2012-10-23 Planning Comm Agenda Packet
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Agenda
Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - 7:00 P.M.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of the Agenda
4. Approval of the September 24, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes
5. Hearings
a. Case No. 2012-28: Curt Skallerup, VIRGO, LLC: conditional use permit for an
indoor trampoline park at 2250 Pilot Knob Road. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m.
b. Case No. 2012-29: Daniel Fleischhaker: variance for more than three doors on a
garage at 1018 Overlook Road. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m.
c. Case No. 2012-31: David Williams: conditional use permit for a garage greater
than 1200 square feet and a variance for more than three doors on a garage at 755
Wentworth Avenue. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m.
6. Verbal Review
7. Adjourn
Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in
advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make
every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please
contact City Administration at 651-452-1850 with requests.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 2012
1
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 24, 2012
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Monday, September 24, 2012, in
the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
The following Commissioners were present: Chair Norton, Commissioners Field, Hennes, Magnuson, Noonan,
Roston, and Viksnins. Those absent: None. Those present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek,
Public Works Director/City Engineer Mazzitello, and NAC Planner Stephen Grittman. Minutes were recorded by
Heidi Guenther.
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of August 28, 2012, Minutes
COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO APPROVE THE
MINUTES OF AUGUST 28, 2012, AS PRESENTED.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Hearings
PLANNING CASE #2012-27
Mendakota Country Club
2075 Mendakota Drive
Wetlands Permit and Variance to Improve the Driving Range Net
Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Mendakota Country Club for approval of a wetlands permit and
fence height variance to construct a new fence at the end of their driving range along a berm which is adjacent to an
existing wetland.
Mr. Grittman noted that to construct the fence within 100 feet of the wetland, a new wetlands permit is required.
The fence, as proposed would be 25 feet in height, which requires a variance.
Mr. Grittman presented staff’s analysis of the request and recommended approval of both the wetlands permit and
the variance. He noted the proposed fence will have little or no impact on the wetland area and will not raise
concerns over visibility or compatibility of the use with the area.
Commissioner Viksnins questioned if the current 12-foot fence had a variance. Mr. Grittman was uncertain if a
variance was approved for Mendakota.
Commissioner Hennes asked if the existing 12-foot fence would be removed. Mr. Grittman stated this was the case.
Chair Norton opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 2012
2
COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE
PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES 7
NAYS 0
COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF THE WETLAND PERMIT AND VARIANCE AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE
FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
AYES 7
NAYS 0
Chair Norton advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 2, 2012, meeting.
PLANNING CASE #2012-28
Curt Skallerup, VIRGO, LLC
2250 Pilot Knob Road
Conditional Use Permit
Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Curt Skallerup of Virgo, LLC for approval of a conditional use
permit for an indoor trampoline park.
Mr. Grittman noted that the applicants are seeking approval of a trampoline park within a facility at 2250 Pilot Knob
Road. He reviewed the proposed site plan noting the property was zoned Industrial. The proposed hours of
operation would be from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on Friday
and Saturday. The indoor facility would accommodate entertainment and fitness training through the use of several
clusters of enclosed trampoline structures. The facility would include different series of trampoline-based recreation
areas and party rooms for the use of groups gathering at the site. The proposed use is a form of commercial
recreation, similar in nature to a fitness club, bowling center, or similar use. These uses are commonly found in the
B-3, General Business District or B-4, Shopping Center zoning districts. Those districts may allow such a use either
as a permitted or conditional use. In the Industrial district, the closest comparative use is “Participative Athletics,”
allowed through a conditional use permit.
Mr. Grittman presented staff’s analysis of the request and did not recommend approval of the conditional use permit
at this time. The proposed use appears to raise concern over its compatibility with industrial use areas. If the
application is to move forward, staff recommends tabling action for the current meeting with a request that the
application provide additional detail about the traffic and parking impacts of the facility on the neighboring
properties.
The commission expressed support for the use within the industrial zone, agreeing with the planner that they needed
more detail on the traffic and parking impacts of the use on surrounding properties.
Curt Skallerup, 729 Windsor Creek Drive of South Lake, Texas, addressed the Commissions comments. He noted
he had already been approved for insurance at the proposed site and would need approximately 50-60 parking stalls.
He described the proposed flow of traffic through the site. Mr. Skallerup understood the safety concerns, given the
fact the use would appeal to children. He described the anticipated daily schedule of activities noting he would be
offering core fitness classes for adults in the morning, with more activities offered after school and in the evening
hours. However, the majority of its business would take place on the weekends and this worked well in Industrial
parks. Mr. Skallerup noted he had one park open in Fort Worth, Texas with five other parks in the planning phase.
Commissioner Magnuson requested further information on the surrounding industrial uses in the area. Carl Awalt,
RMR, noted the other tenant was Restaurant Technologies and they made pumps for restaurant grease . He described
that all truck traffic was on the north side of the building and would not interfere with children entering and exiting
the site.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 2012
3
Commissioner Magnuson inquired if the applicant had considered the peak hours of traffic for both uses on the site.
