2015-11-24 Planning Comm Agenda Packet
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSIONAGENDA
November 24, 2015 – 7:00 p.m.
Mendota Heights City Hall
1.Call to Order
2.Roll Call
3.Adopt Agenda
4.Approve October 27, 2015Planning Commission Minutes
5.Public Hearings:
a.Case No. 2015-39: Boyd Ratchye and Susan Light. Preliminary and Final Plat at
2270 Wagon Wheel Court.
b.Case No. 2015-40: Weinblatt/Nordin. Lot Line Adjustment and Variance at 754 and
750 Upper Colonial Drive.
c. Case No. 2015-41: City of Mendota Heights. Lot Split and Variances for portion of
Wentworth Park.
d.Case No. 2015-42: Mark Gergen. Lot Split and Variance at 789 Ridge Place.
e.Case No. 2015-43: Michael Development. Comprehensive Plan Amendment at
2160 Sibley Memorial Highway.
6.Verbal Review
7.Staff and Commission Announcements
8.Adjourn
Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in
advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of MendotaHeights 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.
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 1
4
1CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
2DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
3
4PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES
5October 27, 2015
6
7The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October
827, 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 September 22, 2015 Minutes
19
20
21COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLOTO
22APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2015,WITH THE CORRECTION OF THE
23MEETING START TIME.
24
25AYES: 7
26NAYS: 0
27
Hearings
28
29
30Chair Field noted that Planning Case #2015-37 involving the Dodge Nature Center had been
31submitted, noticed, and now the application has been withdrawn.
32
33PLANNING CASE #2015-38
34Spectrum Sign Systems, on behalf of Robert Lindahl/Crosswind, LLC and Prime Therapeutics,
35LLC, 1440 Northland Drive
36Variance Request
37
38City Planner Nolan Wallexplained that applicant was requesting a variance to erect a freestanding
39monument sign within the required property boundary line setback at 1440 Northland Drive. The
40subject parcel contains three office buildings connected by skyways on three separate parcels,
41totaling approximately 16 acres, and includes addresses 1440 and 1444 Northland Drive.
42
43Historically, the property was developed for one user but is now occupied by multiple users. Prime
44Therapeutics is the newest tenant leasing approximately 78,000 square feet of previously-vacant
45office space and they are requesting the proposed monument sign.
46
October 27, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFTPage 1
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 2
47In 1979, a ten-foot setback variance was granted for a pylon sign in approximately the same
48location with various sign permits approved following that to reface that sign. That sign has since
49been removed and this application has been reviewed as a new request based on the existing code
50provisions. In 2013, a 20-foot setback was granted for a freestanding identification sign for tenants
51at the 1444 Northland Drive building. In both cases the applicable boundary line setback for the
52freestanding sign at the time of the application was 40 feet. However, later in 2013 the City did
53amend the code to allow a 10-foot property line setback for freestanding signs as part of Ordinance
54 453.
55
56Planner Wall shared various images of the property and the proposed freestanding monument sign.
57As proposed, this would be the only sign on the parceland it would meet the required size, height,
58and driveway/parking area setback standards. The proposed variance in this case is for a 2-foot
59setback from the property boundary line.
60
61Planner Wall then explained the three standards of review for variance requests and how this
62request satisfies those standards. Due to the setback request, staff did review any visibility
63concerns to ensure that a sign in the proposed location would not negatively impact turning
64movements from the site. In addition, staff requested that the applicant lookat other options;
65however, others location maynegatively affect the sign’simpact, disturb existing vegetation, or
66require different variance requests.
67
68Staff recommended approval of this variance request with conditions.
69
70Commissioners had no questions for Planner Wall.
71
72Chair Field opened the public hearing.
73
74Mr. Brian Holmes of Prime Therapeutics came forward to address the Commission and to answer
75any questions they may have.
76
77Mr. Rick Ferraro of Spectrum Sign Systems also came forward to address the Commission and to
78answer any questions they may have. He noted that, in his belief,the proposedsign is aesthetically
79and well-proportioned to fit that intersection. It is the best solution for the identification and land
80marking of the facility.
81
82Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public
83hearing.
84
85COMMISSIONER VIKSNINSMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO
86CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
87
88AYES: 7
89NAYS: 0
90
October 27, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFTPage 2
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 3
91COMMISSIONER VIKSNINSMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
92RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-38, VARIANCE REQUESTBASED
93ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
941.The proposed sign is a reasonable use of the property and meets the purpose and intent of
95the Code.
962.The proposed sign is located at the only ingress/egress to the subject parcel’s surface
97parking lot and building entrance; strict interpretation of the setback standards would not
98allow the proposed sign in this location based on the existing conditions.
993.Based on the existing site conditions and analysis of other alternatives, the applicant has
100established practical difficulties due to unique circumstances in order to reasonably locate
101a freestanding monument sign in compliance with the required setbacks.
1024.The proposed sign’s location is over 20 feet from the road and does not interfere with the
103off-street trail, intersection site distances, or drainage and utility easements in the
104immediate area.
1055.The proposed sign will not negatively impact the character of the surrounding area.
106
107WITH THE CONDITION that a sign permit is obtained on behalf of the property owner/tenant.
108
109AYES: 7
110NAYS: 0
111
112Chair Fieldadvised the City Council would consider this application at its November 3, 2015
113meeting.
114
Discussion of Joint Workshop with City Council
115
116
117Planner Wall noted that the Commission packet included information for review prior tothis
118Thursdays’ \[October 29, 2015\] joint workshop with the City Council. He reminded the
119Commissioners of that workshop and opened the floor for questions.
120
121Staff intends to have a discussion among the Commissioners and the Council in terms of the
122existing conditions in the Industrial District andsome visionary discussions about what might
123happen in the future to influence what gets included in the plan.
124
Verbal Review
125
126
127Planner Wall gave the following verbal review:
128
129PLANNING CASE #2015-36
1302190 Glen Toro Road
131Wetlands Permit Request
132•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
133
134The City Council did adopt comments very similar to what the Planning Commission’s comments
135were pertaining to the City of Eagan’s proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment regarding the
136property just across I-494.
October 27, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFTPage 3
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 4
Staff and Commission Announcements
137
138
139Planner Wall congratulated the University of St. Thomas on beating his alma mater, St. John’s
140University, this year in football, and in honor of his bet with Commissioner Hennes he wore a St.
141Thomas tie during the meeting.
142
143Public Works Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello noted that Highway 13 has been closed
144between the Ivy Falls Bridge and Sylvandale Roaddue to a significant slope failure during a major
145rainstorm. The reason Highway 13 is closed is that the property owner is repairing the slope,
146which will take approximately six weeks to complete. Because this is a privately-driven project
147there was no information available on MnDOT’s website or the County website as to why the
148highway was closed. The City has put a link on its homepage about the Highway 13 slope repair
149with information on the project and when it is anticipated that the highway would be reopened.
150
151He also provided an update on the Highway 13 project west of 35E noting that the wear course of
152pavement went down today \[October 27, 2015\]. It needs to be striped yet but the markings are
153down for that and that portion should be complete to Lexington Avenue within the week. The
nd
154portion from Lexington down to 2Street in Mendota –the contractor is installing the drop shaft
155for the Lilydale drainage system and are anticipating that portion being open by mid-November.
156
st
157There was an open house held at Henry Sibley High School on October 21regarding the Highway
158110 underpass. Many residents were in attendance and the County on the different alternatives
159received many comments. At this point in time, the County is trying to select the locationfor this
160crossing. It appears that the most eastern option, crossing Highway 110 at approximately Market
161Square Park or Tommy Chicago’s at the Village, is the majority-preferred alignment. The County
162will be back in front of the City Council on November 17, 2015 to present an update and the
163preferred alternative as selected by County staff that will go before the County Board in December.
164
Adjournment
165
166
167COMMISSIONER ROSTONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
168ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:19 P.M.
