The URL can be used to link to this page

2016-01-26 Planning Comm Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Tj January 26, 2016 — 7:00 p.m. Mendota Heights City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Adopt Agenda 4. Approve November 24, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes 5. Public Hearings: a. Case No. 2016-02: Sean Doyle, SD Companies, LLC. Lot Split and Wetlands Permit at 755 Willow Lane. b. Case No. 2016-03: City of Mendota Heights. Proposed City Code Amendments concerning subdivision regulations. c. Case No. 2016-04: City of Mendota Heights. Proposed City Code Amendments concerning Industrial Zoning District uses. 6. 2016 Commission Meeting Calendar 7. 2015 Planning Department Summary 8. Verbal Review 9. Staff and Commission Announcements 10.Adjourn Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Hall at 651.452.1850 with requests. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES November 24, 2015 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 24, 2015 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Howard Roston, Michael Noonan, Doug Hennes, and Mary Magnuson. Those absent: Christine Costello and Ansis Viksnins. Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall and Public Works Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello. Approval ofAzenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of October 27, 2015 Minutes COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2015, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 (Costello, Viksnins) Hearin -s PLANNING CASE #2015-39 Boyd Ratchye and Susan Light Preliminary and Final Plat at 2270 Wagon Wheel Court City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicants requested Preliminary and Final Plat approval to dissolve an outlot and create an additional lot at 2270 Wagon Wheel Court. The applicants own approximately three acres of land adjacent to Rogers Lake. The property includes parts of lots 16 and 17 of Caroline's Lakeview Addition, as well as Outlot A of the Kipp Addition. Wagon Wheel Court was constructed in 2007 and was facilitated by the approval of the Kipp Addition Plat, which platted five single-family lots on the west side of Wagon Wheel Court and Outlot A on the east side of the road. The applicant's property containing the existing dwelling was not included in the Kipp Addition but Outlot A was. Since the properties are both now owned by the applicants, the properties had to be replatted in order to dissolve Outlot A. 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 2 47 The proposed Preliminary Plat would dissolve Oudot A and then would create Lots 1 and 2. Lot 1 48 would contain the existing dwelling and then there would be an additional lot for construction of 49 a new single-family dwelling. The applicants recently received building permit approval to 50 remodel the existing dwelling and they plan to sell the newly -created parcel to another party to 51 build on in the future. 52 53 As proposed, Lot 1 would be 30,936 square feet and Lot 2, containing a future single-family 54 dwelling, would be 100,632 square feet of land. Based on the R-1 district standards both parcels, 55 the existing dwelling, and potential pad are compliant with the City Code and the Comprehensive 56 Plan. 57 58 The applicant also included a concept grading and utility plan. The building pad on Lot 2 could 59 contain a dwelling with driveway and utility access to either Wagon Wheel Court or Wagon Wheel 60 Trail. The proposed plan is only required to show that the potential new dwelling could be 61 constructed that meets the applicable code requirements and is not meant to bind the future 62 property owner into a specific location or design. Based on the location of that potential building 63 pad on Lot 2, additional permitting would be necessary due to the proximity to the wetlands. Since 64 no construction is being proposed at this time, the condition of approval is requiring that the future 65 property owner be subject to those requirements at a future date. 66 67 The code also requires that subdivisions be designed so that no construction or grading would be 68 constructed in slopes that are steeper than 25%, of which there are some on Lot 2. A condition of 69 approval prohibiting construction or grading on those slopes for Lot 2 is included as a condition 70 of approval. 71 72 Planner Wall shared images of the parcels involved in this application. 73 74 Staff recommended approval of this request based on the findings of fact and with conditions. 75 76 Commissioners asked questions regarding the location of the Kipp Addition in relation to this plat 77 request, if Lot 2 could be split in the future and still meet code requirements, and the requirement 78 of wetlands permit when and if a dwelling is built on Lot 2. 79 80 The applicants, Boyd Ratchye and Susan Light, were present and available for questions from the 81 Commission. Paul McGinley of Loucks Associates, representing the applicants, provided further 82 information concerning the request and future plans. 83 84 Chair Field opened the public hearing. 85 86 Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public 87 hearing. 88 89 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO 90 CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 91 92 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 3 93 AYES:5 94 NAYS:0 95 ABSENT: 2 (Costello, Viksnins) 96 97 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO 98 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-39, PRELIMINARY AND FINAL 99 PLAT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 100 1. The proposed requests meet the purpose and intent of the City Code and are consistent with 101 the Comprehensive Plan. 102 2. The requests are necessary to dissolve an existing outlot so that future access to Wagon 103 Wheel Court is available to Lot 2. 104 3. The newly created parcels do not create any non -conformities with the existing dwelling 105 on Lot 1 and would allow for construction of a new single-family dwelling on Lot 2 in 106 compliance with the applicable zoning standards. 107 4. A wetlands permit for future construction on Lot 2 will require compliance with applicable 108 land disturbance and drainage standards to ensure there are no negative impacts to the 109 surrounding water bodies and environment. 110 AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 111 1. Park dedication fee in the amount of $2,700, in lieu of land, is collected after City Council 112 approval and before being recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any additional permits 113 by the City. 114 2. Depending on future access from Wagon Wheel Court or Wagon Wheel Trail, a Public 115 Utility/Improved Public Right -of -Way Fee is paid to the City prior to issuance of a building 116 permit for construction on Lot 2. 117 3. In the event that future utility connections are made to Wagon Wheel Court, utility 118 connection fees are paid to the City prior to issuance of a building permit for construction 119 on Lot 2. 120 4. The applicant shall dedicate the following drainage and utility easements on both parcels 121 to be denoted on the Final Plat submitted to Dakota County: 10 -foot wide along the front 122 property lines and 5 -foot wide along the side and rear property lines. 123 5. No grading or construction activity on Lot 2 will occur on slopes over 25%. 124 6. All grading and construction activity on Lot 2 will be in compliance with applicable 125 federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City's 126 Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 127 7. A wetlands permit is obtained prior to any applicable development activities on Lot 2. 128 129 AYES:5 130 NAYS:0 131 ABSENT: 2 (Costello, Viksnins) 132 133 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 1, 2015 134 meeting. 135 136 PLANNING CASE 92015-40 137 Alan and Gloria Weinblatt/Brian and Jamie Nordin 138 Lot Line Adjustment and Variance at 754 and 750 Upper Colonial Drive 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 4 139 City Planner Nolan Wall explained that applicants, the owners of 754 and 750 Upper Colonial 140 Drive, were seeking to adjust the interior property boundary line to resolve an encroachment issue. 141 The request requires City approval before being recorded and also requires a variance from the 142 minimum lot standard. 143 144 The properties were platted as Lots 9 and 10 of the Cherry Hill Addition in 1960 and the existing 145 dwelling on Lot 9 encroaches onto Lot 10. In order to resolve the issue and allow the sale of Lot 146 9, both property owners have agreed to adjust the interior property boundary line as proposed on 147 the survey. Lot 9 currently does not meet the R-1 district's required side yard setbacks or lot width 148 standards and would be brought into conformance as a result of the proposed adjustment. Based 149 on the height of the existing dwellings contiguous to both side yards, the required minimum 150 setback would be 10 feet on both parcels. Lot 10 will still meet those side yard setback standards. 151 152 As part of a separate application to be considered on its own merits, the City is then requesting a 153 lot split and variance to convey a portion of adjacent land to Lot 10, which would ultimately, if 154 approved, bring Lot 10 into conformance. 155 156 Planner Wall then reviewed the three standards of review for variance requests and how this 157 application meets those standards. 158 159 Planner Wall shared images of the parcels involved in this application. 160 161 Staff recommended approval of the lot line adjustment and variance requests based on the findings 162 of fact and with conditions. 163 164 Commissioners asked questions regarding the possibility of future encroachments if the adjacent 165 properties not in the application were to sell or change ownership. 166 167 Alan and Gloria Weinblatt, 754 Upper Colonial Drive were available to comment and answer 168 questions of the Commission. 169 170 Chair Field opened the public hearing. 171 172 Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public 173 hearing. 174 175 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 176 CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 177 178 AYES:5 179 NAYS:0 180 ABSENT: 2 (Costello, Viksnins) 181 182 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 183 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-40, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND 184 VARIANCE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 5 185 1. The proposed lot line adjustment and variance requests meet the purpose and intent of the 186 City Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 187 2. The purpose of the requests are to resolve an existing encroachment over the interior 188 property boundary line. 189 3. In order to comply with the required minimum side yard setback standards based on the 190 existing conditions, the non -conforming lot width will be transferred from Lot 9 to Lot 10. 191 4. The existing conditions were not created by the current property owners and create a 192 practical difficulty in adjusting the interior property boundary line in compliance with the 193 lot width standard in order to address the non -conformities created by the encroachment. 194 5. Other alternatives to attain compliance that would require removal of portions of the 195 dwelling or acquisition of additional property not owned by the applicants are not practical. 196 6. Approval of the requests will have no visible impact on either property and will not 197 negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. 198 AND WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTS ARE RECORDED 199 WITH DAKOTA COUNTY. 200 201 AYES:5 202 NAYS:0 203 ABSENT: 2 (Costello, Viksnins) 204 205 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 1, 2015 206 meeting. 207 208 PLANNING CASE 92015-41 209 City of Mendota Heights 210 Lot Split and Variances for portion of Wentworth Park 211 212 City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the City was seeking a lot split for a portion of property 213 within Wentworth Park and requires several variances from the R-1 district standards. He noted 214 that this is the property alluded to in Planning Case 2015-40. 215 216 The property owners at 750 Upper Colonial Drive have requested to acquire a 4,400 -square foot 217 portion of city -owned property, immediately adjacent to their eastern property boundary line that 218 is currently part of Wentworth Park. The area in -question does include existing driveway, 219 landscaping, and fencing encroachments onto City property and ultimately, if approved, would be 220 combined and dissolved into that existing parcel after being purchased and recorded. 221 222 The dwelling was constructed in 1967 and, to the best of staff's knowledge, the existing conditions 223 have been there for several decades. That portion of Wentworth Park was platted as Outlots A and 224 B of the Cherry Hill Addition Plat in 1960. It is separated from the main area of the park off of 225 Wentworth Avenue, includes an off-street connection to Upper Colonial Court, tennis courts, and 226 wetlands. However, the area in -question does not contain any public improvements. 227 228 Specific to the variances, the proposed lot split would temporarily create non -conformities with 229 the R-1 district's minimum lot area, lot width, and driveway setback standards. Planner Wall then 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 6 230 reviewed the three standards of review for variance requests and how this application meets those 231 standards. 232 233 Planner Wall shared images of the parcels involved in this application. 234 235 Staff recommended approval of the lot split and variance requests based on the findings of fact 236 and with conditions. 237 238 Commissioners asked questions regarding if there would still be sufficient access into Wentworth 239 Park. 240 241 The City of Mendota Heights is the applicant in this request; however, Brian Nordin, owner of 750 242 Upper Colonial Drive, was present and offered further background information on the property. 243 244 Chair Field opened the public hearing. 245 246 Ira Kipp, 2273 Wagon Wheel Court, asked for clarification that this is a reduction of a city -owned 247 park and the sale of that land by the City to a private party. Planner Wall replied in the affirmative. 