2015-09-22 Planning Comm Agenda Packet
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSIONAGENDA
September 22, 2015 – 6:00 p.m.
Mendota Heights City Hall
1.Call to Order
2.Roll Call
3.Adopt Agenda
4.Approve August 25, 2015Planning Commission Minutes
5.Public Hearings:
a.Case No. 2015-36: AMEK Custom Builders, LLC. Wetlands Permit at 2190 Glen
Toro Road
6.City of Eagan Proposed Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment: MVZ Ventures, LLC
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 Hall at 651.452.1850 with requests.
9/22/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 1
1CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
2DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
3
4PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES
5August 25, 2015
6
7The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August
825, 2015 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
9
10The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Howard
11Roston, Michael Noonan, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson, Christine Costello and Ansis Viksnins.
12Those absent: None. Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall andPublic Works Director/City
13Engineer John Mazzitello.
14
Approval of Agenda
15
16
17The agenda was approved as submitted.
18
Approval of July 28, 2015 Minutes
19
20
21Commissioner Viksnins asked for clarification that Commissioner Hennes moved to approve
22Planning Case 2015-24 and then voted to deny. Commissioner Hennes confirmed that once he had
23made the motion he then changed his mind and voted to deny, so the minutes are correct.
24
25COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNESTO
26APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 28, 2015, AS PRESENTED.
27
28AYES: 7
29NAYS: 0
30
Hearings
31
32
33Chair Field noted that staff advertised a public hearing for Planning Case 2015-33, a Wetlands
34Permit at 2190Glen Toro Road; however, that application has been withdrawn. It is anticipated
35that the applicantwill be resubmittingfor consideration at the September 22, 2015 Planning
36Commission Meeting and another notice will be published and mailed to surrounding properties.
37
38PLANNING CASE #2015-26
39Robert Alvarez, 1176 Ivy Hill Drive
40Variance Request for Deck
41
42Chair Field noted that this application was held over from last month’s meeting and is back before
43the Commission this evening.
44
45City Planner Nolan Wallexplained that the applicant is seeking to construct a deck that requires a
46variance from the R-1 district’s rear yard setback standards. The Planning Commission tabled
47action on this request at the July meeting with the public hearing remaining open. The applicant
August 25, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 1
9/22/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 2
48intends to construct a deck wrapping around the west and northwest corner of the existing dwelling.
49As proposed, a portion of the proposed deck within the rear yard requires a variance.
50
51The original request was for a nine-foot rear yard setbackvariance.The applicant has since
52amended the applicationand is now proposing to construct a 3.5-foot-wide walkway/landinginto
53the rear yardto access the compliantportion of the proposed deck in the side yard, resulting in a
54reduction of the previously-proposed encroachment by over five feet.
55
56Planner Wall then reviewed the three standards to be considered and applied in this variance
57request and how this request meets those standards. Staff recommended approval of this amended
58variance request.
59
60Mr. Robert Alvarez, 1176 Ivy Hill Drive was available to answer questions and make comments;
61there were none.
62
63Chair Fieldasked if there was anyone in attendance to comment on this request since the public
64hearing was still open. Seeing no one coming forwardwishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a
65motion to close the public hearing.
66
67COMMISSIONER VIKSNINSMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO
68CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
69
70AYES: 7
71NAYS: 0
72
73COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO
74RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-26, VARIANCE REQUEST BASED
75ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
761.Construction of the proposed walkway/landing within the required setback to access the
77rear yard and compliant deck structure in the side yard through an existing patio door is a
78reasonable use of the property and meets the purpose and intent of the Code and
79Comprehensive Plan.
802.Due to the subject parcel’s frontage and existing conditions, a practical difficulty is
81demonstrated in order to construct a walkway/landing within the required rear yard setback
82to access a compliant deck structure from within the existing dwelling and provide safe
83access to the rear yard.
843.As proposed, the request would not allow for useable deck space in the rear yard or
85negativelyimpact the essential character of the neighborhood.
86AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
871.The proposed encroachment would extend no further than 3.5 feet from the northeast
88corner of the existing dwelling to provide access to the compliant portion of the proposed
89deck in the side yard.