169
170AYES: 7
171NAYS: 0
October 27, 2015 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting -DRAFTPage 4
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 5
5a
DATE:
November 24, 2015
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT:
Planning Case 2015-39
Preliminary/Final Plat –Caroline’s Lake View Second Addition
APPLICANT:
Boyd Ratchye and Susan Light
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
2270 Wagon Wheel Court
ZONING/GUIDED:
R-1 One-Family Residential/LR-Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE:
February 19, 2016 (120 days)
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicants are seeking preliminary and final plat approval to dissolve an outlot and plat an additional
lot at 2270 Wagon Wheel Court. The properties are part of two different plats and must be replatted.
BACKGROUND
The applicants own approximately three acres(131,568 square feet)of land adjacent to Rogers Lake and
reside at 2270 Wagon Wheel Court. Their property includes parts of Lots 16 and 17 of the Caroline’s Lake
View Addition, platted in 1927, as well as Outlot A of the Kipp Addition, platted in 2001.The subject
parcels arebordered by Rogers Lake to the south, Wagon Wheel Court to the west, and wetlands and Wagon
Wheel Trail to the north.
Wagon Wheel Court was constructed in 2007 and was facilitated by approval of the Kipp AdditionPlat.
The plat created five single-family lotson the west side of Wagon Wheel Courtand Outlot Aalong the east
side of the road. Two of those lots contained pre-existing single-family dwellings with access to Rogers
Lake. The applicant’s property containing the existing dwelling was notincluded in the Kipp Addition, but
they have since purchased Outlot A. Since the parcels now owned by the applicants are part of different
plats, they need to be replatted in order to facilitate the creation of the new parcels proposed in this case.
The proposed preliminary and final plats would dissolve Outlot A and createtwo lots; one containing the
existing dwellingand anadditional lot for construction of a new single-family dwelling. The applicants
recently received building permit approvalto remodel the existing dwelling and plan to sellthe newly-
created parcel to another party to build on in the future.
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
The subject parcel is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant’s
request to subdivide the subject parcel into two parcels, consisting of approximately 0.71 acresand 2.31
acres, isconsistent withthe intent of asingle-family residential maximum density of 2.9 units per acre.
Staff Report: Planning Case 2015-39 Page 1
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 6
Preliminary and Final Plat
Title 11-3-2 of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the
resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district. As shown in the table
below based on the preliminaryand finalplatdrawings, both proposed parcels and the existing dwelling
and potential building pad meet the applicable R-1 District standards:
Lot1:Lot2:
StandardRequired
Existing DwellingNew Parcel
Lot Area15,000 SF15,000 SF30,936 SF100,632 SF
Lot Width 1 100 ft.100 ft.162.51ft.317ft./258 ft.
Minimum: 30 ft.Lot1: 30 ft.
2
Front Yard47.6 ft. 68 ft.
Corner Lot: (A-30/2) + 30Lot 2: 39ft.
10 ft. (min.)10 ft. (min.)40 ft. (west)210 ft. (west)
Side Yard 3
15 ft. (max.)15 ft. (max.)25ft. (east)43 ft. (east)
30 ft. or 20% of the average lot Lot1: 42 ft.
Rear Yard67 ft. 163 ft.
depth, whichever is greaterLot 2: 89 ft.
1
The maximum horizontal distance between the side lot lines of a lot measured within the first thirty feet (30') of the
lot depth
2
In the case of a building to be erected or extended on a corner lot, the minimum front yard depth shall be increased
1
by an amount not less than one-half (/) the depth in excess of thirty feet (30') of the front yard of the nearest building
2
3 10' on each side or 1/of the height of the structure contiguous to the side yard, whichever is greater, to a maximum
2
of 15'
Concept Utility and Grading Plan
As shown on the concept utility and grading plan, apotential building padon Lot 2could contain a dwelling
withdriveway and utilityaccess to Wagon Wheel Court or Wagon Wheel Trail. The proposed plan is only
requiredto show that a potential new dwelling could be constructed that meets the applicable Code
standards and is not meant to bind a future property owner into a specific location or design.
Title 12-2 of the Code requires a wetlands permit for any construction/grading activities or vegetation
removalwithin 100 feet of a wetland or water resource-related area. Based on the location of the potential
building pad on Lot 2, additional permitting would be necessary due to the proximity to the wetland. In
this case, since no construction is being proposed on Lot 2at this time, the future property owners would
be responsible for obtaining the necessary permitsprior to any applicable development activities.
According to Title 11-3-8-A of the City Code:
Slope Limitations: Subdivision design shall be consistent with limitations presented by steep slopes.
Subdivisions shall be designed so that no construction or grading will be conducted on slopes
steeper than twenty five percent (25%) in grade.
Slopes over 25% on Lot 2 are shown on the plan. The potential building pad is shown outside of this area
and is compliant with the Code. A condition of approval is included that prohibits construction or grading
on slopes over 25% on Lot 2 as part of future building plans.
ALTERNATIVES
1.Recommend approval of the preliminary and final plat requests, based on the attached findings of
fact with conditions.
OR
Staff Report: Planning Case 2015-39 Page 2
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 7
2.Recommend denial of the preliminary and final plat requests, based on the findings of fact that the
proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the City Code or Comprehensive Plan and will have a
negative impact on surrounding properties and natural resources.
OR
3.Table the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary and final plat requests based on the attached findings of fact
(Alternative 1), with the following conditions:
1.Park dedication fee in the amount of $2,700, in lieu of land, is collected after City Council approval
and before being recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any additional permits by the City.
2.Depending on future access from Wagon Wheel Court or Wagon Wheel Trail, a Public
Utility/Improved Public Right-of-Way Fee is paid to the Cityprior to issuance of a building permit
for construction on Lot 2.
3.In the event that future utility connections are made to Wagon Wheel Court, utility connection fees
are paid to the City prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 2.
4.The applicant shall dedicate the following drainage and utility easements on both parcels to be
denoted on the Final Plat submitted to Dakota County: 10-foot wide along the front property lines
and 5-foot wide along the side and rear property lines.
5.No grading or construction activity on Lot 2 will occur on slopes over 25%.
6.All grading and construction activity on Lot 2 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.
7.A wetlands permit is obtained prior to any applicable development activities on Lot 2.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1.Site map
2.Site photos
3.Planning applications, including supporting materials
Staff Report: Planning Case 2015-39 Page 3
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 8
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Preliminary and Final Plat
2270 Wagon Wheel Court
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1.The proposed requests meet the purpose and intent of the City Code and are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
2.The requests are necessary to dissolve an existing outlot so that future access to Wagon Wheel
Court is available to Lot 2.
3.The newly-created parcels do not create any non-conformities with the existing dwelling on Lot 1
and would allow for construction of a new single-family dwelling on Lot 2 in compliance with the
applicable zoning standards.
4.A wetlands permit for future construction on Lot 2 will require compliance with applicable land
disturbance and drainagestandards to ensure there are no negative impacts to the surrounding water
bodies and environment.
Staff Report: Planning Case 2015-39 Page 4
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 9
Planning Case 2015-39
City of
2270 Wagon Wheel Court
Mendota
090
Heights
11/19/2015
SCALE IN FEET
WAGON WHEEL TRL
107
91103
157
1455553
71
954
3
8
954
6
73157
7199
1
4
2270
954
1
11
8
170
2257
1
6
11
170
954
2270
21
17
6
1
95
2273
954
2270
2275
2275
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.