248 Mr. Kipp then asked if that had ever happened before in this City, to which Planner Wall was 249 unable to answer, as he did not have that information. 250 251 Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. 252 253 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO 254 CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 255 256 AYES:5 257 NAYS:0 258 ABSENT: 2 (Costello, Viksnins) 259 260 COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 261 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-41, LOT SPLIT AND VARIANCES 262 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 263 1. The proposed subdivision request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is 264 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 265 2. The purpose of the requests are to formalize the existing conditions and address the non - 266 conformities created by the encroachments onto city -owned property. 267 3. The temporary non -conformities created as a result of the requests will be eliminated once 268 the property in -question is combined and dissolved by the private property owners. 269 4. The existing conditions were not created by the current private property owners and create 270 a practical difficulty in subdividing a reasonable amount of land in compliance with the 271 applicable Code requirements. 272 5. Approval of the requests will not negatively impact the park or the character of the 273 neighborhood. 274 AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 7 275 1. A purchase agreement is entered into between the City and the private property owner to 276 be approved by the City Council prior to the lot split being recorded by Dakota County. 277 2. Upon closing on the sale of the property in -question, the private property owner is required 278 to combine and dissolve the property into 750 Upper Colonial Drive. 279 3. All costs related to the sale and recording of the required documents are paid for by the 280 private property owner. 281 282 Commissioner Roston shared that reason for this request is that it appears to be correcting a mistake 283 that was made some 50 years ago. It would not necessarily be something he would be in favor of 284 to start disposing of City parkland to private property owners on a general basis. That would be a 285 mistake for the City if that were a policy. The reason the Commission can recommend approval of 286 this is because it appears to be correcting a mistake from a surveying error and it makes sense to 287 correct it in this particular unique circumstance. 288 289 Commissioner Roston moved to add a Finding of Fact 96 that "The granting of the lot split and 290 variance is reasonably necessary to correct a surveying error and is not intended to establish a 291 policy of selling City parkland." 292 293 Commissioners Hennes and Noonan agreed to add this to their motion. 294 295 Brian Nordin, 750 Upper Colonial Court, stated that it was his understanding that the builders of 296 his property and the other properties down the line to the west mistook a mark for a curve in the 297 road as the property corner and built all of the homes based on that mistake. This led to all of the 298 houses being built further east than they should have been. So the land in -question has essentially 299 always been a part of his yard and never used as parkland. His intention in purchasing that land is 300 to bring his property back into conformance and to place a fence in the appropriate place. 301 302 Commissioner Noonan commented that, based on his understanding of the survey included in the 303 packet, the parkland and the subdivision were platted at the same time. 304 305 AYES:5 306 NAYS:0 307 ABSENT: 2 (Costello, Viksnins) 308 309 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 1, 2015 310 meeting. 311 312 PLANNING CASE 92015-42 313 Mark Gergen 314 Lot Split and Variance at 789 Ridge Place 315 316 City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant, on behalf of the property owners, is 317 requesting to subdivide the parcel at 789 Ridge Place into two lots and requires a variance to 318 disturb slopes over 25%. The parcel is located on the corner of Wachtler Avenue and Ridge Place. 319 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 8 320 The subject parcel is 34,841 square feet and contains an existing single-family dwelling with an 321 attached garage accessing Wachtler Avenue. If the request were approved, the existing dwelling 322 would be demolished and two new single-family dwellings would be constructed on the lots. The 323 newly -created parcels would be 19,823 square feet and 15,018 square feet. Both would have over 324 100 feet of frontage at the 30 -foot setback line and both would be compliant with applicable R -I 325 district standards. 326 327 According to the Code, due to the size and orientation of the newly -created parcels, front yard 328 setbacks would be limited to no more than 1/3 of the average lot depth, which compensates for the 329 deep lots and existing setbacks that are present on the adjacent parcels. This does influence the 330 potential building pad that would be located on Parcel A, the corner lot. 331 332 Based on the expansive front yard setbacks, staff recommended that Ridge Place be considered 333 Parcel A's front yard with driveway access to be from either Wachtler Avenue or Ridge Place; 334 which would provide the maximum separation from the parcel to the north at 1940 Wachtler 335 Avenue. 336 337 Planner Wall continued by explaining that the Code requires that subdivisions be designed so that 338 no construction or grading would be conducted on slopes steeper than 25%. The subject parcel 339 does contain slopes in excess of 25% and those slopes would be disturbed by construction and 340 grading activities for the proposed dwellings and; therefore, requires a variance. 341 342 Staff believes that the intent of that standard was most likely to protect and preserve natural slopes 343 in the community from large-scale subdivision activities. However, it is something that still needs 344 to be addressed as part of this request. Planner Wall then reviewed the three standards of review 345 for variance requests and how this application meets those standards. 346 347 Planner Wall shared images of the parcels involved in this application. 348 349 Staff recommended approval of the lot split and variance request based on the findings of fact and 350 with conditions. 351 352 Mark Gergen, 1900 Oak Street, was present and available to answer questions or make comments 353 to the Commission. 354 355 Chair Field opened the public hearing. 356 357 Dave Boyum, 1940 Wachtler Avenue, commented on the character of the neighborhood; it is 358 mostly single-family, single -story dwellings, ramblers, and large lots. He expressed his concerns 359 about privacy from his property as he has a pool in the back yard. If they were to build 2 -story 360 homes then he would lose privacy. He would prefer that the new dwellings face Ridge Place. He 361 also asked questions regarding demolition, potential damage to his place or other properties, and 362 if the value of his house would be impacted as a result of this request. 363 364 Planner Wall noted that there are a series conditions concerning the proposed request and while 365 there is currently no information on what style of home would be built, there are considerable 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 9 366 construction standards in the Code they would be held to. There is also a condition that the 367 applicant must submit a landscape plan as part of construction for those homes, which is intended 368 to mitigate impacts to surrounding properties. 369 370 John Steenberg, 804 Ridge Place, expressed his concerns that the City reserves enough land in 371 case they want to go in and correct a sight distance deficiency. As someone is coming down 372 Wachtler and making the 90 -degree curve there, there are quite a few pine trees on the property 373 line and it is very difficult to see around that curve for cars coming. Mr. Steenberg is very 374 comfortable with the 53 -foot setback from the property line, as recommended by staff. He also 375 wished to make sure that the City was aware — be it folklore or not — that it is believed that the 376 original builders of the house buried two funeral urns in the back yard. He believes their daughters 377 should be contacted to confirm or deny. 378 379 Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. 380 381 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO 382 CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 383 384 AYES:5 385 NAYS:0 386 ABSENT: 2 (Costello, Viksnins) 387 388 COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO 389 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-42, LOT SPLIT AND VARIANCE 390 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 391 1. The proposed subdivision request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is 392 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 393 2. Front yards for both proposed parcels oriented towards Ridge Place will maintain 394 consistent frontage compared to the dwellings to the east and across the street. 395 3. The impacted slopes over 25% appear to be man-made as part of construction of the 396 existing dwelling and associated landscaping. 397 4. The impacted slopes over 25% are less than the current 33% maximum industry -standard 398 for constructed slopes and do not span a large linear area. 399 AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 400 1. Parcel A shall front Ridge Place and be subject to the applicable setback standards. 401 2. A permit is obtained and the existing single family dwelling is demolished prior to the 402 subdivision being recorded by Dakota County. 403 3. Park dedication fee in the amount of $2,700, in lieu of land, is collected after City Council 404 approval and before being recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any additional permits 405 by the City. 406 4. Street reconstruction assessment fee in the amount of $3,900, as part of Project 407 9514/Improvement 96-3, is collected after City Council approval and before being 408 recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any additional permits by the City. 409 5. Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of a 410 building permit. 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 10 411 6. The applicant shall dedicate the following drainage and utility easements on both parcels 412 to be denoted on the Certificate of Survey submitted to Dakota County: 10 -foot wide along 413 the front property lines and 5 -foot wide along the side and rear property lines. 414 7. The applicant shall submit landscape plans, subject to review and approval by the Planning 415 Department as part of any building permit application. 416 8. The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and dimensioned site plans with 417 associated easements, subject to review and approval by the Engineering Department as 418 part of any building permit application. 419 9. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, 420 and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City's Land Disturbance 421 Guidance Document. 422 10. Future construction on the newly created parcels will be compliant with all applicable City 423 Code provisions. 424 425 AYES:5 426 NAYS:0 427 ABSENT: 2 (Costello, Viksnins) 428 429 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 1, 2015 430 meeting. 431 432 PLANNING CASE 92015-43 433 Michael Development 434 Comprehensive Plan Amendment at 2160 Sibley Memorial Highway 435 436 City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant, on behalf of the property owner, is 437 requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re -guide the property at 2160 Sibley Memorial 438 Highway from Business to Residential use, which would be a higher density than the existing high 439 density residential designation in the City's current Comprehensive Plan. 440 441 The proposed site is the former Larson's Garden Center property, which is now vacant. It borders 442 to the north and to the east on the Augusta Shores Development, the Mendota Motel is directly to 443 the south, further south is a series of cul-de-sac streets that border Lemay Lake that contain single - 444 family residential dwellings. The property is zoned B-3 General Business, which is the same as 445 the motel property to the south, and is guided for business use in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. 446 The surrounding properties are zoned and guided for single-family residential uses as well as 447 industrial uses to the west, across Highway 55. 448 449 The applicant is requesting the proposed amendment that would allow redevelopment of the site 450 to construct a 3 -story, 64 -unit multi -family residential apartment building at a density of 451 approximately 23 units per acre. At this point in time, the City is considering the change of land 452 use from a business use to a potential high-density residential use. 453 454 Redevelopment of the site as a commercial use is believed to be questionable due to the poor access 455 and visibility. A residential use would be in character with the surrounding uses, the motel, and 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 11 existing vegetation could then provide physical and visual buffer between those single-family residential uses. The applicant has indicated that the project would be privately -financed and construction would proceed as soon as all approvals are in place in 2016. The building would have a mix of floor plans and would include amenities such as underground parking, a community room, fitness area, cedar business center, in -unit washer and dryer, and approximately 1.5 acres of green space. The density proposed is higher than the City currently allows, which is 8.5 units/acre. If the City desires designating land for a higher density residential use, staff presented two options for discussion by the Planning Commission. Option 1 — amend the existing high density residential maximum density amount for the land use category already in place, which is High Density Residential at 8.5 units per acre, up to 25 units per acre and then simply re -guide the current property. Option 2 — create a new land -use designation tentatively being referred to as Urban Residential. This would then allow for a designation of 25 units per acre and would, at this time, would just include this property. If the amendment were approved by the City Council, and ultimately by the Metropolitan Council, the Code would need to be amended to accommodate the proposed development's density. Because of the lack of a detailed site plan, staff is unsure how it would fit in with the current R-3 zone — which allows for multi -family residential development. If the City moves forward with approving the land use change, further review and consultation with the applicant is necessary to determine the appropriate future approvals. At a minimum, the property would need to be rezoned, which requires a public hearing and future public meetings where more information would be available on how the site would be designed and how it relates to the Code requirements. Planner Wall shared images of the parcels involved in this application. Staff recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment request based on the findings of fact and with conditions. Commissioners asked questions regarding the creation of the higher density residential category in other surrounding communities, why the City's high-density figure is so low, the upcoming review of the Comprehensive Plan and what that entails and what the next steps would be if the City passes this amendment request. Mike Swenson, owner of Michael Development, and Link Wilson, project architect, came forward to answer questions and make comments to the Commission about their intentions for this property. Chair Field opened the public hearing. 