902.The applicant obtains a building permit.
91
92AYES: 7
93NAYS: 0
94
August 25, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 2
9/22/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 3
95Chair Fieldadvised the City Council would consider this application at its September 1, 2015
96meeting.
97
98PLANNING CASE #2015-31
99Joe Juliette, 1920 Glenhill Road
100CriticalArea Permit
101
102City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was requesting a Critical Area Permit to
103remodel an existing single-family dwelling within the Mississippi Corridor Critical Area. The
104subject parcel is located 1920 Glenhill Road, zoned R-1, and guided as Low Density Residential
105Development in the Comprehensive Plan.
106
107Planner Wall shared an aerial image of the subject property and explained that the proposed project
108potentially impacting the Critical Area consists of removal and reconstruction of the existing deck
109and porch, including roof modifications. As proposed, the project does meet the applicable zoning
110regulations and conditions for improvements to existing structures that were built prior to 2003 in
111the Critical Area. The new porchand deck do not extend any closer than the existing condition
112and the overall building height is not increased. Staff recommended approval of this Critical Area
113Permit request with conditions.
114
115Commissioners asked for clarification on what exists and what is proposed as new and how much
116disturbance of the property there would be in connection with the project.
117
118Mr. Joe Juliette, 1920 Glenhill Road was present to answer questions or make comment.
119
120Commissioners asked the applicant about how much disturbance to the property there would be.
121
122Chair Field opened the public hearing.
123
124Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public
125hearing.
126
127COMMISSIONER ROSTONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO
128CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
129
130AYES: 7
131NAYS: 0
132
133COMMISSIONER MAGNUSONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO
134RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-31, CRITICAL AREA PERMIT
135BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1361.The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District
137and with the city’s comprehensive plan.
1382.The proposed addition is in keeping with the character of the area.
1393.The proposed use is allowed under city ordinance.
1404.The proposed addition does not increase the height of the existing structure.
141
142AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
August 25, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 3
9/22/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 4
1431.All applicable permits are obtained from the City prior to construction of the proposed
144project.
1452.Construction of the proposed improvements shall be in compliance with the City’s Land
146Disturbance Guidance Document.
1473.Separate permits will be applied for and obtained when the existing exterior stairs are to be
148replaced and for any additional future projects.
149
150AYES: 7
151NAYS: 0
152
153Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 1, 2015
154meeting.
155
156PLANNING CASE #2015-32
157HD Supply Construction & Industrial – White Cap, 1400 Commerce Drive
158Conditional Use Permit and Variances
159
160City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was seeking a Conditional Use Permit to
161expand an existing outdoor storage area and variances to allow outdoor storage within 1,500 feet
162of a residential zone and to allow screened open-air storage of materials.
163
164Planner Wall shared images of the propertyand described its surroundings. The subject parcel is
165approximately three acres and zoned and guided for industrial development. The existing
166office/warehouse building is currently vacant and has a legally nonconforming outdoor storage
167yard.
168
169The proposed use is a permitted nonmanufacturing use in the Industrial District as landscaping and
170building design and construction. The applicant is proposing to expand the existing outdoor storage
171area to approximately 19,000 square feet. Outdoor storage for the permitted use is allowed by a
172Conditional Use Permit, subject to thirteen conditions. The proposed project meets all but two of
173those required conditions, those being:
174
175No outdoor storage can be located within 1,500 feet of a residentially-zoned property
176All storage and display must be under three-sided covered structures
177
178Regarding the first variance request, Planner Wallshared a zoning map showing the residentially-
179zoned property in question, which is a portion of Acacia Park Cemetery. Staff feels that due to the
180nature of the use and the fact that the subject parcel is not visible from the cemetery, the intent of
181the Code’s setback provision is met. He also noted that there are three existing nonconforming
182residential structures that are located within 1,500 feet, but they are not zoned residential;
183therefore, they do not apply in this case.
184
185Regarding the second variance request, Planner Wall shared images of other sites operated by the
186applicant and described the materials proposed to be stored on-site. Due to the nature of the
187materials to be stored outside and because they will be obscured from view by the recommended
188fencing, staff felt that requiring three-sided covered structures was unnecessary in this case.