Mr. Awalt explained that Restaurant Technologies’ employees were off the site by 5:00 p.m. on weekdays and were
not open on the weekends. He found the two uses to be very compatible.
Commissioner Magnuson questioned if any analysis had been completed on how the traffic to this site would
adversely affect the surrounding businesses, roadways, etc. Mr. Skallerup indicated the site had limited capacity,
reducing the potential impacts on traffic. He noted he had not completed any traffic flow analysis, but was pleased
with the number of major roadways that led to the site.
Commissioner Roston questioned how the applicant felt about delaying approval for 30 days to allow for additional
information to be gathered for staff. Mr. Skallerup indicated he would support this recommendation.
Commissioner Viksnins inquired if the applicant would be able to complete a traffic study in the coming weeks. Mr.
Skallerup stated he would investigate this further if deemed necessary for approval.
Chair Norton opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE
PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES 7
NAYS 0
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO APPROVE THE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN
THE STAFF REPORT, DIRECTING THE APPLICANT TO WORK WITH STAFF TO ADDRESS
TRAFFIC RELATED ISSUES.
Discussion included adding conditions to the approval, and whether or not the commission had enough information
to make a decision on the request.
AYES 2 (ROSTON AND HENNES)
NAYS 5 (NOONAN, VIKSNINS, MAGNUSON, FIELD AND CHAIR NORTON)
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO TABLE THE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO THE OCTOBER 23RD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DIRECTING STAFF TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT ON THE PENDING DETAILS REGARDING
THE SPECIFIC SITE USE, BUILDING PLANS, PARKING AND TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT, AND
OTHER ASPECTS OF THE FACILITY ON THE SUBJECT SITE.
AYES 6
NAYS 1 (ROSTON)
Chair Norton advised the Planning Commission would reconsider this application at its October 23, 2012, meeting.
PLANNING CASE #2012-29
Daniel Fleischhaker
1018 Overlook Road
Conditional Use Permit
Chair Norton excused himself from the meeting at 7:58 p.m.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 2012
4
Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Daniel Fleischhaker for approval of a conditional use permit for a
garage greater than 1,200 square feet and a variance for more than three doors on a garage.
Mr. Grittman noted that the applicant was requesting to construct a garage addition that was approximately 700
square feet, which would bring the property’s total garage space on the property to approximately 1,470 square feet.
The addition would be accessed via a double-wide garage door. The applicant has indicated that the exterior
materials of the proposed garage would be consistent with the existing garage and meets all setback requirements.
Staff then discussed the variance review standards.
Mr. Grittman presented staff’s analysis of the request and recommended approval of the conditional use permit
based upon the finding the applicant shall revise his existing conditional use permit request for the construction of a
single-door garage expansion, as opposed to a double-door.
Chair Norton returned to the meeting at 8:02 p.m.
Commissioner Magnuson inquired why the City had a standard within City Code restricting the number of garage
doors. Mr. Grittman explained that when the Code was amended, the City was addressing concerns with the
architectural impact of homes having four or more garage doors facing the street. Mr. Sedlacek discussed the recent
code amendment in further detail with the Commission.
Daniel Fleischhaker, 1018 Overlook Road, questioned when the change was made to City Code regarding the
number of garage doors. Mr. Sedlacek explained this portion of the City Code was amended two years ago.
Mr. Fleischhaker reviewed several photographs with the Commission showing garages with two double doors or a
single double door and two single doors in Mendota Heights. Mr. Fleischhaker stated the double door would make
it easier for him and his family to move items in and out of the garage. In addition, the aesthetics would be more
appealing. He commented he could make a 12-foot door work if necessary, but that would not be his first choice.
The commission asked the applicant to better define the unique circumstances and practical difficulties which would
justify the variance.
Chair Norton opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE
PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES 7
NAYS 0
COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE
FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE
REQUEST BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
Commissioner Roston requested the motions be separated for this request.
Commissioner Noonan suggested action be taken on the variance first.
REVISED MOTION
COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT
DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 2012
5
AYES 2 (MAGNUSON AND VIKSNINS
NAYS 5 (ROSTON, HENNES, NOONAN, FIELD AND CHAIR NORTON)
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO TABLE ACTION
ON THE VARIANCE TO THE OCTOBER 23, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
AYES 6
NAYS 1 (VIKSNINS)
COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE
FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT, SUBJECT TO THE ADDITIONAL
CONDITION THAT EITHER THE APPLICANT REVISE HIS REQUEST FOR A SINGLE CAR
GARAGE DOOR EXPANSION OR THAT HE OBTAIN A VARIANCE FOR A DOUBLE GARAGE
DOOR.
AYES 7
NAYS 0
Chair Norton advised the Planning Commission would reconsider the variance application at its October 23, 2012,
meeting.
