2012-09-24 Planning Comm Agenda Packet
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Agenda
*** Note Date Change***
Monday, September 24, 2012 - 7:00 P.M.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of the Agenda
4. Approval of the August 28, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes
5. Hearings
a. Case No. 2012-27: Mendakota Country Club: wetlands permit and variance to
improve the hitting range net at 2075 Mendakota Drive. Public Hearing 7:00
p.m.
b. Case No. 2012-28: Curt Skallerup, VIRGO, LLC: conditional use permit for an
indoor trampoline park at 2250 Pilot Knob Road. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m.
c. Case No. 2012-29: Daniel Fleischhaker: conditional use permit for a garage
greater than 1200 square feet and variance for more than three doors on a garage.
Public Hearing 7:00 p.m.
d. Case No. 2012-30: Robert Whebbe: conditional use permit for a detached garage
and variance for a detached garage greater than 750 square feet at 598 Sibley
Memorial Highway. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m.
6. Verbal Review
7. Adjourn
Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in
advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make
every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please
contact City Administration at 651-452-1850 with requests.
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 1
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2012
1
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 28, 2012
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 28, 2012, in the
Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
The following Commissioners were present: Chair Norton, Commissioners Field, Hennes, Magnuson, Noonan,
Roston, and Viksnins. Those absent: None. Those present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek,
Public Works Director/City Engineer Mazzitello, and NAC Planner Stephen Grittman. Minutes were recorded by
Heidi Guenther.
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of July 24, 2012, Minutes
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO APPROVE
THE MINUTES OF JULY 24, 2012, AS PRESENTED.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Hearings
PLANNING CASE #2012-13
City of Mendota Heights
Zoning Amendment pertaining to new Property Maintenance Code for Commercial/Industrial Properties
Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of the City for approval of a zoning amendment pertaining to a new
property maintenance code for commercial/industrial properties.
Mr. Grittman noted that at the July meeting, the Planning Commission discussed the Commercial/Industrial Property
Maintenance Code, and it was noted that a number of commissioners had comments that would be useful to build
into the draft for further discussion. The zoning amendment before the commission this evening incorporated
comments from Commissioners Noonan and Magnuson. The proposed changes were primarily clarifications based
on the common concern that the language was overly broad. He reviewed the language changes in detail.
Mr. Grittman presented staff’s analysis reviewed the language changes with the commission. Staff had no further
recommendations on the code at this time.
Commissioner Magnuson thanked staff for the addressing the proposed language changes. She questioned if it was
necessary to create new code when the public nuisance code addressed many of the concerns. Mr. Grittman stated
the enforcement abatement code currently addressed nuisances. The new code would provide an alternative remedy
for specific conditions.
Commissioner Roston expressed concerns that the code could put neighbor against neighbor. He questioned how
noxious weeds versus natural plantings would be handled by the city. Mr. Grittman envisioned city staff would use
their discretion in viewing natural landscapes as opposed to unkempt property.
The commission asked for clarification on specific language, making two minor edits to the code as presented.
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 2
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2012
2
Chair Norton opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO CLOSE THE
PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES 7
NAYS 0
COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE
CODE AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT
AS AMENDED.
Commissioner Hennes questioned the need for this ordinance.
Commissioner Roston agreed stating this code may create a solution for a problem that does not exist. He indicated
that City Hall would be in violation of the code, if it were applied to city properties. He explained there were other
ordinances in place to address these nuisances concerns.
Commissioner Viksnins supported the code. While few properties in the city have had problems in the past, the
proposed code could be a useful tool. He noted the city has listened to the business communities concerns and their
comments were considered in the code.
Commissioner Noonan agreed stating the city has had a residential property maintenance ordinance for several years
and shared his opinion that it has not led to an uprising of neighbor against neighbor situations. Commissioner
Noonan felt that property maintenance codes were a useful tool to protect property value
Commissioner Magnuson stated she has received calls supporting both sides of the matter. She was pleased with the
revisions made to the document and indicated it made sense to have the document in place to address any concerns
that may arise in the future. She supported moving forward with the code amendment.
Commissioner Field did not support the zoning code and had many of the same concerns as Commissioner Roston.
He was pleased with the revisions made to the document but would not be voting in favor this evening.
Chair Norton also opposed the document for the same reasons noted by Commission Roston.
AYES 4
NAYS 3 (ROSTON, FIELD AND CHAIR NORTON)
Chair Norton advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 4, 2012, meeting.
Verbal Review
Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review:
PLANNING CASE #2012-22 Greg Quehl Wetlands Permit
Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING CASE #2012-23 Thomas Weiser Critical Area Permit
Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING CASE #2012-24 David Williams Wetlands Permit
Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING CASE #2012-25 Steve Stulz Conditional Use Permit
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 3
Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2012
3
Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Reschedule of September Meeting
Mr. Sedlacek advised that the September 25, 2012 meeting would start at 6:00 p.m. in observance of Yom Kippur.
Commissioner Roston appreciated the meeting time being changed but stated he would still not be able to attend.
Commissioner Viksnins questioned if the meeting date could be changed. Mr. Sedlacek indicated the commission
could request a date change, which would be brought to city council at their next meeting..
COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY CHAIR NORTON, TO MOVE THE SEPTEMBER
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO SEPTEMBER 24, 2012 AT 7:00 P.M.
