2012-04-24 Planning Comm Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDO T A HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Agenda
April 24, 2012 - 7:00 P.M.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of the Agenda
4. Approval of the February 28, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes
5. Approval of the March 27, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes
6. Hearings
a. Case No. 2012-07: Michael and Michelle Bader, variance to the right of way
width for Foxwood Lane, Public Hearing continued from the February 28,
2012 planning commission meeting.
b. Case No. 2012-10: Joe Igo, variance to the side yard setback for a driveway
expansion at 862 Wagon Wheel Trail. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m.
c. Case No. 2012-11: Dick Davern on behalf of the Convent of the Visitation,
conditional use permit and variances to construct softball dugouts at 2455
Visitation Drive. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m.
7. Verbal Review
8. Adjourn
Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in
advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make
every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please
contact City Administration at 651-452-1850 with requests.
Planning Commission Minaites
Rebraaq 28, 2012
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 28, 2012
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 28, 2012, 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, and
Viksnins. Those absent: Commissioner Roston. 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 ofAkenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of January 24, 2012, Minutes
COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO APPROVE
THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 24, 2012, AS PRESENTED.
AYES 6
NAYS 0
Hearings
PLANNING CASE #2012-05
Sheila and Ab Hilo
2225 Apache Street
Variance to the Front Yard Setback
Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Sheila and Ab Hilo for approval of a variance to the front yard
setback.
Mr. Grittman noted that the applicants were proposing an addition to the front of their R-1 single family home. The
proposed addition would extend into the 30 foot front yard setback by four feet. The applicants are seeking a four
foot variance to allow for the dining room addition and feel their request would be to use the property in a
reasonable manner.
Mr. Grittman presented staff's analysis of the request and recommended the Commission approve the variance, as a
reasonable accommodation to permit reinvestment in the existing housing stock, and to permit the home to be
improved nearer to contemporary single family housing in the community. The proposed addition would not appear
to be excessive from a square footage standpoint for the use. Without the variance, reasonable expansion for this
type of improvement does not seem feasible.
Commissioner Viksnins questioned if the neighboring properties with additions were completed through the
variance process due to the small lot size. Mr. Grittman explained he was uncertain if variances were approved but
he knew the lot sizes to be an issue in this neighborhood.
Sheila Hilo, 2225 Apache Street, thanked the Planning Commission for considering her request. She indicated the
dining room addition would add great value to her home as the current eating area was quite small.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28, 2012
Commissioner Magnuson asked if the proposed dining room addition could be reduced in size to fit within the front
yard setback. Mrs. Hilo stated the size could be reduced, but that the smaller size would not meet the needs of her
family.
Commissioner Viksnins questioned if other alternatives have been considered. Ms. Hilo stated if the addition were
shifted a kitchen window would be covered and the exterior of the home would look awkward. She explained that
she and her husband had reviewed several scenarios before bringing this to the City for a variance.
Chair Norton opened the public hearing.
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 NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE
PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES 6
NAYS 0
COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED
IN THE STAFF REPORT.
Commissioner Viksnins requested a slight language change to in the Findings of Fact, Item 4.
AYES 6
NAYS 0
Chair Norton advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 6, 2012, meeting.
PLANNING CASE #2012-06
Scott Scbifflett on behalf of St. Thomas Academy
949 Mendota Heights Road
Variances to the Number and Total Area for Signs
Chair Norton disclosed that he attended St. Thomas Academy and holds a position on the alumni board; however,
this was not found to be a conflict of interest.
Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Scott Schifflett on behalf of St. Thomas Academy for approval of
a variance to the number Viand total area for signs.
Mr. Grittman noted that St. Thomas Academy is planning for the construction of a new activities facility at 949
Mendota Heights Road. With construction of the new building, the school will be removing the temporary air -
supported structure on the west side of the existing buildings. As a part of the project, the school is also requesting
approval of a variance for proposed wall signage for the activities building.