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 10
Planning Case 2015-39 Site Photos: 2270 Wagon Wheel Court
Wagon Wheel Court –looking southeast towardsRogers Lake
Wagon Wheel Court –looking northeast towards Wagon Wheel Trail
Source: Staff (11.18.15)
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 11
Planning Case 2015-39 Site Photos: 2270 Wagon Wheel Court
Wagon Wheel Trail –looking southwest towards Wagon WheelCourt
Wagon Wheel Trail –looking southeast towards Rogers Lake
Source: Staff (11.18.15)
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 12
Boyd Ratchye & Susan Light
2270 Wagon Wheel Court
Preliminary and Final Plat Request
CAROLINES LAKE VIEW SECOND ADDITION
Narrative (November 6, 2015)
Boyd Ratchye and Susan Light reside at 2270 Wagon Wheel Court. They own approximately
3.02acres (or 131,568square feet) lying north of and abutting Roger’s Lake. They currently
have a single family home on the south portion of the property. The land is comprised of parts of
Lots 16 and 17, Caroline’s Lake View Addition which was platted in 1927 and it includes Outlot
A, KIPP ADDITION, platted in 2001. The property is currently zoned R-1.
The nature of this application is to request Preliminary and Final Plat approval tosplit their
property into two lots: Lot 1 on the south consisting of 30,936 square feet which would contain
their existing house; and Lot 2 on the north consisting of 100,632 square feet on which a new
single family home could be built in the future, by a future buyer.
The property has about 240 feet of frontage on the shoreline of Roger’s Lake. There is a wetland
running along the shoreline of Roger’s Lake as well as a separate wetland in the northeast corner
of the property. There is lawn area around the existing house and numerous mature trees on the
proposed South Parcel. The proposed North Parcel also contains numerous mature trees along
with scrub trees and underbrush.
Kipp Addition lies west of the site andwas platted in 2001. The remainder of Lot 16 lies to their
east. Their property has 283 feet of frontage on Wagon Wheel Trail and also has 455 feet of
frontage on Wagon Wheel Court.
Preliminary and Final Plat Request
The two parcels resulting from this requested plat meet all zoning code requirements for single
family parcels in the R-1 district.
On Lot 1, containing the existing house, we have shown the required building setbacks. The
current house meets all of those setbacks. This lot will be a 30,936square foot parcel, over twice
the required 15,000 square foot minimum in the R-1 district.All improvements on Lot 1 will
remain as they have been for decades. The owners are planning an extensive remodel of this
house in the near future which will be almost entirely interior remodeling. The house on Lot 1is
currently served by public sewer and water in Wagon Wheel Trail. When the proposed remodel
is undertaken the existing home will be connected to sewer and water in Wagon Wheel Court, as
shown conceptually on the Concept Utility and Grading Plan in this submittal packet. At that
time the current sewer and water services will be cut and plugged and left for the possible use of
a house built on Lot 2 sometime in the future. That future home on Lot 2could, as an alternative,
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 13
Boyd Ratchye & Susan LightNovember 6, 2015
Preliminary & Final Plat RequestPage 2of 2
be connected to utilities in Wagon Wheel Court – whatever the landowner at that time decides, in
conjunction with the City of Mendota Heights public works department. A future owner of Lot 2
would also have the choice of which street to access with their driveway - either construct a
driveway entrance onto Wagon Wheel Trail or onto Wagon Wheel Court.
Lot 2 is being proposed as a site for a future home. We have shown Lot 2with a conceptual
house pad. In discussions with city staff it was confirmed that the new line between Lots 1 and 2
would be considered a side lot line and that the Roger’s Lake shoreline would be the rear lines.
Taking the average depth of Lot 2 (from Wagon Wheel Trail to the shoreline) and dividing that
by 5 (20%) we get an approximate rear setback from the lake of 89 feet. The building setback
lines (BSBL) are shown on the Preliminary Plat. It can be seen that a home could be built in
many places on Lot 2d and meet all setback and parcel requirements.
We have shown the Wetland District lines (100 feet from the delineated wetlands) on the map as
well as the Non Disturb Wetland Buffer (25 feet from the delineated wetlands). Wehave also
shown the slopes on Lot 2 that exceed 25% because these slopes, per ordinance, cannot be built
on. The theoretical, conceptual house pad shown on the plan avoids those 25% slopes with its
construction and grading. The house pad shown lies within the 100 foot Wetland District. We
understand, based upon staff direction and from past experience designing developments in
Mendota Heights, that homes can be built within the 100 foot Wetland District.We have also
designed a concept grading plan for this potential pad which demonstrates that a house could be
built in this general location meeting all requirements for floor elevation, grades, wetland
buffers, etc. We understand that this plan will not be construed as limiting future construction to
the location or design as it is shown on the plan. We recognize that future construction and/or
grading within the 100 foot wetland district would require applying for a Wetlands District
Permit at that time. We believe the plan shows that a house consistent with the neighborhood
could be constructed in many places on Lot 2and meet all setbacks. The pad location shown also
demonstrates that a house in that position would have a lowest floor elevation more than 3 feet
above the Highest Known Elevation of Rogers Lake (as required).
We think it is also clear that this Preliminary and Final Platrequest,creating one new lot, is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for Mendota Heights. This area is guided, in the 2030
Comprehensive Plan, for Low Density Residential use. This use calls for a density of 2.9 units
per acre. On this site, at 3.01 acresthat density couldresult in almost 9 units. We are only
requesting two units (one new lot) in this application. The creation of two single family home
lots on this site is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Considering all of the above factors we feel it is clear that thisrequest for Preliminary and Final
Plat approval is well supported by the current zoning code and comprehensive plan. Thank you
for your consideration of this request.
Paul McGinley, PLS, for:
Boyd Ratchye and Susan Light
2270 Wagon Wheel Court
Mendota Heights, MN 55120; 651-686-5238
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 14
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 15
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 16
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 17
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 18
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 19
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 20
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 21
PRELIMINARY PLAT GENERAL NOTES
W:\\2001\\01790\\CADD DATA\\SURVEY\\S01790-MasterPlotted: 11 /09 / 2015 8:48 AM
Plotted: 11 /09 / 2015 8:58 AM
W:\\2001\\01790\\CADD DATA\\CIVIL\\_dwg Sheet Files\\C3-1
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 26
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 27
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 28
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/dcgis4/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/...112201
C//5
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 29
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/dcgis4/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/...112201
C//5
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 30
5b
DATE:
November 24, 2015
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT:
Planning Case 2015-40
Lot Line Adjustmentand Variance
APPLICANT:
Alan and Gloria Weinblatt/Brian and Jamie Nordin
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
754 and 750 Upper Colonial Drive
ZONING/GUIDED:
R-1 One-Family Residential/LR-Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE:
January 1, 2016 (60 days)
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The property owners of both parcels are seeking to adjust the interior property boundary line to resolve an
existing encroachment. The request requires City Council approval before being recorded byDakota
County. In addition, the proposed request requires a variance from the minimum lot width standard.
BACKGROUND
The properties wereplatted as Lots 9 and 10, Block 7 of the Cherry Hill Addition Plat in 1960. The existing
dwelling located on Lot 9 (Weinblatt/754 Upper Colonial Drive) encroaches across the interior property
boundary line onto Lot 10 (Nordin/750 Upper Colonial Drive). In order to resolve the encroachment, both
parties have agreed to adjust the interior property boundary line as shown in the attached survey.
Lot 9 does not currently meet the R-1 District’s required side yard setback or lot width standards and would
be brought into conformance as a result of the proposed adjustment. However,as a result the proposed
adjustment, Lot 10’s existing width would become non-conforming and requires a variance. As part of a
separate application to be considered on its own merits,the city is requesting a lot split and variances to
convey a portion of adjacent city-owned property containing existing encroachments to the owners of Lot
10. If approved and recorded accordingly, Lot 10 would be brought into compliance with theapplicable
zoning standards.
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
Both parcels are guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.The lot line
adjustment and variance requests are consistent with the continued single-family residential use of both
properties.
