The URL can be used to link to this page

2016-09-27 Planning Comm Agenda Packet CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSIONAGENDA September 27, 2016–7:00 p.m. Mendota Heights City Hall 1.Call to Order 2.Roll Call 3.Adopt Agenda 4.Approve August 23, 2016Planning Commission Minutes 5.Public Hearings: a.Case No. 2016-35: Great Northern Builders, LLC.ConditionalUse Permit at 780 South Plaza Drive. 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. 9/27/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 1 1CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3 4PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES 5August 23, 2016 6 7The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 823, 2016 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. 9 10The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Howard 11Roston, Michael Noonan, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson,Christine Costello, and Brian Petschel. 12Those absent: None. Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall andAssistant City Engineer 13Ryan Ruzek. 14 15Approval of Agenda 16 17The agenda was approved as submitted. 18 19Chair Field noted that Planning Case 2016-30 and Planning Case 2016-32, which had been noticed, 20had been withdrawn and there would be no public hearing. 21 22Approval of July 26, 2016 Minutes 23 24Commissioner Magnuson noted a couple of errors in the minutes: 25Page 3, Line 100 that reads “. . . staff is then proposing two ordinance for continued 26discussion.” should read “. . . staff is then proposing two ordinanceamendmentsfor 27continued discussion.” 28Page 9, Line 369 that reads “Commissioner Roston replied that he did not feel that the 29language he suggested would not. . .” should read “Commissioner Roston replied that he 30did not feel that the language he suggested would not . . .” 31 32COMMISSIONER ROSTONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLOTO 33APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 26, 2016, AS CORRECTED. 34 35AYES: 7 36NAYS: 0 37 38Hearings 39 40A) PLANNING CASE #2016-31 41Jaeger Construction, LLC 42Conditional Use Permitat 2300 Pilot Knob Road 43 44City Planner Nolan Wallexplained that the applicant was seeking a Conditional Use Permit to 45erect a fence at 2300 Pilot Knob Road. He then shared an image of the subject parcel in relation to 46surrounding property uses and streets. The subject property is 6.24 acres and is bordered by right- July 26, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 1 9/27/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 2 47of-way on three sides. There is 126,000 square foot office/warehouse building that was originally 48constructed in 1989 and was recently purchased by Johnson Brothers Liquor Company. The Code 49requires a conditional use permit for fences over six feet with a security arm for barbed wire in the 50Business and Industrial Districts. In addition, external loading areas must be completely screened 51from the ground level view from contiguous propertiesand adjacent streets, but does exempt 52access points from that particular code requirement. The Code also requires that screening or 53buffering must provide a minimal opacity of 90% during all seasons. The existing loading dock 54area is not completely screened from contiguous properties or adjacent streets, as are numerous 55properties in the Industrial District that were developed prior to the current standards. 56 57Planner Wall then shared a diagram showing the proposed fence and noted that the proposed seven- 58foot tall chain-linked fence would have privacy slats of an undetermined color. The fencing along 59Pilot Knob Road would have winged-slats, which according to the manufacturer’sspecifications 60achieve 90% opacity. The fencing along Highway 13 would have normal privacy slats with an 61unknown opacity, but according to the applicant it is anticipated to be approximately 75% opacity. 62 63Photos provided by the applicant were shared with the Commissioners. 64 65As a result of the existing vegetation there is no way to ensure that it would remain as is nor could 66it be verified that it will achieve 90% opacity during all seasons when combined with the proposal, 67which is 75% opacity fence with a regular privacy slats. 68 69Planner Wall then provided some other areas where the City had approved fencing in the recent 70past in the Industrial District that influenced staff’s recommendation in this case. Since a number 71of properties in the Industrial District have wood privacy fencing, which is of a higher quality and 72more expensive than the proposal, in order to be consistent with those previous approvals for 73surrounding properties, staff is recommending 100% opaque wood fencingalong Pilot Knob Road 74that would provide a complete screened loading dock area from the street. Staff also recommended 75that the 90% opacity fencing \[chain link with wingedslats\] be installed along Highway 13. 76 77Staff believeseither proposal, the applicants or staff’s recommendation, would meet the standards 78for granting of a Conditional Use Permit. However, staff’s recommendation that in order to be 79consistent with past approvals in the Industrial District, that their recommendation be the one up 80for consideration by the Planning Commission. 81 82Staff did recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit request with conditions. 