The URL can be used to link to this page

2015-07-28 Planning Comm Agenda Packet CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSIONAGENDA July28, 2015–7:00 p.m. Mendota Heights City Hall 1.Call to Order 2.Roll Call 3.Adopt Agenda 4.Approve June23, 2015Planning Commission Minutes 5.Approve June 23, 2015 Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes 6.Public Hearings: a.Case No. 2015-27: AMEK Custom Builders, Inc.Wetlands Permit at 2185 Glen Toro Road. b.Case No. 2015-24:Southview Design.Critical Area PermitandVariance at 1680 Mayfield Heights Road. c.Case No. 2015-25: Mendakota Country Club.Variance at 2075 Mendakota Drive. d.Case No. 2015-26: Robert Alvarez.Variance at 1176 Ivy Hill Drive. e.Case No. 2015-28:City of Mendota Heights. Proposed City Code amendment concerningscoreboards. f.Case No. 2015-29: City of Mendota Heights. Proposed City Code amendment concerning interim uses. g.Case No. 2015-30: City of Mendota Heights. Interim Use Permit for unaddressed city-owned property. 7.Verbal Review 8.Staff and Commission Announcements 9.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. 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 1 1CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3 4PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES 5June 23, 2015 6 7The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 23, 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, Michael Noonan, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson, Christine Costello and Ansis Viksnins. 12Those absent: None. Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall, Public Works Director/City 13Engineer John Mazzitello, and City Attorney Tom Lehmann. 14 Approval of Agenda 15 16 17The agenda was approved as submitted. 18 Approval of May 26, 2015 Minutes 19 20 21COMMISSIONER VIKSNINSMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON TO 22APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 26, 2015, AS PRESENTED. 23 24AYES: 7 25NAYS: 0 26 Hearings 27 28 29PLANNING CASE #2015-19 30Eileen O’Shaughnessy and Art Perlman 31Critical Area Permit at 731 Woodridge Drive 32 33City Planner Nolan Wallexplained that applicants were seeking a Critical Area Permit to construct 34a fence within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area. The code requires a permit for 35construction of any structure within the critical area overlay zoning district. Planner Wall shared a 36site map showing the subject parcel location. 37 38He further explained that as a result of a landslide event in June 2014, the applicant received 39approval directly from the City Council in March 2015 for the required Critical Area Permit, 40Conditional Use Permit, and Variances in order to allow for construction of a retaining wall and 41associated soil stabilization. The proposed fence being considered in this case was not included in 42the original application; therefore, the additional permitting is being sought now. 43 44The proposed 3.5-foot black vinyl fence would be located behind the top edge of the retaining wall 45to ensure appropriate fall protection. The retaining wall is approximately 17 feet tall at its highest 46point. The applicant plans to plant vines at the base of the retaining wall, which would eventually June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFTPage 1 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 2 47visually obscure the fence from the road and from the surrounding properties. The proposed fence 48is compliant with the applicable critical area and residential fence standards; therefore, staff 49recommended approval of this application. 50 51Commissioner Roston recused himself from this issue due to a conflict of interest. 52 53Eileen O’Shaughnessy and Art Perlman came forward to answer any additional questions from the 54Commission. 55 56Chair Field opened the public hearing. 57 58Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public 59hearing. 60 61COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO 62CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 63 64AYES: 7 65NAYS: 0 66 67COMMISSIONER HENNESMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 68RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-19, CRITICAL AREA PERMIT 69REQUEST FOR A FENCE BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT THE PROPOSED 70PROJECT IS COMPLIANT WITH THE POLICIES AND STANDARDS OF THE CRITICAL 71AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT, WITH THE CONDITION THAT A FENCE PERMIT IS 72APPROVED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED FENCE. 73 74AYES: 6 75NAYS: 0 76ABSTAIN: 1 (Roston) 77 78Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 7, 2015 meeting. 79 80PLANNING CASE #2015-20 81Dick Bjorklund Properties, LLC 82Preliminary Plat at 2511/2525 Condon Court 83 84City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was seeking approval of a Preliminary Plat 85for a subdivision at 2511/2511 Condon Court. The subject parcel is 1.3 acres, which does include 86a .08-acre tract of excess right-of-way that was acquired from MnDOT. The parcel currently 87contains two single-family dwellings with detached garages. The parcels are zoned R-2 and guided 88for medium-density residential in the Comprehensive Plan. 89 90In January 2015, the applicant received approvals for the rezoning and Comprehensive Plan 91amendment requests that reflect the existing conditions regarding the zoning and land use plan. June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFTPage 2 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 3 92Planner Wall shared an image of the subject parcels and the proposed preliminary plat. He clarified 93that the applicant is requesting a preliminary plat only at this time and is not requesting a final plat. 94 95The name of the proposed plat is The Oaks and would create three new lots from the two existing 96lots and the excess right-of-way that was acquired. A single-family home would be constructed on 97the northern most lot and two twin-home units would be constructed on the remaining parcel for a 98total of five dwelling units. The parcel at 2535 Condon Courtis not owned by the applicant and is 99not included as part of the plat. 100 101All five lots do meet the minimum lot size requirements as well as setback requirements. However, 102the minimum required lot width is 100 feet, which is measured on the first 30 feet of a lots depth. 103The intent of that standard is to ensure adequate frontage for access and spacing between dwellings. 104The intent of this being measured within the first 30 feet is to eliminate narrow slivers of lots next 105to each other that only meet the lot width standard at the rear lot lines. Therefore, a literal 106interpretation of the code would disqualify lots one, two, and three. Due to the jog in the front lot 107linescaused by the Condon Court right-of-way, the frontage road, which is an a-typical situation 108in the City –it’s actually a frontage road that owned and maintained by the City but is actually 109built within the MnDOT right-of-way (excess MnDOT right-of-way from Dodd Road –a state 110highway). In this case, there is nothing between the proposed homes and the street besides excess 111right-of-way. Included the staff report was what was felt to be the de facto code interpretation of 112what the lot width standard is in this case. Staff believes that, based on the intent, the standard is 113met – there is no crowding and access is assured. 114 115Grading and erosion control plans have been provided and would be reviewed in-depth as part of 116the building permit process. Planner Wall then reviewed the landscape plan. 117 118Staff recommended approval of this Preliminary Plat request with conditions. 119 120Commissioners asked questions regarding the MnDOT right-of-way purchase. 121 122Dick Bjorklund came forward to answer any additional questions from the Commission. 123 124Chair Field opened the public hearing. 125 126Mr. Joe Christensen, an attorney representing Mike and Sue Laughlin who own the property at 1272535 Condon Court, came forward and explained that his clients purchased their property in 2001. 128It is a certified alcohol treatment center facility with 10 beds. The Laughlin’s are not opposed to 129the Bjorklund proposal; however, they are concerned with some of the impacts that the 130development may have on their property. He then referenced a letter that was written to Planner 131Wall \[included in the Council packet\]. The concerns listed related to drainage, utility, screening, 132and disruption issues. Attorney Christensen then began a review each of the issues as outlined in 133the letter. 134 135Chair Field asked if he was correct in his assumption that, since this request was for a Preliminary 136Plat and that a Final Plat request would be forthcoming, that City staff would deal with many of 137the issues outlined in the letter. Planner Wall confirmed that assumption and stated that staff, based June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFTPage 3 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 4 138on the Laughlin’s comments, has recommended revisions to the approval conditions that would 139reflect their concerns. 140 141Commissioners asked questions regarding a recently adopted ordinance and if that matched the 142construction hours requested by the Laughlins. 143 144Dick Bjorklund returned to address the concerns expressed. 145 146Staff recommended that the concerns and issues expressed be discussed between the two parties 147and some sort of agreement be obtained and become part of the developer’s agreement. Many of 148the issues did not relate to the Preliminary Plat request. 149 150Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. 151 152COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO 153CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 154 155AYES: 7 156NAYS: 0 157 158COMMISSIONER ROSTONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO 159RECOMMEND APPROVALOF PLANNING CASE 2015-20, PRELIMINARY PLAT 160APPLICATION FOR THE OAKS SUBMITTED BY DICK BJORKLUNDPROPERTIES, LLC 161BASEDON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1621.The proposed plat meets the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code, including proposed uses, 163lot size, lot width and setbacks. The lot widths for Lots 1, 2, and 3 meet the intent of the Code 164in terms of access and adequate spacing, even though they do not meet the letter of the Code 165definition. 1662.The proposed plat meets the purpose and intent of the Subdivision Code, including grading, 167drainage, and lot arrangement. 168AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1691.$8,100.00 Park Dedication Fee is to be paid to the City, prior to final plat approval. 1702.Parties involved with development of the platted area. This will include a detailed description 171of municipal utility installation, landscaping and building and driveway placement. 1723.All grading,construction activity, and stormwater management facilitiesassociated with future 173development of the platted area will be in compliance with all Federal, State, and Local 174Regulations and Codes, as well as in compliance with the City. 1754.Construction activity will be in compliance with restrictions outlined in City Code. 1765.A final plat is submitted for City Council review. 1776.Afinal landscape plan is provided, including planting sizes, as part of the building plans. 178 179AYES: 7 180NAYS: 0 181 182Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 7, 2015 meeting. 183 June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFTPage 4 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 5 184PLANNING CASE #2015-21 185Saint Thomas Academy 186Variance at 949 Mendota Heights Road 187 188City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was requesting a variance for the sign size 189requirements for a non-residential use within a residential zone. The subject property is 190approximately 43 acres and contains the Saint Thomas Academy campus. The applicant proposes 191to erect the proposed sign on thecontrol room/press box structuring which overlooks the athletic 192field/track facing Mendota Heights Road. The structure was approved byConditional Use Permit 193in 1994, as part of Planning Case 94-04. The proposed sign exceeds the size requirement. 194 195Planner Wall explained the standards to be applied when reviewing a variance request and how 196this request meets those standards. Staff recommended approval of this variance request. 197 198Commissioners asked questions regarding the size of this sign when compared with other 199educational institutions in the area and if there has been any consideration given to creating a new 200zoning district. 201 202Mr. Paul Solmon, Director of Facilities at Saint Thomas Academy came forward to answer any 203additional questions from the Commission regarding the purpose of the sign. 204 205Chair Field opened the public hearing. 206 207Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public 208hearing. 209 210Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. 211 212COMMISSIONER MAGNUSONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 213CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 214 215AYES: 7 216NAYS: 0 217 218COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO 219RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-21, VARIANCE REQUEST TO 220EXCEED THE SIGN SIZE REQUIREMENTS IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT 221BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 2221.The subject parcel is significantly larger than standard residential properties, which restricts 223the ability to read signage from the surrounding streets. 2242.The maximum sign area requirement imposed in the R-1 District better reflects the signage 225needs of residential uses, rather than institutional uses, and is unique to the subject property. 2263.A sign in the proposed location meeting the maximum sign area requirement would likely be 227too small for its intended purpose due to the expansive setback from Mendota Heights Road 228and presents a practical difficulty for the applicant. June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFTPage 5 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 6 2294.Similar signage consistent with the size of the proposed sign has been approved for other 230buildings on campus and for other institutional uses in the City. 2315.The proposed sign will not negatively impact the surrounding properties 232AND WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT OBTAIN A SIGN PERMIT. 233 234Several commissioners commented that potential amendments to theCode to address institutional 235uses in residential zones should be considered by the City Council in the near future. 236 237AYES: 7 238NAYS: 0 239 240Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 7, 2015 meeting. 