Loading...
2012-01-24 Planning Comm Agenda PacketCITY Or MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Agenda January 24, 2012 - 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of the Agenda 4. Approval of the November 22, 2011 Planning Commission Minutes 5. Hearings a. Case No. 2012-04: Fourth Dimension Architectural Signage, on behalf of Independent School District 197, Variance for Identification Signs. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. b. Case No. 2012-01: City of Mendota Heights. Zoning Amendment — Wetlands Permit Process Title 12, Chapter 2 City Code. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. c.. Case No. 2012-02: City of Mendota Heights. Zoning Amendment — Critical Area Permit Process Title 12, Chapter 3 City Code. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. d. Case No. 2012-03: City of Mendota Heights. Zoning Amendment — Accessory Structures in Residential Zones Title 12, Chapter 1 City Code. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. 6. Verbal Review 7. Adj oum 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 Administration at 651-452-1850 with requests. Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2011 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 22, 2011 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 22, 2011, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Norton, Commissioners Field, Hennes, Magnuson, Noonan Roston, and Viksnins. Those absent: None. Those present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, Public Works Director/City Engineer Mazzitello, and NAC Planner Stephen Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Heidi Guenther. Approval ofAQenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of October 25 2011, Minutes Commissioner Noonan requested the following corrections: page 3, 5`h paragraph and page 4, 4t` paragraph should start with Chair Norton instead of Chair Noonan. Mr. Sedlacek noted the following correction: page 1, should indicate Planning Case #2011-30 instead of #2011-03. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25, 2011, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 (Commissioner Hennes) Hearings PLANNING CASE #2011-32 City of Mendota Heights Ordinance 440, Amending Title 12, Chapter 4 of the City Code pertaining to aircraft noise reduction Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of the City of Mendota Heights and recommendation of the Mendota Heights airport relations commission (ARC) to amend Ordinance 440, Airport Noise Attenuation, to shift the requirements of the code from a previously published map of zones to an actual map of noise contours. He advised this change would have three elements: 1. Changes the area to which the code applies from the previous 65 dnl map zone to the actual area of 60 dnl. 2. Creates a regulation more closely tied to actual conditions by annually updating the noise contour map within which noise attenuation would be required. 3. The effective result, in Mendota Heights, of actually reducing the affected areas (despite the lowering of the dnl threshold) due to remapped noise contours from those used in the original code. Mr. Grittman noted depending on Minneapolis airport operations, the dnl noise contours will likely change. Thus, the code may have varying application from year to year. However, this impact would appear to be offset by the more accurate reflection of existing conditions, and the consistency established between the codes of other affected jurisdictions. Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2011 Commissioner Viksnins questioned why this issue was before the planning commission. iiilr. Gri urian stated the city was revising Title 12 Chapter 5 of the zoning code regarding aircraft noise which required review by the commission. Commissioner Hennes asked how the noise contour map was devised. Mr. Grittman stated the contours were drafted based on real noise levels throughout the city by the Metropolitan Airports Commission. Assistant to the City Administrator Sedlacek reviewed the Ordinance language amendments in detail with the commission, while explaining how Mendota Heights' properties would be impacted. The airports relations commission recommends the proposed revisions reducing the dnl from 65 to 60. This level provided a more accurate reflection of the current noise level in the city. Staff recommended the commission support the amended ordinance as presented. Commissioner Field asked if the contour map would continue to change going into the future. Mr. Sedlacek indicated the map could change on a yearly basis. However, he did not anticipate a great deal of change in Mendota Heights as the contours were limited. Staff would be responsible for updating and maintaining the map for the city. Commissioner Viksnins questioned how the map would become incorporated into city code. Mr. Sedlacek commented the ordinance made reference to the airport's noise contour map as it would be changing on a yearly basis. MAC would maintain the map. Commissioner Noonan inquired if new construction and remodeling required noise attenuation. Mr. Sedlacek stated that new construction, as well as redevelopment, required noise attenuation. Mr. Grittman further explained the differences between redevelopment, versus reconstruction and remodeling. He stated additional definitions could be placed in the code for further clarification. Commissioner Noonan asked if the entire house required noise attenuation through a remodeling project, or just the newly expanded area. He expressed concern with this regulation as entire structures would not be brought into compliance with current standards through a remodel. Mr. Sedlacek noted only the expanded area required noise attenuation. Councilmember Liz Petschel addressed the commission stating noise attenuation regulations varied greatly from 65 dnl to 60 dnl. She agreed the language within the code should be clarified to explain the differences between a remodel, rehabilitation, and redevelopment. Councilmember Petschel commented the legislature had previous discussions to move the airport. Through these discussions, it was decided the airport would remain, and that homes should be noise attenuated to 60 dnl. She reviewed the 2030 Comprehensive Plan of MAC stating the airport is planning for increased operations, but has no plan for noise attenuation. She explained how flight operations hav been affected by 9/11 and the Delta/Northwest merger. Councilmember Petschel stated the airport was looking to create greater efficiencies, increasing flight sizes while decreasing the number of flights due to increasing gas prices. In addition, the airport was looking to use more efficient aircraft, all actions which would reduce the noise levels in the community. She noted all surrounding communities have supported the proposed ordinance amendments and updated contour map as a means to protect themselves from changes in airport noise. Commissioner Roston questioned how staff would make a determination between remodeling and redeveloping a parcel. Mr. Grittman requested that the commission provide additional feedback to staff on this issue. Public Works Director Mazzitello explained the original ordinance was enacted in 1987. The language in question has been in place for 24 years and each building permit was currently reviewed on a case-by-case basis. He did not feel further definitions were necessary and that the code amendment should proceed as submitted. Staff could insert these definitions at a later date. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. 0) Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2011 Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 7 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REVISED CODE, CONSISTENT WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION AS PRESENTED BY STAFF. AYES 7 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its December 6, 2011, meeting. Old Business a. Discussion of Wetlands Permit Processing Planner Stephen Grittman explained the planning commission had reviewed this item at its September meeting and indicated that the terms under which an administrative review could occur should be listed as existing positive conditions, rather than as the absence of certain negative conditions. Staff has updated the text to reflect that adjustment. The revisions would allow applicants to proceed with the permitting process at an administrative level, if certain standards are met. He requested further comment from the commission and to call a hearing at a future meeting, if deemed necessary. Commissioner Magnuson requested clarification on items 3 and 4. Mr. Grittman stated a minor project would be allowed to proceed to the commission without a public hearing. He indicated item 4 would allow permits to proceed through an administrative approval process, which bypasses the commission. Commissioner Magnuson suggested the minor development or project language be more clearly defined within the code. Mr. Grittman stated item 3 could be eliminated to reduce the level of confusion. The commission agreed with this recommendation. Commissioner Roston clarified that if permits were denied at a staff level, the permit could still follow the full process and come before the commission with a public hearing. Mr. Grittman stated this was the case. At this time, a presentation would be made to the commission with recommendations. Commissioner Magnuson requested the word "may" be changed to "shall' regarding when cases will be brought to the commission for review. The commission agreed with this recommendation. Commissioner Field asked what member of staff would be reviewing the permits. Mr. Grittman stated the city administrator would be responsible for reviewing and signing off on the requests. Chair Norton thanked the commission for the discussion this evening and directed staff to file a formal application to consider the wetlands permit process at a future public hearing. b. Discussion of Critical Area Permit Processing 3 Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2011 Planner Stephen Grittman explained the critical area ordinance regulates any construction or land alteration activity in the designated Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor. This area is designated pursuant to federal. regulation and includes most of the land adjacent to the bluffs overlooking the river as well as some property beyond the bluff areas. Regardless of location, all projects require a critical area permit. He requested the commission discuss the critical area permitting process and provide staff with direction on how to proceed. Commissioner Roston suggested the examples be moved above the conditions and made part of the text. The commission agreed with this recommendation. Commissioner Viksnins questioned if paragraph D was necessary. Mr. Grittman stated paragraph D creates a process for minor developments and greater defined these projects. He recommended the paragraph remain. Commissioner Magnuson asked how a porch covered addition would fit into this permit process. Chair Norton stated this type of addition, when not enclosed, was a conditional use permit within the critical area. The intent of the code would be to greater define the permits. Chair Norton thanked the commission for the discussion this evening and directed staff to file a formal application to consider the critical area permit process at a future public hearing. C. Institutional Accessory Building Conditional Use Permits Planner Stephen Grittman explained that at a past planning commission meeting, a request for accessory building construction was considered for the Visitation Convent and School. The process to accommodate this request, as it has been for other institutional uses, required conditional use permit approval, coupled with consideration of variances related to number, size, and total square footage of accessory buildings in a residential district. Staff proposed parcels larger than four acres have .5% as the applicable amount of square footage. This would allow for a standard or threshold for accessory buildings throughout the city. Commissioner Noonan asked if the ratio suited large parcels in the city and if 8,700 square feet was enough accessory building space. Mr. Grittman stated Somerset and Mendakota could be reviewed but he was confident that accessory building space was not currently at these levels. Commissioner Noonan questioned if accessory buildings had to match the primary structure building materials. He did not feel this was necessary in the case of maintenance buildings on a golf course. Mr. Grittman stated the city's position was to have institutional properties be aesthetically pleasing when surrounding residential neighborhoods. He explained that each case would be reviewed by the commission on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Field suggested the allowable footprint of residential accessory buildings be defined within the code. Chair Norton stated this was a comment he made to reduce confusion while placing a limitation on the height of the structure. Mr. Grittman stated this change could be made within the code. Commissioner Roston recommended the percentage be changed to 1% to reduce the confusion and allow for additional storage to residents. Commissioner Field stated he currently lives on four acres of land and was limited to 425 feet of storage within an accessory building. He felt this size did not correctly correlate with the amount of space that he had. Mr. Grittman stated garages and detached garages were addressed elsewhere within city code. He stated this language could be reviewed by the commission at a future meeting. Commissioner Roston asked if it would be easier to refer to a percentage or a footprint within the code. Mr. Grittman recommended the percentage remain. The commission discussed if the percentage applied to the entire structure or just the footprint. Commissioner Roston recommended that the square footage be measured based upon the footprint of the structure. 4 Planning **ion Minutes November 22, 2011 The commission agreed with the recommendation. Chair Norton thanked the commission for the discussion this evening and directed staff to file a formal application to consider the institutional accessory building conditional use permits at a future public hearing. d. Commercial Property Maintenance Standards Planner Stephen Grittman referenced the draft of a potential commercial/industrial property maintenance code, noting the outline utilizes a list of topics that is loosely designated to parallel the city's residential property maintenance code. The maintenance requirement topics have been grouped to follow both that code and the issues most likely to be raised based on applicable zoning regulations. He indicated these codes were maintenance codes and would apply to conditions at the time the property was developed. Commissioner Field questioned if Mendota Heights operates under a complaint based enforcement for maintenance standards. Mr. Grittman stated this was the case as the city did not have a code enforcement department. He stated an enforcement department would not be created through this ordinance. Commissioner Noonan commented the language regarding clean, safe, and sanitary may be open to interpretation by the public. He expressed concern with this part of the code. Mr. Grittman stated the idea was to lay out a general interpretation of what is expected by the city. Commissioner Magnuson asked the significance of the term "public nuisance" within the code. She expressed confusion between the violation of this code and the public nuisance code. Mr. Grittman explained there was a public nuisance code that defined certain violations in greater detail. He recommended the language be further reviewed by the city attorney. Commissioner Viksnins asked if commercial property owners would be notified of the new maintenance standards. Mr. Grittman stated the city could notify property owners and phase in the effects of the standards over the next year. Commissioner Field questioned if staff spoke with neighboring communities regarding their maintenance standards. Mr. Grittman indicated he did speak with several other cities in Dakota County before presenting the information to the commission this evening. Chair Norton thanked the commission for the discussion this evening and directed staff to bring the matter to city council for their comment and review. December Meeting Mr. Sedlacek requested the commission discuss the need to hold a meeting in December. Staff did not anticipate any planning files in December. Commissioner Fields indicated if a planning case is received, the commission would meet and otherwise forego the December meeting. He questioned when was the deadline for planning cases. Mr. Sedlacek stated the deadline for the December meeting was December 5t`. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO HOLD A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IN DECEMBER ONLY IF AN APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE DECEMBER 5TH CLOSE OF BUSINESS DEADLINE. AYES 7 NAYS 0 Verbal Review 5 Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2011 Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #2011-30 City of Mendota Heights Ordinance 439 Amendment • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:21 P.M. AYES NAYS Respectfully submitted, Heidi Guenther, Recording Secretary ON NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231-25SJ Facsimile: 763.231.256_1 p.la-nerc@nar_-nIanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: CASE NO: APPLICANT(S): LOCATION: ZONING: GUIDE PLAN: Mendota Heights Planning Commission Stephen Grittman/Bob Kirmis January 19, 2012 January 24, 2012 Variance from maximum wall sign area requirement Planning Case: 12-04, NAC Case: 254.04-12.01 Fourth Dimension Architectural Signage / ISD 197 1897 Delaware Avenue R-1, Single Family Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request: Fourth Dimension Architectural Signage, on behalf Independent School District (ISD) 197 has requested a variance from the from the City's wall sign regulations. The School District wishes to erect two wall signs upon the Henry Sibley High School (located at 1897 Delaware Avenue), the area of which exceed Ordinance requirements. The applicants believe the proposed signage will better identify the high school to southbound travelers on Delaware Avenue. Specifically, the applicants wish to affix the following signs on the north side of the school building: "Henry Sibley Warriors" sign measuring 143 square feet in size. School logo sign measuring 52 square feet in size. The sign would be located on the diagonal portion of the north facade and face northeast. According to the Zoning Ordinance, one nameplate sign is allowed for non-residential uses located within residential zoning districts. Such sign may not exceed 12 square feet in size. Thus, the applicants are seeking approval of a variance to allow two wall signs which, in total measure 195 square feet in area. Analysis: The applicants have requested a variance to exceed the number and area requirements of wall signs allowed for non residential uses located in residential zoning districts. In considering variance applications, the City is required to find that: (1) The applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner; and (2) The applicant's proposal faces practical difficulties in using the property in this manner due to circumstances that: a. Are unique to the property, b. Are not caused by the applicant, c. Are consistent with the purpose and intent of the City's plans and ordinances, d. Are not out of character with the locality, or neighborhood, in which the property is located. The applicants feel that approval of the proposed wall signage is justified for the following reasons: • The building is located over 100 feet from the street necessitating additional branding. • Traveling south on Delaware Avenue, it is difficult to identify the main entrance to the school. • The school presently has branding on the south elevation of the building, but none of the other three elevations. • The proposed signage is clean, legible and fits the architectural intent of the building and the surrounding area. In consideration of the variance request, it is believed that application of the residential district sign requirements upon the school use pose some obvious practical difficulties as summarized below. The purpose of identification signage is to convey information. If signs are of such a size which do not reasonably allow information to be conveyed, a practical difficulty results. A 12 square foot identification sign affixed to the school's east facade likely would not be visible from adjacent Delaware Avenue which, according to the submitted site plan, lies approximately 300 feet to the east. It is believed that the 12 square foot maximum sign area requirement imposed in the district better reflects the signage needs of residential uses than institutional uses (such as the high school). In this regard, it is believed the variance request is unique to the subject property. K 2. The request for variance requests reflects the applicant's desire to better identify t"e School's ;;gain antrxi This is considered a reasonable objective which would not only benefit school patrons but likely assist in the efficient movement of traffic around the school. 