AYES 7
NAYS 0
COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO ADJOURN THE
MEETING AT 7:29 P.M.
AYES 7
NAYS 0
Respectfully submitted,
Heidi Guenther, Recording Secretary
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen W. Grittman
DATE: September 20, 2012
MEETING DATE: September 25, 2012
SUBJECT: Wetlands Permit and Variance for Driving Range Fence
Height
CASE NO: NAC Case 254.04 – 12.19
APPLICANT(S): Mendakota Country Club
LOCATION: 2075 Mendakota Drive
ZONING: R-1, Single Family Residential
GUIDE PLAN: GC – Golf Course
Background and Description of Request:
Mendakota Country Club is seeking a Wetlands Permit and Fence Height Variance to
construct a new fence at the end of their driving range along a berm which is adjacent to
an existing wetland. The fence is designed to contain golf balls used on the range
which have cleared the existing fence. The applicants note that many golf balls have
ended up in the wetland, and some have become a danger for other players on the
course.
To construct the fence within 100 feet of the wetland, a new wetlands permit is required.
The fence, as proposed, would be 25 feet in height. The zoning ordinance provides that
fences in residential districts be no greater than 6 feet in height, although there is a
specific provision for fences enclosing tennis courts at 10 feet in height. To
accommodate a 25 foot-high fence would require the variance.
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 5
2
Analysis:
Wetland Permit. The purpose of the wetland regulations is to ensure that any
construction or land alteration within 100 feet of a wetland is conducted in a manner that
avoids any negative impacts to the wetland and water resource. In this case, the
applicants propose only to sink support posts into the ground along the peak of the
berm on the west side of the wetland. The installation of the fence posts is unlikely to
impact the wetland in any way, as the construction would last just a few days. The
applicants have stated that they propose to retain the natural vegetation adjacent to the
wetland area. In this regard, it does not appear that the proposed fence construction
would be a concern for the wetland with regard to erosion, water quality, vegetation, or
in any other manner.
Moreover, better protection of the wetland from range balls would result in less need or
interest to dredge the pond for lost balls, allowing the water to remain settled without
this concern. In this way, the water quality may actually be enhanced in the long term.
Variance. The proposed height of the fence, as noted above, would be 25 feet from the
top of the berm on which it is to be installed. The current fence is constructed at 12 feet
of height, about 15 feet farther west (farther from the wetland).
When considering variances, the City is required to find that:
(1) The applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner; and
(2) The applicant’s proposal faces practical difficulties in using the property in this
manner due to circumstances that:
a. Are unique to the property,
b. Are not caused by the applicant,
c. Are consistent with the purpose and intent of the City’s plans and ordinances,
d. Are not out of character with the locality, or neighborhood, in which the
property is located.
As a golf course, the applicants suggest that maintenance of a driving range is an
important aspect of course operation. The current condition tends to minimize the utility
of the range, and also endangers golfers on part of the course. The proposed fence is
actually a net designed for this purpose, and should have negligible visual impacts on
any nearby properties.
The applicants have also conducted an analysis of golf ball flight, and suggest that the
proposed height and location are important to the fence’s effectiveness. According to
the material supplied by the applicants, construction of the fence as proposed will
contain approximately 98% of the range balls, dramatically improving the function of the
current range. They are also proposing other operational changes to ensure the
effectiveness of the fence and the existing facility.
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 6
3
Finally, golf courses are allowed in the R-1 zoning district, but are clearly distinct from
normal single family uses. The fence height identified in the zoning ordinance is
adequate for most situations, when it is utilized for purposes of security, privacy or
containment – even for non-residential uses in the district. However, this use is a
special purpose otherwise not contemplated by the ordinance. The unique application of
this particular fence suggests that there are practical difficulties in putting the property to
its historic – and reasonable – use. With these findings, the applicants should be able
to qualify for variance consideration.
Action Requested:
Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following
alternative recommendations:
Wetlands Permit
1. Approval of the Wetlands Permit, based on a finding that the proposed fence will
not have any negative impacts on the adjoining wetland, and that the applicants
propose to retain the existing drainage and natural vegetation in the area.
2. Denial of the Wetlands Permit, based on concern that the proposed fence is
incompatible with wetland protection objectives.
Variance
1. Approval of the variance, based on a finding that the proposed fence height and
location are important factors in putting the property to reasonable use as a golf
course, and that there are practical difficulties in continuing the current driving
range use with either the existing fence, or a relocated fence that would meet the
City’s height standard.
2. Denial of the variance, based on a finding that the applicants have not shown
that the proposed fence height is necessary to continue reasonable use of the
property.
Staff Recommendation:
Planning staff recommends both the Wetland Permit and the Variance. As noted
above, the proposed fence will have little or no impact on the wetland area. Moreover,
the fence height will not raise concerns over visibility or compatibility of the use with the
area, and it will enhance the use of the existing golf course, a permitted use in the
zoning district.
Supplementary Materials:
Application materials dated August 22, 2012
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 7
Jake
Sedlacek
Assistant
to
the
Administrator
City
of
Mendota
Heights
1101
Victoria
Curve
Mendota
Heights,
MN
55118
August
22,
2012
Mr.
Sedlacek
It
was
a
pleasure
to
meet
with
you
last
week.