241 242PLANNING CASE #2015-23 243Sean Doyle and John Karas 244Lot Split and Variance at 650 North Freeway Road 245 246City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was requesting a Lot Split and Variance for 247the subject parcel located at 650 North Freeway Road. The subject parcel is approximately 51,000 248square feet, zoned R-1, and guided as Low Density Residential Development on the 249Comprehensive Plan. Planner Wall shared an image of the property location. 250 251If approved, a garage addition would be constructed on the existing single-family dwelling and a 252new single-family dwelling would be constructed on the easterly parcel. Planner Wall then 253explained the R-1 district lot standards and how the proposed properties fit within those standards. 254The existing driveway accessing the attached side loaded garage on Parcel A would be removed. 255Since the existing garage would be inaccessible without crossing Parcel B, which would be a 256nonconformity, the applicant proposes to construct a new garage addition on the front of the house. 257 258Staff included requirements for building permit approval and a certificate of occupancy issuance 259prior to the recording of the subdivision as condition of approval in orderto ensure that the non- 260conformity is addressed as part of this application. 261 262The proposed parcels, the existing dwelling, and the proposed garage addition all meet the R-1 263district requirements. 264 265Commissioners asked questions regarding the removal of the driveway, the addition of a condition 266that the old driveway must be removed prior to the issuance of a building permit, and if the removal 267of the driveway would address the issue with the slope. 268 269In reference to the variance request, Planner Wall explained that the code requires a subdivision 270to be designed so that no construction or grading will be conducted on slopes greater than 25% in 271grade. Parcel B does contain slopes greater than 25% within the proposed building pad area that 272would be disturbed by construction and grading activities for the proposed dwelling. 273 June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFTPage 6 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 7 274Staff feels that the intent of the standard is most likely to protect and preserve natural slopes from 275development. He then went through the three standards that apply to a variance request and how 276this request fulfills those standards. Public Works Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello added 277his comments on how this request would be in compliance with the intent of the Code. 278 279Staff recommended approval of the subdivision and variance requests with conditions. 280 281Commissionersasked questions regarding the Code that addresses slopes differentiating between 282natural and man-made slopes and why the extension on the deadline. 283 284Mr. John Karas and Mr. Sean Doylecame forward to answer any additional questions from the 285Commission regarding the plans for the driveway and the abandoned garage, and plans to address 286the sloping issues when removing the driveway. 287 288Chair Field opened the public hearing. 289 290Mr. Dan Norman, 1937 South Lane, commented that if were to be asked if he wants a structure to 291be located near his home his answer would be no but that would be the Commission’s decision. 292Regarding the standard that the request “will not alter the essentialcharacter of the neighborhood,” 293Mr. Norman asked for an example of something that would alter the character. 294 295Mr. Patrick Derosia, 641 South Freeway Road, expressed his concerns about the building of a 2015 296home near homes built in the 1960’s or 1970’s would definitely change the character of the 297neighborhood. Also, the majority of the lots in the area are much larger than the proposed lots 298would be. 299 300Mr. John Karas returned to address the concerns raised. 301 302Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. 303 304COMMISSIONER VIKSNINSMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, 305TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 306 307AYES: 7 308NAYS: 0 309 310COMMISSIONER VIKSNINSMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 311RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-23, SUBDIVISION AND 312VARIANCE REQUESTS, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 3131.The proposed subdivision request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is 314consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3152.The proposed garage addition to the existing dwelling addresses the nonconformity caused by 316the proposed subdivision request and subsequent construction of a new single-family home. 3173.The impacted slopes over 25% appear to be man-made as part of construction and 318reinforcement of the existing driveway. June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFTPage 7 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 8 3194.The impacted slopes over 25% are less than the current 33% maximum industry standard for 320constructed slopes and comprise only 5.3% of the subject parcel. 321AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 3221.The existing driveway serving the attached garageis removed, and a building permit is 323approved and certificate of occupancy issued for the proposed garage on Parcel A, prior to the 324subdivision being recorded by Dakota County. 3252.Park dedication fee in the amount of $2,700, in lieu of land, is collected after City Council 326approval and before being recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any additional permits 327by the City. 3283.Street reconstruction assessment fee in the amount of $3,700, as part of North Freeway Road 329Project 2002-02, is collected after City Council approval and before being recorded by Dakota 330County or issuance of any additional permits by the City. 3314.The applicant shall dedicate the following drainage and utility easements on both parcels to be 332denoted on the Certificate of Survey submitted to Dakota County: 10-foot wide along the front 333property lines and 5-foot wide along the side and rear property lines. 3345.Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of a 335building permit. 3366.The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site plan with associated 337easements, subject to review and approval by the City Engineering Department as part of any 338building permit application. 3397.All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and 340local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance 341Guidance Document. 342 343Commissioners made comments on why they were in support of this application; it satisfied the 344standards applicable for a variance request and the slope appears to be man-made and not an 345alteration of a natural slope. 346 347AYES: 7 348NAYS: 0 349 350Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 7, 2015 meeting. 351 352PLANNING CASE #2015-22 353City of Mendota Heights 354Proposed City Code Amendment Concerning Interim Uses 355 356Planner Nolan Wall explained that the City of Mendota Heights was considering amendments to 357Title 12, Chapter 1, Article B and L of the City Code concerning interim uses. He then provided 358background information on the request and briefly highlighted the proposed amendments. 359 360Staff recommended that the Commission review the proposed amendments and make a 361recommendation to the City Council. 362 363Commissioners asked questions regarding the rationale for number 7 that reads, “The use has 364ceased for a continuous period of at least six (6) months”. June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFTPage 8 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 9 365Chair Field opened the public hearing. 366 367Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public 368hearing. 369 370COMMISSIONER ROSTONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO 371CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 372 373AYES: 7 374NAYS: 0 375 376COMMISSIONERROSTONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 377RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF DRAFT ORDINANCE 479, AS REFERENCED IN 378PLANNING CASE 2015-22 AS PROPOSED BY STAFF. 379 380AYES: 7 381NAYS: 0 382 383Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 7, 2015 meeting. 384 Adjournment 385 386 387COMMISSIONER ROSTONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO 388ADJOURN THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:23 P.M. 389 390AYES: 7 391NAYS: 0 June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFTPage 9 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 10 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES June 23, 2015 The meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday, June 23, 2015 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 8:35 p.m. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Howard Roston, Michael Noonan, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson, Christine Costello and Ansis Viksnins. Those absent: None. Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall, Public Works Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello, City Administrator Mark McNeill, and City Attorney Tom Lehmann. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Hearings CASE #2015-18 STEP Academy Appeal from zoning determination to allow a charter school use at 1345 Mendota Heights in the Industrial Zoning District Chair Litton Field, Jr. noted that all of the commissioners had received and reviewed the packet of materials in advance of the meeting. City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant is seeking appeal for an interpretation of text in the City Code concerning the definition of a trade school. The City Code designates the Planning Commission as the Board of Zoning Appeals. The appellant in this case, STEP Academy, is a charter school serving grades six through twelve. Staff was contacted by representatives of the appellant about leasing space at 1345 Mendota Heights Road, which is zoned industrial and is currently occupied by Sanford-Brown College. Based on staff interpretation, they were informed that the proposed use was not permitted and would require a code amendment to locate within the Industrial District. Representatives from the appellant then submitted a formal request for a zoning determination based on the proposed use being considered a trade school under the existing definition. Staff responded that the use was still not permitted and a formal appeal was filed for consideration before the Board of Zoning Appeals in compliance with City Code. Related correspondence was included in Articles A, B, and C of the packet. June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting -DRAFTPage 10 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 11 According to the Code, a trade school is defined as; An educational institution, either private or public, which offers classes and training to full and/or part time students including, but not limited to, technical, mechanical, services and computing fields. Based on this definition, past City Council determinations, it remains the City’s position that a charter school is not intended to be included in the trade school definition and is therefore not permitted as a nonmanufacturing use within the Industrial District. A charter school use would be consistent with the use categories “public and parochial schools,” which are permitted uses within the residential zoning districts, as well as “colleges and schools, public and private”, which are permitted within the B-1A Business Park District. Planner Wall continued by stating that if a charter school were to be included as part of the trade school definition, staff feels that other institutional uses, regardless of grade level, may also qualify under this definition. It there were the case, it would seem difficult to come to conclude that a K- 6 could somehow be construed to be a trade school simply because the definition does not include a grade level and they offer classes and training in various fields as part of the curriculum. Staff contends that the intent of the existing trade school definition is to further qualify the companion permitted use in the Industrial District, which is “trade schools and colleges or universities.” In addition to the Industrial District, trade schools are also conditional uses in the B-3 General Business Zone, which would also allow for charter schools if this appeal is granted in this case and ultimately upheld by the City Council. Trade school uses that have been occupied the Industrial District are post-secondary institutions and the use category, as was stated, includes colleges and universities, both of which are post- secondary in nature, and were added by amendment as well as defined along with trade schools in 2004 to recognize the change for Brown Instituteto Brown College when they began to offerfour- year degrees. The Industrial Districtdoes contain a mix of land uses; the vast majority of those uses are office and industrial. A determination that would allow a charter school use to be permitted by right in the Industrial District mayallow for proliferation of other educational institutions that were not envisioned as part of the long-term planning for the area. In an effort to maintain the industrial and business character of the Industrial District, the City is now undertaking a redevelop planning process to ensure its long-term success. Therefore, careful consideration should be taken when considering allowing educational institutions, especially as permitted uses. Charter schools interested in operating within the Industrial District have approached the City Council in the past. At those times the parties were informed that a code amendment would be required for the use. The Council raised the following potential land use issues for charter schools in the Industrial District: Potential insufficient off-street parking Lack of on-site recreational opportunities for students Bus and student traffic Proliferation of other educational uses within the Industrial District Land use conflicts with the existing and future uses June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting -DRAFTPage 11 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 12 Maintaining the industrial character of the Industrial Park While this appeal stands on its own merits, it is important to note how past Council’s have considered charter school uses within the Industrial District and; therefore, why staff is making the aforementioned determination in this case. Staff feels it further reinforces the potential issues that could be created by allowing a charter school as a permitted use in the Industrial District. As for the code amendment process itself, staff has informed all interested parties inquiring about charter school uses within the Industrial District that a formal code amendment process is required to consider the use. If an applicant were to make such a request, staff would recommend potentially thatthe use be considered as aconditional use or potentially