August 25, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 4
9/22/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 5
189Planner Wall further explained how theproposed use meets the standards for approval of the
190variance requests.
191
192Planner Wall shared images of the proposed six-foot-high slatted chain-link fence. He noted that
193while specifications were not provided as part of the application, it would most likely not meet the
194Code’s 90% opacity standard. Therefore, staff is recommending a wood fence that meets the
195opacity standard be erected around the entire proposed outdoor storage yard, which would be
196consistent with other properties in the immediate area.
197
198Staff recommended approval of the requests with conditions.
199
200Commissioners asked questions regarding proposed condition #2 (All materials will be packaged
201or self-contained. No loose or bulk materials), if another finding should beadded that the
202residentially-zoned propertyis a cemetery and not residential homes, if a minimum height
203requirement of six feet should be added to condition #3,andif this application would create a
204disconnect between what the Industrial District study is considering.
205
206Ms. Jessica Beyer from HD Supply Construction & Industrial –White Cap, 5205 Highway 169
207North, Plymouth, MN was on hand to answer questions or comment. She commented that they
208would be agreeable to erecting a wood fence and noted that many of items shown in the images of
209other storage yards they operate would be stored inside at this location due to the size of the
210warehouse. She further commented that they would continue to operate at their existing location
211and that this would be a secondary location with room to grow. In response to a question on the
212need for the proposed expanded outdoor storage yard, she indicated that they also intend to store
213vehicles within the locked fenced-in area.
214
215Chair Field opened the public hearing.
216
217Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public
218hearing.
219
220COMMISSIONER VIKSNINSMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
221CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
222
223AYES: 7
224NAYS: 0
225
226COMMISSIONER ROSTONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO
227RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-26, VARIANCE REQUEST BASED
228ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
2291.The proposed variance meets the purpose and intent of the conditional use permit standard
230for 1,500’ buffer from residential uses and that the residential use within that 1,500’ buffer
231is a cemetery.
2322.The proposed variance meets the purpose and intent of the conditional use permit standard
233for three-side enclosed covered storage.
2343.Granting of the variances sought is in accordance with the standards laid out in the City
235Code.
August 25, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 5
9/22/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 6
2364.The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the remaining conditional use permit
237requirements for outdoor storage in the Industrial District of the City Code.
2385.The proposed project will aesthetically improve an existing nonconformity.
239AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
2401.Materials stored on site will not exceed a height of 6’.
2412.All materials will be packaged or self-contained. No loose or bulk materials.
2423.A 6’ high wood fence that provides a minimum of 90% opacity during all seasons will be
243provided on the front and side yards.
244
245AYES: 7
246NAYS: 0
247
248Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 1, 2015
249meeting.
250
251PLANNING CASE #2015-34
252City of Mendota Heights
253Proposed City Code Amendment Concerning Alternative Energy Systems
254
255City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the City was considering amendments to Title 12, Chapter
2561, Articles B, D, and E of the City Code concerning alternative energy systems. Currently, there
257are no standards in place for alternative energy systems; however, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
258includes a section on protection of solar access and a policy to consider modifying the Code.
259
260Draft Ordinance 485 creates a new section in the Code and provides standards, right now, only for
261solar energy systems. Additional sections can be added as necessary in the future to address
262ground-source heat pumps (geothermal) and wind energy systems,if and when the need arises.
263The proposed draft ordinance ensures that consistent standards are in place to encourage
264sustainable practices that do not adversely impact the community.
265
266Planner Wall then reviewed the proposed amendments and regulations contained in draft
267Ordinance 485.
268
269Commissioners asked questions regarding setback requirements, demolition permits, conditional
270use permit standard #2 (That the solar energy system has a net energy gain), the existence of any
271legislation about solar energy systems, and conditional use versus permitted as an accessory use.
272After further discussion regarding the conditional versus permitted use issue, the Commission
273agreed that this would be a policy issue for the City Council to determine.
274
275Let the record reflect that there was no one present to address a public hearing so no motion to
276close was necessary.