Chair Norton advised the City Council would consider the conditional use permit application at its October 2, 2012,
meeting.
PLANNING CASE #2012-30
Robert Whebbe
598 Sibley Memorial Highway
Conditional Use Permit
Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Robert Whebbe for approval of a conditional use permit for a
detached garage and variance for a detached garage greater than 750 square feet.
Mr. Grittman noted that the applicant has an attached garage of approximately 300 square feet. The zoning
ordinance allows for one garage building on a single-family property. Detached garages are allowed by conditional
use permit; however, the maximum size of a detached garage is 750 square feet. The applicant is requesting one of
two options, while retaining the existing attached garage:
Option A – Three doors; 1,500 square feet (30 feet x 50 feet)
Option B – Three doors; 1,024 square feet (32 feet x 32 feet)
Mr. Grittman explained the new garage structure would be built to the side and rear of the existing house, partially
on an adjoining parcel owned by the applicant. To avoid violating building setbacks, this parcel should be combined
with the house parcel through the Dakota County Recorder’s office.
Mr. Grittman presented staff’s analysis of the request and recommended approval of the conditional use permit to
allow for a detached accessory structure upon the subject property only insofar as the applicant can design it in such
a way as to comply with other zoning standards of the ordinance. This would require remodeling of the existing
attached garage to living space and redesign of the proposed garage to meet the 750 square foot area standard. The
alternative would be to eliminate the detached garage request and expand the existing attached garage. Staff does
not recommend approval of the associated variance to allow the structure to exceed 750 square feet in size.
Commissioner Viksnins questioned which findings of fact should be adopted by the Commission this evening. Mr.
Grittman reviewed the recommended findings of fact with the Commission.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 2012
6
Robert Whebbe, 598 Sibley Memorial Highway, thanked the Commission for considering his request this evening.
He explained the proposed garage size would allow him to keep his collector cars indoors as his vehicles have been
broken into twice in the past two years. The building would provide greater security. He noted that 70% of his
neighbors have signed off on his proposal.
Commissioner Magnuson questioned how the applicant planned to use the existing attached garage space. Mr.
Whebbe stated he could turn this into living space.
Chair Norton asked if an attached garage was an option. Mr. Whebbe stated the steep grade of his property would
not allow for a useable driveway. In addition, his water and gas meters would need to be moved, and the kitchen
would have to be reconfigured to allow for an entrance into the home. He would prefer to have the garage attached;
however, this was not feasible.
Chair Norton opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Purtell, 564 Hiawatha Avenue, questioned if the garage would be one or two story. Mr. Whebbe indicated
the garage would be single story.
Mr. Sedlacek submitted two items for the record regarding this Planning Case. He noted the City Clerk received a
phone call from Rose Karsten at 580 Sibley Memorial Highway, and she fully supported the garage request.
Secondly, Nancy Kane of 586 Sibley Memorial Highway submitted a letter stating she supported only a 750 square
foot garage with a minimal amount of asphalt.
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES 7
NAYS 0
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF
FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THE APPLICANT REVISES HIS REQUEST TO MEET THE 750 SQUARE FOOT MAXIMUM
FLOOR AREA.
2. SUCH PLANS, DRAWN TO SCALE, SHALL BE MODIFIED TO SPECIFY PROPOSED FINISH
MATERIALS, COLORS, AND STRUCTURE HEIGHT.
3. THE GARAGE NOT EXCEED 15 FEET IN HEIGHT.
4. THE APPLICANT COORDINATE THE GARAGE’S ROOF STYLE AND ROOF PITCH WITH
THAT OF THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING.
5. THE EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE ON THE SITE BE REPURPOSED AS LIVING SPACE
AS A PART OF THIS PROJECT, TO COMPLY WITH THE MAXIMUM ALLOWANCE OF ONE
GARAGE STRUCTURE ON A SINGLE FAMILY PARCEL.
Commissioner Field requested Condition 1 be removed from the motion.
Commissioners Roston and Noonan supported this request.
AYES 7
NAYS 0
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 2012
7
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO
RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT
DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT, ITEMS 3, 4, 6 AND 7.
Commissioner Roston apologized for the denial recommendation, but stated the Commission had to follow the
zoning code for this request.
AYES 7
NAYS 0
Chair Norton advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 2, 2012, meeting.
Verbal Review
Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review:
PLANNING CASE #2012-13 City of Mendota Heights Zoning Code Amendment
This item would be discussed in a work shop setting by the City Council on October 30 th
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO ADJOURN THE
MEETING AT 8:53 P.M.
AYES 7
NAYS 0
Respectfully submitted,
Heidi Guenther, Recording Secretary
DATE: October 23, 2012
TO: Planning Commissioners
FROM: Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2012-28 – Conditional Use Permit for Trampoline Park
BACKGROUND
Curt Skallerup has submitted a planning application requesting a conditional use permit for an
indoor trampoline park at 2250 Pilot Knob Road.
