2018-06-26 Planning Comm Agenda Packet
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JUNE 26, 2018
7:00 PM - Mendota Heights City Hall
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Adopt Agenda
4. Approval of May 22, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
5. Public Hearings:
a. Case No. 2018-12: Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of an oversized
garage in the R-1 One Family Residential distrcit, located at 1133 Delaware Avenue
(Erick Schmidt – Applicant/Owner)
b. Case No. 2018-13: Zoning Code Amendment to allow “Dog-Training” or similar uses in
the I-Industrial Distrcit
(Kristin Elmquist – Applicant)
c. Case No. 2018-14: Lot Split/Lot Combination of properties located in the R-1A One
Family Res. district, located at 1673 Delaware Avenue
(Mike and Michelle Bader – Applicants/Owners)
d. Case No. 2018-15: Critical Area Permit to allow the construction of a new swimming
pool with patio/deck in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area and the R-1 One Family
Res. distrcit, located at 1680 Mayfield Heights Road
(Jackie & Mike Chase – Applicant/Owner)
e. Case No. 2018-16: Lot Line Adjustment w/ Variance – AND Lot Split/Lot
Combinations w/ Variance, for properties located at 754 and 760 Upper Colonial Drive
and part of city-owned lands in Wentworth Park
(Jason & Sarah Barrett and John & Deanne Bennett – Applicants/Owners)
6. Staff Announcements / Update on Developments
7. Adjourn
Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less
than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may
not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Hall at 651.452.1850 with requests.
May 22, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 1 of 5
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 22, 2018
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 22,
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, Michael Toth, and Brian Petschel.
Those absent: None
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of June 28, 2016 Minutes
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 24, 2018, AS PRESENTED.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE #2018-11
SHERBURNE-SLATER CONSTRUCTION ON BEHALF OF HUGH CULLEN, 1179 CENTRE
POINTE CIRCLE
WETLANDS PERMIT
Working from materials provided to the Commission prior to the meeting, Community
Development Director Tim Benetti explained this application was submitted by Sherburne-Slater
Construction on behalf of Hugh Cullen, who is the owner-developer of the property. They were
seeking a Wetlands Permit to construct a new 30,000 square foot office building at the property
located at 1179 Centre Pointe Circle.
Mr. Benetti shared an image of the subject property relative to its location within the city,
surrounding properties, and streets. The property is located directly south of City Hall, just off of
Lexington and Centre Point. The lot itself is just over 3.5 acres and is a pie shaped lot in that it
was platted with a 50-foot flag strip back in the early 2000’s. The 50-foot strip is actually a private
strip of ground with a roadway on it that is considered private; however, the city has been
maintaining it. This strip provides an access point for the back properties and for the future
development of this lot.
May 22, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 2 of 5
There are approximately 30 parking spots on the south side of the subject parcel. These spots are
not used very much; however, they are used for overflow parking. The site itself is pretty vacant
and overgrown with natural vegetation, but nothing specific or significant.
The project involves a new 30,000 square foot building proposed by Mr. Cullen. Staff currently
does not have any new elevation or architectural plans but assumes that they would be consistent
with what is being built out there, consistent with the Centre Pointe Development Office project.
The site is currently planned out for 120 parking spaces; the current code requires one space for
every 200 square feet of useable net office space; which when taking into consideration the 30,000
square feet would equate to 150 parking spaces. Staff believes that when it nets out – when the
final detailed floor plans are available – that the 120 plan parking spaces would be more than
enough. Mr. Cullen also plans to have all of the office uses he currently owns or maintains to
provide for some shared parking or joint parking facilities between each other.
Chair Field asked for confirmation that the subject of the hearing this evening was not concerned
with the number of parking spaces, but only with the Wetlands Permit application. Mr. Benetti
confirmed; however, he noted that it is all tied into the site plan or building plan so staff wanted to
point out anything that might cause the Commission or staff any concerns.
A detailed drainage and stormwater management plan were provided to the Commissioners in their
information packet. The requirements are that this property has to retain its own stormwater
retention before it dumps anything into the pond on the backside of the property.
Mr. Benetti reviewed the analysis of the Wetlands Permit indicating that the proposed work or
construction of the new office building is slightly within the 100-foot setback area from the
established pond edge. However, for the most part, all major elements to construct this new
building will have little, if any, direct effect upon the pond (wetland) area or its buffers – no new
piping or anything of the sort. Very minimal grading work is planned for the back side of the
building and they are leaving enough space that staff is very satisfied with the buffer area.
Commissioner Toth asked where the drain system – the water filtration system – drain towards.
Mr. Benetti replied that eventually it does tie into existing pipes so there would be no disruption
to the wetland area for the installation of the water filtration system.
Commissioner Toth asked if the water flowage from the other parking lots or buildings would be
flowing past this new retention system and continuing to the wetland. Mr. Benetti replied that the
previous water flowage would be picked up by this new retention system first, gets pre-treated,
and then flows into the pond.
Commissioner Noonan, referring to the conditions, noted that numbers 1-5 were conditions
relating to the wetland; however, he was unsure why numbers 6, 7, and 8 were there given the fact
that they are moot – more than anything else. They have to comply with these conditions
regardless. Mr. Benetti agreed that they are moot but he wanted to make sure they were reinforced
upon the approvals. Commissioner Noonan understood, but the Commission is introducing
conditions that have nothing to do with the application and only confuses the situation. He believed
it to be bad practice to introduce conditions that have nothing to do with the application before the
May 22, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 3 of 5
Commission. These conditions are normal and customary building permit conditions and have
nothing to do with the wetland. Mr. Benetti replied that he would defer to the Commission’s
wishes.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if the Commission would see this application again or if this was
the only time they would see the proposal. Mr. Benetti replied that this would be the only time
they would see this. The Planning Commission does not do official site plan reviews; unless the
applicant asks for a variance in the future.
Mr. Nate Sherburne with Sherburne-Slater Construction had nothing to add to the staff report and
thought it to be very thorough. He also indicated that this building would match the other seven
buildings in the development to wrap up the business park.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Mr. Dave Kemp, 2105 Lexington Avenue South, is the Strategic Planning and Project Manager
for the Catholic Cemeteries – of which Resurrection is a part of. They expressed their desire to
have a couple of issues address:
• In the past there has been a lot of wash coming down across their sections, depositing dirt
and sediment on markers (this went back to when it was farming land). He spoke to Mr.
Sherburne and believes most of these issues have been addressed. He just wanted this noted
for the record.
• Also, they have a catch basin on the edge of their property and this subject property and
their storm sewer runs under their property to the lake. They wanted to ensure that they do
not have a lot of things or if it could handle that type of flow – especially with as much
impervious surface as they are now creating with the building and the parking lot. He did
not know about the holding tank and believes it to be a good step forward to preventing
other things going in.
Commissioner Toth noted on the subject property they are going to install a retention system to
collect the surface water within this new project. He assumed that it had been engineered for an
average rainfall. He asked what would happen if a 4-5 inch per hour rainfall occurred and the
retention system filled up with water to its fullest point and then exited towards the pond; would
it have an impact on the information just provided by Mr. Kemp – or is the retention system built
to handle a large amount of water. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the system was
designed for a 100-year storm event using the Atlas 14 Rainfall Intensities. That does equate to an
approximate 7.4 inch rainstorm over a 24-hour period. The system is also designed to have an
emergency overflow.
Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT,
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
May 22, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 4 of 5
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO,
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-11, WETLANDS PERMIT
APPLICATION FOR 1179 CENTRE POINTE CIRCLE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. No part of the new building and parking lot areas will physically or negatively affect the
adjacent pond (wetland) feature as proposed under this new office development project.
2. The proposed project is compliant with the standards for granting a 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.
3. 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.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The Developer/Owner shall begin the work authorized by the permit within ninety (90)
days from the date of issuance of the permit. The work authorized by the permit shall be
completed within twelve (12) months from the date of issuance. Extension(s) will be made
according to Section 12-2-8.B of Zoning Code.
2. A building permit must be approved prior to the commencement of any construction work;
and full erosion/sedimentation measures shall be installed prior to commencement of work
and maintained throughout the duration of the construction project.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established,
protected and permanent ground cover immediately after the project is completed. Any
new trees and restored buffer areas shall be planted with approved native trees and
pollinator friendly and wetland suitable plantings, as per the city’s Native Plant List.
6. The new building shall be subject to all of those standards noted under Section 12-1D-13-
2 Additional Requirements for all B [Business] and I [Industrial] Districts of the Zoning
Code.
7. All new building or property signage shall be subject to standards found under Section 12-
1D-15 of the Zoning Code.
8. All new Lighting shall be subject to the standards found under City Code Section 12-1I-15
of the Zoning Ordinance.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 5, 2018 meeting.
May 22, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 5 of 5
Staff Announcements / Update on Developments
Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review:
• A joint Parks & Recreation Commission and City Council meeting where good discussion
occurred regarding natural resources as part of the plan. Although the Metropolitan Council
(Met Council) does not require a natural resources plan, a small element was in the last
plan. There is a high desire by some residents to incorporate a natural resources chapter or
plan. Staff has been directed to provide for a separate element or chapter, which Mr. Benetti
is currently crafting. He will also be providing a Critical Area Plan as part of the Mississippi
River Corridor Critical Area updates which, as part of the State Law that was recently
updated, the city has to implement a plan into the Comprehensive Plan and then afterwards
implement a brand new ordinance to be part of the Critical Area Permit processing. This
will all come much later; however, he hopes to have more information at the June Planning
Commission meeting.
• Staff also has an extension granted tentatively by the City Council; therefore, instead of
having the Comprehensive Plan completed by June 30, 2018 for the six month review to
the adjacent jurisdictions. Additional information on that to come later, along with some
new updates.
• The follow-up hearing regarding the Michael Development apartment project on the
Mendota Motel-Larson Garden site is scheduled for June 1, 2018. This will be a re-
arguments of the case affecting the rezoning decision on the project. A preliminary finding
has been received from Dakota County district courts. The parties need to go back before
the judge and re-argue or hear new arguments based upon the actions that were done by
the Planning Commission and City Council in March 2018.
• Another workshop meeting may need to occur in June 2018 focusing on the information in
the Comprehensive Plan. Dates and times will be polled in the near future.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
MAGNUSON, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:26 P.M.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Planning Report
MEETING DATE: June 26, 2018
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-12
Conditional Use Permit (Larger Garage in the R-1 Zone)
APPLICANT: Erick Schmidt
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1133 Delaware Avenue
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One-Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: July 27, 2018
INTRODUCTION
The applicants are seeking a conditional use permit to allow the replacement of an older, smaller (560-sq.
ft.) detached garage with a new 26’ x 40’ (footprint) detached garage structure.
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; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-
feet of the subject property.
SITE DESCRIPTION AND PRESENT USE
The subject site is rectangular in shape; with frontage along Delaware at 100-ft. and lot depth of 150-ft. or
0.34 acres in area. This is an interior lot, and is bordered on the east by Delaware Avenue. The property
contains a single-wide entrance off Delaware, with a driveway leading to the garage in the rear yard. The
site contains two structures: a 1-1/4 story single-family dwelling with 1,922 sf. of finished floor area, and
an approx. 20-ft. wide x 20-ft. deep (400 sf.) two car detached garage, with a small 8’ x 18’ covered/storage
space on the back side (see image below).
PICTOMETRY IMAGE (LOOKING WEST FROM DELAWARE)
Planning Case 2018-12 (E. Schmidt) Page 2 of 5
LOOKING WEST – FROM DELAWARE AVE.
REAR SIDE OF GARAGE
The existing garage is setback almost 34-ft. from the south (side) lot line, and 24-ft. from the rear lot line.
The driveway also contains a turn-around or parking tab located along the south side of the driveway, which
is scheduled to remain in place as part of this project.
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.
There are a number of neighboring residences that have similar styled detached garages comparable with
the subject property; or some with smaller attached garages due to limited lot sizes in this area.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant proposes to remove the existing 28’ x 20’ detached garage, and reconstruct a larger, three-
car detached garage near the same location. The new garage will be 26-ft. deep by approx. 40-ft. in width,
but due to an off-set of the 3rd stall building line, the overall footprint area of the new garage will be set at
992-sq. ft.
As indicated earlier, the existing garage is set back 34-ft. from the south side lot line, and 24-ft. from the
rear yard line. The setbacks for the new garage will be set at 18’-2” from the south (side) line, and 30-ft.
from the west (rear) lot line.
The new garage will provide the homeowners a much larger structure to park and store their personal
vehicles and trailers. The garage will contain one, double-wide overhead doors, and a single-wide overhead
door for the third stall space.
Planning Case 2018-12 (E. Schmidt) Page 3 of 5
ANALYSIS
1) This new garage requires a conditional use permit to exceed the maximum allowed size of a detached
garage in the R-1 District.
• Pursuant to City Code Title 12-1D-3 Accessory Structures, Subpart C.2: “Single-family residential
parcels that do not have an attached garage may be allowed one detached garage up to seven
hundred fifty (750) square feet as a permitted structure, or up to one thousand (1,000) square feet
upon approval of a conditional use permit.”
This provision only comes into play when a single-family residential property does not contain an attached
garage structure. As indicated previously, the new garage under this consideration is 992 square feet, so
the conditional use permit application is required for this particular review.
Title 12-1L-6-E-1 of the City Code contains standards for reviewing a conditional use permit request,
with the following principles to be taken into consideration:
The effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants or surrounding
lands;
existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets; and
the effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan.
In addition, City Code provides the following standards which must be met:
The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the
community;
will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards;
will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and
the proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the
comprehensive plan.
City staff has personally inspected the existing garage, and agrees it is in rough shape and can be removed
and replaced with a new garage structure. The new garage proposed by the Applicants appears to be a nice
design, and should easily accommodate the needs of parking larger personal vehicles and storage desired
by the homeowners. All setbacks would be easily met under this plan; and no existing trees, screening or
major vegetation will be removed to accommodate this new structure.
City staff believes the new, larger garage will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of
the neighborhood or the community; or cause any serious traffic congestion, hazards; or seriously depreciate
surrounding property values. For all intents and purposes, this proposed garage use appears to be in
harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan; and the CUP
as presented herein is easily supported and can be approved.
REQUESTED ACTION
Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions:
1. Recommend approval of the conditional use permit based on the attached findings of fact; or
2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit, either whole or separately based on certain
findings of fact; or
3. Table the request, pending additional information from staff or others; and direct staff to extend the
application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99.
