Loading...
2018-02-27 Planning Comm Agenda Packet CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FEBRUARY 27, 2018 7:00 PM - Mendota Heights City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Adopt Agenda 4. Election of Chair and Vice Chair 5. Approval of January 23, 2018 Planning Commission (Regular Meeting) Minutes 6. Public Hearings: a. Case No. 2018-03: Critical Area Permit for the property located at 1991 Hunter Lane (Chris Robichaud – Applicant / Owner) b. Case No. 2018-04: Variance for the property located at 2144 Theresa Street (Shirley Hetherington Applicant / Owner) c. Case No. 2018-05: Conditional Use Permit and Wetlands Permit for the property located at 2020 Dodd Road (Landform – Applicant / McDonald’s – Owners) d. Case No. 2018-06: Critical Area Permit for the property located at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway (Precision Homes – Applicant / James Hanson – Owner) e. Case No. 2018-07: Critical Area Permit for the property located at 1224 Wachtler Avenue (Precision Homes – Applicant / James Hanson – Owner) f. Case No. 2018-08: Lot Line Adjustment & Variance for properties located at 1031 and 949 Mendota Heights Road (Patterson Dental Company – Applicant & Owner and St. Thomas Academy -Owners) 7. 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update a. Presentation by Phil Carlson, Planning Consultant w/ Stantec - Comp Plan input summary – comments from community meetings/online - Section 1 Background Draft (no official action to be taken - review only) 8. Staff Announcements / Update on Developments 9. 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. January 23, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 1 of 6 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 23, 2018 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, January 23, 2018 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners John Mazzitello, Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, Mary Magnuson, and Michael Toth. Those absent: Commissioner Brian Petschel. Introduction of Newly Appointed Commissioner Patrick Corbett Chair Field introduced the new Planning Commission member, Mr. Patrick Corbett. Commissioner Corbett expressed his gratitude for the opportunity and stated that he looked forward to working with the Commission. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of November 28, 2017 Minutes COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 28, 2017, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (PETSCHEL) ABSTAIN: 1 (CORBETT) Hearings A) PLANNING CASE #2018-01 ED MEISINGER, 572 AND 566 HIAWATHA AVENUE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this request was for a lot line adjustment request filed by Mr. Ed Meisinger. He and his family own both lots located at 572 and 566 Hiawatha Avenue. The lots are zoned R-1 Single Family Residential. He went on to explain that a lot line adjustment does require a Planning Commission review and recommendation and a City Council final approval. January 23, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 2 of 6 Public hearing notice was printed in the local newspaper and notices were mailed to everyone living within 350 feet of the subject property. No comments or objections were received from those neighbors. Mr. Benetti shared an image of the property location relative to surrounding homes and streets. The lot identified as 566 Hiawatha Avenue is approximately 125 feet wide by 195 to 200 feet in depth, totaling approximately 24,628 square feet; and the lot identified as 572 Hiawatha Avenue is approximately 100 feet wide by 200 feet in depth, totaling approximately 20,341 square feet. The applicants requested to move the lot line in between the two parcels to make 572 Hiawatha Avenue a little bit larger. Mr. Benetti also shared the survey maps with and without the adjusted lot line and noted that the lot line adjustments would have no impacts on any dedicated drainage and utility easements, there would be physical changes to the existing dwellings or the driveways. Staff recommended approval of this application with conditions. Commissioner Noonan, referencing the second condition of approval, asked for confirmation that the 10-foot wide easement along the front property lines and the 5-foot wide easements along the side and rear property lines were consistent with what would be included on a new plat request. Mr. Benetti confirmed that this was correct and that this was very standard practice on these types of requests. Chair Field noted that prescriptive easements are included in case the City needed to use the lot line before the lot split, subject to the same provisions. So it is not like the applicant is losing anything in the process. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Mr. Ed Meisinger was invited to come forward and add any comments and answer any questions the Commission may have. Mr. Meisinger had no comments and there were no Commission questions. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (PETSCHEL) COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-01 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed lot line adjustment request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. January 23, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 3 of 6 2. Approval of the lot line adjustment will have no visible impact on the subject properties and will not negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. 3. The proposed adjustment will not cause any non-conformities on either parcel, based on the applicable zoning district standards. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Appropriate documents indicating the new lot line adjustment shall be recorded with Dakota County 2. The applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easements on both parcels to be denoted on the Certificate of Survey submitted to Dakota County: 10-ft. wide along the front property lines and 5 feet wide along the side and rear property lines. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (PETSCHEL) Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its Wednesday, February 7, 2018 meeting. B) PLANNING CASE #2018-02 MARK GERGEN, 684 NORTH FREEWAY ROAD LOT SPLIT (SUBDIVISION) Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this was for a lot split request filed by Mr. Mark Gergen. This request requires Planning Commission review and City Council approval. Public hearing notice was printed in the local newspaper and notices were mailed to everyone living within 350 feet of the subject property. One inquiring phone call was received from a neighboring property owner; when he understood what was requested he was very satisfied and had no objections. No other comments or objections were received. Mr. Benetti shared an image of the property location relative to surrounding homes and streets. The property is currently zoned R-1 Single Family Residential and there is currently a one-story single family basement walk-out of approximately 2,200 square feet, built in 1971. The subject lot is just over 1.15 acres in size, has 200 feet of frontage and a depth of approximately 250 feet. If the lot split is approved, Parcel A would be 100 feet x 250 feet or 24,995 square feet and Parcel B would be 100 feet x 250 feet or 24,995 square feet. Each lot would be approximately 0.57 acres. Mr. Benetti noted that the survey illustrates a similar ‘proposed 60-foot by 60-foot building pad’. Mr. Benetti then briefly reviewed the analysis of this request, which was included in the packet of information the Commission received prior to the meeting. This analysis included information in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Requirements. Staff recommended approval of this lot split request with conditions. January 23, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 4 of 6 Commissioner Magnuson, referencing pages 2 and 3 of the staff report, noted that the lot acreages identified are different. Mr. Benetti explained that the new lot sizes on page 3 – of 0.57 acres each – is correct and that the sizes noted on page 2 were a misprint. Commissioner Magnuson, referencing the Findings of Fact for Approval, stated that #2 seems unnecessary to her since no changes to the comprehensive plan, the zoning designation, and no variances were requested. She then asked if there was a reason it was included that she or the Commission needed to be aware of. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative. Mr. Mark Gergen was not present. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Ms. Catherine Burke, 685 South Freeway Road, lives directly behind the property under review. She asked for clarification on condition #6 which reads “The Applicant agrees to preserve and protect as many mature/over-story trees on the subject site; shall submit a detailed landscape and tree replacement plan for each new lot as part of any new building permit application review”. She and her family look at those trees, which they like, and wondered how and who determines how many can be removed and how many should remain. Mr. Benetti replied that Mr. Gergen indicated that he has no plans to remove a lot of those trees because he wants to maintain and keep them as well. He may need to remove a few that are dead or diseased. Commissioner Noonan then asked for confirmation that Mr. Benetti would walk the lot with Mr. Gergen as plans advance to satisfy the city that he is seeking to maintain as many mature trees as possible. Mr. Benetti confirmed and noted that staff normally would do that anyway. Mr. Fernando Arellano, who also lives at 685 South Freeway Road, asked for clarification on what exactly is happening – would the lot split result in the current resident being demolished and two new homes being built. It was indicated that this was the purpose of the lot split. Mr. Arellano then asked for a time frame from demolition to rebuild. Mr. Benetti could not provide an answer and wished aloud that Mr. Gergen had been present to answer these types of questions. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (PETSCHEL) COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-02, LOT SPLIT - SUBDIVISION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed lot split and construction activities meet the purpose and intent of the City Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. No change to the Comprehensive Plan or zoning designation and no variance is requested. 3. The proposed subdivision and additional new housing will not create any negative impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood; and the increased front yard setbacks will ensure the new homes are in alignment with other residential uses along North Freeway Road. January 23, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 5 of 6 4. The two lots resulting from the lot split meet City Code minimum standards and are comparable in size and frontage to other lots on North Freeway Road. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and dimensioned site plans with associated easements, subject to review and approval of the Engineering Department as part of any building permit application. 2. All grading work and land disturbance activities must comply with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance document. 3. The lots shall include infiltration of 1 inch over all new increased impervious surface and there shall be no increase in run off from the existing conditions. 4. All erosion control measures shall be installed prior to any construction, and maintained throughout the duration of any construction activities on both sites and until each have been properly restored. 5. Front-yard setbacks from North Freeway Road for future structures on both Parcel A and Parcel B shall be a minimum of 38-feet. 6. The Applicant agrees to preserve and protect as many mature/over-story trees on the subject site; shall submit a detailed landscape and tree replacement plan for each new lot as part of any new building permit application review. 7. The applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easements on both parcels to be denoted on the Certificate of Survey submitted to Dakota County: 10-ft. wide along the front property lines and 5 feet wide along the side and rear property lines. 8. Park dedication fee of $4,000 (in lieu of land - per current City policy) will be paid before the subdivision is recorded with Dakota County. 9. The existing home must be demolished before the subdivision is recorded with Dakota County. 10. Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (PETSCHEL) Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its Wednesday, February 7, 2018 meeting. 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update A) DRAFT GOALS AND POLICIES PRESENTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 2, 2018 MEETING Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a brief review of the Draft copy of the most recent Goals and Policies for the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update that was shared informally at the January 2, 2018 City Council meeting. This update also included the proposed (revised) Mission Statement and Vision Statement, which would be made part of the overall planning document. January 23, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 6 of 6 Mr. Benetti also noted that Planning Consultant Phil Carlson from Stantec intended to come back to the Planning Commission in February 2018 and again in March 2018 to provide further updates, new maps, and other related planning materials for the Commission to consider. Staff Announcements / Update on Developments A) ANNUAL UPDATE OF THE PREVIOUS 2017 PLANNING APPLICATIONS LIST Community Development Director Tim Benetti shared the listing of the planning application cases that were considered last year by the Planning Commission and City Council. This list included the Case Number, Address, Request Type, Applicant Name, Details, and the Action given (approval or denial). Mr. Benetti highlighted Planning Case 2017-14, which was recommended for denial by the Commission and was denied by the City Council. Since that time Mr. Marcel Eibensteiner of Royal Oaks Realty has filed a lawsuit against the community. Preliminary arguments were head by a Dakota County judge in December 2017; both sides presented their arguments. There is a 90 day review timing; staff is expecting to have an answer within the next few weeks. He highlighted Planning Case 2017-19, the Michael Development. The city is also involved in another lawsuit filed by a citizens group. An early case management hearing was conducted on January 3, 2018 where preliminary arguments and findings were presented. A hearing has been scheduled for February 16, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. Mr. Benetti will be providing a quick update on that, most likely at the February Planning Commission meeting. He also highlighted Planning Case 2017-22, the Woodspring Hotels, which was approved for the site at Northland and Pilot Knob. The permit was under review by the building official and he came in one day and informed staff that Woodspring Hotels had just been acquired by another firm (Choice Hotels), which is probably the largest conglomerate of hotel companies in the world. According to all of the information he has been able to obtain it appears that Choice Hotels is not making any changes to Woodspring Hotels; staff is still anticipating that Woodspring Hotels would be building in the community. There are currently two hearings planned for the February Planning Commission meeting; a critical area permit for a new garage off of Hunter Lane, and a variance for a new garage addition for a residence off of Theresa Avenue. Adjournment COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:31 P.M. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (PETSCHEL) Planning Staff Report DATE: February 27, 2018 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-03 CRITICAL AREA PERMIT APPLICANT: Chris Robichaud PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1991 Hunter Lane ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: March 28, 2018 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Mr. John “Chris” Robichaud is seeking a critical area permit to construct a new 20’ x 21’ two car garage addition to an existing attached garage structure. The subject property is located at 1991 Hunter Lane, which is located within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area. Title 12-3-5 of the City Code requires a critical area permit for all development activities requiring a building permit or special zoning approvals. BACKGROUND The subject property is located just north of Victoria Curve and Hunter Lane intersection, and immediately across (west) of Beth Jacob Synagogue. Property consists of 0.61 acre of area and contains a 2,240-sq. ft. single story dwelling. The property is a relatively flat and level yard around the perimeter of the home. Property Location – Aerial Map Image (Front) of Dweling Planning Report-Case #2018-03 Page 2 Mr. Robichaud recently purchased the home, and wishes to provide additional interior storage for his vehicles and equipment. No excessive grading or soil disturbance or vegetation removal will occur as part of this project. The new garage will be constructed of very similar/same brick material on the existing home. The new garage will be recessed slightly behind the existing 2-car attached. The driveway surface will be expanded slightly to accommodate the new overhead door opening. New Garage Addition Planning Report-Case #2018-03 Page 3 ANALYSIS Critical Area Overlay District According to Title 12-3-2 of the City Code, the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District is: …to prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional and national resource to promote orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas, to preserve and enhance its values to the public and protect and preserve the system as an essential element in the city's transportation, sewer and water and recreational systems… The pertinent provisions of the Critical Area Overlay District that apply to this application are: Section 12-3-7. Existing Structures and Uses: D. Existing Residential Uses: Residential buildings on parcels developed and built upon prior to June 1, 2003, that otherwise conform to the standards and regulations of the zoning ordinance, and which comply with the standards and regulations of this chapter with the exception of the slope requirements, may be expanded with the addition of attached or detached structures, provided that: 1. The expansion or accessory structure shall encroach no closer toward the river than the existing structure. 2. The expansion or accessory structure shall comply with all other performance standards and regulations of this chapter and the zoning ordinance. 3. The proposed expansion shall be processed in accordance with the procedures for site plan review as listed in section 12-3-17 of this chapter. The existing home is situated approx. 2,450 feet (almost one-half mile) from the Mississippi River, and the new 20’ x 21’ garage structure expansion does not “encroach closer toward the river…” as noted above, and will have no impact upon this critical water feature or any other natural environment feature inside this critical corridor area. The Owner has indicated that an existing evergreen tree that is located in the vicinity of the new garage layout will be saved, unless the new electrical line that is used to serve the home is not affected or needs to be relocated. The existing home/garage sits approx. 43-ft. +/- from the front Hunter Lane ROW line, and approx. 41-ft. from the north lot line. The new garage will have a setback of 20-ft. from the north line when completed. Pursuant to City Code Section 12-3-9 E. any new grading, filling, excavating or otherwise changing the topography landward of the ordinary high water mark shall not be conducted without a permit. A permit may be issued only if: 1. Earth moving, erosion, vegetative cutting and the destruction of natural amenities is minimized; 2. The smallest amount of ground is exposed for as short a time as feasible; 3. Temporary ground cover, such as mulch, is used and permanent ground cover, such as sod, is planted; 4. Methods to prevent erosion and trap sediment are employed; and 5. Fill is established to accepted engineering standards. Planning Report-Case #2018-03 Page 4 As is illustrated on the attached Site Plan, the existing property is relatively flat and level, and there are no plans to do very much grading or soil disturbance on the subject site, other than the minimal and typical amount needed to install the new footing and foundation for the new garage addition and the driveway expansion. The expansion and construction of this new garage addition will comply with all standards and regulations of the zoning ordinance. INTERAGENCY REVIEW In addition to the public and private property owners within 350 feet of the subject parcel, public hearing notices and application materials were sent to the following agencies for review and comment: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) • Acknowledged receipt of the application request and indicated they had no objections. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the Critical Area Permit request for 1991 Hunter Lane, which would allow the construction of a new 20’ x 21’ attached garage addition to the existing residential dwelling, based on the findings of fact that the proposed project is compliant with the policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay District, with certain conditions established by the Planning Commission; OR 2. Deny the Critical Area Permit request for 1991 Hunter Lane based on the findings of fact that the application does not meet certain policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay District, as determined by the Planning Commission; OR 1. Table the request; direct staff to work with the Developer and allow them more time to refine the site and grading plans for the property, and extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Critical Area Permit request for 1991 Hunter Lane (Alternative 1), which would allow the construction of a new 20’ x 21’ attached garage addition to the existing residential dwelling, based on the attached findings of fact, and with the following conditions to be affirmed or modified by the Planning Commission: 1. A building permit must be approved prior to the commencement of any construction work. 2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 3. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 4. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. 5. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established and permanent ground cover immediately after the project is completed. Planning Report-Case #2018-03 Page 5 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Critical Area Permit for 1991 Hunter Lane The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District. 2. The work proposed involved is reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical Area. 3. The proposed garage addition project is in keeping with the character of the area. 4. The expansion and construction of this new garage addition will comply with all standards and regulations of the zoning ordinance. 