The URL can be used to link to this page

2016-06-28 Planning Comm Agenda Packet CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSIONAGENDA June28, 2016–7:00 p.m. Mendota Heights City Hall 1.Call to Order 2.Roll Call 3.Adopt Agenda 4.Approve May 24, 2016Planning Commission Minutes 5.Public Hearings: a.Case No. 2016-19: Blue Horizon Energy, LLC. ConditionalUse Permit at675 st 1Avenue. b.Case No. 2016-20:Maris Kurmis. Lot Line Adjustment at 1787 Lexington Avenue. c.Case No. 2016-23:Sean Carey. Proposed City Code Amendments concerning B-1 District Uses. d.Case No. 2016-22: City of Mendota Heights. Proposed City Code Amendments concerning Massage Therapy Uses. e.Case No. 2016-16: Mendota Mall Associates/Paster Properties. Mendota Plaza Second Addition. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Amendment, Preliminary/Final Plat, and Wetlands Permit. 6.Verbal Review 7.Staff and Commission Announcements 8.Adjourn Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of 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. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 1 1CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3 4PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES 5May 24, 2016 6 7The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 24, 82016 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. 9 10The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Michael 11Noonan, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson, and Brian Petschel.Those absent:Howard Roston and 12Christine Costello.Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall andPublic Works Director/City 13Engineer John Mazzitello. 14 15Approval of Agenda 16 17The agenda was approved as submitted. 18 19Approval of April 26, 2016 Minutes 20 21COMMISSIONER MAGNUSONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONANTO 22APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 26, 2016, AS PRESENTED. 23 24AYES: 5 25NAYS: 0 26ABSENT: 2 (Roston, Costello) 27 28Hearings 29 30A) PLANNING CASE #2016-16 31Mendota Mall Associates/Paster Properties 32Mendota Plaza Second Addition Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development 33Amendment, Preliminary/Final Plat, and Wetlands Permit 34 35City Planner Nolan Wall explained that an application was received for a Conditional Use Permit 36for a Planned Unit Development Amendment, as well as Preliminary and Final Plat Applications, 37and a Wetlands Permit. This hearing was publically noticed; however, the application is not ready 38to move forward. 39 40Since this was publically noticed and there could be members of the audience who wish to provide 41comment, it was suggested that the public hearing be opened and public comments be heard. 42However, staff would not be making a presentation on this application and the Commission was 43requested to make a formal action by tabling the application and provide staff with instructions to 44extend the 60-day timeline requirements under the Statute. 45 May 24, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 1 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 2 46Chair Fieldopened the public hearing; however, there were no comments made by the public at 47this time. 48 49COMMISSIONER HENNESMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL,TO 50TABLEPLANNING CASE 2016-16 AND EXTEND THE 60-DAY REVIEW TIMELINE. 51 52AYES: 5 53NAYS: 0 54ABSENT: 2 (Roston, Costello) 55 56B) PLANNING CASE #2016-11 57All Energy Solar, 1002 Oxford Court 58Conditional Use Permit 59 60City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was seeking a conditional use permit to 61construct a roof-mounted solar energy system at 1002 Oxford Court. He then shared an image of 62the property located at the end of a cul-de-sac off of Walsh Lane. The property is surroundedby 63R-1 properties; Victoria would be the nearest street to the east. 64 65The City Council recently adopted Ordinance 485, which created standards for alternative energy 66systems, as part of Planning Case 2015-34, which permitted solar energy systems as a conditional 67use in all districts subject to a number of conditions. Planner Wall then reviewed the standards 68and conditions required in relation to this request and Conditional Use Permits in general; and 69shared how this application meets those standards and conditions. 70 71There were no additional questions from the Commissioners. 72 73Chair Field opened the public hearing. 74 75Mr. John Allen, 1002 Oxford Court, came forward but had no comments to add to the report. 76 77Mr. Brian Allen, 1642 Carroll Avenue, St. Paul, thecontractor, came forward to answer questions 78from the Commission. 79 80Commissioner Noonan asked for clarification on the size and location of the solar panels. Mr. 81Allen noted that the panels would cover less than the 80% maximum roof area as allowed in the 82ordinance. 83 84Commissioner Petschel asked if the framing network as the bonding path is the most common 85method to use. Mr. Allen replied in the affirmative. 86 87Mr. Brian Allen asked why Ordinance 485 was adopted as needing to go through a conditional use 88permitting process as it sounds like everything is pretty well spelled out as to what is required for 89the permit. If all of those things are met he questioned the need to come to the Planning 90Commission and the City Council to gain approval for a permit when it could be a pretty standard 91process. Chair Field replied that the City, in its wisdom, decided to handle it in this fashion. May 24, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 2 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 3 92Planner Wall noted that when the ordinance was brought forward that was the policy decision the 93City Council made. Commissioner Noonan replied that when the ordinance was brought forward 94it was something the City had no experience with and did not know what the reaction would be 95from neighbors. Mr. Allen commented that the ordinance is pretty well spelled out and is well 96written. Heencouraged the Planning Commission to pass this information on to the Council to 97make this a standard permitting process. 98 99COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO 100CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 101 102AYES: 5 103NAYS: 0 104ABSENT: 2 (Roston, Costello) 105 106COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES,TO 107RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ALL ENERGY SOLAR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 108BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDING OF FACT: 1091.The project is compliant with the applicable City Code requirements. 110AND WITH THEFOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1111.The applicant obtains a building permit prior to installation of the proposed solar energy 112system. 1132.If the proposed solar energy system remains nonfunctional or inoperable for a continuous 114period of twelve (12) months, it shall be deemed to be abandoned and shall be deemed a 115public nuisance. 1163.If abandoned, the property owners shall remove the abandoned system, including the entire 117structure and transmission equipment, at their expense after obtaining a demolition permit. 118 119Commissioner Magnuson recommended that the application be corrected to include the accurate 120numbers as to the size of the solar panels and the area of the roof to be covered. Staff agreed to 121modify the staff report before it goes to the City Council. 122 123Chair Field noted that this would come before the City Council at their Tuesday, June 7, 2016 124meeting. 125 126AYES: 5 127NAYS: 0 128ABSENT: 2 (Roston, Costello) 129 130C) PLANNING CASE #2016-14 131True North Solar, LLC, 701 Mendota Heights Road 132Conditional Use Permit 133 134City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was requesting a conditional use permit to 135construct a roof-mounted solar energy system at 701 Mendota Heights Road, which is the ISD- 136197 Friendly Hills Middle School campus. 137 May 24, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 3 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 4 138Planner Wall shared an image of the proposed project area location. The requirements and 139conditions of this application are the same as was covered in the previous application \[Planning 140Case 2016-11\]. However, the height of this proposed system would extend 17 inches above the 141existing roof structure that it is located on; however, it is not the highest point of the roof itself. He 142then explained how this application meets the requirements and conditions of the applicable 143conditional use permit standards. 144 145The Commission had no additional questions for staff. 146 147Chair Field opened the public hearing. 148 149Mr. Michael Kampmeyer,260 Salem Church Road, Sunfish Lake of True North Solar, LLC in 150Edina came forward but had no additional comments to add to the staff report. 151 152Commissioner Hennes asked what percentage of the school’s energy needs would be met by 153installing this solar system. Mr. Kampmeyer replied that he was unsure of the actual number of 154kilowatt-hours, but it would most likely offset approximately 10%-15%. 155 156Mr. Jim McLaughlin, 2480 Mendota Heights Circle, asked if the surrounding landscaping would 157be impacted by the installation of these solar panels. Mr. Kampmeyer replied that the school and 158thus the solar panel system is set far enough back from the roadthat no landscaping would be 159impacted and the trees would be maintained. Mr. Kampmeyer also indicated that there would be 160no trees removed from around the pond; there are actually no trees to be impacted now or in the 161future that they can see. 162 163COMMISSIONER MAGNUSONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 164CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 165 166AYES: 5 167NAYS: 0 168ABSENT: 2 (Roston, Costello) 169 170COMMISSIONER HENNESMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN,TO 171RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON THE 172FOLLOWING FINDING OF FACT: 1731.The project is compliant with the applicable City Code requirements 174AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1751.The applicant obtains a building permit prior to installation of the proposed solar energy 176system. 1772.If the proposed solar energy system remains nonfunctional or inoperable for a continuous 178period of twelve (12) months, it shall be deemed to be abandoned and shall be deemed a 179public nuisance. 1803.If abandoned, the property owners shall remove the abandoned system, including the entire 181structure and transmission equipment, at their expense after obtaining a demolition permit. 182 183 May 24, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 4 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 5 184AYES: 5 185NAYS: 0 186ABSENT: 2 (Roston, Costello) 187 188Chair Field noted that this would come before the City Council at their Tuesday, June 7, 2016 189meeting. 190 191D) PLANNING CASE #2016-12 192Richard Dugan, 2165 Timmy Street 193Variance Request 194 195City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant had submitted an application to reconstruct 196a deck onto a single-family dwelling, which requires a variance setback from the applicable side- 197yard setback requirements. 198 199Planner Wall shared an image of the propertyand described its location,zoning, and futureland 200use designation. 201 202The previous property owner constructed the existing deck that wraps around the northwest corner 203of the existing dwelling, into the side and rear yards. Based on the information provided by the 204applicant, the existing deck is located approximately 2.5 feet from the northern boundary line in 205the side and rear yard and is non-compliant with the current code requirements of a 10-foot setback 206standard. Since the deck is proposed to be demolished and reconstructed the applicant was required 207to seek the appropriate approvals necessary for any proposed encroachments into the required 208setback areas. 209 210Planner Wall then shared a site plan provided by the applicant.The applicant indicated that the 211existing dwelling is located approximately 11 feet from the north property boundary line and it 212contains a patio doorthat opens into the side yard to access that portion of the deck extending into 213the rear yard. The existing deck does extend 8.5 feet from the dwelling into the side yard. The 214proposed deck would extend 4 feet into the side yard for a length of 35 feet, which would require 215a 3-foot variance. 216 217Planner Wall then shared the standards of review and explained how this application meets those 218standards. He also shared a recommended site plan to propose a different option for the 219Commission’s consideration as staff contended that the portion of the proposed deck that 220encroaches into the side yard setback –the four foot walkway to access the rear yard –could be 221further reduced and that no variance is justified for the proposed deck that extends off of the west 222side of the dwelling into the rear yard. 223 224Staff recommended approval of the revised 2-foot variance request as proposed by staff and shown 225in the revised site plan included in the packet with conditions. 226 227Commissioner Hennes requested clarification that the applicant is rebuilding the entire deck area, 228not just the walkway. Planner Wall confirmed that the entire deck area would be reconstructed. 229 May 24, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 5 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 6 230Commissioner Magnuson asked if the applicant is set on a particular size of the deck for square 231footage purposes and also asked if the deck could be added onto in the opposite direction. Planner 232Wall replied that as long as the applicant stays within the existing footprint they can come as far 233in the opposite direction as they wanted to. 234 235Commissioner Noonan asked if the original deck had a variance granted. Planner Wall noted that 236staff was unable to find any record of a variance or permit granted for the existing deck. The house 237was constructed in 1976 and the circumstances of the construction are unknown. 238 239Chair Field opened the public hearing. 240 241Mr. Richard Dugan, 2165 Timmy Street, came forward and explained that the deck was already in 242existence when he purchased the home in 1987. He would like to rebuild the deck and stay within 243the 10-foot setback; however, he feels that a three-foot walkway would look like an add-on 244aesthetically. He is already giving up four or five feet and would like to keep as much of the 245remaining as possible. A four-foot walkway would be more aesthetically-appealing. 246 247Commissioner Hennes asked, beyond the issue of the walkway, how the applicant feels about 248losing the portion of the larger deck area as proposed by staff. Mr. Dugan replied that he would 249like to keep as much of the deck as possible but is willing to do whatever he has to do. He also 250noted that he couldn’t add onto the opposite side as there is a patio there; however, he could 251probably add a little bit to the west but that remains to be seen. 252 253Commissioner Noonan asked the applicant to share how he uses the walkway between theside 254door and the deck. Mr. Duggan replied that the access to the walkway is from the kitchenand 255some furniture is stored there and when gatherings take place on the deck guests gather around on 256that side. Basically it is usable space the way it is currently; however, even at four feet wide as he 257proposed it could still be usable space to put furniture. Commissioner Noonan also asked for 258confirmation that the proposal is to reducethat portion from eight feet to four feet in width. Mr. 259Duggan confirmed that this was the case. 260 261Commissioner Hennes asked where the other entrance to the deck \[marked patio door on the plan\] 262opens up from. Mr. Dugan answered that it is from the dining room. Most guests prefer going 263through the kitchen door rather than the dining room because of the location of the dining room 264table. He also noted that the kitchen door opening onto a three-foot wide walkway would make 265for a tight fit. 266 267COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO 268CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 269 270AYES: 5 271NAYS: 0 272ABSENT: 2 (Roston, Costello) 273 274COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES,TO 275RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A THREE-FOOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW May 24, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 6 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 7 276CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR-FOOT WALKWAY FROM THE EXISTING PATIO DOOR 277TO ACCESS THE SIDE YARD AND COMPLIANT PORTION OF THE PROPOSED DECK 278IN THE REAR YARDBASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 2791.Construction of the proposed deck/walkway within the required setback to access the side 280yard and compliant deck structure in the rear yard, through an existing above-grade patio 281door, is a reasonable use of the property and meets the purpose and intent of the City Code 282and Comprehensive Plan. 2832.Due to the subject parcel’s existing conditions, a practical difficulty is demonstrated in 284order to construct a walkway/landing within the required side yard setback to access a 285compliant deck structure from within the existing dwellingand provide safe access to the 286side yard. 2873.As proposed, the request would significantly reduce the existing encroachment and would 288not allow for useable deck space in the side yard or negatively impact the essential 289character of the neighborhood. 290AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 2911.The proposed encroachment shall extend no further than four feet from the northwest 292corner of the existing dwelling to provide access to the compliant portion of the proposed 293deck in the rear yard. 2942.Within one year of approval by the City Council, the applicant shall obtaina building 295permit for construction of the deck. 296 297Councilmember Noonan noted that he moved forthe four-foot walkway is that it maintains the 298elbow-room necessary for the kitchen door and provide for that passage. Most importantly, it 299lessens an existing encroachment significantly and improves the situation while still providing the 300functionality that has existed for 30-plus years. 301 302Councilmember Petschel noted that a typical three-foot hallway has the access doors from the 303rooms opening into the rooms and not into the hallway. The door swing is an important 304consideration. 305 306Planner Wall clarifiedhis understandingwas that the motion for consideration for the proposed 4- 307foot-wide walkwayincluded staff’s recommendation that the encroachment only extend beyond 308the corner of the house to access the rear yard deck, which would be constructed in conformance 309with the setbackrequirements. Planner Wall also recommended the corresponding proposed 310condition be revised. Commissioner Noonan affirmed staff’s understanding of themotion and 311recommended revised condition. 312 313AYES: 5 314NAYS: 0 315ABSENT: 2 (Roston, Costello) 316 317Chair Field noted that this would come before the City Council at their Tuesday, June 7, 2016 318meeting. 319 320 321 May 24, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 7 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 8 322E) PLANNING CASE #2016-13 323Scott and Nancy Knowlton/John Steenberg, 810/804 Ridge Place 324Lot Split and Variance 325 326City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicants were seeking approval to subdivide an 327undeveloped portion of 810 Ridge Place to be combined with 804 Ridge Place. A lot split requires 328City Council approval before being recorded by Dakota County. In addition, a variance is 329necessary to create a parcel that is non-conforming to the required minimum lot width standard for 330the applicable zoning district. 331 332Planner Wallshared an image of the propertiesand described theirlocation,zoning, and future 333land use designation. 334 335Currently, the property at 810 Ridge Place is 3.81 acres and the property at 804 Ridge Place is 4.81 336acres. Planner Wall then shared an aerial view of the properties noting the location of the existing 337dwellings. A copy of the survey was included in the Commission packet. 338 339The property owners of 810 Ridge Place (Lot 6 on the survey) requested approval of a split of 3401.95-acre parcel to sell to the property owner at 804 Ridge Place (Lot 7 on the survey). The subject 341parcels would maintain the existing side yard setbacks along the interior lot line as well as the 342existing lot widths on Ridge Place. Since the entirety of the existing lot line was not being adjusted, 343the proposal was considered a lot split and not a lot line adjustment. If approved, the property in 344question would be combined into Lot 7 and it would not intend to be developed at this time. 345 346The City Code allows the subdivision of parcels provided that the resulting lots are compliant with 347the requirements in applicable zoning district. In this case, the proposed lot split has no frontage 348or a dedicated right-of-way and does create a temporary non-conformity with the R-1 district’s 349minimum lot standards. The existing lot sizes and widths of the parent parcels would remain 350compliant with the applicable standards. In order to ensure the non-conformity created by the 351proposed lot split is eliminated within a reasonable amount of time, a condition of approval has 352been included that requires the private property owner to combine and dissolve the property in 353question into Lot 7 by October 31, 2016. 354 355Specific to the variance request, Planner Wall shared the standards of review and explained how 356this application meets those standards. 357 358Chair Field asked what recourse the City would have if the condition stipulated that the property 359owner be required to combine and dissolve the property no later than October 31, 2016 is not met. 360Planner Wall replied that staff would follow-up to ensure that this is done in compliance with any 361conditions that would be approved. However, if the Commission wished, staff could follow-up 362with the City Attorney to have some kind of bond issued in association with the condition. 363 364Commissioner Hennes asked for clarification on the purpose of this lot split, as it was his 365understanding that the purchaser wishes to look out upon his backyard rather than the neighbor’s 366back yard even though it all looks the same. Planner Wall replied that essentially that is the nature 367of the request but he would defer to the applicant. May 24, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 8 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 9 368Commissioner Noonan suggested that an indication be provided to the County Registrar that a 369deed would not be recorded until the combination and dissolution takes place concurrently. 370 371Mr. Scott Knowlton, 810 Ridge Place, - the seller, came forward but had no additional comments 372to add to the staff report. 373 374Mr. John Steenberg, 804 Ridge Place, - the buyer, came forward and addressed the question raised 375by Commissioner Noonan by replying that he has a big window overlooking the backyard. 376Currently the view is great but he has no idea who would be living next door in the future and does 377not wish to take the chance on that new neighbor putting in a fence and thereby obstructing his 378view. He is just trying to head off a potential problem and retain the land he recreated on as a nine- 379year-old boy back in 1961 when his dad built the house. 380 381When asked, Mr. Steenberg stated that he would have no problem with the stipulation that a deed 382would not be recorded until such time as the lot lines are dissolved and recombined. 383 384Additional discussions occurred with Mr. Steenberg and Mr. Knowlton as to the timing of the deed 385being recorded as Mr. Knowlton would like to sell his home sooner rather than later as he is now 386retired and would be moving. However, Mr. Steenberg would rather wait to have the deed 387recorded after October 15 due to the timing of his real estate tax payment. 388 389Mr. John Steenberg, 804 Ridge Place returned and, in regards to Condition #2 \[The applicants 390shall dedicate the required drainage and utility easements along the new interior side lot line, as 391shown on the Certificate of Survey included in the application materials, with Dakota County\], 392commented that the first 162 feet of that diagonal is just immediately south of Ridge Place and is 393part of the original line. That was platted in 1957 and all of the utilities are in there; everything is 394in the street of Ridge Place and Wachlter and the 66-foot easement on Wachtler towards Highway 395110. He has no problem with the drainage easement concept as everything is draining right now. 396However, there are three mature oak trees within the 10-foot right-of-way in that front 162 feet. 397He would hate to see those trees removed for any kind of an easement. Public Works Director/City 398Engineer John Mazzitello replied that this easement is required by City Code as a requirement for 399any new lot line being established and is avery common practice throughout the State when 400properties are platted. However, it does not mean that there would be any activity down the 401easement.Mr. Steenberg requested that if the time comes and the trees would be removed that 402further discussion be had at the City Council level. 403 404Chair Field opened the public hearing. 405 406COMMISSIONER MAGNUSONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO 407CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 408 409AYES: 5 410NAYS: 0 411ABSENT: 2 (Roston, Costello) 412 May 24, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 9 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 10 413COMMISSIONER MAGNUSONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN,TO 414RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE REQUESTS, BASED 415ON THE FOLLOWINGFINDINGS OF FACT: 4161.The proposed subdivision request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is 417consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 4182.The property in-question is not proposed to be split in order to create an additional 419buildable lot. 4203.The temporary non-conformity created by the proposed subdivision will be eliminated once 421the property in-question is combined and dissolved by the property owner of Lot 7. 4224.The proposed subdivision ensures that Lot 7 hasownership of the existing view-shed, 423without constraining potential future improvements into the rear and side yards on Lot 6. 4245.The proposed subdivision will have no visual impacts on the existing conditions of either 425property and the new interior side lot line configuration will provide an alignment that is 426consistent with the parcels to the north along Ridge Place. 4276.Approval of the requests will not negatively impact the essential character of the 428neighborhood. 429ANDWITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 4301.Upon closing on the sale of the property in-question, and no later than October 31, 2016, 431the property owner shall be required to combine and dissolve the property into Lot 7 (804 432Ridge Place). 4332.The applicants shall dedicate the required drainage and utility easements along the new 434interior side lot line, as shown on the Certificate of Survey included in the application 435materials, with Dakota County. 436AND WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION: 4371.The City Attorney to give an opinion as to what recourse may be available if the lot lines 438are not dissolved and incorporated into the property in the time allocated in Condition #1. 439 440AYES: 5 441NAYS: 0 442ABSENT: 2 (Roston, Costello) 443 444Chair Field noted that this would come before the City Council at their Tuesday, June 7, 2016 445meeting. 446 447F) PLANNING CASE #2016-15 448Michael Hayes, 2305 Apache Street 449Variance Request 450 451City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was seeking to demolish and reconstruct an 452addition to an existing single-family dwelling and requires a variance from the side yard setback 453requirements in the R-1 zoning district. 