Planning Case 2018-12 (E. Schmidt) Page 4 of 5
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the conditional use permit to allow the new detached garage not to exceed 992 sq. ft. as
presented herein is acceptable, and may be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The proposed detached garage shall be constructed in compliance with all applicable City Code
standards noted in Section 12-1D-3 Accessory Structures.
2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to any demolition, excavation or construction of the
new garage addition.
3. 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.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location/Aerial site map
2. Survey/Site Plan
3. New Garage Elevation Plans
Planning Case 2018-12 (E. Schmidt) Page 5 of 5
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Conditional Use Permit for Larger Detached Garage
1133 Delaware Avenue
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request:
1. The existing use of the subject parcel as a single-family residential dwelling is consistent with the
City Code and Comprehensive Plan.
2. The planned development and use of the 992-sq. ft. detached garage is considered a reasonable
request, and is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan.
3. The proposed garage use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the
community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not seriously
depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in harmony with the general
purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan.
4. The proposed garage and structure will be compliant with the conditions included in the City Code
that allow it by conditional use permit.
5. The new garage represents reinvestment in a residential neighborhood that is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan’s goals for residential land uses.
666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666667
6
9
15
1170
11
13
1160
1134
10
1147
4
576
584
1111
568
1105
502
1112
521
571
1177
1119
560
1063
592
1057
506
1101
11161099
1117
1194
1070
1153
1119
1040
1056
1057
1100
548
1
1133
1051 1085
1076
1068
1091
1181
1062
1055
546
10641061
1116
1096
1130
1134
1197
547
1156
1150
543 539 535 525
1044
1103
1186
1140
1206
1143
1054
1178
1160
10801038
1144
1193
1085
1102
1149
1141
1050
1133
1203
1180
1171
1167
1163
1159
1155
1147
1106
1209
1119
1115
1125
1109
1101109510931089
1135
1155
1161
1167
11331131
1129
1176
1123
600
10521060
1060
1054 1041
1210
574
1035
1211
564
DODD RDDELAWARE AVEBEEBE AVE
ASHLEY LNCHIPPEWA AVEJOHN ST
EST
HER
L
NBUTLER AVE
NORMA LNSPRING STORME ST W
BUTLER AVE W'347'401.5'399.7'349.9'301.6'277.8'
271.3'261.9'247.5'242.5'235.7'155'301'
144'161.1'101'252.1'1
4
1.6'125.1'99.1'123.1'
119.6'111.9'261''Dakota County GIS
City ofMendotaHeights0200
SCALE IN FEETDate: 6/22/2018
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.
1133 Delaware Ave.(E. Schmidt)Planning Case No. 2018-12
ADJACENTRESIDENCEADJACENTGARAGEADJACENTGARAGE
DELAWARE AVENUE
10'-0"SETBACK 10'-0"SETBACK
30'-0"SETBACK30'-0"SETBACKEXISTING2-STORYHOMENEWDETACHEDGARAGEHOMEADDITIONADDEE30'-5"ALIGN WITH REAR OFEXISTING GARAGE18'-2"10'-0"FFFHGABCBC2'-0"
SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"SCALE: 1"=20'-0"SITE PLAN1AS1THE SCHMIDT RESIDENCE
1133 DELAWARE AVENUE
MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 ISSUED FOR CUP:05-30-20181.ALL SITE PLAN DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND CONTINGENT ON A SURVEY2.NEW CONSTRUCTION SHOWN IN DARKER LINES.3.ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE GRADED TO SLOPE AWAY FROM BUILDING. NEWGRADING TO TIE INTO EXISTING GRADES.4.ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE FINAL GRADED WITH 4" MIN. BLACK DIRT CONTAININGNO MORE THAN 35% SAND. SOD/SEED ALL DISTURBED AREAS.SITE PLAN GENERAL NOTESEXISTING DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN.REMOVE EXISTING DRIVEWAY AS REQ'D FOR NEW WORK.REINFORCED CONC. DRIVEWAY.APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINE.BUILDING SETBACKS.EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN.EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE TO BE REMOVED IN ITS ENTIRETY.EXISTING CONCRETE PAD TO REMAIN.ASITE KEYNOTESBCDEFGLOCATION MAPMUNICIPALITY:MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MNSITE ZONING:RESIDENTIAL (R-2)SETBACKS: BUILDING FRONT30'-0"SIDE10'-0"REAR30'-0"SITE AREA:14,925 SFHOUSE FOOTPRINT: 1,190 SFGARAGE FOOTPRINT: 992 SFFAR14.6%SITE INFORMATIONAS1.0SITE PLANA1.0FLOOR PLAN- BASEMENT/ FOUNDATIONA1.1ROOF PLANA2.0EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA2.1EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSSHEET INDEX10'20'040'H
OVEN40'-0"3'-0"23'-0"3'-0"16'-0"GIRDER
TRUSS(3)-2X6(2)-2X6 JACKS(2)-2X6 KINGS(
3
)
-
2
X
6
4
X
64X6 (3)-2X6 JACKS(
3
)
-
2
X
6
J
A
C
K
S
(3)-1 3 4 X 14 LVL
EXTEND TO CORNER
(2)-1 3 4 X 11 7 8 LVL
26'-0"24'-0"18'-0"3'-0"3'-0"10'-0"3'-0"GARAGESLAB ONGRADEEXISTING2-STORY HOMEWITH BASEMENT(3) 3256D
3'-2"22'-10"26'-0"
11'-6"11'-6"A1.0FLOOR PLANS - FIRST FLOOR
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"FIRST FLOOR PLAN1THE SCHMIDT RESIDENCE
1133 DELAWARE AVENUE
MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 ISSUED FOR CUP:05-30-2018FLOOR PLAN GEN. NOTES1.PROTECT ALL CONSTRUCTION THAT IS TO REMAIN DURINGCONSTRUCTION PROCESS.2.NEW CONSTRUCTION SHOWN IN DARKER LINES.3.ALL SELECTIONS FOR FIXTURES, HARDWARE, FINISHES,ETC. BY OWNER.4.GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE THE DEMOLITIONWORK WITH THE NEW WORK PROPOSED. VERIFY LOCATIONOF ALL NEW WALLS, OPENING, ETC. WITH PROPOSED PLAN.5.THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND ALL SUBTRADES ARERESPONSIBLE FOR A THROUGH ON SITE ANALYSIS OFEXIST. CONDITIONS TO ASCERTAIN THE FULL SCOPE OFTHE DEMO.6.ALL HEIGHTS ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFYAND MODIFY AS REQUIRED.7.ALL TEMPORARY SHORING DESIGN BY CONTRACTOR.8.EXTERIOR WOOD FRAMED WALLS TO BE 2x6 STUDCONSTRUCTION AT 16" O.C. WITH BATT INSULATION ANDHOUSE WRAP.9.INTERIOR WALLS TO BE 2x4 STUD CONSTRUCTION AT 16"O.C. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.4'8'016'WALL SHT'G.:12" PLYWOODCONNECT W/ 8d (0.131x2 12") COMMON NAILS.6" C/C AT PANEL EDGES (3" C/C AT MAIN GARAGE PORTAL),12"C/C IN FIELD.NOTES:ROOF TRUSS INFO., SEE SHEET A1.3SEE STRUCTURAL NOTES FOR BALANCE OF INFORMATION.
ROOFTRUSSESROOF
TRUSSES EXISTING ROOFSLOPE
8:12 +/-
SLOPE
8:12 +/-SLOPE8:12 +/-SLOPE8:12 +/-A1.1ROOF PLAN
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"ROOF PLAN11.ALL ROOF SLOPES APPROXIMATE ADDITION TO MATCH SLOPE OFEXISTING. GARAGE FINAL DESIGN BY TRUSS MANUFACTURER.2.ALL ROOFS TO GET PREFINISHED METAL GUTTERS TO MATCHEXISTING.3.ALL ROOF SOFFITS TO BE VENTED.4.CONTINUOUS RIDGE VENT TYP.THE SCHMIDT RESIDENCE
1133 DELAWARE AVENUE
MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 ISSUED FOR CUP:05-30-2018ROOF PLAN GEN. NOTES4'8'016'PREFABRICATED MTL. PLATEDWOOD ROOF TRUSSES AT 24" O/CDESIGN BY OTHERS FOR THE FOLLOWING SUPERIMPOSED LOADS:TOP CHORD:SNOW LOAD = 35 PSFDEAD LOAD = 13 PSFBOTT CHORD:DEAD LOAD= 7 PSFATTACH TO ALL BRG. POINTS WITH H2.5A TIES (AT SINGLE NAILERPLATES W/ H3) TWIST STRAP HTCS AT GIRDER TRUSSES.ROOF SHT'G.:58" PLYWOODCONNECT W/ 8d (0.131x2 12") COMMON NAILS.6" C/C AT PANEL EDGES, 12"C/C IN FIELD.WALL SHT'G.:12" PLYWOODCONNECT W/ 8d (0.131x2 12") COMMON NAILS.6" C/C AT PANEL EDGES, 12"C/C IN FIELD.NOTES:SEE STRUCTURAL NOTES FOR BALANCE OF INFORMATION.
T.O.SLAB98'-10" +/-1197775558T.O. ROOF118'-1 1/2"199528A2.0EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
SCALE: 1 8" = 1'-0"SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - FRONT1SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - LEFT2THE SCHMIDT RESIDENCE
1133 DELAWARE AVENUE
MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 ISSUED FOR CUP:05-30-20184'8'016'4'8'016'STUCCO FINISH TO MATCH EXISTING.18 X 30 DECORATIVE VENT.CONCRETE STOOPNOT USED.BRICK WATER TABLE, COLOR AND LAYOUT TO MATCHEXISTING.PROVIDE LEDGER FOR DECK.WALL SCONCE LIGHT.RAFTER RETURN DETAIL TO MATCH EXISTING DETAIL.ASPHALT SHINGLES WITH (2) LAYERS BUILDING PAPER. ICEAND WATER SHIELD AS REQUIRED.1.ALL SELECTIONS FOR FIXTURES, HARDWARE, FINISHES, ETC.BY OWNER.2.ALL TEMPORARY SHORING DESIGN BY CONTRACTOR.3.PREFINISHED METAL VENTED SOFFIT TO MATCH EXISTING4.WINDOW TRIM PROFILES TO MATCH EXISTINGEXT. ELEV. GEN. NOTES1EXT. ELEV. KEYNOTES23456789
1958195A2.1EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
SCALE: 1 8" = 1'-0"SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - REAR1SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - RIGHT2THE SCHMIDT RESIDENCE
1133 DELAWARE AVENUE
MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 ISSUED FOR CUP:05-30-20184'8'016'4'8'016'STUCCO FINISH TO MATCH EXISTING.18 X 30 DECORATIVE VENT.CONCRETE STOOPNOT USED.BRICK WATER TABLE, COLOR AND LAYOUT TO MATCHEXISTING.PROVIDE LEDGER FOR DECK.WALL SCONCE LIGHT.RAFTER RETURN DETAIL TO MATCH EXISTING DETAIL.ASPHALT SHINGLES WITH (2) LAYERS BUILDING PAPER. ICEAND WATER SHIELD AS REQUIRED.1.ALL SELECTIONS FOR FIXTURES, HARDWARE, FINISHES, ETC.BY OWNER.2.ALL TEMPORARY SHORING DESIGN BY CONTRACTOR.3.PREFINISHED METAL VENTED SOFFIT TO MATCH EXISTING4.WINDOW TRIM PROFILES TO MATCH EXISTINGEXT. ELEV. GEN. NOTES1EXT. ELEV. KEYNOTES23456789
Planning Report
MEETING DATE: June 26, 2018
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-13
Zoning Code Amendment – Dog Training in the I-Industrial Zone
APPLICANT: Kristin Elmquist (Owner - For the Love of Dogs)
PROPERTY ADDRESS: N/A
ZONING/GUIDED: N/A
ACTION DEADLINE: N/A
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The City of Mendota Heights is asked to consider an amendment to City Code Title 12-1G-1, which would
allow “dog training” or similar uses as either a permitted use or conditional use in the I-Industrial district.
The applicant is Ms. Kristin Elmquist, owner/operator of For the Love of Dogs, a dog training facility
currently located in Hudson, WI.
This item is being presented under a public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published
in the local Pioneer Press newspaper.
BACKGROUND
Ms. Elmquist originally approached city planning staff a number of months ago, seeking to provide dog
training services in the old Laser-Tech building, located at 2500 Lexington Avenue. Negotiations for that
site fell through, and they have tentatively secured a tenant-lease space for the property located at 1415
Mendota Heights Road.
Prior to (and after) Ms. Elmquist’s inquiries, staff received a number of similar requests or met with various
interested parties requesting to provide doggie-day-care or pet boarding uses within the city, particularly
within the industrial and commercial zoned areas of the city.
Ms. Elmquist is seeking the ability to provide personalized and professional on-site training for dogs only;
which will include manners, obedience, tracking and hunting training, along with canine massage therapy
services. The facility will also contain an indoor pool for dock-diving training and competition events. The
site Ms. Elmquist has chosen is located at 1415 Mendota Heights Road, which is a multi-tenant industrial
use building located within the Industrial zone district.
The Applicant provided a list of businesses and cities that allow or permit such uses similar to her own
request; and city staff found a list of other similar businesses in other cities as well (attached Exhibit –A).
Planning Case 2018-13 (Elmquist) Page 2 of 6
ANALYSIS
According to the American Pet Products Association (APPA), a National Pet Survey conducted from 2017-
2018 found that over 68% of U.S. households, or about 85 million families, own a pet. This is up from
56% of U.S. households in 1988, the first year the survey was conducted (source: Insurance Information
Institute). Of the approximate 145 million households that own pets (i.e. dogs, cats, fish, birds, horses and
reptiles), almost 61 million or 42% are dogs, followed by 47 million (or 32.5%) with cats. Another statistic
depicts that the number of dogs in the United States from 2000 to 2017 jumped from 68 million to almost
90 million in 2017, a 32% increase (source: Statista). The total pet industry expenditures has increased
from $41.2 billion in 2007 to almost $70 billion in 2017, nearly a 70% increase in 10 years.
As a testament to these increased numbers/percentages of pets or dog ownership statistics, city staff will
acknowledge and attest to the numerous calls or personal inquiries from residents, realtors, property
managers and business owners seeking to provide some form of animal use activity, such as doggie-day-
care, kennels, or in this case, a dog training use within the City of Mendota Heights.