The planning commission heard this request at their September 24, 2012 meeting. The planning
commission discussed the concept and felt favorably towards the request, but needed more detail
on parking, traffic and other site issues. The commission tabled the matter, asking the applicant
to work with staff to provide more information. The following questions were sent to the
applicant to respond to:
Please provide a projection of the average and maximum parking spaces needed for your
business.
Is the parking on site sufficient to handle the needs of both businesses in the building?
How many parking spaces in the south lot are commonly occupied by the other tenant’s
employees?
Please describe anticipated traffic impacts on Pilot Knob Road: number of cars, time of
day, etc.
Is there a way to add signage, pavement markings, or other indicators in the parking lot
area that would minimize traffic confusion for trampoline park customers? The main
issue here is that employees of an industrial site get used to a certain regular pattern of
traffic – users of the trampoline parking will be one-timers, who may park in the wrong
places, wander in the wrong doors, etc., because they aren’t familiar with the property –
how will they help minimize this?
Is there going to be much drop-off traffic, where customers will pull up to the curb, drop
off kids and then return later? If so, should they re-stripe or reconfigure the lot to
accommodate this kind of traffic?
What business signage are they proposing on the site?
Staff has not received any written response prior to agenda assembly.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen W. Grittman
DATE: September 20, 2012
MEETING DATE: September 25, 2012
SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendment and CUP – Commercial
Recreation in the I, Industrial District
CASE NO: Case No. 2012-28; NAC Case 254.04 – 12.20
APPLICANT(S): Virgo LLC, Curt Skallerup, Jeff Rutten
LOCATION: 2250 Pilot Knob Road
ZONING: I, Industrial
GUIDE PLAN: Industrial
Background and Description of Request:
The applicants are seeking approval of a request to establish a “trampoline park” within
a facility at 2500 Pilot Knob Road. The indoor facility would accommodate
entertainment and fitness training through the use of several clusters of enclosed
trampoline structures. The applicants indicate that they will utilize the facility to market
toward individuals or groups seeking activity and exercise, and well as entertainment.
The facility would include different series of trampoline-based recreation areas and
party rooms for the use of groups gathering at the site.
The proposed use is a form of commercial recreation, similar in nature to a fitness club,
bowling center, or similar use. These uses are found most commonly in Mendota
Heights in the B-3, General Business District or the B-4, Shopping Center District.
Depending on the specific use, those districts may allow such a use either as a
permitted or conditional use.
2
In the Industrial District, the closest comparative use is “Participative Athletics”, allowed
by Conditional Use Permit.
Analysis:
The issue for the City in this case would be whether the nature of the use and traffic
patterns generated by the use would be consistent with the intent of the Industrial
District and consistent with surrounding land uses. As noted, the current industrial
district allows “Participative Athletics” by Conditional Use Permit. The City recently
approved such a permit for an entity known as “Crossfit” which is a custom athletic
training facility.
The trampoline park use differs from the Crossfit model in that it proposes to attract
general groups and members of the public for occasional site visits, rather than a
defined clientele for a specific training schedule. The provision of party rooms and
related entertainment in the proposed facility differentiates this use from that of the
athletic training aspect, even though the applicants suggest that some athletic
training/activity may also occur as a part of the business plan.
In the industrial district, retail trade is generally discouraged due to conflicts between the
introduction of general traffic into areas often dominated by trucking or other business
traffic. Moreover, parking supply for industrial uses is much less than that of
commercial activities. For the proposed site, the applicants indicate that they would
have a capacity of up to 150 patrons at any one time, and have 60-70 parking spaces
available for their use. Proposed hours of operation would be from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00
p.m. on weekdays, and until 10:00 or 11:00 on weekends.
At issue, at least for the proposed site, is that the applicants propose to occupy only a
portion (perhaps one-third) of an existing industrial building. Because hours of
operation would overlap common industrial business hours, the issue of introducing
commercial traffic, families and children into the business operations of an otherwise
active industrial property increases the potential for land use conflicts and other
problems. It should be noted that where activities are promoted toward children, it is not
uncommon to see significant levels of pedestrian and bicycle traffic as a component of
the customers’ travel.
If the use is to be considered in the Industrial District, staff would recommend that such
facilities only be considered at the edge of commercial areas where commercial traffic
conditions were more common, and less likely to raise the conflicts found in the midst of
industrial areas. In this case, the applicants have provided a proposed address for their
operation, but staff has not seen details of how the site would accommodate the use,
control traffic and building access, or other aspects common to Conditional Uses.
To continue the process, action on a Conditional Use Permit for this particular site and
operation would require additional detail.
3
Action Requested:
Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following
alternative actions:
Conditional Use Permit for Trampoline Park facility at 2250 Pilot Knob
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit, based on a finding
that the use can be accommodated on the proposed site and in the general area,
and that management will be able to address potential conflicts with industrial
activities and traffic.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit, based on a finding
that (1) the proposed use is commercial in nature, more similar to those activities
currently located in the Business Districts of the Mendota Heights zoning
ordinance, (2) that the use would occupy a property that would continue to be
dominated by full industrial activity, incompatible with the proposed child-focused
land use, and (3) that the proposed site location is inappropriate for the
introduction of this level of commercial activity.