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 12 501 Tom Hanschen, 2158 Lemay Lake Drive, heard many things but nothing that addressed high - 502 density usage. Mendota Heights is a nice, small, quiet community and if it were to allow this type 503 of high-density residential it would lose its identity. 504 505 Kathryn Haight, 2090 Acacia Drive, commented that for fourteen years she has had to deal with 506 the eyesore of the Larson property. It has been brought to the attention of the City and some of 507 the Councilmembers the concerns of trees that block the view, vehicles that have been left on the 508 property, the deterioration of the property and was told that nothing could be done. They've also 509 brought the fighting that goes on at the motel forward. For her and her family this seems like a 510 golden opportunity to bring in something that would provide some real class to the area and would 511 be lovely to view. It would be very encouraging to see a nice development on that property. She 512 expressed her desire to see this request pass and continue on in the process. 513 514 Steve Treichel, 2174 Lemay Lake Drive, commented that rezoning the property is fine with him. 515 Something needs to be there rather than the old dilapidated Larson's Garden Center. However, it 516 seems that this is linking a particular development to the rezoning of that property. There would 517 be 64 units in this high-density apartment and then there are 46 units in Augusta Shores. With the 518 way the apartment is to be constructed with the driveway coming out to Acacia Drive and with 519 very little leeway between Highway 13 would create a significant safety concern for people coming 520 into and leaving Augusta Shores and on Highway 13. 521 522 Gerry Reed, 2050 Acacia Drive, raised his concern about the lack of assurances that these high - 523 density luxury apartments staying that way. 524 525 Susan Kopher, 2162 Lemay Lake Drive, asked how the rezoning of this property to 25 units per 526 acre would affect the size of the building and how many floors there may be. 527 528 In response to various comments and concerns raised, Planner Wall reiterated that in terms of the 529 impacts moving forward there could potentially be code amendments necessary to the R-3 zoning 530 code requirements; there could be an entirely new zoning district that might have to be developed 531 or considered, all of which would have impacts as to what the height of the structure could be, 532 there are also height requirements dealing with the airport in this area, all of which would have to 533 be considered. At this point there is not enough information. Based on what the applicant has 534 proposed, a density of up to a maximum of 25 units per acre would allow them to construct a 535 3 -story building potentially. 536 537 Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. 538 539 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 540 CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 541 542 AYES:5 543 NAYS:0 544 ABSENT: 2 (Costello, Viksnins) 545 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 13 546 Commissioner Noonan recommended the re -guiding of the property to allow multi -family 547 residential uses up to 25 -units per acre. He would feel comfortable pursuing the second option — 548 creating a unique category called Urban Residential, largely because this is free-standing, 549 undeveloped site; whereas, the other two examples Mr. Wall identified are already developed and 550 would be subject to redevelopment if that is the case under High Density. But it may elicit the 551 discussion as part of the Comprehensive Plan review process. 552 553 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO 554 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-43, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 555 AMENDMENT TO RE -GUIDE TO 25 -UNITS PER ACRE AS URBAN RESIDENTIAL 556 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 557 1. Commercial development in this area, in compliance with the goals and policies of the 558 City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, may not be viable due to access and visibility constraints. 559 2. Residential land use would be in character with other surrounding properties and the 560 existing vegetation and adjacent commercial use can provide a physical and visual buffer 561 between the proposed high-density housing and nearby low-density residential housing. 562 3. The proposed increased density is consistent with surrounding suburban communities and 563 would allow for adequate open space as part of the proposed development. 564 4. The increased density provides for construction of a housing type that is lacking in the City 565 and would help to reach the forecasted population projections. 566 AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 567 1. The proposed comprehensive plan amendment is approved by the Metropolitan Council. 568 2. The applicant submits the necessary complete applications in consideration of the proposed 569 concept development plan within twelve (12) months of receiving approval from the 570 Metropolitan Council. 571 3. If the deadline is not met, the current future land use designation for the subject parcels 572 may remain in place. 573 574 Commissioner Roston expressed his belief that it seems to create a lot of busywork to create a new 575 district, and then create what he believes would be a new zoning district when the City is going to 576 be re -doing the Comprehensive Plan anyway. In concept, he very much likes the applicants' 577 concept and would support it but believes it is unnecessary to create a new comprehensive zoning 578 district. 579 580 Commissioners had further discussions regarding this application, the two option choices 581 presented by staff, the upcoming Comprehensive Plan Review, and the necessary timing 582 mentioned in condition 92. 583 584 AYES:5 585 NAYS:0 586 ABSENT: 2 (Costello, Viksnins) 587 588 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 15, 2015 589 meeting. 590 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 14 591 Verbal Review 592 593 Planner Wall gave the following verbal review: 594 595 PLANNING CASE 92015-38 596 Spectrum Sign Systems, on behalf of Robert Lindahl/Crosswind, LLC and Prime Therapeutics, 597 LLC, 1440 Northland Drive. 598 Variance Request 599 Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission 600 601 Announcements 602 603 • Planner Wall expressed his appreciation to the members of the Planning Commission who 604 participated in the workshop with the City Council regarding the Industrial District 605 Redevelopment Plan. This will be brought forward for Council review at the December 15, 606 2015 meeting. 607 • Per request by the Chair, Planner Wall reviewed the Comprehensive Plan Review timeline. 608 • The December 22, 2015 Planning Commission meeting may be cancelled if no applications 609 are submitted by the November 30, 2015 deadline. 610 • Public Works Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello noted that other than a few punch 611 list items that will be completed in the spring, the Victoria Road project has been completed 612 for the year. 613 • Mr. Mazzitello also provided an update on the Mendota -Lebanon Hills Greenway 614 pedestrian grade -separated crossing. A recommendation to be made to the County Board 615 on December 1, 2015. County staff will be recommending the eastern alignment. 616 617 Adjournment 618 619 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 620 ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:53 P.M. 621 622 AYES:5 623 NAYS:0 624 ABSENT: 2 (Costello, Viksnins) 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 15 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone � 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota•heights.com , T mCITY of MENDDTA HEIGHTS DATE: January 26, 2016 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2016-02 Subdivision Request for Lot Split and Wetlands Permit APPLICANT: Sean Doyle, S.D. Companies, LLC. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 755 Willow Lane ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: March 8, 2016 (60 days) May 7, 2016 (120 days) DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, on behalf of the property owner, is seeking approval to subdivide the subject parcel located at 755 Willow Lane. The request requires City approval before being recorded with Dakota County. In addition, a wetlands permit is required for construction activities within 100 feet of a wetland/water resource -related area. BACKGROUND The subject parcel is approximately one acre (43,712 square feet) and contains an existing single-family residential dwelling constructed in 1967. In addition, the northwest portion of the subject parcel is traversed by Marie Creek. If the requests are approved, the existing dwelling would be demolished and two new single-family homes would be constructed within the building pads shown on the proposed Grading Plan (sheet 3 of 4). The proposed location and 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 0.53 and 0.45 acres each, is consistent with the LR 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. 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 16 Lot Size/Width As shown in the table below based on the attached plan set, the proposed parcels are compliant with the R-1 District's lot area and width standards: 'The maximum horizontal distance between the side lot lines of a lot measured within the first thirty feet (30) of the lot depth Front Yard Setbacks Title 12 -1D4 -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. The existing dwelling on the subject parcel has a front yard setback of 38.1 feet. The adjoining principal structure to the west, located at 1826 Valley Curve Road, has a front yard setback of approximately 25 feet. Currently, there is no adjoining principal structure at 747 Willow Lane, which was recently demolished as part of an approved lot split/wetlands permit request in April 2015 (Planning Case 2015-07). The proposed dwelling on the new westerly lot has a proposed minimum front yard setback of approximately 70 feet. The applicant has initially shown the R-1 District's 30 -foot minimum front yard setback for the proposed building pads on the newly -created parcels; actual compliance will be verified upon submission of building permit applications based on the proposed dwellings' design and construction timelines. Based on the applicable minimum setback standards, there appears to be adequate buildable area for two new single- family dwellings on both proposed parcels. First Floor Elevations Title 12 -1E -1-A-5 of the Code requires the following: First Floor Elevation: a. Tear down and construction of new single-family dwellings and additions, modifications, and alterations to existing dwellings shall not raise the first floor elevation more than one foot (1) above the existing condition. b. In the case of a split level dwelling, the existing first floor elevation is the lowest elevation of an entrance to the dwelling, excluding entrances to the garage and those that do not face the street. c. By conditional use permit, the first floor elevation may be increased by more than one foot (I from the existing condition in order to meet one or more of the following conditions: (1) Elevate the lowest level of the dwelling to an elevation of two feet (2) above the 100 - year flood elevation, as established by the federal emergency management agency (FEMA). (2) Protect the dwelling from groundwater intrusion. Existing groundwater elevation shall be determined by a professional registered engineer in the state of Minnesota or by a certified hydrologist and provided for review and consideration. (3) Meet state building code, city code or other statutory requirements. The existing dwelling has a first floor elevation of 842.9 feet. As shown on the attached plan set, the new dwellings are proposed to be compliant with this provision. If the first floor elevation for either new dwelling is raised higher than one -foot above the existing condition, as part of a subsequent building permit application, the applicant would be required to seek the necessary additional approvals prior to construction. 