277
278COMMISSIONER VIKSNINSMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
279RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-34, PROPOSED CITY CODE
280AMENDMENT CONCERNINGALTERNATIVE ENERGY SYSTEMS
281
282AYES: 7
283NAYS: 0
August 25, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 6
9/22/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 7
284PLANNING CASE #2015-14
285City of Mendota Heights
286Proposed City Code Amendment Concerning Trade Schools
287
288City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the City is considering amendments to Title 12, Chapter
2891, Article B, Section 2 of the City Code concerning the definition of a trade school. Staff originally
290brought thisrequestforward at the May Planning Commission meeting; action was tabled with the
291public hearing remaining open. The intent is to clarify the City’s interpretation of the existing
292definition.
293
294Commissioners asked to be reminded why thereviseddefinition includes “privately-owned”
295versus “public”, why the definition says “including, but not limited to”,
296
297After discussion it was the consensus of the Commission to amendthe definition as follows
298(remove or add):
299
300TRADE SCHOOL: A privately-owned, post-secondary, skill-based educational institution which
301offers completion programs that issue certificates, diplomas, anddegrees;, and or certified
302training to full and/or part time students including, but not limited to,such asthose intechnical,
303mechanical, services and computing fields.
304
305Let the record reflect that there was no one present to address a public hearing so no motion to
306close was necessary.
307
308COMMISSIONER VIKSNINSMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO
309RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-14, PROPOSED CITY CODE
310AMENDMENT CONCERNINGTRADE SCHOOLS AS AMENDED BY THE COMMISSION
311
312AYES: 7
313NAYS: 0
314
Schedule Redevelopment Plan Workshop
315
316
317Planner Nolan Wall noted that earlier this year the City received a grant from the Dakota County
318CDA to do a redevelopment plan for the Industrial District. The Council approved a project scope
319and staff is working with theplanning consultants (Stantec) on the initial scope and the work. One
320of the pieces of the scope of the project is to have a joint workshop between the Planning
321Commission and the City Council once feedback has been received from stakeholders to share
322ideas and get feedback.
323
324Planner Wall noted that the already scheduled Planning Commission meetings and City Council
325meetings do not work for some members of the Council or the planning consultant. Other dates
thstndth
326under consideration are October 19, 21, 22,or 29. It is anticipated that the meeting would
327begin at 5:00 p.m. and last approximately two hours. He then asked if any of the proposed dates
328would definitely not work for any members of the Commission, noting that any potential dates
329would need to be brought to the City Council for their availability.
330
thstth
331The consensus of the Planning Commission members were for October 19, 21, and 29.
August 25, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 7
9/22/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 8
Verbal Review
332
333
334Planner Wall gave the following verbal review:
335
336PLANNING CASE #2015-27
337Wetlands Permit at 2185 Glen Toro Road
338•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
339
340PLANNING CASE #2015-24
341Critical Area Permit and Variance for a Retaining Wall at 1680 Mayfield Heights Road
342•The Commission tabled this request last month, the applicantwithdrew theapplication and
343submitted a building permit for a revised plan that did not need a variance.
344
345PLANNING CASE #2015-25
346Variances for Accessory Structure at Mendakota Country Club
347•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
348
349PLANNING CASE #2015-28
350City-initiated Code Amendment Concerning Video/Electronic Display Scoreboards
351•Ultimately approved by the City Council with minor revisions concerning the setbacks
352
353PLANNING CASE #2015-29 and PLANNING CASE #2015-30
354City-initiated Code Amendment and Interim Use Permit for the city-operated Off-lease Dog Area
355at the Pilot Knob South site
356•Ultimately both were approved by the City Council
357•At the most recent City Council meeting they approved a fencing plan for that area
358•City Engineer John Mazzitello provided an update on the fencing, lighting, and other plans
359
Staff and Commission Announcements
360
361
362Next Planning Commission Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, September 22, 2015
363
Adjournment
364
365
366COMMISSIONER MAGNUSONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO
367ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:24 P.M.
368
369AYES: 7
370NAYS: 0
August 25, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 8
9/22/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 9
DATE:
September 22, 2015
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT:
Planning Case 2015-36
Wetlands Permit for Vegetation Removal and Grading/Construction
APPLICANT:
AMEK Custom Builders, Inc.