Staff Report: Planning Case 2015-40 Page 1
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 31
Lot Split
Title 11-3-2 of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the
resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district.As shown in the table
below based on the attached survey, the proposed lot line adjustment would resolve the existing non-
conformities on Lot 9 and create a non-conforming lot width on Lot 10:
Lot 9Lot 10
R-1 Zoning District
754 Upper Colonial750Upper Colonial
StandardExistingProposedExistingProposed
Lot Area15,000 SF16,214 SF17,724 SF17,887 SF16,377 SF
Lot Width 1 100 ft.98.58ft.113.61 ft.110.7 ft.95.67ft.
10 ft. (min.)
Side YardSetback 2 0 ft.10 ft. 24 ft. 11.48ft.
15 ft. (max.)
1
The maximum horizontal distance between the side lot lines of a lot measured within the first thirty feet (30') of the
lot depth
2 10' on each side or 1/of the height of the structure contiguous to the side yard, whichever is greater, to a maximum
2
of 15'
Based on the height of the existing dwellings contiguous to each side yardshown on the survey, the required
minimum setback is 10 feet on both parcels. As previously noted, the lot width non-conformity being
created on Lot 10 is proposed to be brought into conformance by consideration of a separate case by the
City.
Variance
When considering a variance for the proposed lot line adjustment request, 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 request to adjust an interior property boundary line to address an existing encroachment is reasonable
and meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. The proposed lot line
adjustment resolves the lot width and side yard setback non-conformities on Lot 9. In order to meet the
side yard setback standards based on the height and location of the existing dwellings, the width ofLot 10
is being reduced to less than the 100-foot standard. As a result, the existing non-conforming lot width is
essentially transferred from Lot 9 to Lot 10.
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.
It is assumed that long-standing surveying mistakes caused the construction of dwellings which encroach
into the required side yard setbacks or over the property boundary lineson several properties in the
immediate area. In order to resolve the situation in this caseand satisfy additional conditions for the sale
of Lot 9, the most reasonable solutionis adjustment of the interior property boundary line in conformance
with the required side yard setback standardas agreed upon by the affected property owners.Other
alternatives to attain compliance that would require removal of portions of the dwelling on Lot 9 or
requiring the owners of Lot 10 to acquire additional property are not practical.
Based on the existing conditions, the applicants have established a practical difficulty in adjusting the
interior property boundary line in compliance with the applicable zoning standards. Furthermore, the
existing condition of both propertiesis a unique circumstance not created by theapplicants.
Staff Report: Planning Case 2015-40 Page 2
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 32
3.The request will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Practically speaking, approval of the requests would result in the adjustment of lines on a map. Therefore,
no changes will be visible to either property and no negative impacts are anticipated to the character of the
neighborhood.
ALTERNATIVES
1.Recommend approval of the lot line adjustmentand variance requests, based on the attached
findings of fact, with conditions.
OR
2.Recommend denial of the lot line adjustmentand variance requests, based on the findings of fact
that the proposed adjustmentis not consistent with theCity Codeor Comprehensive Planand will
have a negative impact on surrounding properties.
OR
3.Table the requests.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the lot line adjustment and variance requests based on the attached findings
of fact (Alternative 1), with the condition that the appropriate documents are recordedwith Dakota County.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1.Site map
2.Site photos
3.Planning applications, including supporting materials
Staff Report: Planning Case 2015-40 Page 3
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 33
FINDINGS OF FACT FORAPPROVAL
Lot Line Adjustment and Variance
754and 750 Upper Colonial Drive
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1.The proposed lot line adjustment and variance requests meet the purpose and intent of the City
Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2.The purpose of the requests are to resolve an existing encroachment over the interior property
boundary line.
3.In order to comply with the required minimum side yard setback standards based on the existing
conditions, the non-conforming lot width will be transferred from Lot 9 to Lot 10.
4.The existing conditions were not created by the current property ownersand create apractical
difficulty in adjusting the interior property boundary line in compliance with the lot width standard
in order to address the non-conformities created by the encroachment.
5.Other alternatives to attain compliance that would require removal of portions of the dwelling or
acquisition of additional property not owned by the applicants are not practical.
6.Approval of the requests will have no visible impact on either property and will not negatively
impact the character of the neighborhood.
Staff Report: Planning Case 2015-40 Page 4
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 34
Planning Case 2015-40
City of
754 and 750 Upper Colonial Drive
Mendota
040
Heights
Date: 11/19/2015
SCALE IN FEET
1480
751
757
763
750
754
760
Aerometrics
GIS Map Disclaimer:
This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,
survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained
in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors
or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 35
Planning Case 2015-40 Site Photo: 754 and 750 Upper Colonial Drive
754 and 750 Upper Colonial Drive
Source: Staff (11.18.15)
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 36
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 37
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 38
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 39
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 40
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 41
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 42
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 43
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/dcgis4/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/...112201
C//5
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 44
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/dcgis4/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/...112201
C//5
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 45
5c
DATE:
November 24, 2015
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT:
Planning Case 2015-41
Subdivision Request for Lot Split and Variances
APPLICANT:
City of Mendota Heights
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
N/A – Wentworth Park
ZONING/GUIDED:
R-1 One-Family Residential/P-Parks
ACTION DEADLINE:
N/A
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The City is seeking approval to subdividea portion of Wentworth Park for purchase by anadjacent private
property owner. The request requires City Council approval before being recorded byDakota County. In
addition, variances arenecessaryto create a parcelthat is non-conforming with the required minimum lot
area,width,and driveway setback standards in the applicable zoning district.
BACKGROUND
The property owners of 750 Upper Colonial Drive have requested to acquire a portion of city-owned
property immediately adjacent to theireastern property boundary line that is currently part of Wentworth
Park.Theareain-question includes existing driveway, landscaping, and fencing encroachments onto city
property and would be combined and dissolved into the existing parcel after being purchasedand recorded.
The dwelling was constructed in 1967, and to the best of staff’s knowledge, the existing conditions have
existed for several decades.
The portion of Wentworth Park in this area was platted as Outlots A and B of the Cherry Hill Addition Plat
in 1960. Itis separated from the main area ofthe park off Wentworth Avenue andincludes an off-street
trail connection to Upper Colonial Drive, tennis courts, and wetlands. The area in-question does not contain
any public improvements.
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
The city-owned property is guided as P-Parks and 750 Upper Colonial Drive is guided LR-Low Density
Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.The request to split a portion of city-owned property for
purposes of combination with an existingsingle-familyresidential parcel already using the area in-question,
isconsistent with the continued use of both parcels as park and low density residentialuses.If approved,
the new property boundary lines would be updated accordingly on the Future Land UseMap.
StaffReport: Planning Case 2015-41 Page 1
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 46
Lot Split
Title 11-3-2 of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the
resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district.As shown in the table
below based on the attached survey, the proposed lot split would temporarily create non-conformities with
the R-1 District’sminimum lot area,lot width, and driveway setbackstandards:
R-1 Zoning Proposed City-owned 750 Upper
District ParcelParcelColonial Drive
StandardExistingProposedExistingProposedExistingProposed
Lot Area15,000 SFN/A4,401 SF85,603 SF81,202 SF17,887 SF22,228 SF
Lot Width 1 100 ft.N/A29.11ft.208ft.179ft.110.7ft.139.81ft.
Side Yard10 ft. (min.)
N/AN/AN/AN/A34 ft.
9 ft.
2
Setback15 ft. (max.)
Driveway 0 ft.(west)
5 ft. N/A0 ft.N/A0 ft.15 ft.
Setback15 ft.(east)
1 The maximum horizontal distance between the side lot lines of a lot measured within the first thirty feet (30') of the
lot depth
21
10' on each side or /of the height of the structure contiguous to the side yard, whichever is greater, to a maximum
2
of 15'
In order to ensure the non-conformities created by the proposed lot split are eliminated, a condition of
approval is included requiring the private property owner to combine and dissolve the newly-created parcel.
Variance
When considering variances for the proposed subdivision request, 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 request to subdivide a portion of city-owned property containing pre-existing encroachments in order
to be combined and dissolvedinto the adjacent private property is a reasonable use of both properties.