83 84Commissioner Noonan asked if the real standard to judge fencing is the opacity rate. Planner Wall 85replied in the affirmative. However, the Code reads that the opacity requirement is 90%, which 86can be a combination of landscaping, berming, and fencing. In this case, while staff acknowledges 87that there is existing vegetation in that area, due to the fact that it is difficult to quantify what that 88screen is over the seasons – because it is deciduous –and the fact that the majority of that 89vegetation is actually located on public property, which is right-of-way, the extent that it exists 90long-term is questionable. In order to ensure that it is fully compliant with the 90% opacity 91requirement, staff is recommending that the 90% opacity fence be installed along the property 92boundary line. July 26, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 2 9/27/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 3 93Commissioner Hennesasked if there were any specificity to barbed wire.Planner Wall replied that 94the Code simply states that if a fence is over six feet and it has the security arm for barbed wire in 95the Industrial District that a conditional use permit is required. Commissioner Hennes then asked 96if the fence were less thansix feet with barbed wire the conditional use permit would not be 97required. Planner Wall stated that the Code simply reads, “fences over six feet in height and with 98the security arm for barbed wire shall require a conditional use permit.” In this case it is a six-foot 99high fence and with the additional extension for the barbed wire, it would be approximately seven 100feet tall. 101 102It was noted during this discussion that the subject parcel does not have a fence currently in 103existence. 104 105Chair Field stated that it would be his understanding that the purpose of the chain link would the 106absolute security as opposed to a wooden fence. The applicant could put a chain link fence behind 107the wooden fence and still comply with staff’s recommendation. Planner Wall confirmed that this 108is true. 109 110CommissionerPetschel asked, in the examples provided, if the fences were primarily for privacy 111or for security. Planner Wall replied that the fencing was for screening/privacy and security and 112they all have gates. He then asked if barbed wire was pretty consistent throughout the Industrial 113area. Planner Wall was unable to provide an answer; however, the three samples provided did not 114have barbed wire. 115 116Mr. Barry Jaeger, representing Jaeger Constructionand the property owner, came forward to 117answer questions from the Commission. He noted that Jaeger Construction has reviewed the 118recommendations made by staff and are willing to accept them. The barbed wire is a security issue 119with the products that they will be providing. He also noted thatthe gate would be a standard chain 120link fence gate and not wood because of the weight. 121 122Commissioner Petschel asked if the chain link fence would have slats. Mr. Jaeger replied in the 123affirmative. 124 125Commissioner Hennes asked if there had been any issues with vandalism. Mr. Jason Phillips, Vice 126President of Operations for Johnson Brothers Liquor, replied that their main operation is in St. 127Pau. They do have barbed wire security fencing around that facility, but they have not had any 128security issues to speak of. 129 130Commissioner Roston noted that he would need to recuse himself from this matter. 131 132Mr. Phillips expressed his appreciation for the consideration and felt that staff has done a nice job 133of understanding and interpreting the Code and making recommendations. They are perfectly 134satisfied with it. They are excited to be opening this operation in Mendota Heights. They are 135currently under construction with an anticipated move-in date of October 1, 2016. 136 137Commissioner Noonan explained that the barbed wire troubles him in the sense that it is sort of 138out-of-place and is different than what is there now. He asked if that was an absolute. Mr. Phillips July 26, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 3 9/27/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 4 139replied that it is a strong interest on their part and they believe that it provides a deterrent value 140that is important to them just in consideration of both the work they do, the product they have and 141they are interested in not having problems. If this deterrent helps to prevent that, then everyone is 142better off. 143 144Commissioner Magnuson asked if the barbed wire is the rolledtype of barbed wire. Mr. Phillips 145replied that it is the straight barbed wire; it is not like a prison. 146 147Chair Field opened the public hearing. 148 149Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public 150hearing. 151 152COMMISSIONER PETSCHELMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 153CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 154 155AYES: 7 156NAYS: 0 157 158COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO 159RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2016-31, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 160BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1611.The proposed project will aesthetically improve an existing non-conformity by screening 162the loading dock area on the subject property, while providing additional security for the 163property owner. 