2015-06-23 Planning Comm Agenda Packet
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSIONAGENDA
June 23, 2015 – 7:00 p.m.
Mendota Heights City Hall
1.Call to Order
2.Roll Call
3.Adopt Agenda
4.Approve May 26, 2015Planning Commission Minutes
5.Public Hearings:
a.Case No. 2015-19: Eileen O’Shaughnessy/Art Perlman. Critical Area Permit
at 731 Woodridge Drive.
b.Case No. 2015-20: Dick Bjorklund. Preliminary Plat at 2511/2525 Condon
Court.
c. Case No. 2015-21: Saint Thomas Academy. Variance at 949 Mendota
Heights Road.
d.Case No. 2015-23: Sean Doyle/John Karas. Lot Split and Variance at 650
North Freeway Road.
e.Case No. 2015-22: City of Mendota Heights. Proposed City Code
amendment concerning interim uses.
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.
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 1
1CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
2DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
3
4PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES
5May 26, 2015
6
7The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 26,
82015 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, Doug Hennes, Christine Costello, and Ansis Viksnins.Those absent:Mary Magnuson and
12Michael Noonan.Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall andPublic Works Director/City
13Engineer John Mazzitello.
14
Approval of Agenda
15
16
17The agenda was approved as submitted.
18
Approval of April 28, 2015 Minutes
19
20
21COMMISSIONER VIKSININS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON TO
22APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 28, 2015, AS PRESENTED.
23
24AYES: 5
25NAYS: 0
26ABSENT: 2
27
Hearings
28
29
30PLANNING CASE #2015-14
31City of Mendota Heights
32Proposed City Code Amendment Concerning Trade Schools
33
34City Planner Nolan Wallexplained that the City was considering amendments to Title 12, Chapter
351, Article B, Section 2 of the City Code concerning definition of “trade school” in response to
36recent requests to establish different types of educational facilities within the Industrial Zoning
37District.
38
39Commissioners asked questions regarding existing trade school uses in the Industrial District, if
40there was an example of a school that was not permitted under the current definition that would be
41allowed under the proposed, and the reason for the proposed amendment if the current definition
42is working. In response, Planner Wall stated the intent was to clarify the existing definition based
43on the City’s interpretation and its post-secondary nature.
44
45Chair Field opened the public hearing.
46
May 26, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFTPage 1
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 2
47Ms. Cindy Lavorato, attorney representing STEP Academy, a 6-12 Charter School in Inver Grove
48Heights.STEPAcademy has applied to become a part of Sanford-Brown College, currently
49residing in the Industrial Zoning District. She believes that the current definition, although vague
50and in need of clarification, allowsfora charter school in the zoning district. However, the
51proposed definition, in their viewpoint, is an effort to zone the charter school out of the proposed
52use that would be very consistent with the school’s mission and that of Sanford-Brown.
53
54Planner Wall explained that STEPAcademy has made an appeal related to a specific interpretation
55of the existing definition in relation to the proposed use. That issue will come before the Planning
56Commission, which will be acting as the Board of Appeals, for the June 23 Commission meeting
57date. Tonight’s discussion is limited to the proposed code amendment with the understanding that
58this specific issue raised in relation to that use will come back before the Planning Commission
59acting as the Board of Appeals. The code, as it is currently, is the code uponwhich the appeal will
60be heard.
61
62Additional discussion occurred regarding the timing of this planning case and the need for it at all.
63
64COMMISSIONER VIKSININS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO
65TABLE PLANNING CASE 2015-14 WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING REMAINING OPEN.
66
67AYES: 5
68NAYS: 0
69ABSENT: 2
70
71PLANNING CASE #2015-15
72City of Mendota Heights
73Proposed City Code Amendment Concerning Single-family Residential Construction
74
75City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the City of Mendota Heights is seeking amendments to
76Title 12, Chapter 1, Article E of the City Code pertaining to minimum requirements for single-
77family residential districts.
78
79Inresponse to the recent infilldevelopment and the increasing amount of teardowns in the City,
80the City Council directed staff to research potential ordinance amendments to address the
81associated issues for discussion at the February 2015 Council Workshop. The issues discussed
82regarding this development pattern were related to the structure size and footprint of new
83dwellings, minimum lot sizes, building height, character of the neighborhood, as well as
84construction impacts. After discussion by the Council, staff was directed to proceed with certain
85amendments, which have been provided in proposed Ordinance 478 for review and
86recommendation by the Planning Commission.
87
88Planner Wall then reviewed each section contained in the proposed ordinance.
89
90Commissioners asked questions regarding why this would not be governed by setbacks and floor
91area ratios as opposed to trying to design homes and lengthening the hours of operation.
92
May 26, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFTPage 2
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 3
93Chair Field opened the public hearing.
94
95Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public
96hearing.
97
98COMMISSIONER HENNESMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO
99CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
100
101AYES: 5
102NAYS: 0
103ABSENT: 2
104
105COMMISSIONER ROSTONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO
106RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF DRAFT ORDINANCE 478 AS PROPOSED BY STAFF AND
107AS REQUESTED ON PAGES 17 AND 18 OF THE STAFF REPORT, WITH THE EXCEPTION
108OF CHANGING 12-1E-1(D)NUMBER 1 HOURS OF OPERATIONFOR EXTERIOR
109CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ARE LIMITED TO 7:00 AM –8:00 PM MONDAY
110THROUGH FRIDAY AND 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM ON WEEKENDS.
111
112AYES: 5
113NAYS: 0
114ABSENT: 2
115
116Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 2, 2015 meeting.
117
Verbal Review
118
119
120Planner Wall gave the following verbal review:
121
122PLANNING CASE #2015-09
123Mark Swenson, 873 Highway 110
124Rear Yard Setback Variance Request
125•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission
126
127PLANNING CASE #2015-11
128City of Mendota Heights
129Ordinance 476 Concerning Wireless Antennas, Towers, and Accessory Structures
130Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission
131
132PLANNING CASE #2015-12 AND PLANNING CASE #2015-13
133Administrative Wetlands Permits for vegetation removal in compliance with the code requirements
134for approval
135
136
137
May 26, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFTPage 3
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 4
Staff Announcements
138
139
140At the June 23 Planning Commission Meeting the Commission will be convening as the
141Board of Appeals to consider anappeal of the City’s interpretation of the zoning ordinance
142text in relation to a specific use request. Further information to be supplied in the
143Commission packet.