66666666666666666666 66 " " "" "6666666666666666!!2160 87 83 80 70 20022020817 20713 22020816017 1991 1933 11811193 1190 1203 HUNTER LN9049029 06902 902287.5'282'Dakota County GIS 1991 Hunter LanePlanning Case No. 2018-03 City ofMendotaHeights030 SCALE IN FEET 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 containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor 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. 01/29/2018 20'21' From: robic@comcast.net [mailto:robic@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, January 05, 2018 10:50 AM To: Tim Benetti <timb@mendota-heights.com> Subject: Re: 1991 Hunter Lane Hey Tim, Here is a short synopsis of my intentions for 1991 hunter lane. To add a two car garage consistent with the architecture of the house. To do this in a way that will add value to the Neighborhood and house. To use the same brick across the front siding and use the same aluminum eaves. The brick from the side of the garage will be be re used on the front. My brick layer assures me the transition from old brick to new brick will be imperceptible. To keep the pine tree in the back if possible after electrical is moved. It is almost certain that the pine tree will stay. Professionally done and architecturally sound in every way. Sent from XFINITY Connect Application 1991 HUNTER LANE (Proposed Two-Car Garage Addition) Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE: February 27, 2018 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-04 VARIANCE APPLICANT: Shirley Hetherington PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2144 Theresa Street ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: [Waived by the Applicant] DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Applicants is seeking to build an addition to an existing two car attached garage by adding a third stall area, which would require a variance to the 10-ft. side-yard setback standard under the R-1 District. A public hearing notice for this item was published in the local newspaper and notice letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. As of preparation and completion of this report, there have been no comments or objections received from neighboring residents. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PRESENT USE The subject site is generally located east of Resurrection Cemetery off Lexington Avenue, and just north of the Cullen Avenue & Theresa Street intersection (image – below left). The property consists of 0.24 acres of land; and contains a 2,190 sq. ft., two-story, single family residential dwelling with a 528 sq. ft. 2-car attached garage (image – below right). The home was originally built in 1971. The property has a double- wide concrete driveway coming off Theresa Street. AERIAL / LOCATION MAP GOOGLE STREET IMAGE (LOOKING EAST FROM THERESA ST.) Planning Report-Case #2018-04 Page 2 According to the Owner’s survey, the existing dwelling sits approximately 34-ft. from Theresa Street ROW (front) lot line; 16.06-ft. from the north (side) lot line; approx. 89-ft. from the east (rear) line; and 15.66 ft. from the south (side) lot line. SURVEY / SITE PLAN All properties adjacent to the site and in its immediate vicinity are single family homes. The lots in this neighborhood vary in width and shape, but remain consistent as a typical older single-family neighborhood. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant propose to add a 9-ft. wide by 22-ft. deep garage addition next to the existing 2-car attached garage structure. The new addition (at 9-ft. wide) would reduce the setback for the north down to 7-feet. Under the R-1 Zone standards, a 10-ft. side-yard setback is required for all residential uses. The addition will also match in similar exterior materials of the home and garage; and will not extend any farther than what the exiting garage/home exists at today. A driveway expansion is also expected under this plan. Planning Report-Case #2018-04 Page 3 ANALYSIS • Variance When considering a variance in any case, the City is required to find or determine if certain elements or findings have been met or warranted to grant such approval. These standards are noted below, along with follow-up comments by city staff. 1. The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive plan and the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. The Applicant responded in their variance application narrative that they feel the proposed garage addition is reasonable request; and will be in harmony with the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Moreover, they claim the new garage expansion will be consistent with and in harmony with the general character of the surrounding homes and neighborhood; as provided under the following statement: “The most recent new-build home in the Curley addition is located at 2102 Theresa St. and features a three stall garage, as does most new construction. Half of the homes on Theresa St. south of William Ct. have three stall garages. The intent of the project is to update the home to modern standards and market demand.” The applicant’s desire to construct an addition onto the existing two car garage, which by today’s standards are somewhat small and compacted, can be considered a reasonable request and use of the property. The encroachment along this side of the property does not appear to have any negative impacts, either physically or visually with the existing home or even the neighboring residence to the north (2138 Theresa Street). 2. The applicant establishes there are practical difficulties with complying with the ordinance due to circumstances that are unique to the property which are not created by the applicant or based on economic considerations. The Applicants provided the following statements: “This home was originally built in 1971, 16 feet from the lot line. Because the new garage will extend the home by nine feet, a three foot setback variance is required. The setback from the home to the property line would still be seven feet which is standard in many communities.” Although staff did not thoroughly research this perspective (i.e. “…standard in many communities…”, previous planning and zoning experience in other suburban communities have shown that side-yard setbacks typically range in the vicinity of 5 to 10-feet. In some cases, cities allow further reduced side yard setback allowances (without a variance) if the structures or additions do not have any openings, such as windows, doors, vents, etc. The purpose of all setbacks is to maintain a safe, fire-resistant separation between structures, and maintain suitable open space (air space) between properties. In this case, the neighboring and adjacent residential home of 2138 Theresa is setback 22.27-ft. from the shared side-yard line (main section) while the 3-season porch addition along its south side is shown with a 10.4 ft. setback. The physical separation between both structures (main-to-main) on each property currently stands at 38.28 feet. With the new garage addition, the separation will be reduced to just under 30-feet (again – main wall to main wall); while the physical separation between the neighbor’s 3-season porch to the closest point of the new garage is estimated at 18.23 feet (see image – next page). Planning Report-Case #2018-04 Page 4 As with most homes built in the periods form 1940’s up to 1980’s, most if not all homes were built with 2- car garages, which were somewhat small and cramped compared to the new home garages being developed today. Families have two or more vehicles; these vehicles tend to be larger; and families have a desire to store miscellaneous equipment and (bikes, toys, recreational vehicles) inside these preferred larger garages. The ability to provide this larger and more convenient garage space along this area of the home would not be possible without the variance. Alternatives exists to enlarge the garage straight back or behind the existing 2-car garage, but this may hamper vehicle movements or make the expansion feel out of character with neighboring properties. Staff feels the Applicants have demonstrated a practical difficulty in meeting the required side yard setback in order to construct the existing addition in compliance with applicable codes. 3. The request will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The Applicants provided the following statements: “Half of the homes on this section of Theresa St. already have three stall garages. I consulted with an experienced realtor from Edina Realty about the value this would add to the home. He said in Mendota Heights a three stall garage would "add at least $30,000 in resale value" to the home. This request is by no means uncommon for people improving their homes in this neighborhood; the most recent variance I am aware of was approved for 2165 Timmy St. The neighbors I have spoken to have been extremely supportive of the proposal and pleased with the improvement in property values it will bring to the neighborhood.” Staff will stipulate that there was a recent variance granted to the neighboring residence at 2165 Timmy Street (Res. No. 2016-47, adopted June 7, 2016) which provided approval of a reduced side yard setback of 2.5 feet for a new deck. We also confirm that there are a number of homes in this Curly Addition with 3 car garages, but on the same account, there are also a number of residence with 2-car garages very similar to the Applicant as well. The new garage addition represents a considerable investment by the Applicant to bring the existing 1970’s style designed home into a much nicer and more up-to-date home for new buyers seeking a Planning Report-Case #2018-04 Page 5 home in the community. The new garage addition will be made to match the existing home, and the Applicant intends to make sure the roofline (form new to existing) will match and be consistent to each other. The new garage addition will also match depth of the existing garage condition. The new garage addition will likely prove to be a welcome improvement to the property, which in effect should not or will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the variance request, based on the attached findings of fact, with conditions. OR 2. Recommend denial of the variance request, based on the finding(s) of fact determined by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. OR 3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the variance request based on the attached findings of fact (Alternative 1), with the following conditions: 1. The proposed encroachment for the addition shall not extend further than 3-feet into the required side-yard setback, as illustrated on the survey and site plan included in the application submittal (on file with the City Planning Dept. Planning Case File No. 2018-04). 2. The new garage addition, including the roofline, will match the overall architecture and design of the existing garage and residential dwelling. 3. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 4. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 5. Within one year of approval by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed garage addition. Attachments 1. Aerial/Site Location Map 2. Planning applications, including Applicant’s Narrative 3. Survey/Site Plan/Floor Plans Planning Report-Case #2018-04 Page 6 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Variance Request 2144 Theresa Street (S. Hetherington) The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the variance request in this case: 1. Construction of the proposed garage addition onto the existing single-family dwelling is a reasonable use of the property and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Applicant has demonstrated a reasonable and practical difficulty for allowing a reduced setback standard in order to construct a new garage addition, which will be in compliance with all other applicable codes. 3. The garage addition on the existing single-family dwelling is considered a reasonable request and use of the property. 4. The addition will tie-in and match the existing dwellings architecture and designs, which will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 5. Granting of the variance is made in accordance with the standards as indicated under the City Code. 1i01 Victoria Cu rve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone l 651.452.8940 fax wvvw.rne11dota-1iei9hts.r.om PLANNING APPLICATION o .ffic.e u.·· se Only:· .. · ... . . ·.. . . ' '· ' '< .ii 2 ~ ' : ll Case ·#:' . Z OI B' . .._. '1 $> ·'. > ·. .· 1 • -'Fee Paid:·· ~vu 'Appl~c~tio~·9~te: d{ [d ~/ 20 (% . staff Initials: _____ ~---~ ·Applicable ,Ordinance t;:_·_._ .. ·_"· _· _·· _______ Section: ____________ _ . ~xisting Zoning:_·-~-~----.--~--Proposed Zc;ming:~-----.-----~--- E.xisting lJse: .· · · ·· · · ' · Proposed · Use:_· ____________ _ Property Address/Street Location:_2_1_4_4_T_h_e_re_s_a_S_t ______________ _ Applicant Name: Shirley Hetherington Phone:_6_5_1-_4_5_2_-1_8_0_8 _____ _ Applicant E-Mail Address: shetherington6@gmail.com Applicant Mailing Address: 2144 Theresa St. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Property owner Name: Shirley Hetherington Phone:_6_5_1_-4_5_2_-1_8_0_8 _____ _ Property Owner Mailing Address: 2144 Theresa St. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) Property ID: 27-19150-00-170 Curley's Valley View Replat Lot 17 Type of Request: D Rezoning D Conditional Use Permit D Interim Use Permit ii Variance D Wetlands Permit D Preliminary/Final Plat Approval D Lot Split/Adjustment 0 Critical Area Permit D Comprehensive Plan Amendment D Code Amendment D Appeal D Other I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the abov~ero erty during daylight hours. , "-LI) ,~ 7 /IV_ ·-c SignatureotAliCant ~ Date ~ ~~~ Sigr?ature of o>Jrier tJ Date Signature of Owner (if more than one) Date Planning Application (modified 61112016) Page 1of1 Please answer the following questions as they relate to the variance request. You may fill-in this form or create your own. 1. In your opinion, does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? ii YES CJ NO Why or why not? 2144 Theresa St. is a single family home built by the owner in 1971. The most recent new-build home in the Curley addition is located at 2102 Theresa St. and features a three stall garage, as does most new construction. Half of the homes on Theresa St. south of William Ct. have three stall garages. The intent of the project is to update the home to modern standards and market demand. This home was originally built in 1971, 16 feet from the lot line. Because the new garage will extend the home by nine feet, a three foot setback variance is required. The setback from the home to the property line would still be seven feet which is standard in many communities. 3. In your op1mon, will the variance, if granted, fit with the character of the neighborhood? ii YES CJ NO Why or why not? Half of the homes on this section of Theresa St. already have three stall garages. I consulted with an experienced realtor from Edina Realty about the value this would add to the home. He said in Mendota Heights a three stall garage would "add at least $30,000 in resale value" to the home. This request is by no means uncommon for people improving their homes in this neighborhood; the most recent variance I am aware of was approved for 2165 Timmy St. The neighbors I have spoken to have been extremely supportive of the proposal and pleased with the improvement in property values it will bring to the neighborhood. The City Council must make an affirmative finding on all of the criteria listed above in order to grant a variance. The applicant for a variance has the burden of proof to show that all of the criteria listed above have been satisfied. Variance Application (modified 41512016) Page 3of3 2144 THERESA STREET (Planning Case No. 2018-04 S. Hetherington) THE HETHERINGTON RESIDENCE MA RKD.K E M PER18407 N:\Projects\17220\17220PDF.dwg, 12/27/2017 9:17:04 AM ,. I I I I I f ! f 1 I f r ( I I -/o '--'i1-, _, I -,..., ... I I ( I ' I I I I . r . ' ' ~ fxr rl~ ,ot,o-<- 1' ---I --·- 1-11 i f p.o p ()$eJ I f 4 ~ ' I I ~111;.f 13 v /)_A.\" If. f.l., lt1 I l I (l--t #1 /} v&( l I ~ ~tt/I ( \ l I I I I I a l 1 µtvl /;,.;/,j;.,..1 d~ tll-0( 1---1 I !__./ 1----/ '4' ------' ' I I j I I r I f I I l This petition is in acknowledgement and support of the application for "Setback Variance" through the City of Mendota Heights, for Shirley M . Hetherington. She resides at 2144 Theresa Street and plans to construct a third stall garage on her property. Shirley built the home and has resided there since 1971. We have spoken to her and reviewed her attached pla n provided by her contractor. We understand that Ms. Hetherington requires this variance because the garage will extend 3 feet into the normal 10 foot setback on her side of the lot. This project will not affect any of the residences bordering it, nor does it impinge upon their property setback. We understand that Ms. Hetherington wishes to enhance the look and value of her property at 2144 Theresa Street through this project and we support her in the granting of this variance by the City of Mendota Heights. David & Barbara Odlaug Gregory & Mary Ann Bailey(/..;....:.:_: -f.4.!C..J<~::....4',.1'l<:i.:::~~-­ Beatrice b/. Langford Michael & Carolyn Pilney Edward R. Sutich Morris Allen & Phyllis Gorin Joy Ostrem Samuel Shepard Robert & Ann Schmidt David & Barbara Ayers Paul & Bridget Glasen Michael Lucente Barry & Diane Bicanich Richard Skrivanek Richard & Yvonn e Dugan 2122 Theresa Street 2132 Theresa Street 2 138 Theresa Street 2154 Th e resa Street 1071 Cullen Avenue 2161 Theresa Street 2151 Theresa Street 2141 Theresa Street 2131 Theresa Street 2121 Theresa Street 2125 Timmy Street 2135 Timmy Street 2145 Timmy Street 2155 Timmy Street 2165 Timmy Street Property M ap ,, ' u.J I , 1 ILLI 11 . 'I January 3, 2018 Parce ls Dedicated Right of Way 0 0.0175 I I I I I 0 0.03 1:2,257 0.035 I I 0.06 I ' 0.07 mi I I 0.12 km Soun:es: Esri, HERE, DeLoITT1 e , int ermap, ncrement P Cocp., GEBCO, USGS, FAQ, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase , I GN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, MET!, Esri China (Hong Kong1 swis stopo, Mapmyindia , © OpenStreetMap contributors, and lhe GIS User Community Dakota County Dako!a County Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE: February 27, 2018 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-05 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT & WETLANDS PERMIT APPLICANT: Landform (on behalf of McDonald’s USA, LLC) PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2020 Dodd Road ZONING/GUIDED: B-4 Shopping Center / MU-PUD Mixed Use Planned Unit Development ACTION DEADLINE: April 14, 2018 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant Landform, acting on behalf of the property owners McDonald’s USA, LLC, is seeking a conditional use permit and wetlands permit to remodel and construct a new small building addition to the existing McDonald’s restaurant site, located at 2020 Dodd Road. Section 12-1F-1-B of the Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit for the existing use and any subsequent improvements in the B-4 Shopping Center business district; while Section 12-2-6 requires a wetlands permit for any work conducted within 100-ft. of the Ordinary High Water (OHW) level of an adjacent wetland or recognized water feature. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcel. No comments or objections have been received by the city. BACKGROUND City records show the original McDonald’s was approved (under Res. No. 75-82) for a conditional use permit of a new fast food restaurant use in on October 1975. A second CUP was also approved in December 1993 for an outdoor cashier’s booth within the drive-thru area of the restaurant, which does not appear to be present/exists at this time. The subject property is a 2.26-acre parcel with an existing 4,232 sq. ft. McDonald’s restaurant on the site. This McDonald’s site, although adjacent to the Mendota Heights Plaza shopping center, is actually not officially part of the overall Plaza Planned Unit Development, and is not subject to the overall requirements of the MU-PUD zoning of the Plaza. The site is surrounded by other commercial uses, including the BP Gas/Mendota Heights Auto Service station to the west; Walgreen’s/Plaza Center to the south; and The Reserves Apartments to the east. Although addressed off Dodd Road, the restaurant’s main access point is from the main Plaza Center access drive coming off Dodd Road (just south of the BP gas station). McDonald’s redevelopment plan includes replacement of the building’s exterior, adding a small building addition, replacement of site signage, ADA site work to update sidewalk and handicap parking stalls and new striping of the parking lot. The general or overall placement of the building is not significantly changing under this updated (new) CUP plan. ANALYSIS  COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The subject property is guided MU-PUD (Mixed Use-Planned Unit Development) under the current 2030 Comprehensive Plan. As noted previously however, the site is not zoned MU-PUD, as opposed to most of the Plaza Center properties, including the new apartment complex under construction. The subject site was left under original underlying B-4 Shopping Center zoning – which is still in effect today. The proposed expansion of the existing use is permitted as a conditional use in the applicable zoning district and the use of the subject property is compliant with the Comprehensive Plan.  CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Pursuant to Title 12-1F-5 F. of the City Code, Drive-in and fast food restaurants are allowed as a conditional use under the B-4 Shopping Center District; and are subject to the added provisions of Sect. 12-1D-13-4. DRIVE-IN AND FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS: A. Conditional Use Permit Required: All fast food and drive-in restaurants shall require the issuance of a conditional use permit as per section 12-1L-6 of this chapter. Upon issuance, said permit shall be in force on a temporary basis for a period not to exceed fifteen (15) months from the date of issuance. If, during this fifteen (15) month period, construction is not completed, the conditional use permit shall be void. B. Site Requirements: 1. Lot Area: Minimum lot area shall be one acre. 2. Parking and Driveways: a. Parking and driveway areas shall be at least fifteen feet (15') from any exterior property line. b. There shall be required one parking space for each employee per shift in addition to at least one parking space for each fifteen (15) square feet of gross floor area in the building as per subsection 12-1D-16F of this article, entry reading "drive-in and fast food restaurant". 3. Landscaping And Lighting: A landscaping and lighting plan shall be submitted for approval. 4. Screening and Fencing: Where the drive-in or fast food restaurant abuts an R district, a landscaping screen or fence not over six feet (6') nor less than five feet (5') in height shall be constructed along the property line abutting the R district. A fence shall not be required within the front yard. 5. Signs: a. Signs shall be permitted as regulated by the zoning district. b. Banners, pennants and other similar promotional devices shall not be permitted. 