Per
our
discussion,
I
am
requesting,
on
behalf
of
Mendakota
Country
Club,
located
at
2075
Mendakota
Drive,
in
Mendota
Heights,
MN
a
conditional
use
permit,
a
wet
lands
permit
and
a
fence
height
variance
to
allow
Mendakota
to
extend
our
driving
range
fence
from
its
current
height
(12
ft)
to
25
ft
in
height.
In
additional
to
the
increase
in
height,
Mendakota
plans
to
relocate
the
existing
fence
~
15
feet
to
the
East
which
will
place
it
on
top
of
an
existing
4
ft
berm.
Mendakota
has
main
2
reasons
for
making
this
request:
1
to
provide
additional
protection
from
range
balls
carrying
over
the
existing
fence
toward
the
golfers
playing
on
the
2nd
hole.
2
to
minimize
the
number
of
golf
balls
hit
into
the
pond
immediately
behind
the
existing
fence.
Changes
in
technology,
in
both
golf
clubs
and
balls,
have
substantially
increased
the
number
of
golfers
able
to
clear
our
existing
fence.
The
Mendakota
staff
estimates
that
~300
dozen
range
balls
this
year
have
cleared
the
existing
fence
and
have
been
lost
in
the
pond.
The
club
has
received
several
reports
from
members
of
driving
range
golf
balls
landing
on
the
2nd
hole
green.
This
is
certainly
a
problem
and
Mendakota
strongly
feels
it
needs
to
find
and
implement
a
solution
this
year.
Mendakota
has
considered
a
number
of
options.
We
have
reviewed
the
entire
site
plan
and
have
determined
that
there
is
no
other
site
on
the
property
that
could
accommodate
a
driving
range.
The
current
range
is
oriented
in
an
East-‐West
direction
with
the
tee
area
on
the
West
end
and
the
existing
fence
on
the
East
end.
We
cannot
expand
the
range
to
the
West
as
it
would
infringe
upon
our
parking
lot
–
a
lot
that
is
barely
adequate
to
handle
the
demand
on
busy
summer
days.
To
the
East,
there
is
only
~15
yds
of
expansion
space
left
before
we
would
infringe
upon
the
native
areas
surrounding
the
pond
on
the
2nd
hole.
Even
with
the
plan
to
gain
those
~15
yds
by
moving
the
proposed
fence
further
East,
we
would
still
need
a
substantially
higher
fence
to
achieve
our
ball
capture
objective.
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 8
Mendakota
has
performed
some
detailed
mathematical
analysis
that
indicates
a
25
ft
high
fence
in
the
proposed
location
will
capture
98+%
of
the
balls
hit
on
the
driving
range.
In
addition,
Mendakota
will
implement
a
few
policy
changes,
including
range
restrictions
on
the
forward
tee
area,
to
handle
the
remaining.
To
support
our
request,
I
am
attaching
a
number
of
aerial
and
ground
photos
that
show
the
existing
and
proposed
fence
from
several
different
perspectives.
I
am
also
attaching
photos
from
Indian
Hills
Golf
Club
in
Stillwater,
MN,
who
was
faced
with
a
similar
issue
and
has
installed
a
similar
sized
fence
to
the
one
we
are
proposing.
We
believe
that
granting
our
request
will
not
detract
from
the
visual
appeal
of
this
existing
landscape.
Mendakota
would
like
to
install
the
new
fence
in
mid
October
as
the
current
golf
season
winds
down.
Bob
McKinney,
our
club
superintendent,
and
Steve
Watson,
our
General
Manager,
will
serve
as
the
key
contacts
at
Mendakota
for
additional
information.
I
ask
for
your
assistance
in
getting
this
item
on
the
agenda
for
the
Planning
Commission
meeting
on
Tuesday,
September
25,
2012
at
7
PM.
Sincerely,
Tim
Milner
Past
President
&
Board
Member
Mendakota
Country
Club
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 9
Aerial
View
of
Mendakota
Driving
Range
and
Neighbors
-‐
Proposed
Changes
in
Yellow
(Dimensions)
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 10
Diagram
with
Carry
Distances
from
Existing
Tee
to
Current/Proposed
Fence
Fence
Height
Calculations
(with
references).
A
negative
number
means
the
ball
did
NOT
clear
fence.
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 11
View
from
East
from
existing
tee
(Existing
Fence
in
Background)
View
to
West
from
Existing
Fence
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 12
View
to
South
from
Existing
Fence
Line
Showing
Berm,
Wetlands,
Pond
and
2nd
Hole
View
to
North
From
Mendakota
Park
Parking
Lot
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 13
View
to
North/East
from
nearest
neighbor
at
849
MENDAKOTA
COURT
Alternate
View
to
North/East
from
nearest
neighbor
at
849
MENDAKOTA
COURT
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 14
Indian
Hills
Golf
Club
in
Stillwater
–
Similar
Style
25
ft
net
–
from
Fence
Line
(note:
Mendakota
would
use
Steel,
not
Wooden
Poles)
Indian
Hills
Golf
Club
in
Stillwater
–
Similar
Style
25
ft
net
–
Visibility
From
Tee
Area
(note
that
the
fence/net
is
not
visible,
just
the
poles)
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 15
Dakota County, MN
Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not
guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,
appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification.