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 17 Wetlands Permit According to Title 12-2-1 of the City Code, the purpose of the Wetlands Systems Chapter is to: • Provide for protection, preservation, maintenance, and use wetlands and water resource -related areas; • Maintain the natural drainage system; • Minimize disturbance which may result from alteration by earthwork, loss of vegetation, loss of wildlife and aquatic organisms as a result of the disturbance of the natural environment or from excessive sedimentation; • Provide for protection of potable fresh water supplies; and • Ensure safety from floods. As shown in the attached plan set, the 100 -foot wetland/water resource -related area encompasses the existing dwelling and substantial portions of the buildable area on both proposed parcels. Therefore, construction activities for new dwellings on Parcels A and B require a wetlands permit. According to the applicant, no vegetation removal will occur within the buffer area. Proposed erosion control measures will be reviewed in greater detail by the Engineering Department as part of the building permit applications. The drainage maps provided by the applicant show that although the amount of impervious surface will increase (one structure to two structures), the total area draining to the creek will be reduced due to grading activity associated with the proposed development. Impacts to storm water runoff should be minimized by the reduction in drainage area. Upon preliminary review of the proposed development, there does not appear to be any negative impacts to the creek. Based on preliminary review of the proposed Grading Plan by the Engineering Department, the elevations for the proposed driveways in relation to the existing catch basins in the street may cause drainage issues. A complete drainage review will be completed as part of any subsequent building permit review process, which is included as a condition of approval. Stream bank erosion has taken place along Marie Creek in the past. The 25 -foot non -disturb buffer area that is now part of the wetlands permit review process helps to protect stream banks from surface runoff caused by impervious surfaces. With the non -disturb area in place, erosion is more likely to be caused by the velocity of water moving within the creek itself than is likely from surface runoff. However, staff is recommending an expanded drainage and utility easement over the entire 25 -foot non -disturb buffer area. ALTERNATIVES Recommend approval of the subdivision and wetlands permit requests, based on the attached findings of fact that, with conditions. M, 2. Recommend denial of the subdivision and wetlands permit request, based on the finding of fact that the proposed subdivision and associated construction activities are not consistent with the City Code or Comprehensive Plan. CIT 3. Table the request. 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 18 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the subdivision and wetlands permit requests based on the attached findings of fact (Alternative 1), with the following conditions: The existing single family dwelling is demolished prior to the subdivision being recorded by Dakota County. 2. Park dedication fee in the amount of $4,000, 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. Street reconstruction assessment fee in the amount of $3,900, as part of Bunker Hills Street Reconstruction 95-14/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. 4. The applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easements across the entire 25 -foot non -disturb buffer area from the edge of Marie Creek on both proposed parcel, to be denoted on the Certificate of Survey submitted to Dakota County. Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site plan with associated easements, subject to review and approval by the Engineering Department as part of any building permit application. 7. No disturbance, besides installation of erosion control measures during construction, shall occur within 25 feet of the edge of Marie Creek or on slopes greater than 25%. 8. 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. 9. Future construction on the newly -created parcels will be compliant with all applicable City Code provisions. 10. The applicant shall begin the work authorized by the wetlands permit within ninety (90) days and be completed within twelve (12) months from the date of approval, unless an administrative extension is granted prior to the permit's expiration. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Aerial site map 2. Site photos 3. Planning applications, including supporting materials 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 19 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Subdivision Request for a Lot Split and Wetlands Permit 755 Willow Lane The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed subdivision meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed development meets the purpose and intent of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the City Code, will not negatively impact the neighborhood's existing drainage system, and no grading or vegetation removal will occur within the required 25 -foot non -disturb buffer area. 3. Adequate erosion control measures will be observed during construction. Planning Case 2016-02 755 Willow Lane Date: 1/11/2016 �V 0 50 SCALE IN FEET 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 20 Tj City of Mendota Heights 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. V- y R � a� • a 9 r 9r • f. Y 1141, I me,LM '4 NO L��... ��'+•la1i'.1di��",� �t Ea J nom, Ai ,lf, 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 22 CUSTOM HOMES December 28, 2015 Nolan Wall City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 RE: 755 Willow Ln Lot Split Dear Nolan: We are requesting a lot split and permit related to the property at 755 Willow Lane. Please consider the following: Intent: We are requesting that the lot at 755 Willow Lane be split into two parcels since it meets the criteria set forth by the city of Mendota Heights municipal code. The existing home located on the property will be removed and the intention is to build two new homes, one on the east lot and one on the west lot. As part of our submittal, we will be including a wetlands permit due to the proximity to the creek. A portion of the new structures will be within the 100 buffer, but no work will be completed within the 25' buffer. No vegetation will be removed within the 100' buffer with only slight vegetation removal outside the 100' buffer. The lot and area is unique with its tree cover and water features. We plan to preserve all possible vegetation. Our request: Permission to divide the property into two parcels, creating two new single family homes. 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 23 The planned timing of project would be to remove the existing house and start building a house in early summer 2016. The east lot would then be built within a year. Sincerely, Sean Doyle Chief Manager SD Companies LLC, d.b.a SD Custom Homes 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 24 PLANNING APPLIXCA.TION Property AddressiStreet Location: pIicant Name: t, 1, =F Phone: Applicant E -Klatt Address Applicant Mailing Address: ; � , � �. ,c{ � i #, �,; �.`;,.� 1 , •; 0. - Phone Property Owner Name. ,�-,`, ;rt;_ � ..1 ; c..�. �:. ..",'__Phone: Property Owner Mailing Address. i r Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) Type of Request: U Rezoning Conditional Use Permit U interim Use Permit U Variance � Wetlands Permit 0 Preliminary/Final Plat Approval 46 Lot Split U Critical Area. Permit Q Comprehensive Plan Amendment U Code Amendment U Appeal U Other I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. t tLriher authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above property during daylight hours. 4-2 Sigtur, of Applicant Date Signature of Owner � Date Si Si a Cif Owner (if more than one) ©ate Planning Application (modified 121312015.) Page 1 of 1 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 25 1101 VictoriaCurve. I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www rnendota-heights:com , CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS LOT SPLIT APPLICATION Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission and/or City Council only after all required materials have been submitted. Application submittal deadlines are available on the City's website or by contacting the City Planner. Late or incomplete applications will not be put on the agenda. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: ® Electronic and hard copies of all the required materials must be submitted according to the current application submittal schedule. ® Submit 1 electronic copy and 2 hard copies (full-size/to-scale) of all required plans. The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete: Fee, as included in current Fee Schedule (check payable to City of Mendota Heights). NOTE. Planning Application fees do not cover building permit fees, utilities, or other fees which may be required to complete the project. X Completed Application Form(s). Letter of Intent. Certified Survey Map. Certified Survey Map: Existing first floor elevations for principal structure and garage. ❑ If existing principal structure is to remain, building height contiguous to the side yard, measured based on the applicable definition. Location and setbacks for existing structures on the subject parcel and immediately adjacent parcels. Proposed property boundary lines, including dimensions. Lot size (acres and square feet). Lot width, measured as the maximum horizontal distance between the side lot lines within the first 30 feet of the lot depth. Front, rear, and side yard setbacks, including a description of the applicable zoning district standards. ,ZI Size (square feet) of proposed building pad(s). Existing and proposed legal descriptions. Lot Split Application (modified 12/3/2015) Page 1 of 2 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 26 I XQuantity, type, and size of existing trees/significant vegetation to be removed. Topographic data, including contours at vertical intervals of not more than two (2) feet, including existing slopes over twenty five percent (25%) in grade. Wetlands and water resource -related areas, including 100 -foot and 25 -foot buffers. Required drainage and utility easements. Date, scale, legend, and north -point. XCertification statement and signature of a licensed surveyor in the State of Minnesota, including license number and contact information. Such other information (i.e. utilities) as may be requested by the Engineer, Surveyor, or Planning Commission. Lot Split Application (modified 12/3/2015) Page 2 of 2 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 27 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55116 651.452.1850 phone I 651;452.$940 fax www,mendota-heights:com CITY or MENDOTA HEIGHTS WETLANDS PERMIT APPLICATION Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission and/or City Council only after all required materials 'have been submitted. Application submittal deadlines are available on the City's website or by contacting the City Planner. Late or incomplete applications will not be put on the agenda. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: ® Electronic and hard copies of all the required materials must be submitted according to the current application submittal schedule. ® Submit 1 electronic copy and 2 hard copies (full-size/to-scale) of all required plans. The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete: Fee, as included in current Fee Schedule (check payable to City of Mendota Heights). NOTE. Planning Application fees do not cover building permit fees, utilities, or other fees which may be required to complete the project. X Completed Application Form(s). Letter of Intent, including full and adequate description of all phases of the operation and/or proposed physical changes. Required Plans. Required Plans: Soil survey map of the area. Topographic map of the area. Contour intervals shall be drawn at two (2) foot intervals. Detailed site plan of the proposal showing proposed drainage, grading, and landscaping. Site design map showing the location of existing and future man-made features. Information on existing drainage and vegetation of all land within the site. Time period for completion of development, including timing for staging of development if applicable. Design specifications for all sediment and erosion control measures. Wetlands Permit Application (modified 12/3/2015) Page 1 of 1 I ty° th of<°tSl- -a �. �_ _ I I \ \ I1 - 4- 1 \ \—846- 8.;4- 846 844— T i4 00 rV r , / �rT 0 / I �J %%% m00 n \\ L �T\ \ T,\ 30 15 0 30 \ o\ , / 1 y 30 \ <!--- k, / gF Scale in Feet Of <atrs� EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION LotFive of Somerset Hills excepting therefrom that part thereof described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Lot Five thence Northwest: along the North line of said lot a distance of 79.5 feet; thence Southwesterly on a straight line parallel with the West line of said Lot 5 for a distance of 75 feet; thence Southeasterly on a straight line to a point on the East line of said Lot 5 75 feet Southerly from the Northeast corner thereof; thence Northerly along said East line 75 feet to the place of beginning. ® Denotes 25% or greater slope Signed: Pi Aee Engin e�A. BY: Peter J. Hawkin on, Praf ssianal Land Surveyor Minnesota License No. 42299 email-phawkinson®pioneeren g.cam © 2015 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. PIONEERengineering Cad File: 115349000.dwg LOT SPLIT EXHIBIT Folder #: 7900 °LANDPLANNERS 1-1,n11Jx-YORS LA EIR(I„—Ts Drawn by: MTw Existing Conditions A � (651) 681-1914 2422 Enterprise Drive Fax 681-9488 1-1246 For: S.D. Companies LLC Mendota Height, MN 55120 w—pioneereng.com © 2015 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. II 6 T L_V I v J \ J / a\ \yetl / I r-\ n \ G i o/ephe, G °to SNF 59,E 60 30 0 60 Scale in Feet © 2015 Pioneer Engineenng, P.A. PIONEERengineering Cad File: 115349000.dwg LOT SPLIT EXHIBIT N Folder #: 7900 LANDPLANNERS LI-11JR-YORS LA EIR-1—Ts Drawn by: MTw Adjoining Houses p (65 1) 681 1914 2422 Enterprise Drive Fax 681-9488 1-1246 For: S.D. Companies LLC Mendota Height, MN 55120 w—pioneereng.com © 2015 Pioneer Engineenng, P.A. Nor <ot��he \ \ �- \� / A \ \! \\ — \ \ — / —846, 600 /� . PAA, 4Ck \\A,Fk O qR4 432 x l F 11 I FF`4as�44�s s °' PARCEL. F A 0, w .2 I I 1 0 \ x xx X33 2 I n o SF .I+ INI 0 m 4 I \ \ / .17 G F 39 � / 432 ll I 40 AS \fir // \ / /1 / I 30 15 0 30 \ "AS Scale �Z \ \ ` / + J Scale in Feet AS AS;"• %c °t<ot<i�e_ _,.SFC SAAS '' of <0 5 f \ t \ S \ Denotes Rock Construction Entrance .................. Denotes Erosion Controle Fence SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION TO BE REMOVED: NONE 2015 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. PI�NEERengineering Cad File. 115349000.dwg LOT SPLIT EXHIBIT w�n Folder #: 7900 °E -L E-11EERS LANDPLANNERS ->,nsnRVEYORN LINDSCIPEIR(I„—Ts Drawn by: MTw Proposed Grading A � (651) 681-1914 2422 Enterprise Drive Fax 681-9488 1-1246 For: S.D. Companies LLC Mendota