6. Exterior Materials of Structures: All structures shall be finished on all exterior walls with the same material. (Ord. 429, 8-3-2010) The existing McDonald’s site meets the minimum 1-acre lot size, and all other setbacks for the building and parking lot setbacks required under the B-4 District, and including those additional standards of the above-referenced section. The site however, does not appear to meet the required parking of “one space for each 15 sf. of gross floor area of building. The site currently contains 61 parking spaces; however, applying the code standard (B.2.b – above) for fast food restaurant uses, the parking calculates as follows: Bldg. Size = 4,232 sf. / 15 = 283 stalls Staff is unsure if this standard was in effect in 1975 when the first CUP was approved for the new McDonald’s at that time (note: Res. No. 75-82 also allowed a parking lot setback reduction and sign height variance as well). The new plan calls for the re-striping of 61 spaces on the site. Building Design and Construction The existing building is scheduled to be re-skinned with new exterior finishes, which includes the removal of the upper roof line structure, along with some other minor exterior improvements. Plans also call for a full interior remodeling, with a small addition to the east side of the building to accommodate a new freezer/cooler unit for the restaurant. The drive-thru area will be reconfigured slightly, but no major changes for this service lanes are expected under these plans. The plan also calls for the replacement of the walkway/trail leading from the west edge of the parking lot over to the trail along Dodd Road to the west. Title 12-1D-13-2-C of the City Code requires the following additional requirements for B (Business) and I (Industrial) Districts: 1. Exterior Surfaces, Including Roofs: Buildings shall be finished on all sides with permanent finished materials of a quality consistent with the standards set in the district in which it is located. Exterior wall surfaces shall be any one or more of the following: a. Face brick or natural stone. (1) Professionally designed precast concrete units, if the surfaces have been integrally treated with an applied decorative material or texture, or (2) Decorative block, if incorporated in a building design which is compatible with other development throughout the district. b. Factory fabricated and finished metal framed modular panel construction, if the panel materials are any of those listed in subsection C1a of this section, glass, prefinished metal (other than unpainted galvanized iron) or plastic used in accordance with the building code requirements. c. No building exterior shall be constructed of sheet aluminum, asbestos, iron, steel, or corrugated aluminum, unless specifically approved by city council. 2. Subsequent Additions and Other Structures: Subsequent additions and other buildings or structures constructed after the erection of the original building or structure shall be constructed of materials comparable in quality and appearance to those used in the original construction and shall be designed in a manner conforming with the original architectural design and general appearance. The existing building has a very dated look, with light tan wooden (cedar) vertical exterior siding sitting on top of a small brick wainscoting; and a dark brown dual-sloped “mansard” style roof line with bright yellow (vertical) bands for accent features. The drive-thru lane along also has an extended canopy along the north side over the drive-up windows (see image below). The new exterior materials include wrapping the entire building with a taupe colored Exterior Insulated Finished System (referred to as EIFS), along with some small areas of face brick; aluminum banding/wall fascia; slightly protruding aluminum canopy system; and a corrugated metal panel near the top line of the building (see image below – and the attached elevation drawings). This new exterior finishes and color schemes appear to be very consistent with the other newly remodeled McDonald’s restaurants throughout the metro area. The Planning Commission should make a recommendation or finding that these new finishes, including the “corrugated metal panels” are acceptable under this CUP review. Titles 12-8-7-C of the City Code require the following: 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. As shown on the Site Plan (see sheet C2.1) a 20’ x 20’ screened enclosure is located near the southeast corner of the site, and appears to be built with a stamped-brick concrete wall systems and solid-wood gates. There are no plans to rebuild or modify the access lane for the enclosure under this plan. Staff assumes McDonald’s will re-paint the structure to blend-in with the new color scheme of the rehabbed building. Landscaping The Applicant provide the following statement in their project narrative: “We are proposing to maintain all the existing landscaping on site. Section 12-1D-13-2(C)(7) of the Zoning Ordinance requires any mechanical equipment, ground-mounted or rooftop, to be screened. The rooftop mechanical equipment will be screened by a parapet on the building that is three feet two inches tall. The site plan shows landscape screening of the ground mechanical equipment located east of the principal structure.” Pursuant to Titles 12-1D-13-2-D-2 of the City Code, a business use landscaping must meet the following standards: a. At least twenty five percent (25%) of the land area shall be landscaped with grass, approved ground cover, shrubbery and trees. b. At least five percent (5%) of the land area within a parking area shall be landscaped. The plan also note the existing and proposed pervious and impervious percentages: • Excising Pervious: 53.7% vs. Existing Impervious: 46.3% • Proposed Pervious: 54.2% vs. Existing Impervious: 45.8% These percentages are considered very similar to each other, and any increase should be considered negligible when applying these to the entire 2.26 acre site. The submitted plans did not include any new landscaping plan or specific planting details. The Removals Plan does not indicate the removal of any significant trees on the site, except for the landscaping materials immediately next to the rear (east side) of the building, and some smaller landscaping in the dual/separated drive-thru entrance area (see image below). The plans do however, call for the trees inside the triangular shaped planting area (west side of the building) to be protected during the construction, and notes provide the following: “Planting Area: Replace in-kind for areas that are disturbed.” Although the plans call for the triangular shaped area to be replanted or landscaped, along with the newly designed island separators for the drive-thru lane entrances, Staff did not review any detailed landscape plan for these areas, and would require such plan be submitted for review/approval by Planning Staff as part of any new (future) building permit submittal, and the Applicant should make sure the 5% standard for landscaping in the parking area is attained as well. Title 12-1D-13-2-E-1-A of the City Code requires the following: Principal buildings and structures and any building or structure accessory thereto shall be buffered from lots used for any residential purpose. As the Planning Commission is aware, The Reserves Apartments are now under construction and are planned for opening/occupancy in June or July of this year. Although the lot for The Reserves does not directly abut the McDonald’s property, it may be appropriate or desirable to ask (require/condition) the McDonald’s to provide some additional landscaping along the narrow strip of lawn near the far east edge of the restaurant site. This recommendation is being made due to the location of the drive-thru lane along this east edge of the site, and help reduce/eliminate sounds that will emanate from the intercom systems used in drive-thru ordering space. City Staff will defer any recommendation or conditions to the Planning Commission if you feel or determine this area needs added landscaping materials for screening this restaurant use from the residential apartment use. Off-street Parking The Applicant also provided the following statement under their narrative: “Section 12-1D-13-4 of the Zoning Ordinance requires one parking space for each employee per shift in addition to at least one parking space for each 15 square feet of gross floor area in the building. The Zoning Ordinance defines floor area as, “the net usable floor area of the various floors devoted to retail sales, services, office space, processing and fabrication, exclusive of hallways, utility space, and storage areas other than warehousing.” The proposed building addition is going to be used as a cooler and freezer addition that is exempt from the floor area calculation for parking spaces. The current McDonalds restaurant has 61 parking spaces. The ADA improvements to the handicap spaces will slightly modify the parking layout but all 61 parking spaces will remain. The 61 parking spaces have been sufficient parking for the peak hours on the site.” As noted previously in this report, the McDonald’s restaurant was noted to have 61 parking spaces on the site. The plan calls for the same 61 spaces will be restriped and provided on the existing site. This amount of parking does not appear to meet the required parking of “One space for each 15 sf. of gross floor area of building”. With the size of the building, almost 283 stalls would be required, which is an incredible number or amount of parking required for any use – including a fast food restaurant. For other restaurants, cafes, taverns, etc., - the parking standards are much less: Restaurant, cafe, bar, tavern, nightclub: 1 space for each employee per shift and 1 space for each 3 seats in the facility Title 12-1D-16 further requires parking spaces to be nine feet (9’) wide and twenty feet (20’) in length with access drives of twenty four (24’) feet. The existing site contains 3 handicap spaces located in the row of parking along the front edge of the restaurant, but all are located down and away from the front door entryway, which is not compliant with ADA requirements. The new plan calls for the replacement and reconstruction of this front walkway area with new concrete and ADA compliant walkways, and the 3 handicap spaces are relocated closer to the front (main) entryway. There does not appear to be any plans for the overall removal of the existing parking lot under these plans; McDonald’s is simply restriping all the parking areas and re-establishing the drive-through areas. The front row of parking however, along with the 6 spaces directly across the parking lot, are noted with a 9’ x 18’ dimension with an access drive width of 24.75 ft. In taking measurements off the Existing Conditions Plan (Sheet C1.1), it appears most, if not all, the parking stalls measure out to be 9’ x 18’ dimensions. It is not uncommon for some cities to allow a reduced parking depth (typically no more than 18-ft.) when said parking overhangs open space/boulevard area or an adjacent walkway, which seems to be the case in this restaurant site. Although we found no record of a variance granted for the reduced number of parking spaces or reduce parking space dimensions, the Planning Commission should consider the subject site as a legal, non- conforming use and grandfathered right after all these years serving as a fast food restaurant at this location, including the parking layout and numbers. If the City were to enforce (heavily) the parking standards for required numbers and dimensions under the Zoning Code, the site would need to go through an immense transformation or reconstruction, which would include a much larger area of hard surfacing, resulting in more impervious surfaces and a loss of valuable green spaces, especially in the area near the adjacent waterway/creek feature. City staff is unaware or has not received any complaints that this site does not adequately serve its daily customer needs, including peak hours of service; nor have there been any issues of customers not being able to park on the subject site or using and taking up parking spaces in the neighboring commercial parking areas. As part of this overall CUP review process, City Staff is allowing a recommendation to be considered by the Planning Commission for allowing the continuation of the reduced parking numbers and space dimensions, in order to facilitate a reduction in impervious surface and assist with storm water runoff drainage and treatment. The Commission should make a determination or finding that the restaurant site can be remodeled and parking lot reconditioned with only 61 parking spaces, and that the McDonald’s owners affirm that this site will safely and effectively provide for their daily customer parking and traffic needs should this CUP be approved. If the Planning Commission feels or determines otherwise, the alternative would be to have McDonald’s return to the Planning Commission next month, and apply for and process a variance application for these parking standards, and determine if the restaurant site warrants said variances for certain reductions. Lighting Lighting is subject to the standards stated in Section 12-1I-15 of the Zoning Ordinance. The requirements in the section are that the lights have a maximum glare of 0.2-foot candles when measured at the property line. All exterior lighting fixtures will be installed to meet the Zoning Ordinance standards by using elements on the light fixtures that limit glare and light spillage. Signage The proposed signage for the site includes wall signs, directional signs, menu boards and additional signs associated with the drive through area. The existing freestanding pylon sign will not be changed. The proposed signage on site will have to meet the standards of Section 12-1D-15 of the Zoning Ordinance. This section of code relating to signs is silent on individual sign standards for directional signs, wall signs and the signage associated with a drive-through. The bulk standards for a site zoned B-4 allows for a maximum sign size of 100 square feet and allows for the maximum total signage on a site to be equal to two square feet per front foot of building and one square foot per front foot not containing a building. Using the dimensions of the McDonald’s structure and lot, the maximum signage allowed on site is approximately 490 square feet. The plans were absent of any new sign details, except for some directional and height-restriction type signage in or around the drive-through area. Typically, (and as admitted and noted in the site plan notes) all new signs are subject to separate review and approval by Sign Permit Applications, which must be submitted to the City Planning Department and reviewed by the city planner and building official. Any approval(s) granted under this CUP consideration does not extend to any approvals for new signage on the building or lot. Conditional Use Permit Standards According to Title 12-1L-6-E-1 of the City Code, the following are to be taken into consideration upon review of a conditional use permit request: • 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 (note: responses from the Applicant follow each standard): • The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; “The McDonalds restaurant is an existing use at 2020 Dodd Road and has had no negative impacts to the health, safety or general welfare to the surrounding properties or the community. The proposed site improvements will not change the overall use of the property.” • will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards; “The McDonalds restaurant has had no known issues with traffic on the site and does not create backups into the right-of-way. As part of the site improvements an additional crosswalk leading to the principal structure and additional traffic directional arrows are being painted. These are both improvements that will lead to safer conditions for automobiles and pedestrians.” • will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and “The proposed site improvements to the McDonalds include replacement of the building exterior to a current brand style that creates an attractive and inviting storefront and a small building addition. Both improvements will improve the visual appeal and value of the property and which will reflect positively on the surrounding commercial area.” • the proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan. “The proposed site improvements are consistent with the standards outlined in the Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance. It also meets the intent of the comprehensive plan for redevelopment which is that it, “will not result in any negative impact on existing environmental conditions, such as soils, wetlands, drainage, or similar factors and that views of the project emphasizing buildings and open space, rather than parking lots.” In staff’s opinion, the proposed project meets the applicable standards for granting a conditional use permit and improves the overall appearance of the property while supporting growth and success of an existing business.  WETLANDS PERMIT Pursuant to City Code Title 12-2-1 Wetlands Systems, this chapter applies to adjacent land within 100-feet of a wetland or water resource related area. This chapter also provides specific allowances, rules and standards for certain activities near these recognized water features, including a permit for the construction, alteration or removal of any structure. The purpose of the Wetlands Systems Chapter is to: 1. Provide for protection, preservation, maintenance, and use wetlands and water resource-related areas; 2. Maintain the natural drainage system; 3. Minimize disturbance which may result from alteration by earthwork, loss of vegetation, loss of wildlife and aquatic organisms as a result of the disturbance of the natural environment or from excessive sedimentation; 4. Provide for protection of potable fresh water supplies; and 5. Ensure safety from floods. The proposed work on the McDonalds site will need a wetland permit for the removal of a structure within the 100-ft. area; that being the canopy over the drive-through window area. This structure will be removed as part of the site work. Because there is very little (if any) impacts to the nearby wetland/water feature, and due to the plans showing no major disturbances outside the parking lot areas, staff does not have any comments or added conditions for this permit, other than the site must be protected with silt control measures and all work must comply with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance provisions. INTERAGENCY REVIEW In addition to the public and private property owners within 350 feet of the subject parcel, public hearing notices and application materials were sent to the following agencies for review and comment: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) • Acknowledged receipt of the application request and indicated they had no comments or objections. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the conditional use permit and wetlands permit, based on the attached findings of fact, with certain conditions. OR 2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit and wetlands permit, based on specific finding of fact that the request is not compliant with applicable City Code standards. OR 3. Table the request, and direct the Applicant to apply for submit a Variance application to address the reduced parking number and reduced parking space dimensions as per the plans; 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 Permit and Wetlands Permit for McDonald’s, located at 2020 Dodd Road, with the following conditions, and based on the attached findings of fact which support said recommendation: 1. Building and grading permits shall be issued prior to and construction of the proposed project. 2. The proposed trash/recycling container enclosure structure shall be repainted to match the new exterior colors of the restaurant building. 3. [Unless recommended otherwise by the Planning Commission] In order to facilitate a reduction of impervious surface and assist with storm water runoff drainage and treatment; and to recognize and acknowledge the legal, non-conforming status of this fast-food restaurant use on this site since 1978, a two foot (2’) reduction in the codified depth dimension of parking stalls is allowed for stalls that abut 90-degrees to a curb or walkway, and the subject site is allowed to provide and continue to operate with only 61 parking spaces. 4. All ground level and rooftop mechanical utilities, other than low profile rooftop units, shall be completely screened with materials used in the construction of the principal structure, an approved screening device and/or landscaping material that provides at a minimum of 90% or more opacity. 5. McDonald’s shall provide staggered row of new trees and plantings, consisting of coniferous and deciduous trees, along the easterly edge of the property to provide a suitable screening from the adjacent apartment development, which planting plan shall be reviewed and approved by city staff. 6. A complete and detailed landscaping plan must be submitted to the City for review and approval as part of the new building permit process. City staff shall approve said plan to ensure compliance with applicable City Code provisions. 7. A final Sign Package/Plan shall be submitted for review to the city prior to the issuance of any sign permit or installation of any new signs on the subject site. 8. All new Lighting shall be subject to the standards stated in Section 12-1I-15 of the Zoning Ordinance. 9. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 10. The property shall comply with the applicable commercial property maintenance standards, as required by City Code. Attachments 1. Aerial site map/Wetlands Boundary Map 2. Applicant’s Project Narrative 3. McDonald’s Site Plans 4. McDonald’s Building Elevations and Interior (Floor) Plans FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit & Wetlands Permit McDonald’s Restaurant 2020 Dodd Road The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Wetlands Permit for McDonald’s request in this case: 1. Although the Subject Property falls under the general standards and rules of the B-4 Shopping Center District, the City of Mendota Heights recognizes, acknowledges and accepts the continued use of this fast food restaurant use, and further determined this use to be an acceptable and allowable use to continue under this remodeling plan, along with the following statements of support: a. this project will enhances the overall appearance of the restaurant building and property; b. McDonald’s intends to leave intact most of the existing impervious surfaces, which should help stormwater management and improve drainage in this commercial area; c. sustains and supports the growth of an existing, historical and successful local business operating since 1978; and d. addresses several existing legal non-conformities. 2. Additional plantings will be installed to provide an effective screening measures if necessary. 3. No part of the existing parking lot is planned for expansion, and no part of the adjacent wetland feature will be impacted or affected under this project. 