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
2190Glen Toro Road
ZONING/GUIDED:
R-1A One Family Residential/RRRural Residential
ACTION DEADLINE:
October 30, 2015
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant, on behalf of the property owners,is seeking a wetlands permit for vegetationremoval and
construction activitieson the subject parcel. The proposed activities arewithin100 feet of a wetland and
do not meet the conditions for an administrative approval.
BACKGROUND
The subject parcel is 40,007 square feet (0.92 acres) and is currently undeveloped. A wetland is located in
the northwest corner along Glen Toro Road and an easement for overhead power linesruns parallel to
Huber Drive;both of which limit the buildablearea on the subject parcel. The applicant has been contracted
to construct a new single-family dwelling on the property.
The City approved a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Planned Unit Development(PUD),
Preliminary/Final Plat, and DevelopmentAgreement for the Glen Toro Second Addition Developmentin
1998, as part of Planning Case 1998-12 (see attached resolutions and final plat).The development consists
of nine lots; fourof which have been developedwith another lot currently under construction.The original
approval, and subsequent amendments, did not include a city-issued wetlands permit for the subject parcel.
According to the official Wetlands Systems Map, which was updated in 2006, a wetland is identified on
the subject parcel that was previously-unidentified during the PUD approval processes. According to Title
12-2-6-A of the Code, a wetlands permitis required for vegetationremoval and construction activities
within 100 feet of a wetland or water resource-related area.
In February 2002, the City Council approved a minor amendment to the PUD to allow for reduced setbacks
on several lots in the Glen Toro Development(see attached resolution and setback amendment map). In a
letter to theCity Council, dated February 14,the project architect included the following justification
concerning the proposed setback for the subject parcel:
“Lot 5, Block 1 to allow a 10-foot setback along the eastern property line. This request is
to allow a house to be constructed in and amongst the trees in order to save significant trees
adjacent to the wetland drainage easement, and be constructed as far removed from the power
line as possible.”
9/22/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 10
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
The subject parcel is guided RR Rural Residential in the 2030Comprehensive Plan.The applicant’s request
to remove vegetation and construct a new single-family dwellingon 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 toprovide 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 project architect’s letterincluded with the application materials, dated July 30,describes the design
guidelines for construction on the subject parcel. According to the staff reports, development agreement,
and resolutions reviewed as part of the original approval and subsequent amendments, there were no
additional conditions placed on constructionon the subject parcel relating to the wetlands within the
development.
As shown on theattached survey, vegetationremoval and construction of a proposed patio, porch, retaining
wall,and portions of the dwelling are located within 25 feet of the wetland. The City’s Land Disturbance
Guidance Document restricts clearing and grading within such a distance of an existing wetland boundary
to provide a protective buffer strip of natural vegetation. While not a codified standard, thepolicy has been
included as a condition of approval for wetlands permits since its adoption in 2009. Since the previously-
approved PUD precedes this policy and does contain any conditions restricting activity within this area,
staff is not proposing that requirement as a condition in this case.
Surface water drainage in the localized area is collected predominately into a man-made pond abutting the
western portion of the development, north of 2165 Glen Toro Road (Lot 1, Block 2). The outlet for the
pondis connected to the wetland on the subject parcelthrough a culvert under the road, which has an
emergency overflow to the storm water drain in Huber Drive. According to the engineering memo as part
of Planning Case 1998-12, the existing ponding and stormwater systemwas designed to providerate control
for the proposed developmentfor storms of a 1% probability or greater. The designed emergency
overflow(s) are utilized for larger storms. The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed plans
and determined that construction of a new dwelling on the subject parcel will not negatively impact the
development’s existing drainage system.
Wetland Delineation
The wetland on the subject parcel was originally delineated in 1998; wetland delineations are typically valid
for five years. Therefore, the applicant was required to conduct a new delineation to confirm the location
of the wetland’s eastern boundary closest to the proposed dwelling. As shown on the survey and analyzed
in a recent report submittedby Westwood Professional Services, the boundary is consistent with the original
delineation shown on the plat. According to the plat, the existing drainage and utility easement does not
include theentire wetland. Based on the updated wetland delineation, the existingeasement remains
adequate for its intended purpose.