Map Scale
1 inch = 405 feet
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 16
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen W. Grittman
DATE: September 20, 2012
MEETING DATE: September 25, 2012
SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendment and CUP – Commercial
Recreation in the I, Industrial District
CASE NO: Case No. 2012-28; NAC Case 254.04 – 12.20
APPLICANT(S): Virgo LLC, Curt Skallerup, Jeff Rutten
LOCATION: 2250 Pilot Knob Road
ZONING: I, Industrial
GUIDE PLAN: Industrial
Background and Description of Request:
The applicants are seeking approval of a request to establish a “trampoline park” within
a facility at 2500 Pilot Knob Road. The indoor facility would accommodate
entertainment and fitness training through the use of several clusters of enclosed
trampoline structures. The applicants indicate that they will utilize the facility to market
toward individuals or groups seeking activity and exercise, and well as entertainment.
The facility would include different series of trampoline-based recreation areas and
party rooms for the use of groups gathering at the site.
The proposed use is a form of commercial recreation, similar in nature to a fitness club,
bowling center, or similar use. These uses are found most commonly in Mendota
Heights in the B-3, General Business District or the B-4, Shopping Center District.
Depending on the specific use, those districts may allow such a use either as a
permitted or conditional use.
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 17
2
In the Industrial District, the closest comparative use is “Participative Athletics”, allowed
by Conditional Use Permit.
Analysis:
The issue for the City in this case would be whether the nature of the use and traffic
patterns generated by the use would be consistent with the intent of the Industrial
District and consistent with surrounding land uses. As noted, the current industrial
district allows “Participative Athletics” by Conditional Use Permit. The City recently
approved such a permit for an entity known as “Crossfit” which is a custom athletic
training facility.
The trampoline park use differs from the Crossfit model in that it proposes to attract
general groups and members of the public for occasional site visits, rather than a
defined clientele for a specific training schedule. The provision of party rooms and
related entertainment in the proposed facility differentiates this use from that of the
athletic training aspect, even though the applicants suggest that some athletic
training/activity may also occur as a part of the business plan.
In the industrial district, retail trade is generally discouraged due to conflicts between the
introduction of general traffic into areas often dominated by trucking or other business
traffic. Moreover, parking supply for industrial uses is much less than that of
commercial activities. For the proposed site, the applicants indicate that they would
have a capacity of up to 150 patrons at any one time, and have 60-70 parking spaces
available for their use. Proposed hours of operation would be from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00
p.m. on weekdays, and until 10:00 or 11:00 on weekends.
At issue, at least for the proposed site, is that the applicants propose to occupy only a
portion (perhaps one-third) of an existing industrial building. Because hours of
operation would overlap common industrial business hours, the issue of introducing
commercial traffic, families and children into the business operations of an otherwise
active industrial property increases the potential for land use conflicts and other
problems. It should be noted that where activities are promoted toward children, it is not
uncommon to see significant levels of pedestrian and bicycle traffic as a component of
the customers’ travel.
If the use is to be considered in the Industrial District, staff would recommend that such
facilities only be considered at the edge of commercial areas where commercial traffic
conditions were more common, and less likely to raise the conflicts found in the midst of
industrial areas. In this case, the applicants have provided a proposed address for their
operation, but staff has not seen details of how the site would accommodate the use,
control traffic and building access, or other aspects common to Conditional Uses.
To continue the process, action on a Conditional Use Permit for this particular site and
operation would require additional detail.
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 18
3
Action Requested:
Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following
alternative actions:
Conditional Use Permit for Trampoline Park facility at 2250 Pilot Knob
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit, based on a finding
that the use can be accommodated on the proposed site and in the general area,
and that management will be able to address potential conflicts with industrial
activities and traffic.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit, based on a finding
that (1) the proposed use is commercial in nature, more similar to those activities
currently located in the Business Districts of the Mendota Heights zoning
ordinance, (2) that the use would occupy a property that would continue to be
dominated by full industrial activity, incompatible with the proposed child-focused
land use, and (3) that the proposed site location is inappropriate for the
introduction of this level of commercial activity.
3. Motion to table action on the Conditional Use Permit, pending additional details
from the applicants regarding specific site use, building plans, traffic
management, and other aspects of the facility on the subject site.
Staff Recommendation:
Planning staff does not recommend the CUP at this time. The proposed use appears to
raise concerns over its compatibility with industrial use areas generally, and the specific
site would continue to have approximately 50,000 square feet of active industrial use in
the building. If the application is to continue forward, staff would recommend tabling
action for the current meeting, with a request that the applicants provide significant
additional detail about the operational aspect of the facility on the subject property as
noted in this report.
Supplementary Materials:
Application materials dated 8/28/12
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 19
L
e
m
a
y
L
a
k
e
R
d
W
a
t
e
r
s
D
r
Pi
l
o
t
K
n
o
b
R
d
Aca
c
i
a
D
r
Enterpr
i
s
e
D
r
Acacia Blvd
Commerce Dr
V
a
l
e
n
c
o
u
r
C
i
r
Perron Rd E
Kendon Ave
Centre Point
e
C
v
L
e
m
a
y
L
a
k
e
D
r
Lakeview Ave
Furlong Ave
L
a
k
e
A
u
g
u
s
t
a
D
r
Victory Ave
Perron Rd W
St
a
t
e
H
w
y
5
5
St
a
t
e
H
w
y
1
3
Si
b
l
e
y
M
e
m
o
r
i
a
l
H
w
y
State Hwy 110
State Hwy
1
1
0
S
t
a
t
e
H
w
y
5
5
Site Location Map
Water/Wetlands
Major Roads
City Roads
parcels
Municipal Boundaries
Delaware Ave2250 Pilot Knob Road
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 20
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 21
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 22
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 23
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 24
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 25
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 26
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 27
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 28
Dakota County, MN
Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not
guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,
appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification.