144Public Works Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello announced that it is ‘road
145construction season’
146Victoria Road Phase II bid opening to take place on May 27, construction to begin
o
147after June 10; anticipated completion by Labor Day
148Interstate 35E, north of downtown St. Paul to I-694 will be closed from 10:00 pm
o
149on Friday, May 29 to 5:00 am on Monday, June 1
150Reconstruction of Highway 13, from Interstate 35E to Second Street in Mendota is
o
151going to kick-off in the coming weeks. MnDOT is planning on closing the highway
152beginning June 1 with construction commencing shortly thereafter. Access to
153residents and businesses between 35E and Lexington will be maintained throughout
154the project. Lexington to Second Street will be closed except to local traffic. Posted
155detour will be down I-35E to Highway 110 to Highway 13, accessing Mendota from
156the St. Peter’s side.
157
Adjournment
158
159
160COMMISSIONER ROSTONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO
161ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:36 P.M.
162
163AYES: 5
164NAYS: 0
165ABSENT: 2
May 26, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFTPage 4
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 5
DATE:
June 23, 2015
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT:
Planning Case 2015-19
Critical Area Permit
APPLICANT:
Eileen O’Shaughnessy and Art Perlman
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
731Woodridge Drive
ZONING/GUIDED:
R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE:
August 2, 2015
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicants areseekinga critical area permitto construct a fence on the subject parcel within the
Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area. Title 12-3-5 of the City Code requires a critical area permit for
all developmentactivities requiring zoning approval.
BACKGROUND
As a result of alandslide event onJune 19, 2014, an approximately 75-foot by 45-foot portion ofthe subject
parcel’s rear yardslid onto Highway 13. The applicants received approval from the City Council in March
2015 for acritical area permit, conditional use permit, and variances for construction of a retaining wall
and associated soil stabilization. In order to expedite the review process, the public hearing was held before
the City Council and not the Planning Commission. The proposed fence being consideredin this case was
not included as part of the applications in March, therefore an additional permit is required at this time.
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
The subject parcel is guided LR Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The applicants’
request to construct a fence is consistent with the continued use as a single-family residence.
Critical Area Overlay District
According to Title 12-3-2 of the City Code, the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District is:
…to prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional and national resource to
promote orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas, to
preserve and enhance its values to the public and protect and preserve the system as an essential element
in the city's transportation, sewer and water and recreational systems…
The proposed 3.5-foot tall, black vinyl fence would be located on top of the to-be-constructed concrete
retaining wall, which is approximately 17 feet tall, to ensure appropriate fall protection(see attached plans).
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 6
According to the applicants, vines planted at the base of the retaining will eventually visually obscure the
fencein compliance with the Critical Area standards. In addition, no soil disturbance or vegetation removal
will occur, beyond what is required for the approved retaining wall construction project, and the proposed
fence is compliant with the 6-foot height and 30% opacity requirements for residential zoning districts.
INTERAGENCY REVIEW
In addition to the public and private property owners within 350 feet of the subject parcel, public hearing
notices and application materials were sent to the following agencies for review and comment:
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR)
Acknowledged receipt of the application request and indicated they had no comments.
City of Lilydale and City of St. Paul – Parks and Recreation Department
As of June 17, no comments had been received from eitheragencyon this case.
ALTERNATIVES
1.Approval of the Critical Area Permitrequest for a fence based on the findings of factthat the
proposed projectis compliant with the policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay District,
with the conditionthat a fence permit is approvedby the City prior to construction of the proposed
project.
OR
2.Denial of the Critical Area Permit request for a fence based on the findings of factthat the
application does not meet the policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay District.
OR
3.Table the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Critical Area Permitrequest for the proposed fence based on the findings
of factthat the proposed projectis compliant with the policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay
Districtwith the condition that a fence permit is approved by the City prior to construction of the proposed
project (Alternative 1).
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1.Aerial site map
2.Planning applications, including supporting materials
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 7
Planning Case 2015-19
City of
731 Woodbridge Drive
Mendota
040
Heights
Date: 6/15/2015
SCALE IN FEET
727
731
754
W
OODR
IDGE
DR
744
734 Aerometrics
GIS Map Disclaimer:
This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,
survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained
in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors
or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 8
,¤³³¤± ®¥ )³¤³
#±¨³¨¢ « !±¤ 0¤±¬¨³
-¸ §´²¡ £Ǿ !±³ 0¤±«¬ Ǿ £ ) ±¤ ²¤¤ª¨¦ #±¨³¨¢ « !±¤ 0¤±¬¨³ ¨ ®±£¤± ³®
¢®²³±´¢³ ¢§ ¨ «¨ª ¥¤¢¤ȁ 7¤ «¨µ¤ ³ ΖΒΐ 7®®£±¨£¦¤ $±¨µ¤ ¨ -¤£®³ (¤¨¦§³²ȁ ȁ
4§¤ ±¤ ± ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ²«®¯¤² ²³¤¤¯«¸ £®¶ ³® ³§¤ ²³ ³¤ (¨¦§¶ ¸ ΐΒ £ ¨²
³´± ««¸ ¶®®£¤£ ¶¨³§ ¬¨· ®¥ £¤¢¨£´®´² £ ¤µ¤±¦±¤¤ ³±¤¤²Ǿ ²§±´¡² £ ®³§¤±
µ¤¦¤³ ³¨®ȁ
% ±«¨¤± ¨ ³§¤ ¸¤ ± ¶¤ ¯¯«¨¤£ ¥®±Ǿ £ ¶¤±¤ ¦± ³¤£Ǿ #±¨³¨¢ « !±¤ 0¤±¬¨³Ǿ
Cond¨³¨® « 5²¤ 0¤±¬¨³Ǿ £ #±¨³¨¢ « !±¤ 6 ±¨ ¢¤ ¨ ®±£¤± ³® ¢®²³±´¢³ ±¤³ ¨¨¦
¶ «« ³ ³§¤ ±¤ ± ®¥ ®´± ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ³® ±¤¯ ¨± £ ²³ ¡¨«¨¹¤ ±¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ²«®¯¤ ³§ ³
¥ ¨«¤£Ǿ ¢ ´²¨¦ « £²«¨£¤Ǿ ® *´¤ ΐΘǾ ΑΏΐΓȁ
!³ ³§¤ ³¨¬¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯¯«¨¢ ³¨® ¶¤ «¤ ±¤£ ³§ ³ ¥¤¢¤ ³ ³§¤ ³®¯ ®¥ ³§¤ ±¤³ ¨¨¦ ¶ ««
¶®´«£ ®³ ¡¤ ±¤°´¨±¤£ ¡¸ ¢®£¤Ǿ £ £¤¢¨£¤£ ¨ ³§¤ ¨³¤±¤²³ ®¥ ¤·¯¤£¨¤¢¸ ¶¤ ¶®´«£
£¤¥¤± £¤¢¨²¨®² ±¤¦ ±£¨¦ ³§¤ ¥¤¢¤ ´³¨« « ³¤± ³¨¬¤ȁ 7¤ § µ¤ ®¶ £¤¢¨£¤£ ³§ ³Ǿ ¨
³§¤ ¨³¤±¤²³ ®¥ ² ¥¤³¸Ǿ ³§¤±¤ ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ¥¤¢¤ ³ ³§¤ ³®¯ ®¥ ³§¤ ¶ ««ȁ 4§¤ ±¤ ®¥ ³§¤
±¤³ ¨¨¦ ¶ «« ³§ ³ ¥ ¢¤² (¨¦§¶ ¸ ΐΒ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ΐΖȌ ³ «« £ ³§¤ ±¤²´«³¨¦ ¡ ¢ª¥¨««¤£
²«®¯¤ ¡¤§¨£ ¨³ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¢®²¨£¤± ¡«¸ «¤²² ²³¤¤¯ ³§ ³§¤ ¤·¨²³¨¦ ²«®¯¤ȁ )³ ¨² ®³ ®´³ ®¥
³§¤ °´¤²³¨® ³§ ³ ²®¬¤®¤ ¬¨¦§³ ³³¤¬¯³ ³® ¢«¨¬¡ £®¶ ¥±®¬ ¡®µ¤ȁ ! ¥¤¢¤ ¢®´«£
¯±¤µ¤³ ¥ «« ®µ¤± ³§¤ ³®¯ ¤£¦¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ¶ ««ȁ
4§¤ ¥¤¢¤ ³§ ³ ¶¤ ¯±®¯®²¤ ¶®´«£ ±´ ³§¤ «¤¦³§ ®¥ ³§¤ ±¤³ ¨¨¦ ¶ «« £ ¡¤ Β σ
¥¤¤³ ³ ««ȁ 4§¤ ¥¤¢¨¦ ¬ ³¤±¨ « ¶®´«£ ¡¤ ¡« ¢ª µ¨¸« ¢® ³¤£ ¢§ ¨ «¨ª ¶¨³§ ¥¤¢¤
¯®²³² ²¯ ¢¤£ ΐΏ ¥¤¤³ ¯ ±³ȁ ) ³¨¬¤ ¶¤ ¤·¯¤¢³ ³§ ³ µ¨¤²Ǿ ¶§¨¢§ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¯« ³¤£ ³ ³§¤
¡ ²¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ±¤³ ¨¨¦ ¶ «« ¶¨«« §¤«¯ ³® ®¡²¢´±¤ ³§¤ ¥¤¢¤ µ¨²´ ««¸ȁ 4§¤ ¥¤¢¤ ¶¨«« ¡¤
µ¨²¨¡«¤ ¥±®¬ ³§¤ §¨¦§¶ ¸Ǿ ¡´³ ®³ ¥±®¬ ¤¨¦§¡®±¨¦ ¸ ±£²ȁ
4§ ª ¸®´ ¥®± ¸®´± consideration,
%¨«¤¤ /Ȍ3§ ´¦§¤²²¸
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 9
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 10
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 11
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 12
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 13
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/C...62201
o//5
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 14
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/C...62201
o//5
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 15
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 16
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 17
Item No. 2015-20
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 23, 2015
To: Mendota Heights Planning Commission
From: Phil Carlson, AICP, Consulting Planner;
RE: Planning Case 2015-20: Dick Bjorklund Properties LLC
Preliminary Plat The Oaks
Action
Deadline: August 7, 2015 (60 days from complete application submittal)
INTRODUCTION
The applicant, Dick Brjorklund Properties LLC, wishes to plat three new lots at 2511 & 2525 Condon
Court from two existing single family lots plus an additional smaller parcel acquired from MnDOT
right-of-way, and has applied for preliminary and final plat approval. The applicant is calling all
five new proposed dwellings townhouses: two of the lots are for a pair of new twin homes each
and the third lot is for a new detached single family home.
BACKGROUND
The proposed plat name is The Oaks.
The subject property is 1.34 acres (58,244 square feet) in area. This includes the newly
added Tract A from MnDOT, which is 0.08 acre (3,366 square feet). This parcel was
acquired to provide the minimum 10,000-square-foot lot size for the new twin home lots.
The property is guided MR Medium Density Residential . A
change from LB to MR was approved in January 2015 by the City.
The property is zoned R-2 Medium Density Residential. A change from R-1 to R-2 was
approved in January 2015 by the City.
There are two single family homes on the property now, which will be razed to make room
for the new dwellings.
There is a separate parcel owned by others at the south end of Condon Court which is still
guided LB and zoned B-1, and is not part of this application.
There is no maximum standard for impervious surface lot coverage on residential lots, but
that information is provided on the attached plans - total proposed impervious coverage
on the site is 28.5%.