City Code however, is somewhat silent on identifying or providing specific standards related to dog
[animal] training, boarding or similar activities. City Code Title 12-1B-2 [Definitions] provides the
following definitions related to animals:
KENNEL, ANIMAL: A place where three (3) or more of any single type of domestic animal, over four
(4) months of age, are owned, boarded, bred or offered for sale.
VETERINARY: Those uses concerned with the diagnosis, treatment, medical care of animals, as well as
storage and disposal of dead animals, including animal or pet hospitals.
The B-1 Limited Business District also provides the following as a conditional use:
CAT CLINIC:
1. As used hereunder, the term "cat clinic" shall be deemed to mean a facility for the diagnosis,
treatment and medical care of domestic cats only, in which all professional services are conducted
within an enclosed building and which includes the temporary boarding of such animals while they
are under treatment.
2. Any conditional use permit for a cat clinic shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. Noise: No noise from the operation of the facility shall be discernible beyond the boundaries
of the lot on which the use is conducted.
b. Odors: Odor control shall consist of a ventilation system designed so that no odors or
organisms will spread between wards or to the outside air. An air conditioning system may be
required, with windows double glazed with fixed sash.
c. Dead Animal Storage And Disposal: An approved system shall be provided for the storage and
disposal of dead animals in accordance with professional standards.
d. Screening And Landscaping: When abutting a residential district, an approved screening and
landscaping plan shall be filed and developed along the property boundary lines that abut the
R district.
e. Hours Of Operation: Hours during which the facility will be open to the public for the receiving
and pick up of animals shall be approved by the city council to ensure compatibility with
surrounding land uses.
f. Off Street Parking: Off street parking facilities shall be provided, of at least the ratio required
for professional offices under subsection 12-1D-16F of this chapter, entry reading: "Office
Planning Case 2018-13 (Elmquist) Page 3 of 6
building and professional office having 6,000 square feet or more...", of one space for each
two hundred (200) square feet of net usable floor area in the building.
The B-2 Neighborhood Business and B-3 General Business districts allow the following as conditional
use:
ANIMAL HOSPITAL (VETERINARY CLINIC).
1. A s used hereunder, the term "animal hospital or veterinary clinic" shall be deemed to mean a
facility for the diagnosis, treatment and medical care of small animals, in which all
professional services are conducted within an enclosed building and which includes the
kenneling of such animals.
2. Any conditional use permit for an animal hospital (veterinary clinic) shall be subject to the
following conditions:
a. Noise: No noise from the operation of the facility shall be discernible beyond the
boundaries of the lot on which the use is conducted. To achieve noise control, the facility
shall be of masonry construction with outside walls at least eight inches (8") thick, and
with a precast concrete roof.
b. Odors: Odor control shall consist of a ventilation system designed so that no odors or
organisms will spread between wards or to the outside air. An air conditioning system may
be required, with windows double glazed with fixed sash.
c. Dead Animal Storage And Disposal: An approved system shall be provided for the storage
and disposal of dead animals off the premises.
d. Large Dog Facilities: Large dog facilities for indoor exercise of such animals shall be
provided. No outside pens shall be permitted.
e. Screening And Landscaping: When abutting a residential district, an approved screening
and landscaping plan shall be filed and developed along the property boundary lines that
abut the R district.
f. Hours Of Operation: Hours during which the facility will be open to the public for the
receiving and pick up of animals shall be approved by the city council to ensure
compatibility with surrounding land uses.
g. Off Street Parking: Off street parking facilities shall be provided, of at least the ratio
required for professional offices under subsection 12-1D-16F of this chapter, entry reading
"Office building and professional office having 6,000 square feet or more...", of one space
for each two hundred (200) square feet of net usable floor area in the building.
h. Live In Facility: An animal hospital may include a live in facility to permit a staff member
to be on the premises twenty four (24) hours per day. Such facility shall be limited to six
hundred twenty (620) square feet of floor space and shall not be designed to serve as a
single-family residence as hereinbefore defined in this chapter.
At this time, there is only one animal [care] type use in the city, the Mendakota Animal Hospital located in
The Village at 1938 Dodd Road. There is also the Parkview Cat Clinic located at 837 Sibley Memorial
Hwy. (River Bluffs Center) in Lilydale (which we assume will be closing as part of the expected
redevelopment of this commercial site).
Interestingly, even though the city defines “Animal Kennels” under the Title 12 – Zoning, there are no
allowances or provisions for such use in any of the various zoning districts. In fact, going back to the 1991
Zoning Code and other updates since that time, the use was identified/defined as well, but not allowed or
provided for in any zoning distrcit. Staff was unable to find if “kennels” were ever allowed in certain
zoning districts; or when or why they were removed from Zoning Code.
Planning Case 2018-13 (Elmquist) Page 4 of 6
The term “kennel” does appear in a few places under Title 5 – Police Regulations, Ch. 3 Domestic Animals
section of City Code. However, most of these terms are related to impoundment of animals due to specific
instances or conditions.
In researching other metro community ordinances, there appears to be a number of cities that allow for
various animal use activities, such as kennels, vet clinics, pet care (boarding) centers, and some training
facilities. In some cases, cities that allow or permit “kennel” type uses also include the term “training” as
part of an allowed activity under such uses (refer to attached Exhibit – B)
The Applicant stated they are only interested in offering training services for dogs (with massage therapy),
and are not interested in providing boarding, grooming, vet clinic care or other services.
The City of West Saint Paul provides the most descriptive definition and standards for a “Dog Training
Facility”, along with a related “Pet Care Facility” for their community. The definition and standards are
noted below:
DOG TRAINING FACILITY. An indoor or outdoor facility utilized for the organized training of
domestic dogs.
Standards: Dog training facility, provided all of the following conditions are met.
(1) Any such facility shall be set back at least 500 feet from residentially zoned property, as
measured in a straight line from the nearest edge of the outdoor training area to the property
line of residentially zoned property.
(2) Outdoor training facilities shall include an enclosed building with restrooms.
(3) The outdoor area to be used for the dog training facility shall be completely enclosed with a
fence that is at least four feet in height.
(4) Adequate off-street parking shall be provided, as determined by the Zoning Administrator.
(5) Outdoor areas shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition at all times. Solid waste
material shall be removed at least daily and disposed of in a sanitary manner.
(6) Lighting shall not exceed zero foot-candles at the abutting property line.
(7) The facility shall not be operated between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
(8) No dogs shall remain unattended in outdoor areas.
(9) No permanent outdoor pens are allowed with the exception of a separate outdoor relief area.
(10) A maximum ratio of one person to four dogs is allowed in the outdoor areas at any given time.
If the city were to accept the Applicant’s request to provide only a new dog training use, then this definition
and standards of West St. Paul are clearly the ones to use or apply in this zoning code amendment case.
When cities view or consider any new use within the community (or zoning districts), there is nothing that
prohibits the allowance of other uses or activities as part of the overall review of a single-use. In this case,
the Planning Commission may wish to consider allowing “Animal Kennels” as either a permitted or
conditional use in the city; and consider “[dog] training” as an identified or allowable activity under the
general kennel use definition/description; or provide a new definition and allowance specifically for “Dog-
Training Facility” similar to West St. Paul’s ordinance.
In other words, since the City already has Animal Kennel defined under Sect. 12-1B-2, a suggestion would
be to simply modify this definition:
KENNEL, ANIMAL: A place where three (3) or more of any single type of domestic animal, over four
(4) months of age, are owned, boarded, bred, cared-for, trained or offered for sale.
Planning Case 2018-13 (Elmquist) Page 5 of 6
In this case, the amended (definition) use would provide or allow for training activities, but the city still
must decide or determine which zoning district(s) to place the “Animal Kennel” use; and whether or not
the use should be a permitted use or conditional use under said district. The commission should note that
by placing this stand-alone use inside a district, say the I-Industrial district, there would be no standards
affixed to said use, unless the commission recommended otherwise.
For example, the Animal Hospital (veterinary clinic) use as noted above are listed as a conditional use in
the B-2 Neighborhood Business and B-3 General Business district, with certain standards noted underneath
the use heading. If the city applied the same concept to Animal Kennel, or allowed Animal/Dog Training
Facilities, the amended text could be presented as follows:
12-1F-3: B-2 Neighborhood Business District
12-1F-4: B-3 General Business District
B. Conditional Uses: Within any B-2 neighborhood business district/ B-3 general business district, no
structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit:
Animal Kennel / Animal-Dog Training Facility.
1. Any conditional use permit for an animal kennel / animal training facility shall be subject to the
following conditions:
A. Screening and Landscaping: When abutting a residential district, an approved screening and
landscaping plan shall be filed and developed along the property boundary lines that abut the
R district.
B. Noise: No noise from the operation of the facility shall be discernible beyond the boundaries
of the lot on which the use is conducted. To achieve noise control, the facility shall be of
masonry construction with outside walls at least eight inches (8") thick, and with a precast
concrete roof.
C. Odors: Odor control shall consist of a ventilation system designed so that no odors or
organisms will spread between tenant spaces, wards or to the outside air. An air conditioning
or specialized ventilation system may be required.
D. Hours of Operation: Hours during which the facility will be open to the public for the receiving
and pick-up of animals shall be approved by the city council to ensure compatibility with
surrounding land uses.
E. Restrooms. Any such facility shall include an enclosed building with restrooms.
F. Outdoor areas. No permanent outdoor pens are allowed with the exception of a separate
outdoor relief area. Any outdoor areas to be used for the animal training facility, including
any relief areas, shall be completely enclosed with a fence that is at least four feet in height.
No animals shall remain unattended in outdoor areas.
G. Waste removal. Outdoor areas shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition at all
times. Solid waste material shall be removed daily and disposed of in dedicated waste
containers and in a sanitary manner.
H. Lighting. Any outdoor lighting shall not exceed zero foot-candles at the abutting property line.
I. Parking. Adequate off-street parking shall be provided, as determined by the Zoning
Administrator.
As the Commission can see, Staff slightly modified the West St. Paul standards, and incorporated some of
the same standards associated with Vet Clinics from our own Code. The Planning Commission should
Planning Case 2018-13 (Elmquist) Page 6 of 6
review, discuss and determine if these standards are appropriate, amendable and acceptable for this Zoning
Code Amendment request; determine the appropriate zoning district for such uses; and discern if the use
should be listed as a either a Permitted Use or Conditional Use.
Please note if the city wanted to make one or both of these activities a straight-on permitted use, there is
nothing that would prohibit the addition of standards below the use, similar to those noted above.
ALTERNATIVES
Following the public hearing and further discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following
actions:
1. Recommend approval of only amending “Animal Kennel” uses under City Code Section 12-1B-2
(Definitions) and allow such use as either a permitted use or conditional use in the one or more of
the commercial-business and/or industrial district(s); or
2. Recommend approval of only adding a new definition for “Animal Training Facility” with specific
standards, and allow such use as either a permitted use or conditional use in one or more of the
commercial-business and/or industrial district(s); or
3. Recommend approval of amending “Animal Kennel” uses under City Code Section 12-1B-2
(Definitions) and adding a new definition for “Animal Training Facility” with specific standards,
and allow such uses as either a permitted use or conditional use in the commercial-business and/or
industrial district(s); or
4. Recommend denial of the Applicant’s request to amend the City Zoning Code with “Dog Training”
or any similar/related uses, with certain findings; or
5. Table the request, and direct city staff to seek and provide additional information for further
consideration by the Planning Commission, and present such information at the next scheduled
Planning Commission meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff suggest the Commission discuss and determine if this type of use, either the “Animal Kennel” or
“Animal/Dog Training Facility” (or both) would fit better in the industrial, commercial or both zoning
districts.
In examining other communities, it appears the industrial zones are where kennels or dog training facilities
are primarily located. To be consistent with other metro cities ordinances, staff suggests the Planning
Commission consider allowing “Animal Kennel”- [amended] and/or “Animal Training Facility” - [new]
uses as either a permitted use or conditional use in the I-Industrial Zone only.
The Commission should also discuss on whether or not one or both of these uses should be allowed in the
commercial B-2 Neighborhood Business and/or B-3 General Business districts as well.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. Planning application, including supporting materials
2. Exhibit – A List of Animal Kennel/Animal Training Businesses throughout Metro Area
3. Exhibit – B List of Metro Cities Definitions/Standards/Allowed Zones related to Animal Uses
Company Overview: For the Love of Dogs is based out of Hudson, WI and is doing business as
an LLC, owned by Kristin Elmquist since 2005. Kristin has 32 years of dog training and showing
experience. She is a mentor trainer for the Animal Behavioral Collage, a Canine Sports Message
Therapist (CSMT), a Certified K9 Nose Work Instructor (CNWI) a Canine Good Citizen Evaluator
and a member of the Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT) and the International Association
of Animal Message & Bodywork (IAAMA). This company has a partnership with The Dog Tank,
LLC to provide dog dock diving in the Twin Cities area.
Target Market: Our core market is the family dog owner/ dog enthusiast looking for fun
activates to do with their dog in a positive training environment. Our programs specializes in
training for owners that are struggling with their dog training due to time constraints and other
outside commitments.
Services: For the Love of Dogs offers weekday and weekend classes in dog training and
weekend trials. At no time are dogs left at our facility. We do not provide boarding or day care
service.
Dog training discipline includes the following class roster.
• Manners class
• K9 Nose Work
• AKC Scent Work
• Agility
• AKC Tricks
• WAGS Dog Sports
• ABC Nose work games
• Rally Obedience
• Barn Hunt
• Tracking
• Dog Ball
• Dock Diving
Canine Sports massage is an ancillary offering, currently conducted at various locations in the
metro area. This service would be moved to the new location in Mendota Heights.
This location would allow us to host weekend trials that bring in competitors from around the
country. This in turn supports the other local business since they utilize gas stations, hotels and
restaurants.
We feel that a new building in Mendota Heights would give us a permanent access facility. This
location offers great access to the freeway and the twin cities airport and the industrial zoning
is perfect for a dog training business.
The Market: The ASPCA estimates that 48% of all households in the US have a dog and more
and more of these households treat their dogs like a family member. American pet spending
has continued to rise every single year since 1994 – even during the 2007-2009 recession –
reaching an estimated $69.36 billion in 2017.
