The URL can be used to link to this page

2016-07-26 Planning Comm Agenda Packet CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSIONAGENDA July 26, 2016–7:00 p.m. Mendota Heights City Hall 1.Call to Order 2.Roll Call 3.Adopt Agenda 4.Approve June 28, 2016Planning Commission Minutes 5.Public Hearings: a.Case No. 2016-24: All Energy Solar. ConditionalUse Permit at 1295 Kendon Lane. b.Case No. 2016-28: City of Mendota Heights. Rezoning at 2500 Lexington Avenue South from B-1 Limited Business to I-Industrial. c.Case No. 2016-29: City of Mendota Heights. Proposed City Code Amendment concerning Warehouse Usesin the I-Industrial District. d.Case No. 2016-25: City of Mendota Heights. Proposed City Code Amendment concerning Temporary Family Health Care Dwelling Units. e.Case No. 2016-26: City of Mendota Heights. Proposed City Code Amendments concerning Hotel definition and First Floor Elevation standards. 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. 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 1 4 1CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3 4PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES 5June 28, 2016 6 7The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 28, 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, Mary Magnuson,Christine Costello,and Brian Petschel.Those absent:Commissioners 12Howard Roston and Doug Hennes.Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall andPublic Works 13Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello. 14 15Approval of Agenda 16 17The agenda was approved as submitted. 18 19Approval of May 24, 2016 Minutes 20 21COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLOTO 22APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2016, AS PRESENTED. 23 24AYES: 5 25NAYS: 0 26ABSENT: 2 27 28Hearings 29 30PLANNING CASE #2016-19 st 31Blue Horizon Energy, LLC, 675 – 1 Avenue 32Conditional Use Permit 33 34City Planner Nolan Wallexplained that the applicant was seeking a Conditional Use Permit to 35construct a roof-mounted solar energy system. He then shared an image of the property location 36and noted that it was completely surrounded by R-1 zoned properties. The subject parcel is 37approximately 19,000square feet, contains a single-family dwelling that is currently under 38construction, and is guided low-density residential in the Comprehensive Plan. 39 40The City Council recently passed Ordinance 485, which created standards for alternative energy 41systems as part of Planning Case 2015-34, which permitted solar energy systems as a conditional 42use in all zoning districts, subject to conditions. Planner Wall then reviewed how the proposed 43solar energy system is compliant with those applicable city code standards, is compliant with the 44applicable safety and electrical code standards, and is also compliant with the general standards in 45the code for conditional use permits. 46 June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 1 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 2 47Commissioner Noonan asked for an explanation of Condition #2, which reads “The applicant shall 48provide the appropriate authorization to the city concerning the interconnection agreement with 49Xcel Energy.” Planner Wall replied that this is a requirement contained in the code for these types 50of systems. Basically it is an interconnection agreementbetween XcelEnergy and the property 51owner so that they would sell back a portion of that energy into the grid.Commissioner Noonan 52then asked if the system were sized so that it would not generate surplus power, would the City 53require that clause. Planner Wall replied in the negative. If there is no need for the interconnection 54agreement, then it would not need to be included as a condition. 55 56Mr. Brian Keenan, from Blue Horizon Energy,came forward and addressed Commissioner 57Noonan’s question by stating that it is a standard procedure with Xcel Energy when anyone has a 58solar electric system that on some days it may produce more than is being used. 59 60Commissioner Magnuson asked how much energy is a system like this designed to produce. Mr. 61Keenanreplied that this one is going to produce somewhere around 8,000 kilowatt-hours in an 62average year. An average home uses 10,000-kilowatt hours in a year. 63 64Commissioner Petschel asked what happens to the inverter when there is a power outage. Mr. 65Keenanreplied that it shuts down. If there ever a grid failure the inverter shuts down so that the 66homeowner is not powering the grid. 67 68Chair Field opened the public hearing. 69 70Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. 71 72COMMISSIONER MAGNUSONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, 73TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 74 75AYES: 5 76NAYS: 0 77ABSENT: 2 78 79COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO 80RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, BASED ON 81THE FINDING OF FACT THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS COMPLIANT WITH THE 82APPLICABLE CITY CODEREQUIREMENTS, AND WITH THE FOLLOWING 83CONDITIONS: 841.The applicant obtains a building permit prior to installationof the proposed solar energy 85system. 862.The applicant shall provide the appropriate authorization to the city concerning the 87interconnection agreement with Xcel Energy. 883.If the proposed solar energy system remains nonfunctional or inoperable for a continuous 89period of twelve (12) months, it shall be deemed to be abandoned and shall be deemed a 90public nuisance. 914.If abandoned, the property owners shall remove the abandoned system, including the entire 92structure and transmission equipment, at their expense after obtaining a demolition permit. June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 2 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 3 93 94AYES: 5 95NAYS: 0 96ABSENT: 2 97 98Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 6, 2016 meeting. 99 100PLANNING CASE #2016-20 101Maris Kurmis, 1787 Lexington Avenue 102Lot Line Adjustment 103 104City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant is seeking to adjust a shared interior lot line 105and vacateexisting drainage and utility easement. He then shared images of the subject parcels 106affected. The property located at 1787 Lexington Avenue obviously fronts on Lexington Avenue 107and the other is an undeveloped lot at the end of the Orchard Circle cul-de-sac, completely 108surrounded by R-1 zoned properties. 109 110The proposed adjustment does require City Council approval before being recorded by Dakota 111County. The property owners of Lot 5 (1787 Lexington Avenue) are interested in selling 5,187 112square feet of the existing rear yard to the owners of Lot 6, an undeveloped parcel on the Orchard 113Circle cul-de-sac. The owners actually live at 1122 Orchard Circle. According to both parties, the 114natural topography of the area in-question is better suited to be located on Lot 6 and would also 115ensure that the existing vegetative buffer remains between the two properties. 116 117The code does allow for subdivision of parcels provided that the resulting lots are compliant with 118the requirements of the applicable zoning district. In this case, the proposed adjustment does not 119create any non-conformity with the applicable R-1 lot district standards. The only setback that is 120impacted is the rear yard setback for the existing dwelling on Lot 5, which still meets the 73-foot 121requirement by over 20 feet. 122 123There are some existing accessory structures noted on the survey, which are proposed to be 124removed and a corresponding condition of approval is included that ensures no additional non- 125conformity are created. 126 127The requested vacation of the existing drainage and utility easement that runs along the interior 128property boundary line would then be transferred to the new line, which is included in the legal 129description. In addition, the existing drainage and utility easement that runs along the north 130property boundary line of Lot 6 would be extended through the property in-question. 131 132Chair Field asked for clarification that the old lot line will disappear and the additional space would 133be incorporated into that Lot 6; Planner Wall confirmed. 134 135Mr. Maris Kurmis, representing both the buyer and the seller, cameforward and explained that 136most of the property that the sellers own from Lexington Avenue goes back approximately 365 137feet, at which point the property drops eight to ten feet. That hill is covered with bushes and trees 138and then there is another 32 feet on the bottom of that hill that seemed more suited to the buyers June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 3 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 4 139than somebody owning all of this on top and then having to go down and take care of another 32 140feet below. He noted that the accessory structures have already been removed, including cement 141floors, foundations, and other debris. 142 143Chair Field opened the public hearing. 144 145Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. 146 147COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO 148CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 149 150AYES: 5 151NAYS: 0 152ABSENT: 2 153 154COMMISSIONER MAGNUSONMOVED, SECONDED BYCOMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 155RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION REQUEST, INCLUDING THE 156DRAINAGE AND UTILITYEASEMENT VACATION, BASED ON THEFOLLOWING 157FINDINGS OF FACT: 1581.The proposed subdivision request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is 159consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 1602.The proposed adjustment will not cause any non-conformities on either parcel, based on 161the applicable zoning district standards. 1623.The existing accessory structures on Lot 5 will be removed, so as not to create any non- 163conformities on Lot 6 as a result of the proposed adjustment. 1644.The area in-question is better-suited to be included as part of Lot 6 due to the existing 165conditions. 166AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1671.Upon closing on the sale of the property, the property owners shall file the appropriate 168documents to record the proposed adjustment with Dakota County. 1692.The property owners shall dedicate the required drainage and utility easement along the 170new interior side lot line and extend the existing drainage and utility easement along the 171new north property boundary line on Lot 6, as shown on the Certificate of Survey, with 172Dakota County. 1733.All existing accessory structures shown on the Certificate of Survey will be removed prior 174to recording the proposed adjustment with Dakota County. 175 176AYES: 5 177NAYS: 0 178ABSENT: 2 179 180Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 6, 2016 meeting. 181 182PLANNING CASE #2016-23 183Sean Carey, 2500 Lexington Avenue South 184Proposed Code Amendments – B-1 District Conditional Uses June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 4 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 5 185City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was requesting amendments to Title 12-1F- 1861-B of the City Code concerning conditional uses in the B-1 Limited Business District. The 187applicant owns the property at 2500 Lexington Avenue South. Planner Wall then shared images 188of the property and the surrounding areas. 189 190The applicant formally occupied the existing 13,940 square foot office/warehouse building, which 191is currently vacant. The proposed amendment includes two additional conditional uses for 192consideration by the Planning Commission. The building on the subject property was constructed 193in 1991 for Turners Gymnastics Society and was issued a conditional use permit for a private 194athletic facility. 195 196Prior to purchasing thebuilding, the applicant did appear before the City Council in 2006 to request 197an interpretation of B-1 zoning requirements with respect to the subject property and the proposed 198office/warehouse use. The applicant no longer operates that business and is now marketing the 199building for sale or lease. As a result, the existing permitted and conditional uses have proved 200somewhat problematic in attracting new users based on how the building is constructed and the 201potential code amendment process. 202 203The proposed amendment; therefore, provides clarity on what uses may or may not occupy the 204space and would allow future interested parties to potentially pursue a conditional use permit 205process without having to first go through a code amendment process. 206 207The applicant’s request is to add “gymnastics business” and “office warehouse” as conditional 208uses to the B-1 district. Staff took the applicant’srequests and has included their recommendations 209in the form of draft Ordinance 498, which included the following proposed conditional uses: 210 2111.Commercial recreation, when conducted within a completely enclosed building 2122.Offices of general nature where the operations include warehousing from the site 213 214CommissionerNoonan asked when the initial zoning establishingthe B-1 district put in place; 215Planner Wall replied that he did not know. Commissioner Noonan then asked, in the district 216provisions, Planner Wall eluded that there was an outright prohibition in the B-1 area for 217warehouse; what year did that take place and what is the understanding of why that was done. 218Planner Wall noted that he had provided minutes from those meetings in the information packet 219and the applicant was party to that discussion. What is at issue here is that the current zoning does 220not allow the two uses that previously occupied the building.Another option couldbe topotentially 221rezone the property,but then there is the issue of having a different zoned commercial property 222than the surrounding properties. 223 224Commissioner Magnuson assumed that since this would be reviewed as a conditional use, the city 225then could create some restrictions and limitations with respect to large semi-trucks in the area, 226traffic impacts, and other impact issues that may arise as a result of some warehousing; Planner 227Wall confirmed her assumptions. 228 June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 5 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 6 229Mr. Sean Carey, 665 Arcadia Drive, explained that he purchased the building 2006 and with 230Council’s permission made a showroom, warehouse, and office space. The building was originally 231designed as a gymnastics studio in 1991 and was operated as such for 15 years. 232 233Chair Field opened the public hearing. 234 235Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. 236 237COMMISSIONERMAGNUSONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 238CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 239 240AYES: 5 241NAYS: 0 242ABSENT: 2 243 244COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, 245RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF DRAFT ORDINANCE 498, AS PRESENTED. 246 247AYES: 5 248NAYS: 0 249ABSENT: 2 250 251Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 6, 2016 meeting. 252 253PLANNING CASE #2016-22 254City of Mendota Heights 255Proposed Code Amendments – Massage Therapy Business Use 256 257City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the City was considering an amendment to Title 12-1F-1- 258A of the City Code concerning permitted uses in the B-1 Limited Business District.Massage 259Elements, LLC currently operates at 750 Highway 110, in the Mendota Plaza development. Staff 260recently received a massage establishment renewal license from the current business owner to 261relocate into a new space at 1200 Center Point Curve. 262 263The existing location is zoned MU-PUD and the new location is zoned B-1 Limited Business. 264A business offering massage therapy services did formally operate in the space at 1200 Center 265Point Curve and was appropriately-licensed bythe city from 2013 until 2015. Massage Elements 266will be occupying space within that same building. Upon further review, staff did conclude 267massage therapy business are not explicitly permitted to operate within the B-1 District despite 268massage licenses being issued in the past for businesses within the district. In order to address this 269issue and to ensure that the new business is operating in compliance with the appropriate zoning 270regulations and past practice, staff is proposing to amend the City Code to allow the use in the B- 2711 District. 272 273The proposed amendment, which reads, “Massage therapy business, subject to licensing 274requirements of this code,”is a permitted use in the B-2, B-3, B-4, and MU-PUD Districts. June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 6 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 7 275Currently, the only other massage therapy use is located at The Village, which is currently zoned 276MU-PUD. However, staff does not anticipatea proliferation of massage therapy uses as a result of 277this proposed code amendment. Title 3-6 of the City Code does require massage therapy uses to 278have an establishment license and individual therapists must also be licensed; both of which must 279be renewed annually. 