While the request will create several temporary non-conformities, the end result essentially formalizes the
existing conditions and will bring both properties into compliance with the applicable zoning standards.
2.The applicant establishes there are practical difficulties with complying with the ordinance due to
circumstancesthat are unique to the propertywhich are not created by the applicant or based on
economic considerations.
The current owners of 750 Upper Colonial Drive purchased the property with the aforementioned non-
conformities resulting from the existing encroachments. In order to address the issues, it was determined
that a purchase of the property in-question from the City was the best alternative. A proposed lot split
meeting all the applicable zoning standards would create an oversized parcel that is not necessary in order
to address the existing non-conformities on both properties. While the proposed lot split will create
temporary non-conformities, the intent is not to create a new buildable parcel.
Based on the existing conditions, a practical difficulty insubdividing the property in-question in order to
combine and dissolve into the adjacent private property compliant with the applicable zoning standards is
demonstrated.Furthermore, the existing conditionis a unique circumstance not created by thecurrent
private property owners.
3.The request will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
The purpose of the requests are to formalize the existing conditions and address the non-conformities
StaffReport: Planning Case 2015-41 Page 2
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 47
created by the encroachments onto city-owned property. The private property owner already uses and
maintains the property in-question, therefore no negative impacts are anticipated to the park or the character
of the neighborhood.
ALTERNATIVES
1.Recommend approval of the subdivision and variance requests, based on the attached findings of
fact, with conditions.
OR
2.Recommend denial of the subdivision and variance requests, based on the findings of fact that the
proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City Code or Comprehensive Planand will have a
negative impact on surrounding properties.
OR
3.Table the requests.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the subdivision and variance requests based on the attached findings of fact
(Alternative 1), with the following conditions:
1.A purchase agreement is entered into between the City and the private property owner to be
approved by the City Council prior to the lot split being recorded by Dakota County.
2.Upon closing on the sale of the property in-question, the private property owner is required to
combine and dissolve the property into 750 Upper Colonial Drive.
3.All costs related to the sale and recording of the required documents are paid for by the private
property owner.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1.Site map
2.Site photos
3.Planning applications, including supporting materials
StaffReport: Planning Case 2015-41 Page 3
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 48
FINDINGS OF FACT FORAPPROVAL
Subdivision Request forLot Split and Variances
City-owned Property (portion of Wentworth Park)
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1.The proposed subdivision request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
2.The purpose of the requests are to formalize the existing conditions and address the non-
conformities created by the encroachments onto city-owned property.
3.The temporary non-conformities created as a result of the requests will be eliminated once the
property in-question is combined and dissolved by the private property owners.
4.The existing conditions were not created by the current privateproperty owners and create a
practical difficulty in subdividing a reasonable amount of land in compliance with the applicable
Code requirements.
5.Approval of the requests will not negatively impact the park or the character of the neighborhood.
StaffReport: Planning Case 2015-41 Page 4
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 49
Planning Case 2015-41
City of
750 Upper Colonial Drive
Mendota
Wentworth Park
030
Heights
Date: 11/19/2015
SCALE IN FEET
751
Proposed Acquisition
750
754
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.
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 50
Planning Case 2015-41 Site Photos: Wentworth Park/750 Upper Colonial Drive
Proposed area to be split
Source: Staff (11.18.15)
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 51
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 52
VARIANCE CHECKLIST/QUESTIONNAIRE
Office Use Only:
Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the
Planning Commission and/orCity Council only after all
2015-41
Case #:_____________________
required materials have been submitted. Application
submittal deadlines are available on the City’s website
CityofMendotaHeights
Applicant:____________________
Late or incomplete
or by contacting the City Planner.
N/A
applications be put on the agenda.
will not
Address:_____________________
A variance is a request to vary from theCity of Mendota Heights zoning standards. Under
Minnesota State Law, variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the
general purposes and intent of the zoning code and when consistent with the comprehensive
plan. Variances may be granted when the applicant establishes that there are practical
difficulties in complying with the zoning standards. “Practical difficulties,” in regards to variance
requests, has three parts: (1) the proposed use of the property is a reasonable; (2)unique
circumstances exist on the property which arenot created by the landowner; and (3) the
variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Please consider
these requirements carefully before requesting a variance.
APPLICATIONREQUIREMENTS:
Dated original of all the materials checked must be submitted by the end of the business day
the Monday before the first Tuesday of the month.
If all original materials are 11 x 17 or smaller – only submit originals.
If materials are largerthan 11 x 17, please provide 24copies, folded to 8 ½ x 11.
Any drawing in color – must submit 24copies.
The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete:
Fee, as included in Fee Schedule (check payable to City of Mendota Heights)
NOTE: Planning Application fees donot cover building permit fees, utilities, or other fees
which may be required for you to complete your project.
Completed Application Form (only original needs tobe submitted).
Sketch plan showing all pertinent dimensions, and including the location of any easements
having an influence upon the variance request.
Letter of Intent.
Please complete the attached questions regarding your request.
Variance Checklist/Questionnaire (modified 12/6/2013) Page 1 of 3
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 53
Please answer the following questions as they relate to the variance request.
You may fill in this form or create your own.
1.In your opinion, does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner?
YESNO
Why or why not?
Seeattachedstaffreport.
2.Please describe the circumstances unique to the property (not created by you).
Seeattachedstaffreport.
3.In your opinion, will the variance, if granted, fit with the character of the
neighborhood?
YESNO
Why or why not?
Seeattachedstaffreport.
The Planning Commission must make an affirmative finding on all of thecriteria listed
above in order to grant a variance. The applicant for a variance has the burden of proof to
show that all of the criteria listed above have been satisfied.
Variance Checklist/Questionnaire (modified 12/6/2013) Page 2 of 3
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 54
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 55
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 56
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 57
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/dcgis4/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/...112201
C//5
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 58
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/dcgis4/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/...112201
C//5
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 59
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/dcgis4/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/...112201
C//5
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 60
5d
DATE:
November 24, 2015
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT:
Planning Case 2015-42
Subdivision Request for Lot Split and Variance
APPLICANT:
Mark Gergen
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
789 Ridge Place
ZONING/GUIDED:
R-1 One-Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE:
January 8, 2016 (60 days)
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant, on behalf of the property owner, is seeking approval to subdivide the subject parcel located
at 789 Ridge Place. The request requires City Council approval before being recorded by Dakota County.
In addition, a variance is required to disturb slopes greater than 25% as part of grading and construction
activitiesfor new single-family dwellings.
BACKGROUND
The subject parcelis 34,841square feet (0.8 acres)and contains an existing single-family residential
dwelling and attached garage accessing Wachtler Avenue. If the requests are approved,the existing
dwelling would be demolished and two new single-family dwellings would be constructed. The new
parcels would be 19,823 square feet and 15,018 square feet. According to the applicant, the subject parcel
would be re-graded to create two flat building sites. If approved by the Council, the proposed locationand
design of the new dwellings will be reviewed as part of the building permit process and must be compliant
with all applicable City Code standards.
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
The subject parcel is guided LR Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant’s
request to subdivide the subject parcel into two parcels, consisting of approximately 0.46 acresand 0.34
acres, isconsistent withsingle-family residential use and the maximum density of 2.9 units per acre.
Lot Split
Title 11-3-2 of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the
resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district.
Staff Report: Planning Case 2015-42 Page 1
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 61
Lot Size/Width
As shown in the table below based on the attached surveys, the proposed parcels are compliant with the
R-1 District’slot area and width standards:
SubjectParcelParcel A
StandardParcel B
(corner lot)(corner lot)
Lot Area15,000 SF34,841SF19,823 SF15,018 SF
168.1 ft.168.1 ft.
Lot Width 1 100 ft. 113 ft.
234.6ft.121.6ft.