Specifically, the pet services arena, dog training and pet care expenditures have been increasing
with double-digit year-over-year growth.
https://vimeo.com/orangetreeps/review/214716969/38f274fe6d
Competitive Advantages: There are several dog training schools in the Twin Cities Metro area,
with three competitive schools in the east metro offering some but not all of the same services.
Many of our instructors are certified in their area of specialty, which is not commonly found in
most dog training schools. We currently offer more, and different types, of K9 Nosework classes
than any other schools in the arena. For the Love of Dogs is the only school in the east and
south metro area to offer doggie boot camp, AKC tricks class, WAGS dog sports, Barn Hunt,
tracking, Dog ball and ABC Nose work games.
For the Love of Dogs has exclusive rights to hold NADD dock diving trials and K9 ABC games
within 100 miles’ radius.
Parking
Potty
Area Event &
Overflow
Parking
Over
flow
About our business
•Training classes
•18-20 1 hr classes per week, 6-10 students per class
•Types: AKC Scent Work, Barn Hunt, Dog Ball, K9 Nose Work, Manners, Rally Obedience, Tracking, Tricks
•Open ring time
•Pool
•2-3 1 hr classes per week, 4-6 students per class
•Open pool time
•No dogs left in building without owner present
•No dogs left over night
•No boarding or day care
•All classes held indoors
Events
•1-2 weekends per month for full day competitions and workshops
•Fri-Sun
•30-50 participants and volunteers
•75-80% live in MN but will drive 1+ hrs to attend
•20%-25% live out of state
•2-4 days per month for short events
•Weekdays/nights or weekends
•Typically 2-4 hours
•Example: Veterinarians from Mendakota Animal Hospital workshops, local breed club meetings and events,
special focused training events
•20-40 participants and volunteers
•80-85% live in metro area
•15-20% non-metro or out of state
•All attendees would make use of local business resources, including gas stations, lodging,
restaurants and shopping.
•For The Love of Dogs could use local catering for event hospitality
•Local media would be invited to high profile events
Site info
•15 parking spots out front can accommodate class parking
•Overflow parking to the north provide additional spaces on event
weekends.
•Dog relief/potty area on grass to the south of the building.
•Dogs will be required to be on leash at all times outside.
•We will supply a doggie poop station for owner pick up of poop.
•Grounds will be patrolled daily.
•Poop station will be emptied daily.
•Lime will be regularly spread to maintain good curb appeal.
EXHIBIT -A
LIST OF DOG/PET TRAINING or BOARDING BUSINESSES
LIST PROVIDED by APPLICANT LIST COMPILED by CITY STAFF
Think Pawsitive
2485 S Commerce Dr
New Berlin, WI 53151
SwimDog Wellness Center
5530 Neubert Rd
Appleton, Wisconsin 54913
The Paw
1741 Premier Dr
Mankato, MN 56001
Twin Cities Obedience Training Club
2101 Broadway St. NE
Minneapolis, MN 55413
St Paul Dog Training
219 13th Avenue South
South St. Paul, Minnesota, 55075
On The Run Dog Training
13835 Aberdeen St NE
Ham Lake, MN 55304
Fusion Pet Retreat
14901 Minnetonka Industrial Rd
Minnetonka, MN 55345
Animal Inn Training
8633 34th St N
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Canine Coach (multiple Locations)
6500 W Lake St
St Louis Park, MN 55426
and
1700 Marthaler Ln
West St Paul, MN 55118
Woof Dah! Inc.
12250 Portland Ave.
Burnsville, MN 55337
Tails Up Dog Training
680 Travelers Trail East
Burnsville, MN
American Boarding Kennels
1102 Highway 13 East
Burnsville, MN 55337
Four Paws Pet Resort
4020 Old Sibley Memorial Hwy.
Eagan, Dakota, Minnesota 55122
Wagging Tails Pet Resort
3275 Sun Drive
Eagan, MN 55121
Lucky Dog Pet Lodge
1067 American Boulevard East
Bloomington, MN 55420
Bloomington Obedience Training Club
8127 Pleasant Avenue South
Bloomington, Minnesota 55420
Crystal Clear Canine Training
209 N Main Street
River Falls WI 54022
A New Leash Dog Training Ctr.
7393 Bush Lake Rd,
Edina, MN 55439
EXHIBIT - B
The following includes a list of metro-wide community definitions related to various levels or types of
animal care uses; and identifies certain zoning districts that allow said uses (either as permitted or
conditional use), along with some specific standards associated with said uses:
MANKATO
Def. Kennel. An establishment licensed to operate a facility housing dogs, cats or other
household pets and where grooming, breeding, boarding, training, or selling of animals is
conducted as a business or commercial use.
• B-1 Community Business and B-2 General Business – (Permitted Use)
MINNEAPOLIS
Use: Animal Boarding and Vet Clinics
• All Commercial Districts and I-2 Medium Industrial District – (Permitted Use)
HAM LAKE
Def. Public Dog Kennels: A “public dog kennel” means a kennel where dogs owned by others are
boarded for a fee.
• CD-2 Commercial Development 2 District –(Permitted Use)
• R-A Residential-Agriculture - (CUP)
Standard of Operation
a. Health and Safety Standards All public dog kennels must conform to the statutes and regulations
of any State or County agency having jurisdiction over such matters as fire control, cleanliness,
temperature control, waste disposal, diet and animal treatment. Waste shall not be permitted
to accumulate so as to create any odor detectable by adjoining property owners.
b. Noise Control all public dog kennels shall be housed in masonry buildings, constructed in such a
manner that animal noise cannot be heard from adjoining properties.
c. Lot Size and Setback No public dog kennel shall be permitted on any lot containing less than 10
acres. All buildings and runways comprising the public dog kennel shall be constructed at a
distance of at least 300 feet from adjoining property owners’ dwellings or occupied business
structures.
d. Outside Runways Outside runways must be completely screened by an attractive solid fence at
least six feet in height. The kennel operator shall not permit noise to be emitted from outside
runways which can be heard by adjoining property owners.
EXHIBIT - B
WEST ST. PAUL
Def. PET CARE FACILITY. Any premises where four or more domestic animals over four months of age
are owned, boarded, bred or offered for sale.
• I-1 Light Industrial District – (CUP)
Def. DOG TRAINING FACILITY. An indoor or outdoor facility utilized for the organized training of
domestic dogs.
• I-1 Light Industrial & I-2 General Industrial – (CUP)
Standards: Dog training facility, provided all of the following conditions are met.
(1) Any such facility shall be set back at least 500 feet from residentially zoned property, as
measured in a straight line from the nearest edge of the outdoor training area to the property
line of residentially zoned property.
(2) Outdoor training facilities shall include an enclosed building with restrooms.
(3) The outdoor area to be used for the dog training facility shall be completely enclosed with a
fence that is at least four feet in height.
(4) Adequate off-street parking shall be provided, as determined by the Zoning Administrator.
(5) Outdoor areas shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition at all times. Solid waste
material shall be removed at least daily and disposed of in a sanitary manner.
(6) Lighting shall not exceed zero foot-candles at the abutting property line.
(7) The facility shall not be operated between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
(8) No dogs shall remain unattended in outdoor areas.
(9) No permanent outdoor pens are allowed with the exception of a separate outdoor relief area.
(10) A maximum ratio of one person to four dogs is allowed in the outdoor areas at any given time.
ST. LOUIS PARK
Def. Animal handling. The conditions are as follows:
a. No animals shall be kept outside the building, or be otherwise located, which cause
offensive odor discernible at the property line of the lot on which the activity is conducted.
b. Where animals are boarded, the facility shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any
parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied
institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and
community centers.
• C-2 General Commercial - (CUP)
• I-G General Industrial (Permitted with Conditions – Not CUP)
EXHIBIT - B
Def. Animal handling. The conditions are as follows:
a. Where animals are boarded, the facility shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any
parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an
occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions,
and community centers.
BURNSVILLE
Def. KENNEL, COMMERCIAL: Any place where six (6) or more dogs over four (4) months of age, or
more than ten (10) cats over four (4) months of age, or more than ten (10) ferrets over four (4) months of
age, or any combination thereof, not including offspring under seven (7) months of age, are commercially
kept, boarded, trained or offered for sale except when located in a pet shop or veterinary clinic/hospital.
A kennel may include secured outdoor runs and/or play areas.
Standards: Commercial kennels are subject to the following standards:
1. Related ancillary services including training, grooming and food and accessory sales
may be conducted or provided at the facility. When located in an industrial district,
these services are subject to section 10-23-2 of this code.
2. An enclosed exercise area shall be provided to accommodate the periodic exercising
of animals boarded at the facility. Any outdoor exercise area must be fenced to a
minimum height of four feet (4'), must have a three foot (3') vegetative buffer, must
be cleaned regularly, and animal waste shall not be allowed to enter a stormwater
pond or storm sewer.
3. In a multi-tenant building, the kennel facility must have a ventilation system that
prohibits the transmission of odors or organisms between tenant bays. The
ventilation system must be capable of completely exchanging internal air at a rate of
1.00 cfm/square foot of floor space per area dedicated for the keeping of animals
exclusive of offices pursuant to chapter 1346 of the Minnesota state building code,
as may be amended, these requirements can be met by the submission of an air
exchange analysis, acceptable to the city from a Minnesota licensed contractor or
engineer confirming compliance with said standards, otherwise, the facility
ventilation system must be completely separate and independent of other tenant
space within the building. Facility air temperature must be maintained between
sixty degrees (60°) and eighty degrees Fahrenheit (80°F).
4. A sufficiently sized room/cage separate from the facility areas shall be provided to
adequately separate sick or injured animals from healthy animals.
5. Wall finish materials below forty eight inches (48") in height shall be impervious,
washable materials such as sealed masonry, ceramic tile, glass board, or marlite.
Floor finish shall be sealed concrete or other approved impervious surface. Liquid
tight curbing, at least six inches (6") high, shall be installed along shared walls for
sanitary confinement and water wash down cleaning.
6. Animal wastes shall be immediately cleaned up with solid wastes being enclosed in
a container of sufficient construction to eliminate odors and organisms.
• B-3 General Business District - CUP
• B-4 Highway Commercial Dist. - (Permitted Use)
• I-1 Industrial Park District - CUP
EXHIBIT - B
EAGAN
Def. Kennel: means any place, building, tract of land, abode or vehicle, wherein or whereon a total
of four or more dogs or cats or combination, over six months of age, are kept, kept for sale, or
boarded.
Standards: Kennel premises and facilities. All licensed kennels must meet the following
requirements:
A. All animal housing facilities must be structurally sound and maintained in good repair.
B. All animals must be housed in an indoor facility maintained at a temperature of not less than
50 degrees Fahrenheit. Animals may be provided temporary access to outdoor runs and
exercise areas when appropriate for the species, breed, and weather conditions.
C. All housing facilities must have at least eight hours of illumination, either natural or artificial,
sufficient to permit routine inspection and cleaning.
D. All housing facilities must be adequately ventilated. Drafts, odors, and moisture
condensation must be minimized. Auxiliary ventilation, such as exhaust fans, vents, and air
conditioning, must be used when the ambient temperature exceeds 85 degrees Fahrenheit
at the floor level.
E. Carcass and garbage disposal facilities must be provided and managed to minimize vermin
infestation, odors, and disease hazards.
F. Adequate storage and refrigeration must be provided and managed to protect food supplies
against contamination and deterioration. Open bags of food must be stored in vermin-proof
containers.
G. The premises, housing facilities, exercise areas, and confinement areas must be cleaned and
disinfected as often as necessary to maintain a clean and sanitary condition. Animal
confinement areas must be cleaned at least once daily. Measures must be taken to protect
animals from being splattered with water or feces and from exposure to harmful chemicals
during cleaning. Bedding, if used, must be kept clean and dry. Outdoor runs and exercise
areas must be kept clean and soiled base material must be replaced as necessary.
H. Confinement areas must be of sufficient size to allow each dog or cat to turn about fully and to
stand, sit, and lie in a comfortable, normal position. The confinement area must be
constructed so as to prevent injury to the dog or cat. Interior surfaces of indoor confinement
areas must be constructed and maintained so that they are substantially impervious to
moisture, provide for rapid drainage, and may be readily cleaned.
• GB-General Business District – (CUP for Kennels)
• I-1 Limited Industrial Dist. – (CUP – Kennels with outside runs and subject to regulations
in chapter 6.
EXHIBIT - B
BLOOMINGTON
PET SERVICES FACILITY. A business establishment that provides any of the following services or retail
activity either individually or in combination, for pets and domestic animals as defined in § 12.91: sales,
animal sales, veterinary care, animal hospital, short-term daily care, training classes, boarding and
grooming.
• B-2 Gen Business, B-4 Neighborhood Commercial; C-2 Freeway Comm; and C-3 Freeway Comm
Center; I-3 General Industry CUP in the
HUDSON, WI
Animals, Commercial Training
Kennels, Commercial
• AR Ag-Residential Zone –(CUP)
• B-4 Central Business Zone – (CUP)
• PS Plan Study Zone – (CUP)
Planning Report
DATE: June 26, 2018
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-14
Lot Split Subdivision (Lot Combination)
APPLICANT: Mike and Michelle Bader
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1673 Delaware Avenue
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1A One Family Residential/RR Rural Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: October 5, 2018 (120-days per MN State Statute § 462.358)
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Mike & Michelle Bader are requesting approval to subdivide their homestead parcel located at 1673
Delaware Avenue into two (2) separate parcels; one of which contains the existing residential dwelling will
be sold-off to a third party; while the remaining parcel will be retained by the Baders. This type of request
requires City Council approval before any plat or survey can be accepted and recorded by Dakota County.
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 parcels.
BACKGROUND
Mike & Michelle Bader own approximately 10.05 acres of land on the east edge of Mendota Heights off
Delaware Avenue, just south of Wentworth Avenue. The property measures approx. 330-ft. in width and
707-ft. in depth. The property contains a 3,265 sq. ft. two story house fronting on Delaware Avenue. The
Bader’s also own the adjacent 2.5-acre lot (Lot 3, Block 1, Foxwood) located at the end of Foxwood Lane.
This lot abuts the back one-half of the subject property. Foxwood plat was approved in 1993.
The property is situated in the R-1A One Family Residential and guided RR-Rural Residential. Single
family homes are permitted on lots with a minimum width of 125-ft. and a minimum lot size of 30,000 sq.
ft. in area. The subject property easily meets these two lot standards.