280 281Commissioner Magnuson noted that she was trying to reconcile the prohibition of retail sales in 282the B-1 District with the ability to operate essentially a walk-in business that sells a service, albeit 283a service that occurs on the premises; so a massage therapy/hair salon/nail place isn’t really 284considered a retail sale because the services are performed on the premises. Planner Wall noted 285that the fact that this specific use would be permitted by the proposed amendment. If it weren’t 286specifically included,a case could be made that this would be a retail use and would not be allowed. 287 288Commissioner Noonan noted that it had been indicated that a massage therapy establishment did 289operate prior to now and asked how it was able to operate if it wasn’t exclusively permitted in the 290zone. Planner Wall replied that he would be making some assumptions because it was done 291previous to his time here. However, his understanding of that particular business is that it offered 292a number of different services, including massage therapy; and that may have been added after the 293business already occupied the space. 294 295Commissioner Magnuson recommended that maybe before this goes to the Council that it be run 296by the City Attorney to ensure that the simple inclusion of massage therapy services doesn’t 297conflict with the notion of retail sales. It may be that the language could be tweaked just a little bit 298to deal with that potential inconsistency to make it clearer – that is does not constitute a retail sale 299because services are performed on the premises, or whatever. Planner Wall replied thathe could 300certainly ask for some clarification from the City Attorney with potentially some additional 301clarifiers to answer that question. 302 303Commissioner Noonan asked if the B-1 zone permits the full-range of medical or quasi-medical 304type services (i.e. physical therapist, chiropractor, dentist). Planner Wall responded by listing the 305currently permitted uses in the B-1 District.He then further respondedthat, in his opinion,there 306is not another usein the B-1 zonethat could be implied or somehow interpreted to be “massage 307therapy”, especially when it is specifically included in other districts. 308 309Mr. Jon Faraci, the general manager of Sampson Development, came forward and explained that 310they built the building in 2008 and noted that the B-1 District is a very limited zoning district. 311However, when the previous owner and he came to City Hall and spoke with former city staff, it 312was not an issue; the reasonbeing because the zoning said “offices, offices of the human care”, 313and because of the locationof a chiropractor within the B-1 District. He also theorized that there 314is really no different between and bank and a retail establishment, yet banks are a permitted use. 315He brought up other uses that tried to locate within his building but was not permitted becauseof 316the limitations in the B-1 District (i.e. barber shop, salon). He urged the Commission to approve 317this request because it had been approved before. 318 319Chair Field opened the public hearing. 320 June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 7 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 8 321Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. 322 323COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONERCOSTELLO, TO 324CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 325 326AYES: 5 327NAYS: 0 328ABSENT: 2 329 330COMMISSIONER MAGNUSONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, 331TO RECOMMEND APPROVALRECOMMEND APPROVAL OF DRAFT ORDINANCE 497, 332AS PRESENTED 333 334Commissioner Noonan noted that is inclined to support the amendment mainly because of the 335history that was shared. It is compelling and certainly it gives an indication as to what was 336permitted before and the interpretation. He believes this ordinance does provide the clarification. 337 338Councilmember Petschel stated that he is inclined to support it as well. However, it would be nice 339to not have to have piece-meal approvals; possibly having an explicit definition of what retail is. 340Maybe a limitation on what percent of a business could be sold goods as opposed to a service 341rendered. Commissioner Noonan agreed that he would rather see these changes comprehensively. 342 343AYES: 5 344NAYS: 0 345ABSENT: 2 346 347Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 6, 2016 meeting. 348 349PLANNING CASE #2016-16 350Mendota Mall Associates / Paster Properties, 720 Highway 110 – Mendota Plaza 351Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Amendment, Preliminary Plat/Final Plat, 352and Wetlands Permit 353 354City Planner Nolan Wall explained that applicant was seeking approval to amend a Planned Unit 355Development (PUD) Final Plan Development including Preliminary and Final Plat, and Wetlands 356Permit requests. The proposed development site is approximately 4.96 acres of undeveloped land 357in the northeast corner of the existing Mendota Plaza mixed-use development. It borders Highway 358110 to the north, the Dodge Nature Center property to the east, and the Mendota Plaza development 359to the south and to the west. The Village of Mendota Heights is located directly across the highway 360to the north and would be linked to the proposed development by a future trail underpass as part 361of a county funded project. 362 363Planner Wall then shared additional background information that had been provided to the 364Commissioners in their information packet: 365Project includes integrated commercial and high-density residential developments June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 8 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 9 366Development team includes Mendota Mall Associates and Paster Properties, and At Home 367Apartments 368Project to be constructed in two phases 369 o Phase One: includes construction of the private access drive, high-density residential 370development, public amenities, landscaping, and preliminary grading; commencing as 371soon as possible and completed in approximately 18 months 372 o Phase Two: includes construction of the commercial development and final grading; 373commencingas soon as future tenants are committed to leases and each commercial 374building will take 8-12 months to construct, which may not occur concurrently 375 376Planner Wall noted that as part of the PUD process, the applicant received approvals for the master 377plan of the entire mixed-use site. The proposed amendment is in response to changes in the real 378estate market and additional site opportunities since the original PUD was approved. 379 380Planner Wall then gave an analysis of the Comprehensive Plan, the Preliminary and Final Plat, 381Proposed PUD Final Development Plan Amendment, commercial development, high-density 382residential development, off-street parking, signage, lighting, wetlands permit, Dakota County 383trail, Dodge Nature Center, and Development Agreement; all of which had been included in the 384information packet in greaterdetail. 385 386CommissionerNoonan noted that it had been mentioned several times inthe staff report about an 387access permit pending from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). He then 388asked if MnDOT had jurisdiction, notwithstanding the fact that they had previously issued an 389access permit, to say no. Public Works Director/City Engineer Mazzitello stated that they had a 390meeting not too long ago with MnDOT on this specific issue and they outlined the additional 391information that they need from the applicant in order to process this permit. One of the issues that 392came up was the area in-question was purchased from MnDOT by the applicant but that is 393something that is going to come into play and once the applicant gets all of the information, 394including the updated full traffic study for the development, MnDOT will come back to them with 395what type of permitted access they are willing to give. Without speaking on behalf of MnDOT, he 396noted that the feeling the in meeting was that it was positive and if they can work through these 397issues that something is likely to happen with that permit. 398 399Commissioner Noonan asked for confirmation that Council consideration of this matter is going 400to be held in abeyanceuntil such time as the answer is given on the access permit. Public Works 401Director/City Engineer Mazzitello confirmed and noted that the City cannot approve a 402development plan with an access point that is not permitted. Commissioner Noonan then asked 403what sort of expectation is had with respect to a decision from MnDOT; how does it relate to the 40460-day rule. Public Works Director/City Engineer Mazzitelloreplied that one of the topics 405discussed in the meeting was the timing of the permit and the application process. Walking through 406that timeline, if everything falls into place, the decision from MnDOT would be received prior to 407the action deadline for the application. The applicant would be free to extend if necessary. The 408action deadline is currently August 24, 2016; however, to the extent that the required information 409is not received by then, the applicant would have to take additional steps to voluntarily extend the 410deadline. 411 June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 9 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 10 412Commissioner Noonan asked if the permit to provide the access were not approved, what would 413that mean in terms of what the Commission was being asked to considered; does the application 414come back because it would require fundamental rework and then the Commission would have 415another chance to review the overall operation in light of no permit; Planner Wall replied in the 416affirmative. 417 418Commissioner Magnuson noted that in one of the renderings of the site there is a description of 419the changes to Highway 110 where it appears that they are adding a turn lane or some type of 420egress at the so-called private access drive. She then asked if it could be assumed that MnDOT is 421on-board with this whole project to some extent or that they are actually going to do that; or is this 422something that was put into the plan and no one knows if it actually will take place. Planner Wall 423replied, without speaking on behalf of the applicant,that his understanding was that was the 424purpose of the right-of-way access permit; which would be something to be negotiated between 425MnDOT and the applicant. Public Works Director/City Engineer Mazzitelloreplied that part of 426the application for the access permit would be the construction of a deceleration lane on the 427eastbound Highway 110; that is part of the applicant’s permit application and is not part of the 428Highway 110 rehabilitation project. If MnDOT were not rehabilitating Highway 110, that would 429be installed by the applicant as part of their access. 430 431Commissioner Petschel, as someone who regularly takes a right at rush hour from northbound 432Dodd on Highway 110, asked if there was any anticipation that people would be using that access 433point as a shortcut to eastbound Highway 110.Public Works Director/City Engineer Mazzitello 434speculated that the path from the BP access point on Dodd Road to this access point on Highway 435110 is pretty convoluted going through the Plaza’s parking lot. It may be more likely that people 436would use South Plaza Drive and turn left at the White Pine building, then come across. However, 437they would still have to negotiate through a lot of parking and business traffic; probably being 438more trouble than it’s worth for most drivers. 439 440Commissioner Magnuson noted that Planner Wall mentioned a few times in his presentation that 441“this is required by code, this is not being met in this application; however staff believes that what 442is being proposed is reasonable” and then asked that because this is a PUD if the Commission 443could use the code asguidanceas opposed to requirement. Planner Wall replied in the affirmative 444and noted that one of the issues with the R-3 zoning code is that it is fairly antiquated and he was 445unsure if it has been updated to what current standards are. Therefore, arbitrarily holding an 446applicant to those requirements, certainly in a PUD, seemed onerous. However, they were 447reviewed and included as part of the analysis. 448 449Commissioner Magnuson asked if there were sections of the application that were incomplete, as 450it sounded to her during the presentation (i.e. parking issues, signage issues); she wondered if these 451were things that, if this application were moved on to the City Council, staff would work on as this 452goes through the process. Planner Wall replied that the application is complete because all of the 453required materials have been submitted. There are some aspects that, due to the speculative nature 454specific to the commercial development, that raise questions that need to be answered before the 455ultimate final approval can be given. This particular development also has an extensive 456Development Agreement, which has outlined various conditions that would be required to be June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 10 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 11 457included as part of that agreement. They are included in the staff report and encompassed as 458conditions. 459 460Commissioner Noonan asked if the Commission needs to see the Development Agreement in a 461draft and if the Commission has any role in terms of looking at the Development Agreement to 462make sure they are satisfied that is appropriately met the conditions approved. Planner Wall replied 463that the Development Agreement goes directly to the City Council in concert with the 464recommendation from the Planning Commission and the conditions that are included for approval. 465 466Commissioner Noonan noted that it was mentioned in the presentation that more finalized plans 467were to be brought forward; that presupposes that the applicant will bring forward a plan. He then 468asked what would happen if the City does not find that plan acceptable. Planner Wall replied that 469would essentially be negotiated as part of the Development Agreement process. 470 471Commissioner Noonan, in respect to parking, expressed his appreciation of the analysis that was 472completed by Stantec, as it was quite helpful. He then asked for confirmation that contractually 473the developer will be obligated to maintain the 20 visitor parking spaces underground. Planner 474Wall replied that is what staff is recommending. He then asked if an enforcement mechanism was 475in place in case the buildingfound that it needed more parking and poached into the visitor spaces. 476Planner Wall replied that it could certainly be a component of that; enforcement of that is 477essentially a managementor operationalissue. However,if it did present an issue that the City felt 478needed to be addressed they could have a clause in the Development Agreement that seeks to 479remedy that. Commissioner Noonan submitted that this would be more than a management issue 480because of the potential to spill over into the community. 481 482Commissioner Noonan asked what would happen if, notwithstanding the analysis that was done 483that indicated that the parking is adequate, it was found that oneof the components is not adequate. 484What would the remedy be if it were found that there was a spillover in parking? Planner Wall 485referred to the following conditions of approval: 486 4873.As part of the proposed high-density residential use, the applicant shall make at least 20 488underground spaces available for visitor/guest parking. 4894.The proposed commercial development shall be limited to an appropriate square footage 490of restaurant space to accommodate off-street parking demand and maintain consistency 491with the traffic analysis, to be included as part of the amended Development Agreement. 492 493He continued by stating that at least at this point, with the number provided for potential square 494footage of the restaurant, that is what staff is basing their recommendation on as being acceptable; 495therefore, it is staff’s strong opinion that be memorialized in the Development Agreement to 496establish that any inconsistencies with that square footage which would cause off-street parking 497issues needs to be resolved by the applicant. 498 499Commissioner Noonan continued by asking for confirmation that the staff report stated 20 visitor 500spaces underground and 20 visitor spaces above ground; Planner Wall confirmed. Commissioner 501Noonan noted that Condition #3 should be modified to make reference to 20 underground spaces 502and 20 surface spaces; Planner Wall agreed. June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 11 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 12 503Chair Field requested clarification on the following: 504The Commission’s role was to make recommendation to the City Council 505The City Council would make policy decisions, and 506TheCity Council would take the Commission’s input and negotiate the Developers 507Agreement 508 509Planner Wall confirmed and noted the three pieces to be voted upon: 5101.Conditional Use Permit to amend the existing Planned Unit Development 5112.Preliminary and Final Plat, including the vacation of the existing drainage and utility 512easements 5133.Wetlands Permit request 514 515Mr. Phil Carlson, Consulting Plannerfrom Stantec, noted that the analysis done suggested that the 516amount of parking is enough; however, the condition of approval should be that the actual use 517needs to stay within that parking and not create a parking problem; therefore, it’s really up to the 518applicant to operate in such a way that does not create a parking problem. If they create a parking 519problem they have violated a condition of the approval and; therefore, the City could step in with 520other measures. 