Mr. Grittman explained the south face of the existing gymnasium displays existing wall signage visible from
Mendota Heights Road. Since this south face of the building will be the location for the addition, the existing
signage will need to be removed and replaced. The applicants wishes to affix two signs to the activities building,
one 115 square feet in size and the other 132 square feet in size, with an additional sign on the east side of the
building that is 127 square feet in size.
Mr. Grittman indicated that the R zoning district allows for one nameplate sign for a permitted use by conditional
use permit and shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet in area. The applicants have requested a variance to exceed
the number and area requirements of wall signs allowed for non-residential uses located in the residential zoning
district. The proposed St. Thomas wall signs are comparable in size to those approved at Henry Sibley. Staff
4
Planning Commission Rlintues
Februm), 28, 2012
discussed the size differences between the signs requested between the two schools. While there is no doubt that the
larger sign is more visible, variances are typically considered to accommodate the least amount necessary to make a
reasonable use of the property.
Mr. Grittman presented staff's analysis of the request and recommended approval of the variance with the
modification that the logo sign is resized to less than 60 square feet, comparable to that granted to Sibley High
School.
Commissioner Magnuson requested further information regarding the logo sign requested by Sibley High School.
Mr. Grittman explained the 52 square foot logo sign was submitted by Sibley High School and was resized in any
way by the City.
Commissioner Viksnins asked if two variance requests were being made. Mr. Grittman stated this was the case as
the City was allowing for two lettered signs and one logo sign and each exceeded the zoning districts sign
requirements.
Commissioner Viksnins questioned if the City should consider amending the zoning code to address signage for
non-residential uses in residential zoning districts. Mr. Grittman indicated there were very few non-residential uses
in the residential zoning district, beyond the schools, golf courses and churches.
Chair Norton indicated the Sibley High School sign was facing north or northeast and would be facing residential
properties. Mr. Grittman stated this was the case and that the St. Thomas Academy signs would be facing south to
the ice arena and freeway.
Commissioner Noonan commented the sign exposure was different between the two schools but staff was
recommending the logo signs be similar in size. Mr. Grittman stated this was the case.
Commissioner Hennes asked if St. Thomas Academy had come forward with any other options besides the 132
square foot logo sign. Mr. Grittman was not aware of any other proposed logo signs.
Commissioner Magnuson questioned if there was a size difference between the two school parcels. Mr. Grittman
indicated the school parcels were similar in size as Sibley High School was located on 80 acres.
Scott Schifflett, Opus Group representing St. Thomas Academy thanked the Commission for their time this evening.
He presented the Commission with smaller signage for consideration stating the recommending size would be
difficult to see from Mendota Heights Road. He indicated the proposed size would fit with the massing of the
building and be visible from Mendota Heights Road.
Mr. Schifflett presented a site plan with the 60 square foot sign and felt it did not fit with the integrity of the
building. He stated St. Thomas Academy he would be willing to reduce the logo to a 10 foot by 10 foot sign.
Commissioner Hennes questioned the background color of the sign. Mr. Schifflett discussed the proposed wall and
sign colors in detail.
Chair Norton opened the public hearing.
Frank Hickey, 1611 Delaware Avenue, noted he worked in signage for universities and hospitals. He felt the
proposed signage from St. Thomas Academy was appropriate in both size and scale. He requested further
information on the colors of the signs and asked if each would be illuminated. Mr. Schifflett explained the signs
were made of aluminum and would not be lit.
Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO CLOSE THE
PUBLIC HEARING.
Planning Commission Minuses
February 28, 2012
AYES 6
NAYS 0
Commissioner Magnuson stated she would be in favor of the sign requests as presented by the applicant.
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AS PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT BASED ON
THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
Commissioner Noonan did not feel it was necessary to hold St. Thomas Academy to the same sign standards as
Sibley High School. He indicated the locations of the schools varied along with their proximity to residential homes
and roadways. He supported the recommendation.