3. The subject site measures nearly 80 acres in size. The high school building is centrally located on the site to provide ample area for surrounding parking areas, bus drop off areas, athletic fields and open space. Such central location and resulting building setbacks are typical of most high school campuses. In this regard, the physical site needs of the high school do not relate well to the sign area allowances of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicants request for variance appears to create a "practical difficulty" and meets the tests of the Zoning Ordinance for variance consideration. Action Requested: Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission may make one of the following recommendations: Approval of the variance, based on a finding that one wall sign not exceeding 12 square feet in size does not permit reasonable identification of the use to the traveling public. 2. Denial of the variance, based on a finding that the applicant can make reasonable use of the property and comply with the regulations. Staff Recommendation: Planning staff is supportive of the variance. In past discussions, there has been consideration that the residential sign requirements do not apply well to non-residential uses that are permitted in the zoning district. The City has not chosen to amend those regulations, but for this use, a sign area requirement of 12 square feet appears to be so restrictive as to eliminate any value in having a sign. In some cases, signs that are too small are unreadable and can have a detrimental effect on traffic safety. As such, the application of one wall sign not more than 12 square feet in size upon the subject property could be seen as restricting reasonable use by interfering with the ability to provide adequate identification of the school. Moreover, the school has sought approval of a freestanding sign along Delaware identifying the entrance drive in the past. A wall sign with exposure in this direction would be less intrusive than a freestanding sign near the roadway. Supplementary Materials: Application materials dated January 3, 2012 K3 nraft Findings of Fact for Approval Henry Sibley High School Wall Sign Variance 1897 Delaware Avenue 1. The property in question is significantly larger than standard residential property, restricting the ability to read sign information from the street. 2. The main entrance to the building along Delaware has no adequate sign identification, creating potential for traffic confusion. 3. The additional building setback from the street in this area does not provide an opportunity for readable signs at the smaller residential size allowed in the district. 4. The wall signs in the proposed locations will minimize the need for freestanding sign identification along Delaware Avenue. 5. The combination of setback, property size, and sign regulations create practical difficulties in making reasonable use of the property as it relates to identification and traffic control. 6. The additional sign area proposed, as non -illuminated wall signage, is a reasonable use of the property. 12 APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. -'Lo 12 - 011 Date of Application I I S1 0 - Fee Paid avkw 0°'`f Applicant Name: OA\/L S JAiAeS C PH: (c5 I --u b 1- R Cato (Last) (First) (Itll) E -Mail Address: '�i m @- _bor-}-h ins/15) Acnc.Con\ a Address: /2,09 W. eo vitry.16AP r 4-z& A"Z00•J 11/165 /-nd (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Owner Name: I SZ) M7 (Last) (First) (M) Address: 497 D649FWAnr Ai/L qW' 0-&007 A7Eh-6 _nd 5Y/16 - (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question: /Aq7 D&ZAWAAG AV&--J?'1aE' Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) Type of Request: Rezoning T� Variance Conditional Use Permit Subdivision Approval Conditional User Permit for P.U.D. Wetlands Permit Preliminary/Final Plat Approval Critical Area Permit Comprehensive Plan Amendment Other (attach explanation) Applicable City Ordinance Number 17 Section I Present Zoning of Property Present Use Sib L Proposed Zoning of Property R Proposed Use �&4fo6L, I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above property during daylight hours. Date Received (Sigffalore Signature of OwKer) 1101 Victoria Curve. Mendota Heights, MN 55118 . (651) 452-1850. FAX (651) 452-8940 www.mendota--heights.com LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL, 1897 DELAWARE AVENUE Part of the west half of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter, and part of southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 25, Township 28, Range 23, Dakota County Minnesota and the south 8.00 acres of the southeast quarter of Section 25, Township 28, Range 23, Dakota County, Minnesota and 27-02500-010-01: N 5 A of E half of NE quarter of NE quarter ex S 100 ft ex N 40 ft ex W 426 ft 27-02500-020-01: S 100 ft of N half of NE quarter of NE quarter of NE quarter ex W 426 ft 27-02500-030-01: W 426 ft of N half of NE quarter of NE quarter of NE quarter ex N 40 ft 27-02500-040-01: Pt of S7A of N 12A of E half of NE quarter of NE quarter Lying N of Roadway 27-02500-050-01: Pt of S7A of N 12 A of E half of NE quarter of NE quarter lying S of Roadway 27-02500-060-01: S 8A of SE quarter of NE quarter of NE quarter 27-02500-010-02: W half of NE quarter of NE quarter ex N 40 ft for st 27-02500-010-03: SE quarter of NE quarter less hgwy 98/100 A ex pt for st Henry.ey High S6001. ® 1897 Delaware Avenue, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Phone 651 - To Whom It May Concern: ADMINISTRATION Dr. Robin Percival, Principal Pat Johnson, Associate Principal Scott Karlen, Associate Principal Tom Orth, Associate Principal Brian Ihrke, Athletic Director December 22, 2011 The proposed new signage at Henry Sibley High School will identify our building more clearly and pleasantly as one travels south on Delaware Avenue in Mendota Heights. We believe the new signage is welcoming and will enhance our sense of pride in our school and our community. Thank you for considering the proposal for the new signage at Henry Sibley High School. Best Regards, Dr. Robin Percival '•rr� rs on o�u aJ�" ph: 651.481.9036 ^ fx: 651.481.0613 December 27h2011 City Council and Planning Commission Members, The proposed new signage at Henry Sibley High School is necessary for several reasons: 1. The building is located over 100 feet from the street necessitating additional branding. 2. Traveling south on Delaware Avenue, it is difficult to identify the main entrance to the school. 3. The school presently has branding on the south elevation of the building, but none on the other 3 elevations. 4. The propsosed signage is clean, legible and fits the architectural intent of the building and surrounding area. Thank you for taking the time to consider this request. /I,fh�- %COL Jim � Jim Davis Fourth Dimension Architectural Signage 1209 West County Road E Suite 100 Arden Hills, MN 55112 am 1-1 U) 0 -4-- 4--0 C- 0 am 1-1 O (1 E o wUl) W UZ _O b O - MQ W \ E OLn !� Q. v C 0 �� co r 1 *� O u'1 X p 'p O O W ❑ M o �? U) m WLL ku W U) Z L Lij aY a � _O O 0L O a c o wUl) W UZ z O D) 0 �� co IL W a O z Q ap W ❑ o �? � ❑ 2) N t-0 = O � O O C � C M E cc O z 0 �_— ❑ � G + N u U (p C C •- Z a O Ln o C - E W L ri u Ln 3 W ti ❑ a 3 O� w N D U) ❑ v U— Q L c a a`� m o ru) p Y Z C-) _ . a c.6 l??!I Z) m to o f° a W N Q U O CQ urs LU 0- a2 aW \\\ U) m c 2 0 C) \ m: 3 U) z® 2 \ \? $ § § � 0- .. @ � u \ c / \COz m / m o -) o -, / : S 3 2 « mr-- /� mO % � \2 wƒ /U § - \ \� •� � \ ■ � «% \� e < 2 E % � \2 wƒ /U U) C) L [] a) N O w O E N a) N a) C2 C t O CV 1 1 1 U) o J L O N 0) _O U) C G G ^ � LL C N O E L - U 0) Q O Q + C= (n co � o c j i T- Il G r ro w 0 ------ 0 w a w w 2 0 U c _O a ON O U) Q) ccC: G F-' U DeE 0 � � jZ UJ § ¥ � "I LUN C� LLI \o� ) f d ) 0� m �4 `\ « I m Ln uj C %3 k\& 0, &t, in ■ 2 m_ �� �2 + ®}� 4 - _ CD ) .ft/- Cl) 7 u o - : ��/� �\ e �- « z CO ��. qE ]D �O NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 ieiephone: 952.595.9636 fr'acsirniie: 952.595.