1
The maximum horizontal distance between the side lot lines of a lot measured within
the first thirty feet (30') of the lot depth
Setbacks
The subjectparcel is acorner lot, therefore Parcel Awould remain as such. Title 12-1D-4-D-3 of the Code
requires the following:
In the case of a building to be erected or extended on a corner lot, the minimum front yard depth
1
shall be increased by an amount not less than one-half (/) the depth in excess of thirty feet (30')
2
of the front yard of the nearest building.
Parcel B would be situated between Parcel A and 781 Ridge Placeto the east.Title 12-1D-4-D-2 of the
Code requires the following:
Whenever buildings have been built on one side of the street between two (2) intersections, no
building shall hereafter be erected to extend closer toward the street than the average of the
required district setback and average setback of the adjoining principal structures.
However, according to Title 12-1D-4-D-4 of the Code,the following standard overrides the other standards:
Subsections D2 and D3 of this section shall not be applied so as to require a front yard in excess
1
of one-third (/) of the average depth of the lot.
3
Based on the corner lot setback standard, the minimum front yard setbackfor Parcel A fronting Wachtler
Avenue would be 75 feet. If frontingRidge Place, based on the corner lot setback standard, theminimum
front yard setback would be 65 feet.However, applying the “1/3 Rule”aboveallows for minimum front
yard setbacks of 41.8 feet fronting Wachtler Avenue and 53.5 feet fronting Ridge Place for Parcel A.
The minimum front yard setback for Parcel B will ultimately be based on the construction timeline and
location of the dwelling on Parcel A. However, the required minimum front yard setback cannot exceed
44.3 feet based on the “1/3 Rule.”
Title 12-1B-2 of the Code defines the front lot line as follows:
That boundary of a lot which abuts an existing or dedicated public street and, in the case of a
corner lot, the front lot line shall be designated by the owner, subject to the approval by the code
enforcement officer. Appeals to the determination of the code enforcement officer may be filed with
the zoning board of appeals in accordance with section 12-1L-3of this chapter.
The existing dwelling on the subject parcel has an 88-foot front yard setback from Wachtler Avenue, while
the adjacent dwelling to the north(1940 Wachtler Avenue) has a 120-foot setback. If Parcel A were to
frontWachtler Avenue, the required minimum setback would be 41.5 feet less than theexisting dwelling
on the subject parcel and 78 feet less than that of the adjacent dwelling.As a result, the drastic difference
in potential minimum front yard setbacks is not recommended.
Staff Report: Planning Case 2015-42 Page 2
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 62
Parcel B, the adjacent dwelling to the east(781 Ridge Place), and all three dwellings across the street front
onto Ridge Place. Based on the existing conditions,and in an effort to maintain a consistent frontagein
character with the neighborhood, staff is recommending that Ridge Place be considered Parcel A’s front
yard with driveway access from either street.
As shown in the following table and depicted in the attached surveys, dwellings constructed on the newly-
created parcels are subject to conformance with the required minimum setbacks:
Parcel A: Parcel A:Parcel B:
Fronting WachtlerFronting Ridge PlaceFronting Ridge Place
Front Yard 1 41.8ft.53.5ft.44.3ft.
30 ft. (south)30 ft. (west)
2
Side Yard10-15 ft.
10-15 ft. (north)10-15 ft. (east)
Rear Yard 3 30 ft.32.1ft.30 ft.
1
Parcel A: In the case of a building to be erected or extended on a corner lot, the minimum front yard depth shall be
1/) the depth in excess of thirty feet (30') of the front yard of the
increased by an amount not less than one-half (
2
nearest building.
Parcel B: Whenever buildings have been built on one side of the street between two (2) intersections, no building
shall hereafter be erected to extend closer toward the street than the average of the required district setback and
average setback of the adjoining principal structures.
Applicable Setback: Subsections D2 and D3 of this section shall not be applied so as to require a front yard in excess
1
of one-third (/) of the average depth of the lot.
3
21
10' on each side or /of the height of the structure contiguous to the side yard, whichever is greater,
2
to a maximum of 15’. A side yard abutting a street shall not be less than thirty feet (30') in width.
3
30' or 20% of the average lot depth, whichever is greater.
Based on the applicable minimum setback standards, there appears to be adequate buildable area for two
new single-family dwellings on both proposed parcels. As previously noted, the final setbacks will be
determined and verified as part of the building permit review process.
Variance
According to Title 11-3-8-A of the City Code:
Slope Limitations: Subdivision design shall be consistent with limitations presented by steep slopes.
Subdivisions shall be designed so that no construction or grading will be conducted on slopes
steeper than twenty five percent (25%) in grade.
Preservation of the natural topography and bluffs in Mendota Heights is most likely the intent of this
standard. As shown on the surveys, Parcel A and B both contain slopes greater than 25% thatwould be
disturbed by construction and grading for the new dwellings; therefore a variance is required to approve the
lot split request in this case.
When considering a variance for the proposed construction and grading activities, the City is required to
find that:
1.The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive
plan and the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner.
The applicant’s request to subdivide the subject parcel and constructtwo new single-family dwellings are
a reasonable use of the propertyand meetthe general purpose and intentof the City Code and
Comprehensive Plan.Besides the impacted slopes, the requests areotherwisecompliant with the applicable
standards.
Staff Report: Planning Case 2015-42 Page 3
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 63
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.
Based on the survey information, the slopes over 25% are located in the front yard near the existing dwelling
and retaining wall. The greatest slopes are approximately 30%, which only occur over a 10-foot span
between the driveway and retaining wall.
The Engineering Department has reviewed the existing conditions and has noted the possibility that the
slopes in-question may be man-made, as they appear to be uniformly-graded and consistent across their
length. Although greater than 25%, the slopes appear to be less than the industry-standard maximum
allowable non-reinforced slope of 33%.At the time theCode was adopted, the industry-standard for
constructed slopes was a 25%maximum. The current standard is now 33% maximum, which would make
the slopes in-question compliant if the City were to consider following the current standard. In addition,
other contours on the subject parcel appear to have been undisturbed and the slopes in-question cutinto
them in an obvious manner.
Based on the existing conditions, the applicant has established a practical difficulty insubdividing the
subject parcel in order to construct twonew single-family dwellings in compliance with the applicable slope
disturbance standards. Furthermore, the existing conditionis a unique circumstance not created by the
applicant.
3.The request will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
The Bunker Hills neighborhood has experienced several lot splits and subsequent tear-downs/rebuilds in
recent years.As shown in the attached map, lot sizes and setbacks vary for the surrounding properties along
Wachtler Avenue and Ridge Place. Due to the lack of consistent character of the immediate neighborhood,
staff feels the construction of two new single-family dwellings on the newly-created parcelsfronting Ridge
Placein compliance with the applicable R-1 District standardswill not have a negative impact.
The existing topography will be substantially-altered to create building pads for the new dwellings. As a
result, further review of grading and drainage plans as part of the building permit application process are
required to ensure there are no negative impacts to surrounding properties.
ALTERNATIVES
1.Recommend approval of the subdivision and variance requests, based on theattached findings of
fact, with conditions.
OR
2.Recommend denial of the subdivision and variance requests, based on the findings of fact that the
proposed subdivision and associated construction and grading activities are not consistent with the
City Code or Comprehensive Plan and will have a negative impact on surrounding properties.
OR
3.Table the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the subdivision and variance requests based on the attached findings of fact
(Alternative 1), with the following conditions:
1.Parcel A shall front Ridge Place and be subject to the applicable setback standards.
Staff Report: Planning Case 2015-42 Page 4
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 64
2.A permit is obtained and the existing single family dwelling is demolishedprior to the subdivision
being recorded by Dakota County.
3.Park dedication fee in the amount of $2,700, in lieu of land, is collected after City Council approval
and before being recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any additional permits by the City.