1642.The proposed project is compliant with the standards for granting a conditional use permit 165and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 1663.The existing vegetation bordering the surrounding right-of-way increases the 167screening/buffering of the subject property from the adjacent roadways. 168AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1691.A fence permit shall be issued prior to construction. 1702.Wood fencing achieving 100% opacity shall be erected along Pilot Knob Road. 1713.Chain-link fencing with dark-colored privacy slats achieving 90% opacity shall be erected 172along Highway 13 and the portion perpendicular to Pilot Knob Road in front of the 173building. 1744.The fence shall be located entirely on private property. 1755.The fence shall be maintained in a condition of reasonable repair and shall not be allowed 176to become and remain in a condition of disrepair or danger, or constitute a nuisance, public 177or private. 1786.The gate coming off of Pilot KnobRoadbe consistent with the privacy slat fencing that 179surrounds the remainder of the property. 180 181COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO,TO 182REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TOALLOW THE APPLICANT TO RESPOND TO THE 183ADDITION OF CONDITION SIX. 184 July 26, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 4 9/27/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 5 185AYES: 7 186NAYS: 0 187 188Mr. Phillips replied that they would be in agreement with the addition of Condition Six. 189 190Mr. Jaeger asked if gates were required to have the same opacity as fencing. Planner Wall replied 191that driveway access points or access points to loading dock area do not have to attain the full 192screening; however, the applicant has indicated that they are willing to do that and that is why it 193has been incorporated in the motion. 194 195Mr. Phillipsnoted that they would prefer to have a see-through gate for safety reasons; however, 196they are not going to make that a requirement. 197 198COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO 199CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 200 201AYES: 7 202NAYS: 0 203 204Chair Field called the standing motion. 205 206AYES: 6 207NAYS: 0 208ABSTAIN: 1 (ROSTON) 209 210Chair Fieldadvised the City Council would consider this application at its September 6, 2016 211meeting. 212 213B) PLANNING CASE #2016-33 214City of Mendota Heights 215Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment at 2500 Lexington Avenue South 216 217City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the City of Mendota Heights is considering an amendment 218to the Land Use Plan in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan to re-guide the future land use designation 219for the property located at 2500 Lexington Avenue South from B-Business to I-Industrial. 220 221Planner Wall shared an image of the subject parcel in relation to other surrounding uses and streets. 222The property contains a vacant 13,000 square foot office/warehouse building and is surrounded by 223high density residential, office, and industrial uses. 224 225The Council passed Ordinance 502 as part of Planning Case 2016-28, which did conditionally 226approve rezoning the subject property from B-1 Limited Business to I-Industrial at their August 2, 2272016 meeting. The approval also included a condition that the City and the Metropolitan Council 228approve a subsequent Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 229 July 26, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 5 9/27/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 6 230Planner Wall then shared an image of the current Land Use Map in relation to the subject parcel, 231which is zoned Business but is surrounded by Industrial and Residential uses. The land use plan is 232intended to depict the general desired locations of future land uses. As part of any proposed 233amendment request, a determination should be made that the proposed use is compatible with 234surrounding existing and future land uses. In addition, adjacent governmental units and affected 235school districts are typically required to be notified and given the opportunity to comment. In this 236case, the proposed amendment does meet the adjacent review waiver criteria due to its size, its 237non-impact on future growth forecasts, and its location within the City. 238 239Planner Wall shared an image of the proposed land use map noting that the only change being this 240property, which as a result of the Conditional Rezoning to Industrial, would also then be re-guided 241Industrial within the future land use map. 242 243As was discussed as part of previous planning case before the Commission, the Industrial District 244does offer a wider variety of use options than the B-1 District that better fit the existing building’s 245layout. Depending on the future use of the property and the subsequent code amendment that was 246also approved by the City Council, which created additional standards for potential warehousing 247uses that are located adjacent to residential structures, staff feels that the adequate standards are in 248place to regulate potential negative impacts that would result in a change of use on this property 249from other surrounding uses. 250 251Staff recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, with conditions. 252 253Chair Field opened the public hearing. 254 255Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public 256hearing. 