-837 plan nerSCnaCplani ;ng,cprr MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: January 19, 2012 MEETING DATE: January 24, 2012 SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendment — Wetland Ordinance Administrative Approval CASE NO: NAC Case 254.04 — 11.27 APPLICANT(S): City of Mendota Heights LOCATION: NA ZONING: NA GUIDE PLAN: NA Background and Description of Request: The Planning Commission reviewed this item in September, with a comment that the terms under which an administrative review could occur be listed as existing positive conditions, rather than as the absence of certain negative conditions. The text below has been adjusted with this in mind. The remainder of the report reflects material previously reviewed by the Planning Commission. The current zoning ordinance currently provides two basic methods of approval for Wetlands Permit requests. These are: • A full public hearing before the Planning Commission, with a subsequent final consideration by the City Council, and • An "expedited" process which goes directly to the Planning Commission without a formal hearing, although this still requires final approval by the City Council. The first of these processes consumes about 45 days from application to Council consideration. The second may be slightly shorter, although few permits follow this process since the application deadlines do not accommodate significant differences, whether a hearing is required or not. It has not been uncommon for Wetlands Permits to be requested in which applicants are replacing existing structures (such as decks or porches), but other than during construction, create no additional impacts on the Wetland areas, whether though stormwater, impervious surfaces, or alteration of any existing soil or vegetation. This proposed amendment would create a particular exemption to the processing of certain low -impact permit applications, allowing the City Administrator, or designee, to approve such permits at staff level, rather than require the full public review process. The current zoning language for this section reads as follows: 12-2-6 C. Administrative Procedures And Exemptions: 1. All proposals to adjust a W district boundary line shall follow the same administrative procedures as outlined in section 12-1 L-7 of this title. 2. Permit application shall be processed in accordance with the procedures specified for the processing of a conditional use permit under the city zoning ordinance. AnalVsis: The proposed amendment would delete subparagraph 3 above, and add a new subparagraph 3 to the cited section, to read as follows: 3. Where a project is proposed within the Wetlands District, the City Administrator may, at his or her discretion, direct the appropriate staff member to review the permit request for administrative approval when all of the following conditions exist: a. No change from existingrg ades. b. No increase in building or structure square footage. c. Porch enclosure of an existing deck no larger than 200 square feet. d. No increase in impervious surface coverage. e. No reduction in natural vegetation cover. f. Compliance with all other applicable zoning regulations. The City Administrator may issue an administrative approval. Such approval may include conditions, if those conditions are necessary to ensure compliance with the intent and/or specific regulations of the Wetlands Ordinance or other 2 applicable regulations If issues are found in the application that disqualify the request from administrative approval under this section, the City Administrator shall refer the application to the Planning Commission for review under 12-2-6 C.2. With this amendment, projects that are otherwise consistent with City requirements and likely to have little or impact on the Wetland area, or adjoining properties, may proceed on a quicker timeline. The draft ordinance language has been designed to provide three options to City staff: 1) Approve as submitted; 2) Approve with conditions; or 3) Refer to Planning Commission for the regular process. The first option (approval as submitted) would be expected for most applications eligible for administrative consideration. The second option (approval with conditions) is suggested where an administrative approval is appropriate, but some minor discrepancy is discovered that can be corrected with a simple condition. This latter option is intended to avoid an administrative "denial", for which the applicant would then need to file a separate appeal. As noted in the text, an administrative approval is only to be considered for applications that appear to meet all other zoning requirements. In this case, then, the applicant would be subject to the regular process, on the assumption that there is some aspect of the application that requires further policy examination, rather than a straightforward application of the code. Action Requested: Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: (1) Approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment, adding an Administrative Approval option for simple Wetlands Permit applications, along with the various conditions as specified in the proposed text, based on a finding that certain applications do not significantly impact the conditions that the longer public review process is designed to address. (2) Denial of the amendment, based on a finding that the nature of Wetland Permits benefits from the public hearing and zoning review process in the current ordinance. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the amendment. As discussed, those applications meeting the conditions identified in the draft ordinance language are routinely approved, usually without significant comment, and at no threat to the wetland resource. In the event that an application is found to raise issues that exceed the Administrative authority, it can be cycled into the regular process for more extensive review and public notice. Supplementary Materials: NA APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. 2-o 1 ?_ - o \ Date of Application f 31 r' -- Fee Paid Applicant dame: Sedlacek Jake PH: 651-452-1850 (Last) (First) (M) E -Mail Address: jakes(c�mendota-heights.com Address: 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights MN 55077 (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Owner Name: City of MendotaHeights (Last) (First) (M) Address: 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights MN 55077 (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question: Legal Description & PIN of Property- (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must bef provided)l 1 - ��i c� lad, 4 Je ��a � no' Type of Request Rezoning Conditional Use Permit Conditional User Permit for P.U.D. Preliminary/Final Plat Approval Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number Present Zoning of Property Proposed Zoning of Property I `L - Present Use Proposed Use Variance Subdivision Approval Wetlands Permit Critical Area Permit X� Other (attach explanation) �ry Section I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above property during daylight hours. r� (Signature of Applicant) Date Received \ [ it i i `— (Signature of Owner) 1101 Victoria Curve. Mendota Heights, MN 55118. (651) 452-1850 . FAY (651) 452-8940 www. inert do ta-heights. coin IYA F� � {�� "[-�.-.�-}( � d�4i � F-1 ��� k J Y. t�d fY- f�ii �A - �i 5" - k � I fit: F.J �'I:-avv's �>.; Edw .L3. .: l,� APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. 2-o 1 ?_ - o \ Date of Application f 31 r' -- Fee Paid Applicant dame: Sedlacek Jake PH: 651-452-1850 (Last) (First) (M) E -Mail Address: jakes(c�mendota-heights.com Address: 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights MN 55077 (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Owner Name: City of MendotaHeights (Last) (First) (M) Address: 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights MN 55077 (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question: Legal Description & PIN of Property- (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must bef provided)l 1 - ��i c� lad, 4 Je ��a � no' Type of Request Rezoning Conditional Use Permit Conditional User Permit for P.U.D. Preliminary/Final Plat Approval Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number Present Zoning of Property Proposed Zoning of Property I `L - Present Use Proposed Use Variance Subdivision Approval Wetlands Permit Critical Area Permit X� Other (attach explanation) �ry Section I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above property during daylight hours. r� (Signature of Applicant) Date Received \ [ it i i `— (Signature of Owner) 1101 Victoria Curve. Mendota Heights, MN 55118. (651) 452-1850 . FAY (651) 452-8940 www. inert do ta-heights. coin January 3, 2012 Planning Commission 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Commissioners: cot mcndota He'91 Attached is a planning application on behalf of the City of Mendota Heights regarding the process for obtaining a Wetlands Permit. City Code currently requires a wetlands permit for any work occurring within 100 feet of a designated wetland. The process includes full public notification and an official public hearing prior to the matter being brought to the city council for a formal decision. This process works well for most projects, but it has been noted in recent years that several small projects going could be approved administratively, if certain conditions are met. As the result of discussions at the planning commission, staff is making formal application for an amendment to City Code Title 12, Chapter 2, to allow for administrative approvals for certain minor projects located within 100 feet of a wetland area. In the proposed language, staff may approve projects which meet pre -established conditions. If staff is inclined to deny a project, the request would be routed through the standard process to provide the applicant an opportunity to state their case for planning commission and city council. Staff feels that the proposed language maintains the integrity of the wetland permitting process, while providing some flexibility for projects which may not require a lengthy decision process. Sincerely, Jake Sedlacek Asst. to the City Admin. 