Map Scale
1 inch = 396 feet
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 29
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission
FROM: Michelle Barness / Stephen Grittman
DATE: September 19, 2012
MEETING DATE: September 25, 2012
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a garage of
more than 1,200 square feet; Variance for two double-
garage doors
CASE NO: NAC Case: 254.04 -12.18
APPLICANT(S): Daniel Fleischhacker
LOCATION: 1018 Overlook Road
ZONING: R-1, One Family Residential
GUIDE PLAN: LR - Low Density Residential
Background and Description of Request:
Daniel Fleischhacker is seeking a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a
two stall garage addition to his existing attached garage at the property located at 1018
Overlook Road. With the garage addition, the total garage space on the property will be
approximately 1,470 square feet. The submitted application includes the attached
garage addition of about 700 square feet (25 feet x 28 feet).
Analysis:
Conditional Use Permit. A conditional use permit is required for the construction of an
attached garage of more than 1,200 square feet, with a maximum square footage of
1,500 square feet. Because the addition of the requested two stall garage will cause
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 30
2
the existing garage on the property to expand to approximately 1,470 square feet, the
applicants are requesting a conditional use permit for its construction.
The proposed garage addition is designed with two stalls facing west towards Summit
Lane, and extending 25 feet north of the existing garage. The applicant has indicated
that the exterior materials of the proposed garage will be consistent with the existing
garage, including brick finish and an insulated overhead garage door. It is also
encouraged that the roof pitch of the proposed garage match the existing garage and
principal building to be aesthetically compatible with those structures.
With the proposed attached garage addition, the expanded garage will still meet the
required 30 feet front and corner side yard setback requirement. In addition, the floor of
the expanded garage will remain at least 1½ feet above the street grade at the curb.
According to Zoning Ordinance Section 12-1D-3, no more than three garage doors (a
double width door, along with a single width garage door, or three single garage doors)
are permitted in a residential district. The applicants are proposing the addition of a
double wide garage onto their existing double wide garage, which does not meet this
requirement. In order to proceed with their request for a conditional use permit for a
larger attached garage, the applicants will have to reduce the proposed garage door to
a single-width garage door.
In review of aerial photography of the neighborhood, it appears that most of the
neighbors near the subject property maintain a maximum of only three garage stalls.
Just one garage along Overlook was found to have 4 garage doors facing the street.
Most of the homes had just two or three garage doors visible, even though many of the
homes are large and had larger garages. As such, the proposal to construct the garage
with two double garage doors would appear inconsistent with the majority of homes in
the area.
To pursue the request to construct the building with a second double door, the applicant
is seeking a variance from the code standard cited above. Variances are reviewed as
to their ability to show unique property attributes that differentiate the property from
similarly situated parcels in a way that suggests a departure from the standards would
be a reasonable use of the property.
When considering variances, the City is required to find that:
(1) The applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner; and
(2) The applicant’s proposal faces practical difficulties in using the property in this
manner due to circumstances that:
a. Are unique to the property,
b. Are not caused by the applicant,
c. Are consistent with the purpose and intent of the City’s plans and
ordinances,
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 31
3
d. Are not out of character with the locality, or neighborhood, in which the
property is located.
The applicant has suggested that the oversized (double) lot would be one factor that is
unique to the property. However, the intent of the City in adopting the garage door
limitation was to minimize the extensive street view of garage doors from the street – lot
size would not necessarily relate to this intent. As noted above, several property
owners in the immediate area have constructed garages in compliance with the three-
garage-door standard. Approving a variance in this case would raise issues of
consistent application of the code, and consistency with the neighborhood.
Moreover, the uniqueness factor is intended to demonstrate practical difficulties in using
the property according to the code. While the double-lot size may be greater than other
nearby properties, it does not interfere with meeting the requirements of the code.
In any case, because a variance is needed, the proposed double garage door could not
be approved with the CUP. Instead, the applicant’s request could proceed only with a
condition that the zoning standards are met by the application. To do so, an approval
would require a condition that only a single garage door could be constructed under this
CUP.
With regard to options for the applicant, staff would note that the minimum practical
double garage door would be at least 16 feet in width, with some manufacturers offering
“double” doors at 14 feet in width. With this observation, a 12 foot wide door would be
considered a single door for the purposes of meeting the zoning ordinance
requirements.
Action Requested:
Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission may make one of the following
recommendations:
A. Conditional Use Permit
1. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit with conditions based upon a
finding that the proposed structure is consistent with the intent of the
Conditional Use Permit clause allowing expanded attached garages of
between 1,200 and 1,500 square feet. Conditions may include the
following:
a. The applicant revise his existing conditional use permit request to
approval for the construction of a single-door garage expansion, as
opposed to a double door.