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 18
June 23, 2015
Mendota Heights Planning Commission
Page 2 of 6
Reference: 2015-20, Dick Bjorklund Properties LLC
ANALYSIS
1)The proposed plat consists of three lots:
Lot 1 single family lot
Minimum lot size: 15,000 sq ft required, 18,244 sq ft proposed
o
Minimum lot width: 100 required, 104 proposed
o
Lots 2 & 3 2-family lot
Minimum lot size: 10,000 sq ft each (20,000 sq ft combined)
o
Proposed minimum lot size: 10,000 sq ft each (20,000 sq ft combined)
o
Minimum lot width: 100 required, 108 proposed
o
Lots 4 & 5 2-family lot
Minimum lot size: 10,000 sq ft each (20,000 sq ft combined)
o
Proposed minimum lot size: 10,000 sq ft each (20,000 sq ft combined)
o
Minimum lot width: 100 required, 136 proposed
o
2)The Zoning Code definition of lot width comes into play in analyzing this plat:
LOT WIDTH: The maximum horizontal distance between the side lot lines of a lot
measured within the first thirty feet (30') of the lot depth.
Taken literally, the definition would disqualify three of the five lots in this plat.
The top graphic on the next page shows how the first 30 of lot depth is
narrower than 100 due to the jog in the front lot line. A common sense
interpretation is warranted, in my opinion, to allow these lots as shown.
The purpose of the minimum lot width is to make sure there is adequate
frontage for access and the frontage is not crowded with homes close
together. It is measured in the first 30 feet so there is no loophole for very
narrow slivers of lots next to each other that only get to the required width
very far back on the lot. See graphic to the right.
In the case of the Bjorklund plat what keeps the lot width from meeting the
letter of the Code is the right-of-way for Condon Court, which is actually
part of MnDOT right-of-way. Mr. Bjorklund purchased a portion of the right-
of-way to allow his lots to be large enough to meet the lot size minimum.
between the
There is nothing directly in front of the proposed homeshome
and the street but lot and right-of-way. This makes the notch in the corners
of Lot 1 and Lot 3 de facto lot area where nothing else will be built. It will
appear as part of the lot and the purpose of the lot width minimum will be
preserved: there is no crowding and access is assured.
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 19
June 23, 2015
Mendota Heights Planning Commission
Page 3 of 6
Reference: 2015-20, Dick Bjorklund Properties LLC
Literal Code interpretation
first 30 of the lot depth
Lot width = 47 + (100 reqd)
Lot width = 73 + (100 reqd)
De Facto Code interpretation
De facto lot area
first 30 of the lot depth
Lot width = 104.4 (100 reqd)
Lot width = 134.5 (100 reqd)
De facto lot area
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 20
June 23, 2015
Mendota Heights Planning Commission
Page 4 of 6
Reference: 2015-20, Dick Bjorklund Properties LLC
3)The proposed homes on the new lots are shown on the preliminary plat meet all setbacks.
4)The Subdivision Code requires park dedication for the three new lots at $2,700 per lot five
new lots replacing two existing lots - totaling $8,100.
5)Grading and erosion control plans for the new plat are acceptable.
6)The preliminary landscape plan shows the trees and vegetation to be removed and new
trees to be planted. The plan is reasonable.
7)An overhead power line on the west side of Condon Court will be moved to the east side
at the applicants expense.
8)There is currently no sanitary sewer serving the lots, which will have to be extended from
northwest of the site.
9)Prior to the City signing the Final Plat, the following actions will take place on the part of
the applicant:
a.$8,100.00 Park Dedication Fee is to be paid to the City.
b.
all parties involved with development of the platted area. This will include a detailed
description of municipal utility installation, landscaping and building and driveway
placement.
c.All grading and construction activity associated with future development of the
platted area will be in compliance with all Federal, State, and Local Regulations and
Codes, as well as in compliance with the City
Document.
d.Construction activity will be in compliance with restrictions outlined in City Code.
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 21
June 23, 2015
Mendota Heights Planning Commission
Page 5 of 6
Reference: 2015-20, Dick Bjorklund Properties LLC
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the
preliminary plat application for The Oaks submitted by Dick Bjorklund Properties LLC with the
following conditions:
1.$8,100.00 Park Dedication Fee is to be paid to the City, prior to final plat approval.
2.
parties involved with development of the platted area. This will include a detailed
description of municipal utility installation, landscaping and building and driveway
placement.
3.All grading and construction activity associated with future development of the platted
area will be in compliance with all Federal, State, and Local Regulations and Codes, as
well as in compliance with the City
4.Construction activity will be in compliance with restrictions outlined in City Code.
5.A final plat is submitted for City Council review.
REQUESTED ACTION
Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following
actions:
1.Recommend approval of preliminary plat with conditions
OR
2.Recommend denial
OR
3.Table the request, pending additional information from staff or others.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
The following exhibits are attached for your review:
1.Aerial site Map
2.Planning Applications
3.Plan Set
4.MnDOT letter
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 22
June 23, 2015
Mendota Heights Planning Commission
Page 6 of 6
Reference: 2015-20, Dick Bjorklund Properties LLC
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Preliminary Plat
The Oaks
1.The proposed plat meets the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code, including proposed
uses, lot size, lot width and setbacks. The lot widths for Lots 1, 2, and 3 meet the intent of
the Code in terms of access and adequate spacing, even though they do not meet the
letter of the Code definition.
2.The proposed plat meets the purpose and intent of the Subdivision Code, including
grading, drainage, and lot arrangement.
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 23
Planning Case 2015-20
City of
2511 & 2525 Condon Court
Mendota
080
Heights
Date: 6/16/2015
SCALE IN FEET
162
128
178
162
2511
135
2525
141
2535
1445126
0
Aerometrics
GIS Map Disclaimer:
This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,
survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained
in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors
or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 24
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 25
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 26
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 27
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 28
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 29
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 30
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 39
Planning Case 2015-20
Proposed Elevations: Single-family and twin-home units
Source: Applicant
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 40
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 41
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 42
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 43
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 44
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 45
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/C...62201
o//5
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 46
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 47
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 48
DATE:
June 23, 2015
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT:
Planning Case 2015-21
SignSizeVariance Request
APPLICANT:
Saint Thomas Academy
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
949 Mendota Heights Road
ZONING/GUIDED:
R-1 One-Family Residential/PS Private School
ACTION DEADLINE:
August 2, 2015
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicantisseeking a variancefrom the sign size requirementsin Title 12-1D-15-H(3) of the City Code
for nonresidential uses within a residential zoning district.