Commissioner Viksnins expressed concern that the City would be receiving additional sign requests for non-
residential properties located in the residential zoning district. He commented that perhaps a standard sign size
should be set for these properties.
AYES 6
NAYS 0
Chair Norton advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 6, 2012, meeting.
PLANNING CASE #2012-07
Michael and Michelle Bader
Variance to Street Right of Way Width for Foxwood Lane
Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Michael and Michelle Bader for approval of a variance to street
right of way width for Foxwood Lane.
Mr. Grittman noted that the applicant is seeking approval of a variance to allow an existing platted street to be used
as access to a future subdivision, when the existing street is less than the required 60 feet in right of way width.
Foxwood was developed with the expectation that it would terminate in the existing cul-de-sac, serving only the
three lots. However, the applicant owns the parcel to the south of the Foxwood plat, extending to Delaware Avenue
on the east and a platted lot which abuts the end of Foxwood. The applicant is seeking to subdivide that parcel and
would like to extend Foxwood Lane to the south to serve between one to four parcels, depending on the eventual
subdivision plan.
Mr. Grittman indicated the site could be served by Delaware Avenue, although the grade and tree loss would be
much more extensive with that design. The sketch plan submitted as a part of the application shows that as many as
four new buildable lots would be proposed with that design. If the variance is not approved, it is expected the
applicant will seek the Delaware Avenue access proposal in a plat request later this year. If the variance is
approved, the applicant has indicated his preference to submit a plat that extends the Foxwood Lane cul-de-sac to
the south boundary of his property.
Mr. Grittman presented staff's analysis of the request and indicated the conditions to approve a variance were in
place if the Commission chose to proceed. He reviewed the conditions for approval in detail indicating the City
Attorney had made several recommendations and language changes. The city attornev suggested adding language to
the conditions of approval, Item C as follows: "The applicant, a on roggLng a plat shall provide the city with
evidence that the applicant has obtained all easements which will be necessary or the extension of Foxwood and the
completion of all necessary improvements." 'i"he o —gunge ehangeswei-ereviewed by staff. Item D would be
amended as follows:"Any �roposed )tat that utilizes the existing Foxwood Lane shall extend the public right of wax
to the boundary of the applicant's property."'
C!
Planning Commission Minutes
Februag 28, 2012
Commissioner Magnuson questioned if there was evidence from the neighbors on Delaware Avenue that it was less
acceptable to access the plat from this location. Mr. Grittman stated this was the contention of the applicant.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if the Commission was being asked to approve a variance along with an extension
of the roadway. Mr. Grittman explained the request before the Commission was to approve the use of a 50 feet
read ayright of way, which was below the City's 60 right-of-way standards. The subdivision was a future request.
Commissioner Magnuson inquired if the request should be reviewed once a plat was before the Commission for
approval. She felt the request was premature. Mr. Grittman commented the applicant choose to bring the request
before the Commission to see how the issue was dealt with before creating the plat. If the variance was approved,
the plat would be accessed from Foxwood and if denied the plat would be redesigned and accessed from Delaware
Avenue.
Commissioner Hennes commented Foxwood Lane was currently a ?5.20 foot wide roadway and was servicing
several two homes. He questioned if the roadway could remain ?520 feet wide to service the new plat and
additional homes, or if the size of the road had to increase due to the increase in homes serviced. Mr. Grittman
stated there was no rule within the City stating a street had to be a certain width to serve X number of lots. He
indicated the City's right of way requirements were not being met with the current roadway and the Commission
was being asked to evaluate if the right of way extension was acceptable through a variance.
Public Works Director Mazzitello explained the City's policy in building roadways was to build streets to a nine ton
capacity with curb and gutter at a minimum of 28 feet in width.
Commissioner Hennes questioned if there was flexibility to reduce the width. Mr. Mazzitello indicated there were
circumstances in which roadways have been reduced.