an interim use, if ultimately adopted by the City Council; but not as a permitted use. A conditional use permitor an interim use permit requires a public hearing and that reasonable conditions be placed on the use based on potential negative impacts to surrounding properties and the public. Staff continues to recommend a code amendment as the most equitable and transparent process for consideration of acharter school use in the Industrial District. Staff recommended that the Board of Zoning Appeals consider denying or granting the appeal froma zoning determination in this case and to forward that recommendation to the City Council. Regardless of action on the appeal, the decision will be forwarded to the City Council who may choose to review or revise the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals in compliance with the City Code. Board members asked questions regarding the current existence of schools within the Industrial District that the City identifies as trade schools, the existence of any other schools of any kind within the Industrial District, post-secondary not being part of the definition of a trade school, the reason why universities and colleges were added to the amendment was due to Brown Institute being changed to Brown College, and references in state law to “trade and/or vocational” schools implying post-secondary. Chair Field opened the public hearing. The appellant came forward and identified herself as Ms. Cindy Lavorato, Attorney for STEP Academy. She raised a procedural issue that, in her view, deprives the Planning Commission of jurisdiction to make a decision in this matter having to do with the 60-day time limit that, in her view, has not been adhered to by the City. She provided documents to substantiate her position in this regard. City Attorney Tom Lehmann explained that this procedural issue is outside of the Board’s prevue for tonight. If this is an issue they wish to raise at some point for further legal action, they may do so. The Board can receive what she has, but it is outside of the item before the Board tonight. June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting -DRAFTPage 12 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 13 Attorney Lavorato continued by stating that this is not a procedural issue, but a jurisdictional one. The City has lost its ability to deny this request because it did not take action within the 60-days provided by State Law 15.99. The request for determination was made of Planner Wall on April 17, 2015. It is now June 23, 2015. The 60 days have elapsed and the City has not taken action to approve or disapprove the application under 15.99; the lack of action on the part of the City becomes an approval. Attorney Lehmann replied that this is an issue that may have to be decided in court should the applicant wish to proceed along those lines. It is not for this body to make that determination. If the applicant wishes to proceed along those lines it may be moot to even have the hearing tonight. It is not this body’s responsibility to decide whether or not the City has met the 60-day requirement. Time is ofthe essence since the school really needs to get the lease negotiated and completed by the end of July. Attorney Lavorato stated that she does not believe this is a matter for the court and does not believe that it is a matter for the City Council.If thestatute was looked at then it would be determined that the City does not have jurisdiction to decide this issue. If the City is not prepared to make a decision on the jurisdictional issue, then she would ask for the liberty for to present the information of the people that have been waiting this evening for two hours already to provide. Mr. Richard Schadegg, 3373 Rolling Hills Drive, Eagan is the property manager of 1345 Mendota Heights Road and is in support of the sublease to STEP Academy. Brown Collegehas been the tenant since before the building was purchased. Millions of dollars was spent to transform what was an office/showroom building into classrooms that are fully equipped with audiovisual equipment, technology, etc. It has been operating as a school and they would like to see that use continue going forward. Brown College is going to suspend operations in Minnesota as soon as they graduate their current class of students. The property was purchased subject to a 10-year lease by Brown College and they have the option to terminate that lease agreement in a couple of years. From an economic standpoint, the owner has a strongly invested interest in seeing that this continues as a school. If they can continue operations with STEP Academy without losingany income or having to retrofit the building, obviously has an enormous impact economically for the owner. When asked if he had any comments in regards to the revision of the zoning definition, he replied that he has no expertise in this area and would not feel qualified to comment. Board members asked questions regarding the capacity of the building for students. Ms. Sandra Olmstead, 3621 Oak Creek Drive West, Vadnais Heights is the Vice-chair of the Board of Directors of STEP Academy. She is also currently a professor at Augsburg College and has a PhD in Medicinal Chemistry, which she feels makes her a natural fit to be a part of STEP Academy. She gave a brief background on the school and its mission to prepare students for careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields. Its mission is to make sure that the senior class is entirely inPSEO(Post-Secondary Enrollment Options)so that a year of college is already behind them when they leave. There are only a total of 200-250 students in grades six through twelve; most of them are in the middle years of eight and nine because the school has only been in operation for three years. They are currently leasing a building in Inver Grove Heights that was an old June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting -DRAFTPage 13 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 14 elementary school. It is inadequate for the curriculum they have; it has no wet labs,has retrofitted technology throughout the building, and it is too small. They were thrilled when the opportunity to move to the Brown College building because it is already wired, has the necessary lab equipment, etc. She continued to provide additional amenities and reasons why this building would be perfect for their needs. Board members asked questions regarding additional classes available for the students, testing, certificates or diplomas available, percentage of graduates that continue onto college, and they clarified that the issue before them this evening is the zoning –not the curriculum, classes, or students of the school, or of the effectivenessof the school itself. They also asked questions regarding the school’s sponsorship. th Mr. Chad Blihovde, 3101 34Avenue, Minneapolis, of JavaProperties was representing STEP Academy Charter School and their leasing of the charter school site. He stated that as far as parking goes, by the time a lot of these students reach twelfth grade are in college and do not have a lot of demand for parking. They have been looking for over a year for a site for this school. It is very difficult to find a site like this one –it is ready to go as a charter school – a school set up as high tech as this one. It is an incredible opportunity to teach children. Board members asked Attorney Lavorato if there were any assurances that the sought after lease would only be for five years. She replied that the charter itself and the authorizer is only for five years so the school cannot extend itself into any sort of commitments or lease agreements or contracts that extend beyond five years because they don’t have the authority to do so. There is a natural legal limitation on the extent of the lease. The school is willing to provide the City whatever assurances needed that it would be no more than a five-year lease. She also stated that she understands the City’s need to do the planning around the Industrial District, shehas looked at the City Council minutes and understands what the political context is for that request. As she views it, everybody wins if the school is allowed to move in and have a five-year lease. The City could move forward with its zoning amendment toclarify that trade school means post secondary institutions –that takes care of the issue Planner Wall was concerned about in terms of the possible proliferation of K-12 schools in the Industrial District. Everybody would win if this were done this way: The City gets to do its long-term planning The school gets to have space for five years Sanford-Brown gets to sub-lease The property owner can maximize the use of the property The City could then clarify the ordinance as intended to exclude all uses that are not post- secondary Chair Field clarified that the focus in this meeting is the appeal of the zoning administrator’s determination. Attorney Lavorato replied that she was perfectly prepared to address the underlining legal issues, which involve the interpretation that the City has made of this zoning ordinance. Yes, the zoning ordinance is one way to challenge the City’s action but it is not the only way. The zoning provisions states very clearly that an appeal can be made from any order, requirement, permit, or decision made by the zoning administrator under this chapter and June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting -DRAFTPage 14 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 15 pertaining to any interpretation of this text of this chapter. An amendment to the Code does not have to take place in order to get the City’s interpretation challenged. They asked for a formal opinion on April 17, they heard back on April 24, she appealed that determination on May 14; in the meantime the City went forward with a proposed ordinance amendment; and they were not put on the schedule for a hearing until this evening. Once everyone in attendance has been heard from she would like to continue with the legal arguments made in their materials and would like to respond to what staff has represented and what City Attorney Lehmannhas argued to. She believes there is a very significant legal issue here for this commission to grapple with. In her view, if an ordinance is not clear they are to be strictly construed against the City in favor of the property owner if there is any ambiguity. There is clearly ambiguity here or the City would not have had the need to come forward with a proposed amendment to clarify that K-12 is not included. In her view, legally, whether the time limit or with the interpretation, this use is not clearly excluded. In the absence of a clear exclusion, youhave to go with the property owner here. The board members requested that Attorney Lavorato focus on the dispositive issue; how is this a trade school. Attorney Lavorato stated that, in her opinion, the dispositive issue is how has the City defined this in a way that expressly excludes K-12 schools. When pressed she described a trade school, under the City Code,as “An educational institution, either private or public, which offers classes and training to full and/or part time students including, but notlimited to, technical, mechanical, services and computingfields”and explained that the STEP Charter School is an educational institution, public or private, offers classes and training, has full time students, and includes classes in technical, mechanical, services, and computing fields. It meets all of those definitions. Any public school in the State of Minnesota has to meet the academic standards and benchmarks that are established by the Commissioner of Education. It does not mean that a school, having that requirement, cannot focus specifically on subject areas, themes, and content areas that are specific. Many charter schools do just that. Just because the charter school meets the definition and requirements of the state’s academic standards does not mean that it is not focused on aspects that are specifically addressed in the definition. Board members asked whether every high school in the state teaches computer science, teaches mathematics, teaches some form of science and have a laboratory. They also questioned her interpretation of what is conventional high school education and putting it into a box of a trade school, which in common understanding and usage is a school that teaches the trades –and a common definition of trades is mechanics, carpenters, skilled workers –how high level high school education in stem subjects and call them trades. The grade level has no bearing on this and whether the City wants to change its code to specify grade level does not contribute to the ambiguity at all nor does it necessarily cure an ambiguity. Mr. Abdullahi Ahmed, Board chair of STEP Academy and a parent of a student in seventh grade, explained the reasons why they chose the Sanford-Brown College building as a location for the STEP Academy. June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting -DRAFTPage 15 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 16 Mr. SolmonAli, 13665 Hanover Court, Apple Valley, a PSEO student at STEP Academy came forward and explained what he haslearned at STEP Academyand his belief that it does a great job of getting students ready for college. Attorney Lavorato returned to respond to the staff report: “Based on the existing City Code provisions and past City Council determinations” – the City Council in the City has never been presented with a decision on whether charter schools are permitted. They have been approached for informal feedback but there has never been a finding precedence that has been made by City Council. “. . . a determination that allows this use to be permitted by right in the Industrial District may allow for proliferation of other educational institutions that were not envisioned as part of the long-term planning for the area” –she feels that schools would have to show that the mission of the school, like STEP Academy, is to prepare students for a particular trade in technology or science or mathematics. Also, if the proposed amendment goes forward this would be a non-issue. The land use discussion in the staff report shows that the Industrial District currently allows a mix of permitted conditional and accessory uses. She also noted that the Exhibit E clearly indicates that District 197, as recently as 2000, operated community education programs in the Industrial District. Under the land use tables adult daycare is permitted in the Industrial District. She does not understand how adult daycare in terms of the concerns raised by the Commission, is any different than a K-12 school. Students at STEP Academy in Inver Grove Heights could also be enrolled at Sanford- Brown in the PSEO program and that would bepermitted under the City’s code. However, the same STEP Academy students, taking the same courses,cannot have their school located in the Industrial District. The City has repeatedly felt that the appropriate procedure in this case is to require a code amendment. She disagreed as there are many ways to challenge City actions and this is only one of them. STEP Academy did request in writing on April 17 a determination on whether this lease would be permitted. There was no requirement that the school go a lengthy and probably difficult process of securing a code amendment. Referring to her June 17 letter, Attorney Lavorato reiterated her legal arguments with explanations. BOARD MEMBER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER COSTELLO, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 BOARD MEMBER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MAGNUSON, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2015-44 DENYING AN APPEAL FROM A ZONING DETERMINATION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1.STEP Academy is not a trade school, college, or university. June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting -DRAFTPage 16 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 17 2.STEP Academy is not a trade school because it provides a general college preparatory curriculum rather than the common and ordinary understanding of a trade school, which is a vocational school. 