2. Denial of the Conditional Use Permit based on a finding that the proposed
garage would adversely affect surrounding properties; and that the
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 32
4
proposed double garage door design cannot proceed without a variance
from zoning ordinance standards.
B. Variance
1. Approval of the variance to allow two double garage doors as
proposed, based on findings that the size of the property established
a condition unique to this property that justifies a variance from the
zoning standards.
2. Denial of the variance, based on findings attached to this report.
Staff Recommendation:
While Planning staff is supportive of the conditional use permit to allow an attached
accessory structure upon the subject property in the size and location proposed, Staff
recommends approval only with the condition that the applicant amend the proposal to
meet the requirement for garage door width. As such, Planning staff further
recommends denial of the requested variance to construct the garage with a second
double garage door. As noted in the report, staff believes that the requisite findings to
support a variance are not present with this permit.
Supplementary Materials:
Application materials
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 33
5
Findings of Fact for Approval
Attached Garage Conditional Use Permit
1018 Overlook Road
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the above Permit:
1. The proposed garage meets all zoning requirements for setback and size.
2. With a garage door of no more than 12 feet in width, the applicant would be able
to meet the requirements for attached garages of more than 1,200 square feet.
3. The proposed detached garage is consistent with other single family properties in
the area.
4. The proposed garage has been designed to be consistent with the architecture
and materials of the principal building.
5. The proposed addition fits on the property without raising issues of overcrowding.
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 34
6
Findings of Fact for Denial
Variance to allow two double-garage doors
1018 Overlook Road
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of denial of the above Permit:
1. The proposed garage meets all zoning requirements for setback and size.
2. With a garage door of no more than 12 feet in width, the applicant would be able
to meet the requirements for attached garages of more than 1,200 square feet.
3. A large majority of neighboring properties with larger garages meet the required
garage door standard of no more than three such doors.
4. There do not appear to be conditions on the property that create practical
difficulties in meeting the normal zoning standard.
5. Approval for the variance on this property where most neighbors have complied
with the code without variance would be inconsistent with the standards applied
to the neighborhood.
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 35
Highwa
y
1
3
Lil
a
c
L
a
Marie Ave
Ja
m
e
s
R
d
Douglas Rd
Overlook Rd
Su
m
m
i
t
L
a
Wa
l
s
h
L
a
Avanti Dr
Ce
l
i
a
D
r
Fa
r
o
L
a
Tw
i
n
C
i
r
c
l
e
D
r
Vic
k
i
L
a
Ov
e
r
l
o
o
k
L
a
Ma
y
f
i
e
l
d
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
R
d
Ro
l
l
i
n
g
G
r
e
e
n
C
v
O
x
f
o
r
d
C
t
Dou
g
l
a
s
C
t
Bwana Ct
Wi
n
d
w
o
o
d
C
t
Site Location Map
Water/Wetlands
Major Roads
City Roads
parcels
Municipal Boundaries
Delaware Ave
1018 Overlook Road
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 36
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 37
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 38
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 39
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 40
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 41
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 42
Dakota County, MN
Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not
guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,
appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification.
Map Scale
1 inch = 139 feet
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 43
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen Grittman
DATE: September 20, 2012
MEETING DATE: September 25, 2012
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a detached
garage and Variance from maximum area requirement
CASE NO: Case: 12-30; NAC Case: 254.04 -12.17
APPLICANT(S): Robert and Danielle Whebbe
LOCATION: 598 Sibley Memorial Highway
ZONING: R-1, One Family Residential
GUIDE PLAN: LR - Low Density Residential
Background and Description of Request:
Robert and Danielle Whebbe are seeking a conditional use permit and variances to
allow the construction of a detached garage in the rear yard of their property located at
598 Sibley Memorial Highway. Currently, the applicants have an attached garage of
approximately 300 square feet (a single car garage). The zoning ordinance allows one
garage building on a single family property. Detached garages are allowed by
Conditional Use Permit, however, the maximum size of a detached garage is 750
square feet. Attached garages may be built up to 1,200 square feet as permitted
accessory uses, and up to 1,500 square feet by CUP.
The proposal by the applicant is for one of two options, as summarized below:
Option A - Three doors; 1,500 square feet (30 feet x 50 feet)
Option B - Three doors; 1,024 square feet (32 feet x 32 feet)
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 44
2
The applicant has not stated specifically, but it appears that the intent of the application
is to retain the existing attached garage under either of the two scenarios.
The new garage structure would be built to the side and rear of the existing house,
partially on an adjoining parcel owned by the applicant. To avoid violating building
setbacks, this parcel should be combined with the house parcel at the Dakota County
Recorder’s office.
As noted above, according to Accessory Structure Ordinance 12-1D-3(C)(1) only one
private garage, either attached or detached, is allowed for each principal residential
structure. The applicant has not indicated the intent to remove the existing attached
garage, or convert it into living space. This creates a condition of non-compliance in
regards to the number of allowed garages, which will have to be addressed in the
course of considering the applicant’s current request for a detached garage.
In conjunction with the conditional use permit request, the applicant has also requested
approval of a variance to exceed the maximum 750 square foot area requirement
applied to detached accessory buildings. As noted, the applicant wishes to construct a
building measuring between 1,024 and 1,500 square feet in size.