454 455Planner Wall shared an image of the propertyand described its location,zoning, and futureland 456use designation. A previous property owner constructed an addition onto the back of the garage, 457which is to the side of the house near the southern property boundary line, which functions as the 458side yard. The applicant has submitted a building permit application to demolish and reconstruct May 24, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 10 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 11 459that addition, which is 98 square feet, to accommodate a wheelchair access ramp into the dwelling 460from the garage. 461 462The existing attached garage does encroach 5.2 feet into the required side yard setbackarea; 463however, no exterior improvements are being proposed or included as part of this project. The 464proposed addition is to be reconstructed within the same footprint as the existing condition and 465would encroach approximately 1.6 feet into the side yard and requires a variance. That 1.6 feet is 466the greatest extent that it would encroach. Since the nonconforming condition is proposed to be 467demolished and reconstructed the applicant is then required to seek the appropriate approvals 468necessary for any proposed encroachment. 469 470Planner Wall then reviewed the three standards of approval for a variance and explained how this 471request meets those standards. 472 473Mr. Michael Hayes, 2305 Apache Street, came forward and answered the question raised earlier 474by stating that the area to be demolished is currently a tool room that they would be reconstructing 475as an entryway for the wheelchair. He also noted that he purchased the property in July 2015 and 476has no information on the original construction. 477 478Chair Field opened the public hearing. 479 480COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO 481CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 482 483AYES: 5 484NAYS: 0 485ABSENT: 2 (Roston, Costello) 486 487COMMISSIONER MAGNUSONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, 488TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2016-15 BASED ON THE 489FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 4901.Reconstruction ofan addition onto the existing single-family dwelling is a reasonable use 491of the property and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 4922.The existing encroachment will not be expanded and the improvements are necessary to 493reconstruct the addition in compliance with applicable code requirements. 4943.Only a small portion of the existing addition is non-compliant with the 10-foot setback and 495encroaches less than the existing attached garage. 4964.Reconstruction ofthe addition in compliance with the setback requirementsrequires the 497wheelchair ramp be moved inside the garage and does not allow adequate parking space 498for a wheelchair-accessible vehicle. 4995.The existing conditions were not created by the applicant and demonstrate a practical 500difficulty in meeting the required setback in order to reconstruct the existing addition in 501compliance with applicable codes. 5026.The reconstructed addition’s roofline will now match the existing attached garage’sand 503the wheelchair ramp will not be visible from outside the dwelling with the garage door 504closed, which will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. May 24, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 11 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 12 505AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 5061.The proposed encroachment for the reconstructed addition shall not extend further than the 507existing condition, as shown on the survey included in the application submittal. 5082.Within one year of approval by the City Council, the applicant shall obtain a building 509permit for construction of the proposed addition. 510 511AYES: 5 512NAYS: 0 513ABSENT: 2 (Roston, Costello) 514 515Chair Field noted that this would come before the City Council at their Tuesday, June 7, 2016 516meeting. 517 518G) PLANNING CASE #2016-17 519Derwin Weightlifting, LLC, 2535 Pilot Knob Road 520Conditional Use Permit 521 522City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was seeking a conditional use permit to locate 523a weightlifting training facility and vacant space within an existing multi-tenant building at 2535 524Pilot Knob Road. City Code does allow commercial recreation uses by Conditional Use Permit in 525the Industrial District. 526 527Planner Wall shared an image of the propertyand described its location,zoning, and futureland 528use designation.Derwin Weightlifting, LLC provides weightlifting coaching and training for 529athletes at various skill levels. They proposed to occupy approximately 1,400 square feet within 530approximately 2,700 square feet of existing space next to Mendota Crossfit. Mendota Crossfit is 531planning an expansion in to the remaining existing space and they have indicated that they do plan 532to have some crossover training between those businesses. 533 534The applicant suggested limited weekday operations from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. and their 535weekend hours have yet to be determined. Attendance has been indicated to vary from 10 to 15 536people at a time. 537 538Planner Wall shared the use amendmentsmade to the ordinance earlier this year and explained 539how this application would meet those use requirements. He also explainedthe standards of review 540for a conditional use permit and how this application meets those standards. 541 542Staff did propose to add a similar condition to that in-place for Mendota Crossfit, which limits 543hours of operation from 5:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. 544 th 545Mr. Brian Derwin, Owner of Derwin Weightlifting, LLC, 8035 Upper 145St. W., Apple Valley 546came forward but had no additional comments to add to the staff report. 547 548Chair Field opened the public hearing. 549 May 24, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 12 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 13 550COMMISSIONER HENNESMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO 551CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 552 553AYES: 5 554NAYS: 0 555ABSENT: 2 (Roston, Costello) 556 557COMMISSIONER MAGNUSONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN,TO 558RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON THE 559FOLLOWING FINDING OFFACT: 5601.The proposed use is compliant with the applicable City Code requirementsand the use is 561consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 562AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 5631.All training and associated activities shall be conducted entirely within an enclosed 564building. 5652.Outdoor storage and display of materials is prohibited. 5663.A sign permit shall be required prior to installation of any additional tenant signage on the 567subject parcel/building. 5684.A building permit shall be required prior to any applicable demolition or build-out of the 569proposed tenant space. 5705.The hours of operation will be limited to 5:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. 571 572AYES: 5 573NAYS: 0 574ABSENT: 2 (Roston, Costello) 575 576Chair Field noted that this would come before the City Council at their Tuesday, June 7, 2016 577meeting. 578 579Verbal Review 580 581Planner Wall gave the following verbal review: 582 583PLANNING CASE #2016-08 th 584Evergreen Knolls 4Addition, Preliminary and Final Plat 585•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission 586 587PLANNING CASE #2016-09 588City of Mendota Heights, City CodeAmendments concerning the aircraft noise attenuation 589ordinance 590•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission 591 592PLANNING CASE #2016-10 593Administrative Wetlands Permit for a fence at 605 Hampshire Drive 594Approved by staff in compliance with the applicable codes 595 May 24, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 13 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 14 596PLANNING CASE #2016-18 597Critical Area Permit for replacement of an accessory structure at 1081 Douglas Drive 598 599The ordinance does allow for certain minor developments to be exempt from certain standards 600within the critical area regulations, one of which being a public hearing before the Planning 601Commission for minor development or minor improvements, which this qualified as. Therefore, 602this application was taken directly to the City Council 603Approved by City Council 604 605Staff Announcements 606 607In regards to the DNR’s Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area rulemaking process, the 608DNR is holding open houses. They have reached a point where they have a draft document 609that looks much like what was reviewed by the Commission approximately one year ago. 610The open houses are scheduled for June 14 at 4:30 p.m. in Hastings; June 15 at 4:30 p.m. 611in Anoka; and June 16 at 10:00 a.m. in Minneapolis. Additional information can be found 612on the DNR’s website. Residents living in the Critical Area were encouraged to seek out 613additional information on how this would impact their properties. 614The Annual Clean-up Day was held on Saturday, May 7 with perfect weather. 373 vehicles 615came through, which is the highest participation recorded. Still waiting for numbers to be 616received as to how much materialwas collected. 617Saturday, June 4 is the Annual Park Celebration at Mendakota Park, preceded by the 618Mendota Heights 5K. If not open already, registration will be open next week. 6192016 Road Reconstruction Project will be in full swing by the time the Commission meets 620in June. This project includes the reconstruction of Mendota Road, the frontage road off 621of Highway 110 on the north side, between Oak Street and Delaware. Along with that the 622pavement in the Warrior Drive subdivision will be rehabilitated. 623Dodd Road Corridor Study is underway. 624 625Adjournment 626 627COMMISSIONER MAGNUSONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, 628TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:50 P.M. 629 630AYES: 5 631NAYS: 0 632ABSENT: 2 (Roston, Costello) 633 May 24, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 14 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 15 Request for Planning Commission Action MEETING DATE:June 28, 2016 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP – Planner SUBJECT:Planning Case 2016-19 st Avenue Conditional Use Permit – 675 1 COMMENT: Introduction The applicant, on behalf of the property owner, is seeking a conditional use permit to install a roof-mounted st solar energy system at 675 1 Avenue. The City Code allows solar energy systems as a conditional use in all zoning districts, subject to conditions. Background The subject parcel is approximately 19,000square feet and contains an existing single-family residential dwelling with an attached garage under construction. The proposed solar energy system is complaint with the applicable City Code standards for such a structure and for conditional use permits. The proposed conditions of approval require a building permit to be issued priorto installation and abandonment provisions. Discussion The City is using its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on subdivision and zoning requests and has limited discretion; a determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required. Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the request in this caseand make a recommendation to the City Council. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 16 Planning Staff Report DATE: June 28, 2016 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP – Planner SUBJECT:Planning Case 2016-19 Conditional Use Permit APPLICANT: Blue Horizon Energy, LLC st PROPERTY ADDRESS:675 1 Avenue ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One-Family Residential/LR-Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE:July 26, 2016 (60 days) DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, on behalf of the property owner,is seeking a conditional use permit to install a roof-mounted st solar energy system at 675 1 Avenue. Title 12-1D-18-A allows solar energy systems as a conditional use in all zoning districts, subject to conditions. BACKGROUND The subject parcelis approximately 19,000square feet and contains asingle-family residential dwelling with an attached garage under construction. The City Council recently adopted Ordinance 485 creating standards for alternative energy systems, as part of Planning Case 2015-34. The intent wasto ensure the same standards are applied to each solar energy system in an effort to encourage sustainable practices that do not adversely impact the community. ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan Solar access protection is included in the Land Use Plan-Resource Protection section of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan(page 72-73): Solar Access Protection TheCityofMendotaHeights has historically planned for solaraccess protection withinits ComprehensivePlans.Therationaleforincluding a solaraccessprotectionelementinthe ComprehensivePlanistoassuretheavailability of directsunlighttosolarenergysystems. A large share of the energy consumed inMinnesotaisusedfor purposes that solar energy could wellservesuchas space heating and cooling, domestic hotwaterheatingandlow-temperature industrialprocesses.Collectionofsolarenergyrequiresprotectionofsolarcollectors’skyspace. Solar skyspaceistheportionoftheskythatmust be free of intervening treesorstructuresfor acollectortoreceiveunobstructed sunlight. Accordingto the Minnesota EnergyAgency,“simple 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 17 flatplatecollectorshave thepotentialtosupplyone-halfofMinnesota’s space heating, cooling, water heating and low-temperatureindustrialprocess heat requirements.” SolarAccessGoalsandPolicies: Goal 1: Protect reasonableaccess to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Policies: Consider modification of existing ordinances toprotectaccessofdirectsunlightto rooftops of all principal structures. Encouragedeveloperstoestablishcovenantsthat do notrestrictthedevelopment and use of active and/or passive solar energy systems. Encouragebuildingsanddeveloperstooffersolarenergysystemoptions,totheextent practical,forspaceheatingandcoolingandhotwaterheatingin new residential, commercialandindustrialdevelopments. Conditional Use Permit Title 12-1D-18-A-3 of the City Code includes the following standards for roof-mounted solar energy systems: Roof Mounted Systems: a. Height: The maximum height of the system shall not exceed the structure height requirements in the applicable zoning district. The existing dwelling is compliant with the R-1 District height requirement. The proposed solar energy systemwillbe mountedon the attached garage structure and will not extend above the highest peakof the structure. b. Setbacks: The system shall comply with all building setback requirements in the applicable zoning district and shall notextend beyond the exterior perimeter of the building on which the system is mounted. The proposed solar energy systemwill not extend beyond the exterior perimeter of the building. c. Mounting: The system shall be flush mounted on pitched roofs or may be bracket mounted on flat roofs. Bracket mounted collectors shall only be permitted when a determination is provided by a licensed professional qualified to certify that the underlying roof structure will support loading requirements and all applicable building standards are satisfied. The proposed solar energy systemwill be bracket-mounted to the flatroof structure. The applicant has provided an engineering report for further review as part of the building permit process. d. Maximum Area: The system shall not cover more than eighty percent (80%) of the roof section upon which the panels are mounted. The proposed solar panel area is approximately 463square feet, which will occupy approximately 55% of the total applicable roof section. In addition, Title 12-1D-18 of the City Codeincludes the following additional conditions for all solar energy systems: 5. Screening: Solar energy systems shall be screened from view to the extent possible without impacting their function. Systems located within the business and industrial zoning districts may 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 18 be required to comply with the standards in subsection 12-1D-13-2C7 of this article where practical. According to the applicant: The system as proposed at the Justen Residence will be installed on the flat garage roof.Thesolar array will be set back from the south (road side) of the roof by over 3 feet.The solar panels will be positioned at a tilt of only 10 degrees from horizontal.Because of that, they will only be 12" off of the roof surface at the tallest point. The roof also has a slight slope down to the north making them even harder to view from the road.There is no practical way to screen them further without directly affecting the panels output.I've attached a layout showing the proposed system from several orientations. The inverter for the system will be installed on an interior wall of the garage and completely out of view. 6. Color: Solar energy systems shall use colors that blend with the color of the roof material on which the system is mounted or other structures. According to the applicant, the roof material is black EPDM rubber and the panels are also black in color. 7. Glare: Reflection angles from collector surfaces shall be oriented away from neighboring windows and minimize glare toward vehicular traffic and adjacent properties. Where necessary, the city may require additional screening to address glare. According to the applicant, the panels being used on this project have anti-reflective glass to minimize glare. 8. Utility Connection: a. All utilities shall be installed underground. According to the applicant, the solar system is connecting to the main electric service for the home via conduit that is run within the building and the main electric service for the house is buried underground. b. An exterior utility disconnect switch shall be installed at the electric meter serving the property. The proposed project includes the required exterior switch. c. Solar energy systems shall be grounded to protect against natural lightning strikes in conformance with the national electrical code. According to the applicant, the proposed system will be grounded per National Electric Code. d. No solar energy system shall be interconnected with a local electrical utility company until the company has provided the appropriate authorization to the city, in compliance with the national electrical code. According to the applicant, the system will be subject to astate electrical inspection and witness test with Xcel Energy to verify compliance withthe National Electric Code. 9. Safety: a. Standards: Solar energy systems shall meet the minimum standards outlined by the International ElectrotechnicalCommission (IEC), the American Society Of Heating, Refrigerating, And Air- Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), ASTM International, British Standards Institution (BSI), International Organization For Standardization (ISO), Underwriter's Laboratory (UL), the Solar Rating And Certification Corporation (SRCC) or other standards as determined by the city building official. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 19 b. Certification: Solar energy systems shall be certified by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the Solar Rating And Certification Corporation or other body as determined by the community development director. The city reserves the right to deny a building permit for proposed solar energy systems deemed to have inadequate certification. According to theapplicant, the system design and equipment as proposed meet or exceed all minimum standards in place today. 10. Easements: Solar energy systems shall not encroach upon any public drainage, utility, roadway, or trail easements. The proposed solar energy system will not encroach on any easements. 11. Abandonment: Any solar energy system which remains nonfunctional or inoperable for a continuous period of twelve (12) months shall be deemed to be abandoned and shall be deemed a public nuisance. The ownersshall remove the abandoned system, including the entire structure and transmission equipment, at their expense after obtaining a demolition permit. This requirement is included as a conditional of approval. Title 12-1L-6-E-1 of the City Code contains standards for reviewing conditional use permit requests; the following are to be taken into consideration: The effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants or surrounding lands; existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets; and the effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan. In addition, the following standards must be met: The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and the proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan. Based on the information included in the application submittal and provided by the applicant, the proposed project is compliant with the applicable solar energy system and conditional use permit standards. ALTERNATIVES 1.Recommend approval of the conditional use permitrequest, based on the finding of fact thatthe proposed project is compliant with the applicable City Code requirements, with conditions. OR 2.Recommend denial of the conditional use permit request, based on the finding(s) of fact determined by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. OR 3.Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 20 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permitrequest based on the findingof factthat the proposed project is compliant with the applicable City Code requirements(Alternative 1), with the following conditions: 1.The applicant obtains a building permit prior to installation of the proposed solar energy system. 2.The applicant shall provide the appropriate authorization to the city concerning the interconnection agreement with Xcel Energy. 3.If the proposed solar energy system remains nonfunctional or inoperable for a continuous period of twelve (12) months, it shall be deemed to be abandoned and shall be deemed a public nuisance. 4.If abandoned, the property owners shall remove the abandoned system, including the entire structure and transmission equipment, at their expense after obtaining a demolition permit. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1.Aerial site map 2.Planning applications, including supporting materials 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 21 Planning Case 2016-19 City of 675 1st Avenue Mendota 025 Heights Date: 6/18/2016 SCALE IN FEET 670 678 688 60 140 669 696 60 140 E 1ST AV 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. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 22 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 23 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 24 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 25 26 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 27 Page - Packet PV-S2 Suite 120 675 1st Ave. Commission 1-866-620-2410 Werner Electric System Details Justen Residence 6500 Sheridan Drive Module Information Buffalo, NY 14221 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Planning 6/28/16 6 40 2024 BILL OF MATERIAL 3 4433 3 4333 2 LEG BASKET4 LEG BASKET SOLAR PANEL DYNORAIL 3 4333 27'-9" 3 4333 3 4333 3 4433 18.12523.29 Concrete Ballast Block 17'-6" Solar Panel 37.215 43.25 BALLAST Scale: 1/8" = 1' (2" x 8" x 16") Scale: NTS 4 Leg Basket CONCRETE BLOCK QTY. AS NOTED, 17LBS 18.12523.29 12.37 10 Degree 37.215 2 Leg Basket 43.25 20.43 ELEVATION VIEW OF DYNORAXX SYSTEM PANEL LAYOUT USING DYNORAXX EVOLUTION 4.86 2 1 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 28 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 29 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 30 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 31 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 32 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 33 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 34 PLANNINGCASE2016-19PUBLICHEARINGNOTICEMAILINGLIST Cassandra SchmidtCharles E & Judith M GollaCharles M & Paula K Levenberg 699 2nd Ave685 Brookside Ln689 Brookside Ln Mendota Heights Mn 55118Saint Paul Mn 55118-2829Saint Paul Mn 55118-2829 Christopher Robert SchultzDouglas Arlen Tste DannerDouglas S & Lynn L Kennedy 675 Brookside Ln688 1st Ave688 Brookside Ln Mendota Heights Mn 55118-2829Mendota Heights Mn 55118Saint Paul Mn 55118-2817 Elizabeth MulcahyFrederick J & Janet SchomakerGregory A & Joan K Jenniges 671 2nd Ave1400 Clement Ave665 2nd Ave Saint Paul Mn 55118-2807Mendota Heights Mn 55118Saint Paul Mn 55118-2807 Gregory J & Patricia RoedlerHerbert G & Patricia StrozinskyJames & Erica Macdonald 665 Brookside Ln8970 Coffman Path671 Brookside Ln Saint Paul Mn 55118-2829Inver Grove Heights Mn 55076Saint Paul Mn 55118-2829 James R & Kristine R RollwagenJeffrey L Tste ThamesJohn C & Ione C Kalaus 670 Brookside Ln693 Brookside Ln1394 Clement St Saint Paul Mn 55118-2817Mendota Heights Mn 55118-2829Saint Paul Mn 55118-2724 Joseph G & Barbara A RichterLeroy J & Patricia A JustenLisa R Griebel 659 2nd Ave250 6th St E Apt 107694 1st Ave Mendota Heights Mn 55118-2807Saint Paul Mn 55101Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Mark Allen & Julie A SunbergMary Lena SamoszukMichael & Jenna Manning 3529 Birchpond Rd697 Brookside Ln661 1st Ave Eagan Mn 55122Mendota Heights Mn 55118-2829Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Michael D & Elizabet ObrienMichael S OxleyPatricia J Ruble 678 1st Ave700 1st AvePo Box 457 Mendota Heights Mn 55118Mendota Heights Mn 55118Princeton Mn 55371 Phillip H & Lynda Mc TrueRalph C & Carol HeussnerRaymond Ramirez 660 Brookside Ln654 1st Ave668 1st Ave Saint Paul Mn 55118-2817Saint Paul Mn 55118-2803Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Richard CondonRichard S & Leanne M LonsonRobert A & Christine Wichner 681 Brookside Ln678 Brookside Ln693 2nd Ave Mendota Heights Mn 55118Mendota Heights Mn 55118Saint Paul Mn 55118-2809 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 35 Robert E & Geri M DoaneRobert J & Diane SullwoldRoger W & Terry J Blum 660 1st Ave667 1st Ave669 1st Ave Mendota Heights Mn 55118-2803Saint Paul Mn 55118-2804Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Thomas D & Edythe HockenberryTimothy J & Amy M McManusVincent J & Dana M Pagnotta 696 Brookside Ln655 Brookside Ln657 1st Ave Mendota Heights Mn 55118Saint Paul Mn 55118-2829Saint Paul Mn 55118-2804 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 36 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 37 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 38 Request for Planning Commission Action MEETING DATE:June 28, 2016 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP – Planner SUBJECT:Planning Case 2016-20 Lot Line Adjustment – 1787 Lexington Avenue/PID# 27-81275-02-060 COMMENT: Introduction The applicant, on behalf of both property owners, is seeking approval to adjust a shared interior lot line and vacate an existing drainage and utility easement. The request requires City Council approval before being recorded by Dakota County. Background The property owners of 1787 Lexington Avenue are interested in selling 5,187 square feet of the existing rear yard to the owners of the adjacent, undeveloped parcel, who reside at 1122 Orchard Circle. The existing accessory structureswill be removedand the proposed adjustment does not cause any non- conformities on either lot. Discussion The City is using its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on subdivision and zoning requests and has limited discretion; a determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required. Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the request in this caseand make a recommendation to the City Council. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 39 Planning Staff Report DATE: June 28, 2016 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP – Planner SUBJECT:Planning Case 2016-20 Lot Line Adjustment APPLICANT: MarisKurmis PROPERTY ADDRESS:1787 Lexington Avenue/PID# 27-81275-02-060 ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One-Family Residential/LR-Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE:August 14, 2016 (60 days) DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, on behalf of both property owners, isseeking approval to adjust a shared interior lot lineand vacate an existing drainage and utility easement. The request requires City Council approval before being recorded by Dakota County. BACKGROUND The property owners of 1787 Lexington Avenue (Vals Addition, Lot 5, Block 2)are interested in selling 5,187 square feet of the existing rear yard to the owners of the adjacent, undevelopedparcel (Vals Addition, Lot 6, Block 2), who reside at 1122 Orchard Circle. According to both parties, the natural topography of the area in-question is better-suited to be located on Lot 6 and would ensure the existing vegetative buffer remains between the properties. ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan The subject parcels areguided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The request to adjust portions of two adjacent existing single-family residential parcelsisconsistent with the continued use of both parcels as low density residential uses. Lot Line Adjustment Title 11-3-2 of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district. As shown in the table below, based on the attached survey, the proposed lot line adjustment does not create any non-conformities with the applicable R-1 Districtlotstandards: 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 40 Lot 5Lot 6 R-1 Zoning District 1787 Lexington AvenuePID# 27-81275-02-060 StandardExistingProposedExistingProposed Lot Area15,000SF65,081 SF59,894 SF16,544 SF21,731 SF 1 Lot Width100 ft.162.43 feet158.85 feet Front Yard Setback30 ft.213feet 1 10' on each side or / 2 50.4 feet of the height of the (north) structure contiguous Side Yard Setback to the side yard, 61.5 feet N/A - undeveloped whichever is greater, (south) to a maximum of 15' 30' or 20% of the Rear Yard Setbackaverage lot depth, 126.6 feet 94.6 feet whichever is greater 1 The maximum horizontal distance between the side lot lines of a lot measured within the first thirty feet (30') of the lot depth Based on the existing conditions and the proposed lot line adjustment, only the rear yard setback on Lot 5 is impacted.According to the applicable setback standard, which is 20% of the average lot depth, the required rear yard setbackis 73.82 feet. The existing structure is located 94.6 feet from the new rear property boundary line and is compliant with the setback standard. The accessory structures noted on survey are proposed to be removed and a corresponding condition of approval is included to ensure no additional non-conformities are created by the proposed adjustment. The requested vacation of the existing drainage andutility easement running along the interior lot line will be transferred to the new line, as included in the proposed legal descriptions. In addition, the existing drainage and utility easement running along the northern property boundary line of Lot 6 will be extended across the entirety of the expanded parcel. ALTERNATIVES 1.Recommend approval of the subdivision request,including the drainage and utility easement vacation,based on the attached findingof fact, with conditions. OR 2.Recommend denial of the subdivision request, based on the finding(s) of fact determined by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. OR 3.Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the subdivision request, including the drainage and utility easement vacation, based on theattached findings of fact(Alternative 1), with the following conditions: 1.Upon closing on the saleof the property, the property owners shall file the appropriate documents to record the proposed adjustment with Dakota County. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 41 2.The property owners shall dedicate the required drainage and utility easementalong the new interior side lot lineandextend the existing drainage and utility easementalong the new north property boundary line on Lot 6, as shown on the Certificate of Survey, with Dakota County. 3.All existing accessory structures shown on the Certificate of Survey will be removed prior to recording the proposed adjustment with Dakota County. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1.Aerial site map 2.Planning applications, including supporting materials 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 42 FINDINGS OF FACT FORAPPROVAL Lot Line Adjustment 1787 Lexington Avenue/ PID# 27-81275-02-060 The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the lot line adjustment requestin this case: 1.The proposed subdivision request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2.The proposed adjustment will not cause any non-conformities on either parcel, based on the applicable zoning district standards. 3.The existing accessory structures on Lot 5 will be removed, so as not to create any non-conformities on Lot 6 as a result of the proposed adjustment. 4.The area in-question is better-suited to be included as part of Lot 6 due to the existing conditions. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 43 Planning Case 2016-20 City of 1787 Lexington Avenue Mendota 080 Heights Date: 6/8/2016 SCALE IN FEET 1147 43 43 1137 1135 1127112511171115 1144 43 43 1146 KIN GSL EY C IR S 401 125 118 1129 1787 33 17 325 76 44 1794 58 33 1795 1122 1091 1128 198 108 36 110 54 170 116 1813 1813 1117 1127 1133 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. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 44 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 45 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 46 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 47 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 48 PLANNINGCASE2016-20PUBLICHEARINGNOTICEMAILINGLIST Alice H DickinsonAnn M HathawayArthur H & Judith Koch 1115 Kingsley Cir S1146 Kingsley Ct S1147 Kingsley Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55118Mendota Heights Mn 55118Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Barbara Kay Tste NelsonBernice A Tste BordenaveBrian E & Joanne J Mullen 1081 Marie Ave W805 Las Cruces Ct1122 Orchard Cir Mendota Heights Mn 55118Lady Lake Fl 32159Saint Paul Mn 55118-4146 Charles & Kathryn CunninghamCity of Mendota HeightsCraig K & Cathy St John 1138 Kingsley Cir N1101 Victoria Curv1144 Kingsley Ct Saint Paul Mn 55118-4158Saint Paul Mn 55118-4167Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Daniel P McCollarDavid OlinDennis J & Bonnie J Finn 1089 Overlook Rd1140 Orchard Pl1157 Kingsley Ct Saint Paul Mn 55118-3652Mendota Heights Mn 55118Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Eduardo ChavezEdward C & Virginia StringerEdward G III & Luann Hames 1068 Cullen Ave1135 Kingsley Cir S1136 Kingsley Cir N Mendota Heights Mn 55120Mendota Heights Mn 55118Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Edward T EvansEric C & Joanna R HesseErna G Tste Dawson 1137 Kingsley Cir S1083 Overlook Rd1164 Kingsley Ct S Mendota Heights Mn 55118Mendota Heights Mn 55118-3652Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Fred & Karen GordonGareth J & Tamara J St JohnGeoffrey A Mason 1135 Orchard Cir7 Mears Ave1791 Overlook Ln Saint Paul Mn 55118-4146Mendota Heights Mn 55118Saint Paul Mn 55118-4134 Gerald A & Marilyn F StrommenHarriette Fae Tste RutsteinIvan J Posthumus 1128 Orchard Cir% Harold Ramon Rutstein 11551091 Marie Saint Paul Mn 55118-4146Kingsley CtSaint Paul Mn 55118-4132 Mendota Heights Mn 55118 James & Catherine ObrienJames LovingJames W Tste Reagan 1118 Kingsley Cir N1851 Orchard Hl1410 Ocean Blvd S Apt S4 Mendota Heights Mn 55118Mendota Heights Mn 55118Pompano Beach Fl 33062 Jane D Tste FreemanJay C PhillipsJoanne & Brian Mullen 1166 Kingsley Ct1127 Orchard Pl1122 Orchard Cir Mendota Heights Mn 55118-4162Saint Paul Mn 55118-4119Mendota Heights Mn 55118-4146 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 49 John S & Kattie E HubertyJonathan C & Abigail GewirtzJudith Ann & Paul Ed Rhein 1140 Orchard Cir1088 Overlook Rd1116 Kingsley Cir N Mendota Heights Mn 55118Saint Paul Mn 55118-3654Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Kristin Coleen ReillyLeon G VigMartin H & Karole K Abelovitz 1779 Overlook Ln1758 Lexington Ave S1850 Orchard Hill Mendota Heights Mn 55118Saint Paul Mn 55118-3608Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Matthew C CampMeredith B Tste AldenNancy H Tste Punch 1127 Kingsley Cir S1156 Kingsley Ct25648 North Cordova Ln Mendota Heights Mn 55118-4161Mendota Heights Mn 55118-4162Rio Verde Az 85263 Patrick & Kathleen SteadPaul G & Elaina K PerlebergPaul G & Lisa M B Dorn 1117 Kingsley Cir S42111 Fremont Ave S1129 Orchard Circle Mendota Heights Mn 55118Minneapolis Mn 55409Mendota Heights Mn 55118-4146 Ralfs H & Mary Lou MikelsonsRalph W & Pamela NordstromRichard J & Jane C Gatti 108 Union Ct Ne1139 Orchard Pl1126 Kingsley Cir N Renton Wa 98059-5239Saint Paul Mn 55118-4119Mendota Hts Mn 55118 Robert G FogtRobert J & Susan A HughesRobert J & Susan A Hughes 1145 Orchard Pl1117 Orchard Pl Unit 11171117 Orchard Pl Unit 1117 Saint Paul Mn 55118-4119Saint Paul Mn 55118-4119Saint Paul Mn 55118-4119 Robert M & Ann M JonesRoger K & Nona MosvickRoy & Delores Henderson 1167 Kingsley Ct S1133 Orchard Pl1095 Overlook Rd Mendota Heights Mn 55118Saint Paul Mn 55118-4119Saint Paul Mn 55118-3652 Ruth W HinschShawn P & Angela M WoessnerSherry Essen 1125 Kingsley Cir S1134 Orchard Cir1143 Orchard Cir Mendota Heights Mn 55118-4161Mendota Heights Mn 55118Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Stevan C & Eve R KafitzThomas C KellyThomas E & Nancy Ann Johnson 1094 Overlook Rd1849 Orchard Hill1154 Kingsley Ct S Saint Paul Mn 55118-3654Mendota Heights Mn 55118Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Thomas J & Julie A ProdahlThomas R & Teresa J TschidaVincent E Eilers 1124 Orchard Pl1794 Lexington Ave S1165 Kingsley Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55118-4118Saint Paul Mn 55118-3609Mendota Heights Mn 55118 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 50 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 51 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 52 Request for Planning Commission Action MEETING DATE:June 28, 2016 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP – Planner SUBJECT:Ordinance 498 Concerning B-1 District Uses COMMENT: Introduction The applicant is requesting amendments to Title 12-1F-1-B of the City Code concerning conditionaluses in the B-1 Limited Business District. Background The applicant owns the property at 2500 Lexington Avenue South and formerly occupied the existing office/warehouse building, which is currently vacant. The proposed amendments include two additional conditional uses for consideration in the B-1 Limited Business District. The building was originally built as a gymnastics studio and later converted to an office/warehouse use, neither of which are permitted to operate in the B-1 District under the current City Code.The applicant no longer operates the business and is marketing the building for sale or lease. As a result, the existing permitted/conditional uses have proved problematicin attracting new usersbased on how the building is constructed and the code amendment process. In response to the applicant’s request, staff proposes considerationof the following conditional uses contained inDRAFTOrdinance 498: 1.Commercial recreation, when conducted within a completely enclosed building. 2.Offices of general nature where the operations include warehousing from the site. Discussion The City is using its legislative authority when considering action on a code amendment request and has broad discretion; the only limitations are that actions must be constitutional, rational, and in some way related to protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the public. Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the proposed code amendment and make a recommendation to the City Council. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 53 DATE: June 28, 2016 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP – Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2016-23 Proposed Code Amendments – B-1 District Conditional Uses APPLICANT: Sean Carey PROPERTY ADDRESS:2500 Lexington Avenue South ZONING/GUIDED: B-1 Limited Business/B-Business ACTION DEADLINE:August 6, 2016 (60 days) DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting amendments to Title 12-1F-1-B of the City Code concerning conditionaluses in the B-1 Limited Business District. BACKGROUND The applicant owns the property at 2500 Lexington Avenue South and formerly occupied the existing 13,940-square foot office/warehouse building, which is currently vacant. The proposed amendment includes two additional conditional uses for consideration in the B-1 Limited Business District. The building on the subject property was constructed in 1991 for Turner’s Gymnastics Society. As part of Planning Case 91-01, the City Council approved the following requests: 1.Minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment (High-density Residential to Business) 2.Rezoning (B-1A Business Park to B-1 Limited Business) 3.Conditional Use Permit (private athletic facility) 4.Preliminary Plat 5.Variance (side yard parking lot setback) Prior to purchasing the building, the applicant appeared before the City Council on June 6, 2006 to request an interpretation of the B-1 zoning requirements with respect to subject property and the proposed office/warehouse use. The City Council determined that Laser Technologies was permitted as an “offices of a general nature” use. The applicant no longer operates the business and is marketing the building for sale or lease. As a result, the existing permitted/conditional uses have proved problematicin attracting new users based on how the building is constructed and the code amendment process. ANALYSIS The applicant’s request is to add the following conditional uses to the B-1 District: 1.Gymnastics business 2.Office/warehouse 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 54 The proposed code amendment provides clarity as to what uses may or may not occupy the space and would allow future interested parties to pursue a conditional use permit process without having to first go through a code amendment process. In responseto the applicant’s proposal, staff has prepared DRAFT Ordinance 498 for review and discussion. The following proposed conditional uses are included for consideration: 1.Commercial recreation, when conducted within a completely enclosed building. This use was recently addedas a conditional useto the Industrial District and is further defined by the Code asfollows: RECREATION, COMMERCIAL: Bowling alley, cart track, jump center, golf, pool hall, vehicle racing or amusement, dance hall, skating, tavern, theater, firearms range, recreational instruction (such as martial arts schools, dance schools, etc.) and similar uses. The siting and construction of the building was originally approved by conditional usepermitas a “private athletic facility.” That use no longer remains in the Code and the building is well-suited for this type of potential future use due to the existing build-out. 2.Offices of general nature where the operations include warehousing from the site. According to Title 12-1F-1-A of the City Code, the following is a permitted use in the B-1 District: Offices of general nature where the operations do not include retail sales or warehousing from the site. In addition, according to Title 12-1B-2 of the City Code, warehousing is defined as follows: WAREHOUSING: The storage of materials or equipment within an enclosed building. According to the applicant, the building contains approximately 8,300 square feet of warehouse spacein addition to the office space. Laser Technologies used the warehouse space as a showroom and staging area and there was no direct retail sale from the site. The proposed amendment would allow warehousing in conjunction with a permitted general office use, but would still prohibit retail sales. Both proposed uses are specific to the subject property due to its history and build-out, but the proposed amendments would apply to the entire B-1 Limited Business District. As a result, staff proposes they be considered as conditional uses. The conditional use permit process requires a public hearing and subsequent review to determine if the proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses and applicable zoning standards. ALTERNATIVES Following the public hearing and further discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1.Recommendapproval of DRAFT Ordinance 498, as presented or as amended by the Commission. OR 2.Recommend denial of DRAFT Ordinance 498. OR 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 55 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 proposeto bring back any substantial revisions for reviewand further discussionat a future meeting prior to making a recommendation to the City Council. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1.DRAFT Ordinance 498 2.Zoning Map 3.January 22, 1991 Planning Commission minutes 4.February 26, 1991 Planning Commission minutes 5.March 5, 1991 City Council minutes 6.June 6, 2006 City Council minutes 7.Planning application, including supporting materials 56 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 West St. PaulWest St. PaulWest St. Paul Sunfish LakeSunfish LakeSunfish Lake West St. PaulWest St. PaulWest St. Paul Sunfish LakeSunfish LakeSunfish Lake DELAWARE AVEDELAWARE AVEDELAWARE AVE WACHTLER AVEWACHTLER AVEWACHTLER AVE VICTORIA RDVICTORIA RDVICTORIA RD LEXINGTON AVELEXINGTON AVELEXINGTON AVE PILOT KNOB RDPILOT KNOB RDPILOT KNOB RD 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 57 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 58 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 59 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 60 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 61 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 62 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 63 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 64 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 65 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 66 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 67 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 68 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 69 @QB@CH@ O@QSMDQR+ KKB Bncd @ldmcldms The building at 2500 Lexington Ave. S. consists of approximately 14,000 sq. ft. with about 5700 sq. ft. of office and 8,300 sq. ft. of open space. The space is currently zoned as B-1 office space. Laser Technologies occupied the building since 2006 and used the space as office, show room,and technical space. The balance of the open space has been used as a warehouse and staging area of Ipurchased the building and renovated the space on the first floor for a reception, demonstration/show room, warehouse and sales offices. The second floor was used as an accounting, pre-sales support, engineering and Help Desk. Laser Technologies has operated for the last 10 years at this location since the purchase of the building from Turners Gymnastics. I would like to request a Code Amendment to B-1 zoning to include a gymnastic business and the use of office warehouse space at 2500 Lexington Ave. When I purchased the building in 2006 Turners Gymnastics occupied the property. Originally Turners developed the site and constructed the building 1991 as a gymnastic business with foam pits, locker rooms with showers for both boys and girls. I am also asking we receive a Code Amendment for an office warehouse space that we have used for this purpose for the last 10 years. The reason for the Code Amendment requestsis to allow a newtenant or buyer of the seek facility be request a Conditional Use Permit for the property Sean Carey President Arcadia Partners P: 651.457.3210 C: 612.804.0884 665 Arcadia Dr.. Mendota Heights, MN 55118 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 70 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 71 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 72 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 73 Request for Planning Commission Action MEETING DATE:June 28, 2016 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP – Planner SUBJECT:Ordinance 497 Concerning Massage Therapy Business Uses COMMENT: Introduction The City is considering an amendment to Title 12-1F-1-A of the City Code concerning permitted uses in the B-1 Limited Business District. Background An existing massage therapy business is currentlyoperating at the Mendota Plaza and plans to move into a new spaceat 1200 Centre Pointe Curve. Their existing location is zoned MU-PUD, whichpermits the proposed use. The new locationis zoned B-1, which does not permit the proposed use. A similar use operated in the same buildingand was issuedmassage license permits from 2013-2015.In order to address this issue and ensure the new business is operating in compliance with the appropriate zoning regulations, staff is proposing to amend the City Code to allow the use in the B-1 District. Discussion The City is using its legislative authority when considering action on a code amendment request and has broad discretion; the only limitations are that actions must be constitutional, rational, and in some way related to protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the public. Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the proposed code amendment and make a recommendation to the City Council. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 74 DATE: June 28, 2016 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP – Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2016-22 Proposed Code Amendments – Massage Therapy Business Use 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 an amendment to Title 12-1F-1-A of the City Code concerning permitted uses in the B-1 Limited Business District. BACKGROUND Massage Elements, LLC currently operates at 750Highway 110at the Mendota Plaza. Staff recently received a massage establishment renewal application from the current business owner to relocate into a new spaceat 1200 Centre Pointe Curve. The existing location is zoned MU-PUD and the new location is zoned B-1 Limited Business. Abusiness offering massage therapy servicesformerly operated in spaceat 1200 Centre Pointe Curve and was appropriately-licensedby the city from 2013-2015; Massage Elements will be occupying spacein the same building. Upon further review, staff concluded that massage therapy business uses are not explicitly permitted to operate in the B-1 District, despite massage licenses beingissued in the past for businesses within the district. In order to address this issue and ensure the new business is operating in compliance with the appropriate zoning regulationsand past practice, staff is proposing to amend the City Code to allow the use in the B-1 District. ANALYSIS “Massage therapy business, subject to licensing requirements of this code” is a permitted use in the B-2, B-3, B-4, and MU-PUD Districts. According to Title 12-1B-2 of the City Code, the use is defined as follows: MASSAGE THERAPY (THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE) BUSINESS: Any establishment or place providing to the public at large therapeutic massage services, other than a hospital, sanatorium, rest home, nursing home, boarding home, or other institution for the hospitalization or care of human beings, duly licensed under the provisions of Minnesota statutes sections 144.50 through 144.69. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 75 See the attached zoning map for other B-1 District properties. Currently, the only other massage therapy use is located at the Village at Mendota Heights, which is zoned MU-PUD. Staff does not anticipate a proliferation of massage therapy uses as a result of the proposed code amendment. Title 3-6 of the City Coderequires massage therapy uses to have an establishment license and individual therapists must also be licensed. Both licenses must be renewed annually. ALTERNATIVES Following the public hearing and further discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1.Recommendapproval of DRAFT Ordinance 497, as presented or as amended by the Commission. OR 2.Recommend denial of DRAFT Ordinance 497. 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 proposeto bring back any substantial revisions for reviewand further discussionat a future meeting prior to making a recommendation to the City Council. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1.DRAFT Ordinance 497 2.Zoning Map 3.Planning application, including supporting materials 76 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 West St. PaulWest St. PaulWest St. Paul Sunfish LakeSunfish LakeSunfish Lake West St. PaulWest St. PaulWest St. Paul Sunfish LakeSunfish LakeSunfish Lake DELAWARE AVEDELAWARE AVEDELAWARE AVE WACHTLER AVEWACHTLER AVEWACHTLER AVE VICTORIA RDVICTORIA RDVICTORIA RD LEXINGTON AVELEXINGTON AVELEXINGTON AVE PILOT KNOB RDPILOT KNOB RDPILOT KNOB RD 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 77 1CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3 4ORDINANCE NO. 497 5 6AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE FOF THE CITY 7CODE OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, 8CONCERNING MASSAGE THERAPY BUSINESSES IN THE B-1 DISTRICT 9 10 11The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: 12 13Section 1. 14 15Title 12-1F-1-A is hereby amendedas follows: 16 17A. Permitted Uses: Within any B-1 limited business district, no structure or land shall be used 18except for one or more of the following uses, or uses deemed by the city council in its discretion 19as substantially similar to uses listed herein: 20 21Massage therapy business, subject to licensing requirements of this code. 22 23Section 2. 24 25This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication. 26 27Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this ## day of Month, 2016. 28 29CITY COUNCIL 30CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 31 32 33 34Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor 35ATTEST 36 37 38___________________________ 39Lorri Smith, City Clerk 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 78 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 79 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 80 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 81 Request for Planning Commission Action MEETING DATE:June 28, 2016 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP – Planner SUBJECT:Planning Case 2016-16 CUP for PUD Amendment, Preliminary/Final Plat, and Wetlands Permit COMMENT: Introduction The applicantis seeking approval to amend a planned unit development final development plan, including preliminary/final plat and wetlands permit requests.Title 12-1K-6-G of the City Code requires City Council approval for amendments to an approved planned unit development final development plan by conditional use permit. The Planning Commission opened the public hearing at the May 24 meeting, but did not take any comments. Subsequently, staff notified the applicant by letter that the review timeline was extended another 60 days. Background The proposed development site encompasses 4.96 acres of undeveloped land in the northeast cornerof the existing Mendota Plaza mixed-use development, which is zoned and guided as Mixed-Use PUD.The proposed project includes the following: 10,860 square feet of commercial development in two building on 1.68 acres 41,316 square foot, 4-6 story, 149-unit apartment building on 2.2 acres Publicopen space/public gathering areas Private access drive connection to STH 110 As part of a planned unit development (PUD) process, the applicant received approvals fora master plan of the entire mixed-use site in 2009. The proposed development site included restaurant/retail and offices uses. According to the applicant, the proposed amendment is in response to changes in the real estate market and additional site opportunities since the original PUD was approved. The attached report contains a detailed analysis of theapplication submittal based on the applicable zoning, engineering, and public safety standards, as well as the design standards included in the existing Development Agreement.The requirements adopted within a PUDcan be flexible, but the proposed project was reviewed against the standards for similarly-zoned uses. The purpose of a PUD is to encourage a flexibility in the design and development of land, in order to preserve the natural and scenic quality of open areas, encourage a diversity of housing typeswithin a given development, permit a mixture of several zoning district uses within a development project, and permit modification and variance of zoning district requirements, while limiting development to a scale appropriate to the existing terrain and surrounding land uses. Based on the proposed PUD amendment, staff feels the 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 82 proposed project utilizes the requested flexibility to enhance development of the property without negatively impacting surrounding land uses and in harmony with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Discussion The City is using its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on subdivision and zoning requests and has limited discretion; a determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required. Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the request in this caseand make a recommendation to the City Council. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 83 Planning Staff Report DATE: June 28, 2016 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP – Planner SUBJECT:Planning Case 2016-16 CUP for PUD Amendment, Preliminary/Final Plat, and Wetlands Permit APPLICANT: Mendota Mall Associates/Paster Properties PROPERTY ADDRESS:720 Highway 110 – Mendota Plaza ZONING/GUIDED: MU-PUD/MU-PUD ACTION DEADLINE:August 24, 2016 (120 days) DESCRIPTION OFTHE REQUEST The applicantis seeking approval to amend a planned unit development final development plan, including preliminary/final plat and wetlands permit requests.Title 12-1K-6-G of the City Code requires City Council approval for amendments to an approved planned unit development final development plan by conditional use permit. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission opened the public hearing at the May 24 meeting, but did not take any comments. Subsequently, staff notified the applicant by letter that the review timeline was to be extended another 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99, Subd. 3(f.). Another public hearing notice was published and mailed to the required parties. The proposed development site encompasses approximately 4.96acres of undevelopedland in the northeast corner of the existing Mendota Plaza mixed-use development, bordering State Trunk Highway(STH) 110 to the north and the Dodge Nature Center property to the east. The existing immediately-adjacent uses include the Mendota Plaza shopping center, Walgreens, BP service station, and White Pine senior/assisted living facility. The City’s other mixed-use development, The Village at Mendota Heights, is located directly across the highwayto the northand will be linked to the proposed development by a future trail underpass as part of a separate County-funded project. The proposed project includesintegrated commercial and high-density residential developments with connections to existing retail uses and planned off-street trail systems, as well as public gathering space. The development team includes Mendota Mall Associates and Paster Properties,who is the owner/manager of the existing shopping center and subject parcels, and At Home Apartments, who will be the owner/manager of the proposedhigh-density residential development. The proposed project would be constructed in two phases. Phase One would include construction of the private access drive, high-density residential development, public amenities, landscaping, and preliminary 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 84 grading on the northwest portion of the site. Phase Two would include construction of the commercial development and final grading. It is anticipated that Phase One would commence as soon as possible after city and entitlement approvals and will be completed in approximately 18 months. Phase Two would commence as soon as future tenants are committed to leases and each commercial building will take 8-12 months to construct, which may not occur concurrently. As part of a planned unit development (PUD) process, the applicant received approvals fora master plan of the entire mixed-use site. According to the applicant, the proposed amendment is in response to changes in the real estate market and additional site opportunities since the original PUD was approved. As part of Planning Case 2008-11, the City approved the following requestsfor theMendota Plaza Expansion project: RequestResolutionApproval Date Rezoning(B-4/R-1A/R-3 to MU-PUD)09-0701/20/2009 Wetlands Permit(wetland impacts)09-0801/20/2009 Conditional Use Permit (grading/filling)09-0901/20/2009 Preliminary Plat09-1001/20/2009 Preliminary PUD09-1101/20/2009 Final Plat09-2904/21/2009 Final PUD09-2904/21/2009 PUD Agreement*N/A04/21/2009 *not including subsequent amendments The applicant is now requesting the following approvals for the proposed project: 1.Conditional Use Permit to Amend Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan; 2.Preliminary/Final Plat; and 3.Wetlands Permit. ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan The subject parcels are guided Mixed-Use PUD in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan: The intent of the district is to allow for mixed use developments that combine residential, retail, andcommercialusesinto a coordinated,planneddevelopmentproject.Areasofthecommunity withthislandusedesignationarelocatedneartheintersectionof Highway 110andDoddRoad. The entire Mendota Plaza development was rezoned toMU-PUD as part of the previous PUD approval process. The existing zoning and proposed commercial/retail and residential uses are consistent with the future land use designation. According to the most-recent Metropolitan Council System Statement, the City’s population and household forecasts are as follows: 20102014 Forecast2020 2030 2040 (actual)(est.) Population11,07111,12411,30011,30011,400 Households4,3784,4504,6004,7104,800 Source: Metropolitan Council(dated 9/17/2015) Construction of the proposed high-density residential development could account for a significant amount of the Year 2040 forecasted population and household increases. According to the applicant, the proposed project includes“market-rate” units and wouldnot include “affordable” unitsthat satisfy additional Metropolitan Council requirements. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 85 The last market-rate, high-density residential apartment development constructedin the city was Lexington Heights in 1984.Since then, several condominium, townhouse, and senior apartment developments have been constructed. The proposed high-density residential development may satisfya potential demand for rental units in the community, which is a trend in suburban communities since the condominium market has settled-down in recent years. The availability of desirable rental units may also appeal to existing homeowners who are looking to downsize and stay in the community, whichmay stimulate turnover of the existing single-family residential housing stock. For these reasons, the proposed mixed-use project fits many of theland use and housing goals/policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Preliminary and Final Plat The applicant is requesting preliminary and final plat approval for the Mendota Plaza Expansion Second Addition, including vacation of existing drainage and utility easements. The proposed plat includes 216,069 square feet, or approximately 4.69 acres, of land. Lot Standards According to Title 11-3-2 of the City Code, the following lot standards are applicable in this case: A. Lot Area, Width And Depth: The minimum lot area, width and depth shall not be less than that established by the zoning ordinance in effect at the time of adoption of the final plat. B. Corner Lots: Corner lots for residential use shall have additional width to permit appropriate building setback from both streets as required in the zoning ordinance. C. Side Lot Lines: Side lines of lots shall be approximately at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. D. Lot Frontage: Every lot must have the minimum frontage as required in the zoning ordinance on a city approved street other than an alley. E. Building Setback: Setback or building lines shall be shown on all lots intended for residential use and shall not be less than the setback required by the Mendota Heights zoning ordinance. On those lots which are intended for business use, the setback shall be at least that required by the Mendota Heights zoning ordinance. The proposed plat seeks tore-plat the Mendota Plaza Expansion Plat as follows: Proposed Required Proposed Required Parcel Parcel UseParcel AreaParcel AreaParcel Width Parcel Width Description (Square Feet)(Square Feet)(Feet)(Feet) 20,000320.33 on Lot 1, Block 1 Retail/Restaurant73,256 100 (B-1/B-2) (B-1/B-2)STH 110 No frontage High-density 20,000 Lot 1, Block 2 96,043 on dedicated 150(R-3) Residential(R-3) ROW Stormwater Outlot A13,556 Pond Access Drive/ N/A Outlot B32,945 Open Space Outlot CEasement269 Source: Preliminary/FinalPlat 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 86 Lot 1, Block 1 contains both buildings in the proposed commercial developmentand is reviewed under the B-1 and B-2 District requirements. Outside of a PUD, multiple buildings on the same lot is not recommended. According to the applicant, they will maintain ownership of both buildings and manage them as part of the existing Mendota Plaza development.The proposed lot meets the required size and width standards. Lot 1, Block 2contains the proposed high-density residential developmentand is reviewed under the R-3 District requirements. The proposed lot meets the size requirement, but does not have any frontageon a dedicated right-of-way. Outlot A contains a proposed stormwater pondin the northwest corner of the project site,which issimilarly- sized as in the existing PUD. Outlot B contains a proposed open space/public gathering area and private access drive connecting STH 110 to the existing Mendota Plaza development.Outlot C represents a 3-foot overlap of easement rights discovered during MnDOT’s plat reviewprocess. If the preliminary and final plats are approved, the applicant plans to deed the land back toMnDOT after being recorded. The proposed plat also includes a 30-foot access easement in the northeast corner of Outlot B that was dedicated as part of the Mendota Plaza Expansion Plat, which is proposed to be utilized for access to STH 110. The details of the preliminary and final plat are tied to the proposed PUD amendment. Once the PUD amendment is determined to be acceptable, both plats can be approved by the City. Several conditions of approval pertaining to the proposed plat are included in the staff recommendation. Easements According to Title 11-3-4 of the City Code: A. An easement for utilities at least five feet (5') wide shall be provided along the side line of lots. A similar easement of at least ten feet (10') in width shall be provided along the front and rear of each line of lots. If necessary for the extension of water main, sewer lines, similar utilities, or access to adjoining property, 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. (Ord. 490, 2-16-2016) B. Utility easements shall connect with easements established in adjoining properties. These easements, when approved, shall not thereafter be changed without the approval of the city council, after a recommendation from the planning commission. C. Additional easements for pole guys should be provided at the outside of turns. Where possible, lot lines shall be arranged to bisect the exterior angle so that pole guyswill fall alongside lot lines. D. Where a subdivision is traversed by a watercourse, drainageway, channel, or stream, a storm sewer easement, drainage right of way or park dedication, whichever the planning commission may deem the most adequate, conforming substantially with the lines of such watercourses, shall be provided, together with such further width or construction, or both, as will be adequate for the stormwater drainage of the area. The width of such easements shall be determined by the city engineer. The applicant is requesting to vacate several drainage and utility easements from the existing plat, which would be resolved through action to approve the requests in this case.The proposed final plat dedicates various 5-foot and 10-foot drainage and utility easements along the property boundary lines and over all of OutlotsA and B. Additional easementsmay be required by Saint Paul Regional Water Service (SPRWS) that are not identified on the proposed plat, which isaddressed as a condition of approval. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 87 Erosion and Sediment Control/Drainage/Grading The Subdivision Ordinance contains various standards pertaining to erosion and sediment control, surface water drainage, wet soils, and steep slopes. The Engineering Department has reviewed the applicable plans and provided comments in the attached memo, including recommended conditions of approval.In addition, construction activities must comply with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. Park Dedication If the requests are approved, the applicant is required to contribute 10% of final plat gross area to be dedicated for public use or to contribute cash in lieu of land in an amount established by the city. As with the previous plat, the applicant is proposing to pay a park dedication fee instead of dedicating public land. In accordance with current Fee Schedule, the applicable fees are as follows: Single and Multi-Family Residential: $4,000/dwelling unit Commercial/Industrial: 10% of assessed value of unimproved land Payment of the required park dedication fees isincluded as a condition of approval. As part of a subsequent Development Agreement amendment, staff will research what has already been paid and the applicant will be required to pay any additional fees. MnDOT Review As required by City Code, the applicant submitted the platting documents to MnDOT for review. They noted some minor surveying issues encountered as part of the STH 110 right-of-way platting process impacting the proposed plat, which is also addressed as a condition of approval. The applicant obtained a Right-of-Way Access Permit from MnDOT as part of the original PUD approval. The permit was good for twoyears, and has since expired.The applicant is in the process of acquiring a new permit.The development review completed by MnDOT identified a number of issues that the applicant needs to address in order to further process the permit request. The applicant is working with MnDOT on addressing these issues.Staff has informed the applicant that the City Councilcannot approve the proposed requestsuntil the Right-of-Way Access Permit has been re-obtained from MnDOT, which is addressed as a condition of approval. Existing PUD Final Development Plan The existing PUD Final Development Plan was approved in 2009. The following uses contained within the approved Master Plan(attached)that are proposed to be amended, include the following: Parcel Parcel AreaBuilding AreaParking Parcel Use Description(Acres)(Square Feet)Proposed 89 stalls Lot 31.4Restaurant 7,600 (11.7/1,000 SF) 54 stalls Lot 41.8Retail12,000 (4.5/1,000 SF) 47 stalls Lot 51.3Office10,800 (1/230 SF) Source: PUD Master Plan (sheet C2.0, dated 4/29/2009) The plan also included a future 4-story, 100,000 square-foot high-density residential buildingon Lot 6. A subsequent amendment to the approved PUD allowed for construction of the46-unit White Pine senior/assisted living facilityon the lot. In addition, Lots 7 and 8 of the approved PUD includefuture child care and office developments, neither of which havebeen constructed and are not included in the proposed amendment. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 88 Proposed PUD Final Development Plan Amendment The applicant is proposing to amend the existing PUD Final Development Plan. According to Title 12-1K- 6-G of the City Code: Amendments To Final Development Plan: No changes may be made in the approved final development plan after its approval by the council, except upon application to the council under the procedures provided below: 1.Minor changes in the location, siting, and height of buildings and structures may be authorized by the council if required by engineering or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the final plan was approved. Such approval shall require the affirmative vote of a majority of all members of the council. 2.All other changes in use, or rearrangements of lots, blocks and building tracts, any changes in the provision of common open spaces, and all other changes in the approved final plan must be made by the council under the procedures authorized by this chapter for the approval of a conditional use permit. No amendments may be required by the council because of changes in conditions that have occurred since the final plan was approved or by changes in the development policy of the community. The proposed amendment qualifies under #2 above and is required to be approved by the City Council by conditional use permit. The subject parcels are zoned and guided Mixed-Use PUD.According to Title 12-1K-3-D of the City Code: MU-PUD Mixed Use Planned Unit Development District: The MU-PUD district is intended to provide the opportunity to develop a planned unit development with mixing of residential and nonresidential uses. All of the permitted, conditional, and accessory uses contained in the R-2, R- 3, B-1, and B-2 zoning districts shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within the MU-PUD district, provided they would be allowable on the site under the comprehensive plan. The city council shall havethe authority to approve other uses in the MU-PUD district by special permit. The amended PUD Final Development Planincludes the following land uses: Parcel Parcel AreaBuilding AreaParking Parking Parcel Use Description(Acres) (Square Feet)RequiredProposed 105 stalls Lot 1, Block 1 1.68 Commercial10,860 N/A 9.7/1,000 SF 237stalls Lot 1, Block 2 2.20 High-density Residential41,316 373 1.6/unit Outlot A0.31Stormwater Pond Outlot B0.76Access Drive/Open SpaceN/A Outlot C0.01Easement Source: PUD Summary Table (sheet C2.0) The proposed uses are consistent with thosein the existing PUD Final Development Plan, as wellas those permittedin the commercial and high-density residential zoning districts and Comprehensive Plan. See the attached memo for a detailed analysis of the proposed off-street parking facilities. According to Title 12-1K-1 of the City Code, regarding the purpose of a PUD: The purpose of the planned unit development is to encourage a flexibility in the design and development of land; and in connection therewith, and by way of illustration and not limitation, to 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 89 preserve the natural and scenic quality of open areas, to encourage a diversity of housing types within a given development, to permit a mixture of several zoning district uses within a development project, and to permit modification and variance of zoning district requirements, but nevertheless and at the same time limiting development to a scale appropriate to the existing terrain and surrounding land uses. Furthermore, according to Title 12-1K-5-A of the City Code, regarding standards for approval of a PUD: Standards For Approval: The planned unit development may be approved only if it satisfies all of the following standards: 1. The planned unit development is an effective and unified treatment of the development possibilities on the project site and the development plan includes provisions for the preservation of unique natural amenities such as streams, stream banks, wooded cover, rough terrain, and similar areas. The proposed amendment is a unified plan for the project site and connects well with the existing adjacent uses. The updated wetland delineationincludedwith the application submittal, and already accepted by the City Council, hasnearly the same results as the 2008 study. The proposed project includes a bridge plaza over the creekand retaining wallsin similar locations as those in the existing PUDand will require less wetland-filling. The existing site is devoid of mature, natural vegetation and will be landscaped as part of the proposed project. 2. The planned unit development has been planned and is proposed to be developed to harmonize with adjacent projects or proposals. The project area is separated from the existing Mendota Plazadevelopment and McDonald’s by thecreek and will not impede future any development/redevelopment. STH 110 is scheduled for roadway surfacing work and trail underpass construction in 2017. Expansive right-of-way exists along the project area’s northern boundary to accommodate any future roadway improvements and drainage. Dakota County is in the process of designing a pedestrian trail underpass of STH 110 as part of the Mendota-Lebanon Hills Greenway along the project area’s eastern boundary. The proposed project also includes bicycle and pedestrian connections to the proposed trail. 3. Financing is available to the applicant on conditions and in an amount which is sufficient to assure completion of the planned unit development and evidence to support those facts is presented to and deemed satisfactory by the planning commission and the council. According to the applicant: All portions of the design and construction for the commercial buildings will be financed privately by Mendota Mall Associates through traditional means, which will utilize both private/owner equity and a construction loan provided by a lending institution. Upon completion and stabilization of the project we would enter into a permanent loan, which would be provided by a commercial mortgage lender. The site improvement portion of the project will be funded through private/owner equity. The residential financing is addressed in a letter provided by At Home Apartments. There are no public funds being utilized for this proposed development. According to At Home Apartments: As the intended owner and developer for the proposed apartment project, we will finance the construction of this project with a traditional construction loan from a well-known banking institution along with additional owner cash equity. Once the project is complete and stabilized we will refinance the project with a commercial mortgage lender (i.e. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, a life insurance company, etc) with the goal of securing long-term fixed financing. We will not be seeking any public funding for this project. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 90 4. The planned unit development is consistent with the comprehensive plan of the community. The project area is guided as MU-PUD and the proposed amendment is consistentwiththe 2030 Comprehensive Plan. 5. The planned unit development can be planned and developed to harmonize with any existing or proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site. The proposed amendment includes similar uses for the project area asthose in the existing PUD and accesses STH 110 in a similar location. However, the proposed development now utilizes a central drive and pedestrian corridor to connect to the existing Mendota Plaza development, which is an improvement. The Dodge Nature Center directly borders the proposed development to theeast. The Nature Center reviewed the proposed plans with the applicant and provided comments in the attached letter, whichare discussed in a different section of this report. Based on the comments and the proposed plans, staff feels the proposed development does not have a negative impact on the Dodge Nature Center property. Commercial Development The proposed commercial development includes two retail/restaurant buildingson 1.68acresin the northwestern portion of theprojectsite along STH 110, and are referred toas “Building One” and “Building Two” on the architectural plans. Due to the speculative nature of the commercial component, no specific tenants have been identified by the applicant at this point. The proposed architectural plans depicting interior building dimensions are illustrative only and there will most likely bedifferent schemes for how demising walls would actually be built-out. The requirements adopted within a PUD can be flexible, but should be reviewed against the standards for similarly-zoned uses. While the development is zoned/guided as MU-PUD, the proposed plans are being reviewed under the B-1 and B-2 District standards, as required by Title 12-1K-3-D of the City Code. The City Council has the discretion to enforce appropriate standards and adopt reasonable conditions as deemed necessary. BuildingOne Building One is immediately adjacent to the STH 110 accessdrive with a proposed drive-thru around the back of the building, which wasalso included in the existing PUD. The approximately 4,860-square foot building could contain as many as three tenant spaces. The applicantintends for a restaurant use to occupy as much as 2,500 square feet of spacein the building containing the drive-thru access, but no tenants have been confirmed at this time. Building Two Building Two is adjacent to the stormwater pond in Outlot Aand to the west of Building One. The approximately 6,000-square foot building could contain as many as three tenant spaces, but the applicant intends to have at least one restaurantuse with an outdoor patio/deckfacing the pond and encroaching into the adjacent Outlot. A statement in the amended Development Agreement will need to be included stating that the City, if required to perform maintenance on the pond, is not responsible for repairs/replacement of the structure as a result of said maintenance. Site and Structure Requirements Both buildings borderSTH 110 right-of-way to the north with off-street parking between the privateaccess drive and the creek. The following B-1 and B-2 District requirements were reviewed, as in Title 12-1F-1 and 12-1F-3 of the City Code: 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 91 Proposed StandardB-1/B-2 District Requirement Building OneBuilding Two Minimum Lot Area20,000 square feet (both)73,256square feet Lot Width100 feet (both)320.33 feet(along STH 110) 42.92feet 28 feet Front Yard Setback30 feet (both) (to ROW)(to ROW) 20 feet or 1.5 times the height of the building, whichever is greater (B-1) +/- 73 feet 13feet Side YardSetback 15 feet or equal to the height of (to Outlot B)(to Outlot C) structure, whichever is greater (B-2) 30 feet or 1.5 times the height of the building, whichever is greater (B-1) +/- 242 feet +/- 98 feet Rear YardSetback 30 feet or equal to height of (to creek)(to creek) structure, whichever is greater (B-2) 3stories or 35 feet, whichever is less(B-1) Building Height27 feet-9 inches 27 feet-4 inches 3 stories of 30 feet, whichever is less (B-2) Floor Area Ratio0.5 (both)0.15(total) 20 feet (front yard)+/-40feet (front yard/ROW) ParkingLotSetback 10 feet (side/rear yard)+/-6feet (side yard) Source: Site Plan (sheet C2.1) The existing McDonald’s building has a front yard setback of approximately 132 feet from the northern property line and is over 200feet from STH 110. The proposed buildings are setback 42.92feet and 28 feet from the property line and nearly 100 feet from STH 110.The creek runs between the McDonald’s building and the highway, which ismost likely why itsset back a greater distancethan the proposed buildings. According to the existingPUD, a multi-tenant restaurant building was located in a similarlocationon the project site. However, that previously-proposed building appears to be setback approximately 60-70 feet from the northern property boundary line. In staff’s opinion, the proposed buildings are located as close to the highway as possible to allow for landscaping and the drive-thru lane while still providing sufficient room for off-street parkingfacilities. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) The proposed commercial development has aFAR of 0.15 (10,860 SF/73,256 SF) and covers approximately 15% of the lot. In addition, the Mendota Plaza Design Standards limit building coverage to no more than 40%. The proposed buildings are compliant with both standards. Parking The proposed commercial development includes 105shared off-street parking spacesbetween the two buildings. According to Title 12-1D-16-F of the City Code, the number of required off-street parking spaces for the proposed uses are as follows: Restaurant, cafe, bar, tavern, nightclub: 1 space for each employee per shift and 1 space for each 3 seats in the facility 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 92 Retail sales and service establishment: At least 7 spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area and 1 space for each 200 square feet of gross floor area The applicant suggests one tenant space in Building Two will most likely be occupied by a restaurant. In addition, Building One contains a drive-thru, which is assumed to be used by another restaurant use. Due to the speculative nature of thecommercial development, not enough information is available at this time to accurately determine the required number of off-street parking stalls based on the City Code standards for a restaurant use. Title 12-1D-16-D-4 of the City Code requires the following: Size Of Spaces: Each parking space shall be not less than nine feet (9') wide and twenty feet (20') in length exclusive of access drives of twenty four feet (24') in width, and such space shall be served adequately by access driveway. The proposed 105 off-street parking stallsare broken down as follows: Stall Size Stall TypeQuantity (Width X Length) Accessible8’ X 18’5 Standard9’ X 20’12 Nose-in9’ X 18’46 Compact8.5’ X 19’42 Sources: Site Plan (sheet C2.1) All of the proposed stalls are technically “nose-in” stalls since they overhang the curb. Typically,these stallsmay be reduced in lengthto compensate for the front bumper hanging over the curb and are similar toexisting commercial developmentsin the cityand an accepted industry standard. The proposed Site Plan also includes “compact” stalls,which are 8.5’wide by 19’ long.The Code does not contain any applicable standards for such stalls, but it is an acceptable industry standard to have compact stalls at 8’ X 18’. Since the proposed compact stalls are larger than the industry standard, staff finds this proposal acceptable. The proposed drive lines meet the 24-foot width requirements. The proposed parking lot setbacks are consistent with the existing PUD and other mixed-used developments in close proximity. See the attached memo for a detailed analysis of the proposed off-street parking facilities. Building Elevations The proposed commercial buildings are approximately 27 feet at theirhighest points and have varying rooflines, which will aid to break-up the height of the adjacent proposed high-density residential building as seen by vehiclestraveling eastbound on STH 110, and are compliant with the B-1/B-2 District standards. The Mendota Plaza Design standards include the following applicable policies/standards for building orientation and design: Require that buildings be oriented to the streets and internal roadway activity as well as the activity in the parking lot where possible. Grouping of buildings to help define useable outdoor space. Outdoor space is utilized to break up parking fields, enhance detention ponds, and perimeter area, and to provide pedestrian access to the various buildings. Varying scale of buildings should be encouraged. Varying roofline to create interest in design styles encouraged. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 93 The proposed buildings are generally consistent with the applicable design standards. Title 12-1D-13-2-C of the City Code contains the followingbuilding design and construction standards for commercial and industrial districts: 1. Exterior Surfaces, Including Roofs: Buildings shall be finished on all sides with permanent finished materials of a quality consistent with the standards set in the district in which it is located. Exterior wall surfaces shall be any one or more of the following: a. Face brick or natural stone. (1) Professionally designed precast concrete units, if the surfaces have been integrally treated with an applied decorative material or texture, or (2) Decorative block, if incorporated in a building design which is compatible with other development throughout the district. b. Factory fabricated and finished metal framed modular panel construction, if the panel materials are any of those listed in subsection C1a of this section, glass, prefinished metal (other than unpainted galvanized iron) or plastic used in accordance with the building code requirements. c. No building exterior shall be constructed of sheet aluminum, asbestos, iron, steel, or corrugated aluminum, unless specifically approved by city council. In addition, the Mendota Plaza Design Standards require the followingapplicable policies/standards for façade design, building materials, and doors/windows: Monotony of design in single or multiple building projects shall be avoided. Undulating façade shall be encouraged. Exterior façade treatment shall be designed in a manner that creates interest to the pedestrian. Tower forms, brick treatment, decorative columns will be incorporated into façade design. Materials shall be selected for suitability to the type of buildings and design in which they are used. Building walls should be finished in aesthetically acceptable tones, colors and materials, complement the tones, colors, and materials of neighboring buildings. Materials shall be durable quality. Exterior wall treatments like brick, natural stone, terra cotta and decorative concrete block, stucco and architectural metal panels shall be used. Other similar materials may be acceptable. All wood treatment shall be painted and weather proofed. A minimum of 25% of the façade shall be treated with finished masonry building material. Earth tone colors of exterior materials and complementary to adjacent buildings shall be encouraged. Blank single masonry walls must consist of 25% of decorative masonry variation in color, texture or surface. Visible entry from the street or a marked paved or well lit pathway encouraged. Canopies shall be encouraged at entryways and shall meet city requirements for their projections. Canopies and awnings shall be made of various materials and colors. A minimum of eight feet clear space shall be provided from sidewalk elevation to the lowest point of a canopy and/or suspended sign. Combination of glass and masonry will be encouraged along street fronts. The proposed building’s exterior is a combination of the following materials and are generally consistent with the City Code and Design Standards: Face brick Stone veneer Decorative concrete masonry units 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 94 Stone sill Stucco/exterior insulation and finishing system (EIFS) Prefinished metal trim Aluminum storefront Painted metal canopy Metal panel 2. Subsequent Additions And Other Structures: Subsequent additions and other buildings or structures constructed after the erection of the original building or structure shall be constructed of materials comparable in quality and appearance to those used in the original construction and shall be designed in a manner conforming withthe original architectural design and general appearance. See the attached letter from the project architect concerning the proposed architectural design process, which describes the compatibility with the existing Mendota Plaza development. 3. Accessory Structures; Walls: Garages, accessory structures, screen walls, and exposed areas of retaining walls shall be of a similar type, quality and appearance as the principal structure. 4. Compatibility With Other Structures: All structures shall be compatible with other structures in the area. 6. Storage Of Materials: a. All trash and trash handling equipment shall be stored within the principal structure or within an attached structure accessible from within the principal structure. An attached trash enclosure is located on the northeast corner of Building Two and will have matching exterior materials. It is assumed that one trash enclosure is adequate for both buildings and multiple tenants. High-Density Residential Development The proposed high-density residential development includes 149 units on 2.2 acres along the eastern property boundary line, perpendicular to STH 110,abutting the Dodge Nature Center and the proposed Mendota-Lebanon Hills GreenwayTrail.Accordingto the applicant, the proposed development provides market-rate housing for “rent-by-choice”residents. The proposed developmentalsoincludes an open space/public gathering area over an underground stormwater basinin the front of the building/surface parking area. Proposed resident amenitiesfor the developmentinclude the following: Two-story entry lobby, including lounge and office spaces Large kitchens, in-unit laundry, balconies, walk-in closets, high-speed internet, wood cabinets, granite counters, wood-styled flooring, and stainless steel appliances Community room Fitness facility On-site office staff Outdoor courtyard facing the Dodge Nature Center, including a swimming pool/deck, hot tub, gazebo, and grilling area Roof-top deck, including adjoining community room Bike storage areas Bike hub, including repair tools Dog-washing station Sidewalks and greenway trail connection The requirements adopted within a PUD can be flexible, but should be reviewed against the standards for similarly-zoned uses. While the development is zoned/guided as MU-PUD, the proposed plans are being reviewed under the R-3 High Density Residential District standards. The City Council has the discretion to enforce appropriate standards and adopt reasonable conditions as deemed necessary. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 95 Site and Structure Requirements The proposed building’s main entrance is oriented towards the private access drive(Outlot B)and surface parking lot. The following R-3 District requirements were reviewed, as in Title 12-1E-8-D of the City Code: StandardRequirementProposed 3-story or more: 96,043 square feet (2.2 acres) Minimum Lot 1-bedroom: 5,100 square feet 99 1-bedroom units 1 Area/Dwelling Unit2-bedroom: 6,050 square feet 50 2-bedroom units 3-bedroom: 6,680 square feet Efficiency units: Not permitted 1-bedroom units: 750 square feet1-bedroom: 618-801 square feet Minimum Floor Area 2-bedroom units: 800 square feet 2-bedroom: 1,013-1,350 square feet 3-bedroom units: 1,000 square feet Lot Width150 feetNo frontage on dedicated ROW 50feet + 1 foot/each 1 foot of building Front Yard Setback22 feet (from Outlot B) height over 60 feet 40 feet + 0.5 feet/1 foot of building Side Yard: +/-23feet/ 25.65 feet Side/RearYard Setback height over 75 feetRearYear: 15.25feet 70 feetat highest point Building HeightNo limit (southwestelevation) 40 feet (ROW)+/-255feet (ROW) ParkingLotSetback 10 feet (principal building)5 feet (principal building) 1 may be decreased by 300 square feet of each parking space provided underground Sources: Architectural Plans (sheets A001, A002, A003, & A004), Site Plan (sheet C2.1), and Preliminary Plat Based on the proposed unit-mix, building height, and underground parking provided, the lot area is significantly less than the R-3 District standards.The proposed unit floor area ranges are slightly smaller than the standard for the smallest one-bedroom unit and larger than the two-bedroom standard. No three- bedroom units are proposed in the building. While not a dedicated right-of-way, Outlot B contains the private access drive and, for all intents and purposes, serves as the lot’s frontage. The proposed building setbacksfor all required yards aresignificantly less than the R-3 District standards. The intent of the 10-foot parking lot setback standard from the building is to allow for adequate access and landscaping. The closet point of the building to the surface parking lot is at the main entrance; adequate access space is provided and the remainder of the setback area contains adequate space for both access and landscaping. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) The R-3 District does not include a FAR standard, however the Mendota Plaza Design Standards limit building coverage to no more than 40%. The proposed high-density residential development has a FAR of 0.43 (41,316 SF/96,043 SF) and covers 43% of the site, which is not compliant with the Design Standards. If the Planning Commission and City Council approve the proposed density, staff has included a recommendation to amend the Development Agreement accordingly should the proposed PUD amendment be adopted. Parking The proposed high-density residential development includes 20surface parking spaces and 217 underground spaces on twolevels for a total of 237spaces, which has a ratio of 1.6 spaces/unit.According to Title 12- 1E-E of the City Code, the number of required off-street parking spaces in the R-3 District is as follows: 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 96 1 /) parking spaces shall Number AndDesign Of Parking Spaces: A minimum of two and one-half (2 2 be provided for each dwelling unit, one of which shall be enclosed. Parking spaces shall comply with all parking regulations for size, location, and other standards. Based on the 2.5 spaces/unit standardand the proposed 149 units, strict application of theCode standard would require aminimum of 373 off-street parking spaces. See the attached memo for a detailed analysis of the proposed off-street parking facilities. Title 12-1D-16-D-4 of the City Code requires the following: Size Of Spaces: Each parking space shall be not less than nine feet (9') wide and twenty feet (20') in length exclusive of access drives of twenty four feet (24') in width, and such space shallbe served adequately by access driveway. The proposed 237 off-street parking stalls are broken down as follows: Stall Size Stall TypeQuantity (Width X Length) Accessible–Surface8’ X 18’2 Nose-in–Surface 9’ X 18’18 Enclosed9’ X 18’197 Tandem –Enclosed 9’ X 18’20 Sources: Site Plan (sheet C2.1) The proposed “nose-in” spaces overhanging the curb in front of the building are 18 feet in length, which is the same as the proposed commercial development. The proposed parking lot setbacksare consistent with the existing PUD and other mixed-used developments in close proximity. The proposed driveways are compliant with the 24-foot width requirement and are over 50 feet from the STH 110 intersection, as required by the City Code. See the attached memo for a detailed analysis of the proposed off-street parking facilities. Building Elevations The proposed residential building runs generally north-south betweenthe private access drive and the Dodge Nature Center property. According to the applicant, the proposed building is designed to appear as a collection of buildings that wrap around the front green space, creating a “village” feel, and is sited to maximize the natural views and light exposure. The proposed building’s underground parking contains two levels with access from the private drive on the north and south ends. The proposed building is70 feet tallfrom the highest point on the upturned cornice to the lowest grade, which is the southwest elevation facing the existing Mendota Plaza development.Due to the existing grades, which rise over 20 feet from the southwest to the east, the back of the proposed building is sited into the hillside abutting the Dodge Nature Center. The proposed building is generally four stories over two levels of underground parking, which are fully-exposed on the south end. The north end of the building decreases in height as a transition to the adjacent proposed commercial development, which will be approximately 20 feet lower in elevation. The proposed building’s exterior is a combination of the following materials and are generally consistent with the City Code and Design Standards: Face brick Stone veneer Decorative concrete masonry units(CMU) 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 97 Stone sill Cement board siding and trim Prefinished metal trim Prefinished aluminum railings (decks) Synthetic wood Painted steel Metal panel See the attached letter from the project architect concerning the proposed architectural design process, which describes the compatibility with the existing Mendota Plaza development. Density According to Title 12-1K-5-B-1 of the City Code: …The density of individual uses in theMU-PUD district may be guided by the standard zoning district for each use. The city council shall have the authority to determine the allowed density based on the quality and components of the planned unit development. Said density may be lesser or greater than that prescribed by the standard zoning district(s) at the discretion of the council. The applicable standard residentialdistrict for the proposed use is the R-3 High Density Residential District. The corresponding future land use designation for the R-3 District is HR-High Density Residential, which has a maximum allowed density of 8.5 units/acre. Based on analysis of other high-density residential uses developed as a PUD or under the R-3 District standards, most existing developments in the cityfar exceed the maximum allowable density in the Comprehensive Plan. However, the Codeprovision abovedoes allow the City Council discretion to determine the allowed density, which may be lesser or greater than the standard zoning district. Therefore, staff recommends a more appropriate analysis of the proposed density would be to consider the entire Mendota Plaza PUD under the MU-PUD future land use designation, which has an allowable densityrange of 6-10 housing units/acre. According to Title 12-1K-5-B-3 of the City Code: The planning commission shall determine the number of dwelling units which may be constructed within the planned unit development by dividing the net acreage of the project area by the required lot area per dwelling unit which is required in the equivalentzoning district for the area in which the planned unit development is located. The net acreage shall be defined as the project area less the land area dedicated for public streets, but shall include all lands to be conveyed to the city for public parks. No portion of any wetlands, to the average high water marking as indicated on the city wetlands map, may be included for purposes of calculating land density. According to the PUD summary table (sheet C2.0), the entire Mendota Plaza development is 21.29 acres and contains 46 existing residential units. The development of an additional 149residential units yields a density of 9.16 units/acre, based on the total acreage.However, based on the Codeprovision above, the number of dwelling units that may be constructed within a PUD is calculated using net acreage. The density based on the net acreage of the project area, excluding outlots and wetlandslisted in the PUD Summary,is determined as follows: 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 98 Parcel Parcel AreaResidential Description(Net Acres)Units Lot 1 –Walgreens1.7420 Lot 2 –Mendota Plaza6.1440 Lot 6 –White Pine2.00446 Lot 1, Block 1–Second Addition1.6800 Lot 1, Block 2–Second Addition2.200149 Lot 7 –Undeveloped2.0360 Lot 8 –Undeveloped2.3120 Total Net Area18.118acres Total Units195 units Total Density10.76units/acre Source: Overall PUD Site Plan (sheet C2.0) A density of 10.76units/acre for the proposed project is slightly higher than the allowed density range for the MU-PUD future land use designation. The existing PUD did not include a proposed number of residential units, so there is no available density comparison. Basedon the PUD Final Development Plan for the Village at Mendota Heightsmixed-use development, the proposed density is approximately 14 units/acre, which includes townhomes on the undeveloped parcels along Dodd Road. TheCity Council has the authority to determine the allowed density for the proposed PUDamendment and staff feels the proposed density is acceptable and consistent with current suburban mixed-use development practices. Swimming Pool The proposed residential building includes an in-ground swimming pool, including pool deck, hot tub, and gazebo and grilling areas bordering the Dodge Nature Center property. According to Title 9-2-4 of the City Code, concerning requirements in all zoning districts: B. Location Of Pools: 1.Pools shall not be located within ten feet (10'), measured horizontally, from overhead or underground utility lines of any type. 2.Pools shall not be located within any private or public utility, walkway, drainage or other easement. The proposed pool deck/patioand portions of a retaining wall are located on top of a proposed underground storm sewer line, which would be unacceptable for a public utility. However, the utility in-question is private and the Engineering Department has advised the applicant they want to reconsider its location. The proposed swimming poolitselfis not within any proposed easements, but the pool deck is within a drainage and utility easement running along the property boundary line. If the project is approved as proposed, this issue will be addressed as part of the subsequent Development Agreement amendment. According to Title 9-2-6 of the City Code, concerning requirements for multi-family dwellings: Private swimming pools which are intended for andused by the occupants of a multiple-family dwelling and the guests of the occupants of such dwelling shall adhere to the following regulations: A. Location: No part of the water surface of the swimming pool shall be closer than fifty feet (50') to any lot line. B. Noise Control: No pumps, filter or other apparatus used in connection with or to service a swimming pool shall be located closer than forty feet (40') to any lot line. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 99 C. Decks And Patios: All deck areas, adjacent patios or other similar areasused in conjunction with the swimming pool shall be located at least forty feet (40') from any lot line in an adjacent single-family district. The proposed swimming pool’s water surface is located approximately 10 feet from the rearproperty boundary line bordering the Dodge Nature Center property. No information is included as to the proposed location for pump/filter units. The proposed pool deck/patio area is located approximately 3 feet from the rearproperty boundary line, which borders a single-family district. The proposed swimming pool setbacks are significantly less than the applicable City Code standards. However, the required setbacks make it difficult to locate an appropriately-sized swimming pool on the parcel and the adjacent single-familydistrict is the Dodge Nature Center property. Staff feels the proposed plan provides an amenity for the residential development that warrants flexibility from the existing standards. Off-street Parking The proposed off-street parking facilities are analyzed in-depth by the City’s Planning Consultant in the attached memo. The following is an executive summary of the analysis and findings: High-density Residential Development Parking standards for several other suburban communities were analyzed andthe existing 2.5 stalls/unit standard is high in comparison. In discussions with other planners on the subject, parking reductions from the required standards are commonly negotiated as part of a PUD process. Based on analysis of 9 apartment projects incommunities comparable to Mendota Heights, supplied by the applicant, the average ratio was 1.59 stalls/unit and 1.13 stalls/bedroom. The proposed development includes 237 stalls and 149 units, which yields 1.6 stalls/unit and 1.2 stalls/bedroom and is comparable to the example projects. The proposed project includes 20 above-ground stalls in the main parking lot in front of the building and an additional 20 stalls underground to accommodate visitor/guest parking, which accounts for approximately 17% of the total parking. The proposed off-street parking facilities are adequate, assuming the bedroom mix remains the same, and provided that the proposed 40 visitor/guest parking stalls are made available. Commercial Development There are several examples ofoff-street parking standards for restaurant uses, all of which require more parking than typical retail uses on a square footage basis. Most examples reviewed based restaurant parking on seating, not square footage, or a combination of seating and employees –like the existing City Code standard. The range for example square footage-basedstandards is 16.7-20 stalls/1,000 square feet and actual analysis of built-out restaurants included even higher ratios, some over 27 stalls/1,000 square feet. The proposed development will most likely allow for shared parking between the retail uses, which may have different peak periods and may increase the amount of available spaces. The proposed off-street parking facilities are adequate, assuming the mix of uses andrestaurant square footage, provided that conditions are set forth in the amended Development Agreement to address any parking problems in the future. Signage Signage within the existing Mendota Plaza development is regulated by design standards adopted as an exhibit to the existing Development Agreement, which supersede the City Code standards if specifically addressed.The Design Standards include the following general signage policies/standards: 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 100 The use of the site’s area identification signs should be encouraged. Such signs should evoke the intended character of the subject area. A comprehensive signage plan will be required for multi-tenant buildings in the site. Signs should be located and constructed in a manner considered visually compatible with the area and tie together both new and existing signs. Signs should fulfill their intended purpose (readable business identification) in a non-obtrusive, aesthetically pleasing manner. Signs that complement the scale of the building should be encouraged. Signs must provide appropriate business identity. The city’s setback standards are to be met in regard to minimum location standards. No sign or sign structure shall be closer to any lot line than a distance equal to one-half the minimum required yard setback. Signs should be constructed of internally illuminated individual letters, logo allowed, considered compatible to prominent building materials. Signs should be aesthetically compatible to prominent building materials Signs should be aesthetically compatible in both area and building they serve. Signs shall be illuminated only by steady, stationary, shielded light sources directed solely at the sign,or internal to it, without causing glare for motorists, pedestrians, or neighboring premises. Wall Signs According to Title 12-1D-15-I-1 of the City Code, concerning nameplates and business signs: 1. Nameplates And Business Signs: Nameplate signs and business signs are permitted subject to the following regulations: a. B-1 And B-1A Districts: Within the B-1 and B-1A districts, the aggregate square footage of sign space per lot shall not exceed the sum of one squarefoot per front foot of building plus one square foot for each front foot of lot not occupied by a building. No individual sign shall exceed fifty (50) square feet in a B-1 area. b. B-2, B-3, B-4 And I Districts: (1) Within the B-2, B-3, B-4 and I districts, the aggregate square footage of such space per lot shall not exceed the sum of two (2) square feet per front foot of building, plus one square foot for each front foot of lot not occupied by such building which fronts on a public right of way fifty feet (50') or more in width. The least width of a lot for purposes of this chapter shall be the front. No individual sign surface shall exceed one hundred (100) square feet in area, nor shall two (2) or more signs be so arranged and integrated as to cause an advertising surface over one hundred (100) square feet. The Design Standards includethe following applicable wall sign policies/standards: One wall sign per store frontage affixed to the exterior wall, canopy or marquees for freestanding buildings. For multi-tenant building occupancy, one tenant identification wall sign per building façade will be provided. Wall sign on any single and double tenant building shall not exceed 100 square feet. Individual tenant of multiple occupancy structures devoted to two or more businesses may display separate business signs if they have an exclusive exterior entrance. The number of signs, per individual tenant under 10,000 square feet, shall be limited to one per storefront façade, and each sign shall exceed 100 square feet. Wall signs for business identification signs shall not exceed the height of the building they serve. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 101 The signs shall be located on exterior walls, which are directly related to the use being identified. The proposed commercial development includes a variety of wall signs, which appear to meet theapplicable size requirements. It is assumed that the proposed signage included on the commercialbuilding elevations is speculative and will require sign permits prior to installation by future tenants, at which time staff will verify compliance with the applicable standards. Pylon and Monument Signs The proposed development includes a pylon signalong STH 110 and menu board sign for Building Onefor the commercial uses, as well as a monument sign for the high-density residential use along the private access drive. The existing development includes pylon signs at the Dodd Road entrance and just east of McDonald’s facing STH 110and monument signs along South Plaza Drive and for the White Pine building. The following requirements for pylonandfreestanding signs in commercial districtswere reviewed, as in Title 12-1D-15-I-2 of the City Code: ExistingProposed StandardRequirement MonumentMonument Pylon SignsPylon Sign SignSign No higher than 45 feet 25 feet above the (Dodd Rd) Total Height8 feet27 feet-4 inches 6 feet average grade N/A level at sign base(STH 110) +/-22feet (Dodd Rd.) 10 feet 5feet Lot Line Setback10 feet +/- 8 feet +/- 5 feet(nearest lot line)(nearest lot line) (STH 110) +/-6 feet Driveway/Parking (Dodd Rd.) 5 feet +/- 9 feet+/- 16 feet+/-11 feet Area Setback+/- 36 feet (STH 110) 166 SF Not to exceed (Dodd Rd.) 128 SF Not included Gross Surface Area200 SF 100 square feet78 SF (S. Plaza Dr.) (+/- 96 SF total) (STH 110) Sources: Site Plan (sheet C2.1), Architectural Plan (sheet A005), Sign Permit (memo dated 3/25/10), and aerial images The Design Standards include the following applicable pylon and monument sign policies/standards: The monument/business identification signs should promote a signage design standard integrated with the site’s concept design. Area identification signs are to be located at entranceways and focal points on the site. One freestanding monumental/business identification sign per single and double occupancy building. Buildings containing three (3) or more businesses may display an area identification sign. Individual freestanding signs identifying a tenant’s business are notallowed. Area identification signs may not exceed 200 square feet with a maximum height of 35 feet. PUD and sign plan approval may allow increase in size. Single or double occupancy business signs shall not exceed 15% of the total front building façade except that both front and side facades may be counted for a corner tenant. Sign area may not exceed a maximum height of 35 feet. Monument signs may not exceed more than 10 feet high. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 102 The sign base for the monumental/business signs shall not exceed one half the maximum sign size permitted in the zoning district. The area and business/monument signs must be located in the landscaped area. Accordingto the existing PUD, an 8-foot monument sign was approved along STH 110, which is now being proposed as a pylon sign in a similar location. The existingpylon signs are not adequately-sized or appropriately-sitedto accommodateadditional nameplate signage for the future commercial tenants. The size and location of the proposed signage isgenerally consistent with the Design Standards and City Code requirements.The proposed pylon sign is higher than 25-foot standard, but would be approximately 18 feet shorter than the existing pylon sign on Dodd Road. The proposed Signage Plan(sheet C2.3)also includeson-site traffic directional signs, which will be reviewed the Engineering Department as part of the building permit process. As required by the Design Standards, a comprehensive signage plan must be included with the DevelopmentAgreement. Each individual tenant sign will require a sign permit, and are not approved as part of the proposed requests in this case. Landscaping The proposed plantings are spread out across the development to create visual interest and year-round color. Theirplacement in the median and along the private access drive and parking areas help to define the entrances. In addition, the proposed plantings provide reasonable screening of parking areas/buildings. The proposed development’s Landscape Plan(sheetsL2.1-3) includes the species and locations of the following variety of plantings: Deciduous trees (57)Deciduous shrubs (668) Evergreen trees (19)Evergreen shrubs (109) Ornamental trees (56)Perennials (978) According to Title 12-1D-13-2-D of the City Code, concerning landscaping requirements in commercial and industrial districts: 2. Minimum Area And Plant Material Required: a. At least twenty five percent (25%) of the land area shall be landscaped with grass, approved ground cover, shrubbery and trees. b. At least five percent (5%) of the land area within a parking area shall be landscaped. The proposed Landscape Plan includes the following: Parking Lot Open/Green Space Parcel AreaParking Area Landscaping Lot/Use (square feet)(square feet) ProposedPercentProposedPercent Lot 1, Block 1 73,256SF16,800SF23% 37,066SF2,797SF8% Commercial Lot 1, Block 2 96,043SF29,366SF31% 8,153SF253SF3% High-density Residential Outlot A 13,556 SF 12,589SF93% Stormwater Pond Outlot B Access drive/public 32,945 SF 13,119 SF 40% N/A gathering space Outlot C 269 SF 269 SF 100% Easement TOTAL216,069SF72,143SF33%45,219SF3,050SF7% Source: Site Plan (sheet C2.1) 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 103 As shown in the table above, the proposed landscaping requirements are metfor the project as a whole. Individually, the proposed landscaping for the commercial development is slightly less than the 25% requirement and the parking lot landscaping for the high-density residential development is less than the 5% requirement. While not part of the proposed development, the MnDOT right-of-way and Dodge Nature Center property provide an additional natural buffer around much of the project site. In addition, the public gathering space in OutlotB is essentially located within the proposed parking lot of the high-density residential development, but is not counted as part of the parking lot landscaping. c. The following minimum sizes shall be required at the time of planting: 1 Overstorydeciduous trees: 2/inches in diameter 2 1 Ornamental trees: 1/inches in diameter 2 Coniferous trees:6 feet tall Major shrub plantings:5 gallons According to the plant schedule included in the Landscape Plan, the proposed plantings are compliantwith the minimum size requirements. d. A reasonable attempt shall be made to preserve as many existing trees as is practicable and to incorporate them into the site plan. The proposed development area is largely devoid of existing significant mature vegetation and, according to the Demolition Plan (sheet C1.3), only one deciduous tree will be removed. e. All new overstory trees shall be balled and burlapped or moved from the growing site by tree spade. The proposed Landscape Plan is compliant with this requirement. f. All site areas not covered by buildings, sidewalks, parking lots, driveways, patios or similar hard surface materials shall be sodded, except those areas to be preserved in a natural state; provided, however, that areas reserved for future building expansions may be seeded. The proposed Landscape Plan includes sodded and seeded areas. The seeded areas will be a combination of stormwater, dry prairie, and mesic prairie mixes. g. Not more than fifty percent (50%) of the required number of trees shall be composed of one species. No required tree shall be any of the following: (1) A species of the genus Ulmus (except those elms bred to be immune to Dutch elm disease). (2) Box elder. (3) A species of the genus Populus (poplar). (4) Female ginkgo. (5) Amur maple. (6) Norway maple. (7) Russian olive. (8) Ash. (9) Buckthorn. (10) Black locust. The proposed Landscape Plan is compliant with this requirement. h. In order to provide for adequate maintenance of landscaped areas, an underground sprinkler system shall be provided as part of each new development except additions to existing structures which do not at least equal the floor area of the existing structure. A 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 104 sprinkler system shall be provided for all landscaped areas except areas to be preserved in the natural state. The proposed plantings will be watered by an underground irrigation system. 3. Maintenance Of Landscaping: The owner, tenant and their respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan and which have died shall be replaced as soon as seasonal or weather conditions allow. The applicant has not indicated alandscape guarantee or maintenance responsibilities after the two-year warranty period. A condition requiring compliance with this regulation is included as a recommendation of approval. 4. Bond Requirements: a. When screening, landscaping or similar improvements to property are required by this chapter, a performancebond shall be supplied by the owner in an amount equal to at least 1 one and one-half (1/) times the value of such screening, landscaping, or other 2 improvements. The bond, with security satisfactory to the city, shall be conditioned upon reimbursement of all expenses incurred by the city for engineering, legal or other fees in connection with making or completing such improvements. The bond shall be provided prior to the issuance of any building permit and shall be valid for a period of time equal to one full growing season after the date of installation of the landscaping. The city may accept a letter of credit, cash escrow or equivalent in lieu of a bond in an amount and under such conditions as the city may determine to be appropriate. In the event construction of the project is not completed within the time prescribed by the city council, the city may, at its option, complete the work required at the expense of the owner and the surety. b. The city may allow an extended period of time for completion of all landscaping if the delay is due to conditions which are reasonably beyond the control of the developer. Extensions, which may not exceed nine (9) months, may be granted due to seasonal or weather conditions. When an extension is granted, the city shallrequire such additional security as it deems appropriate. A condition requiringthe appropriate performance guaranteeis included as a recommendation of approval. In addition, the Mendota Plaza Design Standards contain the following applicable landscaping policies/standards: Plant material is to be utilized within the site area as an aid to provide continuity within the area and to provide a recognized definition of its boundaries Unity of design shall be achieved by repetition of certain plantvarieties and other streetscape materials and by correlation with adjacent development. Entry points into the areas are to be significantly landscaped and are to be designed with a common theme. Plant material is to be utilized as a screening element for parking and building utility areas. Plant materials are to be utilized within parking lot islands within the area, grouped massing of landscape encouraged in parking lots to maximize landscape impact and allow functional snow removal and storage. All loading service, utility and outdoor storage areas shall be screened from all public roads and adjacent differing land uses. When natural materials are used as a screen, the screen shall achieve 75% opacityyear round. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 105 Lighting provided in landscaped areas is encouraged and should be directed away from the public right-of-way. The landscape design of each area within the site boundaries is to be reviewed to determine if the landscape treatment helps to beauty and unify the overall area. Despite this approach, individual landscape designs that help enhance architectural features, promote individuality, provide shade, strengthen vistas and axis is encouraged. Plant material shall be selected in regard to its interesting structure, texture, color, seasonal interest and its ultimate growth characteristics. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of plant materials in planters or within paved areas is encouraged. The proposed Landscape Plan is generally consistent with the Design Standards. However, specific building utilityand loading areas are not shown on the plans and must be screened appropriately; a condition is included as a recommendation of approval. In addition to the general site landscaping, the Landscape Plan(sheet L2.2)includes enlarged plans for the open space/public gathering area in front of the high-density residential building and the overlook to be constructed on the proposed bridge over the creek. Adequate landscaping and colored concrete is provided to visually enhance both areas. Additional amenitiesinclude pet waste stations, benches, vinyl pergola, bike racks, and ornamental fencing. Lighting According to Title 12-1I-15 of the City Code, concerning lighting performance standards: Lights for illuminating parking areas, loading areas or yards for safety and security purposes shall create a reading of no more than 0.2 foot-candle at the shared property line with a commercial or industrial use or public right of way, and shall create a reading of zero foot-candles at the shared property line with residentially zoned property. In addition, the Mendota Plaza Design Standards contain the following applicable lighting policies/standards: Lighting of the site should provide continuity and consistency throughout the area. Exterior lighting, when used, shall enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape. Lighting standards and building fixtures shall be of a design and size compatible with the buildings and adjacent areas. Lighting used in the adjacent area should be encouraged through the site. Lighting shall be restrained in design and excessive brightness avoided. According to the proposed Photometric Plan (sheet E1.1), thedevelopment contains a total of 15 lights. The private access drive has threelightsoriented towards it, and others oriented in other directions providing additional coverage, but none farther north than the northern parking lot entrance.Staff recommends that additional lighting within the STH 110 right-of-way is considered as part of the required permit with MnDOT. The proposed plan indicates lighting will create readings in excess of 0.2 foot-candles at the shared property lines, which is not compliant with the applicable performance standard. Since the entire property in-question is zoned MU-PUDand is part of a larger mixed-use development, the foot-candle requirements do not apply to the existing lots in the PUD. The Photometric Plan does not include any building lights for either of the proposed uses. According to the applicant, there will be some lighting on the back side of the proposed apartment building and each unit will have an individual deck light. There will be a wall sconce at the community room entry, and a wall 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 106 light at the stair exit. In addition, there will also be some bollard-style lighting around the pool. Staff has included a recommendation of approval requiring those lights be shown in a revised Photometric Plan. A table containing the proposed light fixtures is includedon the plan. It is assumed that the proposed fixtures are shoe-box-style lights, but staff recommends more detailed specifications are provided for review. Wetlands Permit The previously-approved PUD included approval of a wetlands permit for essentially the same work as in the proposed amendment. Since wetlands permits expire if not completed within one yearof approval, the applicant was required to include the request as part of the application submittal in this case. 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. The proposed project includes grading and construction activities within 100 feet of a wetland/water resource-related area, including disturbance within 25 feet of the creek required for construction of the proposed patio/deck and bridge connecting the development site to the existing Mendota Plaza development. The proposed bridge and retaining walls are in similar locations as those in the existing PUD/Wetlands Permit and the proposed project is consistent with the original approval.The existing site isdevoid of mature, natural vegetation and will be landscaped as part of the proposed project. See the attached memofrom the Engineering Department concerning grading/erosion control and stormwater management for detailed analysis of the proposal. Wetland Delineation Report As part of the original PUD approval, the entire site was delineated and the impacts were mitigated through wetland banking. The applicant was required to have the proposed development area delineated againand included an updated report as part of the application submittal. The report confirmed that field conditions within the project boundary have not changed and that there are no wetlands on the proposed site. Staff and the Army Corps of Engineers conducted a site visit onMay 10, 2016 and confirmed the data in the report. A portion of the site may have met wetland conditions if it was not being drained by the city constructed creek which runs through the site. There are proposed wetland impacts for the construction of the bridge connecting the site, but, as previously-noted, these impacts have already been mitigated.The City Council accepted the delineation report for the proposed project at the May 17, 2016 meeting and directed staff to issue the appropriate Notice ofDecision. Dakota County Trail Dakota County is in the process of designing a pedestrian underpass of STH 110.The underpass is scheduled to be constructed in 2017 in conjunction with the MnDOT rehabilitation project for Highway 110.The underpass will become part of the Mendota-Lebanon Hills Greenway Trail, and will connect to the River to River Greenway Trail (formerly known as the North Urban Regional Trail) on the north of Highway 110 with the Mendota-Lebanon Hills Greenway Trail to the south. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 107 As part of the proposed development, the plans show a connection to the Mendota-Lebanon Hills Greenway Trail.The applicant has been working with the Dakota County project management team to establish this connection and will obtain a written agreement prior to the issuance of a building permit. Dodge Nature Center The Dodge Nature Center’s 185-acre Lilly property directly borders the proposed developmentto the east. The proposed greenway trail will run in an easement between the two properties. The Lilly property is undeveloped and contains wetlands, prairielands, and woodlands. The applicant reviewed the proposed plans with the Nature Center’s leadership, whose response was generally favorable to the development plans. The following is a summary of the comments provided in the attached letterand staff’s response: 1.Preservation of trees and vegetation between the properties The existing MnDOTeasement land will be disturbed during construction of the trail, which currently acts as a buffer between the properties. Dakota County is working to finalize the design plans, which will include landscaping along the trail. Staff will encourage both parties to communicateduring the design process and feels the proposed landscaping is adequate as proposed. 2.Erosion and run-off mitigation during construction Staff has reviewed the proposed Erosion Control Plan and determined it is adequate. Staff willfurther ensure the construction projectis compliant with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 3.Emergency vehicle access/fire lane on the east side of the development The Mendota Heights Fire Department has reviewed the proposed plans and their comments are included in the attached memo. 4.Designated entry point between the development and the nature center Staff is supportive of any signage and wayfinding to connect users of the trail and proposed development to the Dodge Nature Center. This should be a conversation between the applicant, Dakota County, and the Dodge Nature Center. It is staff’s understanding that the County is aware of the request and will be working directly with the Nature Center to provide design solutions. Development Agreement If the requests in this case are approved, the existing Development Agreement between the applicant/property owner and the City will have to be amended and approved by the City Council. The following items need to be addressed in the subsequentamendment: 1.Saleand transferof propertyto At Home Apartments 2.Park dedicationfees 3.Floor Area Ratio for high-density residential use 4.Underground visitor/guest parking 5.Private utility locations 6.Landscaping performance guarantee 7.OutlotA deck encroachment 8.Comprehensive Signage Plan This list is not exclusive and additional items to address issues raised duringor afterthe review process can certainly be included. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 108 ALTERNATIVES 1.Recommend approval of the conditional use permit, preliminary/final plat, and wetlands permit requests, including drainage and utility easement vacations, based on the attached findingof fact, with conditions. OR 2.Recommend denial of the conditional use permit, preliminary/final plat, and wetlands permit requests, based on the finding(s) of fact determined by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. OR 3.Table the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary/Final Plat and Wetlands Permit requests, including drainage and utility easement vacations, based on theattached findings of fact (Alternative 1), with the following conditions: 1.The applicant shall draft appropriate amendments to the existing Development Agreement required by approval of the proposed project, to be reviewed and approved by the City Council. 2.Necessary drainage and utility easements shall beincluded on the Final Plat, as determined by the Engineering Department and Saint Paul Regional Water Service. 3.As part of the proposed high-density residential use, the applicant shall make at least 20 underground spaces available for visitor/guest parking. 4.The proposed commercial development shall belimited to an appropriate square footage of restaurant space to accommodate off-street parking demand and maintain consistency with the traffic analysis, to be included as part of the amended Development Agreement. 5.The applicantshall submit a comprehensive signage plan for the proposed multi-tenant commercial buildings that is compliant with the applicable design standards and City Code, to be reviewed by the Planning Department andincludedas part of the amended Development Agreement. 6.Rooftop mechanical units shall be of a low profile variety. All ground-level and rooftop mechanical utilities, other than low profile rooftop units, shall be completely screened with one or more of the materials used in the construction of the principal structure, to bereviewed by the Planning Department and verified as part of the building permit review process. 7.Plant material shall be utilized as a screening element for building utility areas,but shall not obstruct fire department connections or hydrants,to be reviewed by the Planning and Fire Departments and verified as part of the building permit review process. 8.All loading service, utility and outdoor storage areas shall be screened from public roads and adjacent differing land uses. When natural materials are used as a screen, the screen shall achieve 75% opacityyear round. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 109 9.A performance bond or letter of credit shall be supplied by the applicant in an amount equal to at 1 least one and one-half (1/) times the value of such screening, landscaping, or other 2 improvements, to be included as part of the Development Agreement. 10.The owner, tenant and their respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan and which have died shall be replaced as soon as seasonal or weather conditions allow. 11.A revised Lighting Plan shall besubmitted that includes proposed building lightingand any additional lighting within the MnDOT right-of-way, to bereviewed by the Planningand Engineering Departments andincluded as part of theamendedDevelopment Agreement. 12.The final Storm Water Modeling Report shall be signed by a currently licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Minnesota. 13.Stream flow and corresponding culvert sizing shall be completed using Atlas 14 rainfall quantities. 14.The proposed deck encroachment into OutlotA shall be addressed in the amended Development Agreement. 15.The required traffic report requested by MnDOT shall be signed by a currently licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Minnesota. 16.A MnDOT Right-of-Way Access Permit shall be obtained for the proposed access to STH110 as shown in the proposed plans prior to final approval. 17.The proposed water system shall be designed and constructed to Saint Paul RegionalWater Service (SPRWS) standards, including written approval of the design layout prior to final City Council approval. 18.The proposed common sanitary sewer line serving both commercial buildingsshall be placed within and drainage and utility easement equal in width to twice the depth of the sewer pipe. 19.Aprofile (elevation) view of creek crossing depicting utility locations and separation distance from creek culvert shall be provided and approved by SPRWS. 20.The proposed trail connection to the Mendota-Lebanon Hills Greenway Trail shall be coordinated with Dakota County, including a written agreement prior to issuance of a building permit. 21.A cut/fill analysis shall be provided along with final building permit plans denoting the amount of material export/import expected for the complete development. 22.Proposed retaining walls in excess of four feet in height shall require engineering design provided with the building permit application. 23.The applicant shall begin the work authorized by the wetlands permit within ninety (90) days from the date of issuance of the permitor obtain an extension as permitted by City Code. 24.The applicant shall complete the work authorized by the wetlands permit within the twelve (12) months from the date of issuance of the permit or obtain an extension as permitted by City Code. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 110 25.Building and grading permits shall beobtained from the City prior to construction commencement. 26.All grading and construction activitiesas partof the proposed development shall 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. 27.Drive lane access into and out of the off-street parking areas to the building’s front doors shall be unimpeded and a minimum of 20-foot-wide clear access. 28.The radiuses on the Outlot B shall be such that fire truck turning movements are unimpeded, to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department. 29.The underground storm water structure in Outlot B shall support fire equipment weight if required to be driven over by a fire truck. 30.No Parking signs shall be posted around Outlot B. 31.All applicable fire and building codes, as adopted/amended by the City, shall apply and the buildings shall be fully-protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1.Engineering Department memo 2.Fire Department memo 3.Parking memo 4.Dodge Nature Center letter 5.Aerial site map 6.PUD Master Plan,dated 4/29/2009 7.Planning applications, including supporting materials 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 111 FINDINGS OF FACT FORAPPROVAL CUP for PUD Amendment, Preliminary/Final Plat, Wetlands PermitRequests Mendota Plaza Second Addition 720 Highway 110 The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the requests: 1.The proposed amendment to a Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable City Code requirements for such a development. 2.The proposed project utilizes the planned unit development (PUD) zoning flexibility to enhance development of the property without negatively impacting surrounding land usesand natural resources. 3.Construction of the proposed high-density residential development accounts for a significant amount of the Metropolitan Council’s Year 2040 forecasted population and household increases. 4.The proposed project is designed to minimize impacts on the wetland areas and is consistent with the previously-approved PUD. 5.The proposed trail and pedestrian connections included as part of the proposed project will facilitate recreational opportunities. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 112 MEETING DATE:June 28, 2016 TO: Nolan Wall, City Planner FROM: John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMP, MBA – Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Review of Plans for Planning Case 2016-16 COMMENT: Introduction Engineering staff has received the proposed plans for the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Preliminary/Final Plat, and Wetlands Permitat the Mendota Plaza.The following is engineering staff’s analysis of those plans and recommendations for items to be conditioned as part of final project approval. Background The Mendota Plaza PUD was originally approved in 2009and included a mix of retail and office space in the northeast section of the development area. The applicant is now proposing a mix of restaurant/retail and high-density residential space in that same area as part of the requested PUD Amendment. The following review covers areas under the responsibility of engineering staff. Discussion Engineering staff has reviewed the proposed plans and offers the following comments and suggested conditions of approval. Conditions are so annotated. Storm water The storm water report provided shows post-development runoff discharge rates well below the existing, pre-development condition; as well as below the originally proposed PUD storm water model. Even with an increase of ~3.5acres of new impervious surface, the rate controls provided in detention ponds, along with the underground infiltration appear to provide ample treatment for surface water discharge. The storm water model appropriately uses Atlas 14 storm event rainfall quantities. The storm water management plan is generally acceptable to staff with the following conditions/comments: 1.The Storm Water Modeling Report needs to be signed by a currently licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Minnesota (condition of final approval). 2.Stream flow and corresponding culvert sizing will needto be completed using Atlas 14 rainfall quantities (condition of final approval). 3.The restaurant deck (800 SF +/-) encroaches into Outlot A of the proposed development plans. Since Outlot A is a storm water retention and treatment pond, a provision will need to be included in the Developers Agreement that states if the City needs to perform maintenance to the pond that the City is under no obligation to repair damages to, or replace the deck encroaching into the Outlot (condition of final approval). 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 113 4.COMMENT:Soils in place where the underground infiltration/storage facility is proposed appear to be suitable for infiltration. 5.COMMENT:Dakota County will likely be utilizing the 10-foot Drainage & Utility Easement along the north property line for a storm sewer line draining the Highway 110 pedestrian underpass area. Traffic The Trip Generation Comparison Memo provided by the applicant identifies 310 fewer anticipated trips per typical weekday, 20 fewer anticipated trips during the morning peak hour, and 20 more anticipated trips during the evening peak hour when compared to the original traffic model for the Mendota Plaza PUD from 2009. The memo also identifies local data collected by Spack Consulting in 2014 and 2015. This data is consistent with Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) data. The State Department of Transportation (MnDOT) development review identified the need for a new, complete traffic study for the development to include projections up to and including the year 2040. The City will also need to review this report prior to final approval. The traffic memo is acceptable to staff with the following conditions: 6.The full traffic report requested by MnDOT will need to be signed by a currently licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Minnesota(condition of final approval). 7.A MnDOT Right-of-Way Access Permit will need to be obtained for theright-in/right-out access to Highway 110 as shown in the proposed development plans (condition of final approval). Utilities Utilities appear to be laid out in accordance with City, State, and industry standards.Calculations were provided showing adequate sanitary sewer pipe sizing for the residential development. The utility layout is acceptable to staff with the following conditions/comments: 8.Water system will have to be designed and constructed to Saint Paul Regional Water Service (SPRWS) standards. Written approval of the design layout will be required by the City (condition of final approval). 9.Common sanitary sewer line serving both commercialstructures will need to be placed within and drainage and utility easement equal in width to twice the depth of the sewer pipe (condition of final approval). 10.Profile (elevation) view of creek crossing is required.Profile should depict utility locations and separation distance from creek culvert (condition of final approval). 11.COMMENT: Ensure all utility crossings are de-conflicted and with enough vertical clearance. 12.COMMENT:Storm Sewer Line is shown underneath swimming pool (CB15-STMH14) and retaining wall (STMH14-STMH13).This could create maintenance issues. Grading/Erosion Control Grading/Erosion Control Plan is generally well thought out and includes the elements required by the NPDES Permit. The Grading and Erosion Control Plans are generally acceptable to staff with the following conditions/comments: 13.Trail connection to the proposed Mendota-Lebanon Hills Greenway trail to the east will need to be coordinated with Dakota County. Written agreement will be required by the City (condition of Building Permit). 14.Cut/Fill analysis will need to be shown along with final plans denoting amount of material export and material import expected for the complete development (condition of Building Permit). 15.Retaining wall along the south portion of the eastern property line is in excess of 4 feet in height. Engineer design of this retaining wall will be required by the City (condition of Building Permit). 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 114 Budget Impact None Recommendation Staff recommends the City Planner incorporate these comments and conditions into the staffreport for the Planning Commission meeting and Public Hearing scheduled for June 28, 2016. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 115 June 22, 2016 To: Nolan Wall,Planner From: John Maczko, Fire Chief RE:Mendota Plaza PUD review - Planning Case 2016-16 Fire Marshal Jim Lee and myself have reviewedthe site plan and offer the following comments. Fire Department Connection (FDC): FDC should be on address side of building. Hydrant near-by. Access: While this is not a building requirement it would be helpful to have the trail to the rear of the building constructed to support fire apparatus. The building is to be fully sprinkled but this access could prove helpful and should be communicated to Dakota County when the trail is constructed. Drive lane access into and out of the parking areas to the front door shall be unimpeded and a minimum of 20’ wide clear access. o The radiuseson the Outlot B should be such that the trucks can make the turn unimpeded. The inside turning radius of the truck is 28’ and outside radius is 44’ o Underground storm water structure must support fire equipment weight IF we are driving over any portion of it o No Parking signs may need to be posted around the Outlot B if parking becomes an issue. Landscaping: Shall not be planted to obstruct the FDC or any hydrants. Care should be taken to make sure plantings on the Dodge Nature side are planted far enough away from the building to not be a fire hazard if a wildfire occurs. At least 25’ of low cut lawn should be provided as a wildland interface to prevent fire exposure the building. Landscaping becomes less of an issue if the lower floor is a fire resistant material though a clear interface is still recommended. Building Construction: All applicable fire codes and building codes as adopted/amended by the City apply and the buildings are fully protected by an automatic Fire Sprinkler system. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 116 Item No. 2016-16 MEMORANDUM Date: June 28, 2016 To: Mendota Heights Planning Commission From: Phil Carlson, AICP, Consulting Planner RE: Planning Case 2016-16: Mendota Plaza PUD Parking Analysis INTRODUCTION The applicants for the Mendota Plaza Planned Unit Development have proposed parking space numbers for both the restaurant/retail buildings on Lot 1 and the apartment project on Lot 2 in the new PUD proposal that are less than current Mendota Heights zoning code standards. This memorandum summarizes our analysis and recommendations on the parking issues associated with these two elements of the proposed plan. BACKGROUND Apartment Project: The previously approved PUD did not have a residential component on the lots in question, so there is no comparison to the previous approvals. The new apartment project proposes 237 parking spaces for 149 units, or 1.6 spaces/unit, of which 217 are proposed underground, or 1.46 spaces/unit. The apartment project proposes 99 1-bedroom units and 50 2-bedroom units, for a total of 199 bedrooms. With 237 parking spaces proposed, this comes to 1.2 spaces/bedroom. Mendota Heights Code, in Section 12-1E-8-E.1, requires 2.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit, at least one of which shall be enclosed. Using this rate, the project would be required by code to have 373 spaces, with at least 149 spaces enclosed. Restaurant/Retail Buildings: The previously approved PUD noted parking that averaged 11.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet for two retail/restaurant buildings totaling 7,600 square feet in that plan, more or less in the same location as the proposed retail/restaurant buildings in the current proposal. The restaurant/retail component of the new PUD amendment proposes 105 parking spaces for two buildings totaling 10,860 square feet of floor area, or 9.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet. The applicants have indicated the buildings may include up to 8,500 sq ft for restaurants, with retail in the rest of the space. Mendota Heights Code, in Section 12-1D-16-F, requires 7 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area for retail space. If all the proposed space were retail, the buildings would need 76 spaces. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 117 June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Page 2 of 9 Re: 2016-16 Mendota Plaza PUD Parking Analysis Mendota Heights Code, in Section 12-1D-16-F, requires 1 parking space per employee plus 1 space per 3 seats in the restaurant. Restaurant seating can vary considerably and is discussed further below, but in scenarios with a significant restaurant component more parking would be required by the Mendota Heights code than is provided in the plan. But assuming a ratio of 16.3 spaces per 1,000 sq ft (ratios discussed below) for a 6,000-sq-ft 132 spaces might be required. APARTMENT PARKING Analysis 1) We have researched parking standards in nine suburban communities and talked with the planners in five of these cities. The Mendota Heights code requirement is higher than all other communities researched except Apple Valley, which also has a standard of 2.5/unit. Most are at 2.0/unit, but Golden Valley is at 1.5/unit and St. Louis Park calculates per bedroom, not per unit, and requires 1.0 space per bedroom (a project of all 2-bedroom units would yield a rate of 2.0 spaces/unit and a project that is half 1-bedroom and half 2- bedroom would come in at 1.5 spaces/unit based on the St. Louis Park code). These standards are summarized in the table on the next page. 2) Discussion with the planners in other communities shows they regularly negotiate the parking requirements on a case-by-case basis, often within a PUD, and often go below their own published standard. All agreed that a standard of 2.5/unit was high. 3) We have information on fifteen apartment projects, supplied by the applicant and by the City of Minnetonka, also summarized in the table on the next page. All projects are at or below 2.0/unit, some well below that. 4) Of the projects for which we have information, six are in areas well served by transit Minneapolis, St. Paul and one in Eagan near a transit hub (blue entries in the table). With good transit some tenants would rely less on a car or might have one car vs. two cars for a given unit. We consider these projects not relevant to the Mendota Plaza project, which does not have good transit access. 5) The average for the other nine projects (not in transit-friendly areas and therefore reasonable to compare to the Mendota Plaza project) is 1.59/unit, very close to the 1.6/unit that the applicants are proposing for their project. We have bedroom information on five of the projects, the average of which is 1.13/bedroom, compared to the 1.2/bedroom proposed by the applicants for Mendota Plaza. 6) Car ownership rates in the U.S. reached a peak 20-30 years ago and have been falling since, according the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics (see table on the following page), so even without transit nearby there is consensus that apartment tenants likely have fewer cars today than a generation ago. This is a key reason that the parking numbers 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 118 June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Page 3 of 9 Re: 2016-16 Mendota Plaza PUD Parking Analysis have been going down and that many communities have been reconsidering their parking standards for multi-family projects. 7) The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publishes a manual on parking demand, citing th studies of built projects. Their 4 Edition manual (2010) shows a range of 1.10-1.37 spaces per unit, with an average of 1.23/unit. The number of studies cited is not large, some studies in the mix are very old, and there is no indication of the number of bedrooms in the projects studied, so we do not recommend using the ITE numbers as a firm guide. 8) None of the codes researched or the planner interviews specifically dealt with visitor parking, but one planner suggested 10%-15% should be adequate. 9) The Mendota Plaza project proposes 20 spaces, or 9% of the parking, in the surface lot in front of the building. They have also proposed to have 20 spaces in the first underground parking ramp level available to visitors by use of a security code that tenants can share with their guests. This would bring the total visitor spaces to 40 spaces, or 17% of the total parking. Apartment Parking Conclusion & Recommendation Based on the above analysis, our conclusion is that the parking for the proposed apartment project in Mendota Plaza is adequate at 1.6 spaces per unit and 1.2 spaces per bedroom, assuming the mix of 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units remains as proposed in the current plans, and provided that both the 20 surface parking spaces and the 20 additional spaces in the underground ramp are guaranteed to be available for visitors as part of the PUD development agreement. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 119 June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Page 4 of 9 Re: 2016-16 Mendota Plaza PUD Parking Analysis Apartment Parking Standards Apartment Parking Standards Summary from Selected Sources Summary of Selected Sources City/ProjectPer UnitPer BR Cities Apple Valley2.50 Eagan2.00 Eden Prairie2.00 Edina2.00 Golden Valley1.50 Maple Grove2.00 Mendota Heights2.50 Minnetonka2.00 St. Louis Park1.00 Source: U.S Bureau of Transportation Statistics ITE Manual standard - high1.37 ITE Manual standard - average1.23 ITE Manual standard - low1.10 Projects Eagan/City Vue1.30 Golden Valley/Hello1.50 Minneapolis/14001.18 Minneapolis/Girard1.10 Minneapolis/Parkway West1.27 Minneapolis/W River Commons1.37 Minnetonka/Carlson Island1.551.03 Minnetonka/Chase-Nine Mile1.60 Minnetonka/Rowland1.601.34 Minnetonka/Tonka-Creek1.491.15 Minnetonka/The Ridge2.000.93 Minnetonka/Highland Bank1.781.20 St. Louis Park/Elliott1.43 St. Paul/Park 241.00 White Bear Lake/Boatworks1.40 Average - Projects1.441.13 Average (not Eagan, Mpls, St. Paul)1.59 Mendota Plaza - Proposed1.601.20 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 120 June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Page 5 of 9 Re: 2016-16 Mendota Plaza PUD Parking Analysis RESTAURANT/RETAIL PARKING Analysis 1) We have researched parking standards for retail and restaurant uses in the same nine cities as for the apartment parking, plus West. St. Paul, which was suggested by the applicants. We also analyzed the site plans of twelve sit-down restaurants in various cities. This information is summarized in the tables on the following pages. 2) Although standards and experiences vary, the clear pattern is that restaurants require more parking than typical retail uses on a square footage basis. The applicants for the Mendota Plaza PUD have indicated they may use up to 6,000 square feet of commercial space for a sit-down restaurant. Therefore, it is prudent to plan for the worst case scenario and estimate the restaurant parking demand. 3) Most of the ten cities we surveyed base restaurant parking on seating, not square footage, or a combination of seating and employees, like Mendota Heights does. A few cities use square footage, and in those cities the standard is 16.7 to 20.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Two cities in the table calculate parking based on the dining area and bar area, not the entire restaurant, so the numbers in the table for those cities are an estimate based on an assumed layout (2:1 dining:kitchen; or 50% dining/15% bar/35% kitchen), which still yielded rates of about 14.3/1000 and 20.8/1000. standard of 8.0/1000 which we believe is low by half, compared to these other cities. 4) The connection between seating and square footage is not readily available, but we researched a s 6,028 square feet with 246 seating. This comes to about 1 seat/25 sq ft, or 40 seats/1000 sq ft. At 1 parking space/3 seats that would be 13.3 parking/1000 sq ft. If we assume 18 employees for this restaurant, that would be 3 employees/1000, for a total parking ratio of 16.3/1000. This is in the range of the other and is used below in of the City scenarios. (cited below) suggests this is high and that only about 166 seating is typical for a 6,000 sq ft restaurant. 5) The ITE manual has standards for restaurant parking too, with a bar or lounge (sit-down, not fast food). The rates range from 14.3/1000 to 22.7/1000. These figures are similar to the numbers used by other cities. 6) The average for five cities and the ITE rates is 16.9/1000. 7) The twelve restaurants we researched are all in suburban locations and range in size from 4,600 sq ft to 8,500 sq ft, about the size that might be developed in Mendota Plaza. The building areas were measured on Google Earth and parking counted from the aerial photo. The results are summarized in the table on following page. The range of parking ratios was from about 11/1000 to over 27/1000. The low end example 11.2/1000 at La Casita in Roseville is a restaurant I know well near our office and it often has overflow 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 121 June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Page 6 of 9 Re: 2016-16 Mendota Plaza PUD Parking Analysis parking on the street at busy times. The average parking ratio of these twelve restaurants was almost 18/1000, also in the range of the standards used by most cities. 8) The parking counts noted above are of spaces built and not necessarily stalls used at peak times. Some restaurants may have considerably more parking on site than they need. If we assume this to be about 10%-20% more parking than needed, a reasonable ratio would be 15/1000. 9) Another issue in this analysis is the question of shared parking one user is at its peak when another one is not, and therefore there is no need for the maximum number of parking spaces for both uses. The question is how much reduction in parking can we assume, and will it make a difference? 10) The applicants have provided a parking narrative and a table of parking analysis, both attached. Their analysis discusses parking ratios they believe to be reasonable and shows that the number of spaces they have provided will meet those ratios. The analysis relies on their experience with the three restaurants at the existing Mendota Plaza shopping center, plus two other restaurant formats of similar size to the proposed restaurant. They conclude that the number of seats averages 1/36 sq ft of restaurant floor area. At 1 space/3 seats, this comes to about 9.1 spaces/1,000, for just the seating component. They also add employee parking at 1/employee. 11) The ratios used by the applicant are lower than the ones we have researched above, but by including a shared parking component to the equation we can come to very much the same conclusion. In shared parking on the ground. The table on the next page shows City Code requirements, , and two scenarios in our analysis. s the share of the parking ratios that are assumed at peak demand times numbers these are all at 100%. In the evening dinner peak. We assume the restaurant is at 100% parking for both lunch and dinner. A coffee shop might have some business at noon, but not peak use, perhaps 75%. It might have less use half peak in the evening. Retail space might be just the opposite of the coffee shop half peak at noon, 75% in the evening. Commercial Parking Conclusion & Recommendation Based on the above analysis, our conclusion is that the parking for the proposed commercial buildings in Mendota Plaza is adequate at 105 spaces for the proposed buildings totaling 10,860 sq ft. This assumes the mix of uses is as proposed in their narrative no more than 6,000 sq ft for a sit- down restaurant with bar, and the rest of the space for either coffee shop or retail uses. The development agreement should stipulate that the City Council has the right to review or revoke the PUD if parking problems persist on site, in the opinion of the City Zoning Administrator. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 122 June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Page 7 of 9 Re: 2016-16 Mendota Plaza PUD Parking Analysis MENDOTA PLAZA RESTAURANT/RETAIL PARKING SCENARIOS Use Size Ratio Share Parking Spaces City Code Restaurant 6,000 sq ft *16.3/1000 100% 98 Coffee Shop 2,500 sq ft 7.0/1000 100% 18 Retail 2,360 sq ft 7.0/1000 100% 16 Total Required 132 Applicant Restaurant 6,000 sq ft 12.3/1000 100% 74 Coffee Shop 2,500 sq ft 7.8/1000 100% 19 Retail 2,360 sq ft 5.0/1000 100% 12 Total Proposed 105 City Analysis Noon Peak Restaurant 6,000 sq ft 15.0/1000 100% 90 Coffee Shop 2,500 sq ft 5.0/1000 75% 9 Retail 2,360 sq ft 5.0/1000 50% 6 Total 105 City Analysis Evening Peak Restaurant 6,000 sq ft 15.0/1000 100% 90 Coffee Shop 2,500 sq ft 5.0/1000 50% 6 Retail 2,360 sq ft 5.0/1000 75% 9 Total 105 *Assumed 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 123 June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Page 8 of 9 Re: 2016-16 Mendota Plaza PUD Parking Analysis Commercial Parking Standards - Summary from Selected Sources Retail Parking City Per 1000 Apple Valley 6.7 Eagan 5.0 Eden Prairie 5.0 Edina 6.0 Golden Valley 4.0 Maple Grove 5.0 Mendota Heights 7.0 Minnetonka 4.5 St. Louis Park 4.0 Average 5.2 Restaurant Parking Per City Per 1000 Seat Other Apple Valley - restaurants I & III 0.40 plus 0.2 for outdoor seating Apple Valley - restaurants II 0.33 plus 6 stacking for drive-thru Eagan - coffee shop 0.33 Eagan - restaurant 0.33 Eden Prairie - restaurant I 0.40 Eden Prairie - restaurant II 0.33 Eden Prairie - restaurant III 0.50 Edina - restaurant 0.33 plus 1/employee on major shift Golden Valley - restaurant 14.3 * estimate: 16.7/k dining + 40/k bar * estimate: 25/k dining/bar + 12.5/k Maple Grove - restaurant 20.8 kitchen Mendota Heights - restaurant 0.33 plus 1/employee on shift Minnetonka - restaurant 20.0 0.50 either by floor area or seats St. Louis Park - restaurant 16.7 West St. Paul 8.0 ITE Manual - high turnover w/bar- low 14.3 ITE Manual - high turnover w/bar- high 20.4 ITE Manual - quality restaurant - low 14.9 ITE Manual - quality restaurant - high 22.7 Average 16.9 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 124 June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Page 9 of 9 Re: 2016-16 Mendota Plaza PUD Parking Analysis Coffee Shop Parking St. Louis Park - coffee shop 5.0 wĻƭƷğǒƩğƓƷ tğƩƉźƓŭ 9ǣğƒƦƌĻƭ Restaurant City Sq Ft Parking Ratio DaVanni's Roseville 4,600 66 14.3 La Casita Roseville 8,500 95 11.2 Good Earth Roseville 5,000 84 16.8 Applebee's Roseville 6,200 121 19.5 Red Lobster Roseville 8,200 138 16.8 Baker's Square Roseville 6,500 88 13.5 Chili's Roseville 4,650 69 14.8 Chili's Plymouth 4,700 94 20.0 Chili's Maplewood 4,850 124 25.6 Chili's Bloomington 5,300 89 16.8 Chili's Eagan 5,250 144 27.4 Chili's Blaine 5,400 98 18.1 Average 5,763 101 17.9 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 125 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 126 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 127 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 128 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 129 (Paster Properties analysis) aĻƓķƚƷğ /ƚƒƒĻƩĭźğƌ 9ǣƦğƓƭźƚƓ tğƩƉźƓŭ bğƩƩğƷźǝĻ The current commercial site plan provides for 10,860 square feet of total commercial space with a total parking count of 105 stalls. We are projecting the maximum amount of restaurant space to be 8,500 square feet and the remaining retail space to be 2,260 square feet, as outlined on the parking analysis document provided. parking and what was previously approved in the original PUD at an 11/1000 parking ratio for restaurants. We reviewed eight (8) existing restaurant concepts and had discussions with a number of local restaurant operators. Based upon the information we gathered we have come to the following conclusions. An acceptable parking formula for a full service sit down restaurant is, 1 seat per 36 square feet of gross floor area, with a stall count based upon, 1 parking stall per 3 seats, plus 1 stall per employee at peak hour. An acceptable parking formula for a coffee shop and quick serve restaurant is, 1 seat per 54 square feet of gross floor area leading to a parking stall count of 1 stall per 3 seats, plus 1 stall per employee at peak hour. The parking analysis assumes a worst case scenario. We feel this will allow for cross parking between the uses if required. These conclusions are further outlined in our parking analysis document which follows this document. Based on our retail development experience, discussions with local restaurant owners and operators, we believe our parking counts will provide for a successful development. Peak activity times may vary with uses. A coffee shop or quick serve retailer may have peak parking needs in the morning and through the lunch hour. Restaurant peak times are typically at the lunch hour and in the dinner hours. Proposed CenterExamples Provided: 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 131 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 132 Planning Case 2016-16 City of 720 Highway 110 Mendota 0180 Heights Date: 5/2/2016 SCALE IN FEET HW Y 110 HWY 110 2020 2030 2075 656 750 2075 SOUTH PLAZA DR 750 790780750 800 656 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. 