BACKGROUND
The subject parcel is approximately 43 acres and contains the Saint Thomas Academy campus, including
several buildings and athletic fields. The applicant intends to erect the proposed sign on the control
room/press boxoverlooking the athletic field/track facing Mendota Heights Road. The proposed sign’s
size exceeds the square footage requirements for such a use and requires a variance.
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
The subject parcel is guided PS Private Schoolin the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.The applicant’s request
to erect additional signage on campus is consistent with the continued use as a private school.
Variance
According to Title 12-1D-15-H(3) of the City Code:
H. Signs In R Districts: Within the R districts, the following signs are permitted:
3. One nameplate sign for each permitted use or use by conditional use permit other than residential, and
such sign shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet in area per surface.
The control room/press box was approved by conditional use permit in 1994, as part of Planning Case 94-
04. The proposed sign totals 88.125 square feet, which exceeds the 12-square foot requirement. When
considering avariance for the proposed sign, the City is required to find that:
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 49
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 requesttoerect identification signage on the control room/pressbox above the athletic
field/track is a reasonable use of the property. Future signage requests were anticipated as part of the
approval of the CUP in 1994, which required City Council approval. Besides the proposed size, the sign 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.
The subject parcel is zoned R-1 One-Family Residential, but functions as an institutional use. The 12-
square foot maximum sign area requirement imposed in the R-1 District better reflects the signage needs
of residential uses, rather than institutional uses. As a result, the variance request in this case is unique to
the subject property.
The purpose of identification signage is to convey information and, therefore, itmust be appropriately-sized
depending on the location. Due to the over 460-foot setback from Mendota Heights Road, the proposed
location of thesign on the control room/press box meetingthe 12-square foot size requirement would likely
be too small for its intended purpose; therefore establishing a practical difficulty in this case. In addition,
similar signage consistent with the size of the proposed sign has been approved for other buildings on
campus and for other institutional uses in the City.
3.The request will not alter the essential character of the locality.
The proposed sign would be located on a structure that was approved in its current location in 1994 and
would be most visible from Mendota Heights Road (see attached photo). The subject parcel is bordered by
an office building to the west, school-owned property to the south across Mendota Heights Road, and the
VisitationMonastery and Schoolproperty to the east across Lake Drive. While the subject parcelis zoned
R-1, the nearest residential properties are over 1,700 feet away and the proposed sign would have no visual
impact on the neighborhoods.
ALTERNATIVES
Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions:
1.Recommend approval of the variance request to exceed the sign size requirements in a residential
zoning district based on the attached findings of fact, with the condition that the applicant obtain a
sign permit.
OR
2.Recommenddenial of the variance request to exceed the sign size requirements in a residential
zoning district based onthe findings of factthat a practical difficulty is not established and
reasonable use can be made of the property without a variance.
OR
3.Table the request.
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 50
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the variance request to exceed the sign size requirements in a residential
zoning district based on the attached findings of fact (Alternative #1),with the condition that the applicant
obtain a sign permit.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1.Aerial site map
2.Site photo
3.Planning applications, including supporting materials
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 51
FINDINGS OF FACT FORAPPROVAL
Sign Size Variance Request
949 Mendota Heights Road – Saint Thomas Academy
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of the proposed request:
1.The subject parcel is significantly larger than standard residential properties, which restricts the
ability to read signage from the surrounding streets.
2.The maximum sign area requirement imposed in the R-1 District better reflects the signage needs
of residential uses, rather than institutional uses, and is unique to the subject property.
3.A sign in the proposed location meeting the maximum sign area requirement would likely be too
small for its intended purpose due to the expansive setback from Mendota Heights Road and
presents a practical difficulty for the applicant.
4.Similar signage consistent with the size of the proposed sign has been approved for other
buildings on campus and for other institutional uses in the City.
5.The proposed sign will not negatively impact the surrounding properties.
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 52
Planning Case 2015-21
City of
949 Mendota Heights Road
Mendota
Saint Thomas Academy
0240
Heights
Date: 6/15/2015
SCALE IN FEET
2455
949
949
2455
949
949
949
949
2391
1031
949
1031
949
MENDOTA HEIGHTS RD
950
Aerometrics
GIS Map Disclaimer:
This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,
survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained
in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors
or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 53
Planning Case 2015-21
Proposed sign location from Mendota Heights Road (looking north)
Source: Staff (06.08.15)
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 54
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 55
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 56
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 57
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 60
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/C...62201
o//5
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 61
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 62
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 63
DATE:
June 23, 2015
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT:
Planning Case 2015-23
Subdivision Request for Lot Split and Variance
APPLICANT:
Sean Doyle, S.D. Custom Homes/John Karas
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
650 North Freeway Road
ZONING/GUIDED:
R-1 One-Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE:
September 2, 2015 (extended to 120 days)
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant,on behalf of the property owner,is seeking approval to subdivide the subject parcellocated
at 650 North Freeway Road. The request requires City Council approval before being recorded with Dakota
County. In addition, a variance is required to disturb slopes greater than 25% as part of grading and
construction activities for a new single-family dwelling.
BACKGROUND
The subject parcelis approximately 1.15acres (50,094 square feet) and contains an existing single-family
residential dwellingand attached, side-loaded garage(see attached aerial site map). The parcel is zoned
R-1 One-Family Residentialand is guided for low density residential development. If the requests are
approved, a garage addition would be constructed on the existing dwelling and a new single-family dwelling
would be constructedwithin the proposed building pad on the easterly parcel, as shown in Exhibit A.
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
The subject parcel is guided LR, Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.The applicant’s
request to subdivide the subject parcel into two parcels, consisting of approximately 0.57 acreseach, is
consistent with the LR maximum density of 2.9 units per acre. Furthermore, the proposed addition to the
existing dwelling and construction of a new single-family dwelling are consistent with continued use of
both parcels as low density residential uses.
Lot Split
Title 11-3-2 of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the
resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district.
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 64
R-1 District Standards
As shown in the table below, both proposed parcels, the existing dwelling, and proposed garage addition
meet the applicable R-1 District standards:
StandardRequiredParcel AParcel B
Lot Area15,000 sq. ft.15,000 sq. ft.25,000sq. ft.25,000 sq. ft.
