatives exist that donot require a rearyard setback variance.
OR
3.Table the request.
4/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 11
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the variancerequestfor construction ofthe proposed addition within the
required rearyard 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 map
2.Site photos
3.Planning Applications, including supporting materials
4/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 12
FINDINGS OF FACT FORAPPROVAL
RearYard Setback Variance Request for Addition
873 Highway 110
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 platting of the Crown Point Addition and location of the pre-existing structures on the subject
parcel created a unique circumstance upon the property not created by the applicant.
3.The proposed addition will not extend any further into the rear yard than the existing dwelling
and represents a small increased encroachment whilestillmaintaining a large front yard setback.
4.The proposed addition will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
4/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 13
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/...416201
C//5
4/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 14
Planning Case 2015-09
Site Photos: 873 Highway 110
Source: Staff (04.20.15)
4/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 15
4/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 16
4/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 17
4/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 18
4/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 19
4/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 20
Page 21
5
of
-
wenson/Final
Packet
1
Commission
Drawn by
JLW
Planning
S
4/28/15
c.
www.WardellResidentialDesign.com or 651 483 4974
Design & Drafting Services by Wardell Consulting, In
2/9/15
Rev.2
Hwy. 110, Mendota Heights, MN
Dawn & Mark Swenson
Builder
873
Page 22
5
of
-
wenson/Final
Packet
2
Commission
Drawn by
JLW
Planning
S
4/28/15
c.
www.WardellResidentialDesign.com or 651 483 4974
Design & Drafting Services by Wardell Consulting, In
2/9/15
Rev.2
Hwy. 110, Mendota Heights, MN
Dawn & Mark Swenson
Builder
873
Page 23
5
of
-
wenson/Final
Packet
3
Commission
Drawn by
JLW
Planning
S
4/28/15
c.
www.WardellResidentialDesign.com or 651 483 4974
Design & Drafting Services by Wardell Consulting, In
2/9/15
Rev.2
873 Hwy. 110, Mendota Heights, MN
Dawn & Mark Swenson
Builder
Page 24
5
of
-
wenson/Final
Packet
4
Commission
Drawn by
JLW
Planning
S
4/28/15
c.
www.WardellResidentialDesign.com or 651 483 4974
Design & Drafting Services by Wardell Consulting, In
2/9/15
Rev.2
Hwy. 110, Mendota Heights, MN
Dawn & Mark Swenson
Builder
873
Page 25
5
of
-
wenson/Final
Packet
5
Commission
Drawn by
JLW
Planning
S
4/28/15
c.
www.WardellResidentialDesign.com or 651 483 4974
Design & Drafting Services by Wardell Consulting, In
2/9/15
Rev.2
Hwy. 110, Mendota Heights, MN
Dawn & Mark Swenson
Builder
873
4/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 26
4/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 27
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
4/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 28
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/C...47201
o//5
4/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 29
DATE:
April 28, 2015
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT:
Planning Case 2015-11
Proposed Code Amendments – Wireless Antenna Improvements
APPLICANT:
City of Mendota Heights
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
N/A
ZONING/GUIDED:
N/A
ACTION DEADLINE:
N/A
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The City is considering amendments to Title 12, Chapter 1, Article D, Section 14of the City Code
concerning wireless antennas, towers, and accessory structures.
BACKGROUND
According to Title 12-1D-14 of the City Code:
Wireless telecommunication towers, antennas, and accessory structures, including, but not limited to,
cellular, PCS technology, and wireless internet, are a conditional use in all zones within the city…
Since 2013, the City has processed five CUPapplications for minor improvementsto existing wireless
antenna facilities. The projects typically included replacement of antennas, change-out of equipment and
cables, and interior modifications to accessory structures. In allcases, the improvementsdid not increase
the height of the wireless antenna structures or expand the footprint of theaccessory structures. From the
ground, the projects were mostly inconspicuous.
Conditional use permits requirea public hearing and significant staff-time to process. In addition, the
minimum five-week application approval process can be burdensome to applicants. Based on feedback
from the Planning Commission and Council, certain applications for minor equipment improvements to
existing wireless antenna facilities could be reviewed and administratively-approved and still accomplish
the intent of the ordinance; while making the approval process more efficient and equitable. The Council
has approvedsimilar processes for applicable wetlands and fence permits.
As a result, staff has identified potential code amendments concerning the approval process for discussion
and recommendation by the Planning Commission. The goal is to streamline the processfor certain wireless
antenna facility improvement projects.
4/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 30
ANALYSIS
As contained in DRAFT Ordinance 476,the proposed amendment would be added to the existing Code
sectionconcerning wireless antennas, towers, and accessory structures. As proposed, it would only apply
to certain improvements to existing wireless antenna facilities; new towers would require a public
conditional use permit review/approval process. Once approved by the planning and engineering
departments, the Building Official would review the plans to determine if a building permit is required.
ALTERNATIVES
Following the public hearing and further discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following
actions:
1.Recommend approval of DRAFT Ordinance 476, as presented or as amended by the Commission.
OR
2.Recommend denial of DRAFT Ordinance 476.
OR
3.Table the request, pending additional information and revisions from staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the proposed code amendment(Alternative #1). If
acceptable to the Commission, action can be taken at this month’s meeting. Staff would proposeto bring
back any substantial revisions for reviewand further discussionat a future meeting prior to making a
recommendation to the City Council.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1.DRAFT Ordinance 476
2.Planning Application, including supporting materials
4/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 31
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 476
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 12-1D-14 OF THE CITY CODE OF THE
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, CONCERNING
WIRELESS ANTENNAS, TOWERS, AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain:
Section 1.
Title 12-1D-14(I) is hereby added as follows:
I. Administrative Procedures And Exemptions: The city administrator may, at his or her discretion, direct
the appropriate staff member to review conditional use permit requests for improvements to existing
wireless antenna facilities.The City may impose such conditions and require such guarantees deemed
reasonable and necessary to protect the public interest and ensure compliance with the standards and
purposes of the City Code. Administrative approval of such requestsmay be granted when all of the
following conditions exist:
1.Requirements in 12-1D-14(H) are met and submitted for review.
2.Adjustment, maintenance, repair, or replacement of existing antennaeand accessory structuresor
the elements of an antenna array, including remote radio units (RRU), affixed to a tower or
antenna.
3.No increase in the total amount of the existing antennae.
4.No increase in the total height of the existing antenna structure.
5.No increase in structural load to the existing wireless antenna structure.
6.No external modification or expansion of the existing accessory structure.
7.Existing wireless antenna facility, including the wireless antenna structure and accessory
structure, is compliant with all conditions contained in the original conditional use permit.
Section 2.
This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication.
Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this ### day of Month, 2015.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor
ATTEST
___________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
Ord #476 – 04.28.15 Planning Commission Review page 1 of 1
4/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 32
4/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 33
4/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 34