The property is located inside the geographical area of the city referred to as the “Super-Block” or large lot
neighborhood, an area generally bounded by Delaware Avenue to the east, Wentworth Avenue to the north,
Dodd Road to the west and Marie Avenue to the south (see image below- following page). The property is
bordered to the north, south and west by similar large, single-family acreage style properties, and on the
east (across Delaware Ave.) by Dodge Foundation/Dodge Nature properties in West St. Paul.
Planning Report: Case #2018-14 (Bader) Page 2
ANALYSIS
Lot Split
The Applicants propose to split the existing 10.05 acre property into two separate legal parcels; an east and
a west parcel. The “East Parcel” measures out to 4.23 [gross] total acres, with 0.23 acres assigned to the
segment of Delaware Avenue (Dakota County) right-of-way, resulting in a new net parcel of 4.00 acres.
This east parcel will retain the existing single-family dwelling, which will be sold-off by the Bader’s.
The “West Parcel” will be separated and consists of 5.82 net acres after the split. When reviewing the
survey illustrations and descriptions, the Commission will note the west parcel does not or will not have
any direct access on to Delaware Avenue or any other nearby public road system. Normally, a lot split of
this type (and on its own) would not be allowed, as City Code Sect. 11-3-2.D requires all lots to have a
minimum frontage as required by the underlying zoning district standards. In this case, the west parcel
would need to provide a minimum 125-feet of street frontage along Delaware Avenue or an abutting
roadway (if one existed).
Planning Report: Case #2018-14 (Bader) Page 3
By approving this lot split, the new parcel would technically be considered a non-conforming parcel, due
to its lack of frontage on any public street. A lot split/subdivision of this nature would normally not be
allowed or supported; however, the division of such parcels raises only the concern that property owners
understand that no new building rights are granted as a result of the subdivision, unless the parcel has some
form of legal street frontage for access. To help ensure that this is made clear, it will be a requirement and
condition of approval that the new parcel created by this subdivision action is immediately combined with
other adjoining property.
In this particular case, the Applicants intend to attach or combine this 5.82 acre parcel with the platted lot
to the north (Lot 3, Foxwood), which they currently own and control. As Lot 3 does have legal road frontage
off Foxwood Lane, by combing this unplatted west parcel with platted Lot 3, it will provide the roadway
frontage the parcel requires by City Code and eliminates the non-conforming status of this parcel. The
combined areas of Lot 3 with the west parcel (also identified as the “South Parcel”) will result in an 8.32
acre parcel.
Combination Process
The Subdivision Ordinance permits the approval of such subdivisions by metes and bounds descriptions as
proposed, rather than full plat. Where no new building site is being specifically created, the minor
subdivision can be considered provided it is consistent with the requirements of the City’s subdivision and
development regulations.
Appended to this report are two documents provided by Dakota County Recorder’s office, indicating the
process of when or how a combination of tax parcels is allowed by the county; along with a “Request to
Combine” form. Dakota County has indicated to city staff that they would accept the combination of
unplatted land (“West Parcel”) with the platted Lot 3 of Foxwood Addition, subject to any approval granted
by the city.
Wetlands & Easements
As noted on the Wetlands Map of this area, a section of the back portion of this unplatted West Parcel is
shown with established wetland feature. As part of the city’s preliminary review with the Applicant, staff
requested the owner provide a new drainage and utility easement over the back 1/3 of the West Parcel,
which is illustrated and described on the attached survey and descriptions.
The owners have also agreed to provide drainage and utility easements along the outer perimeter of the
both the East and West parcels, as per city code standards. New drainage and utility easements will be
Planning Report: Case #2018-14 (Bader) Page 4
granted to the public over the north 5.00 feet, the south 5.00 feet, the east 40.00 feet (including 30 feet of
Delaware Avenue) and the westerly 10.00 feet of the East Parcel.
Additional Background & Future Development Opportunities
As some commissioners are aware, and new commissioners should be made aware of, Mr. Bader has sought
to develop or made previous applications for new residential development plans on all or parts of his lands
behind 1673 Delaware Avenue property, including the Lot 3 – Foxwood lot.
When Foxwood was approved in 1993, the city approved a reduced right-of-way width for Foxwood Lane
from a 60-ft. standard down to 50-feet. In 2012, Mr. Bader requested a variance to allow Foxwood Lane
to be upgraded (assuming with new utilities) within the existing 50-foot wide ROW. This variance would
set the stage for Mr. Bader to submit a future subdivision of his unplatted lands and allow the continuation
of a reduced 50-foot wide ROW standard as well into the “planned” subdivision. The variance was denied
due to Mr. Bader did not present or offer a new subdivision at that time.
In 2014, Mr. Bader presented an application for PUD Concept Review, whereby two concepts were
submitted to the city for review, with one design calling for a through-street connection/extension from
Foxwood Lane southward, running east and connecting over to Delaware Avenue; while another concept
illustrated an extended cul-de-sac from Foxwood Lane (approx. 800-feet in total length). The
recommendation at that time was the through-street design, with no support or recommendation for the
longer cul-de-sac extension of Foxwood Lane. No follow-up plan or plat was submitted by Mr. Bader.
Under this lot split proposal, Mr. Bader has not provided to the city any new concept plan or indicated his
intentions or future plans at this time for this newly created 8.32 acre (combined) parcel. As a result of this
split, it is highly unlikely that any new future roadway connection from or to Delaware Avenue would be
allowed through the “East Parcel”, since he is forfeiting this right once he sells off the east parcel. In all
likelihood, access would need to come from Foxwood Lane, with future utilities extended from Wentworth
Avenue to the north and down through Foxwood Lane; or extended from Ridgewood Drive to the south
(approx. 1,100-1,200 feet).
Nevertheless, due to the unusual nature of this lot split, the City of Mendota Heights would like to express
that since this application is entirely initiated by the Applicant and due to his own action and preference,
that any approval of this lot split (and lot combination) does not in any way provide a future hardship or
automatic allowance to the Applicant, or any future owners of the 8.32 acre parcel (or any other adjacent
lands), to have this area subdivided in the future with a reduced roadway design equal to the existing
Foxwood Lane right-of-way. By combing these properties, the Applicants will be restricted from
subdividing the combined properties in the future without full consideration and approval by City of
Mendota Heights.
Furthermore, in conjunction with City Code Section 12-1D-12, Sanitary Sewer and Water Systems, it is the
general policy of the city that there be no future development in the city that is not served by the municipal
sanitary sewer and water distribution systems. In this case, any future development of this area would
requires utilities be extended or served from Wentworth Avenue to the north; Ridgewood Drive to the south,
or possibly Delaware Avenue to the east.
REQUESTED ACTION
Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions:
1. Recommend approval of the lot split (and lot combination) based on the attached findings of fact
and conditions of approval as noted herein; or
2. Recommend denial of the lot split based on revised or determined findings of fact; or
3. Table the request, pending additional information from staff or the Applicant.
Planning Report: Case #2018-14 (Bader) Page 5
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the lot split as submitted by Mike & Michelle Bader of 1673 Delaware Avenue,
with the following conditions:
1. The newly created parcel, identified and described as the “West Parcel” on the attached survey
drawings (prepared by Loucks - dated 05/24/2018) shall be combined with the existing Lot 3, Block
1, Foxwood.
2. The applicant shall dedicate a new 300-ft. wide (approximate) drainage and utility easement over
the westerly part of the “West Parcel”; and dedicate drainage and utility easements over the north
5.00 feet, the south 5.00 feet, the east 40.00 feet (including 30-feet of Delaware Avenue) and the
westerly 10.00 feet of the “East Parcel”, and all must be denoted on the certificate of survey or
recordable document approved by the city and filed with Dakota County.
3. The new 8.32 acre parcel to be created after the combination process can only be used for one (1)
single-family residential dwelling development; unless the Owner receives full consideration and
approval by the city of a new subdivision under separate application(s), per City Code Title 11 –
Subdivision Regulations.
4. Since this application is entirely initiated by the Applicant and due to their own action and
preference, any approval of this lot split and lot combination does not in any way provide a future
hardship or automatic allowance to the Applicant or any future owners of the 8.32 acre parcel (or
adjacent lands), to have this area subdivided in the future with a reduced roadway design equal to
the existing Foxwood Lane right-of-way.
Planning Report: Case #2018-14 (Bader) Page 6
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Lot Split (Subdivision) and Lot Combination Request
for
1673 Delaware Avenue
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1. The proposed lot split and combination meet the purpose and intent of the City Code under Title
11 - Subdivision Regulations and can be considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed lot split and lot combination will not create any negative impacts to the surrounding
uses or neighborhood.
3. The requirement to have the Applicant legally combine the two parcels, identified herein as Lot 3,
Block 1, Foxwood and the West/South Parcel, will eliminate any nonconforming issue or status of
the newly created parcel.
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(((((((((((?
?
?
???
?
?
???
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.
G!.
G!.6666666666666666""*
"
*
*
**
**
*
*
*³
!
³
³*66666666666666!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2!!2
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
1416
1707
1695
1673
610 600
614
1668
548
554
679
540 1625
1771
1737
620
1611
1769
1651
524
1770
1720
1775
1759 1760
1770
1588
1708
1750
1570
1767 1794
1668
1611
625
1588610
1707
1695
1673
1770
1720
600
1708
1750
1570
1737
1771
630 179417751778DELAWARE AVEWENTWORTH AVE W
FOXWOOD LN300 '375.7'179.7'190'2
5
9'16''30''8''6''''
6''6''6''6''6''8''16''6''6''16''6''6''Dakota County GIS
1673 DELAWARE AVENUE(Michael & Michelle Bader res.)City ofMendotaHeights0200
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.
6/11/2018
Michael and Michelle Bader
Minor Subdivision Request
May 29, 2018
Project Narrative
MIchael and Michelle Bader live at 1673 Delaware Avenue in Mendota Heights. Their home
sits on a 10.05 acre parcel with 329 feet of frontage on Delaware Avenue. That parcel is
PID No. 27-02400-76-010.
The Baders are requesting a Minor Subdivision approval to split their 10 acre parcel into an
East Parcel and West Parcel.
The Baders have a buyer for their home a long with the east 4.23 acres of the site. This
includes Delaware Avenue which is a right-of -way over the east 30 feet of the site. The
net acreage i n the East Parcel, minus Delaware Avenue, is 4.00 acres.
The West Parcel, which is vacant, would be 5.82 acres.
The line splitting the 10 acres has been set at 107.0 feet from the house and 109.2 feet
from the deck. The required rea r yard setback, at one fifth of the average depth of the East
Parcel, is 107 feet.
As a condition of approval of this split, city staff has advised (and the Baders agree) that
the West Parcel resulting from the split would d need to be combined with Lot 3,
FOXWOOD, which the Baders also own, and which lies adjacent to and immediately north
of the proposed West Parcel. Lot 3 is PI D No. 27-27620-01-030. These two parcels
(proposed West Parcel and Lot 3) would d be combined as one tax parcel by the Dakota
County Auditor's office. By doing so the Baders would be restricted from subdividing that
combined property i n any way i n the future without approval of the City of Mendota Heights.
The West Parcel consists of 5.82 acres and Lot 3 consists of 2.50 acres therefore their
combined acreage would be 8.32 acres. Access to this combined parcel would be via
Foxwood Lane to the north.
That proposed Parcel Combination is also shown on the "Parcel Combination” sheet of the
plans provided with this application.
As advised by staff, city code requires that the Baders grant drainage and utility easements
to the public over the north 5.00 feet, the south 5.00 feet, the east 40.00 feet (including
30 feet of Delaware Avenue) and the westerly 10.00 feet of the East Parcel, to which they
agree. Staff has also requested that the Baders grant a north-south drainage and utility
easement over the West Parcel as shown on the Minor Subdivision map.
East Parcel
Gross: 184,113± SF or 4.23± Ac
ROW: 9,875± SF or 0.23± Ac
Net: 174,238± SF or 4.00± Ac
West Parcel
253,572± SF or 5.82± Ac
LOUCKS
W:\2008\08032A\CADD DATA\SURVEY\S08032A-MasterPlotted: 05 /30 / 2018 1:31 PM7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are
instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely
with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used
on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion
of this project by others without written approval by the
Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be
permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for
information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional
revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be
made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions
or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the
Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.
CADD QUALIFICATION
SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS
PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE
QUALITY CONTROL
Mendota Heights, MN
1673 Delaware Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651-287-2028
Michael &
Michelle Bader
Bader Property
Minor
Subdivision
1 of 2
SCALE IN FEET
0 100
N
5/24/18 DRAWING ISSUED
5/30/18 SETBACKS/EASEMENTS
Existing Parcel
The North Half of the South Half of the Northeast
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 24, T.28N.,
R.23 W., Dakota County, Minnesota.
Paul J. McGinley - PLS
License No.
Date
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of
the State of
VICINITY MAP
Field Crew
Project Lead
Drawn By
Checked By
Loucks Project No.
16099
Minnesota.
08-032A
PJM
SFM
PJM
N/A
05-24-18
REQUIRED SETBACKS (ZONE R1-A):
Front: 40 feet
Side: 15 feet or 1/2 height of structure
Rear: 30 feet or 1/5 of average lot
depth, whichever is greater
EAST PARCEL:
Average Lot Depth = 535 Ft.
(Excluding Street R.O.W.)
Required Rear Setback = 107 Ft.
Proposed West Parcel
(May 24, 2018)
That part of the North Half of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter of Section 24, T.28N., R.23 W., Dakota County, Minnesota lying
west of the following described line:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of said North Half; thence westerly, along
the north line of said North Half a distance of 530.00 feet, to the point of
beginning of the line to be described; thence southerly, at a right angle, a
distance of 120.00 feet; thence southwesterly, deflecting to the right 24 degrees
22 minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 229.66 feet, more or less, to the south line
of said North Half and there terminating.
Proposed East Parcel
(May 24, 2018)
That part of the North Half of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter of Section 24, T.28N., R.23 W., Dakota County, Minnesota lying
east of the following described line:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of said North Half; thence westerly, along
the north line of said North Half a distance of 530.00 feet, to the point of
beginning of the line to be described; thence southerly, at a right angle, a
distance of 120.00 feet; thence southwesterly, deflecting to the right 24 degrees
22 minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 229.66 feet, more or less, to the south line
of said North Half and there terminating.