Lot Width100 ft.100 ft.100ft.100 ft.
72.2 ft.(Parcel A)
Front Yard 30 ft. or \[(A+B/2)+30)/2\]73.7 ft. 102 ft.
67.2 ft.(Parcel B)
10 ft. on each side or ½ the
height of the structure
10 ft. (Parcel A)29ft. (west)25 ft. (west)
Side Yard contiguous to the side yard,
10-15 ft. (Parcel B) 10.3 ft. (east)15 ft. (east)
whichever is greater, to a
maximum of 15 ft.
30 ft. or 20% of the average lot
Rear Yard50 ft. 114ft.100 ft.
depth, whichever is greater
Source: Exhibits A & B
Exhibit A includes therequired setbacks for the principal structures on both parcels; actual compliance for
the proposed garage addition on Parcel A and the new dwelling on Parcel B will be verified upon submission
of building permit applications based on the proposed structure designs.
Proposed Garage Addition
The existing drivewayaccessing the attached garage on Parcel A would be removed as partof the proposed
grading and construction for the new dwelling on Parcel B. Since the existing garagewill be inaccessible
without traversing Parcel B, a nonconformity would be created. In order to address this issue, the property
owner is proposing to construct a garage addition on the front of the existing dwelling. Therefore, a
condition requiring building permit approval and certificate of occupancy issuance for the proposed garage
prior to recording the subdivision should be included in a recommendation of approval in this case.
According to Title 12-1D-4-D(2) of the City Code:
Whenever buildings have been built on one side of the street between two (2) intersections, no building
shall hereafter be erected to extend closer toward the street than the average of the required district setback
and average setback of the adjoining principal structures.
As shown on Exhibit A, the proposed side-loaded garage meets the required 72.2-foot front yard setback
based on the setbacks for the adjacent dwellings at 660 North Freeway Road and 1937 South Lane.
Variance
According to Title 11-3-8-A of the City Code:
Slope Limitations: Subdivision design shall be consistent with limitations presented by steep slopes.
Subdivisions shall be designed so that no construction or grading will be conducted on slopes steeper than
twenty five percent (25%) in grade.
The natural topography and bluffs in Mendota Heights are certainly an amenity worth preserving, which is
mostly likely the intent of this standard. As shown on Exhibit B, Parcel B contains slopes greater than 25%
within the proposed building padareathat would be disturbed by construction and grading for the new
dwelling; therefore a variance is required to approve the lot split request in this case.
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 65
When considering a variance for the proposed construction and grading activities, 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 subdivide the subject parcel and construct a new single-family dwelling is a
reasonable use of the propertyand meets the general purpose and intentof the Code and Comprehensive
Plan.Besides the impacted slopes, the requests areotherwisecompliant with the applicable Code standards.
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 the applicant, the impacted slopes over 25% on Parcel B (see Exhibit B) are man-made to
retain dirt fromconstruction ofthe existing drivewayaccessing the attached garage. In addition, the slopes
in question are approximately 30% and comprise only 5.3% of the subject parcel.
The Engineering Department has reviewed the slope in question and concurswith the applicant’s
determination; the slope appears to be uniformly-graded and is consistent across its length. In addition,
other contours on the subject parcel appear to have been undisturbed and the slope in question cuts into
them in an obvious manner. At the time the Code was adopted, the industry standard for constructed slopes
was a 25% maximum. The current industry standard is now 33% maximum, which would make the slope
in question compliant if the City were to consider following the current standard.
Based on the existing conditions, the applicant has established a practical difficulty insubdividing the
subject parcel in order to construct a new single-family dwelling in compliance with the applicable slope
disturbance standards. Furthermore, the existing conditionis a unique circumstance not created by the
applicant.
3.The request will not alter the essential character of the locality.
The North Freeway Road neighborhood contains a mix lot widths ranging from 100-200 feet, however the
immediately adjacent parcels are both 100 feet wide. Both the proposed garage addition and new dwelling
would have front yards setbacks of more than 72 feet, which areconsistent with the varying setbacks in the
neighborhood.
The existing topography on Parcel B will be substantially altered to create a building pad for the new
dwelling. As a result, further review of grading and drainage plans as part of the building permit application
process arerequired to ensure there are no negative impacts to surrounding properties.
ALTERNATIVES
1.Recommend approval of the subdivision and variance requests, based on the attached findings of
fact that, with conditions.
OR
2.Recommend denial of the subdivision and variance requests, based on the findings of fact that the
proposed subdivision and associated construction and grading activities are not consistent with the
City Code or Comprehensive Plan and will have a negative impact on surrounding properties.
OR
3.Table the request.
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 66
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the subdivision and variance requests based on the attached findings of fact
(Alternative 1), with the following conditions:
1.A building permit is approved and certificate of occupancy issued for the proposed garage on Parcel
A prior to the subdivision being recorded by Dakota County.
2.Park dedication fee in the amount of $2,700, in lieu of land, is collected after City Council approval
and before being recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any additional permits by the City.
3.Street reconstruction assessment feein the amount of $3,700,as part ofNorth Freeway Road
Project 2002-02, is collected after City Council approval and before being recorded by Dakota
County or issuance of any additional permits by the City.
4.The applicant shall dedicate the following drainage and utilityeasements on bothparcels to be
denoted on the Certificate of Survey submitted to Dakota County: 10-foot wide along the front
property lines and 5-foot wide along the side and rear property lines.
5.Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of a building
permit.
6.The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site planwith associated
easements, subject to review and approval by the City Engineering Departmentas part of any
building permit application.
7.All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local
regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance
Document.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1.Aerial site map
2.Site photos
3.Planning applications, including supporting materials
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 67
FINDINGS OF FACT FORAPPROVAL
Subdivision Request fora Lot Split and Variance
650North Freeway Road
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1.The proposed subdivision request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
2.The proposed garage addition to the existing dwelling addresses the nonconformity caused by the
proposed subdivision requestand subsequent construction of a new single-family home.
3.The impacted slopes over 25% appear to be man-made as part of construction and reinforcement
of the existing driveway.