4. The proposed project is compliant with the standards for granting a conditional use permit and wetlands permit, and can be considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, including (but not limited to): a. Enhance and protect the natural and living environment (ref. – no impact to the Wetlands); b. Support industrial and commercial developments in designated areas. 5. The proposed project is designed to minimize or cause no impacts to the adjacent wetland areas, and is therefore compliant with the standards for a wetlands permit. 305 270229 174481 139 117110 7 2 83 295 150254 115 168 885452 7 4 2874339505 23 750 2020 2030 HWY 110 DODD RDDakota County GIS McDonald's2020 Dodd Road(Wet lands Boundary Map) City ofMendotaHeights080 SCALE IN FEET 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 containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor 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. 2/22/2018 Narrative Conditional Use and Wetland Permit Narrative McDonalds on Dodd Road Mendota Heights, MN January 31, 2018 Table of Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Site Plan ............................................................................................................................................. 2 Conditional Use Permit ....................................................................................................................... 3 Wetland Permit .................................................................................................................................. 4 Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Contact Information ........................................................................................................................... 5 MCD12179 January 31, 2018 Project Narrative 2 Introduction On behalf of McDonalds USA, LLC, Landform is pleased to submit this application for approval of a conditional use and wetland permit to allow site improvements to the McDonalds at 2020 Dodd Road. The site is a 2.26-acre parcel with an existing McDonalds. Our redevelopment plan includes replacement of the building exterior, adding a small building addition, replacement of site signage, ADA site work to update sidewalk and handicap parking stalls and new striping of the parking lot. We are excited about the improvements proposed for this site. Site Plan The site plan complies with the Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance standards as outlined below: 1. Setbacks The principal structure meets the 100-foot setback from the front lot line and the 60-foot setback from the rear and side lot lines as required by Section 12-1F-5 of the Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance. The site plan shows compliance with the 20-foot parking setback for the front lot line and the 15-foot parking setback from the rear and side lot lines as required by Section 12-1D-16(D) and Section 12-1D-13-4(B) of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Parking Section 12-1D-13-4 of the Zoning Ordinance requires one parking space for each employee per shift in addition to at least one parking space for each 15 square feet of gross floor area in the building. The Zoning Ordinance defines floor area as, “the net usable floor area of the various floors devoted to retail sales, services, office space, processing and fabrication, exclusive of hallways, utility space, and storage areas other than warehousing.” The proposed building addition is going to be used as a cooler and freezer addition that is exempt from the floor area calculation for parking spaces. The current McDonalds restaurant has 61 parking spaces. The ADA improvements to the handicap spaces will slightly modify the parking layout but all 61 parking spaces will remain. The 61 parking spaces have been sufficient parking for the peak hours on the site. 3. Landscaping and Screening We are proposing to maintain all the existing landscaping on site. Section 12-1D-13-2(C)(7) of the Zoning Ordinance requires any mechanical equipment, ground-mounted or rooftop, to be screened. The rooftop mechanical equipment will be screened by a parapet on the building that is three feet two inches tall. The site plan shows landscape screening of the ground mechanical equipment located East of the principal structure. 4. Lighting Lighting is subject to the standards stated in Section 12-1I-15 of the Zoning Ordinance. The requirements in the section are that the lights have a maximum glare of 0.2-foot candles when measured at the property line. All exterior lighting fixtures will be installed to meet the Zoning Ordinance standards by using elements on the light fixtures that limit glare and light spillage. MCD12179 January 31, 2018 Project Narrative 3 5. Signage The proposed signage for the site includes wall signs, directional signs, menu boards and additional signs associated with the drive through area. The existing freestanding pylon sign will not be changed. The proposed signage on site will meet the standards of Section 12-1D-15 of the Zoning Ordinance. This section of code relating to signs is silent on individual sign standards for directional signs, wall signs and the signage associated with a drive-through. The bulk standards for a site zoned B-4 allows for a maximum sign size of 100 square feet and allows for the maximum total signage on a site to be equal to two square feet per front foot of building and one square foot per front foot not containing a building. Using the dimensions of the McDonalds structure and lot, the maximum signage allowed on site is 490 square feet. This maximum signage allowed will not be exceeded with the proposed signage. Explanations of the drive-through signage are included below to explain the purpose of each sign and to show the sign sizes will not exceed the 100-square foot maximum. • The proposed menu boards are 29.4 sq. ft., which are smaller than the existing menu boards on site. They have a digital display, but do not cycle images. • The proposed presell boards are a smaller menu board placed prior to the larger menu board and ordering location. It is used to let customers know the promotions that are currently being offered. The presell board has a digital display that cycles through the McDonald’s promotion items every eight seconds. The size of the proposed presell board is 16.4 sq. ft. • The gateway element is 10 ft. 8 in. and is used to inform drivers with large vehicles of the nine-foot clearance height for the drive through. • The order canopies are used to identify the place for customers to order food in the drive through are 11 ft. 10 in. They have a speaker built in to allow for food orders to be taken. • The proposed locations of all the drive through sign elements can be seen on the plan set. Conditional Use Permit Section 12-1L-6 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a review and recommendation by the Plan Commission and approval by the City Council for alteration of a Conditional Use Permit. Section 12-1L-6(E) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines four standards that must be met for approval of a conditional use permit, our plans meet the standards as follows: The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; The McDonalds restaurant is an existing use at 2020 Dodd Road and has had no negative impacts to the health, safety or general welfare to the surrounding properties or the community. The proposed site improvements will not change the overall use of the property. Will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards; The McDonalds restaurant has had no known issues with traffic on the site and does not create backups into the right-of-way. As part of the site improvements an additional crosswalk leading to MCD12179 January 31, 2018 Project Narrative 4 the principal structure and additional traffic directional arrows are being painted. These are both improvements that will lead to safer conditions for automobiles and pedestrians. Will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; The proposed site improvements to the McDonalds include replacement of the building exterior to a current brand style that creates an attractive and inviting storefront and a small building addition. Both improvements will improve the visual appeal and value of the property and which will reflect positively on the surrounding commercial area. Is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter and the comprehensive plan. The proposed site improvements are consistent with the standards outlined in the Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance. It also meets the intent of the comprehensive plan for redevelopment which is that it, “will not result in any negative impact on existing environmental conditions, such as soils, wetlands, drainage, or similar factors and that views of the project emphasizing buildings and open space, rather than parking lots.” Wetland Permit Section 12-2-6 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a wetland permit for work conducted within 100 ft. of the Ordinary High Water (OHW) level of a wetland as shown on the Mendota Heights wetland system map. There are nine criteria listed in the ordinance that trigger the need for a wetland permit. The proposed work on the McDonalds site will need a wetland permit for the removal of a structure within the 100-ft. area. The existing McDonalds structure consists of a building overhang on the North side of the structure that covers the drive-through window area. This structure will be removed as part of the site work. Stormwater Summary The proposed project includes disturbing approximately 18,700 sq. ft. of the site. The Mendota Heights City Code requires a stormwater management permit for projects which disturb greater than 5,000 sq. ft. The City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document includes the following stormwater management performance measures for projects requiring a stormwater management permit: 1. Volume reduction/abstraction equivalent to the volume of 0.5 inches of runoff from all new impervious surfaces. 2. Rates of stormwater runoff from the proposed site shall not exceed the existing runoff rates for the 2, 10, and 100-year, 24-hour rainfall events. McDonalds is proposing to decrease the amount of impervious surface on the site by converting existing paved parking area into greenspace. The following is a summary of the pervious and impervious areas in the existing and proposed conditions: AREA SUMMARY EXISTING: PERVIOUS 52,836 S.F. 53.7% MCD12179 January 31, 2018 Project Narrative 5 IMPERVIOUS 45,519 S.F. 46.3% TOTAL (2.26 AC) 98,355 S.F. 100.0% PROPOSED: PERVIOUS 53,231 S.F. 54.2% IMPERVIOUS 45,124 S.F. 45.8% TOTAL (2.26 AC) 98,355 S.F. 100.0% Given that no new impervious surfaces will be created by this project, no volume reduction is required. Furthermore, by reducing the amount of impervious surface on the site, the rates of runoff from the site will be reduced from existing conditions. Therefore, we feel the proposed project meets the stormwater management performance measures. Summary We respectfully request approval of the Conditional Use and Wetland Permit to allow site improvements to the existing McDonalds at 2020 Dodd Road. We look forward to being placed on the February 27th Planning Commission and the March 7th City Council Meeting. Contact Information This document was prepared by: Kevin Shay Landform 105 South Fifth Street, Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Any additional questions regarding this application can be directed to Kevin Shay at kshay@landform.net or 612.638.0228. C001MCD179.DWG C0.1 McDONALD'S USA, LLC. MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA AREA LOCATION MAP ABBREVIATIONS SYMBOLS SYMBOL DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTIONSYMBOL EROSION CONTROL SYMBOLS DRAWING SYMBOLS SITE/UTILITY CONTACTS OWNER LEGAL DESCRIPTION BENCHMARK 12 2 CITY PLANNER LANDFORM 105 SOUTH FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 513 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 TEL 612-252-9070 FAX 612-252-9077 CONTACT: SEAN MURPHY PROJECT CONTACTS CIVIL ENGINEER LANDFORM 105 SOUTH FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 513 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 TEL 612-252-9070 FAX 612-252-9077 CONTACT: ERIC LINDGREN SURVEYOR NEWEXISTING DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTIONSHEET NO. CIVIL TITLE SHEET EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMOLITION SITE PLAN DRIVE-THRU LAYOUT DRIVE-THRU DETAILS DRIVE-THRU DETAILS DRIVE-THRU DETAILS STRIPING GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING & EROSION CONTROL UTILITIES CIVIL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS CIVIL SHEET INDEX & REVISION MATRIX C0.1 C1.1 C2.1 C2.2 C2.3 C2.4 C2.5 C2.6 C3.1 C4.1 C7.1 X X X X X X X X X X SHEETS ISSUED BY ISSUE / REVISION DATE X„„„McDONALD'S USA, LLC. 1650 WEST 82ND STREET #900 BLOOMINGTON, MN 55431-9888 TEL (952) 884-4355 FAX (952) 885-4755 CONTACT: VICKY STADTHER 01.30.18NORTH NO SCALE 4'8+'9'&$;&4#90$;56#6'07/$'4/E&10#.&>575#..%4'84'8+5+10*+5614;1((+%'#&&4'555*''60#/'24161+557'&&#6'4'8+'9'&0#6+10#.07/$'4&#6'&#6'+557'&%+6;5*''601564''6#&&4'5556#6'%1706;%'46+(+%#6+10 PROJECT NO. FILE NAME:LANDFORMc2018MCD12179 0 1 6 (1 4 %1 0 5 6 4 7 %6 +1 0 Landform and Site to Finish are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.®® REPRISE 12400 PORTLAND AVE S., SUITE 100 BURNSVILLE, MN, 55337 TEL 952-252-4042 FAX 952-252-4043 CONTACT: KRISTI DONAHUE ARCHITECT MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 35E 110 SITE 149 ELECTRIC UTILITY GAS C101MCD179.DWG C1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS DEMOLITION LEGEND DEMOLITION AND CLEARING NOTES 4'8+'9'&$;&4#90$;56#6'07/$'4/E&10#.&>575#..%4'84'8+5+10*+5614;1((+%'#&&4'555*''60#/'24161+557'&&#6'4'8+'9'&0#6+10#.07/$'4&#6'&#6'+557'&%+6;5*''601564''6#&&4'5556#6'%1706;%'46+(+%#6+10 PROJECT NO. FILE NAME:LANDFORMc2018MCD12179 0 1 6 (1 4 %1 0 5 6 4 7 %6 +1 0 Landform and Site to Finish are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.®® I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. License Number Date NORTH 0 20 40 NO SCALE TREE PROTECTION1 NOPARKING NOPARKING 5 3A 76 4 18 11 7 SITE PLAN NOTES PARKING SUMMARY C201MCD179.DWG C2.1 SITE CONSTRUCTION NOTES AREA SUMMARY ZONING AND SETBACK SUMMARY DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE NOTES 4'8+'9'&$;&4#90$;56#6'07/$'4/E&10#.&>575#..%4'84'8+5+10*+5614;1((+%'#&&4'555*''60#/'24161+557'&&#6'4'8+'9'&0#6+10#.07/$'4&#6'&#6'+557'&%+6;5*''601564''6#&&4'5556#6'%1706;%'46+(+%#6+10 PROJECT NO. FILE NAME:LANDFORMc2018MCD12179 0 1 6 (1 4 %1 0 5 6 4 7 %6 +1 0 Landform and Site to Finish are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.®® I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. License Number Date NORTH 0 20 40 NORTH 0 20 40 NOPARKING NOPARKING C202MCD179.DWG C2.2 GENERAL NOTES DRIVE-THRU CONSTRUCTION NOTES DRIVE-THRU LAYOUT NOTES LEGEND NORTH 0 20 40 4'8+'9'&$;&4#90$;56#6'07/$'4/E&10#.&>575#..%4'84'8+5+10*+5614;1((+%'#&&4'555*''60#/'24161+557'&&#6'4'8+'9'&0#6+10#.07/$'4&#6'&#6'+557'&%+6;5*''601564''6#&&4'5556#6'%1706;%'46+(+%#6+10 PROJECT NO. FILE NAME:LANDFORMc2018MCD12179 0 1 6 (1 4 %1 0 5 6 4 7 %6 +1 0 Landform and Site to Finish are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.®® I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. License Number Date NO SCALE ENLARGED PLAN1 C203MCD179.DWG C2.3 NO SCALE1 2 NO SCALE NO SCALE DOUBLE GATEWAY FOUNDATION - 100 MPH3ODMB AND PRE-BROWSE FOUNDATION - 90 MPH ORDER HERE CANOPY - 100 MPH 4'8+'9'&$;&4#90$;56#6'07/$'4/E&10#.&>575#..%4'84'8+5+10*+5614;1((+%'#&&4'555*''60#/'24161+557'&&#6'4'8+'9'&0#6+10#.07/$'4&#6'&#6'+557'&%+6;5*''601564''6#&&4'5556#6'%1706;%'46+(+%#6+10 PROJECT NO. FILE NAME:LANDFORMc2018MCD12179 0 1 6 (1 4 %1 0 5 6 4 7 %6 +1 0 C204MCD179.DWG C2.4TYPICAL LIGHT POLE FOUNDATION DETAILS2 NO SCALE TYPICAL DIRECTIONAL SIGN FOUNDATION & CONNECTION DETAILS - 100 MPH RATING1 NO SCALE AA 4'8+'9'&$;&4#90$;56#6'07/$'4/E&10#.&>575#..%4'84'8+5+10*+5614;1((+%'#&&4'555*''60#/'24161+557'&&#6'4'8+'9'&0#6+10#.07/$'4&#6'&#6'+557'&%+6;5*''601564''6#&&4'5556#6'%1706;%'46+(+%#6+10 PROJECT NO. FILE NAME:LANDFORMc2018MCD12179 0 1 6 (1 4 %1 0 5 6 4 7 %6 +1 0 C205MCD179.DWG C2.5 CANOPY SCHEMATIC DETAIL1 NO SCALE PULL FORWARD OR MOBILE ORDER PICK UP SIGNS WITH BOLLARD2 NO SCALE 3 NO SCALE DRIVE-THRU WIRING DETAIL 4 NO SCALE DOUBLE GATEWAY SCHEMATIC DETAIL 4'8+'9'&$;&4#90$;56#6'07/$'4/E&10#.&>575#..%4'84'8+5+10*+5614;1((+%'#&&4'555*''60#/'24161+557'&&#6'4'8+'9'&0#6+10#.07/$'4&#6'&#6'+557'&%+6;5*''601564''6#&&4'5556#6'%1706;%'46+(+%#6+10 PROJECT NO. FILE NAME:LANDFORMc2018MCD12179 0 1 6 (1 4 %1 0 5 6 4 7 %6 +1 0 NOPARKING NOPARKING C206MCD179.DWG C2.6 GENERAL NOTES STRIPING NOTES EXITONLY NO SCALE PAINTED 'DRIVE THRU' WITH ARROW1 NO SCALE PAINTED ARROW2 NO SCALE PAINTED 'THANK YOU'3 NO SCALE TYPICAL PAVEMENT MARKING4 NO SCALE PAINTED 'NO PARKING'5 NO PARKING 4'8+'9'&$;&4#90$;56#6'07/$'4/E&10#.&>575#..%4'84'8+5+10*+5614;1((+%'#&&4'555*''60#/'24161+557'&&#6'4'8+'9'&0#6+10#.07/$'4&#6'&#6'+557'&%+6;5*''601564''6#&&4'5556#6'%1706;%'46+(+%#6+10 PROJECT NO. FILE NAME:LANDFORMc2018MCD12179 0 1 6 (1 4 %1 0 5 6 4 7 %6 +1 0 Landform and Site to Finish are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.®® I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. License Number Date NORTH 0 20 40 NOPARKING NOPARKING„„„ „ „„„„„„ C301MCD179.DWG C3.1 GRADING NOTES PAVING NOTES EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES LEGEND „„4'8+'9'&$;&4#90$;56#6'07/$'4/E&10#.&>575#..%4'84'8+5+10*+5614;1((+%'#&&4'555*''60#/'24161+557'&&#6'4'8+'9'&0#6+10#.07/$'4&#6'&#6'+557'&%+6;5*''601564''6#&&4'5556#6'%1706;%'46+(+%#6+10 PROJECT NO. FILE NAME:LANDFORMc2018MCD12179 0 1 6 (1 4 %1 0 5 6 4 7 %6 +1 0 Landform and Site to Finish are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.®® I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. License Number Date NORTH 0 20 40 NO SCALE ENLARGED PLAN3 NO SCALE ENLARGED PLAN2 NO SCALE ENLARGED PLAN1 NOPARKING NOPARKING 1. C401MCD179.DWG C4.1 UTILITY NOTES UTILITY CROSSINGS 1.4'8+'9'&$;&4#90$;56#6'07/$'4/E&10#.&>575#..%4'84'8+5+10*+5614;1((+%'#&&4'555*''60#/'24161+557'&&#6'4'8+'9'&0#6+10#.07/$'4&#6'&#6'+557'&%+6;5*''601564''6#&&4'5556#6'%1706;%'46+(+%#6+10 PROJECT NO. FILE NAME:LANDFORMc2018MCD12179 0 1 6 (1 4 %1 0 5 6 4 7 %6 +1 0 Landform and Site to Finish are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.®® I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. License Number Date NORTH 0 20 40 C701MCD179.DWG C7.14'8+'9'&$;&4#90$;56#6'07/$'4/E&10#.&>575#..%4'84'8+5+10*+5614;1((+%'#&&4'555*''60#/'24161+557'&&#6'4'8+'9'&0#6+10#.07/$'4&#6'&#6'+557'&%+6;5*''601564''6#&&4'5556#6'%1706;%'46+(+%#6+10 PROJECT NO. FILE NAME:LANDFORMc2018MCD12179 0 1 6 (1 4 %1 0 5 6 4 7 %6 +1 0 Landform and Site to Finish are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.®® I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. License Number Date NO SCALE CONCRETE CHANNEL8 NO SCALE SILT FENCE1 NO SCALE TEMPORARY COMPOST/BIO LOG2 FRAME INLET PROTECTION NO SCALE3 NO SCALE B612 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER5 NO SCALE VEHICLE TRACKING PAD4 NO SCALE 12" CONCRETE RIBBON CURB6 NO SCALE CONCRETE CURB TRANSITION7 NO SCALE ASPHALT PAVEMENT TRANSITION9 NO SCALE INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESS11 ROUND PIPE BOLLARD AND COVER McDONALD'S NO SCALE12 ROUND BOLLARD W/ ACCESSIBLE SIGNAGE MCDONALD'S (MINNESOTA)NO SCALE13 PARKING VEHICLE ID REQUIRED VAN ACCESSIBLE NO PARKING ACCESS AISLE UPT TO $200 FINE FOR VIOLATION NO SCALE THICKENED BITUMINOUS EDGE AND CONCRETE SURFACE10 NO SCALE CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER14 Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE: February 27, 2018 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-06 CRITICAL AREA PERMIT APPLICANT: Precision Homes, LLC PROPERTY ADDRESS: 796 Sibley Memorial Highway ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: April 14, 2018 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Pavel Bodnar, owner of Precision Homes is requesting a Critical Area Permit for the property located at 796 Sibley Memorial Hwy, which would allow the construction of a new single-family dwelling on the subject site. The subject property is located within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area and requires city approval before any building permit is issued. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcel. No comments have been received by the city. BACKGROUND Last summer Precision Homes submitted a similar application for a Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit on the subject property, which at that time consisted of two parcels under single ownership by James R. Hanson. The property contained an existing two-story, 3,432 sq. ft. single-family dwelling, which was later demolished late last summer by the developer. On August 1, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2017-58, which approved an initial Critical Area Permit to develop within the critical corridor area, along with a Conditional Use Permit to authorize new grading work in areas that exceeded 18% but not more than 40% grades in certain parts of the property. Most of this earlier work was to complete the original dwelling removal, tree and vegetation removals, and grading and site prep work for the two new house pads. The subject lot is legally described as Lot 6, Goodrich Happy Hollow and consists of 1.08 acres. The westerly half section of subject site is fairly level with grades coming off Sibley Memorial Highway, but the property begins a dramatic upward slope towards the back half of the property, going form 810 feet to roughly 860 feet in elevation. The property is fairly wooded with a variety of mature trees, along with a large section of volunteers and nuisance (buckthorn, box elder and others) scattered throughout the site. (See image – next page). Planning Report-Case #2018-06 Page 2 Contour/Elevation Map DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL The Applicant intends to construct a 2,440 sq. ft. (main floor footprint) single family dwelling. The proposed layout and house plans are noted below or appended to this report. As part of the August 2017 CAP/CUP approvals, the developer has already completed some of the initial site grading work and tree/vegetation removals to clear a site for the new dwelling structure. Planning Report-Case #2018-06 Page 3 ANALYSIS  Critical Area Permit The following standards and provisions are noted under Title 12-Zoning, Chapter 3 – Critical Area Overlay District. Title 12-3-2 of the City Code, the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District is to: • Prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional and national resource • Promote orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas; and • Preserve and enhance its values to the public and protect and preserve the system as an essential element in the city's transportation, sewer and water and recreational systems Title 12-3-5: Site Planning Requirements: No building permit, zoning approval, or subdivision approval permit or certificate shall be issued for any action or development located in an area covered by this chapter until a site plan has been prepared and approved in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. New single family structures are being proposed; therefore a Critical Are Permit is required. Title 12-3-8: Development Standards: The objectives of dimensional standards are to maintain the aesthetic integrity and natural environment of the Mississippi River corridor critical area. These standards are designed to protect and enhance the shoreline and bluff areas, as well as provide sufficient setback for on-site sanitary facilities, to prevent erosion of bluffs, to minimize flood damage and to prevent pollution of surface and ground water. • Setbacks. No structure shall be constructed less than forty feet landward from the bluff line of the river. The purpose of the standard is to prevent structures being built close to the bluff, for erosion and aesthetic reasons. In this case, the proposed house pads are located approximately 300+ feet from the toe of the bluff line; so the above standard does not apply. All finished grading and any additional land disturbance work will take place in and around the new house pads and driveway areas, so no impacts to the bluff line or areas will occur under this development. The new home setbacks are shown with approx. 