3.STEP Academy is not a college or university because it does not confer post-secondary degrees. Board member Hennes stated that he would vote against this motion because the City has not done a good job of defining what a trade school is or any other kind of a school. He believed that the appellant made a pretty good case. Board member Magnuson supported the motion because she believes that STEPAcademy, although she was very impressed with the school, their curriculum, and the students; she does not think that STEP Academy can fit into the definition of a trade school. Attorney Lavorato did everything she could to make that case but in the end it’s putting a square peg into a round hole and it just doesn’t fit. She believes that a code amendment could solve the problem and she would be open to a code amendment; she has no problem with a charter school being in the Industrial District if that is where they choose to be. But she does not think that as a matter of law it fits the definition of a trade school. Board member Roston proposed a friendly amendment to the motion, which is “the proposed use is also not conditionally permitted in Section 12-1-G-1 or 12-1-G-2.” Board member Viksnins agreed to the friendly amendment. Board member Roston continued by saying that he isconflicted as he would love to see this use in the area and he is not opposed of this use –either personally or in his role as a Planning Commissioner –but he is stuck on the language of the ordinance. He will support the motion but solely because that is what is required of him under the ordinance. He would love to come up with a way to make this work for the school. He agrees with staff that this would require a code amendment. Board member Viksnins stated that it gives him no pleasure to make this motion; however, his read of the ordinance is pretty clear. STEP Academy is just not a trade school. He agreed with all of the comments made and believes this is a very impressive school. Chair Field echoed all of the comments and expressed his wish that there could be a way to do it; however, given the confines of the application or in this case the appeal in front of them their hands are tied. Chair Field called for the vote denying an appeal from a zoning determination based on the four findings of fact: AYES: 6 NAYS: 1 (HENNES) Chair Field noted that this opinion would be forwarded to the City Council at their meeting on Tuesday, July 7, 2015. The City Council does have the option to review or revise the decision of June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting -DRAFTPage 17 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 18 the Board of Appeals. Based on that aspect of it and based on code requirements that a public hearing be held in order for the Council to take action if they so chose on this item, staff would go th ahead and potentially notice that public hearing for July 7. Staff can meet the deadlines and that is their intention at this point. Board member Roston asked if they wanted to pull out all of the stops and figure out if they had the political and practical support to amend the ordinance as soon as they could to make sure to accommodate the time schedule, what could be done as a City to make that happen on time. City Attorney Tom Lehmann indicated that would also have to go through the City Council. Staff th could get a sense of that with the regards to the hearing on July 7. Planner Nolan Wall stated that he would leave that up to the City Council. Board member Magnuson stated that, in the past, when there have been issues where it was thought that code amendments would be appropriate, recommendations were attached recommending that the Council consider a code amendment to do a certain thing. Planner Wall replied that this would be helpful and he and City Administrator Mark McNeill could pass along the Planning Commission comments and sentiments indicating that there was a desire for a code amendment and to expedite it as quickly as possible. BOARD MEMBER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER VIKSNINS, TO ASK THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER EXPEDITING A HEARING AND THEN AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME AND WITH PROPER PROCEDURE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE CONSIDER PERMITTING OR CONDITIONALLY PERMITTING A CHARTER SCHOOL IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. Discussions were held in favor of and in opposition to the motion. BOARD MEMBER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER HENNES,THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZE THE DRAFTING OF AN AMENDMENT FOR AN INTERIM USE OF A CHARTER SCHOOL IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT QUICKLY. Board Member Noonan recommended the motion be amended to read “use of property in the Industrial District for a school.” Board member Roston agreed to the friendly amendment. To clarify, BOARD MEMBER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO AUTHORIZETHE DRAFTING OF ANAMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE. AYES: 2 (ROSTON, HENNES) NAYS: 5 (NOONAN, FIELD, MAGNUSON, COSTELLO, VIKSNINS) Members of the Board of Zoning Appealsexpressed a desire to find a way to accomplish this, but acknowledgedthat, given the current appeal in front of them, there was nothing they could do to address it. June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting -DRAFTPage 18 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 19 Adjournment COMMISSIONER VIKSNINSMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO ADJOURN THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALSMEETING AT 10:02 P.M. June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting -DRAFTPage 19 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 20 PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES June 23, 2015 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission continued on Tuesday, June 23, 2015 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 10:02 p.m. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Howard Roston, Michael Noonan, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson, Christine Costello and Ansis Viksnins. Those absent: None. Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall, Public Works Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello, City Administrator Mark McNeill, and City Attorney Tom Lehmann. Verbal Review Planner Wall gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #2015-15 Ordinance 478 concerning minimum requirements for single-family residential districts •Adopted by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission PLANNING CASE #2015-17 Conditional Use Permit, Planned Unit Development Amendments – Lemay Shores Development •Appealed to have the public hearing directly in front of City Council •City Council approved the Conditional Use Permit to Amend a Final Planned Unit Development Plan, Final Plat, and Development Agreement Staff Announcements City Council will be having a workshop meeting on July 29. The only Planning Commission item will be to continue discussion on marketing the city-owned lots at the Village of Mendota Heights development. City Council did approve the Project Scope and Contract for the Redevelopment Planning Grant for the Industrial District. Adjournment COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO ADJOURN THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 10:07 P.M. June 23, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting (continued) -DRAFTPage 20 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 21 DATE: July 28, 2015 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2015-27 Wetlands Permit for Vegetation Removal and Grading/Construction APPLICANT: AMEK Custom Builders, Inc. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2185 Glen Toro Road ZONING/GUIDED: R-1A One Family Residential/RRRural Residential ACTION DEADLINE: September 13, 2015 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, on behalf of the property owners,is seeking a wetlands permit to removevegetation and construct a driveway on the subject parcel. The proposed activities arewithin100 feet of a wetland and do not meet the conditions for an administrative approval. BACKGROUND The subject parcelis 48,630 square feet (1.12 acres) and is currently undeveloped. The property is zoned R-1A One Family Residential and guided for rural residential development. The applicant has been contracted to construct a new single-family dwelling on the property. The City approved a Planned Unit Development(PUD), Preliminary Plat, and Developers Agreement for the Glen Toro Second Addition Developmentin 1998, as part of Planning Case 1998-12. The development consists of nine lots; five of which have been developed. The original approval, and subsequent amendments, did not address the incorporation of city-issued wetlands permits. According to the official Wetlands Systems Map, which was updated in 2006, a wetland is identified within 100 feet of the subject parcel. According to Title 12-2-6-A of the Code, a wetlands permit is required for the removal of vegetation and grading within 100 feet of a wetland or water resource-related area. Staff identified the wetlands permit issue upon the applicant’s submission of a building permit and subsequent review of the previously-approved project files. Due to the location of the proposed building pad, the vast majority of the construction activity will be outside of the100-foot buffer area (see attached map). As a result, the applicant and architect requested commencement of certain construction activities without having obtained the appropriate wetlands permit. Staff brought forward the request to the City Council for consideration at the July 15 special meeting. The Council authorized staff to issue the building permit for the proposed dwelling on the subject parcel upon completion of plan review by the Building Official. 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 22 ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan The subject parcel is guided RR Rural Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.The applicant’s request to remove vegetation and construct the proposed project on the property is consistent with the Plan. Wetlands Permit According to Title 12-2-1 of the City Code: The purpose of this chapter shall be to provide for the protection, preservation, maintenance, and use of Mendota Heights wetlands and water resource related areas, to maintain the natural drainage system, to minimize the disturbance which may result from alteration by earthwork, loss of vegetation, loss of wildlife and aquatic organisms as a result of the disturbance of the natural environment, or from excessive sedimentation; to provide for protection of probable fresh water supplies; and to ensure safety from floods. The request in this case is limited to theproposed activitieswithin the 100-foot buffer area, which only includes vegetation removal and construction/gradingof a portion of the driveway. As shown in the attachedaerialmap, the subject parcel is separated from the wetland by Glen Toro Road. According to the applicant, no mature trees will be removed to construct the driveway, only brush and overgrowth. Based on the proposed scope of the project within the buffer area,staff does not feel there will be any negative impacts to the wetland. ALTERNATIVES 1.Recommend approval of the wetlands permit request, based on thefindings of factthat the proposed scope of the project within the buffer area will not have any negative impacts on the wetland, with conditions. OR 2.Recommend denial of the wetlands permit request, based on the findings offact that the proposed scope of the project within the buffer area will have negative impacts on the wetland. OR 3.Table the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the wetlands permit, based on the findings of fact that the proposed scope of the project within the buffer area will not have any negative impacts on the wetland, with the following conditions (Alternative #1): 1.A certificate of occupancy for the new single-family dwelling on the subject parcel is withheld until the wetlands permit is approved by the City Council. 2.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.Planning applications, including supporting materials 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 23 Planning Case 2015-27 City of 2185 Glen Toro Road Mendota 060 Heights 7/20/2015 SCALE IN FEET 2165 21592159 2180 2190 2185 545 25 ft. 100 ft. HUBER DR 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. 