3. Motion to table action on the Conditional Use Permit, pending additional details
from the applicants regarding specific site use, building plans, traffic
management, and other aspects of the facility on the subject site.
Staff Recommendation:
Planning staff does not recommend the CUP at this time. The proposed use appears to
raise concerns over its compatibility with industrial use areas generally, and the specific
site would continue to have approximately 50,000 square feet of active industrial use in
the building. If the application is to continue forward, staff would recommend tabling
action for the current meeting, with a request that the applicants provide significant
additional detail about the operational aspect of the facility on the subject property as
noted in this report.
Supplementary Materials:
Application materials dated 8/28/12
Le
m
a
y
L
a
k
e
R
d
Wa
t
e
r
s
D
r
Pi
l
o
t
K
n
o
b
R
d
Aca
c
i
a
D
r
Enterprise
D
r
Acacia Blvd
Commerce Dr
V
a
l
e
n
c
o
u
r
C
i
r
Perron Rd E
Kendon Ave
Centre Pointe Cv
L
e
m
a
y
L
a
k
e
D
r
Lakeview Ave
Furlong Ave
La
k
e
A
u
g
u
s
t
a
D
r
Victory Ave
Perron Rd W
Sta
t
e
H
w
y
5
5
Sta
t
e
H
w
y
1
3
Si
b
l
e
y
M
e
m
o
r
i
a
l
H
w
y
State Hwy 110 State Hwy 110
St
a
t
e
H
w
y
5
5
Dakota County, MN
Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search, appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification.
Map Scale
1 inch = 396 feet
DATE: October 23, 2012
TO: Planning Commissioners
FROM: Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2012-29 – Variance for Garage Door Width
BACKGROUND
Daniel Fleischhaker has submitted a planning application requesting a conditional use permit for
a garage greater than 1200 square feet and also requesting a variance to have more than three
garage doors at 1018 Overlook Road.
The planning commission heard this request at their September 24, 2012 meeting. The planning
commission supported the conditional use permit for the garage expansion which was
approved by the City Council at their regular meeting October 4, 2012.
The applicant showed images of a number of garages in the vicinity of 1018 Overlook Road with
four doors, to support his claim that a four door garage was both a reasonable request and more
aesthetically pleasing than a large garage with three doors.
Staff explained that prior to the zoning code review completed in 2011, a garage less 1200
square feet in area was allowed to have four doors; during the zoning code review a maximum of
three doors was made the standard for all garages.
The commission tabled the request for a variance, directing the applicant to better define the
unique circumstances and practical difficulties which would justify the variance. The
commission also asked staff to look into the approval for the newly constructed home at 690
Hidden Creek Trail, which has four garage doors. Staff has reviewed the permit for that home;
the building permit was approved in error.
BUDGET IMPACT
N/A
RECOMMENDATION
Staff supports the recommendation of the city planner, denying the variance, as detailed in his
memo dated September 19, 2012. A copy of last month’s agenda materials has been attached.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission
FROM: Michelle Barness / Stephen Grittman
DATE: September 19, 2012
MEETING DATE: September 25, 2012
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a garage of
more than 1,200 square feet; Variance for two double-
garage doors
CASE NO: NAC Case: 254.04 -12.18
APPLICANT(S): Daniel Fleischhacker
LOCATION: 1018 Overlook Road
ZONING: R-1, One Family Residential
GUIDE PLAN: LR - Low Density Residential
Background and Description of Request:
Daniel Fleischhacker is seeking a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a
two stall garage addition to his existing attached garage at the property located at 1018
Overlook Road. With the garage addition, the total garage space on the property will be
approximately 1,470 square feet. The submitted application includes the attached
garage addition of about 700 square feet (25 feet x 28 feet).
Analysis:
Conditional Use Permit. A conditional use permit is required for the construction of an
attached garage of more than 1,200 square feet, with a maximum square footage of
1,500 square feet. Because the addition of the requested two stall garage will cause
2
the existing garage on the property to expand to approximately 1,470 square feet, the
applicants are requesting a conditional use permit for its construction.
The proposed garage addition is designed with two stalls facing west towards Summit
Lane, and extending 25 feet north of the existing garage. The applicant has indicated
that the exterior materials of the proposed garage will be consistent with the existing
garage, including brick finish and an insulated overhead garage door. It is also
encouraged that the roof pitch of the proposed garage match the existing garage and
principal building to be aesthetically compatible with those structures.
With the proposed attached garage addition, the expanded garage will still meet the
required 30 feet front and corner side yard setback requirement. In addition, the floor of
the expanded garage will remain at least 1½ feet above the street grade at the curb.