100-ft. from Sibley Mem. Hwy ROW; 19.3 ft. from the north (side) lot line; and 13.61-ft. from the south (side) lot line. All setbacks appear to be appropriate and meet Zoning Code. Title 12-3-9-D & 12-3-9-F Wildlife Protection and Vegetation Management As part of the August 1, 2017 approvals, the Developer provided a detailed survey identifying a certain number of significant trees that will be saved/protected under the original CAP plan, along with some removals. It was noted in the previous report that “…the two new home will occupy the previously- developed area of the existing house and driveway area.” A number of volunteer trees and invasive species (buckthorn, box elders, and others) were identified for removal under the previous CAP in order to gain more useable yard space. The earlier removal plans identified 43 “high value trees” within the main development area; and of these, 16 were targeted for removal and 27 marked for saving. The plans noted that these trees will be protected during construction Planning Report-Case #2018-06 Page 4 activities; and new tree replacement will take place when new homes are constructed (reviewed at time of building permit review). A condition of approval from the previous CAP/CUP application included the following: 5. Each dwelling lot shall have a tree replacement plan at time of building permit review/approval of at least ten (10) new significant trees per lot, in order to replace the 16 trees projected for removal under this development plan. The Applicant also noted in their Letter of Intent (attached) that “We will not be removing any additional trees and will be adding bushes and trees where the city and future homeowner will agree to.” Title 12-3-9-G: Surface Water Runoff Management: The applicable Code section lists six requirements a project in the critical area must meet. The first five are not applicable to the subject property as they deal with septic systems, well draw from local aquafers, contaminated areas, surface water infiltration, and siltation deposits in area wetlands and water bodies. The only applicable requirement states: 6. Development shall not increase the runoff rate or decrease the natural rate of absorption of storm water. Since the new dwellings will be built essentially over pre-existing built-out or graded areas, and new grades will be established that tie the grades from the new house pad sites to the existing surrounding grades, the new home developments must not substantially alter the runoff rate or quantity from the subject property. The City Engineer has reviewed the survey map of the new home project, and does not have any issues or concerns at this time with surface water runoff or drainage issues. INTERAGENCY REVIEW In addition to the public and private property owners within 350 feet of the subject property, public hearing notices and application materials were sent to the following agencies for review and comment:  Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) The site plan was forwarded to Jennie Skancke, Area Hydrologist with Dept. of Natural Resources, and confirmed the development plan appear to show minimal impacts to the bluff area; appeared to be a fairly routine [single-family] development plan; and no additional comments or conditions would be needed from the DNR.  City of St. Paul Parks and Recreation Department (Lilydale Regional Park) No comments were received from the City of St. Paul Parks Dept. on this item.  City of Lilydale No comments were received from the City of Lilydale on this case. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the Critical Area Permit for the property located at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway, based on the attached findings of fact and with certain conditions. OR 2. Recommend denial of the Critical Area Permit for the property located at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway, based on the finding of fact that the application does not meet certain policies and standards of the City Code and/or Comprehensive Plan. Planning Report-Case #2018-06 Page 5 OR 3. Table the request; direct staff to work with the Developer and allow them more time to refine the site and grading and drainage plans for the properties; and extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission give favorable consideration of this Critical Area Permit, based on the attached findings of fact and following conditions: 1. Each dwelling lot shall have a tree replacement plan at time of building permit review/approval of at least ten (10) new significant trees per lot, in order to replace the 16 trees projected for removal under this development plan. 2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 3. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. 4. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Applicant’s Letter of Intent 2. Aerial/Location map 3. Full Site Survey 4. New Home Plans (elevations) Planning Report-Case #2018-06 Page 6 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Critical Area Permit 796 Sibley Memorial Highway The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed development of the properties with a new single family residential dwelling meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District and related development standards. Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE: February 27, 2018 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-07 Critical Area Permit APPLICANT: Precision Homes, LLC PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1224 Wachtler Avenue ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: April 14, 2018 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Pavel Bodnar, owner of Precision Homes is requesting a Critical Area Permit for the property located at 1224 Wachtler Avenue, which would allow the construction of a new single-family dwelling on the subject site. The subject property is located within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area and requires city approval before any building permit is issued. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcel. No comments have been received by the city. BACKGROUND Last summer Precision Homes submitted a similar application for a Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit on the subject property, which at that time consisted of two parcels under single ownership by James R. Hanson. The property contained an existing two-story, 3,432 sq. ft. single-family dwelling, which was later demolished late last summer by the developer. On August 1, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2017-58, which approved an initial Critical Area Permit to develop within the critical corridor area, along with a Conditional Use Permit to authorize new grading work in areas that exceeded 18% but not more than 40% grades in certain parts of the property. Most of this earlier work was to complete the original dwelling removal, tree and vegetation removals, and grading and site prep work for the two new house pads. The subject lot is legally described as Lot 7, Goodrich Happy Hollow and consists of 1.08 acres. The westerly half section of subject site is fairly level with grades coming off Sibley Memorial Highway, but the property begins a dramatic upward slope towards the back half of the property, going form 810 feet to roughly 860 feet in elevation. The property is fairly wooded with a variety of mature trees, along with a large section of volunteers and nuisance (buckthorn, box elder and others) scattered throughout the site. (See image – next page). Planning Report-Case #2018-07 Page 2 Contour/Elevation Map DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL The Applicant intends to construct a 1,797 sq. ft. (main floor footprint) single family dwelling, with over 4,005 total sq. ft. finished area. The proposed layout and house plans are noted below or appended to this report. As part of the August 2017 CAP/CUP approvals, the developer has already completed some of the initial site grading work and tree/vegetation removals to clear a site for the new dwelling structure. Planning Report-Case #2018-07 Page 3 ANALYSIS  Critical Area Permit The following standards and provisions are noted under Title 12-Zoning, Chapter 3 – Critical Area Overlay District. Title 12-3-2 of the City Code, the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District is to: • Prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional and national resource • Promote orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas; and • Preserve and enhance its values to the public and protect and preserve the system as an essential element in the city's transportation, sewer and water and recreational systems Title 12-3-5: Site Planning Requirements: No building permit, zoning approval, or subdivision approval permit or certificate shall be issued for any action or development located in an area covered by this chapter until a site plan has been prepared and approved in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. New single family structures are being proposed; therefore a Critical Are Permit is required. Title 12-3-8: Development Standards: The objectives of dimensional standards are to maintain the aesthetic integrity and natural environment of the Mississippi River corridor critical area. These standards are designed to protect and enhance the shoreline and bluff areas, as well as provide sufficient setback for on-site sanitary facilities, to prevent erosion of bluffs, to minimize flood damage and to prevent pollution of surface and ground water. • Setbacks. No structure shall be constructed less than forty feet landward from the bluff line of the river. The purpose of the standard is to prevent structures being built close to the bluff, for erosion and aesthetic reasons. In this case, the proposed house pads are located approximately 300+ feet from the toe of the bluff line; so the above standard does not apply. All finished grading and any additional land disturbance work will take place in and around the new house pads and driveway areas, so no impacts to the bluff line or areas will occur under this development. The new home setbacks are shown with approx. 100-ft. from Sibley Mem. Hwy ROW; 10.0 ft. from the north (side) lot line; and 25.77-ft. from the south (side) lot line. All setbacks appear to be appropriate and meet Zoning Code. Title 12-3-9-D & 12-3-9-F Wildlife Protection and Vegetation Management As part of the August 1, 2017 approvals, the Developer provided a detailed survey identifying a certain number of significant trees that will be saved/protected under the original CAP plan, along with some removals. It was noted in the previous report that “…the two new home will occupy the previously- developed area of the existing house and driveway area.” A number of volunteer trees and invasive species (buckthorn, box elders, and others) were identified for removal under the previous CAP in order to gain more useable yard space. The earlier removal plans identified 43 “high value trees” within the main development area; and of these, 16 were targeted for removal and 27 marked for saving. The plans noted that these trees will be protected during construction Planning Report-Case #2018-07 Page 4 activities; and new tree replacement will take place when new homes are constructed (reviewed at time of building permit review). A condition of approval from the previous CAP/CUP application included the following: 5. Each dwelling lot shall have a tree replacement plan at time of building permit review/approval of at least ten (10) new significant trees per lot, in order to replace the 16 trees projected for removal under this development plan. The Applicant also noted in their Letter of Intent (attached) that “We will not be removing any additional trees and will be adding bushes and trees where the city and future homeowner will agree to.” Title 12-3-9-G: Surface Water Runoff Management: The applicable Code section lists six requirements a project in the critical area must meet. The first five are not applicable to the subject property as they deal with septic systems, well draw from local aquafers, contaminated areas, surface water infiltration, and siltation deposits in area wetlands and water bodies. The only applicable requirement states: 6. Development shall not increase the runoff rate or decrease the natural rate of absorption of storm water. Since the new dwellings will be built essentially over pre-existing built-out or graded areas, and new grades will be established that tie the grades from the new house pad sites to the existing surrounding grades, the new home developments must not substantially alter the runoff rate or quantity from the subject property. Plans call for a new 3-ft. high retaining wall approximately 120-ft. in length along the south side of the new home. This wall was originally illustrated in the previous CAP/CUP review of last August 2017. Title 12- 3-9.2.d requires retaining walls in the Critical Area to be constructed of native stone or wood and not exceed 5 feet in height. The previous CAP/CUP included a condition that any retaining wall(s) must be natural or native stone, and is also included as a hold-over condition under this application review. The City Engineer has reviewed the survey map of the new home project, and does not have any issues or concerns at this time with surface water runoff or drainage issues. INTERAGENCY REVIEW In addition to the public and private property owners within 350 feet of the subject property, public hearing notices and application materials were sent to the following agencies for review and comment:  Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) The site plan was forwarded to Jennie Skancke, Area Hydrologist with Dept. of Natural Resources, and confirmed the development plan appear to show minimal impacts to the bluff area; appeared to be a fairly routine [single-family] development plan; and no additional comments or conditions would be needed from the DNR.  City of St. Paul Parks and Recreation Department (Lilydale Regional Park) No comments were received from the City of St. Paul Parks Dept. on this item.  City of Lilydale No comments were received from the City of Lilydale on this case. ALTERNATIVES Planning Report-Case #2018-07 Page 5 1. Recommend approval of the Critical Area Permit for the property located at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway, based on the attached findings of fact and with certain conditions. OR 2. Recommend denial of the Critical Area Permit for the property located at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway, based on the finding of fact that the application does not meet certain policies and standards of the City Code and/or Comprehensive Plan. OR 3. Table the request; direct staff to work with the Developer and allow them more time to refine the site and grading and drainage plans for the properties; and extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission give favorable consideration of this Critical Area Permit, based on the attached findings of fact and following conditions: 1. The new dwelling lot shall have a tree replacement plan at time of building permit review/approval of at least ten (10) new significant trees per lot, in order to replace the 16 trees projected for removal under this development plan. 2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 3. The retaining wall proposed under this development plan must be made of natural or native stone materials. 4. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. 5. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Applicant’s Letter of Intent 2. Aerial/Location map 3. Full Site Survey 4. New Home Plans (elevations) Planning Report-Case #2018-07 Page 6 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Critical Area Permit 1224 Wachtler Avenue The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed development of the properties with a new single family residential dwelling meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District and related development standards. Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE: February 27, 2018 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-08 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT & VARIANCE APPLICANT: Patterson Dental Company and St. Thomas Academy PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1031 and 949 Mendota Heights Road ZONING/GUIDED: B-1A Business Park/LB-Limited Business (Patterson) and R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential (STA) ACTION DEADLINE: April 14, 2018 (Variance) June 13, 2018 (Lot Line Adjustment) DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Patterson Dental Company (Patterson) is seeking to adjust a shared property boundary line between their main company campus property and Saint Thomas Academy’s (STA) property to the east. This adjustment will resolve an existing encroachment of the nearby STA ballfield structures and fences. The request requires City Council approval before being recorded by Dakota County. In addition, the proposed request requires a variance from the minimum parking lot setback standards. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcel. No comments have been received by the city. BACKGROUND The Patterson property is platted as Lot 1, Block 1, Patterson Companies Addition, while the neighboring STA property is unplatted lands in the NE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Sect. 35-28-23. From review of the Description Sketch plan and Survey of the property in question, there appears to be a five-foot high ballfield enclosure fence, a small section of bleacher seats, and a concrete pad situated across the joined property boundary line. In order to resolve these physical encroachments, Patterson has agreed to subdivide a 6-foot wide strip of land from their original office parcel, and deed this over to STA. This strip is illustrated on the attached survey. The resulting lot line adjustment does not create any new buildable parcel; therefor the lot line adjustments appropriate application in this case. The resulting line adjustment does however, require a variance for Patterson due to the resulting decreased setback area for their company parking lot. Planning Report-Case #2018-08 Page 2 IMAGE LOOKING NORTH (Patterson Dental – Left and STA Ballfield – Right) ANALYSIS  Lot Line Adjustment Title 11-3-2 of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district. The minimum lot standards for any R-1 One Family Residential uses are as follows: R-1 Zoning District Standard Lot Area 15,000 SF Lot Width 100-ft. Front Yard Setback: Side Yard Setback: Rear Yard Setback: 30-ft. 10-ft. 30-ft. The minimum lot standards for any B-1A Business Park are as follows: B-1A Zoning District Standard Lot Area 3 acres Lot Width 300-ft. Front Yard Setback: Side Yard Setback: Rear Yard Setback: 100-ft. 50-ft. 60-ft. Based on the attached survey, the proposed lot line adjustment does not create any non-conformities with the applicable lot standards under the B-1A District (for Patterson) or the R-1 District (for STA). Pursuant to City Code Section 12-1D-16 Off Street Parking and Loading, Subpart (3): 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. Planning Report-Case #2018-08 Page 3 The shared lot line between Patterson and STA is considered a side lot line; therefore, the existing parking lot area owned by Patterson needs to maintain a minimum 10-ft. separation, unless a variance is approved to the reduced setback standard. The Patterson parking/drive-aisle is currently situated approx. 14 +/- feet from the side lot line (see image below – red circled area). The 6-foot acquisition strip will essentially shift the east boundary line of Patterson’s closer towards their own drive aisle/parking lot area, resulting in an approximate 8-foot separation. Because of this reduction, a variance is in order for this case.  Variance When considering a variance for the proposed lot line adjustment request, the City is required to find that: 1. The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive plan and the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. The applicant has provided the following response to this variance standard: “The proposed lot split mitigates an encroachment condition historically accepted by the parties. It facilitates the continuation of an existing use of a six foot strip of land adjoining a parcel utilized by St. Thomas Academy as a baseball field. The proposed lot split does not increase impervious coverage, and only affects the parking lot setback from the lot line with the adjoining parcel.” The request to adjust an interior property boundary line to address an existing encroachment is reasonable and meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. The proposed lot line adjustment resolves the “historical encroachment” issue that has apparently existed between both properties for quite some time; and there are no negative impacts in allowing this lot line adjustment – or even the variance- to be considered under this case. The space that exists between the Patterson parking lot and the STA ballfield area should remain unaffected by the split. 2. The applicant establishes there are practical difficulties with complying with the ordinance due to circumstances that are unique to the property which are not created by the applicant or based on economic considerations. Planning Report-Case #2018-08 Page 4 The applicant has provided the following response to this variance standard: “It would not be practical to relocate the existing improvements on the St. Thomas Academy property that encroach upon the six foot strip in question, nor would it be practical or beneficial to occupants and guests of the property to reduce the size of the existing parking lot serving the property. This is a unique situation because the adjoining St. Thomas Academy property is utilized as a baseball field.” City staff would tend to agree and accept his statement as a matter of support for this variance. 