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 24 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 25 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 26 Page 27 - Packet Commission Planning 7/28/15 Page 28 - Packet Commission Planning 7/28/15 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 29 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 30 Print PreviewPage 1of 1 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 31 http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/...710201 C//5 Print PreviewPage 1of 1 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 32 http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/...710201 C//5 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 33 DATE: July 28, 2015 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2015-24 Critical Area Permitand Variancefor Retaining Wall APPLICANT: Southview Design PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1680 Mayfield Heights Road ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One-Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: September 8, 2015 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, on behalf of the property owners,isseeking a critical area permitand variancefor construction of a retaining wall.The subject parcel is located within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area and requires City Council approval before a building permit or zoning approval can be issued. BACKGROUND The subject parcel is 1.42 acres (61,934 square feet), zoned R-1 One Family Residential, and guided for low density residential development. As part of Planning Case 2015-01, the property owners were granted the required critical area permit, conditional use permit, wetlands permit, and variance requests in order to demolish the existing structures and construct a new single-family dwelling on the subject parcel. The site is currently under construction. The preliminary construction plans reviewed as part of the original planning application did not include the proposed driveway turn-around area. Based on the revisedgrading and landscape plans, it was determined a critical area permit for the construction and variancefor the height were necessary forthe proposed retaining wall structure. ANALYSIS Critical Area Permit The purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District is to: Title 12-3-2: “…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…” 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 34 Retaining walls in the Critical Area must be constructed of native stone or wood \[12-3-9-A(2)(d)(2)\].The proposed boulder wall is compliant with this standard and no additional vegetation will be removed as part of the proposed project. Engineering staff has reviewed the proposed retaining wall and foundthe proposal to be reasonable given the constraints of the site. As part of the building permit application, the applicant will provide design drawings of the retaining wall that are signed by a registered Professional Engineer (PE) in the State of Minnesota. Variance Retaining walls in the Critical Area are limited to five feet in height \[12-3-9-A(2)(d)(1)\]. As shown on the proposed plans, portions of the retaining wall structure are seven feet in height and require a variance. When considering a variance for the height of the proposed retaining wall, 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 proposed retaining wall structure is a reasonable use of the property and meets the general purpose and intent of the Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If not for its location in the Critical Area, only a building permit would be required for such a structure. In addition, a turn-around areais reasonable to eliminate the need to back down the long driveway. 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. As discussed in Planning Case 2015-01, the new dwelling is being constructed within the least disruptive buildable area on the subject parcel.As a result, there is limited space for the drivewayto be located in compliance with the five-foot setback requirement. In addition, the neighboring property to the north is lower than the current grades onthe subject parcel. Therefore, the applicant is proposing a seven-foot tall retaining wall in order to provide the proper structural integrity to hold up the driveway/turn-around. Based on the existing conditions, the applicant has established a practical difficulty inconstructing a retaining wall in the proposed location in compliance with the height requirement in the Critical Area. Furthermore, the existing conditions area unique circumstance not created by the applicant. 3.The request will not alter the essential character of the locality. The addition of the driveway turn-around and proposed retaining wall will not alter the character of the neighborhood. No additional vegetation will be removed and the proposed design will not direct headlights into the adjacent dwelling to the north. 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 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and City of Lilydalefor review and comment; as of July 23, no comments from either agency were received. ALTERNATIVES 1.Approval of the critical area permitand variance requests, based on the attached findings of fact, with conditions. OR 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 35 2.Denial of the critical area permitand variancerequests, based on the findings of factthat the application does not meet the policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay Districtand practical difficulty is not establishedin this case. OR 3.Table the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the critical area permit and variance requests for the proposed retaining wall structure, based on the attached findings of fact, with the condition that the applicant obtain a building permit(Alternative #1). MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1.Aerial site map 2.Site photos 3.Planning applications, including supporting materials 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 36 FINDINGS OF FACT FORAPPROVAL Critical Area Permit and Variance Requests 1680 Mayfield Heights Road The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1.The proposed retaining wall structure is a reasonable use of the property and meets the general purpose and intent of the Code, including the drivewayexpansion setback and retaining wall materials, and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2.The proposed turn-around/driveway expansion and associated retaining wall will allow for safer and more convenient vehicle movements, eliminating the need to back down the driveway. 3.The existing slopes on the subject parcel and the Critical Area Overlay District’s retaining wall height standard causea practical difficulty in constructing the proposed projectto the height required to structurally-support the proposed turn-around/driveway expansion. 4.The proposed construction activities will not remove any additional vegetation and the proposed design will not direct headlights into the adjacent dwelling to the north; the character of the neighborhood will not be altered. 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 37 Planning Case 2015-24 City of 1680 Mayfield Heights Road Mendota 080 Heights 7/14/2015 SCALE IN FEET 1030 1666 1015 1037 1666 1661 1 40 10 1016 1041 1670 1673 1673 1670 1012 1680 1693 216 121 1701 1051 290 216 121 991 45 1011 1 18 1 21 1049 1045 1041 1031 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. 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 38 Planning Case 2015-24 Site Photos: 1680 Mayfield Heights Road Source: Staff (07.10.15) 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 39 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 40 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 41 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 42 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 43 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 46 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 47 Print PreviewPage 1of 1 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 48 http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/...710201 C//5 Print PreviewPage 1of 1 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 49 http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/...710201 C//5 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 50 DATE: July 28, 2015 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2015-25 Variance Requests for Accessory Structure APPLICANT: Mendakota Country Club PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2075 Mendakota Drive ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/GC Golf Course ACTION DEADLINE: September 4, 2015 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is seeking to construct an accessory structureand requires variances from the height, number, area, and size requirementsfor such a structure in a residential zoning district. BACKGROUND The subject parcel is approximately 145acres and contains a country club and golf course, including several existing accessory structures. The property is zoned R-1 One Family Residential and guided as a golf course. The applicant intends to construct a 2½-story, 4,942-square footaccessory structure (50 ft. x 38 ft. footprint) on the southwest side of the clubhouse to allow for additional storage space. The structure would have three levels; a basement drive-in levelwith an overhead garage door, a main level, and an attic storage space. Due to lack of adequate storagespacewithin the clubhouse,temporary storage podsare located within the proposed construction area(see attached photos). According to the applicant, the proposed structure would address the storage needs and fire code issues. ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan The subject parcel is guided GC Golf Course in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.The applicant’s request to construct an accessory structure for additional storage on the property is consistent with the continued use as a country club/golf course. Accessory Structure Title 12-1D-3-B and Cof theCity Code containthe following accessory structure standards for all residential districts: 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 51 StandardProposedVariance Required Front Yard: 240 ft. (approx.) Setback from all lot lines 50 ft. Rear Yard : 175 ft. (approx.)NO (country club/golf course) Side Yard: 100 ft. Setback from principal building5 ft.7 ft.NO Structure height15 ft.28 ft.-3½in.YES Number of structures 31 (5 existing, 6 total) YES (4 acres or more) Total area of structures 17,504 sq. ft. 425 sq. ft.YES (4 acres or more )(12,562 sq. ft.existing) Individual size of structure 225 sq. ft.4,942 sq. ft.YES (4 acres or more) The proposed accessory structure meets the applicable setback standards; as shownin the table above, it exceeds theheight, number, area,and size standards for the R-1 District.According to the preliminary building plans, the proposed accessory structure will be constructed of similar materials and colors to match the clubhouse building. Variances When considering the variance requests for the proposed accessory structure, 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 use of the property as a country club/golf course is permitted as a conditional use in the R-1 District and its continued use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant’s desire to construct an additional accessory structure on the property to perpetuate and support the existing use is reasonable. 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 use of the property as a country club/golf course requires numerous accessory structures for storage of equipment and materials. Applying the existing height, number, area,and size standards for accessory structures in residential districts creates a practical difficultyin complying with the Code when new structures are required for additional storagein order to meet fire code requirements.According to the applicant, an addition cannot be constructed onto the southwest side of the existing clubhouse building due to the presence of air handling equipment in the existing atticspace. 3.The request will not alter the essential character of the locality. The property already contains numerous accessory structures and the proposed structure will be constructed of similar materials and colors to match the clubhouse building. Construction of the proposed accessory structure will allow for removal of the temporary storage pods and will improve the look of the property. ALTERNATIVES 1.Recommend approval of the variance requests, based on the attached findings of fact, with conditions. OR 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 52 2.Recommend denial of the variance requests, based on the findings of fact that the proposed accessory structure is not consistent with the City Code or Comprehensive Plan and other storage alternatives could be accomplished without construction of an additional structure. OR 3.Table the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the variance requests, based on the attached findings of fact,with the following conditions (Alternative #1): 1.The applicant obtains a building permit. 2.The storage pods are removed after construction of the proposed accessory structure is completed. 3.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 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 53 FINDINGS OF FACT FORAPPROVAL Variance Requests Mendakota Country Club – 2075 Mendakota Drive The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1.The property’s use as a country club/golf course is reasonable and multiple accessory structures are required for storage of equipment and materials. 2.The Code’s accessory structure standards for residential districts causea practical difficulty for a country club/golf course due to the size and nature of the use. 3.The proposed accessory structure meets the applicable setback standards. 4.Theproperty already contains numerous accessory structures exceeding the Code requirements and is screened by perimeter vegetation from surrounding roads and uses. 5.The proposed accessory structure will be constructed of similar materials and colors to match the clubhouse building and will not negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 54 Planning Case 2015-25 City of 2075 Mendakota Drive Mendota 0130 Heights 7/20/2015 SCALE IN FEET 2075 2075 2075 2075 869 869 867 865 861 871 859 871 857 870 875 875911 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. 