Proposed Drainage and Utility Easement over West Parcel
(May 29, 2018)
A Drainage and Utility easement over that part of the North Half of the South Half of
the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 24, T.28N., R.23 W.,
Dakota County, Minnesota lying west of the following described line:
Commencing at the Northwest corner of said North Half; thence easterly, along
the north line of said North Half a distance of 300.00 feet, to the point of
beginning of the line to be described; thence southwesterly, deflecting to the
right, 97 degrees, 20 minutes, 00 seconds, a distance of 331.94 feet, more or
less, to the south line of said North Half and there terminating.
Proposed Drainage and Utility Easements over East Parcel
(May 29, 2018)
Drainage and Utility easements over the north 5.00 feet, the south 5.00 feet, the east
40 feet and the westerly 10.00 feet of the following described parcel:
That part of the North Half of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter of Section 24, T.28N., R.23 W., Dakota County, Minnesota
lying east of the following described line:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of said North Half; thence westerly, along
the north line of said North Half a distance of 530.00 feet, to the point of
beginning of the line to be described; thence southerly, at a right angle, a
distance of 120.00 feet; thence southwesterly, deflecting to the right 24 degrees
22 minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 229.66 feet, more or less, to the south line
of said North Half and there terminating.
LOUCKS
W:\2008\08032A\CADD DATA\SURVEY\S08032A-MasterPlotted: 05 /30 / 2018 1:31 PM7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are
instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely
with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used
on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion
of this project by others without written approval by the
Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be
permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for
information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional
revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be
made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions
or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the
Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.
CADD QUALIFICATION
SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS
PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE
QUALITY CONTROL
Mendota Heights, MN
1673 Delaware Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651-287-2028
Michael &
Michelle Bader
Bader Property
Minor
Subdivision
2 of 2SCALE IN FEET
0 100
N
5/24/18 DRAWING ISSUED
5/30/18 SETBACKS/EASEMENTS
REQUIRED SETBACKS (ZONE R1-A):
Front: 40 feet
Side: 15 feet or 1/2 height of structure
Rear: 30 feet or 1/5 of average lot depth, whichever is greater
EAST PARCEL:
Average Lot Depth = 535 Ft. (Excluding Street R.O.W.)
Required Rear Setback = 107 Ft.
Paul J. McGinley - PLS
License No.
Date
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of
the State of
VICINITY MAP
Field Crew
Project Lead
Drawn By
Checked By
Loucks Project No.
16099
Minnesota.
08-032A
PJM
SFM
PJM
N/A
05-24-18
EAST PARCEL
WEST PARCEL
LOT 3
South Parcel
253,572± SF or 5.82± Ac
Lot 3
108,897± SF or 2.50± Ac
LOUCKS
W:\2008\08032A\CADD DATA\SURVEY\S08032A-MasterPlotted: 05 /25 / 2018 9:25 AM7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are
instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely
with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used
on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion
of this project by others without written approval by the
Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be
permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for
information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional
revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be
made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions
or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the
Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.
CADD QUALIFICATION
SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS
PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE
QUALITY CONTROL
Mendota Heights, MN
1673 Delaware Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651-287-2028
Michael &
Michelle Bader
Bader Property
Parcel
Combination
1 of 1
SCALE IN FEET
0 100
N
5/24/18 DRAWING ISSUED
Existing North Parcel
Lot 3, Block 1, FOXWOOD, Dakota County, MN
Existing South Parcel
That part of the North Half of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of
Section 24, T.28N., R.23 W., Dakota County, Minnesota lying west of the following described line:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of said North Half; thence westerly, along the north line of
said North Half a distance of 530.00 feet, to the point of beginning of the line to be described;
thence southerly, at a right angle, a distance of 120.00 feet; thence southwesterly, deflecting to
the right 24 degrees 22 minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 229.66 feet, more or less, to the south
line of said North Half and there terminating.
Combined Legal Description
Lot 3, Block 1, FOXWOOD, Dakota County, MN
together with
That part of the North Half of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of
Section 24, T.28N., R.23 W., Dakota County, Minnesota lying west of the following described line:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of said North Half; thence westerly, along the north line of
said North Half a distance of 530.00 feet, to the point of beginning of the line to be described;
thence southerly, at a right angle, a distance of 120.00 feet; thence southwesterly, deflecting to
the right 24 degrees 22 minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 229.66 feet, more or less, to the south
line of said North Half and there terminating.
NOTE: Parenthetical bearings on Lot 3,
Block 1, FOXWOOD are per plat and
not same datum as West Parcel.
Paul J. McGinley - PLS
License No.
Date
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of
the State of
VICINITY MAP
Field Crew
Project Lead
Drawn By
Checked By
Loucks Project No.
16099
Minnesota.
08-032A
PJM
SFM
PJM
N/A
05-24-18
Dakota County – Combination of Tax Parcels by Simple Request to the Property
Records Office.
June 1, 2018
Per Kim Lemons 651-438-4381
Kimberly.Lemons@CO.DAKOTA.MN.US
Going forward Dakota County will approve the following tax parcel combinations:
1. A platted lot and a metes-and-bounds (M&B) parcel in the same section.
The new PID number will be the one that was on the platted lot.
2. Two M&B parcels in same section.
They will not allow the following:
1. Two lots in two different plats.
2. Parcels in different sections.
3. Parcels in different municipalities.
To do a combination you have to do:
1. Complete a Parcel Combination Form (from the county)
2. Pay the current-year taxes (full year) on both, or several parcels involved.
3. The Municipality does not have to approve the combination but they will
be sent a report explaining the combination and giving the city the new PID
number.
Dakota County Administration Center 1590 Hwy. 55, Hastings, MN 55033
651.438.4381 Fax 651.438.8176 www.dakotacounty.us
DAKOTA COUNTY PROPERTY TAXATION & RECORDS
TO PROPERTY DESCRIPTION DEPARTMENT:
DATE:______________________
Please combine the following tax parcels into one parcel for tax purposes: (List parcel ID’s below)
I understand that delinquent and current year taxes must be paid to combine.
Title to parcels to be combined must be the same; ex: same fee owners or contract purchasers shown on
all parcels. (Can not be fee owner on one parcel and contract purchaser on others.)
Signed:___________________________________(owner)
((((((((????
?
?
??
??
?
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.G!.G!.G!.G!.
G!.
G!.
""*
*
*
**
**6666666!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2!!2
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
(]
1707
1695
1673
600
1668
548
554
610
540
614
1625
679
1737
1720
1611
1651
524
1708
1750
1769 1770
1668
1707
1695
1673
1720
1708
1750
1611
1737
1770DELAWARE AVEFOXWOOD LN16''0''16''Dakota County GIS
WETLANDS MAP1673 Delaware Ave. (Bader)City ofMendotaHeights0240
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.
6/19/2018
Planning Report
MEETING DATE: June 26, 2018
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-15
Critical Area Permit for New Swimming Pool and Patio/Deck
APPLICANT: Jackie Chase
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1680 Mayfield Heights Road
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One-Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: July 24, 2018
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Jackie and Mike Chase, is seeking a critical area permit for construction of a new swimming pool and
patio/deck for her personal property, located at 1680 Mayfield Heights Road. The subject parcel is located
within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area; and subject to City Code Section 12-3-1, all new
construction or significant improvements require Planning Commission review and recommendation and
City Council approval prior to any issuance of a building permit.
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
The subject parcel is 1.42 acres (61,934 square feet), zoned R-1 One Family Residential, and guided for
low density residential development.
On March 3, 2015, as part of Planning Case No. 2015-01, the city council adopted Resolution No. 2015-
16, which approved a critical area permit, conditional use permit, wetlands permit, and variance requests in
order to demolish and old dwelling and construct a new single-family dwelling on the subject parcel. The
site now contains a 3,400 sq. ft. single family dwelling.
The Chase’s now wish to install a new 16’ x 38’ in-ground swimming pool, with a concrete patio/deck
around the perimeter of the pool. The pool is scheduled to have a new fence around the outer areas, as
required by City Code. The site plan also calls for some integrated boulder-type retaining walls along the
outer edges of the pool patio/deck. The survey appears to illustrates these walls ranging from 1-ft. in height
to one outer wall approximately 4-ft. in height.
Planning Case 2018-15 (J. Chase) Page 2 of 4
ANALYSIS
Critical Area Permit
The following standards and provisions are noted per Title 12-Zoning, Ch. 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.
There does not appear to be much grade change(s) necessary to install the new swimming pool and deck.
Most of the new elevations or grades from the pool area appear to be matching up or very close (slightly
higher) than the existing ground elevations, so the changes will be negligible or minimal.
Retaining walls in the Critical Area must be constructed of native stone or wood [12-3-9-A(2)(d)(2)]. Plans
call for new walls around the outer perimeter of the pool deck, primarily along the longer dimensions of
the pool; and a new wall sitting away from the outer edge of the pool to provide slope stabilization and
maintain positive drainage in this rear yard area.
The site currently contains existing boulder style walls that were installed under the new home permit in
2015. Although the new site plan does not provide specific details, it appears the new walls are “boulder
shaped” in design, and the city assumes the contractor will be installing a native looking stone wall similar
to the existing walls. The proposed boulder wall is compliant with this standard and no additional
vegetation will be removed as part of the proposed project.
Engineering staff has reviewed the proposed retaining wall and found the proposal to be reasonable given
the constraints of the site. As part of the building permit application, the Applicant/contractor will provide
design drawings of any retaining wall that require design and signature of a registered Professional Engineer
(PE) in the State of Minnesota.
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 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for review
and comment. Ms. Jennie Skancke, Area Hydrologist with MN-DNR replied they have no comments or
issues with this application or proposed improvements.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the critical area permit to construct the new pool and patio/deck and other
related improvements, based on the attached findings of fact, with certain conditions; or
2. Recommend denial of the critical area permit, based on certain (amended) findings of fact that the
application does not meet certain policies and standards of the Critical Area Overlay District; or
3. Table the request, pending additional information from staff or others; and direct staff to extend the
application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99.
Planning Case 2018-15 (J. Chase) Page 3 of 4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the critical area permit and variance requests for the proposed retaining wall
structure, based on the attached findings of fact, with the following general conditions: (Alternative #1).
1. The Owners/Applicant must obtain an approved building permit prior to any work commencing on
the swimming poosl or wall structures.
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.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. Location/Aerial Site Map
2. Site Plan/Site Survey
3. Pool Plan Layout
4. Site Photos
Planning Case 2018-15 (J. Chase) Page 4 of 4
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Critical Area Permit Application
1680 Mayfield Heights Road
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1. The proposed new swimming pool, patio/deck and retaining wall structures are reasonable and
generally acceptable accessory uses of the subject property; and meets the general purpose and
intent of the Code, including the location (setbacks) of the pool and retaining wall materials, and is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed construction activities will not remove any additional vegetation and the proposed
design will not damage or cause any negative or long-term negative effects upon the critical area;
nor will the character of the neighborhood be affected or altered.
!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!((((((??
?
?
?
?
?
?
??
?
?
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
G!.
*6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 66
66666666 66 6 6
66
66
66
66
66666666666666666666666666
6 6
6666
"
"
*
!!
!
!
*
"
"
*
!
!
!
""
!
³
"
"
"
!!
*
!
!!
*
"
"
"
³
³
"
""
³
""
"
!"
"
!
³
!
"
"
*
*³
³
³
³*
"
*
!
³³³"
*
*
*
*
6
6
6
6
6 666666666 6
6666666 6
6 6
666666666666666666
6
6
6
6
6
666666!!2!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!.
!.
!.92290 95261255260270413333
118 211221
2
1
9
216
210
105208206 203200100198187179175169161
160159152
15099148145 97140 93139138137
90
135 8913096127
126125124111
122
121
11578 7679104
687063191
5655775249
4847
71
4342
39
359
33823029
113195
1422 3
2 1
2
0
163
17
228
262
297
10
13
5
4
3
115
1
4
8
1251 0 5 138121104125
1 4 8 111160210
210
10
216
125
10
121
142140
15049
142111
140
5
10
100148576195
100221160 10521
105
140
10
210
9995140
150118 10015016913870
140
13814210010099145137
138150150
126
99
140
76 1001041010
1680
10411670
1020
1054
1666
1011
1693
1012
1034
1040
1015
1661
1701
1032
1673
1016
1646
1049
1037
1650
1030
1028
103110411045
1011
1008
1687
1655
10511055
1005
1665
1704
1016105010301046104410401056
1657
1670
1651
1696
1645
1639
1631
1673
1666
992
1690
DOUGLAS RD JAMES RDMAYFIELD HEIGHTS RDSIBLEY M EM O RIAL HW YMAYFIELD HEIGHTS LN
JAMES CT
315'284'295'285'354'251.6'159 '
164'142'97'91'183.7'227.3'149.5'290'125.1'121.9'121.5'250'51'98.3'12''8''6''
''6''6''
6''
6''6''6''6''6''
6''
6''12''6''Dakota County GIS
1680 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS RD.(Jaqueline & Mike Chase)City ofMendotaHeights0100
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.
6/15/2018
Site Photos – 1680 Mayfield Heights Road
REAR YARD AREA – FUTURE POOL SPACE
REAR YARD AREA – TOWARDS BLUFF EDGE
REAR YARD – BLUFF EDGE
STAIRS AND
RAIL
3 L.E.D. LIGHTS
(2) SEATS
T.O. POOL 4'-2 1/2"
T.O.W. 4'-5"
B.O.W. 6'-0" - 6'-5"
WALL
EDGING
ROCK &
POLY
EDGING WOODDECO
DRAIN
4'-4"
T.O.W. 2'-6"
B.O.W. 4'-4"
4'-4 1/2"+
COLORED CONCRETE POOL DECK WITH TOOL CUTS
COVER
MOTOR
POOL DECK
POOL DECK
ROCK & POLY
EDGING
FENCE
3'-8 1/2"
PLANTS,
T.B.D.