521 522Commissioner Petschel asked for clarification that the shared parking would be for the residential 523property. Planner Wall replied that the total 105 surface parking stalls is the total for the entire 524commercial development, which includes potentially restaurant and retail uses in the two buildings 525combined; no underground for the retail. 526 527Chair Field asked what the original setback was on the commercial buildings in the original PUD. 528Public Works Director/City Engineer Mazzitelloreplied that in the original PUD approval, they 529were set back slightly further than what is being proposed now. Chair Field then asked what the 530variance was. Planner Wall replied that they were proposing building setbacks of 42.92 feet for 531building one and 28 feet from the right-of-way for building two; front yard setback in the B-1 and 532B-2 districts are 30 feet. What is also worth consideration in this respect is that there is asignificant 533right-of-way area betweenthe highway and this particular property, which is left for a visual and 534vegetative buffer from the site as well. Planner Wall speculated based on previous staff reports 535and the non-dimensioned/scalablemaster planincluded in the packet, that the original PUD 536setbacks were approximately 60 to 70 feet from the right-of-way line. 537 538Mr. John Kohler, architect with Paster Properties, approached the Commission and noted he and 539the development team were available for questions. 540 541Commissioner Magnuson asked have any consideration had been given to consolidating some of 542the signs; so instead of having three large pylon signs there could be only one. Mr. Kohler replied 543that this would be difficult based on the building placements. He then shared an image of the area 544and the proposed locations of the signs. 545 546Commissioner Noonan asked, as a follow-up to the suggestion made by Mr. Carlson, if a 547recommendation was advanced whereby the parking proposed is specifically called out in the 548Development Agreement and there was an obligation on the developers/owners to live within those June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 12 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 13 549numbers, and if operational problems emerged there would be a commitment to make the 550necessary steps to bring it back into complianceand eliminate the overage; what would be his 551reaction. Mr. Kohlerreplied that since they own the shopping center adjacent to this proposed 552development and in consideration of the new bridgelocation, they do have a fallback plan to 553address any potential parking issues. As far as specific uses/specific parking that is why they 554worked with Mr. Carlson on working out specific square footages to accommodate what the 555owner/developers felt was a comfortable worst-case scenario. He believes that if parking is going 556to be a problem it would probably be a bigger problem for the retailers than for the residents. 557 558Mr. Mike Cashill and Ms. Leanna Stefaniak with At Home Apartmentscame forward to address 559the parking in the apartments. Mr. Cashill noted that the current development cycle has changed 560with 70%-75% one-bedroom and 20% two-bedrooms; therefore, the parking requirements have 561come down substantially. They are seeing most of the new developments inthe Twin Cities be 562approved at the 1.3, 1.4, to 1.5 cars per unit ratios and seeing actual registered car counts of 1.1 to 5631.3 cars per unit. So they believed that the 1.6 cars per unit as being very generous. The 564combination of retail and multi-family isa great mix. 565 566Commissioner Noonan, referencing that these apartments would be at market rents, asked for a 567definition of “market rents” for this building. Mr. Cashill replied that in the Twin Cities they are 568seeing the rents that are needed for new construction costs are right in the $2/per square foot per 569month rental range. For example, a 700 square foot apartment would rent for $1,400/month and 570their rental sizes go from 650 square feet up to 1,400 square feet. Commissioner Noonan then 571asked how these rates would relate to the affordability guidelines that the Metropolitan Council 572has. Mr. Cashill replied that they are proposing strictly market rate for this location; transit 573orientated development on the light rail or buildings that are adjacent to large business centers with 574a large employment growth would be areas would be more amicable for affordability component. 575This would mean rent caps for one-bedroom and two-bedrooms; examples would be $700 rent cap 576for one-bedroom and $1,000 rent cap for two-bedrooms. 577 578Commissioner Noonan asked if At Home were unable to get the $2/square foot rent per month, 579would they be looking for any assistance in terms to fill the gap. Mr. Cashill replied that at this 580particular time, this is a market rate project so they are not proposing an affordability component. 581If that were to become an issue, then tax credits, bond financing, etc. would be a part of that 582program; however, that is not their program for this project. 583 584Commissioner Petschel asked if the parking slots are automatically assigned by units. The answer 585was negative. He then asked if someone has a unit in the building if they would automatically get 586a parking space or is that an additional charge. Mr. Cashill replied that typically an additional 587parking spot would be $75/month. For example, there are often times single people who rent a 588two-bedroom apartment and typically the garage spaces are rented for $75/month. Commissioner 589Petschel then asked if, especially inan apartment building this close to a surface parking structure, 590there was the potential for people foregoing the additional charge and just park in the surface lot. 591In other words, would they need to post signs in the Plaza surface lot that reads No Overnight 592Parking, etc. Mr. Cashill replied that they would definitely do that and show where people could 593park. However, that decision has not been determined. They do have many properties where they 594incorporate one parking spot for one-bedroom and two for two-bedroom apartments. June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 13 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 14 595Commissioner Costello stated that she noticed that there appears to be a trash enclosure between 596the two buildings; she then asked if there was a shared area for both commercial buildings. The 597answer was affirmative. She then noted that it appears that the materials would be different than 598the structures and asked if the plan was to build it with the same materials as the structures. Again, 599the answer was in the affirmative. She then asked if it would have a roof structure. The reply was, 600as this point, the thought was to not cover it because it actually keeps the area cleaner. 601 602Commissioner Petschel asked if the access road behind the retail building wraps around into the 603parking lot. The reply was that it was the drive-through for the potential restaurant space. 604 605Planner Wall reminded the Commission that the public hearing was held open from the last 606meeting. 607 608Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. 609 610COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO 611CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 612 613AYES: 5 614NAYS: 0 615ABSENT: 2 616 617COMMISSIONER COSTELLOMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 618RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 619PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT, AND WETLANDS PERMIT REQUESTS, INCLUDING 620DRAINAGE AND UTILITYEASEMENT VACATIONS, BASED ON THEFOLLOWING 621FINDINGS OF FACT: 6221.The proposed amendment to a Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan is 623consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable City Code requirements for such a 624development. 6252.The proposed project utilizes the planned unit development (PUD) zoning flexibility to 626enhance development of the property without negatively impacting surrounding land uses 627and natural resources. 6283.Construction of the proposed high-density residential development accountsfor a 629significant amount of the Metropolitan Council’s Year 2040 forecasted population and 630household increases. 6314.The proposed project is designed to minimize impacts on the wetland areas and is 632consistent with the previously-approved PUD. 6335.The proposed trail and pedestrian connections included as part of the proposed project will 634facilitate recreational opportunities. 635AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 6361.The applicant shall draft appropriate amendments to the existing Development Agreement 637required by approvalof the proposed project, to be reviewed and approved by the City 638Council. 6392.Necessary drainage and utility easements shall be included on the Final Plat, as determined 640by the Engineering Department and Saint Paul Regional Water Service. June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 14 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 15 6413.As part of the proposed high-density residential use, the applicant shall make at least 20 642underground spaces and 20 surface spacesavailable for visitor/guest parking. 6434.The proposed commercial development shall be limited to an appropriate square footage 644of restaurant space to accommodate off-street parking demand and maintain consistency 645with the traffic analysis, to be included as part of the amended Development Agreement. 6465.The applicant shall submit a comprehensive signage plan for the proposed multi-tenant 647commercial buildings that is compliant with the applicable design standards and City Code, 648to be reviewed by the Planning Department and included as part of the amended 649Development Agreement. 6506.Rooftop mechanical units shall be of a low profile variety. All ground-level and rooftop 651mechanical utilities, other than low profile rooftop units, shall be completely screened with 652one or more of the materials used in the construction of the principal structure, to be 653reviewed by the Planning Department and verified as part of the building permit review 654process. 6557.Plant material shall be utilized as a screening element for building utility areas, but shall 656not obstruct fire department connections or hydrants, to be reviewed by the Planning and 657Fire Departments and verified as part of the building permit review process. 6588.All loading service, utility and outdoor storage areas shall be screened from public roads 659and adjacent differing land uses. When natural materials are used as a screen, the screen 660shall achieve 75% opacity year round. 6619.A performance bond or letter of credit shall be supplied by the applicant in an amount equal 662to at least one and one-half (11/2) times the value of such screening, landscaping, or other 663improvements, to be included as part of the Development Agreement. 66410.The owner, tenant and their respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for 665the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly 666appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required 667by an approved site or landscape plan and which have died shall be replaced as soon as 668seasonal or weather conditions allow. 66911.A revised Lighting Plan shall be submitted that includes proposed building lighting and 670any additional lighting within the MnDOT right-of-way, to be reviewed by the Planning 671and Engineering Departments and included as part of the amended Development 672Agreement. 67312.The final Storm Water Modeling Report shall be signed by a currently licensed 674Professional Engineer in the State of Minnesota. 67513.Stream flow and corresponding culvert sizing shall be completed using Atlas 14 rainfall 676quantities. 67714.The proposed deck encroachment into Outlot A shall be addressed in the amended 678Development Agreement. 67915.The required traffic report requested by MnDOTshall be signed by a currently licensed 680Professional Engineer in the State of Minnesota. 68116.A MnDOT Right-of-Way Access Permit shall be obtained for the proposed access to STH 682110 as shown in the proposed plans prior to final approval. 68317.The proposed water system shall be designed and constructed to Saint Paul Regional Water 684Service (SPRWS) standards, including written approval of the design layout prior to final 685City Council approval. June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 15 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 16 68618.The proposed common sanitary sewer line serving both commercial buildings shall be 687placed within and drainage and utility easement equal in width to twice the depth of the 688sewer pipe. 68919.A profile (elevation) view of creek crossing depicting utility locations and separation 690distance from creek culvert shall be provided and approved by SPRWS. 69120.The proposed trail connection to the Mendota-Lebanon Hills Greenway Trail shall be 692coordinated with Dakota County, including a written agreement prior to issuance of a 693building permit. 69421.A cut/fill analysis shall be provided along with final building permit plans denoting the 695amount of material export/import expected for the complete development. 69622.Proposed retaining walls in excess of four feet in height shall require engineering design 697provided with the building permit application. 69823.The applicant shall begin the work authorized by the wetlands permit within ninety (90) 699days from the date of issuance of the permit or obtain an extension as permitted by City 700Code. 70124.The applicant shall complete the work authorized by the wetlands permit within the twelve 702(12) months from the date of issuance of the permit or obtain an extension as permitted by 703City Code. 70425.Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction 705commencement. 70626.All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in 707compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in 708compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 70927.Drive lane access into and out of the off-street parking areas to the building’s front doors 710shall be unimpeded and a minimum of 20-foot-wide clear access. 71128.The radiuses on the Outlot B shall be such that fire truck turning movements are 712unimpeded, to be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department. 71329.The underground storm water structure in Outlot B shall support fire equipment weight if 714required to be driven over by a fire truck. 71530.No Parking signs shall be posted around Outlot B. 71631.All applicable fire and building codes, as adopted/amended by the City, shall apply and the 717buildings shall be fully-protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system. 718AND WITH THE MODIFICATION TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 3 TO 719INCLUDE THE 20 SURFACE PARKING SPACES 720 721Councilmember Noonan also proposed a friendly amendment that picked up on the suggestion that 722Mr. Carlson recommended; of 723 72432.The Development Agreement specifically identify the parking proposed within the 725Development Plan being 105 commercial, 237 residential, including 40 visitor spaces and 726that there is a commitmenton the part of the developer to live within those numbers and 727that if problems emerge that they will take immediate steps to mitigate parking problems. 728 729Commissioner Costello agreed to the amendment. 730 731 June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 16 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 17 732AYES: 5 733NAYS: 0 734ABSENT: 2 735 736Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 6, 2016 meeting. 