According to Zoning Ordinance Section 12-1D-3, no more than three garage doors (a
double width door, along with a single width garage door, or three single garage doors)
are permitted in a residential district. The applicants are proposing the addition of a
double wide garage onto their existing double wide garage, which does not meet this
requirement. In order to proceed with their request for a conditional use permit for a
larger attached garage, the applicants will have to reduce the proposed garage door to
a single-width garage door.
In review of aerial photography of the neighborhood, it appears that most of the
neighbors near the subject property maintain a maximum of only three garage stalls.
Just one garage along Overlook was found to have 4 garage doors facing the street.
Most of the homes had just two or three garage doors visible, even though many of the
homes are large and had larger garages. As such, the proposal to construct the garage
with two double garage doors would appear inconsistent with the majority of homes in
the area.
To pursue the request to construct the building with a second double door, the applicant
is seeking a variance from the code standard cited above. Variances are reviewed as
to their ability to show unique property attributes that differentiate the property from
similarly situated parcels in a way that suggests a departure from the standards would
be a reasonable use of the property.
When considering variances, the City is required to find that:
(1) The applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner; and
(2) The applicant’s proposal faces practical difficulties in using the property in this
manner due to circumstances that:
a. Are unique to the property,
b. Are not caused by the applicant,
c. Are consistent with the purpose and intent of the City’s plans and
ordinances,
3
d. Are not out of character with the locality, or neighborhood, in which the
property is located.
The applicant has suggested that the oversized (double) lot would be one factor that is
unique to the property. However, the intent of the City in adopting the garage door
limitation was to minimize the extensive street view of garage doors from the street – lot
size would not necessarily relate to this intent. As noted above, several property
owners in the immediate area have constructed garages in compliance with the three-
garage-door standard. Approving a variance in this case would raise issues of
consistent application of the code, and consistency with the neighborhood.
Moreover, the uniqueness factor is intended to demonstrate practical difficulties in using
the property according to the code. While the double-lot size may be greater than other
nearby properties, it does not interfere with meeting the requirements of the code.
In any case, because a variance is needed, the proposed double garage door could not
be approved with the CUP. Instead, the applicant’s request could proceed only with a
condition that the zoning standards are met by the application. To do so, an approval
would require a condition that only a single garage door could be constructed under this
CUP.
With regard to options for the applicant, staff would note that the minimum practical
double garage door would be at least 16 feet in width, with some manufacturers offering
“double” doors at 14 feet in width. With this observation, a 12 foot wide door would be
considered a single door for the purposes of meeting the zoning ordinance
requirements.
Action Requested:
Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission may make one of the following
recommendations:
A. Conditional Use Permit
1. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit with conditions based upon a
finding that the proposed structure is consistent with the intent of the
Conditional Use Permit clause allowing expanded attached garages of
between 1,200 and 1,500 square feet. Conditions may include the
following:
a. The applicant revise his existing conditional use permit request to
approval for the construction of a single-door garage expansion, as
opposed to a double door.
2. Denial of the Conditional Use Permit based on a finding that the proposed
garage would adversely affect surrounding properties; and that the
4
proposed double garage door design cannot proceed without a variance
from zoning ordinance standards.
B. Variance
1. Approval of the variance to allow two double garage doors as
proposed, based on findings that the size of the property established
a condition unique to this property that justifies a variance from the
zoning standards.
2. Denial of the variance, based on findings attached to this report.
Staff Recommendation:
While Planning staff is supportive of the conditional use permit to allow an attached
accessory structure upon the subject property in the size and location proposed, Staff
recommends approval only with the condition that the applicant amend the proposal to
meet the requirement for garage door width. As such, Planning staff further
recommends denial of the requested variance to construct the garage with a second
double garage door. As noted in the report, staff believes that the requisite findings to
support a variance are not present with this permit.
Supplementary Materials:
Application materials
5
Findings of Fact for Approval
Attached Garage Conditional Use Permit
1018 Overlook Road
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the above Permit:
1. The proposed garage meets all zoning requirements for setback and size.
2. With a garage door of no more than 12 feet in width, the applicant would be able
to meet the requirements for attached garages of more than 1,200 square feet.
3. The proposed detached garage is consistent with other single family properties in
the area.
4. The proposed garage has been designed to be consistent with the architecture
and materials of the principal building.
5. The proposed addition fits on the property without raising issues of overcrowding.
6
Findings of Fact for Denial
Variance to allow two double-garage doors
1018 Overlook Road
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of denial of the above Permit:
1. The proposed garage meets all zoning requirements for setback and size.
2. With a garage door of no more than 12 feet in width, the applicant would be able
to meet the requirements for attached garages of more than 1,200 square feet.
3. A large majority of neighboring properties with larger garages meet the required
garage door standard of no more than three such doors.
4. There do not appear to be conditions on the property that create practical
difficulties in meeting the normal zoning standard.