Height, MN 55120 w—pioneereng.c- 2015 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. E 60 PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PARCEL A 30 15 0 30 gF Scale in Feet Of C" <at Sf Lot 5, SOMERSET HILLS, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota, Except that part thereof described as follows Beginning at the northeast corner of said Lot 5; thence northwesterly, along the north line of said Lot 5, a distance of 79.50 feet; thence southwesterly, parallel with the west line of said Lot 5, a distance of 75.00 feet; thence southwesterly, to a point on the south line of said Lot 5, distant 110.00 feet northeasterly of the southeast corner of said Lot 5, as measured along said south line; thence southeasterly, along said south line, a distance of 110.00 feet, to said southeast corner; thence northeasterly, along the east line of said Lot 5, to said northeast corner and the point of beginning. PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PARCEL B That part of Lot 5, SOMERSET HILLS, according to the retarded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows Commencing at the northeast corner of said Lot 5; thence northwesterly, along the north line of said Lot 5, a distance of 79.50 feet, thence southwesterly, parallel with the west line of said Lot 5, a distance of 75.00 feet, to the point of beginning; thence southwesterly, to a point on the south line of said Lot 5, distant 110.00 feet northeasterly of the southeast corner of said Lot 5, as measured along said south line; thence southeasterly, along said south line, a distance of 110.00 feet, to said southeast corner; thence northeasterly, along the east line of said Lot 5, to a paint, distant 75.00 feet southerly of said northeast corner, as measured along said east line; thence northwesterly, to the point of beginning. Signed: io eer En ineering, P.A. BY: eter J. Hai kinson, oro essional Land urveyor Minnesota License No. 42299 © 2015 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. PIONEERengineering Cad File: 115349000.dwg LOT SPLIT EXHIBIT A Folder #: 7900 -L E-11EERS LANDPLANNERS ->,nsnRVEYORN LINDSCIPEIR(I„—Ts Drawn by: MTw Proposed Legals p (65 1) 681 1914 2422 Enterprise Drive Fax 681-9488 1-1246 For: S.D. Companies LLC Mendota Heights, MN 55120 w—pioneereng.com © 2015 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. I--ll IN.— _ — — 88 S \ NNN, \ \ -846— <D(—N j — ----- - 4� 0 84840 8-j \\ \ 844— \— ,\ se Ix 00 00 -------- = ; 4 / 4 � I o r` l�� I AST - r\�"A, i I t,AS AN \\\AN �`! \AS C �h r\AN\ / f // / J 30 15 0 30 AS - -kk AS\ \�� / / Scale in Feet 2015 Pioneer Engineering P.A. PIONEERe Cad File: HYDRO EXHIBIT � G/ L ng 115349000 -HYDRO. g ,�E-11E LAND Rs 1-11nsnQVEYORN rA EIR(HIT—S . _ Folder#: 7900 Existing Drainage Map (65 1) 681 1914 2422 Enterprise Drive Fax. 681-9488 Drawn by: MTW For: S.D. Companies LLC Mendota Height, MN 55120 w—pioneereng.D'_ 1-12-16 2015 Pioneer Engineering P.A. I PIONEERenoneG/ Cad File: \ —848 S 115349000-HYDRO. g a �\ 846, — \ PRO—N —84p q2 Proposed Drainage Map //J' —_ 838 \ :� � � � X838 •`� `• Mendonu Heighu, MN 55120 w—pioneereng.com / � /: l�, � 9 � � _848840—- 1 / PROM \ I ll I 40 I I 9 47S 1 FF p 40\432 q0 432 I I I \ J 4,?9 gRFq I I 32200 3 SF \ S O N I I I \\7 O Fp\43g I I 432 � � I \\00 Z- / llli .2 / 30 15 0 30 Scale in Feet 2015 Pioneer Engineering P.A. PIONEERenoneG/ Cad File: HYDRO EXHIBIT N L ng 115349000-HYDRO. g - NoP�>-Rs L>.nsnRVEYORS rA EIR-1—TS Folder#: 7900 Proposed Drainage Map N (6J 1) 681 1914 2422 Em[ rprn,c Drink Fax. 6R1-9488 Drawn by: MTW For: S.D. Companies LLC Mendonu Heighu, MN 55120 w—pioneereng.com 1-1246 2015 Pioneer Engineering P.A. Affidavit ®f iPublic atio State of Minnesota SS County of Dakota 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 34 E. DITTY SUNDBERG , being duly sworn, on oath, says that he/she is the publisher or authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as SOUTH-WEST REVIEW , and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualification as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. (B) The printed NOTICE OF HEARING which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week, for 1 successive weeks; it was first published on SUNDAY , the 10 TH day of JANUARY , 2016 , and was thereafter printed and published on every to and including , the day of , 20 ; and printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used in the composition and publication of the notice: DEGHIV] MNOPQRSTUVWXYZ ABC FI "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ .a bcdefg hijklmnopq rstuvwxyz Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 11 TH day of JANUARY 2016 Notary Public *Alphabet should be in the same size and kind of type as the notice. TE��YA R. "AHI 5 F EAI t RATE INFORMATION ..A Ne�faPublic-Minnesota • - My COMMission Expire, Jan 31, 2020 (1) Lowest classified rate pal by commercial users for comparable space ...................................... BY: TITLE LEGAL CO RDINATOR (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter (3) Rate actually charged for the above matter .............................................. 1/16 $25.00 per col. inch $25.00 per col. inch $ per col. inch 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 35 Page I of 2 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 36 277105000060 1 ALAN A & CAROL A ANDERSON 6 277090000010 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 765 WILLOW LN 277150001030 2 BETTY J ELLIS 7 277090001010 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 726 MARIE AVE 277105000042 277105000391 3 BRET & JILL FARRINGTON 8 DAVID BURNS 747 WILLOW LN 738 WILLOW LN 277105000050 277150001040 4 BRIAN L& JOYCE L BIRCH 9 DAVID E MILLER 755 WILLOW LN 730 MARIE AVE 277105000400 5 270380045012 10 DONNA D SOLEM CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 1870 VALLEY CURV about:blank 1/7/2016 Page I of 2 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 37 about:blank 1/7/2016 277105000380 277105000392 11 DOROTHY J HAFFELY 16 JOHN A & ROCHELLE AMANN 1857 DODD RD 277150001050 748 WILLOW LN 277105000130 12 ELIZABETH A STAPLES 17 JON H & ZEBRINA L IVASCU 727 SPRING CREEK CIR 775 HILLTOP CT 278115001050 277150001070 13 FRANK H & JOAN S KLEIN 18 KATHLEEN C TUCK 1826 VALLEY CURV 720 SPRING CREEK CIR 277105000120 278115001040 14 GLENN R & DEBORAH WIESSNER 19 KEVIN ALAN & NANCY G MANLEY 779 HILLTOP CT 766 MARIE AVE 277150001090 277105000080 15 JAFFREY & LAURA BLANKS 20 MARK R & ERIN WILD 727 WILLOW LN 1835 VALLEY CURV about:blank 1/7/2016 Page I of 2 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 38 Pate 3 VE 277150001060 277105000410 21 RONALD J & JOY B CACICIA 24 THOMAS F & MARGARET COFFMAN 724 SPRING CREEK CIR 1876 VALLEY CURV 277105000041 278115001030 22 THE FIXERS LLC 25 THOMAS K HASTINGS 747 WILLOW IN 776 MARIE AVE 277090002010 277150001100 23 THOMAS & JUDITH A CLIFFORD 26 WALTER J & SANDRA R KLARKOWSKI 1792 SUTTON IN 737 WILLOW IN about:blank 1/7/2016 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 39 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone a 651.452.8940 fax www.rrendota•heights.com CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: January 26, 2016 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2016-03 Proposed Code Amendments — Subdivision Regulations APPLICANT: City of Mendota Heights PROPERTY ADDRESS: N/A ZONING/GUIDED: N/A ACTION DEADLINE: N/A DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The City is considering amendments to various sections of Title 11 of the City Code concerning subdivision regulations. BACKGROUND Staff has identified several issues concerning the existing subdivision regulations. It appears the bulk of the regulations were adopted in 1981 and subsequent amendments were made in 2003 and 2009. The proposed amendments include administrative and regulatory modifications for review and comment. ANALYSIS Staff reviewed past subdivision requests, platting guidelines manual, and consulted with the Dakota County Survey Department in order to update certain sections and identify issues that should be addressed. A summary of the proposed amendments contained in DRAFT Ordinance 490 includes the following: Section 1 Currently, lot line adjustments and lot splits may be exempted from complying with "inappropriate requirements" within the subdivision ordinance as long as they do not create any non -conformities. Historically, the city has processed both requests by requiring a survey instead of a preliminary/final plat. The existing regulations do not include any specific requirements for such requests, which can cause inconsistent interpretation and subjective administration. In order to provide for a more equitable and transparent review process, both requests include a list of required information as part of the survey. The list was generated by reviewing past surveys and existing zoning regulations that must be complied with as part of either request. 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 40 Section 2 According to MN Stat. §462.358, subd. 6, cities may grant variances from the subdivision ordinance requirements if they create an undue hardship on the land. The statute also allows cities to explicitly set standards for granting variances. The existing subdivision ordinance includes the undue hardship threshold and three required findings, which are similar to the requirements for granting a zoning variance. In some cases, a proposed development could include variance requests from the subdivision and (i.e. right- of-way or street width) and zoning (i.e. lot width, lot size) ordinances. In order to avoid analyzing the requests under two different standards of review, the proposed amendment simply references the zoning ordinance variance process and requirements. Section 3 The Fee Schedule, as adopted by resolution by the City Council, contains application and escrow fees pertaining to subdivision applications. The proposed amendment references similar language in the zoning ordinance regarding base fees and escrows. Section 4 The proposed amendment includes the following administrative revisions: • Eliminates the number of required copies, which is included on the application form. • References the application form and submittal schedule. • Eliminates the need to supply an abstractor's certificate identifying the property owners within 350 feet of the property in -question, which is already provided by staff as part of the public hearing notice process. • Specifies that notices are to be mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the property in - question, which is consistent with other planning applications. • Includes specific circumstances where plats are to be reviewed by the Parks Commission, Dakota County, or State of Minnesota. Section 5 State statutes do not regulate a time limit between preliminary and final plat approval. However an approved preliminary plat is only provided protection for one year from code or comprehensive plan amendments that may affect the original approval if a final plat has not yet been approved. As a result, the proposed amendment includes a one-year time limit between preliminary and final plat approval. If not approved within the time limit or granted an extension by the City Council, a new application would be required and is subject to any new applicable regulations. Section 6 The proposed amendment includes revisions to the required information on a preliminary plat, including: Slopes over 33% must be shown. Clarification that only the type and size of tree coverage are required, since some of the existing requirements are onerous based on the level of review required for the existing regulations. Sections 7 and 8 Staff worked closely with the Dakota County Survey Department to identify inconsistencies and outdated requirements for final plats. The proposed amendments are now consistent with what the County requires, based on the platting guidelines manual followed by licensed surveyors. 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 41 Section 9 The proposed amendment clarifies the current practice of requiring 10 -foot drainage and utility easements along the front and rear property boundary lines. It also allows the City Engineer to require any additional easements. Section 10 Proposed disturbance of slopes greater than 25% as part of recent lot split requests has raised issues with the existing standards that should be addressed. It is assumed that the existing standard is meant to protect natural slopes, as there are certainly an amenity worth preserving and protecting. Therefore, rather than continuing to process variance requests based on an outdated standard, the proposed amendment includes: Exemption for previously -disturbed slopes as part of a lot split request. Increase the slope disturbance threshold to 33%, which is consistent with current engineering standards. Section 11 The proposed amendment removes the stormwater management provisions from the subdivision ordinance in order to recognize that they apply to all applicable developments in the city. ALTERNATIVES Following the public hearing and further discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of DRAFT Ordinance 490, as presented or as amended by the Commission. OR 2. Recommend denial of DRAFT Ordinance 490. OR 3. Table the request, pending additional information and revisions from staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the proposed code amendments. If acceptable to the Commission, action can be taken at this month's meeting. Staff would propose to bring back any substantial revisions for review and further discussion at a future meeting prior to making a recommendation to the City Council. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. DRAFT Ordinance 490 2. Planning application, including supporting materials 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 42 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 490 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 11, CHAPTERS 1, 2,3 AND 6 OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, CONCERNING SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: Section 1. Title 11-1-5-C is hereby amended as follows: Exceptions: When requesting a subdivision, if either of the �we-(2) following conditions exist, fine -city admiaist.a4er- sha4l brig the r est to the ,., enfi .., &f -the planning commission and city council wher-eupe+i 4he-y shall review said request in same manner prescribed in section 11-2-1 of this title and may exempt the subdivider from complying with any inappropriate requirements of this title: 1. Lot line adjustment In the ease e f a request to divide a lot which is a part of a recorded plat where the division is to permit the adding of a parcel of land to an abutting lot ^r to er-e e ,we (" lots and the newly created property line will not cause the other remaining portion of the lot to be in violation with this title or the zoning ordinance. The owner(s) or subdivider(s) shall prepare and submit a certified survey map containing the following information: a. Location, setbacks, and building height contiguous to the side yard measured based on applicable definition for existing structures on both parcels. b. Proposed property boundary lines, including dimensions. c. Lot size (acres and square feet). d. Lot width, measured as the maximum horizontal distance between the side lot lines within the first 30 feet of the lot depth. e. Front, rear, and side yard setbacks, including a description of the applicable zoning district standards. f. Existing and proposed legal descriptions. g. Date, scale, legend, and north -point. h. Certification statement and signature of a licensed surveyor in the State of Minnesota, including license number and contact information. i. Such other information as may be requested by the Engineer, Surveyor, or Planning Commission. 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 43 2. Lot split reauest to divide a lot which is a Dart of a recorded plat where the division is to create two (2) lots and the newly created property line will not cause the other remaining portion of the lot to be in violation with this title or the zoning ordinance. The owner or subdivider shall prepare and submit a certified survey map containing the following information: a. Existing first floor elevations for principal structure and garage. b. If existing principal structure is to remain, building height contiguous to the side yard, measured based on the applicable definition. c. Location and setbacks for existing structures on the subject parcel and immediately adjacent parcels. d. Proposed property boundary lines, including dimensions. e. Lot size (,acres and square feet). f. Lot width, measured as the maximum horizontal distance between the side lot lines within the first 30 feet of the lot depth. g. Front, rear, and side yard setbacks, including a description of the applicable zoning district standards. h. Size (square feet) of proposed building pad(s). i. Existing and proposed legal descriptions. j. Quantity, type, and size of existing trees/significant vegetation to be removed. k. Topographic data, including contours at vertical intervals of not more than two (2) feet, including existing slopes over thirty three percent (33%) in grade. 1. Wetlands and water resource -related areas, including 100 -foot and 25 -foot buffers. m. Required drainage and utility easements, as in 11-3-4 of this title. n. Date, scale, legend, and north -point. o. Certification statement and signature of a licensed surveyor in the State of Minnesota, including license number and contact information. p. Such other information as may be requested by the Engineer, Surveyor, or Planning Commission. Section 2. Title I 1-1-9 is hereby amended as follows: Variances from the strict application of the provisions of this title can be requested under the requirements of section 12-1L-5 of this code. 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 44 Section 3. Title 11-1-10 is hereby amended as follows: Fees and deposits for processing subdivision applications will be collected in accordance with the requirements of section 12-1L-10 of this code. Section 4. Title 11-2-1 is hereby amended as follows: 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 45 A. Filing Of Plat; Fee: Fif4ee (1 c) eapies arthe p -eli inaf. plat s4all be riled with toe e4 elefi The required applications) and supporting information shall be submitted in accordance with the current application submittal schedule. The required filing fee as established in section 11-1-10 of this title shall be paid feqttifed fee before the proposed plat shall be considered officially filed. All pla+s shall be aeeefApa-a �r B. Hearing: Upon receipt of said application, the city clerk shall establish the date for a public hearing by the planning commission and shall be responsible for the publication of hearing notices and mailing to the owners of the propeLty in question and the owners of all properties situated within three hundred fifty feet (350') of the boundary of the propeLty in question. and„>,1; *: r110 nti�T D. Review By Other Commissions Or Jurisdictions: eapies E)f The preliminary plat shall be distributed tom} the parks and recreation commission, mer Dakota County, or the State of Minnesota for their review and comment when appropriate, as determined by the city administrator and, including, but not limited to, the following circumstances: 1. The proposed plat includes dedication of lands for public use, as in section 11-5-1 of this title. 2. The proposed plat is adjacent to county or state right-of-way or proposes to access a coup , or state road. 3. The proposed plat is within the Critical Area Overlay District, as regulated by section 12-3 of this code. Section 5. Title 11-2-1-F-4 is hereby added: Effective Period Of Approval: The approval of a preliminary plat shall be effective for a period of one year (1) or longer, as specified by the city council. At the end of this time, final plat approval on the subdivision shall have been obtained from the city council. Any preliminM plat not receivingfinal inal 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 46 approval within the time period set forth herein shall be null and void, except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd. 3c. or if an extension is granted by the City Council, and the subdivider shall be required to submit a new application for preliminga plat approval subject to all new zoning restrictions and subdivision regulations of the city existing at the time of submission of the new application. Section 6. Title 11-2-3-A-2 is hereby amended as follows: f. Topographic data, including contours at vertical intervals of not more than two feet (2'), including existing slopes over thirty three percent (33%) in grade; watercourses, marshes, rock outcrops, power transmission poles and lines, and other significant features.; USGS dao shall be „sod for- lepegr-app, c ffiappiiig where feasible. h. A survey prepared by a qualified person identifying tree coverage in the proposed subdivision in terms of type and size., . eal—oss w,.,,,,fity, petentiA hazafd, in f st +ie vigor-, densit., and spaeifig. Section 7. Title 11-2-3-B-2 is hereby amended as follows: b. Location by section, township, range, county and state, and including descriptive boundaries of the subdivision, based on an accurate traverse, giving angular and linear dimensions which must be mathematically close. The allowable effer- of elestffe , any per-tien „r., Affial pla4 shall be one feet (,') ; seven theusand rive htm .oa feet (7 cnn�� The mathematical closure tolerance of the plat boundary blocks, lots, and outlots shall not exceed 2/100 of a foot. c. The location of monuments and a description thereof. Locations of such monuments shall be shown in reference to existing official monuments on the nearest established street lines, including true angles and distances to such reference points or monuments. Permanent markers shall be placed at each corner of every block or portion of a block, points of curvature and points of tangency on street lines, and at each angle point on the boundary of the subdivision. A permanent marker shall be deemed to be a steel rod or pipe, one-half inch (1/2") or larger in diameter. . The license number of the land surveyor that certifies the plat shall be affixed to all set plat monuments. In situations where conditions prohibit the placing of markers in the locations prescribed above, offset markers will be permitted. The exact location of all markers shall be shown on the final plat, together with accurate interior angles, bearings and distances. no,.,,,. nent m,..,timents shEd be plaeed a4 a4 ,.,,., 4e seefien paints . it -hi too stab : or-i4sper-imete-r-. j -h. Scale of plat (the scale to be shown graphically and in feet per inch) and north point. lei. Sta4ement dediea4ing A Drainage and utility easements as follows: Ease encs for- insWWie "ti4i •,z, easements". 4j_ Streets, alleys and other public areas not previously dedicated. as fellewsi Sir-eets, alleys and other- publie areas shown on this pW and not heretofore dediea4ed to publie use are hereby so doth,. Boa 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 47 irk. Statement establishing biiildiag setbaek lifies as follows: Building setbaek lifies afe hefeby established as shown en the aeeempa*ying pW, and fie building or- pei4ien thefeef sha4l be built be�weefi Sline -a tfee e. Include a map showing the location of the grope , being platted with sufficient information to locate the property within a section. Orient the vicinity map to match the north orientation of the plat. Section 8. Title 11-2-3-13-4 is hereby amended as follows: a. Notarized certification by owner and by any mortgage holder of record of the adoption of the plat and the dedication of drainage and utility easements, streets and other public areas for public use. b. Notarized certification by a registered land surveyor, , to the effect that the plat represents a survey made by him and that monuments and markers shown therein exist as located and that all dimensional and geodetic details are correct. c. Certification showing that all taxes and special assessments due on the property have been paid in full.; .(1981 Code 301§4) Section 9. Title 11-3-4-A is hereby amended as follows: An easement for utilities at least five feet (5') wide shall be provided along the side line of lots or- A similar easement of at least fie feet (5') ten feet (10')in width shall be provided aefess along the front and rear of each line of lots. If necessary for the extension of water main, water- e sewer lines, --of similar utilities, or access to adjoining propeAy, easements of greater width may be required along lot lines or across lots. Additional easements may be required, as determined appropriate by the City Engineer. Section 10. Title 11-3-8-A is hereby amended as follows: Slope Limitations: Subdivision design shall be consistent with limitations presented by naturally steep slopes. Subdivisions, excluding previously -disturbed areas as part of a lot split request containing an existing dwelling and associated improvements, shall be designed so that no construction or grading will be conducted on slopes steeper than t 'ty five jhjMLthree percent (233%) in grade. (1981 Code 301 § 5; amd. 2003 Code) Section 11. Title 11-6 is hereby moved to Title 14 under the same name. Section 12. This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication. Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this 999449 day of MONTH, 2016. CITY COUNCIL 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 48 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST Lorri Smith, City Clerk C1'rr or- MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING APPLICATION Property Address/Street Location: N/A Applicant Name: City of Mendota Heights 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 49 1101 Victoria Curve. I Mendota Heights, MN 55116 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax eiww rnendota-hefghts:com Phone: 651-452-1850 Applicant E -Mail Address: nolanw@mendota-heights.com Applicant Mailing Address:1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Property Owner Name: N/A Phone: N/A Property Owner Mailing Address: N/A Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) N/A Type of Request: ❑ Rezoning ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Interim Use Permit ❑ Variance ❑ Wetlands Permit ❑ Preliminary/Final Plat Approval ❑ Lot Split ❑ Critical Area Permit ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment Id Code Amendment ❑ Appeal ❑ Other I hereby declare that all statements made in this r quest and the additional material are true. (,.further authorize City Officials and agents to i ect t property during daylight hours. Sig&fure Applicant Date Signature of Owner Date Signature of Owner (if more than one) Date Planning Application (modified 12/3/2015) Page 1 of 1 Affidavit of Publication State of Minnesoita� SS County of Dakota 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 50 E. KITTY SUNDBERG , being duly sworn, on oath, says that he/she is the publisher or authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as SOUTH-WEST REVIEW , and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualification as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. (B) The printed NOTICE OF HEARING which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week, for 1 successive weeks; it was first published on SUNDAY , the 10 THday of JANUARY 2016 , and was thereafter printed and published on every to and including , the day of , 20 ; and printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used in the composition and publication of the notice: 'ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 'ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ `abcdefg hijklmnopq rstuvwxyz Subscribed and sworn to before me on TH t is 11 day of JANUARY 2016 Notary Public ' *Alphabet should be in the same size and kind of type as the notice. Nofar}t PesblicaMln6leseta RATE INFORMATION �u: , itiPiy Commis�co:a Expires Jan :;1, 2020 (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space ...................................... BY: TITLE LEGAL C ORDINATOR (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter $25.00 per col. inch $25.00 per col. inch (3) Rate actually charged for the above matter.......................................................