737 738Verbal Review 739 740Planner Wall gave the following verbal review: 741 742PLANNING CASE #2016-11 743All Energy Solar, 1002 Oxford Court 744Conditional Use Permit for a Solar Energy System 745•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission 746 747PLANNING CASE #2016-14 748TruNorth Solar, LLC, 701 Mendota Heights Road – Friendly Hills Middle School 749Conditional Use Permit for a Solar Energy System 750•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission 751 752PLANNING CASE #2016-12 753Richard Dugan, 2165 Timmy Street 754Variance Request 755•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission 756•Note: the City Council did accept the Planning Commissions recommendations specific to 757the compromise between what the applicant wanted and staff’s recommendation 758 759PLANNING CASE #2016-13 760Scott and Nancy Knowlton/John Steenberg, 810/804 Ridge Place 761Lot Split and Variance Request 762•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission 763 764PLANNING CASE #2016-15 765Michael Hayes, 2305 Apache Street 766Variance Request 767•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission 768 769PLANNING CASE #2016-17 770Derwin Weightlifting, LLC, 2535 Pilot Knob Road – Pilot Knob Service Center 771Conditional Use Permit 772•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission 773 774PLANNING CASE #2016-21 775Joe Juliette, 1920 Glenhill Road 776Critical Area Permit June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 17 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 18 777As required by code, this item was taken directly to City Council and was approved at their 778last meeting 779 780Staff and Commission Announcements 781 782The 2016 Street Reconstruction Project is underway, the contractor has torn the pavement 783off of Mendota Road and is reclaiming the pavement in the Warrior Drive Subdivision 784 o The Warrior Drive Subdivision should be completed by early August 785 o Mendota Road should be completed by Labor Day 786Highway 13 is going to be closed again for the completion of the slope stabilization project 787for the property on Woodridge 788 o Anticipated closing date of July 5 and will reopen after MnDOT inspection of the 789highway and remediation efforts on the pavement 790 o Anticipated to be reopened on September 2 791 792Adjournment 793 794COMMISSIONER MAGNUSONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 795ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:09 P.M.\\ 796 797AYES: 5 798NAYS: 0 799ABSENT: 2 June 28, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 18 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 19 5a Request for Planning Commission Action MEETING DATE:July 26, 2016 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP – Planner SUBJECT:Planning Case 2016-24 Conditional Use Permit – 1295 Kendon Lane COMMENT: Introduction The applicant, on behalf of the property owner, is seeking a conditional use permit to install a roof-mounted solar energy system at 1295 Kendon Lane.The City Code allows solar energy systems as a conditional use in all zoning districts, subject to conditions. Background The subject parcel is approximately 1.29 acres and contains an existing single-family residential dwelling with an attached garage. 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 prior to 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. 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 20 Planning Staff Report DATE: July 26, 2016 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP – Planner SUBJECT:Planning Case 2016-24 Conditional Use Permit APPLICANT: All Energy Solar PROPERTY ADDRESS:1295 Kendon Lane ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One-Family Residential/LR-Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE:August 22, 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 solar energy system at 1295 Kendon Lane. 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 1.29 acres and contains asingle-family residential dwellingwith an attached garage. The City Council recently adopted Ordinance 485 creating standards for alternative energy systems, as part of Planning Case 2015-34. The intent wastoensure 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 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 21 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 dwellingwas constructed in 1993. According to the elevation drawings submitted by the applicant, the tallest point of the existing roofline on the east elevation is 19 feet-10 inches, which is compliant with the R-1 District height requirement. The proposed panels mounted on this section of the roof will onlyextend three inches above the roofline and will still meet the applicable height requirement, assuming the dwelling was constructed in compliance with the 25-foot height requirement. b. Setbacks: The system shall comply with all building setback requirements in the applicable zoning district and shall not extend beyond the exterior perimeter of the building on which the system is mounted. The proposed solar energy systemwill not extend beyond the exteriorperimeter 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 system will be flush-mounted to the pitched roof structure. d. Maximum Area: The system shallnot cover more than eighty percent (80%) of the roof section upon which the panels are mounted. The proposed solar panel area is approximately 646square feet, which will occupy approximately 67% 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: 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 22 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 be required to comply with the standards in subsection 12-1D-13-2C7 of this article where practical. According to the applicant: The east pitch of the roof is obscured from view on the street that runs in front of the home by a dense stand of trees. These trees block the view of this roof slope all along this road. Furthermore, staff notes that the roof in-question faces LeMay Lake and there are no adjacent residential structuresto the east. 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 customer's roof is a green metal standing seam roof. As there are currently no green solar panels available on the market, we opt for a subtle, unobtrusive panel with industry standard black cells, standard silver frame, and white back sheet. 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, panels are equipped with a factory anti-glare coating which minimizes glare levels. This ensures that the production is maximized as less light leaves the panel themselves. 8. Utility Connection: a. All utilities shall be installed underground. According to the applicant, none are required since the proposed solar energy system is roof-mounted. 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, this is incorporated into the system’s design and will be verified by the electrical inspector. 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. The applicant is required to submit this information as part of the building permit submittal. 9. Safety: a. Standards: Solar energy systems shall meet the minimum standards outlined by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), the American Society Of Heating, Refrigerating, And Air- 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 23 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. 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 asdetermined 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 the applicant, the proposed project will be compliant with these requirements. 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 owners shall 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 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 24 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 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.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. 3.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 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 25 Planning Case 2016-24 City of 1295 Kendon Lane Mendota 075 Heights Date: 7/20/2016 SCALE IN FEET 13051305 1300 1300 398 60 Proposed Project Area 1295 25 27 1295 1305 162 251 60 LN KENDON 60 70 30 60 1286 1286 1294 1298 1302 1281 1281 1289 60 45 15 70 1020 30 60 13031295 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. 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 26 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 27 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 28 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 29 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 35 snapnrack.com Solar Mounting Solutions Series 100 Residential Roof Mount System photovoltaic (PV) module installation system. Series 100 UL is listed to the UL 2703 adequate bonding path which has eliminated the need for grounding lugs and wash- ers at each module, and bonding jumpers between splices. In addition to grounding and bonding, the roof mount system, Series 100 UL, is Class A Fire Rated when in- - pliance ensures that SnapNrack installers can continue to provide the best in class Appealing design with built-in aesthetics No grounding lugs required for modules All bonding hardware is fully integrated into the components Rail splices bond rails together, no rail jump- ers required Proprietary SnapNrack grounding lug snaps in the rail channel No drilling of rail or reaching for other tools required Class A Fire Rating for Type 1 and 2 modules System Features Include Snap in Single Tool Easy No Cutting HardwareInstallationLevelingor Drilling Integrated Wire Preassembled Integrated bonding Managementhardware Resources snapnrack.com/resources Design Where to Buy snapnrack.com/buy 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 36 snapnrack.com Solar Mounting Solutions SERIES 100 TECHNICAL DATA 6000 Series aluminum Materials Stainless steel Clear and black anodized aluminum Material Finish Class A Fire Rating Type 1 and Type 2 modules Stamped Structural Engineering Reports for all 50 States SnapNrack Grounding Lug (One lug per individual row of modules) Grounding Integrated bonding components Warranty 877-732-2860 www.snapnrack.com contact@snapnrack.com © 2015 by SnapNrack Solar Mounting Solutions. All rights reserved 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 37 VOYAGEUR SiE-V-275, SiE-V-280, SiE-V-285 MADE IN MINNESOTA THE SILICON ENERGY DIFFERENCE VOYAGEUR ADVANTAGES: MADE IN USA ARRA COMPLIANT Rev 20150608 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 38 ELECTRICAL CHARACTERISTICS THERMAL CHARACTERISTICS MEASURED AT STC** Rated Power (P) Watts MAX Temperature P Maximum Power Voltage (V) MP C Maximum Power Current (I) MP Open Circuit Voltage (V) Temperature OC Range Short Circuit Current (I) SC Maximum System Voltage (V) DC WARRANTIES AND CERTIFICATIONS Series Fuse Rating (Amps-DC) Workmanship **Standard Test Conditions (STC) at 1000W/m², AM 1.5 spectrum, 77°F/25°C cell temperature. Warranty Power MECHANICAL SPECIFICATIONS Warranty Module Weight C Cells Diodes Frame Design Load Wattages subject to availability. Construction Connectors (Wire) Junction Box .60in 37.80in 15.3mm 960mm 2.62in .26in 66.5mm 6.5mm 1.34in 8.70in 34mm 221mm .05in 1.3mm .35in 9mm 37.40 1.14in 29mm 43.31in 65.94in 1100mm 1675mm 1.14in 29mm SILICON ENERGY MN, LLC .60 15.3 11.32in 287.5mm www.silicon-energy.com 39.41in1.34in 1001mm34mm SPECIFICATIONS SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE ATTENTION: THOROUGHLY READ INSTRUCTIONS IN USERS MANUAL BEFORE INSTALLING Rev 20150608 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 39 PLANNINGCASE2016-24PUBLICHEARINGNOTICEMAILINGLIST Alton T BerskowCarol A DoffingCharles III Russell 1307 Furlong Ave1314 Furlong Ave1286 Kendon Ln Mendota Heights Mn 55120Saint Paul Mn 55120-1202Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Daniel M BredvoldDarlene J Tste LysneDavid & Carmel Hiner 1281 Lakeview Ave1307 Lakeview Ave1295 Kendon Lane Saint Paul Mn 55120-1206Mendota Heights Mn 55120Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1226 Dennis J & Rita M CorriganDouglas R & Kathleen GeierEmmajean Anderson 1309 Furlong Ave1309 Kendon Ln1312 Furlong Ave Saint Paul Mn 55120-1202Saint Paul Mn 55120-1203Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Emmajean AndersonGordie A & Judy A DahlbergJohn & Kristen M Arehart 1312 Furlong Ave1298 Kendon Ln1305 Kendon Ln Mendota Heights Mn 55120Saint Paul Mn 55120-1226Saint Paul Mn 55120-1203 John G & Beth W AsmussenLaurens C Sr MattonLemay Shores Homeowners Association 1305 Furlong Ave1310 Kendon Ln%New Concepts 5707 Excelsior Blvd Saint Paul Mn 55120-1202Saint Paul Mn 55120-1227Saint Louis Park Mn 55416 Michael KunertMichael WandschneiderMitchell J Lallier 7 Williams Wood Rd8775 Barnes Ave1299 Lakeview Ave Mahtomedi Mn 55115Inver Grove Heights Mn 55077Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1206 Mitchell J LallierMitchell J LallierRichard & Harriet Sperle 1299 Lakeview Ave3637 Woodland Trl1302 Kendon Ln Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1206Eagan Mn 55123Saint Paul Mn 55120-1227 Roslyn T DrewSamir & Nadia KericThomas R & Margaret Swanson 1295 Lakeview Ave1623 Triangle Palm Ter1294 Kendon Ln Saint Paul Mn 55120-1206Naples Fl 34119Saint Paul Mn 55120-1226 Timothy J StearnsTimothy J Stearns 1300 Furlong Ave1300 Furlong Ave Mendota Heights Mn 55120Mendota Heights Mn 55120 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 40 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 41 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 42 5b 5c Request for Planning Commission Action MEETING DATE:July 26, 2016 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP – Planner SUBJECT:Ordinance 502 Concerning Rezoning from B-1 Limited Business to I-Industrial Ordinance 503 Concerning Warehouse Uses in the Industrial District COMMENT: Introduction The city is considering rezoning the propertyat 2500 Lexington Avenue Southfrom B-1 Limited Business to I-Industrial and proposing corresponding amendments to Title 12-1G-1 and 12-1G-2 of the City Code concerning warehouse uses in the I-Industrial District. Background As part of Planning Case 2016-23, the owner of the subject property containing a vacant office/warehouse building applied for a code amendment to add conditional uses to the B-1 Limited Business District. The City Council determined rezoning to I-Industrial and developing additional conditions for warehouses uses adjacent to residential uses was better-suited to address the property owner’s request. As a result,the original applicationwas withdrawn and staff was directed to bring forward the proposed rezoning and code amendment. 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. 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 rezoning request and code amendment and make a recommendation to the City Council. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 43 Planning Staff Report DATE: July 26, 2016 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP – Planner SUBJECT: Planning Cases 2016-28 and 2016-29 Rezoning Request from B-1 Limited Business to I-Industrial Proposed Code Amendment – Warehouse Uses in the Industrial District APPLICANT: City of Mendota Heights PROPERTY ADDRESS:2500 Lexington Avenue South ZONING/GUIDED: B-1 Limited Business/B-Business ACTION DEADLINE:N/A DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The city is considering rezoning the propertyat 2500 Lexington Avenue Southfrom B-1 Limited Business to I-Industrial and proposing corresponding amendments to Title 12-1G-1 and 12-1G-2 of the City Code concerning warehouse uses in the I-Industrial District. BACKGROUND As part of Planning Case 2016-23, the owner of the subject property containing a vacant office/warehouse building applied for a code amendment to add commercial recreation and warehouse uses to the B-1 Limited Business District. The City Council determined rezoning to I-Industrial and developing additional conditions for warehouses uses adjacent to residential uses was better-suited to addressthe property owner’s request. As a result, the original application was withdrawn and, at the direction of the City Council, staff is proposing two ordinances for continued discussion and action: 1.Ordinance 502 Rezoning from B-1 Limited Business to I-Industrial 2.Ordinance 503 Concerning Warehouse Uses in the I-Industrial District ANALYSIS The requests are essentially tied to the same property, but could not be included in the same ordinance. Therefore they were issued separate case numbers, but are being reviewedand analyzed within the same staff report. Rezoning The subject parcel is across Lexington Avenue from other industrial uses, but is adjacent to office and residential uses (see attached maps). The I-Industrial District includes a wider variety of use options than 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 44 the B-1 Limited Business District that better fit the building’s existing build-out, including “business and professional offices” and “warehouse and distribution” as permitted uses and “commercial recreation” as a conditional use. The subject parcel is guided as B-Business and would require an amendment to Comprehensive Plan if the rezoning request is approved. A condition is included in DRAFT Ordinance 502 and will be brought back for Planning Commission review and City Council approvalbefore being submitted to the Metropolitan Council. Code Amendment As discussed with the Planning Commission and City Council as part of the previous code amendment request, the subject property’s location directly adjacent to a residential use may warrant additional review and corresponding conditions to mitigate any potential negative impacts from certain future uses. If the property were to be rezoned to I-Industrial, staff proposes the following corresponding code amendments: 1.12-1G-1: PERMITTED USES: Warehousing and distribution, not adjacent to a residential use. 2.12-1G-2: CONDITIONAL USES: Warehousing and distribution, adjacent to a residential use, provided that: 1.A fence along the property boundary line adjacent to the residential use is constructed, in compliance with section 12-1G-7-E of this chapter. 