IRREGULAR
FLAGSTONE
WALK
4'-3 1/2" TOP
OF EDGE
ROCK IN FRONT
OF WALL
SOD
3 SLEEVES
UNDER WALK - STEPS
SEE RED LINES
DRAINAGE
DRAINAGE
BOX
DRAINAGE
BOX
3'8"
POOL COVER
SWITCH
EXISTING
BURNING
BUSH
EXISTING
PINE
EXISTING
PINE
SOD
STEPPERS
GATE
T.O.W. 2'-5"
B.O.W. 4'-5"
MULCH
MULCH
T.O.W. 0'-0"
B.O.W. 4'-0"15'-0"DRAINAGE
WALL
+4'-3 1/2"SCREENEDPORCHChalkboardAreaMulchMulch2 1/2" RockNo PolyRock/Concrete SlabFabricSumpX 0'0"X 2'5"X 2'4"X 3'6"X 4'0"X 4'9"X 5'1"X 4'1"X -1'11"Ex. ConcreteDrivewayX 3'4"4'2" XX 4'7"4'8" XX 4'11"4'8" X4'3" X5'0" XX 4'6"X 4'8"X 5'3"X 4'6"X 5'6"X 7'0"X 10'9"Garage X 4'2"RockEx. FenceEx. Pachy.GroundcoverExisting OakExisting OakPachy.GroundcoverAdd (2) Outcroppings864.0GAR.=+2'-0"
GATE
POOL
EQUIP.
(2) SLEEVES FOR
GAS & ELECTRIC
+2'-1"JACKIE & MIKE CHASE1680 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS RD.MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MNPOOL
16'X38'
POOL
EQUIPMENT
WOOD STROAGE
RACK, BY OWNER
4" DECO
DRAIN
POOL PLAN
L1
Planning Case 2018-16 (Barrett’s & Bennett’s) Page 1 of 10
Planning Report
DATE: June 26, 2018
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-16
Lot Line Adjustment, Lot Split/Combination and Variances
APPLICANT: Sarah & Jason Barrett / John & Deanne Bennett
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 754 and 760 Upper Colonial Drive
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One-Family Residential/LR-Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: September 28, 2018 (120-days per MN State Statute § 462.358) for
subdivision actions - AND - July 30, 2018 for variance actions
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The property owners of both parcels are seeking to adjust the interior property boundary line between their
respective properties, to resolve an existing encroachment, and which requires consideration of a variance
to the required side-yard setback and lot width standards. The application also includes a lot split/lot
combination request by both parties, to acquire small portions of unused park land parcels located in the
immediate rear-yards of both properties.
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; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-
feet of the subject property.
BACKGROUND
The subject properties are located at the end of Upper Colonial Drive, just west of the tennis courts in
Wentworth Park (see aerial image below):
Planning Case 2018-16 (Barrett’s & Bennett’s) Page 2 of 10
The two properties were originally platted in 1960 as Lots 8 and 9, Block 7, Cherry Hill Addition. Lot 8 is
addressed as 760 Upper Colonial Drive and Lot 9 is 760 Upper Colonial. Both lots were platted as 97-ft.
wide by approx. 157-ft. deep lots (refer to plat map image below).
When Cherry Hill was approved, the plat included an Outlot A and Outlot B (see image above), which were
created presumably for the “low wet ground” areas of this plat. In January 1963, the Village of Mendota
Heights was granted two separate certificates of title that passed ownership of these two parcels to the
Village (later – the City). Eventually, the city incorporated these two parcels into Wentworth Park.
Last September [2017], planning staff was notified by a neighboring resident that a new shed was being
built in the rear yard area of 754 Upper Colonial Drive (the Barrett’s), and stated the shed appeared to be
located on city-owned park lands. Upon investigation, it was determined that the shed was indeed being
built on city owned lands, and a “stop-work” order was issued. It was also determined during the inspection
that the neighboring property at 760 Upper Colonial Drive (the Bennett’s) may have installed a fence and
garden outside their legal property boundary as well, which encroaches into the same area of park property.
Staff later met with the Barrett and Bennett family representatives, and the residents stated they thought
their back-yards extended farther back than what Dakota County GIS records indicated; and were unaware
they were encroaching on city-owned park land. Nevertheless, the owners requested the city consider an
official request to deed or transfer a small area of the “wedge-shaped” park land behind their properties, in
order to keep the shed, fence and gardens in place.
Although there are three properties (750, 754 and 760 Upper Colonial Dr.) immediately adjacent to this
wedge shaped park space, only 754 and 760 Upper Colonial elected to participate, while the owners of 750
Upper Colonial declined.
When a preliminary survey was later submitted by the Applicants, staff discovered that the shared lot line
between 760 and 754 appeared to be encroaching over the dwelling structure of 760 UCD (Bennett’s); and
in order to eliminate this encroachment and avoid any unnecessary future cloud on property title, staff
suggested they submit a lot line adjustment and variance to resolve this issue.
This encroachment issue is a shared condition with the last four houses (766, 760, 754 and 750) along Upper
Colonial Drive. It appears the original developer/contractor mistakenly set the foundations of the homes
on these platted lots in the 1960’s, and created these encroachment issues, which were discovered later.
In 2008, the owners of 766 Upper Colonial corrected their lot line encroachment issue by receiving approval
of a similar lot line adjustment and variance to lot width standards (Res. No. 08-20, adopted 04/01/08).
Planning Case 2018-16 (Barrett’s & Bennett’s) Page 3 of 10
In 2015, the city also approved a similar lot line adjustment and variances to 754 and 750 Upper Colonial
(Res. No. 2015-94, adopted 12/01/15). Related to this 2015 application, the owners of 750 Upper Colonial
requested the city split off a small, wedge-shaped parcel of Wentworth Pak land (parts of Outlots A and B
–survey image below), located next to their lot, thereby eliminating a possible non-conformity with R-1
zoned lot width and side setback standards.
This 4,401 sq. ft. wedge-shaped parcel was agreed to be sold off by the city for a price of $100.00, and the
owners were required to pay legal and title fees to complete said transaction.
ANALYSIS
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
City Code Title 11 - Subdivision Regulations, Section 11-1-5 allows the subdivision of parcels through a
lot line adjustment, provided the division is to permit the adding of a parcel of land to an abutting lot and
the newly created property line will not cause the other remaining portion of the lot to be in violation with
this title or the zoning ordinance.
The existing lot line between 760 and 754 is noted by the green dashed line in the image above; with the
blue line representing the new adjusted lot line between both properties. The adjusted line will shift to the
east by 8.25 feet (from the existing and original northeast lot corner of Lot 8). The proposed lot line
adjustment will help resolve the existing non-conformity created on Lot 8 by the encroaching platted lot
line over the residential structure.
Planning Case 2018-16 (Barrett’s & Bennett’s) Page 4 of 10
The following table outlines the required lot area and setback requirements in R-1, One Family Residential,
as well as the areas and setbacks for the newly-created parcels:
R-1 Zoning District Lot 8
760 Upper Colonial
Lot 9
754 Upper Colonial
Standard Existing Proposed Existing Proposed
Lot Area 15,000 SF 14,406 sf. 15,157 sf. 17,839 sf. 16,995 sf.
Lot Width 100 ft. 85.77 ft. 94.02 ft. 115.4 ft. 107.15 ft.
Side Yard
Setback
10 ft. (min.) or
½ height of dwelling 0 ft. 2.8 to 3.7 ft. 18.4 to 23.6 ft. 15.44 to 19.9 ft.
Although the lot line adjustment will eliminate the encroachment over the 760 UCD residence, the
minimum side yard setback standard of 10-feet will not be attained; nor will the adjustment make the lot
compliant with the 100-foot width standard for R-1 zoned properties; and thus the need for a variance.
VARIANCE
There are two variances related to the overall consideration of this lot line adjustment. The first is to allow
a reduced side-yard setback for Lot 8 / 760 Upper Colonial Drive from the 10-foot minimu m standard to a
reduced setback of 2.8 to 3.7 feet. The second variance is related to the lot size.
As noted above, when new lots are created (or adjusted), they must comply with established standards of
the underlying zoning district, which is 100-ft. for R-1 zoned properties. In this case, the Lot 8 width
increases from 85.77 feet up to 94.02 feet, which is still under the 100-ft. threshold. Lot 9 / 754 Upper
Colonial does not need any variances for reduced setbacks or other standards.
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 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. Even
under the old standards or findings for variances, where applicants had to show that there is condition
of the property that creates a hardship in putting the property to reasonable use under the standards of
the ordinance, there may be clear arguments that a hardship is present and this lot line adjustment helps
resolve this issue.
In this case, the conditions that constitute the variance are long-standing survey mistakes that resulted
in the construction of buildings which encroach into the required setback or over the property lines. To
correct this situation, the only alternatives are relocation of the lot lines or removal of portions of the
buildings. The latter option would be an extraordinary and unnecessary remedy. The only affected
property owners are those that are party to this application. Since the relocation of the lot lines is a
solution which the affected parties agree to, staff believe the variances should be approved to resolve
these issues.
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.
It is assumed that long-standing surveying mistakes caused the construction of dwellings which
encroach into the required side yard setbacks or over the property boundary lines on several properties
in the immediate area. In order to resolve the situation in this case and satisfy additional conditions for
the future sale/transfer of properties, , the most reasonable solution is adjustment of the interior property
boundary line in conformance with the required side yard setback standard as agreed upon by the
affected property owners.
Planning Case 2018-16 (Barrett’s & Bennett’s) Page 5 of 10
Although the adjustment between Lots 8 and 9 still does not attain a required 10-ft. side-yard setback
needed for Lot 8 (only 2.8 to 3.7 feet), the adjustment does provide some physical and tangible relief
of moving and eliminating the lot line from running across the footprint of the building, which can
prove to be quite a difficult cloud on title or encumbrances affecting properties, especially when selling
real estate.
Other alternatives to attain compliance that would require removal of portions of the dwelling on Lot 9
or requiring the owners of Lot 10 to acquire additional property are not practical.
Based on the existing conditions, the applicants have established a practical difficulty in adjusting the
interior property boundary line in compliance with the applicable zoning standards. Furthermore, the
existing condition of both properties is a unique circumstance not created by the applicants.
3. The request will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
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.
LOT SPLIT
Background
As noted previously, when city staff investigated a complaint on the shed being built on city park lands
behind 754 Upper Colonial, it was soon discovered that a fence and garden area were also installed on city
park land behind 760 Upper Colonial.
After meeting up with the owners, it was decided internally to have the city process a lot split application
(along with the planned lot line adjustment and variance), whereby the city would give consideration to
transfer over two, small unused (unneeded) parcels of park land behind each residence. In that way, the
garden, fence and shed encroachments could remain in place, subject to city council approval.
The portion of Wentworth Park in this area was platted as Outlots A and B of Cherry Hill Addition. A
large portion of these two outlot now contain the Wentworth Park tennis court and a walking trail (see
aerial image – below):
Planning Case 2018-16 (Barrett’s & Bennett’s) Page 6 of 10
Description of Request
The area in-question – or the wedged-shape piece located behind the three residences, does not contain any
public or park improvements. City staff determined this wedge-shaped area of Wentworth Park has never
been used for true park purposes; is not needed for any short-term or long-term park needs in this area; and
acknowledges the land behind the Barrett’s/Bennett’s properties appears to have been maintained by the
homeowners for quite some time, without issues or enforcement by the city.
Should the city approve the lot split to create these two parcels, both property owners would be required to
combine the parcels to their own homesteaded properties. The two parcels to be split and potentially
transferred are noted in the gold and green highlighted areas below:
The parcel to be created behind 760 Upper Colonial Drive (Lot 8) consists of 5,792 sq. ft., or 0.133 acres.
The parcel behind 754 Upper Colonial (Lot 9) is 7,242 sf., or 0.166 acres. Should this split and
transfer/combination be approved, the new adjusted lot sizes would be as follows:
• 760 Upper Colonial Drive: Adjusted Lot 8 @ 15,157 sf.+ park parcel @ 5,792 sf. = 20,949 sf. (.48 ac.)
• 754 Upper Colonial Drive: Adjusted Lot 9 @ 16,995 sf.+ park parcel @ 7,242 sf. = 24,237 sf. (.57 ac.)
Since the park land properties are currently zoned R-1 One Family Residence, there will be no need to
rezone the created parcels. However, the city-owned park property (and this back area) are guided P -
Parks in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Should this subdivision and combination be approved by the city,
staff will make the necessary changes in the upcoming 2040 Comprehensive Plan by changing this land use
guidance from P Parks to LR-Low Density Residential (or similar) to ensure the single-family residential
zoning complies with an underlying land use.
Planning Case 2018-16 (Barrett’s & Bennett’s) Page 7 of 10
Variance
As part of the previous lot line adjustment and variance approvals granted to 750 and 754 Upper Colonial
under Planning Case No. 2015-40, the city also approved (under Planning Case No. 2015-41) a lot split
and variances for the city-owned property next to 750 Upper Colonial, in order to provide relief of lot size,
lot widths and setbacks that were created by the line adjustment between their neighbors.
The planning report for that particular case indicated that under Title 11-3-2 of the City Code (Subdivision
Regulations) any new lots created by a lot split must be compliant with the requirements of the applicable
zoning district. If not compliant, a variance would be in order.
In this particular case, the two parcels are 5,792 sq. ft. (0.133 ac.) and 7,242 sf. (0.166 ac.) in size. The lots
measure out to approx. 104 +/- feet along the back parcel line of Lot 8, and 103 +/- feet along the back
parcel lone of Lot 9 (see image below):
The two new parcels meet the minimum 100-foot wide lot width standard; but will not meet the minimum
15,000 sq. ft. area for newly created lots under the Subdivision Regulations. Even though they are planned
to be combined with the two homestead lots, this lot split request may still need to have a variance applied
to under this action request item as well.
When considering variances for the proposed subdivision 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 request to subdivide a portion of city-owned property containing pre-existing encroachments
in order to be combined and dissolved into the adjacent private property is a reasonable use of both
properties. While the request will create several temporary non-conformities, the end result
essentially formalizes the existing conditions and will bring both properties into compliance with
the applicable zoning standards.
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 current owners of 754 Upper Colonial Drive purchased the property with the belief that they
owned the rear yard area of their property, and were unaware that this land actually belonged to the
city or was part of Wentworth Park. The owners of 760 Upper Colonial Dr. also mentioned the
same thing regarding their back yard space, and installed the fence and gardens a number of years
ago, without any complaints or action by the city.
Planning Case 2018-16 (Barrett’s & Bennett’s) Page 8 of 10
In order to address the issues, it was determined that a purchase of the property in-question from
the City was the best alternative. While the proposed lot split will create temporary non-
conformities, the intent is not to create a new buildable parcel.
Based on the existing conditions, a practical difficulty in subdividing the property in-question in
order to combine and dissolve into the adjacent private property compliant with the applicable
zoning standards is demonstrated. Furthermore, the existing conditions can be considered
somewhat of a unique circumstance not entitle created by the current property owners.