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 55 Planning Case 2015-25 Site Photos: 2075 Mendakota Drive Source: Staff (07.10.15) 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 56 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 57 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 58 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 59 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 60 Packet 61Page - Commission Planning 7/28/15 Packet 62Page - Commission Planning 7/28/15 Packet 63Page - Commission Planning 7/28/15 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 64 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 65 Print PreviewPage 1of 1 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 66 http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/...710201 C//5 Print PreviewPage 1of 1 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 67 http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/...710201 C//5 Print PreviewPage 1of 1 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 68 http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/...710201 C//5 Print PreviewPage 1of 1 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 69 http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/...710201 C//5 Print PreviewPage 1of 1 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 70 http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/...710201 C//5 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 71 DATE: July 28, 2015 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2015-26 Variance Requestfor Deck APPLICANT: Robert Alvarez PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1176 Ivy Hill Drive ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: September 5, 2015 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is seeking to construct a deck onto an existing single-family dwelling and requires a variance from the rear yard setback requirements for such a structure in the R-1 Zoning District. BACKGROUND The subject parcel is approximately 21,000 square feetand contains a single-family dwelling. The property is zoned R-1 One Family Residential and guided for low density residential development. While not updated on the attached aerial map, a portion of right-of-way along Ivy Hill Drive was vacated, which increased the lot size prior to construction of the existing dwelling. The applicant intends to construct a deck wrapping around the west and northwest corners of the existing dwelling into the side and rear yards. As proposed, the portion of the deck within the rear yard requires a variance fromthe applicable setback requirements in the R-1 District. The existing dwelling was constructed in 2006. Between 2004 and 2005, the configuration of potential building pads on the subject parcel wasdiscussed at length by the Planning Commission and City Council in a series of planning applications containing various requests.According to available minutes and application files, and without including a detailed summary of the discussion and background on the requests, the actions included: 1.Case 2004-13: Subdivision and variances for street frontage and front yard setback Proposed lot reconfiguration for construction of a new dwelling on the subject parcel and variance from the 100-foot lot width requirements along Dodd Road Denied by the Planning Commission and City Council (Resolution 2004-47) 2.Case 2004-44: Variance for rear yard setback for proposed dwelling Proposed variance to allow 10-foot rear yard setback Lot width variancewas recommended for approval by the Planning Commission Both requests denied by the City Council (Resolution 2004-108) 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 72 3.Case 2005-11: Variance for rear yard setback for proposed dwelling Proposed variance to allow 10-foot rear yard setback Not reviewed by the Planning Commission Denied by the City Council (Resolution 2005-18) ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan The subject parcel is guided LR Low Density Residentialin the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant’s request to construct a deck on the property is consistent with the continued use as a single-family dwelling. Variance The R-1 District’s required rear yard setback is 30 feet or 20% of the average lot depth, whichever is greater. In this case, due to the orientation of the existing dwelling fronting Ivy Hill Drive, the required rear yard setback is 30 feet. As a result of the aforementioned denials for a rear yard setback variance, the existing dwelling was issued abuilding permit for constructionin its current location. Based on the existing conditions, but without an as-built survey, it can be assumedit was approved to be constructed in compliance with the applicable Code requirements, including within the required setbacks. However, attacheddecks are consideredto be part of the principal structure, therefore the same setback standards apply. As proposed, the deck would encroach ninefeet into the 30-foot setbackand requires a rear yard setback variance. When considering the variance request for the proposed deckin this case, 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 desire to construct a deck onto the existing single-family dwelling is a reasonable use of the property. However, the proposed encroachment into the rear yard is excessive and could be reduced or eliminated to still allow for reasonable use of the propertyin compliance with the Code requirements. The intent of the rear yard setback is to discourage crowding and maintain open space between dwellings, which is compromised by the proposed project in this case and therefore does not meet the intent of the Code. 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 existing patio door facing the rear yard and the proposed deck wereincluded in the approved building plans for the existing dwelling, which is implied as both a practical difficulty and unique circumstance in this case. Staff was not able to locate those plans; the city is only required to maintain residential building permits for five years after expiration, which is one year after issuance. Furthermore, the installation of patio doors with access to the rear yard above the existing grade is a circumstance created by the applicant, and the resulting safety issuecan potentially be addressedwith a revised variance request that reduces the proposed encroachment. The portion of the deck extending approximately 13 feet into the side yard is compliant due to an over 130- foot setback from the side yard property boundaryline. However, the proposed deck in this location can only be accessed from the existing patio doors along the north side of the dwelling without constructing stepsaccessing the side yard. As a result, staff contends there areat leastthree options to reducethe proposed encroachment and/or eliminate the variance request: 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 73 A.Consider a three-foot variance to allowconstruction ofa landing/walkway from the patio door tothe portion of the proposed deck extending into the side yard. This option allows access to the compliant portion of the proposed deck in the side yard from inside the house and decreases the excessive encroachment being requested in this case. According to the building code, three feetis the minimum width of a landing required for a walkway. In this scenario, staff would further recommend the three-foot encroachment extend no further than three feet from the northeast corner of the existing dwelling. B.Consider a three-foot variance to allow construction ofa landing/steps to the existing patio doorand eliminate the portion of the proposed deck encroaching into the rear yard. This option addresses the safety concern raised by the applicant regarding access to the existing patio door. A compliant landing at least three long and steps could be constructed to provide safe access to the rear yard from the existing dwelling. However, it would not provide access from the dwelling to the compliant portion of the proposed deck extending into the side yard. C.Eliminate the portion of the proposed deck encroaching into the rear yard and construct steps toaccess the compliant portion from the side yard. This option does not require a variance and, in staff’s opinion, still allows for reasonable use of the property by providing access to the compliant portion of the deck extending into the side yard. As with Option B, it wouldnot provide accessfrom the dwellingto the portion of the proposed deck extending into the side yard or address the potential safety issue. 3.The request will not alter the essential character of the locality. The compliant portion of the proposed deck extending into the side yard will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. However, the proposed deck’s nine-foot encroachment into the rear yard will decrease the distance between the abutting propertyto the north at 1167 Dodd Road. Basedon aerial maps, it appears the dwelling is constructed near the 10-foot minimumside yardsetbackline. Due to the subject parcel’s frontage on Ivy Hill Drive, the existing condition already provides for the minimumseparation distance of 40 feet between both dwellings;any further encroachmentshould be carefully considered in order to ensure appropriate buffering between the properties. ALTERNATIVES 1.Recommend denial of the nine-foot rear yard setback variance requestfor construction of the proposed deck, based on the attached findings of fact. OR 2.Recommend approval of a three-foot rear yard setback variance requestto allow construction of a landing/walkway from the patio doors to the compliant portion of the proposed deck extending into the side yard,as proposed for consideration by staffand acceptable to the applicant, based on the attached findings of fact, with conditions. OR 3.Recommend approval of a three-foot rear yard setback variance request to allow construction of a landing/steps to the existing patio doors and eliminate the portion of the proposed deck encroaching into the rear yard, as proposed for consideration by staffand acceptable to the applicant, based on the attached findings of fact, with conditions. OR 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 74 4.Recommend approval of a nine-foot rear yard setback variance request for construction of the proposed deck, as proposed by the applicant, based on the findings of fact that the use of the property is reasonable, a practical difficulty has been established based on unique circumstances not created by the applicant, and the essential character of the neighborhood is not altered; with the condition that the applicant obtain a building permit. OR 5.Table the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the proposed nine-foot rear yard setback variance as proposed by the applicant, based on the attached findings of fact(Alternative #1). As notedin this report, there are other design options that would allow for a reasonable use of the property with a reduced encroachment or no variance. If acceptable to the applicant, staff is supportive of a recommendation approving areduced encroachment to allow athree-foot rear yard setback varianceas included in Alternative #2(Option A),based on the attached findings of fact, with the following conditions: 1.The three-foot encroachment would extend no further than three feet from the northeast corner of the existing dwelling to provide access to the compliant portion of the proposed deck in the side yard. 2.The applicant obtains a building permit. If acceptable to the applicant, staff is also supportive of a recommendation approving a reduced encroachment to allow a three-foot rear yard setback variance as included in Alternative #3 (Option B), based on the attached findings of fact, with the following conditions: 1.The three-foot encroachment would be no wider than the existing patio door, or the minimum width as determined by the Building Official. 2.The applicant obtains a building permit. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1.Aerial site map 2.Site photos 3.Planning applications, including supporting materials 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 75 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DENIAL Nine-foot Rear Yard Setback Variance Request 1176 Ivy Hill Drive The following Findings of Fact are made in support of denial of the proposed request: 1.Reasonable use of the property can be made without the need for a variance. 2.Alternatives exist to reduce the proposed encroachment into the rear yard and provide safe access to the existing patio door. 3.The proposed nine-foot encroachment does not meet the intent of the Code by decreasing the buffer area between the adjoining properties and would negatively impact the essential character of the neighborhood. 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 76 FINDINGS OF FACT FORAPPROVAL Three-foot Rear Yard Setback Variance Request – Option A 1176 Ivy Hill Drive The following Findings of Factare made in support of approval of the alternative request, referred to as “Option A” in the staff report: 1.Construction of a three-foot landing/walkwaywithin the required rear yard setbackto access a compliant deck structure through an existing patio door is a reasonable use of the property. 2.The subject parcel is a long narrow lot and the frontage on Ivy Hill Road resulted in construction of the existing dwelling at the maximum front and rear yard setbacks; therefore a practical difficulty is demonstrated in order to construct a walkway/landingwithin the required rear yard setbackto access a compliant deck structure from within the existing dwelling. 3.The alternative request reduces the proposed encroachment by six feet and would not allow for a useable deck space in the rear yard or negatively impact the essential characterof the neighborhood. 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 77 FINDINGS OF FACT FORAPPROVAL Three-foot Rear Yard Setback Variance Request –Option B 1176 Ivy Hill Drive The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the alternative request, referred to as “Option B” in the staff report: 1.Construction of a three-foot landing/steps to the existing patio doorwithin the required rear yard setback to provide safe access to the dwelling/backyard is a reasonable use of the property. 2.The subject parcel is a long narrow lot and the frontage on Ivy Hill Road resulted in construction of the existing dwelling at the maximum front and rear yard setbacks; therefore a practical difficulty is demonstrated in order to construct a landing/steps within the required rear yard setback to provide safe access to the dwelling/backyard. 3.The alternative request eliminates the proposed deck’s encroachment into the required rear yard and would not negatively impact the essential character of the neighborhood. 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 78 Planning Case 2015-26 City of 1176 Ivy Hill Drive Mendota 030 Heights 7/20/2015 SCALE IN FEET 604 1155 608 1161 1167 1176 1170 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. 