4.The impacted slopes over 25% are less than the current 33% maximum industry standard for
constructed slopes and compriseonly5.3% of the subject parcel.
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 68
Planning Case 2015-23
City of
650 North Freeway Road
Mendota
050
Heights
Date: 6/8/2015
SCALE IN FEET
645
663655
204
1937
650
660
664
659
651
641
Aerometrics
GIS Map Disclaimer:
This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,
survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained
in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors
or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 69
Planning Case 2015-23
Site Photos: 650 North Freeway Road
Source: Staff (06.08.15)
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 70
June 1, 2015
Nolan Wall
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
RE: 650 North Freeway Road Lot Split
Dear Nolan:
We are requesting a lot split and permit relating to the property at 650 North Freeway Road. Please
consider the following:
Intent:
We are requesting that 650 North Freeway Road be split into two parcels since it meets the criteria set
forth by the City of Mendota Heights municipal code. The existing home currently located on the
property will be staying and after the split our intention is to build a new single family home on the new
parcel located on the east side.
We currently have a fully executed Purchase Agreement on the above property for the new parcel that
would be created on the east side of the existing home with the contingency the property could be
divided into 2 parcels. Construction of the new home would take place upon approval of all city permit
applications and issuance of a building permit by the City of Mendota Heights.
Our Request:
Permission to divide the property into two parcels, creating a new single-family home site on the east
parcel.
Variance Request:
In response to the variance request, we feel that the area of the property is man made and not natural
to the contour of the property. The hill/retaining wall was built to help retain dirt for the driveway and
side entrance garage. In the proposed lot split, the driveway and garage would go away and a new
front load garage would be added to the front of the house. This would allow a more natural slope to
be made on the east side of the house.
1.With the improvements to the property, it would allow for a single family residence to be built
on the east portion of the existing property and we feel that is a reasonable use of the property
2.The area of yard that has a greater than 25% slope is a small percentage of the property and
appears to be man made to retain the dirt for the driveway.
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 71
3.The variance would allow for a new single family home. The property across the street has
recently had a new home built along with a few others in the same neighborhood. The home
will be designed with modern amenities and would fit in nicely in this desirable neighborhood
Sincerely,
Sean Doyle
Chief Manager
SD Companies, LLC, d.b.a. SD Custom Homes
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 72
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 73
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 74
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 75
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 76
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/C...63201
o//5
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 77
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/C...63201
o//5
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 78
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 79
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 80
DATE:
June 23, 2015
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT:
Planning Case 2015-22
Proposed Code Amendments – Interim Uses
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 12-1B-2 and 12-1L of the City Code concerning interim uses.
BACKGROUND
MN Statute 462.3597 permits municipalitiesto establish interim usesby provision in the local zoning code.
Interim uses must conform to the zoning regulations and can be terminated based on a date or event that
can be identified with certainty. As a result, theyare effective tools for redevelopment planning by allowing
for certain temporary uses of property without jeopardizing the long-range plan. DRAFT Ordinance 479
establishes interim uses and contains standards and procedures for issuing interim use permits. Subsequent
amendments would be required to establish specific interim uses within any zoning district.
The City Council recentlydiscussed interim uses as part of a larger discussion on a temporary off-leash dog
recreation area potentially located on city-owned property that may be redeveloped in the future. In
addition, interim uses may be further explored as part of the upcoming Redevelopment Plan forthe
Industrial District.The City is proposing consideration of the DRAFT amendments at this time in an effort
to be proactive and have the process in-place prior to futurerequests.
ANALYSIS
DRAFT Ordinance 479 includes the following proposed amendments:
Conditional Uses
Title 12-1L-6E-1 of the City Code contains procedures for issuance of conditional use permits. MN Statute
462.3595 establishes that a conditional use permit runs with the land and remains in effect as long as the
conditions agreed upon are observed.The following clause is proposed to be removed due to its
inconsistency with state statutes and proposed establishment of interim use permits:
…A time limit may be imposed on the conditional use, and in any case, the conditional use permit shall be
void after a conditional use has ceased for a period of six (6) months….
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 81
Definitions
The following definitions are proposed to be added to Title 12-1B-2 of the City Code:
INTERIM USE: A temporary use of property until a particular date, until the occurrence of a particular
event, or until zoning regulations no longer permit the use.
INTERIM USE PERMIT: A permit specially and individually granted for an interim use in any district.
Interim Uses
Title 12-1L-6-1 is proposed to be added tothe City Code toestablish interim use standards and permitting
procedures. The purpose for allowing interim use permits are to:
1.Allow a use for a limited period of time until a permanent location is obtained or while the
permanent location is under construction.
2.Allow a use for a limited period of time that reasonably utilizes the property where it is not
reasonable to utilize it in the manner otherwise provided in the comprehensive plan or city code.
3.Allow a use that is presently acceptable but that, with anticipated development or redevelopment,
will not be acceptable in the future or will be replaced by in the future by a permitted or conditional
use allowed within the respective zoning district.
4.Allow a use that is seasonal in nature.
The application procedure is proposed to be the same as for conditional use permits, which requires notice
and a public hearing before the Planning Commission prior to action by the City Council. As proposed,
interim use permits can be approved if:
1.The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community,
nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will seriously depreciate surrounding
property value.
2.The proposed use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the city code and comprehensive
plan, including all applicable performance standards, so as not to be in conflict on an on-going
basis.
3.The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty.
4.Permission of the use will not impose, by agreement, additional costs on the public if it is necessary
for the public to take the property in the future.
5.The user agrees to any conditions that the city deems appropriate for permission of the use,
including a condition that the owner will provide an appropriate financial surety to cover the cost
of removing an interim use and any structures upon expiration or revocation of the interim use
permit.
6.The use will not delay anticipated development or redevelopment of the site.
7.The property on which the use will be located is currently in compliance with all applicable city
code standards.
8.The use is allowed as an interim use in the applicable zoning district.
As proposed, interim use permits can be revoked by any of the following:
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 82
1.A violation of any condition set forth in an interim use permit, which shall also be considered a
violation of the citycode.
2.A violation of any law of the United States or the state of Minnesota, or city code.
3.If after approval it is discovered the permit was issued based on false, misleading, or fraudulent
information.