Commissioner Magnuson clarified that the current configuration of Foxwood had 50 feet of right of way, versus the
required 60 feet of right of way. Mr. Grittman stated this was the case.
Commissioner Magnuson asked why the City was requiring a variance to a condition that was preexisting, as the
current roadway did not meet the City's right of way standards. Mr. Grittman explained the variance was necessary
as the 50 foot right of way was approved specific to the Foxwood plat and adequately met the needs of the homes on
the cul-de-sac. The applicant was proposing to extend the right of way to serve additional properties. This was not
considered by the Council with the original request.
Commissioner Viksnins questioned what legal interest the applicant had in the right of way. Mr. Grittman
commented the applicant's property does come in contact with the right of way along with the parcel proposed for
subdivision.
Commissioner Viksnins inquired if the applicant had the right to seek this request. Mr. Grittman indicated the
applicant had the right due to the fact he owned the adjacent parcel.
Commissioner Viksnins understood there to be restrictive covenants in place for the Foxwood development. He
asked if these had any impact on the request before the Commission this evening. Mr. Grittman explained he spoke
with the City Attorney regarding this issue. The City was aware that t>}e neighbors are suegesting_tlha _there are
covenants we4€ @ in place -an -d- that would restrict the subdivision. He indicated }alae- t<&that these
ar rivate roperty_ag_eements, and that the city does not enforce or interpret private covenants. He encouraged the
neighbors to pursue this further with the applicant.
Commissioner Viksnins inquired if the reasonable use of this property was an objective standardand that private
agreements do not affect that standard. Mr. Grittman stated this was the position of staff.
Commissioner Noonan questioned if the variance request was getting ahead of the subdivision and asked if the
subdivision should come before the City as one request. Mr. Grittman stated this could have been completed
5
Planning Commission Minutes
Februaq 28, 2012
through a PUD, which would address the issues in a more simple manner. However, the applicant wanted an answer
on this issue first.
Mike Bader, 1673 Delaware Avenue, stated he has lived in Mendota Heights in since 1988 and purchased Leta 1673
Delaware in 49931998. He indicated he purchased Lot 3 of Foxwood and brought a subdivision .,..Boat., ., w
bfeught to the City in 1993 and was subsequently denied. After raising four children in the City, his home was too
large and they wanted to downsize. Mr. Bader explained that the request before the Commission had been altered
from the previous request to address the concerns of the City. He questioned why the variance was needed when the
existing roadway did not meet the City's standards. Mr. Bader requested the Commission consider the request based
on the historical use of properties and subdivisions in Mendota Heights.
Paul. McGinley, Lis Loucks & Associates, indicated he has been working in the region for the past 40 years. He
presented the Commission with a handout and discussed the material in detail. Mr. McGinley discussed his work
history stating he has been working in the area since the 1970's. Most recently, he worked with the Hidden Creek
division in the Mendota Heights.
Mr. McGinley indicated herrthat the Foxwood addition was platted ne aeeess was planned to the 10 athe
seuthdeveloped in a cul-de-sac which precluded any access to the 35 acres to the south and denied those proper
owners reasonable use of their _propet J. He indicated there was a demand in this application to gain access to this
property. The applicant has not drafted plans for this property to date as the plans would be determined greatly by
the form of access. He reiterated that the Foxwood Addition was platted with a 50 foot right of way without a
variance. He explainclarified that the current request was not for a subdivision, but only a variance, as the
applicant was simply requesting to continue this 50 foot right of way into the proposed subdivision.
Mr. McGinley reviewed the requirements for a variance noting the applicant was proposing to use the property in a
reasonable manner. He commented the applicant was willing to increase the size of the roadway to 26, 28 or 30 feet
in width if necess. Due to the fact the City
platted the Foxwood Lane right of way at 50 feet created unique circumstances for the property and were not caused
by the applicant. He noted the approval of the variance request would not alter the character of the neighborhood in
which the property is located.