71710 Vn� ®rn �A9ItF/� I�Ica��l�t� k9eaa�i�ntts, P�IP� 5118 a (65II) 52-L�850 AX Q�511� 5�-€,940 gr a mendota-h enghtsxom CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THREE REQUESTS TO AMEND CITY CODE, TITLE 12 REGARDING WETLANDS PERMITS, CRITICAL AREA PERMITS AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission of Mendota Heights will meet at 7.00 P.M., or as soon as possible thereafter, on Tuesday, January 24, 2012 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider three applications from City of Mendota Heights amending Title 12 of the City Code: Planning Case 2012-01 — amending 12-2-6C, Administrative Procedures and Exemptions for approval of a wetlands permit allowing for an expedited process when certain conditions are met. Planning Case 2012-02 — amending 12-3-5, Site Planning Requirements for approval of a critical area permit allowing for an expedited process when certain conditions are met. Planning Case 2012-03 — amending 12 -1D -3C.2 Accessory Structures in all Residential Districts, allowing for larger accessory structures for conditionally permitted uses on lots over four acres in size. This notice is pursuant to Title 12 (Zoning), Chapter 1 of the Mendota Heights City Code. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to this request will be heard at this meeting. Sandie Thone City Clerk NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. �G s 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 r I L • 'V:7(� one: 91_J2. 59-1--.91-7-'3 6 Facsimile: 952.595 .9837 planners@nacplanning—corn MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen W. Grittman DATE: November 16, 2011 MEETING DATE: November 22, 2011 SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendment — Wetland Ordinance Administrative Approval CASE NO: - NAC Case 254.04 — 11.27 APPLICANT(S): City of Mendota Heights LOCATION: NA ZONING: NA GUIDE PLAN: NA Background and Description of Request: The Planning Commission reviewed this item in September, with a comment that the terms under which an administrative review could occur be listed as existing positive conditions, rather than as the absence of certain negative conditions. The text below has been adjusted with this in mind. The remainder of the report reflects material previously reviewed by the Planning Commission. The current zoning ordinance currently provides two basic methods of approval for Wetlands Permit requests. These are • A full public hearing before the Planning Commission, with a subsequent final consideration by the City Council, and • An "expedited" process which goes directly to the Planning Commission without a formal hearing, although this still requires final approval by the City Council. The first of these processes consumes about 45 days from application to Council consideration. The second may be slightly shorter, although few permits follow this process since the application deadlines do not accommodate significant differences, whether a hearina is required or not. It has not been uncommon for Wetlands Permits to be requested in which applicants are replacing existing structures (such as decks or porches), but other than during construction, create no additional impacts on the Wetland areas, whether though stormwater, impervious surfaces, or alteration of any existing soil or vegetation. This proposed amendment would create a particular exemption to the processing of certain low -impact permit applications, allowing the City Administrator, or designee, to approve such permits at staff level, rather than require the full public review process. The current zoning language for this section reads as follows: 12-2-6 C. Administrative Procedures And Exemptions: 1. All proposals to adjust a W district boundary line shall follow the same administrative procedures as outlined in section 12-1 L-7 of this title. 2. Permit application shall be processed in accordance with the procedures specified for the processing of a conditional use permit under the city zoning ordinance. In the case of a minor development or change and/or development involving a single-family or two-family residence, the city administrator shall bring the request to the attention of the planning commission at its next regular meeting following receipt of an application for permit, whereupon, they shall review such request and may, if they so determine, exempt the subdivider from complying with any inappropriate requirements of this chapter. Analysis: The proposed amendment would add subparagraph 4. to the cited section, to read as follows: 4 Where a project is proposed within the Wetlands District, the City Administrator may, at his or her discretion direct the appropriate staff member to review the permit request for administrative approval when all of the following conditions exist: a. No change from existing grades. b. No increase in building or structure square footage. c. Porch enclosure of an existing deck no larger than 200 square feet. d. No increase in impervious surface coverage. e. No reduction in natural vegetation cover. f. Compliance with all other applicable zoning regulations. 2 The City Administrator may issue an administrative approval. Such approval may include conditions if those conditions are necessary to ensure compliance with the intent and/orspecific regulations of the Wetlands Ordinance or other gpplicable regulations if issues are found in the application the City Administrator may refer the qpplication to the Planning Commission for review under 12-2-6 C.2. With this amendment, projects that are otherwise consistent with City requirements and likely to have little or impact on the Wetland area, or adjoining properties, may proceed on a quicker timeline. The draft ordinance language has been e signedith to provi or 3) three options to City staff-. 1) Appid rove as submitted; 2) App Refer to Planning Commission for the regular process. The first option (approval as submitted) would be expected for most applications eligible for administrative consideration. The second option (approval with conditions) is suggested where an administrative approval is appropriate, but some minor discrepancy is discovered that can be corrected with a simple condition. This latter option is intended to avoid an administrative "denial", for which the applicant wouid then need to file a separate appeal. As noted in the text, an administrative approval is only to be considered for applications that appear to meet all other zoning requirements. In this case, then, the applicant would be subject to the regular process, on the assumption that there is some aspect of the application that requires further policy examination, rather than a straightforward application of the code. Action Requested: Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations - (1) Approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment, adding an Administrative Approval option for simple Wetlands Permit applications, along with the various conditions as specified in the proposed text, based on a finding that certain applications do not significantly impact the conditions that the longer public review process is designed to address. (2) Denial of the amendment, based on a finding that the nature of Wetland Permits benefits from the public hearing and zoning review process in the current ordinance. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the amendment. As discussed, those applications meeting the conditions identified in the draft ordinance language are routinely approved, usually without significant comment, and at no threat to the wetland resource. In the event that an application is found to raise issues that exceed the Administrative authority, it can be cvcled into the regular process for more extensive review and public notice. Supplementary Materials: NA 4 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATE[ CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 703.231 .255`5 Facsimile: 63.23 1.2561 pla'i versgnacpla.-nny.-^..orn MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen W. Grittman DATE: January 19, 2012 MEETING DATE: January 24, 2012 SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendment — Critical Area Minor Project Permit Processing CASE NO: NAC Case 254.04 — 11.28 APPLICANT(S): City of Mendota Heights LOCATION: NA ZONING: NA GUIDE PLAN: NA Background and Description of Request: The Critical Area Ordinance regulates any construction or land alteration activity in the designated Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor. This area is designated pursuant to federal regulation, and includes most of the land adjacent to the bluffs overlooking the river, as well as some property beyond the bluff areas. Regardless of location, all projects require a Critical Area Permit. For the past several years, the City has required that all such permits follow the full review process of public hearing before the Planning Commission, and City Council approval. The current ordinance does have a clause which permits an expedited review to the City Council for "minor" projects. However, concerns related to public notice for certain projects had resulted in a policy decision to require full review with the public hearing. That clause reads as follows: D. Modifications: In the case of a minor development and/or change involving a single-family dwelling, and if the site plans conform to the standards of the critical area overlay district, the city administrator shall bring the request to the attention of the city council at its next regular meeting following receipt of an application for critical area ordinance consideration. The city council shall review such request and may; if it so determines, exempt the applicant from complying with any inappropriate requirements of this chapter. At the request of the Planning Commission, staff undertook a brief survey of other cities subject to the Critical River regulations. The question posed to staff in those cities was whether they permitted certain projects to proceed under an expedited review without public hearing, and if so, what scope of project received this process. For the vast majority of other cities, most projects were permitted administratively. The most common exceptions were for new buildings, major re -grading projects, and fences. Other minor projects are routinely processed administratively. Analysis: Because there are a number of properties within the Critical Area that have neither steep slopes nor river exposure, the full review can be onerous, particularly when the project is of minimal impact. Many property owners have been surprised to discover that they are in the Critical Area when they have no views, and have had minor building permits held up for several weeks awaiting the Critical Area Permit process to unfold. Unfortunately, one possible solution to this issue — that of removing such properties from the Critical Area — would literally require an act of Congress. Thus, staff is suggesting the expedited review process be re -started, but with a few parameters added to the ordinance to ensure that no projects with potential impacts for the Critical Area escape public notice and comment. The proposed amendment to Section D., above, would add the following limitations: Projects eligible for the exemptions of this paragraph include (but are not necessarily limited to) minor building additions decks, fences, accessory storage sheds landscaping and similar structures. Proposed projects and sites must comply with the following conditions: 1. No part of the subject property shall have slopes of greater than eighteen_ (18) percent. 