Vegetation Removal
According to the applicant, underbrush and five significant mature trees will be removed within the
proposed building pad, including one box elder, one cottonwood, and three ash trees. Several significant
9/22/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 11
existing trees within the wetland buffer area will be preserved, in accordance with the architect’s intent
described in the original PUD application.
Based on a site visit, and shown in the attached photos, the existing underbrush surrounding the wetland is
significant and clearing the property in order to construct a new dwelling will have a dramatic visual impact
on the development. According to the Wetland Delineation Memo, the predominate vegetation within the
wetland areaincludes reed canary grass, black willow, box elder, slippery elm, and buckthorn.
Due to the 100-foot wetland buffer area encompassing the entire proposed building pad areaand the
uniqueness of the proposed project on the subject parcel, staff is recommending a condition that a landscape
plan be submitted for review and approval by the Planning and Engineering Departments.
ALTERNATIVES
1.Recommend approval of the wetlands permit request, based on the attached findings of fact, with
conditions.
OR
2.Recommend denial of the wetlands permit request, based on the findings offact that the proposed
project will have negative impacts on the wetland and surrounding drainage system.
OR
3.Table the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the wetlands permit, based on the attached findings of fact,with the
following conditions (Alternative #1):
1.A landscape plan, prepared and signed by a qualified professional, is submitted for review and
approval by the Planning and Engineering Departments.
2.The delineated wetland boundary is clearly marked and vegetation removal and construction
activities are prohibited within this area.
3.Building and grading permits are obtained from the City prior to construction.
4.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
4.Public comment email
9/22/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 12
FINDINGS OF FACT FORAPPROVAL
Wetlands Permit
2190 Glen Toro Road
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request:
1.The proposed project complies with the previously-approved Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Unit Development, including subsequent amendments.
2.The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the City
Code and will not negatively impact the development’sexisting drainage system.
3.Construction-related activities within the 25-foot non-disturb buffer area will be limited to what is
essential for construction of the proposed project.
4.Adequate erosion control measures will be observed during construction.
5.A landscape plan, completed by a registered professional, is required to be reviewed and
approved by the Planning and Engineering Departments to ensure appropriate buffer vegetation is
established in accordance with city policies.
9/22/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 13
Planning Case 2015-36
City of
2190 Glen Toro Road
Mendota
050
Heights
9/17/2015
SCALE IN FEET
2159
2165
25 ft.
100 ft.
2180
2190
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.
9/22/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 14
Planning Case 2015-36: Site Photos
Source: Staff (09.16.15)
9/22/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 15
9/22/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 16
thorbeck
A R C H I T E C T S
Date: July 30, 2015
To: Mendota Heights City Council and Planning Commission
From: Dewey Thorbeck, FAIA, FAAR, Architect and Thor Properties
Re: 2190 Glen Toro Road
When Thor Properties(Sharon and Dewey Thorbeck) wereputting together the
PUD in 1998 for the Glen Toro Development we worked closely with
Melchert/Block, a landscape architecture and surveying firm that I had worked
with before, to help us understand the unique landscape characteristics of the
10 acre property we purchased from Roger and Mary Shepard.
We identified three different landscape characteristics – meadow, wetland, and
woodland – and depending where the lot was located there were guidelines to
help buyers understand how their house needed to to be designed fit that
landscape character. All of the houses in Glen Toro are custom designed by
Dewey Thorbeck for each lot based on those guidelines and the Owner’s
program, budget, and lifestyle.
In the case of 2190 Glen Toro Road (now owned by Brain and Greta Peterson)
the lot containsa wetland (that is a shallow pond sometimes during the year)
that isconnected by underground culverts todrain it and the two
ponds/wetlands to the north. With the culverts all three ponds drain into the city
storm water system after heavy rains or spring runoff.
The attached overall site plan from 2009 (showing the first five houses that have
been constructed) illustrates the three ponds and overall thinking about the
landscape and house locations for all of Glen Toro.The pond that is located on
the 2190 Glen Toro Road property is the only one that contains an officially
designated wetland defined in the 12/10/98 wetland report by EnviroData that
we are following today. I have also attached the site survey and house location
drawing for 2190 for your informationthat shows the wetland.