2.Loading areas shall not be serviced by loading docks, unless completely screened from the ground-level view from adjacent properties and streets, except at access points, in compliance with section 12-1D-13-2-E-2 of this chapter. 3.Truck traffic shall not impede vehicle circulation or have a negative impact on surrounding uses. 4.Operations shall not include retail sales. 5.Any exterior improvements to the building and/or property are compliant with section 12- 1D-13-2 of this chapter. 6.The proposed use shall be compliant with all applicable performance standards in section 12-I of this chapter. 7.Hours of operation for delivery/distribution shall be limited to seven o'clock (7:00) A.M. to eight o'clock (8:00) P.M. 8.Additional conditions that mitigate potential negative impacts to adjacent residential uses may be included as determined by the City Council. Many of the proposed conditions are already required for developments in the industrial and business districts, but requiring the CUP triggers a public hearing and review by the Planning Commission and City Council. The proposed hours of operation for delivery/distribution are the same as for residential exterior construction on weekdays. The final condition allows for additional conditions based on the review of the CUP by the Planning Commission and City Council. ALTERNATIVES Following the public hearings and further discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1.Recommendapproval of DRAFT Ordinance 502 and/or 503, as presented or as amendedby the Commission. OR 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 45 2.Recommend denial of DRAFT Ordinance 502 and/or 503. OR 3.Table the request(s), pending additional information and revisions from staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the proposed rezoning request and code amendment. 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 502 2.DRAFT Ordinance 503 3.Aerial site map 4.Zoning maps 5.Planning applications, including supporting materials 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 46 1CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3 4ORDINANCE NO. 502 5 6AN ORDINANCE AMENDINGTHE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP 7 8 9The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: 10 11Section 1. 12 13The Official Zoning Map of Mendota Heights, as referenced in Title 12, Chapter 1, Article C of 14the City Code and known as the “Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance,” is hereby amended in the 15following respects: 16 17The following land is to be rezoned to I-Industrial and subject to the same restrictions 18pertaining to other I-Industrial zones: 19 20Those described in Exhibit A. 21 22More commonly, the property is known as 2500 Lexington Avenue South. 23 24Section 2. 25 26This Ordinance shall be in effect upon approval of the required Comprehensive Plan Amendment 27by the City Council and Metropolitan Council. 28 29Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this ## day of Month, 2016. 30 31CITY COUNCIL 32CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 33 34 35 36Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor 37ATTEST 38 39 40___________________________ 41LorriSmith, City Clerk 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Ord.502 – 7.26.16DRAFT forPlanning Commission Review Page 1 of 2 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 47 1CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3 4ORDINANCE NO. 503 5 6AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE G OF THE CITY 7CODE OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, 8CONCERNING WAREHOUSE USES IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT 9 10 11The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: 12 13Section 1. 14 15Title 12-1G-1 is hereby amended as follows: 16 17Warehousing and distribution, not adjacent to a residential use. 18 19Section 2. 20 21Title 12-1G-2 is hereby amended as follows: 22 23Warehousing and distribution, adjacent to a residential use, provided that: 241.A fence along the property boundary line adjacent to the residential use is constructed, in 25compliance with section 12-1G-7-E of this chapter. 262.Loading areas shall not be serviced by loading docks, unless completely screened from 27the ground-level view from adjacent properties and streets, except at access points, in 28compliance with section 12-1D-13-2-E-2 of this chapter. 293.Truck traffic shall not impede vehicle circulation or have a negative impact on 30surrounding uses. 314.Operations shall not include retail sales. 325.Any exterior improvements to the building and/or property are compliant with section 12- 331D-13-2 of this chapter. 346.The proposed use shall be compliant with all applicable performance standards in section 3512-I of this chapter. 367.Hours of operation for delivery/distribution shall be limited to seven o'clock (7:00) A.M. 37to eight o'clock (8:00) P.M. 388.Additional conditions that mitigate potential negative impacts to adjacent residential uses 39may be included as determined by the City Council. 40 41Section 3. 42 43This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication. 44 45Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this ## day of Month, 2016. 46 47CITY COUNCIL 48CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Ord.503 – 7.26.16DRAFT forPlanning Commission Review Page 1 of 2 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 48 49 50 51 52Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor 53ATTEST 54 55 56___________________________ 57Lorri Smith, City Clerk Ord.503 – 7.26.16DRAFT forPlanning Commission Review Page 2 of 2 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 49 Planning Case 2016-28 City of 2500 Lexington Avenue South Mendota 080 Heights Date: 7/21/2016 SCALE IN FEET 2431 235 17 53150 2500 2465 194 2510 2520 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. 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 50 Planning Case 2016-28 City of 2500 Lexington Avenue South Mendota 0475 Heights Date: 7/20/2016 SCALE IN FEET Zoning District R-3 R-1 I B-3 B-1A B-1 SUBJECT PARCEL P O O L 4 9 4 I-494 I-4 94 I-94 R AMP 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. 51 Page - Packet Commission Planning 7/26/16 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 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 52 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 53 PLANNINGCASE2016-28PUBLICHEARINGNOTICE Albert J Lauer CoArcadia Partners LLCCity of Mendota Heights 16700 Chippendale Ave665 Arcadia Dr1101 Victoria Curve Rosemount Mn 55068-1726Mendota Heights Mn 55118Mendota Heights Mn 55118-4167 City of Mendota HeightsH & M Holdings of Mendota LLCMendota Heights Family Housing 1101 Victoria Curv2520 Lexington Ave S Ste 500%Dakota County Cda 1228 Town Centre Saint Paul Mn 55118-4167Mendota Heights Mn 55120Dr Eagan Mn 55123 Mn Mining & Manufacturing CoOld Mill Commercial Properties LLCState of Mn - Dot % 3m Company Tax Division Bldg2510 Lexington Ave S% Dir of Land Mgmt Stop 630 395 John 224-5n-40Mendota Heights Mn 55120Ireland Blvd Saint Paul Mn 55144Saint Paul Mn 55155 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 54 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 55 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 56 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 57 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 58 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 59 5d Request for Planning Commission Action MEETING DATE:July 26, 2016 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP – Planner SUBJECT: Ordinance 499 Concerning Temporary Family Health Care Dwelling Units COMMENT: Introduction The City is considering an amendment to Title 12-1D-3 of the City Code concerning temporary family health care dwelling units. Background Under a new law passed as part of the 2016 legislative session, all municipalities must allow for installation of a temporary residential dwelling on a property for the care of a mentally or physically-impaired person who is related to the resident. A temporary dwelling that meets the requirements of the law cannot be prohibited by a local ordinance that regulates accessory uses or recreational vehicle parking or storage. Many communitiesobjected to certain provisionswithin the new law that limited local controland, as a result, an opt-out provision was added. The proposed code amendment includes the recommended opt-out language provided by the League of Minnesota Cities.If the City Council is interested in allowing temporary housing options or accessory dwellings units, staff recommends bringing forward more information for discussion in order to develop regulations that better fit the needs of the community. 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. 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 60 Planning Staff Report DATE: July 26, 2016 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP – Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2016-25 Proposed Code Amendment – Temporary Family Health Care Dwelling Units 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 12-1D-3 of the City Code concerning temporary family health care dwelling units. BACKGROUND As part of the 2016 legislative session, a bill was passed thatrequires cities to allow temporary family health care dwellingsas a permitted use. The law contains a number of conditions that address size, accessibility, utility connection, design, and construction standards. In addition, applications are exempt from certain zoning, building, and fire regulations and permits must be approved within 15 days. Many communities voiced concerns and objections to the proposed legislation through the League of Minnesota Cities. As a result, the law was passed with an opt-out provision for cities by ordinance. The new law goes intoeffect on September 1, 2016. The proposed code amendment includes the recommended opt-out language provided by the League of Minnesota Cities. ANALYSIS Under the new law, all municipalities must allow for installation of a temporary residential dwelling on a property for the care of a mentally or physically-impaired personwho is related to the resident.The initial permit is valid for six monthsand can be renewed once for another six months. A temporary family health care dwelling that meets the requirements of the law cannot be prohibited by a local ordinance that regulates accessory uses or recreational vehicle parking or storage. Upon review of the new law, staff raises the following concerns: 1.Allowing additional dwelling units (even temporarily) on parcels that are only zoned for one dwelling. 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 61 2.Maximum size of 300 square feet is larger than the 144-square foot maximum size for an accessory structure on most residential properties per the City Code. 3.No public hearing or other notification of surrounding property owners is required. 4.$100 permit fee may not be adequate to cover administration and enforcement costs. 5.Allowing occupation of a structure that is exempt from certain building and fire code requirements. 6.Compliance and removal issues if a permit is revoked. 7.Utility connection issues, based on building code requirements. 8.HIPPA data handling procedures. While the new law is well-intentioned, certain aspects of the proposed regulations contrast with existing city ordinances. As a policy matter, if the City Council is interested in allowing temporary housing options or accessory dwellings units, staff recommends bringing forward more information for discussion in order to develop regulations that better fit the needs of the community. It’s also worth noting that existing temporary housing options for health reasons already available in the community include spare bedrooms, apartments, assisted living facilities, short-term health care facilities, and group homes. ALTERNATIVES Following the public hearing and further discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1.Recommendapproval of DRAFT Ordinance 499, as presented or as amended by the Commission. OR 2.Recommend denial of DRAFT Ordinance 499. OR 3.Table the request, pending additional information and revisions from staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the proposed code amendment. 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 499 2.League of Minnesota Cities Memo 3.Chapter 111 – 2016 Minnesota Session Laws 4.Star Tribune article – 07/05/16 5.Planning application, including supporting materials 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 62 1CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3 4ORDINANCE NO. 499 5 6AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE DOF THE CITY 7CODE OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, 8CONCERNING OPTING-OUT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF MINNESOTA 9STATUTES, SECTION 462.3593 10 11 12The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: 13 14Section 1. 15 16Title 12-1D-3-E is hereby added as follows: 17 18Pursuant to authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3593, subdivision 9, the City of 19Mendota Heights opts-out of the requirements of Minn. Stat. §462.3593, which defines and 20regulates Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings. 21 22Section 2. 23 24This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication. 25 26Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this ## day of Month, 2016. 27 28CITY COUNCIL 29CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 30 31 32 33Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor 34ATTEST 35 36 37___________________________ 38Lorri Smith, City Clerk Ord. 499– 7.26.16 DRAFT for Planning Commission Review Page 1 of 1 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 63 Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings of 2016 Allowing Temporary Structures – What it means for Cities Introduction: On May 12, 2016, Governor Dayton signed, into law, a bill creating a new process for landowners to placemobile residential dwellings on their property to serve as a temporary family health care 1 dwelling.Community desire to provide transitional housing for those with mental or physical impairments and the increasedneed for short termcare for aging family members served as the catalysts behind the legislature taking on this initiative. The resulting legislation sets forth a short term care alternative fora “mentally or physically impaired person”, by allowing them to stay in a 2 “temporary dwelling” on a relative’s or caregiver’s property. Where can I read the new law? Until the state statutes are revised to include bills passed this session, cities can find this new billat 2016 Laws, Chapter 111. Does the law require cities to follow and implement the new temporary family health care dwelling law? Yes, unless a city opts out of the new law or currently allows temporary family health care dwellingsas a permitted use. Considerations for cities regarding the opt-out? These new temporary dwellings address an emerging community need to provide more convenient temporary care. Cities may want to consider the below when analyzing whether or not to opt out: The new law alters a city’s level of zoning authority for these types of structures. While the city’s zoning ordinances for accessories or recreational vehicles do not apply, these structures still must comply with setback requirements. A city’s zoning and other ordinances, other than its accessory use or recreational vehicle ordinances, still applyto these structures. Because conflicts may arise between thestatute and a city’s local ordinances, cities should confer with their city attorneys to analyze their current ordinances in light of the new law. Although not necessarily a legal issue for the city, it seems worth mentioning that the permit process does not have the individual with the physical or mental impairment or that 1 2016 Laws, Chapter 111. 2 Some citiesasked if other states have adopted this type of law. The only states that havea somewhat similar statute at the time of publication of this FAQ are North Carolinaand Virginia. It is worth noting that some states have adopted Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) statutes to allow granny flats, however, these ADU statutes differ from Minnesota’s Temporary Health Care Dwelling law. 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 64 Temporary Family HealthCare Dwellings June 9, 2016 Page 2 individual’s power of attorney sign the permit application or a consent to release his or her data. The application’s data requirementsmay result in the city possessing and maintaining nonpublic data governed by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. 