4.An amendment to the city code which prohibits the use.
5.The use becomes in conflict with the comprehensive plan.
6.The expiration date or occurrence of any event(s) stated in the permit for termination of the use.
7.The use has ceased for a continuous period of at least six (6) months.
8.The use has notcommenced or a building permit for a structure to support the use has not been
issued within one (1) year after approval.
The remainderof the proposed DRAFT ordinance contains permit review and extensionprocedures.
ALTERNATIVES
Following the publichearing and further discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following
actions:
1.Recommendapproval of DRAFT Ordinance 479, as presented or as amended by the Commission.
OR
2.Recommend denial of DRAFT Ordinance 479.
OR
3.Table the request, pending additional information and revisions from staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the proposed code amendments. If acceptable to the
Commission, action can be taken at this month’s meeting. Staff would 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 479
2.Planning application, including supporting materials
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 83
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 479
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLES B AND L OF THE CITY
CODE OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY,
CONCERNING CONDITIONAL AND INTERIM USES
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain:
Section 1.
Title 12-1L-6E-1 is hereby amended as follows:
Grant Of Permit; Expiration Of Permit: In considering an application for a conditional use permit under
this chapter, the council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the planning commission and
the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants or surrounding lands,
existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets, and the effect of
the proposed use on the comprehensive plan. If the council shall determine that the proposed use will not
be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor will cause serious traffic
congestion nor hazards, nor will seriously depreciate surrounding property value, and that the same is in
harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter and the comprehensive plan, the council may
grant such conditional use permit imposing conditions and safeguards therein. A time limit may be
imposed on the conditional use, and in any case, the conditional use permit shall be void after a
conditional use has ceased for a period of six (6) months. The city council may, by an affirmative vote of
the majority of all members thereof, approve a conditional use permit. The city council may, by an
affirmative vote of the majority of all members thereof, approve a conditional use permit for planned unit
development.
Section 2.
Title 12-1B-2 is hereby amended as follows:
INTERIM USE: A temporary use of property until a particular date, until the occurrence of a particular
event, or until zoning regulations no longer permit the use.
INTERIM USE PERMIT: A permit specially and individually granted for an interim use in any district.
Section 3.
Title 12-1L-6-1 is hereby added as follows:
INTERIM USES:
A.Purpose: The purposes for allowing interim uses areto:
1.Allow a use for a limited period of time until a permanent location is obtained or while
the permanent location is under construction.
2.Allow a use for a limited period of time that reasonably utilizes the property where it is
not reasonable to utilize it in the manner otherwise provided in the comprehensive plan or
city code.
DRAFT – 06.23.15 Planning Commission Review page 1 of 4
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 84
3.Allow a use that is presently acceptable but that, with anticipated development or
redevelopment, will not be acceptable in the future or will be replaced by in the future by
a permitted or conditional use allowed within the respective zoning district.
4.Allow a use that is seasonal in nature.
B.Application for Permit: All applications for an interim use permit are subject to the requirements
in section 12-1L-6B of this chapter.
C.Referral to Planning Commission: All applications for an interim use permit are subject to the
requirements in section 12-1L-6C of this chapter.
D.Planning Commission Hearing and Recommendations: All applications for an interim use permit
are subject to the requirements in section 12-1L-6D of this chapter.
E.Action By City Council:
1.Grant of Permit: In considering an application for an interim use permit under this
chapter, the council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the planning
commission and the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of
occupants or surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions including
parking facilities on adjacent streets, and the effect of the proposed use on the
comprehensive plan.The council may, by an affirmative vote of the majority of all
members thereof, grant such interim use permit imposing conditions and safeguards
therein if:
a. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare
of the community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will
seriously depreciate surrounding property value.
b. The proposed use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the city code
and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, so as
not to be in conflict on an on-going basis.
c.The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty.
d.Permission of the use will not impose, by agreement, additional costs on the
public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in the future.
e. The user agrees to any conditions that the city deems appropriate for permission
of the use, including a condition that the owner will provide an appropriate
financial surety to cover the cost of removing an interim use and any structures
upon expiration or revocation of the interim use permit.
f. The use will not delay anticipated development or redevelopment of the site.
g. The property on which the use will be located is currently in compliance with all
applicable city code standards.
h.The use is allowed as an interim use in the applicable zoning district.
2.Denial Of Permit: Interim uses may be denied by resolution of the city council, and such
resolution shall include a finding and determination that the conditions required for
DRAFT – 06.23.15 Planning Commission Review page 2 of 4
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 85
approval do not exist. No application for an interim use which has been denied wholly or
in part shall be resubmitted for a period of six (6) months from the date of said order of
denial, except on grounds of new evidence or proof of change of conditions found to be
valid by the planning commission.
F.Revocation Of Permit: An interim use permit may be revoked by any of the following; whichever
occurs first:
1.A violation of any condition set forth in an interim use permit, which shall also be
considereda violation of the city code.
2.A violation of any law of the United States or the state of Minnesota, or city code.
3.If after approval it is discovered the permit was issued based on false, misleading, or
fraudulent information.
4.An amendment to the city code which prohibits the use.
5.The use becomes in conflict with the comprehensive plan.
6.The expiration date or occurrence of any event(s) statedin the permitfor termination of
the use.
7.The use has ceased for a continuous period of at least six (6) months.
8.The use has not commenced or a building permit for a structure to support the use has not
been issued within one (1) year after approval.
G.Notice Of Revocation: Upon occurrence of the date or event for termination of the interim use
permit, the city shall notify the permittee in writing that the interim use permit shall terminate not
later than six(6) months after the date of such notice.
H.Effect Of Permit: An interim use permit is effective only for the location specified in the
application. The issuance of an interim use permit does not confer on the property any vested
right.
I.Permit Review: An interim use permit maybe reviewed at any time if the city council is of the
opinion that the terms and conditions of the permit have been violated or if one of the criteria for
termination has been met.
J.Permit Extension: The city council shall have the right to extend the termination date for such
additional periods as are consistent with the terms and conditions of the original permit.
Section 4.
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
DRAFT – 06.23.15 Planning Commission Review page 3 of 4
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 86
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 87
6/23/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 88