133 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 134 Mendota Plaza Development Mendota Mall Associates and Paster Properties along with At Home Apartments are pleased to submit this application for a revision to the previously approved development plans for the Mendota Plaza Expansion. The area of the proposed project is on the northeast side of the wetland swale currently platted as Outlots B, C, and D along with lots 3, 4, and 5, Mendota Plaza Expansion. This is currently a triangular shaped vacant area bounded by the wetland swale on the southwest, Highway 110 on the north and the Nature Center on the east. With the change in the overall real estate market along with some additional site opportunities we are proposing a modification to the previously approved development plans. The previously approved development plans included 3 new buildings. In the northwest corner of the site there was a 7,600 square foot restaurant building. In the northeast area of the site there was a 12,000 square foot retail building with a drive-thru on the north end and in the southeast area of the site there was a 10,800 square foot office building. All parking spaces for the three buildings, 190 spaces, were on grade. Access to the site would be from a newly created drive extending from Mendota Plaza on the south to the east property line and then north to a right in right out access to Highway 110. The revised project we are proposing consists of 149 units of market rate residential housing and a commercial area consisting of two buildings totaling approximately 10,860 square feet of retail and restaurant uses. Together we have developed a plan that we feel will create a sense of “place” within Mendota Plaza and the City of Mendota Heights. Our goal is to create a cohesive design that would integrate the existing center with additional retail and restaurants through pedestrian, bicycle, and place making amenities. The integration of the pedestrian and bicycle access extends beyond this project and has become a shared effort between the county, city, At Home Apartments and Paster Properties in the work that has been done on the extension of the proposed bike trail and the Highway 110 crossing. This newly designed trail would allow a bicycle and pedestrian connection between our proposed development along with Mendota Plaza on the south side of 110 and The Village of Mendota on the north side. It would be an invaluable asset for the development and the area as a whole. We were thrilled to hear about the timing of this project and the location of the trail connection as proposed to travel under 110. We are proposing a trail connection to the project as shown on the Northeast portion of the new site plan. This would be a tremendous asset to the project and would further enhance the walkability and bike ability of the site and the area. This trail access point may also serve as an emergency vehicle access point to this portion of the trail. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 135 Project Design: The overall concept of the revised development is a more cohesive and connected project serving the new residents, commercial spaces and the existing visitors to Mendota Plaza with the additional bicycle riders coming from the adjacent trail. The new plan utilizes a central drive and pedestrian corridor as a connection spine through the project from Mendota Plaza on the southwest to Highway 110 on the north. The Highway 110 access point is in the same location as was planned in the previously approved project. We are also maintaining the proposed Plaza Bridge crossing over the wetland/drainage swale that connects the existing Mendota Plaza with the revised development area. This plaza was a key part of the previous project and is maintained as a gathering place in the new design. In addition to the Plaza Bridge we have added an additional open space between the residential building and the drive. This public square would serve as an additional gathering space for visitors and residents alike. The two plazas as well as the bicycle trail are connected by pedestrian sidewalks that extend on each side to the restaurant/retail buildings on the northwest and the residential building on the southeast. These spaces would be further tied together with the proposed landscaping, lighting and site amenities that would extend throughout the project. The connectivity of the overall development would go beyond the site planning and extend into the building design, materials and detailing. Market Rate Housing Project: The proposed housing is 149 units of upper scale market-rate housing consisting of 99 one-bedroom units and 50 two-bedroom units. The minimum square feet provided for the one-bedroom units are 618 square feet and a maximum of 801 square feet. The minimum square feet provided for the two- bedroom units are 1,013 square feet and a maximum of 1,350 square feet. The Housing Project would attract a wide range of residents from all aspects of the community that want to choose renting as a lifestyle choice. The “rent by choice” dynamic has been a transition in the apartment market over the last decade. Part of this phenomenon which draws residents towards renting as a lifestyle is the opportunity to provide renters with plenty of amenities and quality finishes with a lower level of maintenance. Additionally, new housing projects such as the one we are proposing allow current home owners (i.e. baby boomers, empty-nesters, etc.) to downsize into smaller homes without sacrificing amenity comforts or high-end features. This also is an aide in the turnover of housing stock and works to keep long-term residents in the community while creating new housing opportunities for new residents and families. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 136 The building would have a dramatic lobby with a two-story volume leading from the entry toward the community room and pool deck. The lobby would contain both lounge and office spaces. Office staff will be available and located on the first floor of the facilities to handle all resident needs such as deliveries. The building design creates a courtyard facing east toward the Dodge Nature Center. The outdoor courtyard would be developed as an outdoor living area with a pool deck, hot tub, gazebo and grilling areas. This outdoor amenity would be directly connected to the community room and a fitness facility. In whole, this would create a large community space appealing to the range of residents. Additionally, there would be a roof top deck and adjoining community room. The deck would have great southern exposure offering residents a second community space as well as outdoor views. The design of the project was purposeful in order to take advantage of the trails and open green space. Additionally, the garage level was designed to complement the outdoor centric amenities so that it includes bike storage areas, a bike hub featuring bike repair tools, and a dog-washing station. The project would be sited to maximize nature center views and the best light exposure. It also is designed to create a courtyard on the interior side, and a welcoming entry side. The entry side has been designed in conjunction with a communal green space and courtyard to provide a “village” feel to the entry. The project was meant to appear as a collection of buildings that wrap the front green space. The lobby area and individual decks would overlook the communal green space, again adding to the “village” feel of the overall site. One level of parking is accessed from the north; the other level is accessed from the south side. Building entrances and access points are located such that the residents would have access to the new sidewalks and the new trail giving them great pedestrian access to the commercial center on both sides of 110. The proximity of the housing to commercial amenities would be a great advantage to living in this location. The site slopes dramatically rising over twenty feet from the southwest to the east. The building is tucked into the rise of the hill to the east and effectively acts as a retaining wall. The building would be generally four stories over two levels of underground parking, but because of the slope differentiating parts of the underground parking are exposed, from none of the parking exposed on the east side, to two stories of exposed parking on the south side. The north portion of the building steps down to the west to create a transition to the commercial areas. The apartment height is approximately 45’ in this location transitioning to the commercial building that is approximately 25’. The commercial and residential buildings are pulled into alignment at the front drive to create the sense of entering a village area. The building is designed with large areas windows and glass and large areas of stone and brick as well as lap siding. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 137 The building interior will be designed to highlight the abundant amenity areas including the two-story lobby, community room and roof deck. The interior will be a mix of classic and contemporary in styling and color with an open modern layout. Each unit is also designed to meet the new needs of the current apartment market including larger kitchens, in-unit laundry, balconies, walk-in closets and new styling of cabinetry and fixtures, as well as high-speed internet. Unit and building finishes will have the level of finishes expected by the rent-by choice apartment market including wood cabinets, granite counters, and wood-styled flooring and stainless steel appliances. The Housing Project would have 238 parking stalls in two levels of underground parking and on site. Of the 238, 217 of the stalls would be below grade located within the underground parking. A total parking count of 238 would result in an overall parking ratio of 1.6 stalls per unit. Based on our experience of managing multifamily projects over the last 20 years and taking into consideration our recent new development projects throughout the Metro, a parking ratio of 1.6 per unit would be more than adequate for a development of this size. Increasing the amount of parking to meet current City requirements results in underutilized land, creates a potential eye sore of unused parking, and detracts from the overall goal of maintain a green and environmentally conscious site. Commercial Development: As mentioned above, the commercial aspect of the proposed development would be comprised of two individual commercial buildings. The west building is intended for a restaurant space, plus one or two additional tenants. The restaurant is sited to have a south-facing outdoor patio with an overhead trellis. The East Building could accommodate several tenants and does have a drive-thru. The buildings are designed to complement the residential project to create a village feel. The buildings would also be comparable to the existing center on both sides of 110 and would use some of the brick from each project, as well as overhead canopies and details to visually connect the projects. The buildings have different parapet heights and are approximately 25’ in height. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 138 Project Areas: Below are a comparison charts of the project previously approved in 2008 and the revised project proposal being submitted. This comparison consist of lots 3, 4, and 5 of the previous project only as these are the areas of the previous project that are being changed. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 139 One of the changes proposed in the revised development is the addition of underground parking. The previous plan had approximately 190 on grade parking spaces. This revised plan has a total of 342 parking spaces with 217 of the spaces below grade under the proposed residential building. The remaining 125 parking spaces will serve the retail/restaurant area and visitors to the residential building. This is a reduction of on grade parking of nearly 35 stalls. Our greenspace area for the retail/restaurant parcels total 34% of the combined parcel areas of Lot 1 and Outlot A. Outlot A serves as the storm water detention area for Lot 1 and is legally separated for maintenance purposes. They function and appear as one parcel. Project Phasing: The proposed project would be constructed in two phases. Phase One would consist of the central drive including the Bridge Plaza, Central Plaza, and central sidewalks, adjacent landscaping and lighting. At the same time as this work is being done the proposed preliminary grading would be done for the area on the northwest side of the central drive. This would run just ahead of and nearly concurrently with the construction of the residential building on the southeast side of the central drive and all of the proposed site features that go with it. Phase Two would consist of the restaurant and retail buildings on the northwest side of the central drive including the final grading site finish work and building construction. It is anticipated that Phase One will start as soon as possible after all of the entitlement approvals and permits have been issued. It is anticipated that the construction of Phase One would take approximately 18 months. Phase Two of the project would be started as soon as the future tenants are committed to leases for the buildings. The construction period for each building individually is expected to be 8-12 months from start to open. It is our hope that the two buildings would be constructed concurrently but it may not happen this way. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 140 Wetlands: A new wetland delineation study was completed as a part of this project. The results of the new delineation were nearly the same as those done for the previously approved 2008 submittal. Under the previous project a total of 0.063 acres of wetland was approved to be filled for the construction of the stream crossing. Paster purchased 0.142 acres of wetland banking credits as mitigation for this fill (2.25:1 ratio). The new wetland delineation varies slightly from the previous delineation and the resulting fill is now 0.058. Our wetland consultant advises that for this amount of fill the current “404 processes would be a General Permit rather than a Letter of Permission (LOP). This would result in a much shorter review process – approximately +/– 2 months) and no Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) determination is required. They must also make the determination that there will be no harm to Northern Long Eared bat. The replacement ratio is now 2:1. We are verifying that the previously purchased replacement credit would count toward the wetland replacement obligation for the current project.” We are proposing to construct the Bridge Plaza and adjacent retaining walls in the same locations and in a manner that is nearly the same as the previously approved plans. Wetland credits that were purchased at the time of the previous submittal are proposed to be utilized at this time in the same way they were being utilized before. Traffic: The proposed changes in use and building areas in the new project would have a minor effect on the traffic generated by the proposal in comparison to the previously approved plan and traffic study. The revised development is expected to create a minor reduction in the traffic counts. A reduction of 310 fewer trips per typical weekday is expected when compared to the previous projections for the 2008 development. This also results in approximately 20 fewer trips during the a.m. peak hour and approximately 20 fewer trips in the p.m. peak hour. Signage: We are proposing two freestanding signs for the new development area. One monument style sign would be located on the northern portion of the residential lot facing the access to Highway 110. This sign would identify the residential building. The other freestanding Area Sign would be located on the north side of the restaurant/retail parcel, adjacent to Highway 110, identifying the restaurant and retail businesses located in the development. Wall signage would also be allowed per the existing Mendota Plaza Design Standards. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 141 Closing: Our team has been working for some time on the revised development plans for this site. We have worked hard to create a project that would serve the local Mendota Heights community as well as the many people who will be driving and now biking to through this area. We have tried to create a project that gathers people in all different ways. Bike riders may gather at the plaza for a ride on the trail system. Families from the apartments and the Mendota Heights community can get together to dine on the outdoor patio and multiple generations can gather at the pool in the apartment area. A project that allows people to live, dine, shop, and enjoy the outdoors and for some without having to drive. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 142 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 143 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 144 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 145 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 146 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 147 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 148 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 149 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 150 151 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 152 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 153 Page - Packet Commission June 13, 2016 Planning 6/28/16 A002 PLANS MENDOTA www.collagearch.com MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN CITY SUBMITTAL PK PK AND FOURTH FLOOR FIRST, SECOND, THIRD OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYSTATE OF MINNESOTA.Collage | architectsArchitectSt. Paul, Minnesota 55114 DATE: DATE: APR.25.2016 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN SPECIFICATIONDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE PETER KEELYREGISTRATION NO: 23570 Pete Keely651.472.0050705 Raymond Avenue #200 1/32" = 1'-0" 1FOURTH FLOOR PLAN 37 UNITS/FLOOR A002 1/32" = 1'-0" 2SECOND/THIRD FLOOR PLAN 38 UNITS/FLOOR A002 1/32" = 1'-0" 3FIRST FLOOR PLAN 36 UNITS/FLOOR 41,316 GSF A002 154 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 155 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 156 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 157 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 158 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 159 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 160 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 161 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 162 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 163 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 164 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 165 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 166 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 167 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 168 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 169 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 170 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 171 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 172 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 173 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 174 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 175 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 176 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 177 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 178 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 179 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 180 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 181 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 182 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 183 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 184 Page - Packet Commission Planning 6/28/16 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 192 2. Subsequent Additions And Other Structures: Subsequent additions and other buildings or structures constructed after theerection of the original building or structure shall be constructed of materials comparable in quality and appearance to those used in the original construction and shall be designed in a manner conforming with the original architectural design and generalappearance. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 193 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 194 To: John Kohler, Paster Properties From: Max Moreland, PE Date: April 11, 2016 Re: Trip Generation Comparison for Mendota Plaza The Mendota Plaza is a mixed-use development on the southeast corner of the State Trunk Highway 110/Dodd Road intersection in Mendota Heights, Minnesota. A traffic study for an expansion to the Mendota Plaza was completed by RLK Incorporated in 2008. Since that study was completed, only a portion of the proposed expansion has been built. Changes to a portion of the Mendota Plaza expansion plan have recently been made that replace some of the retail and restaurant buildings from the original expansion plan with an apartment building. This memorandum documents the changes in trip generation between the previous and current Mendota Plaza expansion plans. Conclusions/Recommendations The changes in land uses for the Mendota Plaza, those previously studied in 2008 compared to those now proposed, are forecast to generate: 310 fewer trips per typical weekday Approximately 20 fewer trips during the a.m. peak hour Approximately 20 more trips during the p.m. peak hour These changes are not expected to significantly impact the results of the previous traffic analyses nor trigger the need for any additional infrastructure improvements beyond what was recommended in the 2008 Mendota Plaza Expansion Traffic Impact Study completed by RLK Incorporated. 1.888.232.5512 PO Box 16269, St. Louis Park, MN55416 www.SpackConsulting.com 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 195 {ƦğĭƉ /ƚƓƭǒƌƷźƓŭ 2 of 4 aĻƓķƚƷğ tƌğǩğ ƩźƦ DĻƓĻƩğƷźƚƓ /ƚƒƦğƩźƭƚƓ Site Layout Changes Expansion plans for the eastern portion of the Mendota Plaza have been changed since the original expansion traffic study. Table 1 shows the land uses that were proposed in 2008 against what is being proposed now. Table 1 Land Use Changes on Eastern Portion of Mendota Plaza 2008 Mendota Plaza Expansion Current Mendota Plaza Expansion Proposed Land Uses Proposed Land Uses 3,600 square foot restaurant 7,970 square foot restaurant 4,000 square foot restaurant 4,000 square foot specialty retail 7,200 square foot specialty retail 149 unit apartment building 7,200 square foot specialty retail -- 15,000 square foot specialty retail -- Traffic Generation The trip generation for the previous land uses was taken from the 2008 RLK study. In that study, Table 2 shows the expected trip generation, based on methods published in the LƓƭƷźƷǒƷĻ Ʒŷ ƚŅ ƩğƓƭƦƚƩƷğƷźƚƓ 9ƓŭźƓĻĻƩƭ ΛL9Μ ƩźƦ DĻƓĻƩğƷźƚƓ ağƓǒğƌͲ А 9ķźƷźƚƓ. The ITE ƩźƦ DĻƓĻƩğƷźƚƓ ağƓǒğƌ is a compilation of traffic data for various land uses from existing developments throughout the United States. It should be noted that passby and internal trip reductions are not factored in for this memorandum in order to present a direct comparison of trip generation between the two land use scenarios. Table 2 2008 Proposed Land Use Trip Generation Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ITE Land Description Use Code Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Specialty Retail 814 319 5 3 9 11 (7,200 sq ft) Specialty Retail 814 319 5 3 9 11 (7,200 sq ft) Specialty Retail 814 665 10 6 18 23 (15,000 sq ft) High Turnover Sit-Down 932 458 22 20 24 15 Restaurant (3,600 sq ft) High Turnover Sit-Down 932 509 24 22 27 17 Restaurant (4,000 sq ft) Total 2270 66 54 87 77 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 196 {ƦğĭƉ /ƚƓƭǒƌƷźƓŭ 3 of 4 aĻƓķƚƷğ tƌğǩğ ƩźƦ DĻƓĻƩğƷźƚƓ /ƚƒƦğƩźƭƚƓ For the current proposed land uses, the trip generation was examined through two methods; using the updated ITE data and using locally collected trip generation data. The latest trip Ʒŷ generation manual is the L9 ƩźƦ DĻƓĻƩğƷźƚƓ ağƓǒğƌͲ В 9ķźƷźƚƓ. These rates were used to determine the expected traffic for the currently proposed land uses. Table 3 shows the results of expected trip generation using ITE data. Table 3 Current Proposed Land Use Trip Generation using ITE Data Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ITE Land Description Use Code Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Apartment (149 220 991 15 16 60 32 dwelling units) Specialty Retail 826 177 13 14 5 6 (4,000 sq ft) High Turnover Sit-Down 932 1013 47 39 47 31 Restaurant (7,970 sq ft) Total 2181 75 69 112 69 Spack Consulting has also collected local trip generation data in the Twin Cities area and has data from 2014 and 2015 for apartments and restaurants. Local data is often better than the ITE national data as it accounts for our areaData using these trip generation rates along with the ITE rates for specialty retail (since local data was not available for this land use) are shown in Table 4. 1 Table 4 Current Proposed Land Use Trip Generation using Local Data Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ITE Land Description Use Code Total Enter Exit Enter Exit Apartment (149 1 Local Data624 7 44 43 23 dwelling units) Specialty Retail 826 177 13 14 5 6 (4,000 sq ft) High Turnover Sit-Down 1 Local Data1159 14 9 72 37 Restaurant (7,970 sq ft) Total 1960 34 67 120 66 1 Local trip generation data collected and complied by Spack Consulting in years 2014 and 2015. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 197 {ƦğĭƉ /ƚƓƭǒƌƷźƓŭ 4 of 4 aĻƓķƚƷğ tƌğǩğ ƩźƦ DĻƓĻƩğƷźƚƓ /ƚƒƦğƩźƭƚƓ Table 5 presents a comparison of the three trip generation analyses: the 2008 Study results, ITE results, and ITE/Local Data Results. Table 5 Trip Generation Comparisons Trip Daily AM Peak PM Peak Scenario Generation Trips Hour Trips Hour Trips Source 2008 Proposed Land Uses ITE 2270 120 164 Current Proposed Land Uses ITE 2181 144 181 1 Current Proposed Land Uses Local & ITE 1960 101 186 1 Local trip generation data collected and complied by Spack Consulting in years 2014 and 2015. Although all data is presented for comparison, the data collected by Spack Consulting (local trip generation rates) should be considered more accurate. This data is more recent than the studies found in the ITE data and account for the Twin Cities area driving habits. Due to these factors, trip generation associated with the Spack Consulting local data is the focus for this memorandum. Comparing the results shown in Table 5, the new land uses are projected to generate almost 15 percent fewer daily and a.m. peak hour trips. The p.m. peak hour trips are forecast to increase by approximately 13 percent. In raw numbers, the current proposed land uses are expected to generate 310 less daily trips, 19 less a.m. peak hour trips and 22 more p.m. peak hour trips than the 2008 land use projections. The only recommendations for infrastructure improvements from the 2008 RLK study consisted of some turn lane lengthening on Highway 110. These recommendations came about because of needs found in the a.m. peak hour no-build scenarios. With the a.m. peak hour forecast to generate less traffic with the new land uses than with the previous proposal, the current land use proposal should not cause any additional modifications. In the 2008 RLK study, the study intersections were forecast to operate acceptably without significant queueing issues in the p.m. peak hour future scenarios. The total traffic entering the study intersections along Dodd Road and Highway 110 during the 2020 build p.m. peak hour in that analysis were between 1,073 and 3,964 vehicles. The additional 22 vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour is a fraction of that total traffic. Therefore, the land use change is not expected to have a significant enough impact on any of these intersections to require infrastructure improvements. 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 198 PLANNINGCASE2016-16PUBLICHEARINGNOTICEMAILINGLIST City of Mendota HeightsDakota County CdaDakota County Cda 1101 Victoria Curv1228 Town Centre Dr1228 Town Centre Dr Saint Paul Mn 55118-4167Eagan Mn 55123Eagan Mn 55123 McDonalds Real Estate CoMendota Heights Town Center LLCMendota Heights Town Center LLC 2020 Dodd Rd1221 Lake St W Ste 2031221 Lake St W Ste 203 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1501Minneapolis Mn 55408Minneapolis Mn 55408 Mendota Heights Wp LLCMendota Mall Associates LlpMendota Mall Associates-outlots LLC 750 Main St Ste 200% Edward J Paster 2227 University% Paster Properties LLC 2227 Mendota Heights Mn 55118AveUniversity Ave Saint Paul Mn 55114Saint Paul Mn 55114 Mendota Mall Associates-outlots LLCMendota Mall Associates-outlots LLCMendota Mall Associates-outlots LLC % Paster Properties LLC 2227% Paster Properties LLC 2227% Paster Properties LLC 2227 University AveUniversity AveUniversity Ave Saint Paul Mn 55114Saint Paul Mn 55114Saint Paul Mn 55114 Mendota Mall Associates-outlots LLCMendota Mall Associates-outlots LLCMendota Mall Associates-outlots LLC % Paster Properties LLC 2227% Paster Properties LLC 2227% Paster Properties LLC 2227 University AveUniversity AveUniversity Ave Saint Paul Mn 55114Saint Paul Mn 55114Saint Paul Mn 55114 Mendota Mall Associates-outlots LLCThomas Irvine Dodge Foundation % Paster Properties LLC 2227365 Marie Ave W University AveWest Saint Paul Mn 55118-3848 Saint Paul Mn 55114 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 199 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 200 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 201 6/28/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 202