257 258COMMISSIONER ROSTONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO 259CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 260 261AYES: 7 262NAYS: 0 263 264COMMISSIONER HENNESMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO 265RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2016-33, SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND 266APPROVAL BY THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING 267FINDINGS OF FACT: 2681.The conditionally-approved zoning on the subject property is not consistent with the 269current future land use designation. 2702.The proposed future land use designation is consistent with the conditionally-approved 271zoning and surrounding existing/planned land uses. 2723.The City Code contains performance standards and other regulations to address potential 273negative impacts a new use of the subject property may have on surrounding uses. 274 275 July 26, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 6 9/27/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 7 276AYES: 7 277NAYS: 0 278 279Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 6, 2016 280meeting. 281 282C) PLANNING CASE #2016-34 283City of Mendota Heights 284Proposed City Code Amendment – Alternative Energy Systems 285 286City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the City of Mendota Heights is considering an amendment 287to Title 12-1-D, E, F, and G of the City Code concerning alternative energy systems encompassed 288in Draft Ordinance 505 included in the Commission Packet. 289 290The City Council adopted Ordinance 485 that created standards for alternative energy systems as 291part of Planning Case 2015-34. The intent was to ensure the same standards are applied to each 292solar energy systems in an effort to encourage sustainable standards that do not adversely impact 293the community. Since that time, the City Council has approvedfour conditional use permits for 294roof-mounted systems; three of them for residential properties and one was for a residential zoned 295property, but was actually the Friendly Hills Middle School Campus. 296 297Since adoption of the ordinance, City Council received feedback from applicants that have gone 298through the process that the ordinance provisions themselves are workable; however, the required 299review process takes too long. Therefore, the City Council directed staff to propose amendments 300that streamline the review process for certain systems. 301 302In addition and upon review of recent applications, staff is proposing some additional minor 303amendments to the existing standards concerning maximum area and color. 304 305Planner Wall briefly reviewed the proposed amendments: 3061.Roof-mounted solar energy systems reclassified as a permitted accessory use (Section 5) 3072.Ground-mounted solar energy systems remain as a conditional use and separate maximum 308area standards for residential and business/industrial districts are included (Sections 2 & 4) 3093.Color standard revised (Section 3) 3104.Reference to requiring a conditional use permit in all districts removed (Section 1) 311 312Staff recommended approval of DRAFT Ordinance 505. 313 314Commissioner Noonan asked where it says in the ordinance that a ground-mounted needs a 315conditional use permit where a roof-mounted just needs a building permit. Planner Wall replied 316that right now the Code reads “solar energy systems are a conditional use in all zoning districts.” 317The bulk of the proposed changes are in each individual district, which has a list of what are 318permitted uses and what are conditional uses. The only changes to the standards themselves relate 319to the maximum area and the color provisions. 320 July 26, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 7 9/27/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 8 321Commissioner Roston asked if staff is seeing a lot of applications coming in for these systems. 322Planner Wall replied that staff has seen four since it was adopted and they have come in at least 323three consecutive months. 324 325Commissioner Roston then asked if staff believes that enough requests have come through that 326they are confident no additional issues could come up or should this percolate for a few more 327months to a year. Planner Wall replied that potentially this could be a policy consideration for the 328Council; however, the direction is coming directly from them to consider how to streamline the 329process. The ordinance provisions in place have seemed to be workable, at least for the roof- 330mounted systems that have come forward, and that is what staff is pursuing at this point. No 331ground-mounted system requests have come through and are not part of this recommendation. 332 333Commissioner Petschel asked why the limit is 80% of the roof area. Planner Wall replied that it 334would be to allow for access to the system. Commissioner Petschel noted that he could already 335think of two cases where this is going to be revised. When he visits customers in California it is 336not uncommon to see parking lots entirely covered with solar panels where they basically have 337structures over the parking lots that are shading the cars and are power installations. Planner Wall 338commented that those would be ground-mounted systems. 