3 The new law sets forth a permitting system for both cities and counties. Cities should consider whether thereis an interplay between these two statutes. Do cities need to do anything to have the new law apply in their city? No, the law goes into effect September 1, 2016 and automatically applies to all cities that do not opt out or don’t already allow temporaryfamily health care dwellingsas a permitted use under their local ordinances. By September 1, 2016, however, cities will need to be prepared to accept 4 applications, must have determined a permit fee amount (if the city wants to have an amount different than the law’s default amount), and must be ready to process the permits in accordance with the short timeline required by the law. What if a city already allows a temporary family health care dwelling as a permitted use? If the city already has designatedtemporary family health care dwellings as a permitted use, then the law does not apply and the city follows its own ordinance. The city should consult its city attorney forany uncertainty about whether structures currently permitted under existing ordinances qualify as temporary family health care dwellings. What process should the city follow if it chooses to opt out of this statute? Cities that wish to opt out of this law must pass an ordinance to do so. The statute does not provide clear guidance on how to treat this opt-out ordinance. However, since the new law adds section 462.3593 to the land use planning act (Minn. Stat. ch. 462), arguably, it may representthe adoption or an amendment of a zoning ordinance, triggering the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 2-4, including a public hearing with 10-day published notice. Therefore, cities may want to 5 err on the side of caution and treat the opt-out ordinance as azoning provision. Does the League have a model ordinance for opting out of this program? Yes.Link to opt out ordinance here:Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings Ordinance Can cities partially opt out of the temporary family health care dwelling law? 3 See Minn. Stat. §394.307 4 Cities do have flexibility as to amounts of the permit fee. The law sets, as a default,a fee of$100 for the initial permit with a $50 renewal fee, but authorizes a city to provideotherwise by ordinance. 5 For smaller communities without zoning at all, those cities still need to adopt an opt-out ordinance. In those instances, it seems less likely that the opt-out ordinance would equate to zoning. Because of the ambiguity of the statute, cities should consult their city attorneys on how best to approach adoption of the opt-out ordinance for their communities. 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 65 Temporary Family HealthCare Dwellings June 9, 2016 Page 3 Not likely. The opt-out language of the statute allows a city, by ordinance, to opt out of the requirements of the law but makes no reference to opting out of parts of the law. If a city wanted a program different fromthe one specified in statute, the most conservative approach would be to opt out of the statute, then adopt an ordinance structured in the manner best suited to the city. Since the law does not explicitly provide for a partial opt out, cites wanting to just partially opt out from the statute should consult their city attorney. Can a city adopt pieces of this program or change the requirements listed in the statute? Similar to the answer about partially opting out, the law does not specifically authorize a city to alter the statutory requirements or adopt only just pieces of the statute. Several cities have asked if they could add additional criteria, like regulatingplacement on driveways, specific lot size limits, or anchoring requirements. As mentioned above, if a city wants a program different from the one specified in the statute, the most conservative approach would involve opting out of the statute in its entirety and then adopting an ordinance structured in the manner best suited to the city. Again, a city should consult its city attorney when considering adopting an altered version of the state law. What is required in an application for a temporary family health care dwelling permit? 6 The mandatory application requests very specific information including, but not limited to: Name, address, and telephone number of the property owner, the resident of the property (if different than the owner), and the primary care giver; Name of the mentally or physically impaired person; Proof of care from a provider network, including respite care, primary care or remote monitoring; Written certification signed by a Minnesota licensed physician, physician assistant or advanced practice registered nurse that the individual with the mental or physical impairment needs assistance performing two or more “instrumental activities of daily 7 life;” An executed contract for septic sewer management or other proof of adequate septic sewer management; An affidavit that the applicant provided notice to adjacent property owners and residents; A general site map showing the location of the temporary dwelling and the other structures on the lot; and Compliance with setbacks and maximum floor area requirements of primary structure. 6 New Minn. Stat. § 462.3593, subd. 3 sets forth all the application criteria. 7 This is a term defined in law at Minn. Stat. § 256B.0659, subd. 1(i) as “activities to include meal planning and preparation; basic assistance with paying bills; shopping for food, clothing, and other essential items; performing household tasks integral to the personal care assistance services; communication by telephone and other media; and traveling, including to medical appointments and to participate in the community.” 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 66 Temporary Family HealthCare Dwellings June 9, 2016 Page 4 The law requires all of the followingto sign the application: the primary caregiver, the owner of the property (on which the temporary dwelling will be located) and the resident of the property (if not the same as the property owner). However, neither the physically disabled or mentally impaired individual nor his or her power of attorney signs the application. Who can host a temporary family health care dwelling? Placement of a temporary family health care dwelling can only be on the property where a “caregiver” or “relative” resides. The statute defines caregiver as “an individual, 18 years of age or older, who: (1) provides care for a mentally or physically impaired person; and (2) is a relative, legal guardian, or health care agent of the mentally or physically impaired person for whom the individual is caring.” The definition of “relative” includes “a spouse, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, sibling, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece of the mentally or physically impaired person. Relative also includes half, step and in-law relationships.” Is this program just for the elderly? No.The legislature did not include an age requirement for the mentally or physically impaired 8 dweller. Who can live in a temporary family health care dwelling and for how long? The permit for a temporary health care dwelling must name the person eligible to reside in the unit. The law requires the person residing in the dwelling to qualify as “mentally or physically impaired,” defined as “a person who is a resident of this state and who requires assistance with two or more instrumental activities of daily living as certified by a physician, a physician assistant, or an advanced practice registered nurse, licenses to practice in this state.” The law specifically limits the time frame for these temporary dwellings permits to 6 months, with a one-time 6 month renewal option. Further, there can be only one dwelling per lot and only one dweller who resides within the temporary dwelling What structures qualify as temporary family health care dwellings under the new law? The specific structural requirements set forth in the law preclude using pop up campers on the driveway or the “granny flat” with its own foundation as a temporary structure. Qualifying temporary structures must: Primarily be pre-assembled; Cannot exceed 300 gross square feet; Cannot attach to a permanent foundation; Must be universally designed and meet state accessibility standards; 8 The law expressly exempts a temporary family health care dwelling from being considered “housing with services establishment”, which, in turn, results in the 55 or older age restriction set forth for “housing with services establishment” not applying. 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 67 Temporary Family HealthCare Dwellings June 9, 2016 Page 5 Must provide access to water and electrical utilities (by connecting to principal dwelling or 9 by other comparable means); Must have compatible standard residential construction exterior materials; Must have minimum insulation of R-15; Must be portable (as defined by statute); Must comply with Minnesota Rules chapter 1360 (prefabricated buildings) or 1361 (industrialized/modular buildings), “and contain an Industrialized Buildings Commission 10 seal and data plate or to American National Standards Institute Code 119.2”; and 11 Must contain a backflow check valve. Does the State Building Code apply to the construction of a temporary family health care dwelling? Mostly, no. These structures must meet accessibility standards (which are in the State Building Code). The primary types of dwellings proposed fall within the classification of recreational vehicles, to which the State Building Code does not apply. Two other options exist, however, for these types of dwellings. If thesestructuresrepresent a pre-fabricated home, the federal building code requirements for manufactured homes apply (as stated in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1360). If these structures are modular homes, on the other hand, they must be constructed consistent with the State Building Code (as stated in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1361). What health, safety and welfare requirements does this new law include? Aside from the construction requirements of the unit, the temporary family health care dwelling must be located in an area on the property where “septic services and emergency vehicles can gain access to the temporary family health care dwelling in a safe and timely manner.” What local ordinances and zoning apply to a temporary health care dwelling? The new law states thatordinances related to accessory uses and recreational vehicle storage and parking do not apply to these temporary family health care dwellings. However, unless otherwise provided, setbacks and other local ordinances, charter provisions, and applicable state laws still apply. Because conflicts may arise between the statute and one or more of the city’s other local ordinances, cities should confer with their city attorneys to analyze their current ordinances in light of the new law. What permit process should cities follow for these permits? The law creates a new type of expeditedpermit process. The permit approval process found in Minn. Stat. § 15.99 generally applies; however, the new law shortens the time frame for which the local governmental unit has to make a decision on granting the permit. Due to the time sensitive 9 The Legislature did not provide guidance on what represents “other comparable means”. 10 ANSI Code 119.2 has been superseded by NFPA 1192. For more information, the American National Standards . Institute website is located at https://www.ansi.org/ 11 New Minn. Stat. § 462.3593, subd. 2 sets forth all the structure criteria. 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 68 Temporary Family HealthCare Dwellings June 9, 2016 Page 6 nature of issuing a temporary dwelling permit, the city has only 15 days (rather than 60 days) (no extensionis allowed) to either issue or deny a permit. The new lawwaives the public hearing requirement and allows the clock to restartif a city deems an application incomplete. If a city deems an application incomplete, the city must provide the applicant written notice, within five business days of receipt of the application, telling the requester what information is missing. For those councils that regularly meet only once a month, the law provides for a 30-day decision. Can cities collect fees for these permits? Cities have flexibility as to amounts of the permit fee. The law sets the fee at $100 for the initial permit with a $50 renewal fee, unless acity provides otherwise by ordinance Can cities inspect, enforce and ultimately revoke these permits? Yes, but only if the permit holder violates the requirements of the law. The statute allows for the city to require the permit holder to provide evidence of compliance and also authorizes the city to inspect the temporary dwelling at times convenient to the caregiver to determine compliance. The permit holder then has sixty (60) days from the date of revocation to remove the temporary family health care dwelling. The law does not address appeals of a revocation. How should cities handle data it acquires from these permits? The application data may result in the city possessing and maintaining nonpublic data governed by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. To minimize collection of protected heath data or other nonpublic data, the city could, for example, request that the requiredcertification of need simply state “that the person who will reside in the temporary family health care dwelling needs assistance with two or more instrumental activities of daily living”, without including in that certification data or information about the specific reasons for the assistance, the types of assistance, the medical conditions or the treatment plans of the person with the mental illness or physical disability. Because of the complexities surrounding nonpublic data, cities should consult their city attorneys when drafting a permit application. Should the city consult its city attorney? Yes.As with any new law, to determine the potential impact on cities, the League recommends consulting with your city attorney. Where can cities get additional information or ask other questions. For more information, contact Staff Attorney Pamela Whitmore at pwhitmore@lmc.orgor LMC General Counsel Tom Grundhoefer at tgrundho@lmc.org. If you prefer calling, you can reach Pamela at 651.281.1224 or Tom at 651.281.1266. Chapter 111 -Minnesota Session LawsPage 1of 6 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 69 2016 Minnesota Session Laws Key: (1) language to be deleted (2) new language CHAPTER 111--S.F.No. 2555 An actrelating to local government; regulating zoning of temporary family health care dwellings; establishing temporary dwelling permits;amending Minnesota Statutes 2014, section 144D.01, subdivision 4; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapters 394; 462. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2014, section 144D.01, subdivision 4, is amended to read: Subd. 4.Housing with services establishment or establishment. (a) "Housing with services establishment" or "establishment" means: (1) an establishment providing sleeping accommodations to one or more adult residents, at least 80 percent of which are 55 years of age or older, and offering or providing, for a fee, one or more regularly scheduled health-related services or two or more regularly scheduled supportive services, whether offered or provided directly by the establishment or by another entity arranged for by the establishment; or (2) an establishment that registers under section 144D.025. (b) Housing with services establishment does not include: (1) a nursing home licensed under chapter 144A; (2) a hospital, certified boarding care home, or supervised living facility licensed under sections 144.50 to 144.56; (3) a board and lodging establishment licensed under chapter 157 and Minnesota Rules, parts 9520.0500 to 9520.0670, 9525.0215 to 9525.0355, 9525.0500 to 9525.0660, or 9530.4100 to 9530.4450, or under chapter 245D; (4) a board and lodging establishment which serves as a shelter for battered women or other similar purpose; (5) a family adult foster care home licensed by the Department of Human Services; (6) private homes in which the residents are related by kinship, law, or affinity with the providers of services; (7) residential settings for persons with developmental disabilities in which the services are licensed under Minnesota Rules, parts 9525.2100 to 9525.2140, or applicable successor rules or laws; (8) a home-sharing arrangement such as when an elderly or disabled person or single-parent family makes lodging in a private residence available to another person in exchange for services or rent, or both; (9) a duly organized condominium, cooperative, common interest community, or owners' association of the foregoing where at least 80 percent of the units that comprise the condominium, cooperative, or common interest community are occupied by individuals who are the owners, members, or shareholders of the units; or https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?year=2016&type=0&doctype=Chapter&id=1117/13/2016 Chapter 111 -Minnesota Session LawsPage 2of 6 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 70 (10) services for persons with developmental disabilities that are provided under a license according to Minnesota Rules, parts 9525.2000 to 9525.2140 in effect until January 1, 1998, or under chapter 245D; or (11) a temporary family health care dwelling as defined in sections 394.307 and 462.3593. Sec. 2. \[394.307\] TEMPORARY FAMILY HEALTH CARE DWELLINGS. Subdivision 1. Definitions. (a) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given. (b) "Caregiver" means an individual 18 years of age or older who: (1) provides care for a mentally or physically impaired person; and (2) is a relative, legal guardian, or health care agent of the mentally or physically impaired