$ per col. inch 1/16 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 51 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 52 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone a 651.452.8940 fax www.rrendota•heights.com CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: January 26, 2016 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2016-04 Proposed Code Amendments — Industrial District Uses APPLICANT: City of Mendota Heights PROPERTY ADDRESS: N/A ZONING/GUIDED: N/A ACTION DEADLINE: N/A DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The City is considering amendments to Title 12, Chapter 1, Article G of the City Code concerning uses in the Industrial Zoning District. BACKGROUND The City is in the process of finalizing the Industrial District Redevelopment Plan and is proceeding with implementing several recommendations included in the Plan. The recommendations were developed as a result of the following planning process: • Survey of property owners/managers, tenants, and brokers • Market analysis from a commercial real estate firm • Planning Commission/City Council joint workshop • City Council presentations/discussions The Plan's implementation strategy was discussed at the January 4 City Council goal setting workshop. Subsequently, staff was directed to proceed with exploring potential revisions or additions to the uses allowed in the Industrial District. ANALYSIS The City's zoning authority is created and regulated by statutes and court decisions. The zoning regulations should be continually reviewed to ensure they are consistent with the goals and visions for the community. When drafting and amending zoning regulations, the city is utilizing its legislative (law -making) authority. When using its legislative authority, the only limits on the city's zoning authority are that actions must be constitutional, rational, and in some way related to protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the public. This is commonly known as the "rational basis standard" and is generally an easy standard to meet. 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 53 Permitted Uses Permitted uses are allowed by right in a given zoning district, subject to the applicable regulations and any required building permits. To the extent the use meets the applicable requirements, it must be permitted. As a result, it is prudent for the city to review and scrutinize permitted uses to ensure they fit current needs and are compatible with the city's vision for the area. Certain uses could be stricken or reclassified as conditional uses, where conditions may be imposed to prevent any negative secondary effects. Title 12 -1G -1-A and B of the City Code include the following permitted uses within the Industrial District: A. Within any I industrial district, no structure or land shall be used except for the conducting of a process, fabrication, storage, manufacturing or wholesaling of one or more of the following uses: Aeronautic and automotive testing equipment Apparel. Appliances. Artificial limbs. Automobile painting, upholstering, tire recapping and major repair when conducted within a completely enclosed building. Bakery goods. Batteries. Boats. Bus terminals and maintenance garage. Cabinet shops. Camera and photographic supplies. Canvas products. Ceramic products using kilns fired only by electricity or gas. Cigarettes and tobacco products. Clocks, watches and jewelry. Cork and cork products. Drugs, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and toiletries. Electric motors, generators, transformers and other electric components. Electronic products. Engraving and printing. Furniture. 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 54 Heating, washing, cooling, drying, cleaning appliances. Ice, cold storage plants, bottling works. Laundries. Machine shops. Metal polishing and plating. Monument works. Musical instruments. Office equipment. Paint manufacturing. Paper products from previously processed paper. Research laboratories. Rubber and synthetic rubber products. Sheet metalwork, ornamental iron, welding, and stamping. Shoes, boots, footwear. Sporting equipment. Television, radio. Tools, hardware and small metal products. Video equipment. (Ord. 429, 8-3-2010) B. The following nonmanufacturing uses: Business and professional offices. Landscaping and building design and construction. Railroad spurs and sidings. Scientific research, investigation, testing and experimentation. Trade schools and colleges or universities, without accessory housing. Warehousing. Water softening units. (Ord. 429, 8-3-2010; amd. Ord. 457, 11-19-2013) 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 55 Conditional Uses Generally, conditional uses are not appropriate without conditions that ensure the use is compatible with the surrounding area and conforms to the zoning regulations and comprehensive plan. By requiring a use by conditional use permit (CUP), the city has more flexibility in administering the zoning regulations by including rational conditions on the use. Once a CUP is granted, the property interests run with the land as long as compliance with the approved conditions is maintained. Title 12 -IB -2 of the City Code includes the following definition: CONDITIONAL USE: Either a public or private use which, because of its unique characteristics, cannot be properly classified as a permitted use in any particular district or districts. Title 12-1G-2 of the City Code includes the following conditional uses within the Industrial District: Within the I industrial district, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: Accessory, enclosed retail sales, provided that: A. Accessory Use: The retail sales portion of the business shall be an accessory use to the existing permitted or conditionally permitted use in the I industrial district. B. Site Requirements: The retail sales portion of the business shall be conducted within the same building as the principal use. C. Building Requirements: The retail sales portion of the business shall not constitute more than five percent (S%) of the gross floor area of the principal use. D. Building Design: The building design shall be in compliance with subsection 12 -ID -13-2C of this chapter. E. Parking: Adequate off street parking and off street loading shall be provided and shall be in compliance with the provisions of section 12-1 G -S of this article and section 12 -ID -16 of this chapter. F. Signage: All signage shall be in compliance with the provisions of section 12 -ID -15 of this chapter. Separate wall signage may be considered at the retail entrance, but no separate freestanding signage shall be considered. G. Landscaping: All landscaping shall be in compliance with subsection 12 -1D -13-2D of this chapter, section 12-1 G-6 of this article and section 12-1I--9 of this chapter. H. Screening: All screening shall be in compliance with subsection 12 -1D -13-2E of this chapter, section 12-1 G-6 of this article and section 12-1I--9 of this chapter. I. Hours Of Operation: The hours of operation of the retail sales portion of the business shall be limited from eight o'clock (8:00) A.M. to seven o'clock (7:00) P.M. on weekdays and eight o'clock (8: 00) A.M. to five o'clock (S: 00) P.M. on Saturdays and Sundays. Accessory structures. Adult daycare, provided that the proposed facility meets the following conditions: A. Clients are brought to the site primarily through the use ofgroup transportation, such as vans or buses. B. A separate exterior entrance is available to the facility for clients and staff. C. The facility will require parking space at a rate no greater than that of an office tenant for staff, clients, and visitors. D. If located in a multi -tenant building, the daycare facility is found to be compatible with the other uses that are allowed on the property under the applicable zoning regulations. E. Outdoor activities on or around the property in question, if part of the program, are accessible via adequate pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks or trails. F. The daycare facility is properly licensed by the state of Minnesota under applicable statutory requirements for clients ages eighteen (18) and over. 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 56 Airports, truck and freight terminals, team tracks and open sales lots. Athletics, participative. Automobile and other vehicles of transportation sales when conducted entirely within a building. Essential service structures. Massage therapy services to the general public for purposes of a teaching program accredited by the National Certification Board For Therapeutic Massage And Bodywork and the Accrediting Commission Of Career Schools And Colleges Of Technology as an accessory use to trade schools, colleges, and universities in which no fee is charged for the services. Motel and hotel. Motor fuel stations subject to the requirements of section 12-1D-13-3 of this chapter. Outdoor storage and display of materials and equipment accessory to landscaping and building design and construction, provided that: A. The site shall be occupied by a principal building of no less than fifteen thousand (15, 000) square feet. B. All storage and display is located in the rear or side yard of the property and behind the front building line of the principal building, and shall not be located in a yard that abuts any local public street. C. No storage and display shall be located on any parcel that is within one thousand five hundred feet (1,500) from any residentially zoned property, measured from the closest point of the lot lines. D. The storage and display area shall not be open to retail sales, and shall be utilized only for stock and supply for clients of the landscape or building design and construction business. E. All storage and display is located on paved surfaces, which shall be properly maintained to prevent deterioration. F. The storage and display area shall occupy no more than sixty percent (6001o) of the total lot area. G. The storage and display area shall be set back from all lot lines no less than ten feet (10). K The storage and display area shall be screened from surrounding property by fencing, walls, and/or landscaping. L All storage and display shall be located under three (3) sided, covered structures, with the exception of landscape plant materials and trucks or equipment as shown on a specific and detailed site plan. J. Trucks and equipment kept within the storage and display area shall be located within designated striped parking spaces and shall not be used for storage. K. Fencing utilized for screening purposes shall be constructed of wood or other materials as approved by the city council. L. Circulation and water service on the property shall meet the requirements of the city's fire chief for access and fire protection. M. Covered structures used to protect stored materials or equipment shall meet the following requirements: 1. Structures greater than eight feet (8) in height shall be designed and constructed of materials consistent with the requirements ofsection 12-1D-13-2 of this chapter. 2. Structures of eight feet (8) in height or less may be constructed of alternative materials as approved by the city council, provided such structures are not visible from surrounding property or public streets. 3. All structures shall comply with applicable building and fire codes. 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 57 Radio, television or transmission towers. Ready mix concrete and concrete products plants. Restaurants (full service dining, not drive-in or convenience/fast food type). Retail sales and service complexes, provided that: A. Site Requirements: The retail sales and service complex must be located adjacent to an interstate highway and within three hundred feet (300) of an interchange entrance or exit ramp with such highway. The site may be comprised of more than one lot but the lot area for any retail site shall be limited to one acre or less. B. Mix Of Uses: A retail sales and service complex may include any service uses which are listed as permitted or conditional in the I district as well as retail uses listed as permitted or conditional uses in the B-2 zoning district. Any retail building must contain a minimum of two (2) tenants. As part of the conditional use permit application, applicants may propose to include a drive-in or fastfood restaurant as defined in section 12 -ID -13-4 of this chapter; provided that no single restaurant exceeds two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet in size. C. Parking: Sufficient access and parking shall be provided. If the retail sales and service complex includes more than one lot, cross parking and cross access may be permitted and the required number of parking spaces may be reduced. The size of the parking stalls may be reduced to nine feet (9) in width and eighteen feet (18) in length. Parking areas may be set back ten feet (10) from a front property line or side property line abutting a street. D. Building Requirements: Notwithstanding the height requirements of the I district, any hotel or motel in the retail sales and service complex may be a maximum of four (4) stories or fifty feet (50) in height. Notwithstanding the floor area ratio requirements of the I district, the floor area ratio of the retail sales and service complex may be a maximum of sixty percent (6001o). E. Flexibility In Site Setbacks: Building setbacks may be reduced to thirty five feet (35 ) from a front property line or side property line. Building setbacks may be reduced to forty feet (40) from a rear property line. Setbacks to interior side property lines (not abutting a street) may be reduced to zero. F. Architectural Controls: Applicants for a conditional use permit must provide samples of exterior finishes which shall be approved as part of the conditional use permit process. G. Landscaping: At least twenty five percent (2501o) of the land area shall be landscaped with grass, approved ground cover, shrubbery and trees. All lots within the proposed retail sales and service complex development may be calculated together to meet the twenty five percent (25%) requirement. H. Signage: Approved signage shall be based on the overall size of the retail sales and service complex but flexibility may be granted to allow more than one sign on a particular lot that is part of the retail sales and service complex. Freestanding or pylon signs may be located at least ten feet (10) from a front property line or side yard abutting a public street and interior side property lines. Pylon signage may be permitted provided that signage included in any retail sales and service complex located along I-494 shall be no higher than nine hundred fifteen feet (915 above mean sea level. I Remaining Standards: All other standards of the I industrial district and other applicable zoning standards shall apply. Solar energy systems that are accessory to the principal use of the land and are designed to supply energy to on site