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 79 Planning Case 2015-26 Site Photos: 1176 Ivy Hill Drive Source: Staff (07.10.15) 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 80 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 81 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 82 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 83 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 84 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 85 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 87 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 88 Print PreviewPage 1of 1 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 89 http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/...710201 C//5 Print PreviewPage 1of 1 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 90 http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/...710201 C//5 Print PreviewPage 1of 1 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 91 http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/...710201 C//5 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 92 DATE: July 28, 2015 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2015-28 Proposed Code Amendments – Video/Electronic Display Scoreboards 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 12-1E-3-C of the City Code concerning video/electronic display scoreboards. BACKGROUND Representatives from Saint Thomas Academy appeared beforethe City Council on July 7 to discuss plans for a new scoreboard for the main athletic field/track on campus (see attached letterwith revised rendering). As a result of the discussion, staff was directed to bring forward a code amendment to establish standards for the proposed use. In April 2014, the Council adopted Ordinance 460 allowing electronic display signs for institutional use in residential zoning districts. The definition of such a sign is as follows: SIGN, ELECTRONIC DISPLAY: A sign or portion thereof that displays electronic, nonpictorial, text information in which each alphanumeric character is defined by a small number of matrix elements using different combinations of light emitting diodes (LEDs), fiber optics, light bulbs, or other illumination devices within the display area. Electronic display signs include computer programmable, microprocessor controlled electronic displays. A scoreboard being used during an organized sporting event shall not be considered a sign. \[12-1B-2\] Whilescoreboards were intentionally excluded from the definition, video/electronicdisplay components encompassing an entire scoreboard were not discussed as part of the code amendment process. ANALYSIS The City is the applicant in this case, however the application was initiated by a request from Saint Thomas Academy to utilize this technology and feedback from the City Council that it should be considered as a scoreboard, not as a sign. As proposed, a video/electronicdisplay scoreboard would be considered a permitted accessory usefor an institutional use in aresidential zoning district, therefore no additional approval is necessary as long as the conditions are met. 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 93 School representatives have already been before the City Council and will be present at the subsequent Planning Commission and City Council meetings to discuss the proposed code amendment and their proposed scoreboard plans.In order to allow for a compliant video/electronicdisplay scoreboard to be erected as soon as possible after approval of the code amendment, based on apublic hearing and thorough discussion before the Planning Commission and City Council, staff feels that adequate public comment opportunities will have been provided concerning this issue. Therefore, consideration of the proposed use as a conditional use, which requires an additional permit and application review process, may be unnecessary. In addition, all property owners within 350 feet of the campuswere provided public hearing notices on this request, which is the same requirementasfor a conditional use permit. If and when the City pursues an institutional/public use zoning district, the standards can be reviewed and revised accordingly. DRAFT Ordinance 483 includes the following proposed amendment, including the rationalefor each condition: Video/electronic display scoreboard for an institutional use, provided that: 1.The scoreboard shall only be used for organized events in which the permitted institutional use is participating in or hosting. 2.The video/electronicdisplay portion(s)of the scoreboard shall only be used when an event is occurring at the athletic field. Both conditions would limit the use of the scoreboard to during events related to the institutional use. 3.The scoreboard shall be equipped with industry-standard security and brightness control features. Security and brightness need to be appropriately controlled to prevent the scoreboard from being distracting or misused. 4.The video/electronicdisplay portion(s)of the scoreboard shall not be located closer than three hundred (300) feet to any surrounding residential property boundary line. The distance would only apply to properties which face the video/electronic display portion of the scoreboard. 5.The scoreboard shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet in area per surface and the video/electronic display portion(s) shall not exceed six hundred (600) square feet of the total area. The video/electronic display portion would be limited to a percentage of the overall size of the scoreboard. Currently, there are no size limitations in the Code regarding scoreboards. The proposed total areastandard is less than both example ordinances reviewed by staff. 6.The scoreboard shall not exceed forty-five feet (45') in height from the average natural grade at the base of the scoreboard. The scoreboard needs to be high enough to see from the athletic field stands. The proposed standard is consistent with the example ordinances reviewed by staff. 7.Advertising of products, events, persons, institutions, activities, businesses, services or subjects not related to the event taking place on the premises or sponsored by the permitted institutional use are prohibited. Organizations sponsoring the scoreboard may include identifying information within the area allowed for the scoreboard in a combined amount not to exceed thirty (30%) percent of the total scoreboard area. The intent in allowing institutional uses the opportunity to utilize thistechnology is for use during an event at the athletic field and for promotions and announcements specific to the use and visitors to the property. 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 94 Existing scoreboards in the city already contain sponsor/advertising space, thereforethe proposed condition would limit the amount of space in relation to the overall area of the scoreboard. 8.No permitted institutional use shall have more than one (1) scoreboard structure equipped with video/electronic display(s) and no video/electronic display(s) or signage shall be affixed to the back of the scoreboard. Existing scoreboards with electronic time/scorekeeping capabilities are not meant to be included in this condition. 9.The hours of operation for the video/electronic display portion(s) of the scoreboard shall be limited to between eight o’clock (8:00) A.M. and eleven o’clock (11:00) P.M. with an allowance of up to thirty (30) minutes before or after a permitted event. Proposed to coincide with the potential schedules for events utilizing the scoreboard. Example Ordinances Staff reviewed example ordinances from the cities of Savage and Plymouth; both of which allow video/electronicdisplay scoreboards for schools as a conditional use. See the table below for a comparison, which includes St. Thomas Academy’s proposed scoreboard, which was revised slightly since presented at the July 7 Council meeting: Proposed Proposed StandardsSavage Plymouth OrdinanceSTA Scoreboard 31ft.+ TBD Height45 ft. 50 ft. 45 ft. distance from grade (will comply) Scoreboard Area1,030 sq. ft.950 sq. ft.800sq. ft.773sq. ft. Video/Electronic 35% of total sizeN/A600 sq. ft.533sq. ft. Display Area Display shall not be Over 1,700 ft. to located closer than 300 Setbacks/Visibility Display shall not be visible from ROWnearest residential ft. from any residential property propertyboundary line 1 video/electronic N/A – no other 1 structure – 2 display scoreboard Number Allowed1scoreboard to video/electronic structure - can include exceed 150 sq. ft. displays multiple displays N/A –Used only 8:00 AM–11:00 PM w/ N/A - Included as Hours of Operation during events on 30 minute overlap from Will comply part of CUP the fieldevent start/end Limited to game/ Limited to events Limited to city/ school-related taking place on the school-sponsored information – premises or sponsored Commercial Speechevents –static Will comply static sponsorship by the institution - sponsorship up to up to 30% of total static sponsorship up to 30% of total area area30% of total area No signage on No signage on back of back of scoreboard scoreboard OtherN/AWill comply Industry-standard Only used on brightness and score-keeping security required portion 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 95 ALTERNATIVES Following the public hearing and further discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1.Recommendapproval of DRAFT Ordinance 483, as presented or as amended by the Commission. OR 2.Recommend denial of DRAFT Ordinance 483. OR 3.Table the request, pending additional information and revisions from staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the proposed code amendment. 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 483 2.St. Thomas Academy letter tothe City Council, dated July 1, 2015 (including revised rendering) 3.Planning application, including supporting materials 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 96 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 483 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE EOF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, CONCERNING VIDEO DISPLAY SCOREBOARDS FOR INSTITUTIONAL USES The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: Section 1. Title 12-1E-3-C is hereby amendedtoas followsto add the proposed language: Video/electronicdisplay scoreboardfor an institutional use, provided that: 1.The scoreboard shall only be used for organized events in which the permitted institutional use is participating in or hosting. 2.The video/electronicdisplay portion(s)of the scoreboard shall only be used when an event is occurring at the athletic field. 3.The scoreboard shall be equipped with industry-standard security and brightness control features. 4.The video/electronicdisplay portion(s)of the scoreboardshallnotbe located closer than three hundred (300) feet to any surrounding residential property boundary line. 5.The scoreboardshall not exceed eight hundred (800)square feet in area per surface and the video/electronic display portion(s) shall not exceed six hundred (600) square feet of the total area. 6.The scoreboard shall not exceed forty-five feet (45') in height from the average natural grade at the base of the scoreboard. 7.Advertising of products, events, persons, institutions, activities, businesses, services or subjects not related to the event taking place on the premises or sponsored by the permitted institutional use are prohibited. Organizations sponsoring the scoreboard may include identifying information within the area allowed for the scoreboard in a combined amount not to exceed thirty (30%) percent of the total scoreboard area. 8.No permitted institutional use shall have more than one (1) scoreboard structure equipped with video/electronicdisplay(s) and no video/electronic display(s)or signageshall be affixed to the back of the scoreboard. 9.The hours of operation for the video/electronicdisplay portion(s)of the scoreboard shall be limited to between eight o’clock (8:00) A.M. and eleven o’clock (11:00) P.M. with an allowance ofup to thirty (30) minutes before or after a permitted event. 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. DRAFT Ord 483 – 07.28.15 Planning Commission Review Page 1 of 2 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 97 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST ___________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk DRAFT Ord 483 – 07.28.15 Planning Commission Review Page 2 of 2 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 98 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 99 ALL DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE 100 Page - Packet Commission Planning 7/28/15 All registered trademarks are the property of the registrant and their use does not imply endorsement of Daktronics. Do not reproduce by any means without the expressed written consent of Daktronics, Inc. dential and proprietary. Final design and appearance may differ from artwork shown. MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN In Memory of Copyright © 2015 Daktronics DD3099219 \[07-16-15 (Rev0 revised 00-00-00) DWG#000000 Rev0\] 12" Btrsnl@qbgdc@bbdmsSqtrrv. DVX-1101-15HD-HC-264x480 ST. THOMAS ACADEMY Ɵ C`jsqnmhbrTmhudqr`kLdrr`fd Ldlnqh`kO`mdk'Mnm,A`bjkhs( AF-3550-80x192-34-RGB-SF The details and expressions shown are conceptual in nature, con 2/00ghfgw14/vhcd (beside Message Display) 84ghfgw06vhcd?1 (below Message Display) EhkkdqO`mdkr'Mnm,A`bjkhs( 025ghfgw132vhcd84ghfgw100/vhcd C`jsqnmhbrUhcdnChrok`x (beside Memorial Panel) 3/ghfgw132vhcd2/ghfgw10/vhcd 2/ghfgw3/vhcd Cdk`xneF`ldShldq Backlit Channel Logo Cnmnstrdenqcdrhfm.dmfhmddqhmfnq`cbnox`ooqnu`k- Display Scoreboard Nudq`kkChldmrhnmr DA-1001-24.25 TI-2003-R-PV 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 101 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 102 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 103 July 20, 2015 RE: Notice of Public Hearing City Code Amendment – Scoreboards Dear Property Owner: On Tuesday, July 28, the Planning Commission will be conducting a public hearing in consideration of proposed City Code amendments concerning video display scoreboards; enclosed is the notice regarding this case. Representatives from Saint Thomas Academy appeared before the City Council on July 7 to discuss plans for a new video display scoreboard for the main athletic field/track on campus.As a result of the discussion, city staff was directed to bring forward a code amendment to establish standards for this proposed use. As a neighboring property owner within 350 feet of the campus, you are being provided additional notice. The application materials areavailable for review at City Hall and the full agenda packet for the Planning Commission meeting will be available on the City’s website, www.mendota-heights.com, by July 24. Please contact me with any questions at (651) 452-1850 or nolanw@mendota-heights.com. Sincerely, Nolan Wall, AICP Planner Enclosure: Public Hearing Notice 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 104 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 105 DATE: July 28, 2015 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2015-29 Proposed Code Amendments – Off-leash Dog Area 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 12-1G of the City Code concerning interim uses. BACKGROUND In 2014, the City Council began exploring potential sites for an off-leash dog area in the city and it was determined that a combination of vacant, adjoining city-owned property in the Industrial District was the best option(see Planning Case 2015-30 materials). The Council then directed staff to amend the City Code to allow interim uses, which was adopted byOrdinance 479 in Planning Case 2015-22, and off-leash dog areaas an interim use in the Industrial District, as proposed in this case. The interim use designation provides for a temporary facility while the City undergoes the upcoming redevelopment and comprehensive planning processes. ANALYSIS DRAFT Ordinance 484 includes the following proposed amendment, including the rationale for each condition: INTERIM USES: Within the I industrial district, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by interim use permit: Off-leash dog area, provided that: A.The minimum parcel size shall be five (5) acres, which may include a combination of adjoining lots under control by the same property owner. The city-owns 13 acresof adjoining land where the proposed off-leash dog area would be located.The five-acre requirement is meant to allow for adequate space for such a facility, including off-street parking and appropriate buffer space from surrounding properties, if necessary. 