339 340Commissioner Petschelnoted that he has seen entire parking lots coveredwith structures 341containing solar panels, which, if proposed in the future, would not comply with the amended 342maximum area standards. He also noted that there are major solar installers indicating that their 343future business models do 100% of the roof or essentially the entire roof. Instead of getting a new 344roof and then putting a solar panel system on top of it, they will simply integrate the solar panels 345into the actual roofing systems. Planner Wall noted that building integrated solar energy systems 346are currently exempted. 347 348Chair Field opened the public hearing. 349 350Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public 351hearing. 352 353COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO 354CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 355 356AYES: 7 357NAYS: 0 358 359COMMISSIONER ROSTONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO 360RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2016-34, DRAFT ORDINANCE 505, AS 361PRESENTED. 362 363AYES: 7 364NAYS: 0 365 July 26, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 8 9/27/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 9 366Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 6, 2016 367meeting. 368 369Verbal Review 370 371Planner Wall gave the following verbal review: 372 373PLANNING CASE #2016-24 374All Energy Solar,1295 Kendon Lane 375Conditional Use Permit for Solar Energy System 376•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission 377 378PLANNING CASE #2016-28 and #2016-29 379Sean Carey, 2500 Lexington Avenue South 380Rezoning and Code Amendments 381Approved by the City Council, which triggered the application before the Commission 382tonight 383 384PLANNING CASE #2016-25 385City of Mendota Heights 386Code Amendment to Opt-out of the Temporary Family Healthcare Dwelling Unit Law 387•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission 388 389PLANNING CASE #2016-26 390City of Mendota Heights 391Code Amendment concerning the hotel definition and first floor elevations standards 392•Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission 393 394Staff and Commission Announcements 395 396Chair Field expressed his appreciation to Assistant City Engineer Ryan Ruzek for attending and 397to staff for all of their hard work. 398 399Adjournment 400 401COMMISSIONER ROSTONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO 402ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:45 P.M. 403 404AYES: 7 405NAYS: 0 July 26, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFTPage 9 9/27/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 10 Request for Planning Commission Action MEETING DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: COMMENT: Introduction Background Discussion Recommendation Action Required 9/27/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 11 Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: PROPERTY ADDRESS: ZONING/GUIDED: ACTION DEADLINE: DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST BACKGROUND ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Conditional Use Permit B-1 Limited Business District Standards 9/27/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 12 private academies, colleges and universities for teaching” B-1 DistrictStandardProposed 1 The vertical distanceto the average distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof Building Design and Construction Subsequent Additions And Other Structures: Subsequent additions and other buildings or structures constructed after the erection of the original building or structure shall be constructed of materials comparable in quality and appearance to those used in the original construction and shall be designed in a manner conforming with the originalarchitectural design and general appearance. Compatibility With Other Structures: All structures shall be compatible with other structures in the area. Screening: Garbage and recycling containers shall be either: 1) stored inside a building such that they are not visible from adjacent public streets or adjoining properties; or 2) stored outside but fully screened from view of adjacent public streets or adjoining properties by landscaping or fencing materials. Landscaping 9/27/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 13 StandardProposed Principal buildings and structures and any building or structure accessory thereto shall be buffered from lots used for any residential purpose. Off-street Parking Size Of Spaces: Each parking space shall be not less than nine feet (9') wide and twenty feet (20') in length exclusive of access drives of twenty four feet (24') in width, and such space shall be served adequately by access driveway. In all B and I districts where such district is not across the street from an R district or abutting an R district, the parking spaces shall be located at least twenty feet (20') from a front lot line and ten feet (10') from a side and rear lot line. For the purpose of applying this section, all lot lines abutting a public street shall be considered a front lot line. 9/27/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 14 Type of UseParking Space Required \[(6,363 – 2,000) / 300\] + 10 = 25 stalls required Engineering Department Comments Conditional Use Permit Standards 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. 