uses, as regulated by section 12-1D-18 of this chapter. Trade schools, colleges, and universities with accessory housing for the students of the school only. Uses which are permitted under section 12-1I--8 of this chapter which involve the storage or use of materials which decompose by detonation. (Ord. 429, 8-3-2010; amd. Ord. 446, 3-5-2013; Ord. 457, 11- 19-2013; Ord. 485, 9-15-2015) 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 58 Interim Uses Interim uses must conform to the zoning regulations and can be terminated based on a date or event that can be identified with certainty. As a result, they are effective tools for redevelopment planning by allowing for certain temporary uses of property without jeopardizing a long-range plan. The City Code was amended in 2015 to include interim uses, as in Ordinance 479. Title 12 -IB -2 of the City Code includes the following definition: INTERIM USE: A temporary use of property until a particular date, until the occurrence of a particular event, or until zoning regulations no longer permit the use. Title 12-1G-2-1 of the City Code includes the following interim uses within the Industrial District: Within the I industrial district, no structure or land shall be used for the_ following uses except by interim use permit: Off leash dog area, provided that: A. The minimum parcel size shall be five (5) acres, which may include a combination of adjoining lots under control by the city. B. No structures shall be located on the lot(s). C. Proper fencing shall be installed around the entire off leash area with height and materials approved by the city council. D. Adequate off street and/or on street parking shall be supplied, as determined by the city council. E. Hours of operation shall be limited to between seven o'clock (7:00) A.M. and nine o'clock (9: 00) P.M. F. Fixed lighting structures are prohibited. G. All dogs shall be appropriately licensed. H. All dogs shall be kept on leash at all times except within the designated off leash area. I. No dog(s) shall be left unattended within the off leash area. J. Dog waste receptacles shall be provided and all dog waste shall be properly disposed of on site by the user or removed immediately. (Ord. 484, 8-4-2015) Accessory Uses Accessory uses are located on the same lot, but are subordinate or incidental to a permitted use. Accessory uses are still subject to applicable zoning regulations and required building permits. They often include uses that enhance the use of the property, but do not change the primary permitted use. Title 12 -IG -3 of the City Code includes the following accessory uses within the Industrial District: Within the I district, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: Fences as regulated by this chapter. Guesthouses owned and operated in conjunction with a permitted or principal use. Off street parking and loading as regulated in this chapter. Residential structures and related residential uses necessary for security and safety reasons in relation to a principal use. Signs as regulated in this chapter. (Ord. 429, 8-3-2010) 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 59 Proposed Amendments Based on discussions during the planning process, staff has included proposed amendments concerning certain uses for review and recommendation by the Planning Commission. It is not intended at this time to propose any new uses, which has historically been a process driven by a proposed request. Also, the impacts of eliminating or reclassifying certain uses should be considered as it relates to any existing uses that operate within the Industrial District. Ultimately, the City Council may consider any amendments necessary to ensure the city's land use goals and policies within the Industrial District are implemented appropriately. ALTERNATIVES Following the public hearing and further discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of DRAFT Ordinance 491, as presented or as amended by the Commission. OR 2. Recommend denial of DRAFT Ordinance 491. OR 3. Table the request, pending additional information and revisions from staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the proposed code amendment concerning certain uses in the Industrial District. If acceptable to the Commission, action can be taken at this month's meeting. Staff would propose to bring back any substantial revisions for review and further discussion at a future meeting prior to making a recommendation to the City Council. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. DRAFT Ordinance 491 2. Industrial Zoning District maps 3. Implementation Framework 4. Planning application, including supporting materials 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 60 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 491 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE G OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, CONCERNING USES IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: Title 12 -1G -1-B is hereby amended as follows: The following nonmanufacturing uses: Trade ,.,.h, els a+id eColleges or universities., Section 1. Section 2. Title 12-1G-2 is hereby amended as follows: Within the I industrial district, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: Massage therapy services to the general public for purposes of a teaching program accredited by the National Certification Board For Therapeutic Massage And Bodywork and the Accrediting Commission Of Career Schools And Colleges Of Technology as an accessory use to trade colleges; and universities in which no fee is charged for the services. Trade sehae4 .Colleges -ate or universities w4h a , i .using for- 4ie s.adeats arthe se4aa' a*l� 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 61 Section 3. Title 12-1G-3 is hereby amended as follows: Within the I district, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: Residential strue�Hfes and related residential -Eises neeessafy for- seeiir-ity and safe�, r-easeas in r-ela6efi �E) a pfifleipal Section 4. This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication. Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this XXX day of Month, 2016. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor ATTEST Lorri Smith, City Clerk Planning Case 2016-04 Industrial Zoning District Date- 1/12/2016 �V 0 1,000 SCALE IN FEET +-7 I ----NORTH ANO—� — --- ---- - X11 , -- -------------------- -------------------------------— I-4� LOOP I-494 RAMP - I -35E RAMP 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 62 City of Mendota Heights 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. 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 63 Building Type Figure 6 Industrial Zoning District Redevelopment Plan a0 1,000 2,000 Feet N Source: Dakota County October 2015 Flex Q Hotel Q Land ® Office ® Greenhouse convenience Store 12/8/2015 Office Warehouse Bulk Warehouse City of Public Works Mendota Heights V:\1938\active\193803260\GIS\Projects\Building Type.mxd BACKGROUND MENDOTA HEIGHTS INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 15 i � O -6 O m Q U m m m C �O 01 ,�... CQ:: � T N � -O JO c �O O co O � � ca N >> � � O O co O � �O O T O O �n > N J O Q Ln O a) a) O •} a) N O D O c t o a) O O t a c w O N o 0 E 0} o o ° a> a v o °o g c c o o `o ° J °U a o ° o o a o o c °° as a° a o a ° o a -0o w _ ° >> o o 0 o g o Lc ° U o aa° ora E o �a� o o E 0 o ° o f o a ° o o o • �°oo O - ° o a o o aE o a `o o J° J 3 a $ 3 s> o c Q O •N N o O o N :� = g a) o °_ t j o o 0-0 O a)U °°a,ac£ J ooo.oNo ° o o U O viiO o E - o ° a- E t �3 c o ° o ° _ ° 2 ° ° Q O o ma° ° oma aoE °o= g o•> a �2 o N o a o c° OOc E o t O° �t •'0 > O o o 5-O O-6 0 0 O o 0 0$° o� c o oac �o� am °-� o£Uw �o'c` o° oc o� J° 0 . 0 0 0 . . ° o o . . . a m . . a o 0 o . . O o . . ° o . . . . ° . . . . . . ° N 0 -0� o ° £ g o°° o o ° o T £ o O o Q £ -° ° •c Q O o N c o o t _o o o ° •> o c ° ° o } O E o £ a E J c ° ° ° o a z -O c a£ a) O m° a) o 0 c ai,0 o } N -O -O a c O`O ' J -,,2 a E O N �- -O J 3 0 a) C D- o� o -O o 0 0 a) .� •° O °°° a -o O g J N ° J E° a° J ° '^ a) O O O O) O` O O �° £° °a)E c >o O`oo a) Orn E c a) O° 'E -u�a) a) E -u ° 'o O O E° o— f} c O J` p � t N E �� c� ° `o O T O o o N o 0 0 0 3 -0° c O o 0 0 0 ° o a c o £ } o o o m c t o° c o t o E°° 0 ° k c 0 0 0 oc �tcN� o `Oocc3t��E� a 0�o_0 -o 80 c 0 0) ° ° cod °o °� �� ku � a c t o O p a) O a) °= ° O°°EJ o-9:oaJoEo o3 JE 0 0° o o o°0 o° ° o E� � �_ � o � c° o o `o D- o O Nt ate` °0 -P` �,j -o •� ° O U `o � -° - a) ° Q}O °� o� ° N 'o 0 6 a) ° p -Q t T o} o o a� m 0 Ems} 0 3c o- E w° oa o ot�E o c o a) £° a- £ a) °) }� ow o} v o 3 a E}a o c 3 0 O a o o0 5 ° �Jo ��o ooa°� o� �° 02 0� o0 °° o a° Y °a° °a w=� ° wx d 3 n£ > U c U a a£ n 0 a) U no U w 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 65 1101 Victoria Curve. I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone I 651:452.8940 fax www:mendota•helghtsiom CITY OF MENOOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING APPLICATION Property Address/Street Location: N/A Applicant Name: City of Mendota Heights Phone: 651-452-1850 Applicant E -Mail Address: nolanw@mendota-heights.com Applicant Mailing Address. 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Property Owner Name: N/A Phone: N/A Property Owner Mailing Address: N/A Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) N/A Type of Request: ❑ Rezoning ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Interim Use Permit ❑ Variance ❑ Wetlands Permit ❑ Preliminary/Final Plat Approval ❑ Lot Split ❑ Critical Area Permit ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment IN Code Amendment ❑ Appeal ❑ Other I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents toins ct t property during daylight hours. 12-�stIc— Sign ure o Applicant Date Signature of Owner Date Signature of Owner (if more than one) Date Planning Application (modified 12/3/2015) Page 1 of 1 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 66 Affidavit ®f Publication State of M: iniaesota SS County of Dakota E. KITTY SUNDBERG being duly sworn, on oath, says that he/she is the publisher or authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as SOUTH-WEST REVIEW and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualification as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. (B) The printed NOTICE OF HEARING which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week, for 1 successive weeks; it was first published on SUNDAY , the 10TH day of JANUARY 2016 and was thereafter printed and published on every to and including the day of 20 ; and printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used in the composition and publication of the notice: *ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ *ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ *abcdefghij klmnopq rstu vwxyz Subscribed and sworn to before me on ftis I ITHday of JANUARY 2016 -. Notary Public *Alphabet should be in the same size and kind of type as the notice. v�.>i�kaelsss H TONYA R. WHITEHEAD notary Public -Minnesota RATE INFORMATION My Commission Expires -Jan si, 2o2o (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space ...................................... BY: TITLE LEGAL COORDINATOR (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter (3) Rate actually charged for the above matter 1/16 ......$25.00 per col. inch $25.00 per col. inch $ per col. inch 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 67 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 68 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone � 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota•heights.com , T mCITY of MENDDTA HEIGHTS DATE: January 26, 2016 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP April 26 Planner SUBJECT: 2016 Meeting Calendar The following are the proposed regular Planning Commission meeting dates for 2016. All dates are the 4' Tuesday of the month with the normal 7:00 P.M. start time. January 26 July 26 February 23 August 23 March 22 September 27 April 26 October 25 May 24 November 22 (Thanksgiving week) June 28 December 27 (Hanukkah begins 12/25) BUDGETIMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Commission discuss any potential changes to the 2016 meeting calendar. This matter requires a simple majority vote. 1/26/16 Planning Commission Packet- Page 69 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone j 651.452.8440 fax www.mendota-heights.com It Lmnj CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: January 26, 2016 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Year 2015 Planning Department Summary In cooperation with other city departments, the Planning Commission, and the Consulting Planner, the Planning Department accomplished the following tasks in 2015: 1. Reviewed 24 building permits for construction of new homes, including: • 12 single-family homes • 12 twin -homes (Summit and LeMay Shores developments) 2. Processed 43 applications (some with multiple requests) — see attached map, including: • 5 Conditional Use Permits • 14 Variances • 6 Lot Splits • 8 Wetlands Permits (2 administrative) • 9 Code Amendments (see 93) • 1 Appeal • 2 Plats • 6 Critical Area Permits • 1 Comprehensive Plan Amendment • 1 Lot Line Adjustment • 1 Interim Use Permit 3. Considered amendments to various sections of the City Code, including: • After -the -fact permit fees • Interim uses • Peddlers/food trucks • Video/electronic display scoreboards • Wireless antenna upgrades • Off -leash dog area • Trade school definition • Alternative energy systems • Single-family residential standards 4. Processed code enforcement complaints for 43 properties. 5. Planned the annual Spring Clean -Up Event, including: • 362 participants • 18,000 lbs. shredded paper (approx.) • 8,280 lbs. of electronics • 56 mattresses/box springs 0 9,560 lbs. scrap metal M � U) O w M o �-co 7 L N 0 0) O O----------------------------------In CS, ,1 - O N--- ------------- ------- --� _ 1p N C o \o� ❑� e � � � O� III o a r -o ❑ ID El �zN O O o� s� E:l � I N N0 o N El O N M O N O W ocli N OO N � I LO o I Z O I Q � I J IL lo lo lo IL a U a ZQJ a0�QataCUCCCCE I 2 2�E m v 0- -,o .0 �E Z E v or v o ow 0 E vvv n 3, `d v�r E.mo.0o io $ v0 av -20 20 Ev�Sa 3E�nw.f ar'rE O -m- OE cmE E E E U E E E v E ¢Ov ¢ o?UDUo o2 M. 'm voU¢vvv v UUoUoUoUo U¢UU co U UU Q m Imma �� co, U�I C � UZ U a2 m r _� -5m0.o¢ -Om ° K = �Yo�°quo?U JUN Wo E = m E v va C7Uz omnozoo..(., C.7 Nooo -0 3n "0 0- -0 -0 -0 _0 o _0 0- L'Lod 1zrnzo zzryrvry o �zry ¢¢zzry U-� "W I I S I "Immkimimkid M-Rolddd o