3. The request will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The applicant has provided the following response to this variance standard: “It helps facilitate the continuance of an existing use on the adjoining St. Thomas Academy property without impacting the existing use of the property.” Practically speaking, approval of the requests would result in the adjustment of lines on a map. Therefore, no changes will be visible to either property and no negative impacts are anticipated to the character of the neighborhood. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the lot line adjustment and variance requests, based on the attached findings of fact, with conditions. OR 2. Recommend denial of the lot line adjustment and variance requests, based on the findings of fact that the proposed adjustment is not consistent with the City Code or Comprehensive Plan and will have a negative impact on surrounding properties. OR 3. Table the requests. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the lot line adjustment and variance requests based on the attached findings of fact (Alternative 1), with the condition that the appropriate documents are recorded with Dakota County. Attachments 1. Sketch Map 2. Survey 3. Planning applications, including supporting materials Planning Report-Case #2018-08 Page 5 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Lot Line Adjustment and Variance Planning Case No. 2018-08 Patterson Dental Company and St. Thomas Academy 1031 and 949 Mendota Heights Road The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed lot line adjustment and variance requests meet the purpose and intent of the City Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The purpose of the requests are to resolve an existing encroachment over the shared property boundary line between two separate property owners. 3. The existing conditions were not created by Patterson Dental Company owners, and this encroachment issue may create some practical difficulties for the owners in future title work or sale of properties, and the effective remedy of this requested lot line adjustment and variance are both appropriate in this case. 4. Other alternatives to attain compliance would require removal or relocation of existing and long- term features (fence, bleachers, concrete pads, etc.), which is not practical or necessary in this case. 5. Approval of the lot line adjustment and variance will have no visible impact on either property and will not negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. ( February 1, 2018 VIA EMAIL (timb@mendota-heights.com) & U.S. MAIL Tim Berretti Community Development Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 5 5118 RE: Variance/Lot Line Adjustment Dear Tim: ( Enclosed please find the applications for the lot line adjustment and variance along with a check in the amount of $1,500 to cover each application and the escrow. The purpose of the lot line adjustment and variance request is to mitigate an encroachment condition historically accepted by the Patterson Dental Company and St. Thomas Academy. It facilitates the continuation of an existing use of a six foot strip of land currently owned by Patterson Dental Company adjoining a parcel utilized by St. Thomas Academy as a baseball field. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or comments. Sincerely , <;l/11/. ==::s-= Jeffrey J. Serum Direct Dial: 612.492 .7304 Email: jserum@ fredlaw .com JJS:djk Enclosure 63223188.1 Attorneys & Adv i sors main 612 .492.7000 fax 612.492.7077 fred l aw.com MEMBER OF THE WORLD SERV I CES GROUP A Worldwide Network of Professional Service Providers Fredr i kson & Byron, P.A. 200 South S i xth Street, Su i te 4000 Minneapol i s, Minnesota 55402-1425 OFF I CES Minneapo li s I Bismarck I Des Mo i nes I Fargo I St. Pau l I Monterrey, Mexico I S hangha i , China ( ( 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452 .1850 phone I 651.452 .8940 ta x www.mendula·heighls.com , • n::1 ~,;,;:,'DDT A HEIGHTS PLANNING APPLICATION Office Use Only: Case#: 2 ~18 -0 j: Fee Paid :-IL~~_.c~~..!...L::..:==----~..L!o...l~1 ) Application Date: () i,Zii(/~ Staff Initials: __________ _ Applicable Ordinance #: __________ Section : ____________ _ Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning: ___________ _ Existing Use: Proposed Use: ____________ _ Property Address/Street Location : 1031 Mendota Heights Road, Mendota Heights , MN Applicant Name:_H_o_w_a_rd_Ro_s_to_n __________ Phone: (612) 492-7441 Applicant E-MailAddress:_h_ro_~_o_n~_fr_ed_la_w_.c_o_m __________________ _ Applicant Mailing Address: 200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000, Minneapolis, MN 55402 Property Owner Name: Patterson Dental Company Phone : __________ _ Property Owner Mailing Address: 1031 Mendota Heights Road, Mendota Heights, MN Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) See enclosed O&E reports . Type of Request D Rezoning I./ I Variance l./I Lot SpliUAdjustment D Code Amendment D Conditional Use Permit D Wetlands Perm .it D Critical Area Permit 0Appeal D Interim Use Permit D Preliminary/Final Plat Approval D Comprehensive Plan Amendment D Other _______ _ I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true . I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above property during daylight hours. (.I ) . ·ft~rA"l,u C ((_ /y ,;f;? 1 /.,,iJj J. /or h g Signature of Applicant · 4 bate / 1 • l 7 ' (] 1 f,,yd Gl-(L _!+. IL:--~ I J :J.;{J.. d-C>/-JCI ¥ Signature of Owner >cd·f.c rsc, ;\ Co 1 1~pC1111() Date Signature of Owner (if more than one) Date Planning Application (modified 61112016) Doc #6 2990048 .1 Page 1of1 Please answer the following questions as they relate to the variance request. You may fill-in this form or create your own. 1. In your opinion, does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? ii YES D NO Why or why not? The proposed lot split mitigates an encroachment condition historically accepted by the parties. It facilitates the continuation of an existing use of a six foot strip of land adjoining a parcel utilized by St. Thomas Academy as a baseball field. The proposed lot split does not increase impervious coverage, and only affects the parking lot setback from the lot line with the adjoining parcel. 2. Please describe the circumstances unique to the property (not created by you). It would not be practical to relocate the existing improvements on the St. Thomas Academy property that encroach upon the six foot strip in question, nor would it be practical or beneficial to occupants and guests of the property to reduce the size of the existing parking lot serving the property. This is a unique situation because the adjoining St. Thomas Academy property is utilized as a baseball field. 3. In your opinion, will the variance, if granted, fit with the character of the neighborhood? ii YES D NO Why or why not? It helps facilitate the continuance of an existing use on the adjoining St. Thomas Academy property without impacting the existing use of the property. The City Council must make an affirmative finding on all of the criteria listed above in order to grant a variance. The applicant for a variance has the burden of proof to show that all of the criteria listed above have been satisfied. Variance Application (modified 41512016) Doc. #62990076.1 Page 3of3 Patterson Dental / STA (Lot Line Adjustment) Property Information January 8, 2018 0 225 450112.5 ft 0 60 12030 m 1:2,400 Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Summary of Comments: comments, online input and stories part of community outreach efforts, 2017 TOPIC Comments CHARACTER Safe and good quality of life community A safe, delightful place to live Vibrant, walkable, engaged, safe, forward thinking Diverse neighbors, strong schools, walking paths! Safe, Rural, Low Taxes, Low Traffic Beautiful with a small town atmosphere. The future is bright in Mendota heights! The future depends on its residents. Green, sophisticated, educated, common sense, happy Rural-feel, upscale community, aesthetic excellence. Keep it quiet, less is more. Continued beautiful, convenient, safe, and friendly. Too much of big city feeling Beautiful place to live, must update! Sidewalks, community center & family friendly fun Nature, not congested, small town, safe Small city good schools and amenities Quiet, comfortable, friendly place called home. Families who know each other Hopefully more community interaction with face-to-face opportunities: small business retail shops, parks, concerts, Fourth of July fireworks, Halloween bonfire. The peaceful green area is why we choose to live here instead of elsewhere! Small city. Mature=friendly, safe, wise ENVIRONMENT Clean air, water, green space and community. Keeping the peaceful, nature-loving environment The most environmentally sound community in America. Natural environment –the number of parks in the city is adequate for the size of the city. I would like to see more attention paid to how we manage the trees and open spaces within existing parks. For example, remove massive spaces like buckthorn, garlic mustard, knapweed and plant and maintain more nature trees that will be more sustainable during periods of climate change and drought. Water quality: require more permeable surfaces for parking lots -commercial and parks –1 or 2 more street cleanings per year to keep leaves and other debris out of the water GENERATIONS More young families in our city. All ages living healthy walking safely Old people come, live and die. Community for families I hope to live here forever. Beautiful safe place for aging seniors. LOCATION Stable,safe,prosperous community close to airport and downtown Saint Paul and MPLS. Efficient small town, big city connected Rural safe feel close to action Connected livable active centrally located city Play upon your strength: location, location! Fled St Paul, fear it followed. Stronger community identity aside from "close to St. Paul"! Oasis of green, near the city. Rural feel, center city Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Summary of Comments Page 1 TRAFFIC Slow down. Seek the jewel. Savor. Increased traffic, both air and car. Traffic nightmare from the Village to 494 Congestion and lack of community Additional traffic unless we plan well. Challenges to preserve safe streets Traffic and an identity crisis Younger families needing safer roads now I am interested to see/concerned with how traffic issues will be addressed, in particular with Hwy 149/Dodd Road. The road is already heavily used, and the crossing at 110 becomes backed up at rush hour; with the apartment complex and other development at 110/149 along with increased traffic due to development in Eagan/IGM around the Vikings facility, I have concerns that existing roads will prove inadequate Park #4 -this neighborhood is too small to have baseball games. They go speeding up and down Butler Ave. they park all along the streets and in the townhouse parking spots. I do not appreciate it and some of my neighbors do not appreciate it. Biggest concern is traffic for an already growing problem I’ve only been here 5 years and have already detected a big difference –and Mendota Plaza isn’t even online yet. Delaware Ave & Mendota Heights Road traffic has increased significantly in the past 25-30 years. Recommend better traffic control along both arteries, traffic lights& stop signs etc. BIKE/WALK/BUS Streets too dark; need more sidewalks Pedestrian/bike friendly, open, green, community. Would like to see more transit stops GOVERNANCE It depends on attitude and wise council. Well-run, low taxes, good schools. Low taxes good cops youth activities A city connected to its history. Hopefully a more community centric feel. Goal 4: enhance and protect natural environment: if you mean this, please budget appropriately for this. Unfunded and unreprimanded currently Mission and Vision Statements should consider making them “tweetable”/ character limited There needs to be a comprehensive plan to address the underground water issues in the area. How will the water be channeled? At what per home cost? Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Summary of Comments Page 2 GROWTH Planful growth; strong community; green space. Connected community creates growth and opportunity No more apartment building monstrosities Responding to growth and demands for modernization. Opportunity with the influx of more businesses Keep natural space, no big retail. Revived pride. Better parks. More restaurants. Tremendous potential, but fear of change Embracing smart growth and excellent amenities Hopeful it remains the same Hopefully another restaurant in the plaza Loss of quietude and rampant over-development. More immigrants and falafel restaurant opportunities Land and housing goals seem to create a situation where all goals would not be possible to achieve simultaneously. Community conversation should be around how we make explicit trade-offs, such as; low density housing means we will have to drive a few miles to Eagan, WSP, etc. to get all the retail amenities. I think most residents would support that trade-off if it was laid out clearly. Please reconsider over 3 lots on Lexington & Hwy 13 to rezone from single family to medium density – I feel there is a great need for single level housing for condo/townhouses for aging people moving onto their next level of living to stay out of Mendota Hgts –where Mendota Hghts is lacking and I feel we can provide this would like to see more one level condo/townhouses in Mendota Heights for people that don’t want to live in a single-family house. There seems to be a need for the mid to upper level age group that would still like to stay in their city of Mendota Heights and not have to move to another city to find it. People /residents get comfortable with the city they live in and have grown up in they like to stay in a comfort zone they are used to. Mendota Heights has a great police dept, City Hall reps and would like to see this happen. rezoning is a good idea I agree with the idea of rezoning I think rezoning is a good idea Rezoning is good for the community In favor of rezoning at 1680 Lexington Ave S. would help out the community the rezoning of this property would benefit needed housing and raise taxes Need more housing in Mendota Heights We can use more housing in Mendota Heights I love this area and this property. I think it would be a great location for townhomes. It is already surrounded by condos. Please approve! I’m a resident on 1132 Sibley Memorial Hwy and I think he should be given the opportunity to rezone his property. Why is property a single-family house??? It’s surrounded by condos!!! Would love to see this property rezoned and have townhomes built. I love Mendota and there is a need for this. This property has: great location, great views, and so be a benefit as townhomes I drive by this property every day would love to have this as townhomes to live in someday Zone is fine with us Zoning is good I think he deserves to be able to do what ever they want to do with their property I am a neighbor and I think it would be nice to have townhouse over there. Keep the density down! Density is traffic and we are already suffering from inappropriate increases in density Low density housing; less traffic will increase with the Vikings Complex and the 139-unit apt complex at Dodd’s 110 I believe he has the right to rezone his property I’m in favor for rezoning Favor of rezoning That house is … (illegible)... of a bunch of condos –Makes sense to develop it into more condos Development ok with us for 1680 Lex I support Keith Ostrosky’s development proposal Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Summary of Comments Page 3 1-1 1 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND The City of Mendota Heights has a long history and commitment to planning, resulting in unique residential living environments and business centers . The City’s first Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1960, many years before the Metropolitan Land Planning Act went into effect, which required communities to incorporate regional policies and guidelines into their plans. The City has used its Comprehensive Plan to guide decisions for these past 68 years. And the community looks much like it was envisioned in 1960, with an emphasis on high quality residential neighborhoods, open space and parks, and well-planned commercial and industrial areas. The community is almost fully developed and is enjoying the fruits of its long- range vision and development policies. Infill properties will continue to be built out, following the community’s successful development philosophy, and redevelopment is now happening in select areas, also following the City’s commitment to provide a high quality of life for its residents and businesses. The City understands its role as part of the greater Metropolitan Region and will continue to plan accordingly. The City has adopted the following Vision and Mission Statements to guide planning and development: Vision Statement Mendota Heights will be recognized as a high quality, family-oriented residential community, with a spacious, natural feel and the amenities of a city. Mission Statement Our mission is to preserve and enhance the quality of life in Mendota Heights by providing quality public safety, infrastructure, and planning for orderly and sustainable growth. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-2 Plan Organization This 2040 Comprehensive Plan is organized in chapters similar to the previous 2030 Comprehensive Plan, but with new chapters on Economic Development and Resilience, arranged as follows: 1 Introduction & Background 2 Land Use 3 Transportation 4 Parks & Open Space 5 Housing 6 Economic Development 7 Resilience 8 Implementation Goals and policies for each chapter are included within that chapter and also as one combined set in Appendix X. Setting Mendota Heights is located in northern Dakota County, bordering the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers. The City of Lilydale and the City of Mendota border the City on its northwest side. Across the rivers are the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Fort Snelling and the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP). The east is bordered by Delaware Avenue and the cities of West St. Paul and Sunfish Lake. Interstate 494 divides Mendota Heights from Eagan to the south. Interstate I-35E Despite being near to these major business centers, the community is able to maintain a comfortable, natural, open appearance. The river bluffs, rolling topography, and wooded areas have provided an excellent setting for residential development. The topography has led to the creation of a curvilinear local street system and allowed for intimate residential neighborhoods to be nestled amongst mature wooded settings, lakes, wetlands, nature preserves, and the Mississippi and Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-3 Minnesota River bluffs. Mendota Heights is a premier suburb, offering high- quality residential and business areas. Per capita income and average property values area among the highest in the area, but homes in more moderate price brackets are also available. The residents of Mendota Heights enjoy close proximity to an extensive system of regional and local parks, and convenient access to the regional highway system, international airport, and metropolitan employment centers. These factors have helped make Mendota Heights an attractive place to live and enable it to maintain a quiet, private way of life. While it is centrally located in the metropolitan area, the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers form a natural green belt around it, allowing the community to maintain a quiet, private way of life, unique in the Twin Cities. Mendota Heights achieved its successful business community and exceptional residential neighborhoods by following the detailed comprehensive plans set forth many decades ago. Innovative and forward thinking on the part of community officials has resulted in a planned community, which affords a high-quality lifestyle for its residents while providing a full array of services and employment opportunities. The community has preserved an abundance of parks and open spaces, Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-4 encourages spacious residential development, and has planned for diversified, high technology offices and business areas. Excellent schools and a well- educated populace complement the traditional but progressive character of the City. Civic pride and aesthetic excellence are high priorities in Mendota Heights. The community set out early in its incorporated history to create attractive residential neighborhoods by planning for aggressive protection and wise use of its abundant environmental assets. The rich abundance of woods, wetlands, and open space areas that provide the natural feel of the community today, are a testament to the forethought and planning of Mendota Heights’ forefathers. As the Twin Cities metropolitan area has grown up around it, Mendota Heights has actively pursued its objective of preserving the open spaces, which have made the community one of the region’s most attractive places to live. Whether these efforts have been concentrated in active or passive uses, the environment has played a central role in the City’s land use planning. Mendota Heights has many spacious, green neighborhoods Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-5 Process The process of updating the Comprehensive Plan for Mendota Heights was initiated in late 2016 when Stantec, the City’s planning consultants, began updating background information and demographics for the Plan. They also worked with Tangible Consulting who prepared a report analyzing the market and development context of the City. A background report was shared with the Planning Commission in early 2017. In a series of meetings later that year the Planning Commission reviewed and adopted the draft Vision, Mission, and Goals & Policies for the Plan. This material was shared with the Parks Commission and with the larger community in a series of three community open house meetings in November 2017. There was also an online survey and an invitation for comments on the City website and Facebook page. All of the comments and survey results are summarized in Appendix X, Engagement Results. [Add summary of engagement comments] Facebook was used to share information and invite comments on the planning process Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-6 Regional Planning Designation The regional planning area designation and related policies identify the Metropolitan Council’s expectations for the amount, location, and standards for development. A community’s planning area designation is based on its location, amount of developable land, existing development patterns, planned land uses and availability of infrastructure. The Metropolitan Council’s Thrive MSP 2040 Plan designates Mendota Heights as “suburban.” Suburban communities experienced continued growth and expansion during the 1980s and early 1990s, and typically have automobile-oriented development patterns at significantly lower densities than in previous eras. Metropolitan Council’s Community Designations map for Mendota Heights Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-7 Developed Communities Community designations are intended to guide regional growth and development to areas that have urban infrastructure in place and the capacity to accommodate development and redevelopment and establish land use expectations including overall densities and development patterns. The Metropolitan Council forecasts that “Suburban” communities will account for 22 percent of the region’s population growth, 27 percent of its household growth, and 43 percent of employment growth over the next three decades. The following specific community roles have been identified by the Metropolitan Council in the 2040 Thrive MSP plan to be incorporated into the comprehensive plan: Orderly and Efficient Land Use • Plan for forecasted population and household growth at overall average densities of at least 5 units per acre, and target opportunities for more intensive development near regional transit investments at densities and in a manner articulated in the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan. • Identify areas for redevelopment, particularly areas that are well-served by transportation options and nearby amenities and that contribute to better proximity between jobs and housing. • In collaboration with other regional partners, lead major redevelopment efforts. • Lead detailed land use planning efforts around regional transit stations and other regional investments. • Plan for and program local infrastructure needs (for example, roads, sidewalks, sewer, water, and surface water), including those needed to accommodate future growth and implement local comprehensive plans. Natural Resources Protection • Integrate natural resource conservation and restoration strategies into the comprehensive plan. • Identify lands for reclamation, including contaminated land, for redevelopment and the restoration of natural features and functions. • Integrate natural resources restoration and protection strategies into local development ordinances. • Develop programs that encourage the implementation of natural resource conservation and restoration. Water Sustainability • Implement best management practices to control and treat stormwater as redevelopment opportunities arise. • Explore alternative water supply sources to ensure adequate water resources beyond 2040. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-8 Housing Affordability and Choice • Designate land in the comprehensive plan to support household growth forecasts and address the community’s share of the region’s affordable housing need through development and redevelopment at a range of densities. • Plan for a mix of housing affordability in station areas along transitways. • Use state, regional, and federal sources of funding and/or financing and development tools allowed by state law to facilitate the development of new lifecycle and affordable housing. • Plan for affordable housing that meets the needs of multigenerational households. Access, Mobility, and Transportation Choice • Develop comprehensive plans that focus growth in and around regional transit stations and near high-frequency transit services, commensurate with planned levels of transit service and the station typologies (for example , land use mix, density levels) identified in the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan. • Develop local policies, plans, and practices that improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation, including access to regional transit services, regional trails, and regional bicycle corridors. • Seek opportunities to improve local street and pedestrian connections to improve access for local trips. • Consider implementation of travel demand management (TDM) policies and ordinances that encourage use of travel options and decrease reliance on single- occupancy vehicle travel. • Engage private sector stakeholders who depend on or are affected by the local transportation system to address local business needs such as routing, delivery, and potential land use conflicts. • Adopt development standards that improve the user experience, circulation, and access for bicyclists and pedestrians. • Adopt Complete Streets policies that improve safety and mobility for all road users. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-9 Economic Competitiveness • Identify appropriate areas for business and industrial expansion, considering access by rail, truck, plane, and barge. • Support the cleanup and reuse of contaminated land by utilizing regional, county, and local funding programs and financing tools. • Preserve, remediate contamination, and repurpose the industrial base for higher- intensity employment and new industries. • Protect sites for highway-, river-, and rail-dependent manufacturing and freight transportation needs from incompatible uses and identify local land supply and transportation needs for effective use of those sites. • Plan for land uses that support the growth of businesses that export goods and services outside the region, important regional economic clusters, and living wage jobs. • Conduct small area planning efforts to preserve locations for employment, manage growth, and minimize land use conflicts. Building Resilience • Identify and address potential vulnerabilities in local infrastructure as a result of increased frequency and severity of storms and heat waves. • Participate in federal, state, and local utility programs that incentivize the implementation of wind and solar power generation. • Consider making a property-assessed clean energy (PACE) program available for conservation and renewable energy. • Consider promoting the development or use of community solar gardens (CSGs) by public and private entities to enable fuller and more economic use of the community’s solar resource, including participating as subscribers, assisting in marketing CSG opportunities for economic development, or providing sites for gardens. • Adopt local policies and ordinances that encourage land development that supports travel demand management (TDM) and use of travel options. • Consider development standards that increase vegetative cover and increase the solar reflective quality of surfaces. • Participate in urban forestry assistance programs as available. Mendota Office Center Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-10 Community History Mendota Heights has a long and rich heritage, which serves as a source of identity for the community. Mendota Heights is located near the confluence of the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers. Early Native Americans (Mendota Mdewakanton Dakota Community) viewed the area as an important meeting place. Pilot Knob is city-owned property overlooking the confluence of the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers. It was considered sacred by the Dakota who called it Oheyawahi, “the hill much visited.” Pilot Knob was named by riverboat pilots as the landmark overlooking Fort Snelling, the first American fort. The Europeans called the area St. Peter, or St. Pierre, during the time that Fort Snelling was constructed in the 1820s. However, the name of the area was later changed to Mendota, which in Dakota means, “meeting of the waters.” Fur traders established a trading post in the early 1830’s within what is now Mendota Heights. The trading post, coupled with Fort Snelling located across the river, formed the basis for one of the first settlement areas in Minnesota. During the period from 1837 to 1853, the Dakota ceded large tracts of land to the settlers who tilled the land and operated dairy farms. Gradually, individual homes began to appear along the St. Paul border in the north and in the hills above Mendota Township in the west. Between them were farms, country schools, and estates. The population of Mendota Township in 1860 was 454. The area grew slowly to 1,360 at the start of World War II. St. Peter’s Church was built in 1853 atop the bluff overlooking the rivers and is the oldest church in continuous use within Minnesota. Several trails crossed the area, including the Mission Trail. It connected the river to the Dakota Village at Kaposia, which is present day South St. Paul. Dodd Road, the first military road through the region, was completed in 1849 and connected the community to St. Peter. Dodd Road currently bisects the City and Fort Snelling, 1844 painting by John Caspar Wild Taoyateduta, chief of the Mdewakanton Dakota, ca. 1850 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-11 continues to provide a north-south travel artery throughout the community. The Old Mendota Road, which is now Highway 110, provided for east-west travel through the area. The Minnesota Central, the first Dakota County railroad, ran through Mendota Township, parallel to the Minnesota River, and carried supplies to Fort Snelling. Following World War II, farmers began to sell lots for individual homes and acreage for residential subdivisions. Home construction increased rapidly, particularly in the northern section of the township and by 1950, the population totaled 2,107. The Township of Mendota was established in 1858, and was eventually divided into two separate towns. Mendota was chartered in 1887 and incorporated in 1936. The remainder of the township was incorporated as Mendota Heights in 1956. Interstate 494 comprises the southern border of Mendota Heights. Its intersection with Interstate 35E acts as a primary “gateway” into the community, as does Highway 55 as it crosses the Mendota Bridge, the Interstate 35E/Mississippi River crossing and Highway 110, as it enters the community from the east . The Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers and steep bluffs along with the natural open spaces of Fort Snelling State Park, Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, Lilydale Regional Park, Dodge Nature Preserve, and Olivia T. Dodge Nature Center provide a greenbelt that surrounds and infiltrates Mendota Heights . The location of the aforementioned features and places is illustrated on the Community Facilities map, located on page 26. The natural and open space areas, when combined with the 290 acres of community parks, three golf courses, Rogers, Augusta, and Le May Lakes, and with the naturally rolling terrain and mature woodlands, create the appealing “natural open” setting of the City. These features and spaces are located adjacent to the major roadways and as such, create a unique, natural setting for small, intimate neighborhoods. The views of the River Valleys from adjacent bluffs and bridge crossings are nothing less than spectacular. The predominance of scenic, natural vistas and corridors within a community located so close to the core of the Twin Cities is truly unique within the Metropolitan Region. This being the case, the City of Mendota Heights considers it paramount to protect and enhance the natural living environment for its residents. Rogers Lake in Mendota Heights Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-12 Development History Early History The river topography and landscape of bluffs, ravines, views, lakes, and wooded areas have provided attractive settings for residential settlement. Mendota Heights was a part of Mendota Township until the Village of Mendota Heights was incorporated in 1956. 1957 to 1977 The first Land Use Plan for Mendota Heights was adopted in 1959 . Its purpose was to guide public and private development to achieve balanced residential and commercial/industrial growth, in order to assure the availability of tax funds for schools and public services. At that time, 21% of the land (exclusive of golf courses and cemeteries) was developed. The City’s history of early land planning established a clear and well-defined pattern for future land uses. The 1959 Plan identified the following needs: • The need for additional east-west thoroughfares; • The need for community connections across future I-35E; • The designation of a business/industrial area in the southwest corner of the City; • The desire to limit commercial “strip” development; and • The decision to continue the semi-rural character of the residential areas. Many of the major objectives of the 1959 Plan came to fruition as the Plan was largely followed over the ensuing years. In the twenty-year period from the late 1950’s to the late 1970’s, St. Thomas and Visitation schools were established (1955-56); Fort Snelling State Park was established (1961); the I-35 bridge into St. Paul was built (1971); Henry Sibley High School was built (1971); and in 1974, Mendota Heights became a city. Overall, an additional 40% of the land area was developed, most of it to establish new residential areas. 1977 to 1997 The land use pattern initially laid out by early comprehensive plans was clearly established along with several transportation improvements. Both I-35E and I- 494 were built during this period. I-35E was extended in both directions, into downtown St. Paul and south into Burnsville. I-494 was constructed along the southern border of the City and replaced Highway 110 as the primary east -west route. In this period, United Properties began the development of the Mendota Heights Business Park, and several areas designated for residential were developed throughout the City. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-13 The availability of the Interstate routes did relieve local roadways of some traffic, particularly in the cases of Highway 110 and Highway 149. The accessibility of the Interstate routes also more clearly established distinct neighborhoods in the community. The 1959 Land Use Plan emphasized the importance of east-west routes and planned crossings at Marie Avenue, Mendota Heights Road, and Wagon Wheel Trail, all of which were built more than 20 years later. Aircraft traffic noise from flights over Mendota Heights dramatically increased in this period as well, due to the growth and expansion of the airline industry and the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The increasing number of flights, larger aircraft, and expanded use of the runways over the Mississippi River corridor, continue to impact the land use and living environment of the southern part of the community. The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) actually bought out one neighborhood and created a flight path corridor, near Acacia Cemetery, within Mendota Heights. Homes were removed and the area was re-developed for industrial uses. Other residential areas were part of the Part 150 Sound Insulation program, receiving funds to upgrade windows and insulation in existing homes. New residential neighborhoods have been built with additional sound insulation and modified building techniques. Total operations at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) increased from 230,793 in 1972 to 483,013 in 1998, more than doubling. This increase in flights, along with expansion of the flights over the new residential areas and outside of the flight corridor, has adversely affected many neighborhoods of the City. The City put forth considerable time and effort to reduce aircraft noise and operations over the City, establishing an Airport Relations Commission (ARC), participating in the Dakota County Airport Relations Commission (DCARC), and the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) and adopting a Noise Attenuation Ordinance. MSP International Airport, located across the Minnesota River west of Mendota Heights Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-14 1998 – 2007 From 1998 to 2006, the City issued 436 residential building permits. Of those, 259 were for single family homes. In 2003, the City saw the most development during this period, with a total of 125 residential permits issued during that year. A number of significant projects reshaped Mendota Heights during this time. The most visible is the Village at Mendota Heights, a mixed use development at the northeast intersection of Trunk Highway 110 and Dodd Road. The City acquired the property to create an urban town center that includes a senior residential facility, townhomes, and intensive commercial surrounding an open space plaza. The second significant change is the Summit of Mendota Heights, a mixed residential development consisting of townhomes and a multi-story condominium. This facility is located on the former site of the Ecolab research building at Sibley Memorial Highway and Wachtler Avenue. Another residential project is the Hidden Creek development, a residential plat of generally one-acre lots on a portion of the “superblock”, an area of larger acreage properties which have had minimal previous development activity. Two other projects have involved the City’s activity in avoiding development, and retaining existing open space. The Mendota Heights Par 3 Golf Course had operated as a privately-owned facility for many years, until the owners proposed to close the 17-acre facility and develop the property into approximately 30 single family lots. After some struggle, ending with a successful referendum, the City purchased the golf course and is now operating the facility as a municipal course. Perhaps the most important project also involves the City’s decision t o spend public dollars to preserve the Pilot Knob area, just off the Mendota Bridge between Acacia Cemetery and Trunk Highway 55. After a series of development The Village at Mendota Heights (Photo: Damon Farber) Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-15 proposals for this property were turned away or withdrawn, the City joined with other public entities, including Dakota County and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and purchased a number of large parcels totaling 25.5 acres . The land will be retained as open space, and is currently being restored to its pre-development environment. The property has historical and cultural significance on many levels, including a sacred site for native people, a nearby gathering area for the 1862 transfer of the Minnesota Territory lands to the U.S. government, and the “pilot knob” landmark for steamboats approaching the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers. 2008-2017 Since the last Comprehensive Plan was prepared a number of significant developments have taken place in Mendota Heights. The economic recession from 2007 to 2012 impacted development cross the Twin Cities, including Mendota Heights and there was little development activity during those years , but coming out of the recession there was some significant activity. The Mendota Plaza Shopping Center at Highway 110 and Dodd Road saw a major renovation during this period, with a 15,000-square-foot Walgreen’s pharmacy added in 2012 and the 50-unit assisted living complex, White Pine Senior Living, in 2014. Also at Mendota Plaza, a new 5-story 139-unit apartment project is being constructed in 2018 on by Paster Properties and At Home Apartments. It is the first new market-rate project in Mendota Heights in thirty years. The project will also include 11,000 square feet of commercial space in two buildings sharing the site with the apartments. New apartments at Mendota Plaza (rendering courtesy of At Home Apartments) Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-16 The Vikings football team’s new headquarters and surrounding development in nearby Eagan has generated considerable discussion and may affect Mendota Heights in a number of ways. Located just off the southeast edge of Mendota Heights, it will include the teams’ corporate offices, practice facilities, 6,500-seat stadium, athletic clinic, team Hall of Fame, and ancillary offices, hotels, retail, restaurants and housing on the 200-acre site. While no major roadway projects have been built recently, one of the major highways in Mendota Heights is being renamed. Beginning in the summer of 2018, Highway 110 will be renamed Highway 62, acknowledging it as an extension of Highway 62 that now starts on the west side of the Mendota Bridge and extends west through Minneapolis and other suburbs to I-494 in Eden Prairie. Vikings facility in Eagan under construction, 2017 (photo: Leila Navidi) Map courtesy MnDOT Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-17 Natural Resources Inventory The natural environment is an important asset to the residents of Mendota Heights. During the City’s developing stages, a strong emphasis was placed on preserving high quality open spaces and wooded areas. This has provided tremendous benefits to the residents and is an important focal point of the community. Residents enjoy numerous lakes and wetlands, open spaces, parks, trails, and the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers. The following lists specific environmental features within the City of Mendota Heights: General Topography and Drainage The topography of the City of Mendota Heights varies greatly, from floodplains of the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers to the primary and secondary bluffs of the rivers. The maps that follow illustrate the topography and location of floodplains within the community. The majority of the City lies relatively flat at an elevation approximately 200 feet above the river. Many of the lakes and ponds in the City are entirely controlled by percolations, precipitation, and evaporation. The original terrain and vegetation of the area were altered for purposes of farming. Marshes and wetlands were left relatively undisturbed except for a few ditching projects. More detailed information on the drainage system of the city can be found in the Local Surface Water Management Plan, 2006. Soils The Soil Conservation Service has identified the following soil associations within the City of Mendota Heights: • Nearly Level Soils on the Floodplains. This area is on the floodplains of the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers, mostly located in the Fort Snelling State Park. Much of it is frequently flooded and is generally too wet to be farmland. The area consists of mixed Alluvial sand and some Sawmill soils. Colo soils, Riverwash, and Peat Muck are also present. • Light Colored, Rolling to Hilly Soils. This general area is in the Morainic part of the County. It is characterized by steep slopes and numerous poorly drained depressions. The soils are extremely variable in depth, texture, and productivity. The medium height and textured soils are suitable for some crops if slopes are not too strong. Sheet or gully erosions are hazards in cultivated fields. The area is best suited to woodlands. The major soils include Scandia Kingsley, Hayden, and Burnsville series. Included are soils of the Freer and Adolph series. • Light Colored to Moderately Dark Colored, Rolling to Loose Hilly Soils on Till. In topography and texture, this soil association is mostly the light colored rolling high soils described above. Most of the soils develop from calcareous materials. The major soils in the area include the Hayden, Burnsville, Lester series. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-18 Floodplain Although the City of Mendota Heights is located in such close proximity to the Mississippi River and the Minnesota River, there is no floodway within the City boundaries. As the Floodplain map portrays, there is floodway on both sides of the Mississippi River and Minnesota River, within the cities of St. Paul, Lilydale, Mendota, and Eagan. The floodway basically follows the northwest boundary of the City. Rivers, Lakes, and Wetlands The following is a list of lakes and rivers located within the City of Mendota Heights: Gun Club Lake Lake Augusta Lake Le May Rogers Lake Friendly Marsh Copperfield Ponds Mississippi River Minnesota River Lake LeMay, Mendota Heights Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-19 Watersheds Mendota Heights is located within three watersheds: Lower Minnesota River Watershed, Gun Club Lake Watershed, and Lower Mississippi River Watershed. The Lower Minnesota River Watershed District (LMRWD) is located in the southwest part of the Twin Cities metropolitan area along the Minnesota River. The District boundaries encompass an area of 64 square miles of Carver, Hennepin, Dakota, Scott, and Ramsey counties, which includes the Minnesota River Valley from Fort Snelling, at the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi rivers, upstream to Carver, Minnesota. The width of the District includes the bluffs on both sides of the Minnesota River within this reach of the river. The District boundaries are contiguous to five (5) watershed districts, four (4) water management organizations, and include portions of fifteen (15) communities. The City of Mendota Heights entered into an agreement with the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District on January 28, 2005. Issues of concern include dredging, spoil site acquisition, and bank erosion control. The Gun Club Lake Watershed Management Organization (GCLWMO) encompasses 33 square miles of suburban land. The GCLWMO is a joint powers organization of the cities of Eagan, Mendota Heights, and Inver Grove Heights. Funding for the GCLWMO is provided by each of the cities within the organization. The majority of storm water drains to the Minnesota River in the GCLWMO. The watershed contains many small wetlands and lakes, and a major concern is lake water quality. The Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization (LMRWMO) encompasses 50 square miles in Dakota and Ramsey Counties. Other surrounding communities include: Inver Grove Heights, Lilydale, St. Paul, South St. Paul, Sunfish Lake, and West St. Paul. The LMRWMO was established by a Joint Powers Agreement on October 25, 1985. The wetland is well-drained with many small depressions and steep slopes. Issues of concern include wildlife habitat and water recreation. Significant Vegetation The City of Mendota Heights contains a variety of wooded areas and explicit forested areas. There is a large amount of floodplain forest along the Mississi ppi and Minnesota Rivers. There is a large area of altered, non-native deciduous forest on the east side of Gun Club Lake. A variety of vegetation also surrounds Lake Augusta and Lake Le May, including the following: altered/non-native deciduous forest, altered/non-native deciduous woodland, oak forest, native dominated disturbed upland shrubland, and aspen forest. The east side of 35E within the City of Mendota Heights, just before entering Lilydale, contains a variety of vegetation, from altered/non-native deciduous forest, altered/non-native deciduous woodland, altered/non-native mixed Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-20 woodland, oak forest, floodplain forest, and lowland hardwood forest. There are also pockets of a variety of forests and woodlands between 35E and the boundary with West St. Paul and Sunfish Lake, especially surrounding the water features. The Significant Vegetation map illustrates the location of wooded and forested areas within the City of Mendota Heights. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-21 Insert Topography Map Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-22 Insert Floodplain Map Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-23 Insert Wetlands/Lakes/Rivers Map Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-24 Insert Watersheds Map Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-25 Insert Significant Vegetation Areas Map Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-26 Community Facilities The City of Mendota Heights currently retains a full complement of administrative services, including Administration, Engineering, Public Works, Parks & Recreation, Police, Fire, Finance, and Code Enforcement. The City contracts with private consultants for planning and legal services. City Hall provides administrative office space and public meeting facilities . City Hall is located at 1101 Victoria Curve, northwest of the intersection of Highway 110 and Lexington Road. Police and Fire The City of Mendota Heights provides police protection for its residents . The police station is located in the lower level of City Hall. Police are dispatched from Dakota Communications Center, which is located in Empire Township. The City also provides police services to the communities of Lilydale and Mendota. The Police Department consists of 18 officers and 2.5 non-sworn civilian employees. Fire protection is also provided by the City. The department is located on Dodd Road, one-quarter mile south of Highway 110. Fire and Rescue Services consists of 36 volunteers and has a fully equipped station consisting of a 2,000 - gallon tanker, three pump trucks (one with a 65’ ladder), a rescue vehicle, a brush truck, a boat, an ATV, and other equipment and services necessary to provide for the defined ISO Commercial Risk Services Inc. The City also provides fire services for the cities of Sunfish Lake, Lilydale, and Mendota. The average response time to fire calls ranges from six to eight minutes. The Fire and Rescue Services was last rated as providing Class 4 services (1-best, 10-worst), as defined by the Insurance Services Office. Specific residential fire ratings are determined based upon a combination of factors, including the individual rating for the Fire Department, availability of water services, and the level of communications (i.e., 911 call system, fire alarms, pagers, and dispatch systems), available in the community. Schools Minnesota Independent School District #197 serves all or parts of the communities of Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, Lilydale, Mendota, Mendota Heights, Sunfish Lake and West St. Paul. The District is comprised of five elementary schools (two neighborhood schools and three magnet schools), two middle schools, and one high school. In addition, the District serves birth -to-age five children with an Early Learning Program. Total enrollment for District schools in the 2015-2016 school year was estimated at 4,343 students. This is down from 4,885 students in the 1998-1999 school year. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-27 There are six public and private schools offering kindergarten through 12th grade located within the City of Mendota Heights: Mendota Elementary School, Somerset Elementary School, Friendly Hills Middle School, Henry Sibley High School, St. Thomas Academy, and Visitation School. The following table provides a breakdown of enrollment of the K-12 public schools located within the City at the start of the 2007 - 2008 school year compared with the 2015-2016 school year. Public School Enrollment for K-12 Schools within the City of Mendota Heights: 2007-08 vs. 2015-16 School Years School Grades 2007-08 Total Enrollment 20015-16 Total Enrollment Percent Change 2007-08 to 2015-16 Mendota Elementary School K - 4th 360 388 8% Somerset Elementary School K - 4th 318 419 32% Friendly Hills Middle School 5th - 8th 597 727 22% Henry Sibley High School 9th - 12th 1,462 1,330 -9% Source: ISD 197 The number of students enrolled in private schools within the City was 1,201 during the 2015-16 school year, down from the 2007-2008 school year, when 1,295 students were enrolled in private schools. Private School Enrollment for K-12 Schools within the City of Mendota Heights: 1998-99 vs. 2007-08 School Year School Grades 2007-08 Total Enrollment 20015-16 Total Enrollment Percent Change 2007-08 to 2015-16 St. Thomas Academy 7th - 12th 695 600 -14% Visitation School Montessori -12th 600 601 0% Source: St. Thomas Academy and Visitation School websites Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-28 Parks, Open Space, and Trails The City of Mendota Heights boasts a variety of recreational opportunities , including access to regional trails, riverside and lakeside parks, scenic bluffs and a nature preserve. These facilities represent unique features in a park system that helps to shape the character of Mendota Heights. The City has 295 acres of city-owned parks and open spaces, which includes active and passive recreation areas, along with other state and private parks and open spaces. These facilities are detailed in the Parks, Open Space and Trails chapter of this plan. Cemeteries There are two cemeteries in Mendota Heights – Resurrection and Acacia – which occupy a significant amount of land on the west side of the community. Wastewater The City's Public Works Department operates and maintains the City’s sanitary sewer system. The responsibilities of the sanitary sewer system include maintenance of the sanitary sewer lift stations, sanitary sewer main repair, and sanitary sewer hook-up inspections. Water Supply The St. Paul Regional Water Services provides water to Mendota Heights. St. Paul maintains the water lines and hydrants and bills its customers directly. A two million gallon water tower, located on South Lexington Avenue, next to the City's Public Works Facility, provides reserve water capacity. The water tower and distribution system are owned by the City of Mendota Heights. The Community Features Map illustrates the location of the various public, semi- public, institutional, and private uses within the City of Mendota Heights. While the Community Facilities map illustrates specific locations of public buildings, schools, churches, synagogues, golf courses, parks, and major employers. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-29 Insert Community Features Map Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-30 Insert Community Facilities Map Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-31 Socio-Economic Profile The purpose of the social and economic inventory is to identify past trends, document current conditions, and help identify issues to be addressed in planning policies. These policies will help the community address a broad base of land use and development issues. With the help of a solid information and policy base, decision makers can evaluate and prioritize proposals for the community while fulfilling the City’s long-term goals and objectives. Growth Trends: Mendota Heights The following graph illustrates the estimated and projected growth in the City of Mendota Heights for population, household, and employment from 1970 through 2040. Population, households, and employment within the City have all been increasing since 1970 and are projected to increase through 2040 . Figure X Mendota Heights and Dakota County: Population, Household, & Employment Estimates & Forecasts 1970-2040 Source: Metropolitan Council, US Census After significant increase between 1980 and 2000, City population decreased slightly after 2000, but is expected to remain relatively stable in the decades to come. In the meantime, the number of households is expected to grow at a slow pace, indicating a further decline of household sizes. Employment, however, has continued to grow in the past ten years despite the recent economic downturn, and is expected to continue, but at a slightly slower pace in the next 20 years. 6,565 7,288 9,381 11,434 11,071 11,300 11,300 11,400 1,641 2,210 3,302 4,178 4,378 4,600 4,710 4,8001,140 2,998 5,805 8,549 11,550 12,600 13,400 13,700 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 Population Household Employment Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-32 Growth Trends: Mendota Heights Versus Dakota County Communities The following table shows population, household, and employment estimates and forecasts for the City of Mendota Heights and Dakota County, 1970 through 2040. The table shows how the City has grown slower in all three measures than the County as a whole over several decades, with the exception of employment between 1970 and 2000. The City saw its largest population percent growth from 1980 to 1990. Dakota County also experienced its highest percentage growth in population from 1980 to 1990. City population is projected to remain more or less unchanged out to 2040, whereas the County is projected to continue to grow steadily for the next three decades. Table X: Mendota Heights and Dakota County: Population, Household, and Employment Estimates & Forecasts 1970 – 2040 Population/Percent Change 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 Mendota Hts 6,565 7,288 9,381 11,434 11,071 11,300 11,300 11,400 - 11% 29% 22% -3% 2% 0% 1% Dakota County 139,808 194,279 275,186 355,904 398,552 435,870 474,670 514,050 - 39% 42% 29% 12% 9% 9% 8% Household/Percent Change 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 Mendota Hts 1,641 2,210 3,302 4,178 4,378 4,600 4,710 4,800 - 35% 49% 27% 5% 5% 2% 2% Dakota County 37,560 64,087 98,293 131,151 152,060 170,940 187,980 204,750 - 71% 53% 33% 16% 12% 10% 9% Employment/Percent Change 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 Mendota Hts 1,140 2,998 5,805 8,549 11,550 12,600 13,400 13,700 - 163% 94% 47% 35% 9% 6% 2% Dakota County 31,100 62,134 106,029 154,242 170,192 203,330 219,860 236,500 - 100% 71% 45% 10% 19% 8% 8% Source: Metropolitan Council, US Census Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-33 Population The following line graph illustrates the estimated and forecasted population for Mendota Heights and four other communities within Dakota County – Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, West St. Paul, and South St. Paul. Mendota Heights and its neighbors West St. Paul and South St. Paul are mostly developed and will grow slowly; Eagan and Inver Grove Heights, with room to grow, will see larger population increases. Figure X Mendota Heights and Dakota County Communities: Population Estimates & Forecasts 2000-2040 Household Growth Trends The following graph illustrates the growth trend in the number of households, actual and projected, in Mendota Heights and area communities within Dakota County, from 1970 to 2040. As the graph illustrates, households in West St. Paul and South St. Paul will continue to steadily increase from 2010 until 2040 . As with population, Eagan and Inver Grove Heights will experience more dramatic increases between 2010 and 2040. Similar to West St. Paul and South St. Paul, Mendota Heights will experience a steady rise in the number of households. 11,434 11,071 11,300 11,300 11,400 63,557 64,206 67,400 69,800 72,300 29,751 33,880 37,300 42,000 46,700 19,405 19,540 20,800 21,900 23,100 20,167 20,160 21,500 21,500 21,800 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040Population Mendota Heights Eagan Inver Grove Heights West St. Paul South St. Paul Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-34 Figure X Mendota Heights and Dakota County Communities: Household Estimates & Forecasts 2000-2040 Household Size The graph below illustrates average household size in Mendota Heights compared to Dakota County from 1970 to 2040. Household size has declined steadily since 1970 but is expected to flatten out in the next couple decades. Figure X: Average Household Size Mendota Heights & Dakota County 1970-2040 4,178 4,378 4,600 4,710 4,800 23,773 25,249 27,400 28,700 30,000 11,257 13,476 15,400 17,600 19,800 8,645 8,529 9,200 9,600 10,100 8,123 8,186 8,900 9,200 9,400 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040Households Year Mendota Heights Eagan Inver Grove Heights West St. Paul South St. Paul 4.00 3.30 2.84 2.74 2.51 2.45 2.46 2.40 2.38 3.72 3.03 2.80 2.71 2.60 2.58 2.55 2.53 2.51 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015 2020 2030 2040Persons per HouseholdYear Mendota Heights Dakota County Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-35 Household Type Two types of householders are distinguished in the 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census: a family and a non-family householder. A family householder is a householder living with one or more people related to him or her by birth, marriage, or adoption. The householder and all people in the household related to him or her are family members. A non-family householder is a householder living alone or with non-relatives only. The table below illustrates the demographic profile of the households in Mendota Heights. The table separates households by information pertaining to family and non-family households; households with or with or without children; and the number of households in each category. Table X: Mendota Heights Household Types 2000 & 2010 Total households HHs with Children HHs without Children Household Type 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 Married Couple Families 2,902 2,821 1,356 1,068 1,546 1,753 Female Householder 253 281 151 155 102 126 Male Householder 83 102 37 46 46 56 Total Family Households 3,238 3,204 1,544 1,269 1,694 1,935 Percent 77.5% 73.2% Total Non-Family Households 940 1,174 Percent 22.5% 26.8% Total Households 4,178 4,378 Source: 2000 and 2010 US Census The number of households held fairly steady between 2000 and 2010 but the significant changes is in households with and without children – the trend being fewer households with children. This likely indicates a societal trend but also the presence of more retirees in Mendota Heights. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-36 Age Distribution The following bar graph compares the percentages of the age distribution in the City of Mendota Heights in 2000 and 2010 and 2014. The median age of Mendota Heights’ residents in 2000 was 41 years old. By 2010, the median age climbed to 47.5 years old. By 2014, the Census estimated it rose again to 49 years old. Figure X: Mendota Heights Age Distribution 2000, 2010, & 2014 Source: US Census 2000 & 2010, ACS 2014 The largest age cohort in Mendota Heights are 45-to-64-year-olds, rising from about 29% in 2000 to over 37% in 2014. The share of children 14 and under has decreased from about 22% in 2000 to under 15% in 2014. Age Distribution The graphs to the right depict this aging trend in Mendota Heights in a focused way. In just 14 years, the share of the population over and under 45 years of age has flipped – from just under half to just over half. Mendota Heights’ age trends have been following the age composition trends of the Twin Cities Metro Area. The greatest population gains in the 1990s in the Seven-County Metro Area were in the 5.8% 16.5% 11.1% 6.9% 15.8% 18.9% 10.6% 8.3% 6.2% 4.6% 13.0%11.4% 7.2% 9.8% 18.1%18.2% 9.1%8.7%3.9% 11.5%11.7% 6.4% 10.0% 17.0% 20.2% 9.2%10.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% 18.0% 20.0% 22.0% Under 5 years 5 to 14 years 15 to 24 years 25 ot 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years 55 to 64 years 65 to 74 years 75 years + 2000 2010 2014 44%56% 2000 45 years and older 44 and younger 56%44% 2014 45 years and older 44 and younger Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-37 forty-five (45) to fifty-four (54) year old age group, which is the same as Mendota Heights’ largest percentage category. This was a result of the Baby Boom generation moving into an age category previously occupied by the smaller Depression and World War II generation. The generation after the baby boom generation, also known as Generation X, 35-to-44-year-old age group, also grew significantly in the 1990s, just as in Mendota Heights . The continued aging of the population creates new challenges for the Seven- County Metro Area, as well as for the City of Mendota Heights. It is expected to increase the demand for a wider range of services and housing choices, such as townhomes, one-level housing, assisted living, and so on, rather than traditional single-family homes. The Metropolitan Council has estimated that between 2000 and 2030, the population under the age of 55 is projected to increase by nineteen percent (19%) in the Twin Cities Seven County Metro Area, while the number of people 55 and over is expected to more than double, an increase of 111%. If the City of Mendota Heights continues to follow the population trends of the greater Metropolitan Area, the needs of the aging population will need to be recognized and addressed. Education The graph below illustrates education levels for Mendota Heights residents ages 25 and over in 2010, compared to Dakota County, the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, and the State of Minnesota. Compared to the County, State and Metro area, Mendota Heights’ residents are very well educated. The City has more than 20 percent more residents with Bachelor’s degrees than either Dakota County and the Metro Area, and the highest percentage of high school graduates. Sources: ACS 2014, Metropolitan Council 97%95%92%92% 62% 40%41%33% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Mendota Heights Dakota County 7 County Metro Minnesota High School Grad or higher Bachelor's Degree or higher Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-38 Employment Occupations Information from the 2010 Census regarding employment demographics for Mendota Heights is depicted in the table below. The statistics provided include employment information for residents over the age of 16. The majority of those employed in the City in 2010 were in Management, employing 62 percent of the population. The second largest employment category was Sales and Office, employing 23 percent of the population. Table X: Occupation of Residents in Mendota Heights Management, business, science, and arts occupations 3,567 Service occupations 501 Sales and office occupations 1,342 Natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations 110 Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 259 Total Civilian employed population 16 years and over 5,779 Source: ACS 2014 Income The median household income for the City of Mendota Heights in 2000 was $81,155. The City’s median household income has increased since then to $98,098 in 2014. The median household income for the City is higher than that of Dakota County, the entire Twin Cities Metro Area, and the State of Minnesota. Figure X: Median Household Income 2000 & 2014 Source: ACS 2014, Metropolitan Council $81,155 $61,863 $54,300 $47,111 $98,098 $74,995 $68,000 $60,828 $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 Mendota Heights Dakota County 7 County Metro Minnesota 2000 2014 Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft February 2018 1-39 Poverty Rates According to the 2000 Census and 2015 Census estimates, the City also has a relatively low percentage of individuals below the poverty. However small the number of residents living in poverty in 2000, the number more than doubled by 2015 to 431 Mendota Heights residents living below the poverty level. Figure X: Mendota Heights Poverty Rates 2000 & 2015 Below Poverty in 2000 Below Poverty in 2015 Number Percent Number Percent Individuals 212 1.9% 431 3.9% Individuals 65 years and over 33 2.0% 86 3.9% Families 43 1.3% 170 3.7% Families with children under 18 years 28 0.9% 77 3.3% Source: ACS 2015