Analysis:
Conditional Use Permit. A conditional use permit is required for the construction of
detached garages.
The applicant has submitted two alternative garage plans for consideration ranging in
size from 1.024 to 1,500 square feet in size. Option A is designed with three garage
stalls all facing west towards Sibley Memorial Hwy. Option B is designed with two stalls
facing west towards Sibley Memorial Hwy, and one stall opening facing north towards
the neighboring property. A written description of the materials and design of either
garage option has not been provided, however Option B garage elevations appear to
indicate a panel steel entrance door and white insulated garage stall doors.
According to the Ordinance, accessory buildings located within residential zoning
districts may not exceed 15 feet in height. Building height is measured from the
average grade of the front building line to the average distance of the highest gable on a
pitched or hip roof. As a condition of CUP approval, the proposed structure must
comply with maximum height requirement of the Ordinance, and it appears that the
buildings would comply with this requirement.
As a condition of CUP approval, a specific plan alternative should be selected by the
applicant. Such plan, drawn to scale, should be modified to specify proposed finish
materials, colors and structure height.
In consideration of the CUP request, an assurance should be made that the proposed
accessory building will be compatible with the site’s principal building. To ensure
compatibility, it is recommended that the garage match the principal building in color.
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 45
3
While not a specific requirement, it the applicant is also encouraged to match the
principal building’s roof style and roof pitch.
Variance. The applicant has requested a variance to exceed the maximum 750 square
foot area requirement applied to detached accessory buildings. The applicant has
submitted two building plan alternatives ranging from 1,024 to 1,500 square feet in size.
Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general
purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are consistent with the
comprehensive plan. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance
establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning
ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a
variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a
reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; the plight of the
landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the
landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the
locality. Economic considerations alone shall do not constitute an undue hardship if
reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance.
Current variance code states that the City “may” grant a variance if it finds “practical
difficulties” in using the property in a reasonable manner that is not allowed under the
ordinance – this refers to varying from performance standards in the ordinance.
In summary, the City must find the following:
The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner.
The ordinance prohibits this manner of use.
The proposed manner of use is consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance
and with the Comprehensive Plan.
The ordinance creates “practical difficulties” in achieving the manner of use.
The difficulties are unique to the property and not created by the owner.
The variance will not alter the essential character of the “locality”.
In consideration of the applicant’s variance request (from the maximum area
requirement applied to detached accessory buildings), the following should be
considered:
The City has established that a detached accessory building measuring 750
square feet in size is the maximum or “reasonable” limit upon residentially zoned
properties. In this regard, a detached accessory structure exceeding this
requirement could be deemed “unreasonable” within the context a single family
residential neighborhood.
The applicants indicated that there are other detached garages in their
neighborhood, and that the size of both of the proposed garages would not be
excessively large for the property or the neighborhood. In this regard, the
applicant believes his proposed building would be consistent in size with other
area buildings.
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 46
4
In review of aerial photography in the area, the subject neighborhood has
detached garages ranging in size up to approximately 750 square feet, with
several surrounding garages in the 650 square feet to 750 square feet range. As
such, the Option B garage, at approximately 1,024 square feet, would be more in
line with existing accessory buildings in the neighborhood, but still larger in size
than most surrounding detached garages. The Option A garage, at
approximately 1,500 square feet, will be significantly larger than existing
detached garages in the neighborhood.
The applicants suggest that circumstances unique to their property, and not
created by themselves, result in practical difficulties in meeting Ordinance as
pertains to garage size. They have indicated that they can’t add onto the existing
attached garage to meet their needs for car and garden tractor/tool storage, as
the layout of the existing home and garage would require remodeling the kitchen
in order to do so. The applicants have not provided the interior layout of their
home and garage in order to clarify this argument. Assuming that there is this
difficulty, which makes it hard to have a larger attached garage (allowed by
conditional use permit up to 1500 square feet), the applicants think that a larger
detached garage to meet their needs is a reasonable use of the property.
The applicants suggest that a driveway to a detached garage will enable them to
turn around within their property, as opposed to backing onto Sibley Memorial
Highway, as is currently their practice. In this sense, the property’s unique
location may create difficulties in using their existing attached garage (and a
possible attached garage expansion) in a reasonable manner. An examination of
nearby properties abutting Sibley Memorial Highway using an aerial image
demonstrates that neighbors have dealt with the issue of backing onto the
highway by either creating turnarounds or expanded driveways. While an
expanded drive associated with a new detached garage is one option, an
expanded drive might also be created contiguous with an attached garage. So
while the property location abutting a highway creates unique drive
circumstances, there are options for addressing these difficulties without
requiring a variance from garage size requirements.
Action Requested:
Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission may make one of the following
recommendations:
A. Conditional Use Permit
1. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit with conditions based upon a finding
that the proposed structure is consistent with the intent of the Conditional Use
Permit clause allowing detached garages. Conditions may include the
following:
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 47
5
a. The applicant revises his request to meet the 750 square foot
maximum floor area.
b. Such plans, drawn to scale, shall be modified to specify proposed
finish materials, colors and structure height.
c. The garage not exceed 15 feet in height.
d. The applicant coordinate the garage’s roof style and roof pitch with that
of the principal building.
e. The existing attached garage on the site be repurposed as living space
as a part of this project, to comply with the maximum allowance of one
garage structure on a single family parcel.