person for whom the individual is caring. (c) "Instrumental activities of daily living" has the meaning given in section 256B.0659, subdivision 1, paragraph (i). (d) "Mentally or physically impaired person" means a person who is a resident of this state and who requires assistance with two or more instrumental activities of daily living as certified in writing by a physician, a physician assistant, or an advanced practice registered nurse licensed to practice in this state. (e) "Relative" means a spouse, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, sibling, uncle, aunt, nephew, or niece of the mentally or physically impaired person. Relative includes half, step, and in-law relationships. (f) "Temporary family health care dwelling" means a mobile residential dwelling providing an environment facilitating a caregiver's provision of care for a mentally or physically impaired person that meets the requirements of subdivision 2. Subd. 2. Temporary family health care dwelling. A temporary family health care dwelling must: (1) be primarily assembled at a location other than its site of installation; (2) be no more than 300 gross square feet; (3) not be attached to a permanent foundation; (4) be universally designed and meet state-recognized accessibility standards; (5) provide access to water and electric utilities either by connecting to the utilities that are serving the principal dwelling on the lot or by other comparable means; (6) have exterior materials that are compatible in composition, appearance, and durability to the exterior materials used in standard residential construction; (7) have a minimum insulation rating of R-15; (8) be able to be installed, removed, and transported by a one-ton pickup truck as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 21b, a truck as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 37, or a truck tractor as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 38; (9) be built to either Minnesota Rules, chapter 1360 or 1361, and contain an Industrialized Buildings Commission seal and data plate or to American National Standards Institute Code 119.2; and (10) be equipped with a backflow check valve. Subd. 3. Temporary dwelling permit; application. (a) Unless the county has designated temporary family health care dwellings as permitted uses, a temporary family https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?year=2016&type=0&doctype=Chapter&id=1117/13/2016 Chapter 111 -Minnesota Session LawsPage 3of 6 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 71 health care dwelling is subject to the provisions in this section. A temporary family health care dwelling that meets the requirements of this section cannot be prohibited by a local ordinance that regulates accessory uses or recreational vehicle parking or storage. (b) The caregiver or relative must apply for a temporary dwelling permit from the county. The permit application must be signed by the primary caregiver, the owner of the property on which the temporary family health care dwelling will be located, and the resident of the property if the property owner does not reside on the property, and include: (1) the name, address, and telephone number of the property owner, the resident of the property if different from the owner, and the primary caregiver responsible for the care of the mentally or physically impaired person; and the name of the mentally or physically impaired person who will live in the temporary family health care dwelling; (2) proof of the provider network from which the mentally or physically impaired person may receive respite care, primary care, or remote patient monitoring services; (3) a written certification that the mentally or physically impaired person requires assistance with two or more instrumental activities of daily living signed by a physician, a physician assistant, or an advanced practice registered nurse licensed to practice in this state; (4) an executed contract for septic service management or other proof of adequate septic service management; (5) an affidavit that the applicant has provided notice to adjacent property owners and residents of the application for the temporary dwelling permit; and (6) a general site map to show the location of the temporary family health care dwelling and other structures on the lot. (c) The temporary family health care dwelling must be located on property where the caregiver or relative resides. A temporary family health care dwelling must comply with all setback requirements that apply to the primary structure and with any maximum floor area ratio limitations that may apply to the primary structure. The temporary family health care dwelling must be located on the lot so that septic services and emergency vehicles can gain access to the temporary family health care dwelling in a safe and timely manner. (d) A temporary family health care dwelling is limited to one occupant who is a mentally or physically impaired person. The person must be identified in the application. Only one temporary family health care dwelling is allowed on a lot. (e) Unless otherwise provided, a temporary family health care dwelling installed under this section must comply with all applicable state law and local ordinances. Subd. 4. Initial permit term; renewal. The initial temporary dwelling permit is valid for six months. The applicant may renew the permit once for an additional six months. Subd. 5. Inspection. The county may require that the permit holder provide evidence of compliance with this section as long as the temporary family health care dwelling remains on the property. The county may inspect the temporary family health care dwelling at reasonable times convenient to the caregiver to determine if the temporary family health care dwelling is occupied and meets the requirements of this section. Subd. 6. Revocation of permit. The county may revoke the temporary dwelling permit if the permit holder violates any requirement of this section. If the county revokes a permit, the permit holder has 60 days from the date of revocation to remove the temporary family health care dwelling. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?year=2016&type=0&doctype=Chapter&id=1117/13/2016 Chapter 111 -Minnesota Session LawsPage 4of 6 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 72 Subd. 7. Fee. Unless otherwise specified by an action of the county board, the county may charge a fee of up to $100 for the initial permit and up to $50 for a renewal of the permit. Subd. 8. No public hearing required; application of section 15.99. (a) Due to the time-sensitive nature of issuing a temporary dwelling permit for a temporary family health care dwelling, the county does not have to hold a public hearing on the application. (b) The procedures governing the time limit for deciding an application for the temporary dwelling permit under this section are governed by section 15.99, except as provided in this section. The county has 15 days to issue a permit requested under this section or to deny it, except that if the county board holds regular meetings only once per calendar month the county has 30 days to issue a permit requested under this section or to deny it. If the county receives a written request that does not contain all required information, the applicable 15-day or 30-day limit starts over only if the county sends written notice within five business days of receipt of the request telling the requester what information is missing. The county cannot extend the period of time to decide. Subd. 9. Opt-out. A county may by resolution opt-out of the requirements of this section. Sec. 3. \[462.3593\] TEMPORARY FAMILY HEALTH CARE DWELLINGS. Subdivision 1. Definitions. (a) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given. (b) "Caregiver" means an individual 18 years of age or older who: (1) provides care for a mentally or physically impaired person; and (2) is a relative, legal guardian, or health care agent of the mentally or physically impaired person for whom the individual is caring. (c) "Instrumental activities of daily living" has the meaning given in section 256B.0659, subdivision 1, paragraph (i). (d) "Mentally or physically impaired person" means a person who is a resident of this state and who requires assistance with two or more instrumental activities of daily living as certified in writing by a physician, a physician assistant, or an advanced practice registered nurse licensed to practice in this state. (e) "Relative" means a spouse, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, sibling, uncle, aunt, nephew, or niece of the mentally or physically impaired person. Relative includes half, step, and in-law relationships. (f) "Temporary family health care dwelling" means a mobile residential dwelling providing an environment facilitating a caregiver's provision of care for a mentally or physically impaired person that meets the requirements of subdivision 2. Subd. 2. Temporary family health care dwelling. A temporary family health care dwelling must: (1) be primarily assembled at a location other than its site of installation; (2) be no more than 300 gross square feet; (3) not be attached to a permanent foundation; (4) be universally designed and meet state-recognized accessibility standards; (5) provide access to water and electric utilities either by connecting to the utilities that are serving the principal dwelling on the lot or by other comparable means; https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?year=2016&type=0&doctype=Chapter&id=1117/13/2016 Chapter 111 -Minnesota Session LawsPage 5of 6 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 73 (6) have exterior materials that are compatible in composition, appearance, and durability to the exterior materials used in standard residential construction; (7) have a minimum insulation rating of R-15; (8) be able to be installed, removed, and transported by a one-ton pickup truck as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 21b, a truck as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 37, or a truck tractor as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 38; (9) be built to either Minnesota Rules, chapter 1360 or 1361, and contain an Industrialized Buildings Commission seal and data plate or to American National Standards Institute Code 119.2; and (10) be equipped with a backflow check valve. Subd. 3. Temporary dwelling permit; application. (a) Unless the municipality has designated temporary family health care dwellings as permitted uses, a temporary family health care dwelling is subject to the provisions in this section. A temporary family health care dwelling that meets the requirements of this section cannot be prohibited by a local ordinance that regulates accessory uses or recreational vehicle parking or storage. (b) The caregiver or relative must apply for a temporary dwelling permit from the municipality. The permit application must be signed by the primary caregiver, the owner of the property on which the temporary family health care dwelling will be located, and the resident of the property if the property owner does not reside on the property, and include: (1) the name, address, and telephone number of the property owner, the resident of the property if different from the owner, and the primary caregiver responsible for the care of the mentally or physically impaired person; and the name of the mentally or physically impaired person who will live in the temporary family health care dwelling; (2) proof of the provider network from which the mentally or physically impaired person may receive respite care, primary care, or remote patient monitoring services; (3) a written certification that the mentally or physically impaired person requires assistance with two or more instrumental activities of daily living signed by a physician, a physician assistant, or an advanced practice registered nurse licensed to practice in this state; (4) an executed contract for septic service management or other proof of adequate septic service management; (5) an affidavit that the applicant has provided notice to adjacent property owners and residents of the application for the temporary dwelling permit; and (6) a general site map to show the location of the temporary family health care dwelling and other structures on the lot. (c) The temporary family health care dwelling must be located on property where the caregiver or relative resides. A temporary family health care dwelling must comply with all setback requirements that apply to the primary structure and with any maximum floor area ratio limitations that may apply to the primary structure. The temporary family health care dwelling must be located on the lot so that septic services and emergency vehicles can gain access to the temporary family health care dwelling in a safe and timely manner. (d) A temporary family health care dwelling is limited to one occupant who is a mentally or physically impaired person. The person must be identified in the application. Only one temporary family health care dwelling is allowed on a lot. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?year=2016&type=0&doctype=Chapter&id=1117/13/2016 Chapter 111 -Minnesota Session LawsPage 6of 6 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 74 (e) Unless otherwise provided, a temporary family health care dwelling installed under this section must comply with all applicable state law, local ordinances, and charter provisions. Subd. 4. Initial permit term; renewal. The initial temporary dwelling permit is valid for six months. The applicant may renew the permit once for an additional six months. Subd. 5. Inspection. The municipality may require that the permit holder provide evidence of compliance with this section as long as the temporary family health care dwelling remains on the property. The municipality may inspect the temporary family health care dwelling at reasonable times convenient to the caregiver to determine if the temporary family health care dwelling is occupied and meets the requirements of this section. Subd. 6. Revocation of permit. The municipality may revoke the temporary dwelling permit if the permit holder violates any requirement of this section. If the municipality revokes a permit, the permit holder has 60 days from the date of revocation to remove the temporary family health care dwelling. Subd. 7. Fee. Unless otherwise provided by ordinance, the municipality may charge a fee of up to $100 for the initial permit and up to $50 for a renewal of the permit. Subd. 8. No public hearing required; application of section 15.99. (a) Due to the time-sensitive nature of issuing a temporary dwelling permit for a temporary family health care dwelling, the municipality does not have to hold a public hearing on the application. (b) The procedures governing the time limit for deciding an application for the temporary dwelling permit under this section are governed by section 15.99, except as provided in this section. The municipality has 15 days to issue a permit requested under this section or to deny it, except that if the statutory or home rule charter city holds regular meetings only once per calendar month the statutory or home rule charter city has 30 days to issue a permit requested under this section or to deny it. If the municipality receives a written request that does not contain all required information, the applicable 15-day or 30- day limit starts over only if the municipality sends written notice within five business days of receipt of the request telling the requester what information is missing. The municipality cannot extend the period of time to decide. Subd. 9. Opt-out. A municipality may by ordinance opt-out of the requirements of this section. Sec. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This act is effective September 1, 2016, and applies to temporary dwelling permit applications made under this act on or after that date. Presented to the governor May 12, 2016 Signed by the governor May 12, 2016, 1:27 p.m. Copyright © 2016 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All rights reserved. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?year=2016&type=0&doctype=Chapter&id=1117/13/2016 Twin Cities suburbs opt to go their own way on tiny 'drop homes' -StarTribune.comPage 1of 2 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 75 LOCAL Suburbs opt to go their own way on state's 'drop home' law Facing a new state requirement to allow tiny trailers on residential lots, many cities are saying no. By Erin Adler(http://www.startribune.com/erin-adler/195633361/) and Emma Nelson (http://www.startribune.com/emma-nelson/261800211/) Star Tribune staff writers W\[ʌƷȭʌƴƲƳƸʌȁʌƺȰƶƳʗ_ʌ Metro suburbs are bypassing a new state law that would require them to allow tiny, SRUWDEOH KRXVHV RQ UHVLGHQWLDO SURSHUWLHVc VD\\LQJ WKH VWDWH PDQGDWH GRHVQvW ZRUN IRU them. The statute is intended to SURYLGH DFFHVV WR WHPSRUDU\\ wGURS KRPHVx IRU SHRSOH t PRVWO\\ ROGHU DGXOWV t ZLWK KHDOWK FDUH QHHGV WKDW UHTXLUH WKHP WR EH FORVH WR D caregiver. But worries about resident complaints, conflicts with local zoning ordinances and timing concerns have spurred cities to opt out of the law. Some say they already have the resources they need to meet the needs of aging residents, while others want to pass their own laws allowing temporary structures tailored to their city. The League of Minnesota Cities fought for an opt-out provision in the statute so local governments could still have control over their own zoning. Bill sponsor Rep. Roz Peterson, R-Lakeville, struggled to find a place for her elderly father to live when he got sick two years ago. 2WvV GLVDSSRLQWLQJ WKDW FLWLHV DUH RSWLQJ RXWc VKH VDLGc EXW VKH DFNQRZOHGJHG WKDW WKH ODZ LVQvW RQHqVL\]HqILWVqDOOb w2WvV DOZD\\V GLIILFXOW WR DFFHSW FKDQJH DQG LQQRYDWLRQcx 9HWHUVRQ VDLGb w=KLV ZRQvW VROYH HYHU\\ERG\\vV SUREOHP t WKLV LV RQH WRRO LQ WKH WRROER\[c VR WR VSHDNbx Drop homes, sometimes called granny pods, are trailers under 300 square feet that are billed as an affordable and temporary alternative to sending sick, injured or elderly family members to a nursing home. (http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/1467684122_08+678634+02 ELIZABETH FLORES, STAR TRIBUNE The new law was based on similar, but less restrictive, laws in North Carolina and John Louiselle, left, and Jesse Lammi are a pair Virginia. of young New Brighton entrepreneurs that have started NextDoor Housing, a company In Minnesota, the law allows homeowners to have a drop home on their property for six months by paying for a $100 permit, unless their city has a specific ordinance against the homes. The Burnsville City Council voted unanimously RQ 3XQH "! WR RSW RXWb -URS KRPHV GRQvW meet city codes, said Mayor Elizabeth Kautz, and the city already has temporary housing options. Those options include spare bedrooms, apartments, assisted living facilities, short-term health care facilities, hotels and group homes, according to a meeting agenda report. w2WvV QRW WKDW ZH GRQvW KDYH LWcx 4DXW\] VDLGb w@H ZDQW FRQWURO RI ZKDW KDSSHQV KHUH LQ +XUQVYLOOHbx Some cities want to allow accessory dwelling units but are choosing to do so on their own terms. The Crystal City Council will likely vote to opt out at its next meeting, said Council Member Jeff Kolb. The decision stems largely from the nature of residential properties in Crystal, many of which may be too small to qualify for drop homes under the statute, he said. The City Council will try to pass an ordinance in the future that allows for accessory units that are better tailored to the city, Kolb said. w=KHUH ZDV D FRQFHUQ WKDW LW ZRXOG EH SHUFHLYHd that by opting out, we were saying we GRQvW ZDQW WKLV NLQG RI WKLQJ DURXQG KHUHc WKDW LW ZDV NLQG RI D FROGqKHDUWHG GHFLVLRQcx KH VDLGb w=KH UHDOLW\\ LV LWvV QRW WKDW DW DOObx In Lakeville, the City Council agreed to opt out last week but also sent the issue to city staff for further review. http://www.startribune.com/suburbs-opt-to-go-their-own-way-on-state-s-drop-home-law/38...7/8/2016 Twin Cities suburbs opt to go their own way on tiny 'drop homes' -StarTribune.comPage 2of 2 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 76 There were multiple concerns, said Mayor Matt Little, including aesthetics, property values and the difficulty city staff would face in having to make judgments about UHVLGHQWVv LOOQHVVHVb w.YHU\\ VLQJOH FLW\\ LQ WKLV FRXQWU\\ LV JRLQJ WR need to figure out a way to start taking care RI RXU VHQLRUVcx 5LWWOH VDLGb w=KHUHvV MXVW D ORW RI LVVXHV ZH QHHG WR f PDNH IDLU DQG FOHDUbx Meanwhile, city staff in Woodbury are recommending that city officials vote to opt out in order to have more time to figure out what local needs are, said Jason Egerstrom, @RRGEXU\\vV VSRNHVPDQb Under the statute, cities have until Sept. 1 to opt out. John Louiselle, co-owner of NextDoor Housing, a New Brighton-based drop home company that helped craft the law, said he GRHVQvW PLQG LI FLWLHV FKRRVH D GLIIHUHQW GLUHFWLRQb w@KDWvV ZRUULVRPH WR XV LV ZKHQ we see cities opting out and offering no DOWHUQDWLYH VROXWLRQcx KH VDLGb Peterson said she would like to see cities try out the statute and see how it works. The biggest challenge, she said, is that people DUHQvW IDPLOLDU ZLWK WKH GURS KRPH LGHDb w=KLV LV QHZ t QRERG\\vV UHDOO\\ GRQH WKLV EHIRUHcx VKH VDLGb w5HWvV KDYH D FRQYHUVDWLRQ with the community before we just choose to abDQGRQ WKH LGHDbx .ULQ *GOHU &!"q&'#q!'(! Erin.Adler@startribune.com612-673-1781 emma.nelson@startribune.com612-673-4509emmamarienelson http://www.startribune.com/suburbs-opt-to-go-their-own-way-on-state-s-drop-home-law/38...7/8/2016 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 77 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 78 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 79 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 80 5e Request for Planning Commission Action MEETING DATE:July 26, 2016 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP – Planner SUBJECT: Ordinance 501 Concerning Hotel Definition and First Floor Elevation Standards COMMENT: Introduction The City is considering an amendment toTitles 12-1B-2 and 12-1E-1-A-5 of the City Code concerning the hotel definition and first floor elevation standards for new dwellings. Background The proposed code amendments are contained in one ordinance in order to address issues discovered in reviewing recent development proposals. The proposed amendments seek to clean-up existing language to clarify the intent of the proposed regulations. The existing hotel definition has been amended twice since 2008 and it unclear whether or not the intent was to prohibit extended-stay hotels. There is interest in developing an extended-stay hotel on a vacant property in the Industrial District, which is why staff is seeking further clarificationon this issue. The City Code prohibits raising the first floor elevation of a new dwellingby more than one foot from the original dwelling, unless certain conditions are met and a conditional use permit is approved. Since adoption of the regulationsin 2015, staff has encountered a potential development issue and is proposing an additional qualifying condition for a CUP based on engineering-related issues. 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. 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 81 Planning Staff Report DATE: July 26, 2016 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP – Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2016-26 Proposed Code Amendment – Hotel Definition and First Floor Elevation Standards 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 toTitles 12-1B-2 and 12-1E-1-A-5 of the City Code concerning the hotel definition and first floor elevation standards for new dwellings. BACKGROUND Staff is proposing one ordinance containing two proposed code amendments to address issues discovered in reviewing recent development proposals. The proposed amendments seek to clean-up existing language to clarify the intent of the proposed regulations. ANALYSIS Hotel Definition Title 12-1B-2 includes the following definition: HOTEL: A building containing eight (8) or more guestrooms in which lodging is provided for compensation, with or without meals, and which is open to transient guestsand in which ingress and egress to and from all rooms is made through an inside lobby or office supervised by a person in charge. Staff contends the statement “open to transient guests”is difficult to interpretand enforce. In the absence of a definition of “transient”in the Code, staff is unclear on whether or not the intent was to prohibit extended-stay hotels. The City Council adopted Ordinance 419 in 2008 as part of larger code amendment process for a proposed hotel andretail development at the southeast quadrant of the Pilot Knob Road/Northland Drive intersection. 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 82 According to the October 7, 2008 minutes (attached), the City Council discussed whether or not a separate definition for extended-stay hotel was necessary and decided that it would be revisited in the future. The hotel definition was subsequently amended as followsto eliminate the reference to “transient or permanent guests” and cooking provisions: HOTEL: A building containing eight (8) or more guestrooms in which lodging is provided for compensation, with or without meals, and which is open to transient or permanent guests or both, and where no provision is made for cooking in any guestroom, and in which ingress and egress to and from all rooms is made through an inside lobby or office supervised by a person in charge. The City Council then adopted Ordinance 429 in 2010 as a part of acomprehensive revision to the entire zoning ordinance. The hotel definition was revised from whatwas approved in Ordinance 419, however only the word “transient” was added backintothe definition. Staff researched the available minutes and staff reports and could not find any discussions related to this specific definition revision as part of the ordinance. In addition, no new definition was added for an extended-stay hotel. The original hotel/retail service development approved in 2008 was an extended-stay brand and was never constructed. Recently, staff has been approached by aninterested party to develop another extended-stay brand hotel on the same site. In addition, the existing Courtyard and Fairfield Inn and Suites developments may have guests staying more than the typical 2-3 nights at a traditional hotel. For these reasons, staff is proposing the following code amendment, which reinstates the hotel definition approved in Ordinance 419: HOTEL: A building containing eight (8) or more guestrooms in which lodging is provided for compensation, with or without meals, and which is open to transient guests, and in which ingress and egress to and from all rooms is made through an inside lobby or office supervised by a person in charge. As previously noted, “transient” guests are difficult to define and the current hotel definition may be causing existing hotels to be non-compliant and prohibit future development of extended-stay hotels. Therefore, staff is seeking clarification on the intent of the most-recent code amendment regarding the hotel definition in order to determine how it may impact future development proposals. First Floor Elevation According to Title 12-1E-1-A-5: 5. First Floor Elevation: a. Tear down and construction of new single-family dwellings and additions, modifications, and alterations to existing dwellings shall not raise the first floor elevation more than one foot (1') above the existing condition. b. In the case of a split level dwelling, the existing first floor elevation is the lowest elevation of an entrance to the dwelling, excluding entrances to the garage and those that do not face the street. c. By conditional use permit, the first floor elevation may be increased by more than one foot (1') from the existing condition in order to meet one or more of the following conditions: (1) Elevate the lowest level of the dwelling to an elevation of two feet (2') above the 100-year flood elevation, as established by the federal emergency management agency (FEMA). (2) Protect the dwelling from groundwater intrusion. Existing groundwater elevation shall be determined by a professional registered engineer in the state of Minnesota or by a certified hydrologist and provided for review and consideration. (3) Meet state building code, city code or other statutory requirements. 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 83 The City Council adopted the above standardsas part of Ordinance 478 to address concerns regarding teardowns and new single-family residential construction impacts. Generally, a new dwelling may not raise the first floor elevation more than one foot above the existing condition. However, the first floor elevation can be increased more than one foot by conditional use permit (CUP) based on meeting certain conditions. Since adoption of the regulations in 2015, staff has encountered a potential issue with the CUP conditions and is proposing the following amendment with an additional qualifying condition: (4) Comply with standard engineering practices, including, but not limited to, grading, drainage, access, or utility connection at the discretion of the City Engineer. Insome cases, there may be existing conditions with a developed property that cannot or should not be applied to new construction. The specific situation staff has encountered is an existing driveway and garage floor that are below the roadway, which is not standard engineering practice. Upon demolition and construction of a new dwelling, a reasonable solution is to raise the first floor elevation in order to construct the driveway and garage floor at an appropriate slope for proper drainage. Under the current City Code regulations, that situation would not qualify for a CUP and would require a variance. Rather than considera variance for a situation that seems reasonable and meets the intent of the regulations, staff proposes to amend the City Code to expand the CUP conditions to include engineering- related issues that require the first floor elevation to be increased more than one foot for a new dwelling. The initial determination that the situation qualifies would be made by the City Engineer, but the Planning Commission and City Council would still review and approve/deny the application request. ALTERNATIVES Following the public hearing and further discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1.Recommendapproval of DRAFT Ordinance 501, as presented or as amended by the Commission. OR 2.Recommend denial of DRAFT Ordinance 501. OR 3.Table the request, pending additional information and revisions from staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the proposed code amendment. 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 501 2.Ordinance 419 3.October 7, 2008 City Council minutes 4.Ordinance 429 5.Planning application, including supporting materials 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 84 1CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3 4ORDINANCE NO. 501 5 6AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE B AND ARTICLE E 7OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, 8DAKOTA COUNTY,CONCERNING HOTEL DEFINITION AND FIRST-FLOOR 9ELEVATION STANDARDS 10 11 12The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: 13 14Section 1. 15 16Title 12-1B-2 is hereby amended as follows: 17 18HOTEL: A building containing eight (8) or more guestrooms in which lodging is provided for 19compensation, with or without meals, and which is open to transientguests, and in which ingress 20and egress to and from all rooms is made through an inside lobby or office supervised by a 21person in charge. 22 23Section 2. 24 25Title 12-1E-1-A-5 is hereby amended as follows: 26 275. First Floor Elevation: 28a. Tear down and construction of new single-family dwellings and additions, 29modifications, and alterations to existing dwellingsshall not raise the first floor elevation 30more than one foot (1') above the existing condition. 31b. In the case of a split level dwelling, the existing first floor elevation is the lowest 32elevation of an entrance to the dwelling, excluding entrances to the garage and those that 33do not face the street. 34c. By conditional use permit, the first floor elevation may be increased by more than one 35foot (1') from the existing condition in order to meet one or more of the following 36conditions: 37(1) Elevate the lowest level of the dwelling to an elevation of two feet (2') above 38the 100-year flood elevation, as established by the federal emergency 39management agency (FEMA). 40(2) Protect the dwelling from groundwater intrusion. Existing groundwater 41elevation shall be determined by a professional registered engineer in the state of 42Minnesota or by a certified hydrologist and provided for review and 43consideration. 44(3) Meet state building code, city code or other statutory requirements. 45(4) Comply with standard engineering practices, including, but not limited to, 46grading, drainage, access, or utility connection at the discretion of the City 47Engineer. 48 Ord.501 – 7.26.16DRAFT forPlanning Commission Review Page 1 of 2 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 85 49Section 3. 50 51This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication. 52 53Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this ## day of Month, 2016. 54 55CITY COUNCIL 56CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 57 58 59 60Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor 61ATTEST 62 63 64___________________________ 65Lorri Smith, City Clerk Ord.501 – 7.26.16DRAFT forPlanning Commission Review Page 2 of 2 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 86 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 87 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 88 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 89 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 90 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 91 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 92 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 93 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 94 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 95 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 96 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 97 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 98 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 99 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 100 7/26/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 101