One of the guidelines for siting of houses in Glen Toro says: “Removal of trees,
shrubs, and native plant materials generally should be limited to removal of
those essential for house construction” and goes on“Building siting shall be
responsive to the existing site features and landscape within which it is located.
Locate garages and garage doors so they do not dominate the principal
façade.” For the three wetland lots it also says: “Design to nestle along the
drainage and impondment areas. One to two stories in height with terraced
patios adjacent to the wet areas.”
2121 delaware avenue
mendota heights, mn55118
651 · 756 · 7073
www.thorbeck.com
9/22/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 17
There will be some trees and vegetation removed from the non-wetland area of
the site in order to construct the house, however, we believe the location and
design of the home for Brian and Greta Peterson will be an exemplary example
of preserving the designated wetland as well as enhancing its purpose for
wildlife habitat with their intent to nurture its character with appropriate
vegetation. Thatis one of the reasons they purchased the site and theirhome
and its landscape willbe an architectural gem on this wetland sitebefitting all
other homes in Glen Toro.
Since my wife and I are traveling in Europe we are not able to be at the
meetingstospeak in favor of granting the wetland easement for 2190 Glen Toro
Road. Thank you for consideringour letter andthe request of the builder AMEK
and the lot owners Brian and Greta Peterson.
Attachments:
1.Original survey and proposed site plan for 2190 Glen Toro Road
2.Overall Glen Toro drawing from 2009
Page 2
9/22/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 18
9/22/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 19
9/22/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 20
9/22/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 21
9/22/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 22
9/22/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 23
9/22/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 24
9/22/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 25
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
9/22/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 26
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/C...94201
o//5
9/22/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 27
9/22/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 28
9/22/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 29
9/22/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 30
DATE:
September 22, 2015
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT:
City of Eagan Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment – MVZ Ventures, LLC
BACKGROUND
Staff has receivedan agency response request from the City of Eaganto change the land use designation of
approximately 194 acres located south of I-494, east of Lone Oak Parkway and west of Ames Crossing
Road from SA-MO (Special Area-Major Office) to SA-MIXED (Special Area-Mixed Use).
Due to the subject area’s proximity to the City of Mendota Heightsand based on past discussions on
potential impacts of futuredevelopment in northeastEagan/northwest Inver Grove Heights,staff is bringing
forward the proposed amendment for Planning Commission review.
This is an initialstep in the development reviewprocess for the proposed project, whichwill most likely
include rezoning, subdivision, and planned unit development approvals and environmental review.The
City of Eagan is anticipating taking action on this request in October. If approved, the request will be
forwarded to the Metropolitan Council for review and action.
BUDGET IMPACT
N/A
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the proposed Comprehensive Plan Guide Amendment
and discuss any comments the City of Mendota Heights should consider providing on thismatter.
INVER GROVE HEIGHTS
D
R GN
ISSO
RC S
EMA
ENAL SIUOL
DD
RMO
TC E
CYOJ
H
NL YADILO
L
R
K
9
1
LU
B
9/22/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 32
INTERS
TATE 494
D
O
D
D
RINT
DERSTAT
E 494
R
A
M
P
R
ONEILL D
BP
MO
QP
Subject Site
BP
MO
MO
BP
L
RC
MO
KL
T
E
R
MO
BP
Current Land Use Map
MP
A
R
D
O
D
D
R
INTE
DRSTATE
494
R
A
M
P
N
I
MO
BP
QP
MIXED
Subject Site
BP
MIXED
MO
MO
BP
L
RC
MO
MO
MO
T
E
N
BP
IND
QP
Proposed Land Use Map
Land Use Designations-2030
O/S-Office/ServiceMU-Mixed UseMunicipal Boundary
RC-Retail CommercialP-Parks, Open Space & Recreation
LD-Low Density
MO-Major OfficeQP-Public/Quasi-Public
MD-Medium Density
E
BP-Business ParkPrivate Recreation
HD-High Density
IND-Limited Industrial
LAND USE MAP
Feet
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment
02505001,000
MVZ Ventures, LLC
9/22/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 33