2. No part of the subject property shall be within forty (40) feet, whether on the same parcel or on abutting_ parcels of any area defined as a bluff by this chapter, or any area with slopes greater than forty (40) percent. 3. The proposed project shall not expand the enclosed area of the principal or accessory structures by more than 144 square feet. 4. The proposed project shall not increase the height of any existing structure. 5. The proposed project shall be in compliance with all other requirements of this chapter, and any other applicable regulations. 6. The proposed project shall not result in changes to the existing finished grade. 2 A _s: D...... L..../. Action ![equeslGlJ. The Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: 1) Recommend approval of the amendment, based on findings that the process will clarify the process while continuing to ensure attainment of Critical Area goals, and will be in keeping with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. 2) Recommend denial of the amendment, retaining the current code language and process. Staff Recommendation: This amendment has been prepared based on several recent applications for construction where there were nominal impacts on Critical Area issues. Staff recommends approval of the amendment, as written and reviewed over the past few Planning Commission meetings. As noted, this amendment arises from a concern that for properties not directly affecting the bluff or steep slope areas, minor projects should be able to proceed directly to the City Council without the need for a public hearing. The expedited process still ensures staff review and an open meeting approval, without endangering the objectives that the Critical Area Ordinance is designed to protect. Mendota Heights has traditionally required extensive review and processing for Critical Area permit requests, consistent with the stated intent of the Critical River legislation. This amendment relaxes that process only slightly, ensuring that projects which may create noticeable impacts still get reviewed in a public forum, and with notice to surrounding property owners. Supplementary Materials: NA ff fi 6%, E", - r. APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. I00 2- - C,�_ Date of Application i -- Dee Paid ��► Applicant name: Sedlacek Jake PH- 651-452-1850 (Last) (First) (M) E -Mail Address: bakes(cr�mendota-heights.com Address: 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights MN 55077 (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Owner Dame: City of MendotaHeights (Last) (First) (M) Address: 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights IVIN 55077 (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question. - Legal Description & PIN. of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed mast be provided) c k,rr1i'i4i'A' (' pts S, AAs . Type of Request: Rezoning Conditional Use Permit Conditional User Permit for P.U.D. Preliminary/Final Plat Approval Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number Present Zoning of Property �T— Present Use Proposed Zoning of Property Proposed Use Variance Subdivision Approval Wetlands Permit Critical Area Permit Other (attach explanation)' Section I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above property during daylight hours. (Signature of Applicant) Date Received (Signature of Owner) 11Q1 Victoria Curve . Messdota Heights, MN 55118 . (65 1) 452-1850 . FAX (65 1) 452-89400 www.mendota-heights.com 421 ff fi 6%, E", - r. APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. I00 2- - C,�_ Date of Application i -- Dee Paid ��► Applicant name: Sedlacek Jake PH- 651-452-1850 (Last) (First) (M) E -Mail Address: bakes(cr�mendota-heights.com Address: 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights MN 55077 (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Owner Dame: City of MendotaHeights (Last) (First) (M) Address: 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights IVIN 55077 (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question. - Legal Description & PIN. of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed mast be provided) c k,rr1i'i4i'A' (' pts S, AAs . Type of Request: Rezoning Conditional Use Permit Conditional User Permit for P.U.D. Preliminary/Final Plat Approval Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number Present Zoning of Property �T— Present Use Proposed Zoning of Property Proposed Use Variance Subdivision Approval Wetlands Permit Critical Area Permit Other (attach explanation)' Section I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above property during daylight hours. (Signature of Applicant) Date Received (Signature of Owner) 11Q1 Victoria Curve . Messdota Heights, MN 55118 . (65 1) 452-1850 . FAX (65 1) 452-89400 www.mendota-heights.com January 3, 2012 Planning Commission 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Commissioners: CRY a of M-Iendota Heights Attached is a planning application on behalf of the City of Mendota Heights regarding the process for obtaining a Critical Area Permit. City Code Title 12, Chapter 3 provides guidance on how the city processes requests for any development within the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area. The code includes an allowance for a minor project to be brought directly to city council. Most cases are subject to full public notification and a public hearing at the planning commission, prior to council consideration. The city's policy for some time now has been to treat every application the same, requiring the full process on every project, regardless of impact upon the critical area. As the result of discussions at the planning commission, staff is making formal application to amend the zoning ordinance to include a better definition of minor projects. The purpose of the amendment is to allow property owners with minor projects to move ahead in a timely fashion, while preserving the city's right to ensure that each project fits with the character of the critical area. Staff feels that the proposed language maintains the integrity of the critical area permitting process, while providing some flexibility for projects which may not require a lengthy decision process. Sincerely, Jake Sedlacek Asst. to the City Admin. 11LO1 %Cttor6a Curve ° MI enndota HeRghts, NCS 55118 ° (651) 452-1850 ° FAX (651) 452-6940 err,piw. uucemd®ta-1> eA99It5-COM CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING TITLE 12 A PUBLIC HEARING ON THREE REQUESTS TO AMEND CITY CODE, REGARDING WETLANDS PERMITS, CRITICAL AREA PERMITS AND ACCESSORY BUILD TO WHOM 1T MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission of Mendota Heights will meet at 7:00 P.M., or as soon as possible thereafter, on Tuesday, January 2 to in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota consider three applications from City of Mendota Heights amending Title 12 of the City Code: Planning Case 2012-01 —amending 12-2-6C, Administrative Procedures and Exemptions for approval of a wetlands permit allowing for an expedited process when certain conditions are met. —amending 12-3-5, Site Planning Requirements for Planning Case 2012-02 approval of a critical area permit allowing for an expedited process when certain conditions are met_ .Planning Case 2012-03 — amending 1 structures cAccessory permitted Residential Districts, allowing for larger accessory uses on lots over four acres in size. This notice is pursuant to Title 12 (Zoning), Chapter 1 of the Mendota Heights City Code. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to this request will be heard at this meeting_ Sandie Thone City Clerk NORTHWEST S CIAT a C0.14SULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial High\,vay, Suite 2032, Golden galley., 1'JN 55422 -telephone: 763,231,2555 Facsimile: 7i-5-3.22-31-2561rlarylle�g/{)J?aLnlutln.f g_coil; MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM' Stephen K Grittman DATE: September 21, 2011 MEETING DATE: September 27, 2011 SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendment — Critical Area Minor Project Permit Processing CASE NO: NAC Case 254.04 — 11.28 APPLICANT(S): City of Mendota Heights LOCATION: NA ZONING: NA GUIDE PLAN: NA Background and Description of Request: The Critical Area Ordinance regulates any construction or land alteration activity in the designated Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor. This area is designated pursuant to federal regulation, and includes most of the land adjacent to the bluffs overlooking the river, as well as some property beyond the bluff areas. Regardless of location, all projects require a Critical Area Permit. For the past several years, the City has required that all such permits follow the full review process of public hearing before the Planning Commission, and City Council approval. The current ordinance does have a clause which permits an expedited review to the City Council for "minor" projects. However, concerns related to public notice for certain projects had resulted in a policy decision