2. Denial of the Conditional Use Permit based on findings summarized and
attached to this report.
B. Variance
1. Approval of the Variance as submitted. Approval would require findings
consistent with the requirements for variance approval noted in this report.
Draft findings for consideration are attached.
2. Denial of the Variance, based on findings summarized and attached to this
report.
Staff Recommendation:
Planning staff is supportive of the conditional use permit to allow a detached accessory
structure upon the subject property only insofar as the applicant can design it in such a
way as to comply with other zoning standards of the ordinance. In this case, this would
require remodeling of the existing attached garage to living space (to comply with the
maximum allowance of one garage building, and redesign of the proposed garage to
meet the 750 square foot area standard. Staff does not recommend approval of the
associated variance to allow the structure to exceed 750 square feet in size.
For the CUP, it has been routine for the City to approve detached accessory buildings in
neighborhoods where this type of structure is common, and where the building meets
the code requirements for size, location and setback. The purpose of the CUP
provision is to ensure that such buildings can compatibly exist on the proposed parcel
under these conditions.
With regard to the variance, however, a different review standard applies. One of the
key factors for variance consideration is uniqueness – a condition must be present that
sets the property apart from others that is driving the need for a variance. The
applicant’s property is not uncommon in Mendota Heights or the R-1 zoning areas. It
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 48
6
would not appear to planning staff that even under a new standard, that the
requirements for variance consideration are present. Moreover, given the size of the
property in question, it would appear that an attached garage of adequate size can be
constructed. Although the applicant raises an issue of kitchen remodeling, it would
appear from the available material that the garage could be expanded to the side with
little difficulty.
Although the subject neighborhood is characterized by some detached garages over the
allowed 750 square feet, their nonconforming status reinforces the notion that structures
of such size are not consistent with the City’s long-term vision. Thus, the existence of
such structures should not justify approval of the requested variance.
Supplementary Materials:
Application materials dated September 7, 2012
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 49
7
Findings of Fact for Approval
Conditional Use Permit and Variances for Detached Garage
598 Sibley Memorial Highway
1. The subject property includes adequate area to accommodate a detached
garage of the size proposed.
2. The applicant has shown that remodeling of the home, and/or attachment of the
garage to the existing garage area is impractical due to conditions on the
property.
3. The applicant has shown that the existing single-car garage space is inadequate,
a condition which can be best overcome by the construction of a detached
garage.
- Variances -
4. The applicant has shown that there are practical difficulties in meeting the
requirements of the ordinance for just one garage structure.
5. The applicant has shown that there are practical difficulties in complying with the
maximum detached garage floor area of 750 square feet.
6. The applicant has shown that the proposed second garage structure of more
than 750 square feet is a reasonable use of the property.
7. The applicant has shown that there are unique conditions on the property, as
compared to other parcels in the single family zoning district, which establish the
need and reasonableness of the variances.
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 50
8
Findings of Fact for Denial
Conditional Use Permit and Variances for Detached Garage
598 Sibley Memorial Highway
1. The zoning ordinance requires that Conditional Use Permits must meet other
relevant zoning regulations for approval.
2. The proposed detached garage would constitute the second garage structure on
the property, counter to zoning regulations.
3. The proposed detached garage (under either application) is greater than the
maximum square footage allowed for detached garages in this zoning district.
4. The site appears to have adequate room for the expansion of the existing
attached garage in compliance with zoning regulations.
5. The detached garage request could only be accommodated by reducing the size
to 750 square feet of floor area, and remodeling the existing attached garage to
finished interior space, neither of which is proposed by the applicant.
6. There do not appear to be any unique characteristics of the property that create
practical difficulties in complying with the zoning regulations (either for attached
or detached garage buildings).
7. The proposed garage would be out of character with the area, and inconsistent
with previous actions of similar requests in the single family zoning district.
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 51
Ch
i
p
p
e
w
a
A
v
e
Butler Ave
Winston Ct
Miriam
S
t
Iv
y
H
i
l
l
D
r
Hiawatha Ave
Vie
w
L
a
Spring
S
t
Simard St
A
s
h
l
e
y
L
a
Fremont Ave
Junction La
L
o
n
d
o
n
R
d
John St
Est
h
e
r
L
a
Kirchner A
v
e
D
o
w
n
i
n
g
S
t
Di
e
g
o
L
a
S
y
l
v
a
n
d
a
l
e
R
d
Valley La
Ellen St
Sut
c
l
i
f
f
C
i
r
B
e
e
b
e
A
v
e
Br
o
m
p
t
o
n
P
l
G
a
r
d
e
n
L
a
Wi
n
s
t
o
n
C
i
r
Ivy Hill Dr
Dod
d
R
d
Sta
t
e
H
w
y
1
3
Annapolis St
Site Location Map
Water/Wetlands
Major Roads
City Roads
parcels
Municipal Boundaries
Delaware Ave
598 Sibley Memorial Highway
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 52
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 53
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 54
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 55
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 56
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 57
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 58
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 59
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 60
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 61
Dakota County, MN
Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not
guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,
appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification.
Map Scale
1 inch = 151 feet
Planning Commission 9/24/2012 Page 62