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 106 B.No principal or accessory structures shall located on the lot(s). Due to the temporary natureof an interim use, no principal or accessory structures should exist on the lot(s). C.Proper fencing is installed around the entire off-leash area with height and materials approved by the City Council. The City Council has discretion to approve fencing height and materials. Staff is aware of other surrounding off-leash dog areas that do not have fencing. If the Council does not feel that fencing is required around theentire proposed off-leash dog area, this condition could be revised. D.Adequate off-street and/or on-street parking shall be supplied, as determined by the City Council. The City Council has discretion to determine if off-street parking is necessary or if adequate on-street parking is available. E.Hours ofoperation shall be limited to betweenseven o’clock (7:00) A.M. and ten o’clock (10:00) P.M. The hours of operation for public parks in the Cityare 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M., as in Title 8-4-2 of the Code.The City recently adopted weekday hours of operation for exterior construction activities from 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. Staff is proposing hours of operation for the proposed use starting at 7:00A.M., which is consistent with weekday exterior construction hours of operation and later than for public parks. The closing time would be consistent with public park hours of operation. Another option to consider could be to limit the hours of operation from sunrise to sunset. F.Fixed lighting structures are prohibited. Fixed lighting structures may have negative impacts on surrounding properties. G.All dogs shall be appropriately licensed. According to Title 5-3-2 of the City Code: “…no person shall own, keep, or harbor any dog within the city limits unless such dog is licensed…” Dogs found not to be in compliance with this provision would not be allowed in the off-leash dog area and may be cited for violating the City Code. It is assumed that dogs appropriately licensed in other cities would not require a license from the City of Mendota Heights. H.All dogs shall be kept on-leash at all times except within the designated off-leash area. According to Title 5-3-3-A of the City Code: “No owner of a dog shall permit his/her dog to be at large in the city but shall keep such dog under restraint at all times.” If the Council determines fencing is not required around the entire proposed off-leash dog area, this section of theCode may also require an amendment. I.No dog(s) shall be left unattended within the off-leash area. Unattended dogs may present a danger to themselves, other dogs, and the public. J.Dog waste receptacles shall be provided and all dog waste shall be properly disposed of on-site by the useror removed immediately. According to Title 5-3-3-D-2 of the City Code: “It is unlawful for any person in control of, causing or permitting any dog to be on any property, public or private, not owned or possessed by such person, to fail to remove excrement left by such dog to a proper receptacle.” 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 107 ALTERNATIVES Following the public hearing and further discussion, the PlanningCommission may consider the following actions: 1.Recommendapproval of DRAFT Ordinance 484, as presented or as amended by the Commission. OR 2.Recommend denial of DRAFT Ordinance 484. OR 3.Table the request, pending additional information and revisions from staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the proposed code amendment. If acceptable to the Commission, action can be taken at this month’s meeting. Staff would proposeto bring back any substantial revisions forreviewand further discussionat a future meeting prior to making a recommendation to the City Council. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1.DRAFT Ordinance 484 2.Planning application, including supporting materials 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 108 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 484 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE G OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, CONCERNING OFF-LEASH DOG AREAS The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: Section 1. Title 12-1G-2-1 is hereby added as follows: INTERIM USES: Within the Iindustrial district, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by interim use permit: Off-leash dog area, provided that: A.The minimum parcel size shall be five (5) acres, which may include a combination of adjoining lots under control by the same property owner. B.No principal or accessory structures shalllocated on the lot(s). C.Proper fencing is installed around the entire off-leash areawith height and materials approved by the City Council. D.Adequate off-street and/or on-street parking shall be supplied, as determined by the City Council. E.Hours of operation shall be limited to betweenseven o’clock (7:00) A.M. and ten o’clock (10:00) P.M. F.Fixed lighting structures are prohibited. G.All dogs shall be appropriately licensed. H.All dogs shall be kept on-leash at all times except within the designated off-leash area. I.No dog(s) shallbe left unattendedwithin the off-leash area. J.Dog waste receptacles shall be provided and all dog waste shall be properly disposed of on-site by the user or removedimmediately. 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. DRAFT Ord 484 – 07.28.15 Planning Commission Review Page 1 of 2 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 109 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST ___________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk DRAFT Ord 484 – 07.28.15 Planning Commission Review Page 2 of 2 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 110 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 111 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 112 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 113 DATE: July 28, 2015 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2015-30 Interim Use Permit for Off-leash Dog Area APPLICANT: City of Mendota Heights PROPERTY ADDRESS: N/A – City-owned land south of Acacia Boulevard, east of Pilot Knob Road, and west of Highway 55 ZONING/GUIDED: I-Industrial/I-Industrial ACTION DEADLINE: N/A DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The City is seeking to construct an off-leash dog area on city-owned property within the Industrial Zoning District. The request requires an interim use permit, based on subsequent adoption of Ordinance 484 by the City Council, as proposed in Planning Case 2015-29. BACKGROUND The city owns approximately 13 acres of undeveloped land south of Acacia Boulevard, east of Pilot Knob Road, and west of Highway 55(see attached Site Plan). The area consists of several parcels which are zoned I-Industrial and guided for industrial development. Historically, the properties contained various residential and commercial uses. The properties are bordered by twosingle-familyresidential uses to the west and Acacia Park Cemetery across Pilot Knob Road; the historic Pilot Knob site to the north across Acacia Boulevard; and an industrial/office building to the south. In 2014, the City Council began exploring potential sites for an off-leash dog area and it was determined that the proposed site was the best option. The Council then directed staff to amend the City Code to allow interim uses, which were adopted as part of Ordinance 479 in Planning Case 2015-22, and off-leash dog areas as an interim use in the Industrial District, as in proposed Ordinance 484 in Planning Case 2015-29. The interim use designation provides for a temporary facility while theCity undergoes the upcoming redevelopment and comprehensive planning processes. The proposed use does not require any site improvements, other than fencing, and will not remove any existing vegetation. As included in the staff recommendation, the proposed use as an off-leash dog area shall terminate after five years, or at the time of sale of the property, whichever comes first. ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan The subject parcel is guided I-Industrial in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The city’s request toestablish a temporary off-leash dog area, in compliance with theCity Code requirements, allows for a temporary use of undeveloped property while potentially reconsidering the future land use designationin upcoming planning processes. 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 114 Interim Use Permit The newly adopted Title 12-1L-6-1 of the City Code includes the following standards for consideration of an interim use;staff feels the proposed use is compliant: 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. As proposed in Ordinance 484, as part of Planning Case 2015-29, the proposed use would bepermitted as an interim use subject to compliance with the following conditions: A.The minimum parcel size shall be five (5) acres, which may include a combination of adjoining lots under control by the same property owner. The City currently owns approximately 13 acres ofland amongst several combined adjoining lots. The fenced-in portion of the proposed off-leash dog area would encompass approximately three acres. B.No principal or accessory structures shall located on the lot(s). There are no structures located on any of the city-owned parcels. C.Proper fencing is installed around the entire off-leash area with height and materials approved by the City Council. Staff is proposing a six-foot high, black chain-link fence around the entire proposed off-leash dog area. The City Council, based on any recommendations from the Planning Commission and/or testimony received during the public hearing, can determine alternate fencing materials and height to be erected. Staff is aware of other surrounding off-leash dog areas that do not have fencing. If the Council does not feel that fencing is required around the entire proposed off-leash dog area, this condition could be revised. D.Adequate off-street and/or on-street parking shall be supplied, as determined by the City Council. No off-street parking facility is included in the proposed project budget for this use. Staff is proposing to utilize available on-street parking along Acacia Boulevard and estimates that approximately 20 on-street spaces exist along a 500-foot stretch on the south side of Acacia Boulevard(see Site Plan). Due to the existing truck traffic serving the industrial areas to the south of the proposed site,and as a courtesy to the adjacent residential useat 2170 Pilot Knob Road, staff is also recommendingthat the City Council consider establishing the following no parking regulations (see Site Plan): North side of Acacia Boulevard between the Highway 55 bridge and Pilot Knob Road South side of Acacia Boulevardfor the first 175 feet adjacent to 2170 Pilot Knob Road 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 115 E.Hours of operation shall be limited to between seven o’clock (7:00) A.M. and ten o’clock (10:00) P.M. Starting hours are consistent with the hours of operation for exterior construction activitiesin residential zones, which is meant to limit noise disruption, or barking dogs in this case, and closing hours are consistentwiththe hours of operation for public parks. F.Fixed lighting structures are prohibited. No lighting is proposed for this useas part of the project. G.All dogs shall be appropriately licensed. According to Title 5-3-2 of the City Code: “…no person shall own, keep, or harbor any dog within the city limits unless such dog is licensed…” Dogs found not to be in compliance with this provision would not be allowed in the off-leash dog area, and may be cited for violating the City Code. It is assumed that dogs appropriately-licensed in other cities would not require a license from the City of Mendota Heights. H.All dogs shall be kept on-leash at all times except within the designated off-leash area. I.No dog(s) shall be left unattended within the off-leash area. J.Dog waste receptacles shall be provided and all dog waste shall be properly disposed of on-site by the user or removed immediately. A sign will be erected at the entrance to the proposed off-leash dog area that includes the applicable rules and policies,which will include these requirements and any other rules that are in place. ALTERNATIVES 1.Recommend approval of the interim use permit request, based on the findings of fact thatthe proposed project complies with the policies and standards of the City Codeand is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, with conditions. OR 2.Recommend denial of the interim use permit request, based on the findings of fact that the proposed use is not compliant with the City Code and is inconsistent with theComprehensive Plan. OR 3.Table the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the interim use permit requestin this case,based on the findings of factthat the proposed projectcomplies with the policies and standardsof the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (Alternative #1), with the following conditions: 1.The interim use shall be terminated by December 31, 2020 or upon the properties being sold by the City, whichever comes first,but may be renewed as provided for by the City Code. 2.The interim use permit is periodically reviewed to ensure compliance with the applicable codes and policies and, if necessary, amended accordingly. 3.A fence permit is obtained. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1.Site Plan 2.Planning applications, including supporting materials 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 116 Planning Case 2015-30 City of Off-leash Dog Area - Site Plan Mendota 0110 Heights 7/21/2015 SCALE IN FEET 210021452143 2141 Proposed on-street parking prohibited ACACIA BLVD Proposed on-street parking (approx. 20 spaces) 2161 2170 105 feet (approx.) Off-leash Off-leash Dog Area Dog Area 585 feet 112 feet (approx.) 2183 2200 220 feet 2250 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. 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 117 Planning Case 2015-30 Site Photos: Off-leash Dog Area Source: Staff (04.29.15) 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 118 Planning Case 2015-30 Site Photos: Off-leash Dog Area Source: Staff (04.29.15) 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 119 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 120 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 121 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 122 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 123 Print PreviewPage 1of 1 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 124 http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/...710201 C//5 Print PreviewPage 1of 1 7/28/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 125 http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/...710201 C//5