to require full review with the public hearing. That clause reads as follows: D. Modifications: In the case of a minor development and/or change involving a single-family dwelling, and if the site plans conform to the standards of the critical area overlay district, the city administrator shall bring the request to the attention of the city council at its next regular meeting following receipt of an application for critical area ordinance consideration. The city council shall review such request and may, if it so determines, exempt the applicant from complying with any inappropriate requirements of this chapter. Analysis: Because there are a number of properties within the Critical Area that have neither steep slopes nor river exposure, the full review can be onerous, particularly when the project is of minimal impact_ Many property owners have been surprised to discover that they are in the Critical Area when they have no views, and have had minor building permits held up for several weeks awaiting the Critical Area Permit process to unfold. Unfortunately, one possible solution to this issue — that of removing such properties from the Critical Area — would literally require an act of Congress. Thus, staff is suggesting the expedited review process be re -started, but with a _few parameters. . added to the ordinance to ensure that no projects with potential impacts for the Critical Area escape public notice and comment. The proposed amendment to Section D., above, would add the following limitations.- Properties imitations: Properties eligible for the exemptions of this paragraph must comply with the following conditions: 1. No part of the subject property shall have slopes of greater than eighteen (18)percent. 2. No part of the subject property shall be within forty (40) feet, whether on the same parcel or on abutting parcels, of any area defined as a bluff by this chapter, or any area with slopes greater than forty (40) percent. 3. The proposed project shall not expand the enclosed area of the principal or accessory structures by more than 144 square feet. 4. The proposed project shall not increase the height of any existing structure. 5. The proposed project shall be in compliance with all other requirements of this chapter, and any other applicable regulations. 6. The proposed project shall not result in changes to the existing finished grade. 7, Projects included within this exemption, provided they meet the preceding requirements, include rninor building additions, decks, fences, accessory storage sheds, landscaping, and. similar structures. 2 Action Requested: The Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: 1) Direct staff to file a formal application to consider this amendment at a public hearing before the Planning Commission at its regular meeting in October; or 2) Table action on the item to allow for additional discussion prior to formal consideration of the amendment. Staff Recommendation: This amendment has been forwarded for discussion, based on several recent applications for construction where there were nominal impacts on Critical Area issues. Staff requests that the Planning Commission directs a formal application, which would trigger consideration of the issue at a public hearing next month. This amendment arises from a concern that for properties not directly affecting the bluff or -steep slope areas, minor projects should be able to proceed directly -to the City Council without the need for a public hearing. The expedited process still ensures staff review and an open meeting approval, without endangering the objectives that the Critical Area Ordinance is designed to protect. Supplementary Materials: NA J NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 6 3.23 1 .2555 Facsimile: 703.23 , .25v , plannFers@ acplunn, - —, --nrrt MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: CASE NO: APPLICANT(S): LOCATION: ZONING: GUIDE PLAN: Background; Mendota Heights Planning Commission Stephen Grittman January 19, 2012 January 24, 2012 Zoning Ordinance Amendment — Institutional Accessory Building Regulations in Residential Districts NAC Case 254.04 — 11.29 City of Mendota Heights JUA NA NA At a Planning Commission meeting this past summer, a request for accessory building construction was considered for the Visitation Convent and School. The process to accommodate this request, as it has been for other institutional uses, required Conditional Use Permit approval, coupled with consideration of Variances related to number, size, and total square footage of accessory buildings in a residential district. The City's zoning ordinance allows institutional uses, such as schools, places of worship, golf courses, nature centers, and governmental buildings, in residential districts. The Accessory Building regulations for the residential districts, however, are structured to address accessory buildings that are typical of residential uses rather than institutional activities. While the City's practice has been to address this discrepancy through the variance process, it was suggested that an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance be considered that would establish specific accessory use regulations for institutional land uses. The current regulations in the Residential Districts provide for the following: • Detached garages of between 440 square feet and 750 square feet. • Detached non -garage buildings of 144 square feet for single family property. • Detached non -garage buildings totaling 425 sq. ft. for property over 4 acres. • Detached non -garage buildings up to 1,000 sq. ft. by Conditional Use Permit. • Maximum of 3 accessory buildings for any principal use. For the uses identified above as "institutional", most of the properties in the City occupied by such uses have need for accessory buildings exceeding these regulations. To increase the allowance for such buildings, the Planning Commission recommended a proportional standard, allowing more accessory building space as the size of property increases. The draft text below establishes a proportional standard for accessory building size, with a minimum lot size and additional standards for larger buildings to ensure that surrounding residential areas are not negatively affected. Finally, a Conditional Use Permit is required to ensure that the larger accessory building construction will complement the neighborhood, and that site and building design is consistent with the City's standards in these areas. 2. Accessory structures (other than detached, private garages) in all residential districts: a. Number and Size: (,) n > buildings i t t detached, + gg) shall + e d ,e \ thousand 000) uare 7\ > feet. id( l efle r a a r t fouf (, n 4) s e feet For parcels of four (4) acres or less occupied by a residential structure only one accessory building of up to one hundred forty four (144) square feet may be allowed. (2) Wepefty is fiiefe than four- (4) aefest: Total area eannat exeeed feuf hun4red-t�� r i425', squafe feet, pr—a:dam: For parcels of more than four (4) acres occupied by a residential structure accessory building space of up to four hundred twenty five (425) square feet maybe allowed provided that: (A) No single structure shall exceed two hundred twenty five (225) square feet. (B) No more than three (3) accessory structures may be erected. *In computing the area of the property on which an accessory structure is to be located, any part which is a lake or a wetland, as defined in any city ordinance or by state or federal law, any part which is subject to an easement for a street, alley or private roadway, and any part which is in the critical area and below the "bluff line", as defined in chapter 3, "Critical Area Overlay District", of this title shall be excluded. (3) For property in residential zoning districts occupied by non-residential uses one accessory building (other than detached garages) shall be allowed up to 1,000 square feet in foundation 2 or first floor area For parcels of more than four (4) acres in size property owners may, upon- approval of a Conditional Use Permit construct accessory building space equal to one half of one percent (0.5%) of the�arcel size measured as the foundation or first floor area, under the following conditions: (A) The accessory building shall be constructed of materials similar to or complementary with the exterior buildin4 materials of the principal building. (B) The accessory building(s) shall meet all setbacks applicable to the principal building. (C) The land around accessory buildings built according to this section shall be landscaped to buffer the view of such buildings from exposure to abutting residential uses. With this change, the allowable accessory building size will be clarified for both residential and non-residential properties. Non-residential property would be allowed an accessory building of up to 1,000 square feet, with more accessory space allowed by CUP, based on the size of the property. Under this ratio, a ten acre property would be allowed 2,178 square feet of accessory building space. A forty acre property would be allowed up to 8,712 square feet. (For reference, 1,000 square feet would be equal to a four -car garage.) For the larger building allowed by CUP, the language has been further clarified to specify that the square footage limitation applies to the first floor (or foundation) size of the building. Thus, an accessory building could be constructed that includes an upper area of usable space which would not count against the limitation in this section. It should be noted that accessory buildings must still meet the maximum height restriction of 15 feet, so the allowance should be self-limiting. Action Requested: After the public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: 1. Approval of the amendment, based on findings that the revised code better reflects the nature of the institutional land uses, and that the revisions continue to protect surrounding residential areas. 2. Denial of the amendment, retaining current code language. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of the amendment. The change better anticipates the actual use of the institutional properties and their accessory building needs, without requiring a resort to variance. The proposed code should establish a realistic baseline for non-residential land uses in the residential areas. Supplementary Materials: None APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION ION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case leo, oil - Date of Application k I3/ g- Fee Paid -- Applicant Dame: Sedlacek Jake PH: 651-452-1850 (Last) (First) (M) E -Mail Address: jakes(cr7mendota-heights.com Address: 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights MD 55077 (Dumber &. Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Owner Dame: City of MendotaHeights (Last) (First) (M) Address: 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights IVIN 55077 (Dumber & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question: Legal Description & PID of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) ,J c Type of Request: Rezoning Conditional Use Permit Conditional User Permit for P.U.D. Preliminary/Final Plat Approval Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance dumber Present Zoning of Property Variance Subdivision Approval Wetlands Permit Critical Area Permit ,; Other (attach explanation) S t 2_ Section Present Use Proposed Zoning of Property Proposed Use I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. i further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above property during daylight hours. (Signature of Applicant) Date Received E I I; p - (Signature of Owner) 1101 Victoria. Comae. Mendota. Heights, MN 55118. (651) 452-1850. FAX (651) 452-8940 www.men-dota-heights.com AM P 10 y j UA i. '-`1� �rt t� Ffti X i' y2.r n}r P I- ' k 6 -FTP C3 � si i Jt f! M. L� 0z.«!�''--- r ..Fi .1"s .a- 4 APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION ION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case leo, oil - Date of Application k I3/ g- Fee Paid -- Applicant Dame: Sedlacek Jake PH: 651-452-1850 (Last) (First) (M) E -Mail Address: jakes(cr7mendota-heights.com Address: 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights MD 55077 (Dumber &. Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Owner Dame: City of MendotaHeights (Last) (First) (M) Address: 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights IVIN 55077 (Dumber & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question: Legal Description & PID of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) ,J c Type of Request: Rezoning Conditional Use Permit Conditional User Permit for P.U.D. Preliminary/Final Plat Approval Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance dumber Present Zoning of Property Variance Subdivision Approval Wetlands Permit Critical Area Permit ,; Other (attach explanation) S t 2_ Section Present Use Proposed Zoning of Property Proposed Use I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. i further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above property during daylight hours. (Signature of Applicant) Date Received E I I; p - (Signature of Owner) 1101 Victoria. Comae. Mendota. Heights, MN 55118. (651) 452-1850. FAX (651) 452-8940 www.men-dota-heights.com CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS win eY`c OF HEARING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THREE REQUESTS TO AMEND CITY CODE, TITLE 12 REGARDING WETLANDS PERMITS, CRITICAL AREA PERMITS AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission of Mendota Heights will meet at 7:00 P.M., or as soon as possible thereafter, on Tuesday, January 24, 2012 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider three applications from City of Mendota Heights amending Title 12 of the City Code: Planning Case 2012-01 — amending 12-2-6C, Administrative Procedures and Exemptions for approval of a wetlands permit allowing for an expedited process when certain conditions are met. Planning Case 2012-02 — amending 12-3-5, Site Planning Requirements for approval of a critical area permit allowing for an expedited process when certain conditions are met. Planning Case 2012-03 — amending 12-1 D -3C.2 Accessory Structures in all Residential Districts, allowing for larger accessory structures for conditionally permitted uses on lots over four acres in size. ota ty This notice is pursuant to Title 12 (Zoning),Chapter referenceerence to this regduest willibethealyd Code. Such persons as desire to be heard at this meeting. Sandie Thone City Clerk NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 -r releproie: 7F3.2oi.nc 55 Facsimile: 5J.2 1.2F(31 plan ,ori(�nacpla nnin.n� .com TO: FROM- DATE.- MEETING ROM-DATE.- MEETING DATE- SUBJECT - CASE NO- APPLICANT(S): LOCATION - ZONING: GUIDE PLAN: Background: Mendota Heights Planning Commission Stephen W. Grittman November 16, 2011 November 22, 2011 Zoning Ordinance Amendment — Institutional Accessory Building Regulations in Residential Districts NAC Case 264.04 — 11.29 City of Mendota Heights IN ZVA NA At a Planning Commission meeting this past summer, a request for accessory building construction was considered for the Visitation Convent and School. The process to accommodate this request, as it has been for other institutional uses, required Conditional Use Permit approval, coupled with consideration of Variances related to number, size, and total square footage of accessory buildings in a residential district. The City's zoning ordinance allows institutional uses, such as schools, places of worship, golf courses, nature centers, and governmental buildings, in residential districts. The Accessory Building regulations for the residential districts, however, are structured to address accessory buildings that are typical of residential uses rather than institutional activities. While the City's practice has been to address this discrepancy through the variance process, it was suggested that an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance be considered that would establish specific accessory use regulations for institutional land uses. The current regulations in the Residential Districts provide for the following: • Detached garages of between 440 square feet and 750 square feet. ® Detached non -garage buildings of 144 square feet for single family property. ® Detached non -garage buildings totaling 425 square feet for property over 4 acres in size. • Detached non -garage buildings up to 1,000 square feet by Conditional Use Permit. ® Maximum of 3 accessory buildings for any principal use. For the uses identified above as "institutional", most of the properties in the City occupied by such uses have need for accessory buildings exceeding these regulations. To increase the allowance for such buildings, the Planning Commission recommended a proportional standard, allowing more accessory building space as the size of property increases. The draft text below establishes a proportional standard for accessory building size, with a minimum lot size and additional standards for larger buildings to ensure that surrounding residential areas are not negatively affected. Finally, a Conditional Use Permit is required to ensure that the larger accessory building construction will complement the neighborhood, and that site and building design is consistent with the City's standards in these areas. 2. Accessory structures (other than detached, private garages) in all residential districts: a. Number and Size: > b theusand (1,000) squafe f&4= (�\ 1 � 7 a - a f 14_ four- ( 14 4 ) s 1*a e f� For parcels of four (4) acres or less occupied by.a residential structure only one accessory building of up to one hundred forty four (144) square feet may be allowed. For parcels of more �thanour (4)acres occupied by a residential structure accessory building space of up to four hundred twenty five (425) square feet may be allowed provided that: (A) No single structure shall exceed two hundred twenty five (225) square feet. (B) No more than three (3) accessory structures may be erected. *h1 computing the area of the property on which an accessory structure is to be located, any part which is a lake or a wetland, as defined in any city ordinance or by state or federal law, any part which is subject to an easement for a street, alley or private roadway, and any part which is in the critical area and below the "bluff line", as defined in chapter 3, "Critical Area Overlay District", of this title shall be excluded. 2 (3) For property in residential zoning districts occupied by non-residential uses, one accessory building (other than detacbed garages) shall be allowed up to 1,000 square feet in area. For parcels of more than ivur (4) acres in size, p:opejj Owners may,upon approval of a Conditional Use Pennit construct accessory building space equal to one half of one percent (0.5%) of the parcel size under the following conditions: (A) The accessory building shall be constructed of materials similar to or complementary with the exterior building materials of the principal building. (B) The accessory building(s) shall meet all setbacks applicable to the principal building. (C) The land around accessory buildings built according to this section shall be landscaped to buffer the view of such buildings from exposure to abutting residential uses. With this change, the allowable accessory building size will be clarified for both residential and non-residential properties. Non-residential property would be allowed an accessory building of up to 1,000 square feet, with more accessory space allowed by CUP, based on the size of the property. Under this ratio, a ten acre property would be allowed 2,178 square feet of accessory building space. A forty acre property would be allowed up to 8,712 square feet. (For reference, 1,000 square feet would be equal to a four -car garage.) Action Requested: If this material is satisfactory, staff would ask the Planning Commission to call for a public hearing on the proposed amendment at an upcoming meeting. Supplementary Materials: HS=13,