4.Street reconstruction assessment feein the amount of $3,900, as part of Project 9514/Improvement
96-3, is collected after City Council approval and before being recorded by Dakota County or
issuance of any additional permits by the City.
5.Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of a building
permit.
6.The applicant shall dedicate the following drainage and utilityeasements on bothparcels to be
denoted on the Certificate of Survey submitted to Dakota County: 10-foot wide along the front
property lines and 5-foot wide along the side and rear property lines.
7.The applicant shall submit landscape plans, subject to review and approval by the Planning
Department as part of any building permit application.
8.The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and dimensioned site plans with associated
easements, subject to review and approval by the Engineering Departmentas part of any building
permit application.
9.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.
10.Future constructionon the newly-created parcels will be compliant with all applicable City Code
provisions.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1.Site map
2.Lot size/setback map
3.Site photos
4.Planning applications, including supporting materials
Staff Report: Planning Case 2015-42 Page 5
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 65
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Subdivision Request fora Lot Split and Variance
789 Ridge Place
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1.The proposed subdivision request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and isconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
2.Front yards for both proposed parcels oriented towards Ridge Place will maintain consistent
frontage compared to the dwellings to the east and across the street.
3.The impacted slopes over 25% appear to be man-made as part of construction of the existing
dwelling and associated landscaping.
4.The impacted slopes over 25% are less than the current 33% maximum industry-standard for
constructed slopes and do not span a large linear area.
Staff Report: Planning Case 2015-42 Page 6
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 66
Planning Case 2015-42
City of
789 Ridge Place
Mendota
060
Heights
11/19/2015
SCALE IN FEET
770
1920
764
1919
1940
781
789
765
23
2
15
9
28
9
804
R
ID
G
E
P
L
13
0
19
2
26
0
772
800
790
25
0
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.
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 67
Wachtler/Ridge Place
City of
Lot Size and FY setbacks
Mendota
0150
Heights
11/19/2015
SCALE IN FEET
8091882
776
812
784
1888
780
792
1897
1801
45,080 SF
23,476 SF
65 ft.
1894
38 ft.
20,198 SF
35 ft.
755
1909
1900
825
782
43,504 SF
1910
70 ft.
16,789 SF
828
770
37 ft.
750
764
1919
822
1920
41,837 SF
1933
36,574 SF
18 ft.
53 ft.
816
35,553 SF
120 ft.
1937
63,269 SF
1940
100 ft.
781
1941
810
789
34,799 SF
765
30,192 SF
85 ft.
65 ft.
1944
R
ID
G
E
P
L
804
772
209,626 SF
100 ft.
800790
33,880 SF
53,963 SF
1960
15 ft.
21,722 SF
30 ft.
30 ft.
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.
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 68
Planning Case 2015-42 Site Photos: 789 Ridge Place
Approximate area of slopes over 25%
Source: Staff (11.18.15)
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 69
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 70
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 71
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 72
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 73
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 74
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 75
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 76
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 77
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 78
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 79
5e
Item No. 2015-43
MEMORANDUM
Date:November 24, 2015
To: Mendota Heights Planning Commission
From:Phil Carlson, AICP, Consulting Planner
RE:Planning Case 2015-43:Swenson ComprehensivePlan Amendment
Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to reguide future land use from
“Business” to a residential use at a higher density than the existing “High Density
Residential” designation
Action: Approve and determine appropriate land use designation
Deadline: Jan. 8, 2016(60 days from complete application submittal)
SITE CONTEXT
Existing ZoningB-3 General Business
Lot Area120,870 sf (2.77 acres)
Designated Future Land UseBusiness
Site Description and Present Use
The subject site is 2.77 acres in size. The site is bounded by Highways 13 and 55 to the west,
Acacia Boulevard to the north, forested shoreland along Lemay Lake to the east, and the
Mendota Motel immediately south. The site was formerly operated as the Larson Garden Center,
which is now closed. The site is generally flat along its western border, with slopes increasing
steeply moving east toward Lemay Lake. The site is visually screened from the lake and from
homes north of Lemay Lake Road by thick tree cover.
Surrounding Properties and Neighborhood
The subject site is surrounded by predominantly residential land uses. The Augusta Shores
development northeast of the site is guided as Low Density Residential and comprises 23
duplexes (46units) zoned R1One Family Residential.South of the site is the Mendota Motel, a
one-story building, the only structure within the immediate vicinity of the site, also zoned B-3 and
guided Business.South of the motelthe land use is guided Low Density Residential and zoned R1.
All other land uses are separated from the site by a highway or Lemay Lake Road.
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 80
Mendota Heights
Planning Commission
Item 2015-43 SwensonComprehensive Plan AmendmentNovember 24, 2015 2
West of Highways 55 and 13, land use is primarily guided Industrial,with the exception being land
guided Nature Preserve or Cemetery. An industrial park, the Acacia Park Cemetery, and the
Pilot Knob Preservation Site are the dominant land uses that operate immediately west of the
site.
Project Description
The applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan amendment to change the City’s 2030 Land
Use Plan guidance from“Business” to a residential categorythat would allow construction of
multi-family housing on the siteat a density of 23 units per acre. The applicant proposes to
develop 64 luxury apartments housed in one three-story building with a 23,000 sf ground floor
footprint. In total, 1.2 acres would be developed (building and surface parking lot) and 1.57
acres would be greenspace. The applicant proposes that the apartment building would
employ one full time management staff and one part time maintenance staff.
ANALYSIS
Staff has analyzed this application to amend the Comprehensive Plan’s designationfrom
Business to High Density Residential according to the information required in Section 12-1L-
9.D.2.dof the Code:
1.An explanation of the character of the proposed useof the property.
According to the applicant, the garden centercurrently is in a state of ill repair and could
not be easily repurposed for a similar facility. The applicant also states that the site will need
extensive environmental clean-up and demolition in order to make it useable for any future
purpose.
Potential for future redevelopment of the site as a business use is questionable, given itspoor
access to and from the major highways fronting the site. Although the site is visible from both
Highways 55 and 13, it can only be accessed from Highway 13. Acacia Boulevard, which
intersects with Highway 13 at the site’s northwest corner, dead ends at Acacia Park
Cemeteryand is unlikely to receive anythrough-traffic other than from residents of Augusta
Shoresas they accessHighway 13. Industrial land uses west of the site across Highways 13
and 55 limit the potential for business uses that thrive on proximity to heavy through traffic or
proximity to other businesses.
Residential land useis in characterwith other surrounding properties, all of which are
residential. The only exception is the Mendota Motel, a business use that functions in many
ways like a residential use. As noted, surrounding properties are low-density residential.
Surrounding trees and the Mendota Motel provide a physical and visual buffer between the
proposed high-density housing and nearby low-density residential housing.
2.A statement of proposed financing for development of the property.
The applicant states that the project would be privately appraised and financed through a
local bank.
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 81
Mendota Heights
Planning Commission
Item 2015-43 SwensonComprehensive Plan AmendmentNovember 24, 2015 3
3.A statement of the present ownership of all the property in question.
The applicant states that Michael Swenson has a purchase agreement to buy the Larson
Garden Center. The property is owned by Robert C. Larson.
4.A general indication of the expected schedule of development including progressive
phasing and time schedules, if applicable.
The applicant states that construction would begin in early summer 2016 if City approvals
were granted in winter 2015/2016.
5.The character and density of the dwelling units.
The applicant proposes a “modern apartment living environment” that includes units ranging
from studios to 2+ bedrooms as well as tenant amenities in communal space and
underground parking. The proposed density is 23 units per acre.
6.Estimated industrial acreage and projected employment.
No acreage would be industrial. The site would employ one on-site management staff and
one part-time maintenance staff.
7.Estimated square footage of commercial development.
No commercial development is proposed.
8.Estimated amount of developed open space.
Green space on site would be about 68,289 sf, or 1.57 acres. Impervious surface would be
52,581 sf, or 1.21acres. This includes the apartment building and a 65-stall surface parking lot.