5. Approval for the variance on this property where most neighbors have complied
with the code without variance would be inconsistent with the standards applied
to the neighborhood.
Highwa
y
1
3
Lila
c
L
a
Marie Ave
Jam
e
s
R
d
Douglas Rd
Overlook Rd
Su
m
m
i
t
L
a
Wal
s
h
L
a
Avanti Dr
Ce
l
i
a
D
r
Fa
r
o
L
a
Tw
i
n
C
i
r
c
l
e
D
r
Vic
k
i
L
a
Ov
e
r
l
o
o
k
L
a
Ma
y
f
i
e
l
d
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
R
d
Ro
l
l
i
n
g
G
r
e
e
n
C
v
Oxf
o
r
d
C
t
Doug
l
a
s
C
t
Bwana Ct
Win
d
w
o
o
d
C
t
Site Location Map
Water/Wetlands
Major Roads
City Roads
parcels
Municipal Boundaries
Delaware Ave
1018 Overlook Road
Dakota County, MN
Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search, appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification.
Map Scale
1 inch = 139 feet
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission
FROM: Bob Kirmis / Stephen Grittman
DATE: October 11, 2012
MEETING DATE: October 23, 2012
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a garage of
more than 1,200 square feet; Variance for two double-
garage doors
CASE NO: Planning Case: 12-31; NAC Case: 254.04 -12.21
APPLICANT(S): David and Kim Williams (Meadowcraft Homes)
LOCATION: 755 Wentworth Avenue
ZONING: R-1, One Family Residential
GUIDE PLAN: LR - Low Density Residential
Background and Description of Request:
David and Kim Williams wish to construct a new home upon property located at 755
Wentworth Avenue. Included in the home plans are two attached two-stall garages,
each having a “double” garage door. In total, 1,478 square feet of garage space is
proposed.
To accommodate the proposed garages, Meadowcraft Homes LLC, on behalf of the
property owners, has requested approval of the following:
A conditional use permit to allow the construction of an attached garage greater
than 1,200 square feet in size.
A variance to allow two “double” garage doors.
2
The Planning Commission may recall that the applicants appeared before the
Commission this past July requesting a wetland permit to construct a single family home
upon the subject property. That request was ultimately approved by the City Council.
At the time, detailed home plans (prompting the conditional use permit and variance
requests) were not available.
Analysis:
Conditional Use Permit. According to the Ordinance, a conditional use permit is
required for the construction of an attached garage of more than 1,200 square feet in
size, with a maximum square footage of 1,500 square feet . Thus, to accommodate the
proposed 1,478 square foot garage, the processing of a conditional use permit is
necessary.
The two garages areas are proposed on the north side of the home, near the rear lot
line. As shown on the submitted site plan, the garages are perpendicular to each other
with a pass way between the two. The Garage 1 measures 672 square feet in size
while Garage 2 measures 806 square feet. Garage 2 includes a 278 square foot rear
currently designated as “storage area”.
According to the submitted building elevations, the home will be finished in a
combination of brick and stone veneer. Garage roofs will be integrated into the roof
design of the home.
The home layout is unique in that access to the garage(s) would be achieved at the rear
of the house. While the rear yard setback of 34 feet exceeds the minimum 30 foot rear
yard setback requirement of the Ordinance, some concern exists regarding the
exposure of the home’s driveway and parking area to the abutting home to the north.
To minimize impacts (primarily headlight glare), screening should be in place along the
north side of the driveway. Existing vegetation may provide such screening.
Also to be noted is that the ground level of the proposed home measures 4,119 square
feet in size. With this in mind, the proposed ratio of living space floor area to garage
space is roughly proportional to the majority of homes in the area (which exhibit building
footprints approximately half that of the proposed home).
Variance. According to Section 12-1D-3 of the Zoning Ordinance, no more than three
garage doors (a double width door, along with a single width garage door, or three
single garage doors) are permitted in a residential zoning district.
The applicant’s home plans call for two, two-stall garages (attached) each having a
double garage door. Thus, approval of a variance is necessary to accommodate the
proposed garage doors.
3
The applicants have suggested that the variance should be approved for the following
reasons:
1. The garage doors do not dominate the elevations of the home as desi gned.
2. Other homes in the City have larger garage doors.
3. Considering the size of the subject site (approximately 8 acres) the home and
garage sizes (doors) are appropriate.
4. The site is very private (wooded) and the garage doors will not be visible from the
public street.
5. The subject site lends itself to the scale of home proposed.
When considering variances, the City is required to find that:
1. The applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner; and
2. The applicant’s proposal faces practical difficulties in using the property in this
manner due to circumstances that:
a. Are unique to the property,
b. Are not caused by the applicant,
c. Are consistent with the purpose and intent of the City’s plans and
ordinances,
d. Are not out of character with the locality, or neighborhood, in which the
property is located.