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 useis in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan. ALTERNATIVES OR OR 9/27/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 15 STAFF RECOMMENDATION MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 9/27/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 16 FINDINGS OF FACT FORAPPROVAL Conditional Use Permit 780 South Plaza Drive 9/27/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 17 Planning Case 2016-35 City of 780 South Plaza Drive Mendota 060 Heights Date: 9/21/2016 SCALE IN FEET 750 759 SOUTH PLAZA DR 260 5 64103 790 750 780 36 800 85 1273 85 23 100562 765 771 775 779 785 791 795 85 105 I AVE CREEK 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. 9/27/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 18 Planning Case 2016-35 Site Photos: 780 South Plaza Drive Proposed addition area (looking south) Proposed addition area (looking west) Source: Staff (09.09.16) 9/27/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 19 Planning Case 2016-35 Site Photos: 780 South Plaza Drive Proposed parking lot expansion area (looking south) Proposed parking lot expansion area (looking north) Source: Staff (09.09.16) 9/27/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 20 9/27/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 21 9/27/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 22 9/27/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 23 24 Page - Packet Commission Planning 9/27/16 25 Page - Packet Commission Planning 9/27/16 26 Page - Packet Commission Planning 9/27/16 27 Page - Packet Commission Planning 9/27/16 28 Page - Packet Commission Planning 9/27/16 29 Page - Packet Commission Planning 9/27/16 30 Page - Packet Commission Planning 9/27/16 31 Page - Packet Commission Planning 9/27/16 32 Page - Packet SHEET 1 OF 2 Commission Planning C1 9/27/16 SHEET NO. 22 2 1 1 2 5 2 2 1 1 3 NOTES SHEET TITLE 2 DRAWING NUMBER 5 2 7 2 7 6 5 4 AUGUST 24, 2016 ADVANCE SURVEYING& ENGINEERING, INC. 2 AUGUST 25, 2016 2 DRAFTED DATE: 1 2 1 3 2 5 2 1234567 LEGEND ## 52716 LICENSE NO.DATE AUGUST 29, 2016 Joshua S. Rinke Phone (952) 474-7964 Web: www.advsur.com 5300 South Hwy. No 101 Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345 NO SCALE 3 C1 NO SCALE 1 C1 CLIENT/JOB ADDRESS NO SCALE 4 C1 DRAWING ORIENTATION & SCALE 2 C1 NO SCALE 5 C1 33 Page - Packet SHEET 2 OF 2 Commission 2 Planning 2 C2 9/27/16 2 SHEET NO. 4 44 4 498 cf 2 4 4 SHEET TITLE DRAWING NUMBER from Planco MN, Inc. site plan) Onsite Retention: 1-inch storm event over new imperviousarea from proposed site. New impervious area = 5,974 sf.(Note: Existing and Proposed impervious totals are derivedRequired storage for 1-inch storm event:(1/12) ft X 5,974 sf = 506 cf in proposed rain garden.*On site retention rule has been met* Infiltration will provide total onsite retention of 3 4 WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS NOTES 2 AUGUST 24, 2016 ADVANCE SURVEYING& ENGINEERING, INC. AUGUST 25, 2016 DRAFTED DATE: 1 2 ## 52716 LICENSE NO.DATE AUGUST 29, 2016 Joshua S. Rinke 1234 LEGEND Phone (952) 474-7964 Web: www.advsur.com 5300 South Hwy. No 101 Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345 2'3 C2 CLIENT/JOB ADDRESS DRAWING ORIENTATION & SCALE 1 C2 2 C2 9/27/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 34 PLANNINGCASE2016-35PUBLICHEARINGNOTICEMAILINGLIST Any E DelgadoBolton Properties LLCCherrie A Green 771 Creek Ave2219 Apache St772 Creek Ave Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1615Mendota Heights Mn 55120Mendota Heights Mn 55120 City of Mendota HeightsClare M Tste JungConrad & Rosemary Olson 1101 Victoria Curv759 Creek Ave4232 Blackhawk Rd Apt 337 Saint Paul Mn 55118-4167Mendota Heights Mn 55120Eagan Mn 55122 Craig D & Nan A JaegerDale SteinDaniel Johnson 2119 Aztec Ln784 Creek Ave791 Creek Ave Saint Paul Mn 55120-1607Mendota Heights Mn 55120Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Daniel M DreelanDennis & C M MatykiewiczJohn P Brenne 785 Creek Ave2131 Aztec Ln766 Creek Ave Mendota Heights Mn 55120Saint Paul Mn 55120-1607Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1688 Kyltia M WirthLois M & Charles R DurenbergerLucille H Sukalo 2123 Fox Pl790 Creek Ave2125 Aztec Ln Saint Paul Mn 55120-1625Saint Paul Mn 55120-1616Saint Paul Mn 55120-1607 Mendakota Country Club IncMendota Heights Executive Center LlpMendota Heights Executive Center Llp 2075 Mendakota Dr7800 Metro Pkwy Ste 2007800 Metro Pkwy Ste 200 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1300Minneapolis Mn 55424Minneapolis Mn 55424 Mendota Heights Wp LLCMendota Mall Associates LlpMendota Mall Associates-outlots LLC 750 Main St Ste 200% Edward J Paster 2227 University% Paster Properties LLC 2227 Mendota Heights Mn 55118AveUniversity Ave Saint Paul Mn 55114Saint Paul Mn 55114 Mendota Mall Associates-outlots LLCMichael J MeentsMogelson Investments LLC % Paster Properties LLC 2227795 Creek Ave1775 Lexington Ave S Ste 29 University AveSaint Paul Mn 55120-1615Lilydale Mn 55118 Saint Paul Mn 55114 Plaza Partners LLCRand R WischmannRandal & Debra Swenson 3600 Minnesota Dr Ste 150765 Creek Ave775 Creek Ave Edina Mn 55435Mendota Heights Mn 55120Saint Paul Mn 55120-1615 Robert & Martha SwensonRobert S AdamsRobert Tste Linc 779 Creek Ave796 Creek Ave2124 Fox Pl Saint Paul Mn 55120-1615Saint Paul Mn 55120-1616Saint Paul Mn 55120-1624 9/27/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 35 Rosemarie M BiscigliaStephanie R ColletteTimothy S & Barbara Heim 2129 Fox Pl2130 Fox Pl4107 Nokomis Ave Saint Paul Mn 55120-1625Mendota Heights Mn 55120Minneapolis Mn 55406 9/27/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 36 9/27/16 Planning Commission Packet - Page 37