It should be noted that the sketch plan assumes considerable grading and retaining walls to
work with the slopes on the east side of the site toward Lemay Lake. These details would be
reviewed in the specific project application at a later date and are not part of this request,
but ultimate design and engineering of the site may alter the number of units that can be
placed on the site.
FISCAL IMPACT OF PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
One of the changes that would occur with achange in land use and density would be the fiscal
impact for the City and other taxing authorities. A very rough estimate of these impacts is
summarized below. The current value is taken from County Assessor records; the value of the
proposed use is estimated very conservatively using the same assessed value per unit as the
Lexington Heights apartments.
The tables showthatthe proposed residential use is taxed at a lower rate than commercial
(1.25% vs. 2%), but the value of high density residential would still be almost ten times the value of
the garden centeruse.The city’s tax share would be reduced further due to fiscal disparities.
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 82
Mendota Heights
Planning Commission
Item 2015-43 SwensonComprehensive Plan AmendmentNovember 24, 2015 4
Current Commercial Use
$595,300
2015 EstimatedMarket Value
$11,900
Tax Income at 2% commercial tax rate
$4,050
City share of taxes= 34%
Proposed Multifamily Residential Use
$5,100,000
Estimated Market Value
$59,645
Tax income at 1.25% multifamily
residential tax rate
$20,280
City share of taxes= 34%
DENSITY
A key question in the applicant’s request is the density of the residential use. Currently, High
Density residential land use designation in the 2030 Land Use Plan allows a maximum density of
8.5 units per acre. This designation is low compared to many other suburban cities in the region.
The following table depicts guided densities in peer communities’ highest density land use
designations:
12+ units/acre
Eagan
24 units/acre
Richfield
12-30 units/acre
Edina
12+ units/acre
Roseville
12+ units/acre
New Brighton
9-14units/acre
Burnsville
10-15 units/acre
Woodbury
10.1-25 units/acre
Maplewood
The trend in this metro area and most other cities in the U.S. is towards higher density in
appropriate locations. Such sites would include good accessandcompatibility with surrounding
land uses. The subject sitemeets those criteria. The maximum densities in the table above – 25-30
units/acre – are typical of suburban maximum and can readily be achieved with three- or four-
story construction. These densities do not approach what the central cities see in high density
projects – 100 units/acre or more.
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 83
Mendota Heights
Planning Commission
Item 2015-43 SwensonComprehensive Plan AmendmentNovember 24, 2015 5
Furthermore, the existing commercial use is struggling at this location and replacing it with a
multi-family residential use would not need the same level ofaccess and visibility that a
commercial use needs. Multi-family uses typically need to be buffered from lower intensity
residential uses and this site makes that relatively easy.
If designating the site for at leastthe requested 23 units/acre is appropriate, the question then is
how this should be accomplished. There are two approaches:
1.Amend the High Density Residential land use category in the 2030 Land Use Plan from
a maximum density of 8.5 units per acre to 25 units per acre, then amend the 2030
Land Use Plan to reguide the subject site as “High Density Residential.”
Three other sites in the City are currently guided as “High Density
Impacts:
Residential” in the 2030 Land Use Plan. The sites with this land use category lie
between 1-35E and Lexington Ave(Lexington Heights and Hillside Gables); at the
corner of Marie Avenue and I-35E (Eagle Ridge); and north of I-494 and south of
Mendota Heights Road(Kensington). These properties are fully built out and unlikely
to redevelop in the near future. Shouldredevelopment occur, property owners may
request rezoning to allow residential construction that is compatible with the higher
densities guided by the amended 2030 Land Use Plan.
2.Amend the 2030 Land Use Plan to add a new land use category with a maximum
allowable density of 25 units per acre. This could be called “Urban Residential”, then
amend the 2030 Land Use Plan to reguide the subject site “Urban Residential.”
Since this is a new land use category, this will not have direct impact on any
Impacts:
other sites in the City. Future applicants seeking to redevelop parcels at densities
allowed in this category must seek amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to
reguide specificsites before seeking rezoning to allow development at this density.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that the Planning Commission reguide the Swenson site to allow multi-family
residential uses up to 25 units/acre, following one of the two options discussed above, based on
the attached findings of fact, with the following conditions:
1.The proposed comprehensive plan amendment is approved by the Metropolitan
Council.
2.The applicant submits the necessary complete applications in consideration of the
proposed concept development plan within twelve (12) months of receiving approval
from the Metropolitan Council.
3.If the deadline is not met, the current future land use designation for the subject parcels
may remain in place.
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 84
Mendota Heights
Planning Commission
Item 2015-43 SwensonComprehensive Plan AmendmentNovember 24, 2015 6
NEXT STEPS
Should the Planning Commission approve this request and it is also approved by the City Council
and Metropolitan Council, there are still several steps in the process before development of an
apartment project could proceed:
1.Creation of a zoning district to match the density approved in the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment. This could be done similar to the two options for the Plan
amendment:
a.Set a new density of 25 units/acre in the existing R-3 District, or
b.Create a new zoning district corresponding to the new
designation, with a maximum 25 units/acre.
2.If accomplished under option “a” above, the site would be zoned for 25 units/acre.
3.If accomplished under option “b” above, then the subject site would need to be
rezoned to this new district. The presumption is that the city would zone in
accordance with its Comprehensive Plan.
4.Site plan and building permit approval would still be needed to actually build the
project. Details of building materials, landscaping, parking and other issues would be
discussed and decided at this stage.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1.Site map
2.Site photos
3.Planning Application, including supporting materials
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 85
Mendota Heights
Planning Commission
Item 2015-43 SwensonComprehensive Plan AmendmentNovember 24, 2015 7
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
2160 Sibley Memorial Highway
The following Findings of Fact are made in support ofapproval of the proposed request:
1.Commercial development in this area, in compliance with the goals and policies of the
City’s , may not be viable due to access and visibility
2030 Comprehensive Plan
constraints.
2.Residential land usewould bein character with other surrounding properties and the
existing vegetation and adjacent commercial use can provide a physical and visual
buffer between the proposed high-density housing and nearby low-density residential
housing.
3.The proposed increased density is consistent with surrounding suburban communities and
would allow for adequate open space as part of the proposed development.
4.The increased density provides for construction of ahousing type that is lacking in the
City and would help to reach the forecasted population projections.
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 86
Planning Case 2015-43
2160 Sibley Memorial Highway
City of
Guided "B-Business"
Mendota
Proposed High Density Residential
080
Heights
Date: 11/19/2015
SCALE IN FEET
230
120
40
39
40
2160
2160
160
2160
2160
2.
120
2160
2160
160
40
39
40
120
2160
2160
2160
2160
120
40
2119
40
190
70
79
2180
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.
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 87
Planning Case 2015-43 Site Photos: 2160 Sibley Memorial Highway
Acacia Drive –entrance to Augusta Shores
Sibley Memorial Highway
Source: Staff (11.18.15)
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 88
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 89
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 90
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 91
WRITTEN STATEMENT
The character and density of dwelling units.
64 Apartment Dwelling Units
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 92
Schedule & Finance.
If approved by the city during the winter of 2015/16, the project would be privately appraised and
financed through a local bank in the spring and begin construction in the early summer of 2016.
Estimated amount of developed open space.
Green Space 68,289 S.F. or 1.57 Acres
Impervious Space 52,581 S.F. or 1.2 Acres (includes building and parking)
Total Acreage 2.77 Acres
LEXINGTON AVE S
PILOT KNOB RD
SIBLEY MEMORIAL HWY
DRIVE
GARAGE
DRIVE
GARAGE
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 96
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 97
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 98
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS4/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us...119201
///5
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 99
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS4/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us...119201
///5
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 100
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS4/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us...119201
///5
Print PreviewPage 1of 1
11/24/15 Planning Commission Packet - Page 101
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS4/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us...119201
///5