In consideration of the preceding variance evaluation criteria, the following could be
considered to support approval of the applicant’s request:
Uniqueness to Property. Most of the neighboring homes in the area have two and
three-stall garages. In this regard, the proposal to construct a garage with two
double garage doors would appear inconsistent with the majority of homes in the
area. To be noted however, is that the 8 acre subject site is unique in that is
significantly larger than the developed lots in the area and that the home is
proposed to be located such that the garage doors will not be visible from adjacent
property and rights-of-way.
Intent of City Ordinances. The Zoning Ordinance stipulates that no more than
three garage doors (a double width door, along with a single width garage door, or
three single garage doors) are permitted within residential zoning districts. This
regulation serves to limit long expanses of garage doors visible to neighboring
properties and rights-of-way. Considering that the two double doors are proposed
to be perpendicular to each other and that the garage is proposed in a location
which is not visible to surrounding properties, in this particular instance it appears
that the Zoning Ordinance may impose a “practical difficulty” upon the applicants.
4
For such a finding, the City might consider the orientation of the proposed doors and the
relative isolation of the building location as unique factors making this proposal
“reasonable”.
Action Requested:
Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission may make one of the following
recommendations:
A. Conditional Use Permit
1. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit with conditions based upon a
finding that the proposed structure is consistent with the intent of the
Conditional Use Permit clause allowing expanded attached garages of
between 1,200 and 1,500 square feet. Conditions may include the
following:
a. Screening be provided on the north side of the driveway to minimize
headlight glare upon the abutting property to the north.
2. Denial of the Conditional Use Permit based on a finding that the proposed
garage would adversely affect surrounding properties; and that the
proposed double garage door design cannot proceed without a variance
from zoning ordinance standards.
B. Variance
1. Approval of the variance to allow two double garage doors as proposed,
based on findings attached to this report.
2. Denial of the variance, based on findings attached to this report.
Staff Recommendation:
Planning Staff is supportive of the conditional use permit to allow an attached accessory
structure upon the subject property in the size and location proposed.
In regard to the variance request, Staff believes that while the applicants are proposing
to use the property in a manner which is consistent which will have little or no impact on
neighboring property, the applicant can clearly comply with the requirements of the
ordinance. Staff does not support the variance.
Supplementary Materials:
Application materials
5
Findings of Fact for Approval
Attached Garage Conditional Use Permit
755 Wentworth Avenue
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the above conditional
use permit:
1. The proposed garage, subject to resolution of the garage door design, meets all
zoning requirements for setback and size.
2. The proposed garage is compatible with other single family properties in the
area.
3. The proposed garage has been designed to be consistent (in character) with the
architecture and materials utilized on the occupied area of the home.
4. The proposed ratio of living space floor area to garage space is roughly
proportional to the majority of homes in the area.
6
Draft Findings of Fact for Approval
Variance to allow two double-garage doors
755 Wentworth Avenue
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the above variance:
1. The proposed garage meets all zoning requirements for setback, size and finish
materials.
2. The size of the site and the proposed garage location are such that the two
double garage doors will not be visible from adjacent property and rights -of-way.
3. The configuration of the garage and orientation of the garage doors is consistent
with the intent of the ordinance limitation on garage door size.
4. The provisions of the Zoning Ordinance have imposed a practical difficulty upon
the applicant which prevents use of the property in a reasonable man ner
5. The practical difficulties resulting from the provisions of the Ordinance are unique
to the subject property.
7
Draft Findings of Fact for Denial
Variance to allow two double-garage doors
755 Wentworth Avenue
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of denial of the above variance:
1. The proposed garage meets all zoning requirements for setback, size and finish
materials.
2. The proposed garage can be constructed to meet the standards of the code
relative to garage door width.
3. The unique conditions on the property are not the factors relating to size of the
garage door design – those factors only mitigate the impact of the design.
4. The proposal to construct a garage with two double garage doors is inconsistent
with the majority of home in the area.
5. The approval of the variance would grant a privilege to this property owner which
has been denied to others in the same zoning district.
Dodd Rd
Marie Ave
1st Ave
3rd Ave
D
ia
n
e
R
d
Trail Rd
2nd Ave
Evergreen Kn
Bachelor Ave
Callahan Pl
Vandall St
Sylvandale Rd
E m e r s o n A v e
M
e
d
ora
R
d
S u t t o n L a
4t h Av e
Stanwich La
C
h
e
rry
H
ill
R
d
K
n
oll
w
o
o
d L
a
Willow La
Farmdale Rd
Sunset La
Celia Dr
Brookside La
Laura St
U p p e r C o l o n i a l D r
Pa rk Pla c e Dr
C
l
e
m
e
n
t
S
t
Wachtler Ave
Park Cir
Nina Ct
Barbara Ct
Arvin Dr
M a g e r C t
G
r
y
c
C
t
Boardwalk
C
l
e
m
e
n
t
S
t
755 Wentworth Ave.
Site Location Map
Water/Wetland s
Major Roads
City Roads
Municipal Boundaries