3. The request will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
The purpose of the requests are to formalize the existing conditions and address the non-
conformities created by the encroachments onto city-owned property. The private property owners
already uses and maintains the property in-question, therefore no negative impacts are anticipated
to the park or the character of the neighborhood.
In order to ensure the non-conformities created by the proposed lot split are eliminated, a condition of
approval is included requiring the private property owner to combine and incorporate the newly-created
parcels into their own homesteaded parcels.
Value of Land
The city did not have the park land property appraised, nor any land value officially been determined. As
part of their planning application, the Barrett’s and Bennett’s submitted a letter of intent, whereby each
homeowner is offering to pay $500.00 – or $1,000.00 total to the city’s general park fund as payment of
these parcels.
As was noted previously, the owners of 750 Upper Colonial purchased the small parcel of city land for
$100.00, plus legal fees to process the agreement and transfer documents.
Staff will acknowledge the two owners have contributed a considerable amount of time, energy and expense
in preparing the survey documents of these properties, and have also agreed to pay for any legal and title
fees to complete the transactions of transferring ownership of these parcels.
The Planning Commission is allowed to make any recommendation on the offer presented by the
Applicants; or suggest a fair-offer price or value to the city council.
Parks & Recreation Commission Recommendation
On June 12, 2018, city staff presented this lot split/request proposal before the City’s Parks and Recreation
Commission. City staff explained the reasoning for this lot split and the possible transfer of park land to
private property owners; the value of each parcel offered by the homeowners, and the process before the
Planning Commission and City Council.
Upon close of the presentation, a number of comments and questions were raised by the Parks
Commissioners, whereby two primary concerns were raised and noted for consideration:
1. Are the properties valued properly; and
2. Would this action set a precedence and open the city to other requests to sell park land.
In the end, the Parks Commission elected to recommend approval of allowing the lot split and sale/transfer
of park land properties to proceed; and let the City Council resolve the precedent setting issue and determine
value of the land. The recommendation was approved on a split 3-2 vote [minutes from this meeting are
appended to this report].
Planning Case 2018-16 (Barrett’s & Bennett’s) Page 9 of 10
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the lot line adjustment, variance and lot split requests, based on the
attached findings of fact with conditions; or
2. Recommend denial of the lot line adjustment, variance and lot split requests based on amended
findings of fact that the proposed adjustment is not consistent with the City Code, Comprehensive
Plan or other justifiable and stated reasons: or
3. Table the requests.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested lot line adjustment, variances and lot split requests, based on
the attached findings of fact (Alternative 1), and with the following conditions:
1) The Applicants agree to pay $500.00 to the city’s Park Reserve Fund as payment for each parcel to
be transferred to them as part of the lot split approval on the city-owned park land.
2) The Applicants shall combine or attach the new parcels created under the lot split to their own
respective homestead parcels.
3) All transfer or deed documents which convey the portion of lands under the lot line adjustment and
lot split process shall be recorded with Dakota County.
4) The Applicants agree to pay for any legal fees by the city attorney should any work be done by
them in the preparation of a purchase agreement or any other legal documents, title work, and/or
recording documents.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. Location/Site Map
2. Site photos
3. Letter of Intent from Homeowners
4. Planning Application w/ Variance Responses (from homeowners)
5. Surveys with Legal Descriptions
Planning Case 2018-16 (Barrett’s & Bennett’s) Page 10 of 10
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Lot Line Adjustment, Variance and Lot Split/Combination
754 and 760 Upper Colonial Drive
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed Lot Line Adjustment and
Variance 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 interior property
boundary line.
3. The existing conditions were not created by the current property owners and provides a reasonably
relief from these standards; and creates a practical difficulty in adjusting the interior property
boundary line in compliance with the lot width standard in order to address the non-conformities
created by the encroachment.
4. Other alternatives to attain compliance that would require removal of portions of the dwelling or
acquisition of additional property not owned by the applicants, which is deemed impractical.
5. Approval of the requests will have no visible impact on either property and will not negatively
impact the character of the neighborhood.
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed Lot Split/Lot Combination
and related Variance requests:
1. The proposed subdivision request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The purpose of the requests are to formalize the existing conditions and address the non-
conformities created by the encroachments onto city-owned property.
3. The temporary non-conformities created as a result of the requests will be eliminated once the
property in-question is combined and dissolved by the private property owners.
4. Approval of the requests will not negatively impact the park or the character of the neighborhood.
?
?
G!.
G!.66666666*66666
6
66666666666666!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
!!2
(]
755
723
766
750
751
770
754
769
757763
760
1480
768 762774
773
14721465
776
U P P E R C O L O N IA L D R CHERRY HI
LL RD2 6 0 '2 4 8 '2
0
1
.
6
'1 8 7 .3 '2 9 1 .6 '6 ''0'
'6''0''
City ofMendotaHeights0100
SCALE IN FEETDate: 6/8/2018
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.
754 - 760 Upper Colonial Dr.(Barrett's & Bennett's)
Jason & Sarah Barrett
754 Upper Colonial Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
28 May 2018
Tim Benetti
Community Development Director
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Dear Mr. Benetti:
Please accept this letter of our intent to adjust the boundaries of our property. In addition to
agreement with our neighbors and positive response from you, enclosed please find the following
documents in support of the proposed adjustments:
1. Signed Statement Explaining Escrow Fee Payment;
2. A completed Planning Application;
3. A completed Lot Line Adjustment Application;
4. A completed Lot Split Application;
Also enclosed, as per the requirements of the applications listed above, please find the following
documents:
5. A certified land survey showing the proposed lot line adjustment and accompanying
property descriptions;
6. A certified land survey showing the proposed lot split. and accompanying property
descriptions.
As the supporting documents indicate, two adjustments are being proposed.
A. The first is the adjustment of the lot line between our property (754 Upper Colonial Dr.) and
that of our neighbors, the Bennetts (760 Upper Colonial Dr.).
B. The second adjustment is the splitting and conveyance of the existing City of Mendota
Heights’ Outlot B.
The lot line adjustment (A) is a correction of a surveying error committed at the time of the original
development by simply shifting the property line between 754 and 760 Upper Colonial Drive such
that the line no longer cuts through the easterly part of the house at 760.
Recipient Name
28 May 2018
Page 2
The lot split (B), as we understand it, would add to 754 and 760 by splitting that portion of the
existing City Outlot B lying south of 754 and 760 by extending southerly both the lot line that is to
be adjusted (A), and the lot line separating 750 and 754, through the Outlot to the boundary of the
property to the south. In a sense, this adjustment would be conveying property that has been cared
for and maintained by the residents of 754 and 760 since the homes were first built.
After conversations both with you and our neighbors, we propose a donation to the City Parks &
Recreation Department in the amount of $1,000.00 ($500.00 each from 754 and 760) as fair
consideration for the split.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jason & Sarah Barrett
Enclosures (6)
Site Pictures – 754 and 760 Upper Colonial Drive
LOOKING SOUTHWARD – between residences
LOOKING EAST – towards park
LOOKING WEST- toward Bennett’s property/fence
REAR YARD AREA of Bennett’s
REAR YARD AREA –Barrett’s
Barrett’s unfinished shed
D R A F T (excerpts)
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PARKS AND RECREATION MEETING
June 12, 2018
The October meeting of the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission was held on
Tuesday, June 12, 2018, at Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve.
1. Call to Order – Chair Pat Hinderschied called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
2. Roll Call – The following Commissioners were present: Chair Pat Hinderschied,
Commissioners Steve Goldade, Ira Kipp, David Miller, and Nissa Tupper. Commissioner Bob
Klepperich was absent; and Commission Stephanie Levine arrived late. Staff present: Recreation
Program Coordinator Meredith Lawrence, Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson, Public
Works Director Ryan Ruzek, and Community Development Director Tim Benetti.
5. Unfinished and New Business
5.a Recommendation of Proposed Lot Split Request of a Portion of Wentworth Park Land
(Behind 754 and 750 Upper Colonial Drive)
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the city has received an application
from Jason and Sarah Barrett, owners of 754 Upper Colonial Drive; and John and Deanne
Bennett, owners of 760 Upper Colonial Drive to split portions of Wentworth Park located
immediately behind each property.
As part of this application, Mr. and Mrs. Barrett are also requesting a lot line adjustment as a
correction of a surveying error committed at the time of the original development by shifting the
property line between 754 and 760 Upper Colonial Drive.
In 1960, when the Cherry Hill Addition was platted, they created two outlots (Outlot A and B),
which were subsequently acquired by the city and incorporated into the Wentworth Park property.
These wedge-shaped parcels are located immediately behind the Barrett and Bennett properties.
Last September, planning staff was notified that each property owner was encroaching on the
city-owned land. Staff met with the property owners, who stated that they thought their backyards
extended farther back and were unaware that the land belonged to the city. The owners have
requested the city to consider transferring or selling a small area of the “wedge-shaped” park land
behind their properties, in order to keep the shed, fence and gardens in place, and legally acquire
this city-owned property for additional yard space.
There are three properties affected by the two outlots; however, the property owner at 750 Upper
Colonial Drive has declined to participate in this request and that piece of property would remain
as city-owned park land.
Mr. Benetti shared images of the subject properties and noted that the splits would not affect the
tennis court areas in Wedgewood Park.
Chair Hinderschied asked for confirmation that the city really has no useful purpose as far as park
land for these two parcels. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Chair Hinderschied indicated that he was
agreeable; however, he wanted to hear from the other commissioners.
D R A F T (excerpts)
Commissioner Miller referenced the monies offered for each parcel and asked if it wasn’t the city’s
normal procedure to have an appraisal done on the parcels and then selling them to the
applicants. Mr. Benetti confirmed that this would be the normal procedure if the land had some
development value or added value. In this case, it is evident that the property owners have been
mowing and maintaining the land for many years and the encroachments has existed for so long,
staff felt that it would be better to just ask them to provide a value or offer to purchase. The
property owners have already spent quite a bit for surveys and title work. They have offered to
pay $500 each, or $1,000 total, to the city’s general park fund as payment for these parcels.
Once the parcels were acquired, the property values would increase slightly but is considered to
be a nominal amount.
Commissioner Goldade asked if there were any other situations where the city sold off portions
of park land. Mr. Benetti replied that he was unaware of any such situation.
Commissioner Kipp stated that it was his belief that when the city passed the bond issue to
purchase park land, it included these parcels. He did not believe it was their intent to sell or give
a portion of that park land to anyone else at a later point in time; therefore, he was against vacating
any park land owned by the city. Mr. Benetti noted that he could not find any record or
establishment of when the city acquired this parcel; it may have just been deeded over at one
point in time. There is no record of a bond or bond issue. Commissioner Kipp asked if the land
was unequivocally owned by the city for park land. Mr. Benetti replied that it is owned by the city;
however, it was not dedicated for park land. It was dedicated as an outlot under the original Cherry
Hill Addition.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that technically it is noted as a park on the city’s park
and trail map; however, this underlying plat is Outlot B. It was not purchased via referendum so
that is not an issue. At the time of the platting, the city did not have an established park dedication
program; however, the city would accept land. It is a very wet area so public works mows it very
minimally as they would cause more damage than good. Park staff is very much in favor of this
process.
Commissioner Kipp stated that if the Planning Commission and the Council allows this sale they
would be setting up a strong precedence for future sales of park land.
Commissioner Tupper echoed the comments made about the future precedence and noted that
the third property owner declined to participate at this time. She questioned what would prevent
any future owner of the third parcel from coming back and saying they wished to purchase the
outlot from the city as well.
Mr. Ruzek replied that property that had declined just acquired 10 feet from the city up near the
tennis courts a few years ago as part of the lot line adjustment to correct the same surveying error
noted in this application. They did all of the title work and survey work and the city granted them
that property.
Commissioner Kipp questioned the value of the properties being added as it appears that the land
size would increase by one-third to one-fourth. He reiterated his opposition to selling any park
land to any citizen of the city, no matter the price.
Commissioner Tupper stated that part of her concern is that there are no active programs on this
spot because it is wet; however, there is a pond there and she wondered if the city could or would
D R A F T (excerpts)
consider or start looking at that parcel as a piece of natural resource to add to the park context.
She reiterated her concerns about setting up a precedence that could come back down the road.
Commissioner Goldade asked if the residents were to purchase these parcels if there was
anything they could do on that land that could change any sort of value to the park. Once they are
the owner of the land is there anything they could do to negatively impact the city’s park. Mr.
Benetti replied that in his professional opinion there is nothing they could do to negatively impact
the park land. The property owners are currently using the land as part of their backyards and
garden space and he does not foresee them doing anything out of the ordinary.
Commissioner Kipp asked if there were other residential properties adjacent to city park land and
what would stop those individuals from asking for the same considerations. Mr. Benetti replied
that the city could object whenever they want to. This is a very rare and unique situation that does
not come across the city’s desks very often. It is unique because of a situation that was
investigated and determined that they have been mowing and maintaining the land for their own
purposes. If the city has not used or missed it at the point it makes sense to deed it off.
Chair Hinderschied asked if the parcels, according to the public works departments, were a
nuisance to maintain. Mr. Ruzek replied in the affirmative and added the homeowners would keep
their existing fence in the area. The appearance of the parcels would not lead anyone walking by
to think that they are part of the park.
Chair Hinderschied asked if there were any other similar situations around the city’s parks where
someone could use this example to purchase city park land. Mr. Ruzek replied that he was
unaware of any other situation similar to this. Actually, it would be just the opposite – where the
city may be looking to acquire some outlot properties.
Chair Henderscheid summarized the two concerns as:
1. Are the properties valued properly; and
2. Would this action set a precedence and open the city to other requests to sell park land
Mr. Benetti stated that he would encourage the Commission not to worry about setting a
precedence, as this is a very unique and very isolated situation. He reminded them that as owners
of the park land, the city can always say no to other requests. This is a situation where the city
offered the land to the homeowners and they accepted the chance to acquire additional lands,
with the understanding that they would pay for the title work. The city requested they make the
fair value offer, which they did.
Motion Miller /second Goldade to recommend approval and let the City Council wrestle with the
two stated concerns.
Commissioner Kipp expressed his thoughts that, by approving this motion, the Commission would
be suggesting to the City Council that the Commission approves of this lot split. He reiterated that
he believes this would be detrimental to the city and he would be against it.
AYES 3 (GOLDADE / MILLER / HENDERSCHIED): NAYS 2 (KIPP / TUPPER)