Mr. McGinley discussed several developments within the City and their current roadway right of ways. He
indicated the Somerset View Development had 117 lots with 50 foot right of way and 26 foot wide roadways.
Friendly Hills has 64 lots with 50 foot right of way and 34 foot wide roadways. He concluded that a 30 foot
roadway could be completed in a 50 foot right of way with adequate utilities to serve the new lots. Kensington
includes 155 lots of 55' richt of ways with 34' wide streets.
Mr. McGinley commented on the location of the existing utilities within the roadway notingatrR�er,sewerthat the
Only utility that would ever be required to be extended down Foxwood Lane could be a water main, No sanitait
sewer would need to be extended, as the access to that utility is down on Ridgewood. Mr. McGinley did not feel it
would be necessary to include storm sewer pipe because drainage would be directed to the south. Small utilities;
gas, electricity and cable-cable—arrd—telephone lines were present in the current cul-de-sac and could be easily
extended into the proposed subdivision. He felt it was reasonable to assume a roadway less than 30 feet in width
would serve the proposed lots while reducing water runoff and impervious surface. He indicated this was the
tendency of cities and watersheds at this time.
Mr. McGinley explained Foxwood Lane was 25 feet in width. The Bader's have agreed to upgrade the roadway to
meet the City's safety requirements to allow for the proposed extension. He noted access from Delaware Avenue
would be detrimental to the neighborhood due to the loss of trees and needed grade change. Mr. McGinley
discussed a potential alignment for the roadway stating a 30 foot buffer would be provided for the Gray property.
He reviewed the considerations that were made to the developer of the Foxwood Addition and requested the
Commission make the same consideration for the Bader's with their variance request.
Chair Norton opened the public hearing.
RI
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28, 2012
Chair Norton stated the Commission received a brief statement from neighbor Alna-Alma._Durc}th-Derauf at 600
Wentworth Avenue who did not agree with any of Mr. Bader's proposed plans.
Lisa Gray, 540 Wentworth Avenue, presented the Commission with several picture boards. She appreciated the
Commission's time and then discussed her concerns with the proposed variance. She noted she purchased her home
in the summer of 2011 and loved the natural setting. Ms. Gray did not feel it was necessary for the Bader's to
downsize their lot in order to create this subdivision. She felt Foxwood Lane should not be turned into a City street
at the expense of the neighborhood. The addition of four small lots could also create a risk to the adjacent wetlands.
For this reason, she did not support the application.
Ms. Gray commented the Bader's were asking for a variance on land that they did not fully own or control. A
portion of this land directly affected her property. Second, if the variance were granted it would conflict with the
Council's prior approval of the Foxwood Addition with a 20 foot roadway and two and one-half acre lots. She felt
the variance request would override the original Council approval of the Foxwood subdivision.
Ms. Gray then questioned if the subdivision was consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. She discussed the
issue in further detail reviewing the 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan development policies. It was noted the
new development would not meet all zoning and subdivision regulations. The proposed roadway extension would
also reduce property width and would remove trees, which unduly burdens her property along with the Lutz's.
Ms. Gray reviewed the Bader's have the reasonable use of their property at this time. She reiterated that a previous
request was denied in 2003 to subdivide this property. Several meeting minute comments were presented to the
Commission fi•om both staff and the City Attorney. She explained that economic matters are not considered to be
practical difficulties. She indicated the subdivision could be accessed from Delaware Avenue by the applicant and
perhaps should be considered.
Ms. Gray commented the Bader's purchased the Foxwood property to gain access to their Delaware property
knowing full well that Foxwood Lane was a private roadway servicing the three lots within the addition. The
property has restrictive covenants against any type of development, which he was now seeking to do. She
understood it was not the City's place to enforce covenant documents, however, she felt they were relevant as it
directly discussed the roadway extension.
Ms. Gray stated the essential character of the neighborhood would be altered by extending Foxwood Lane and by
subdividing the property. This was not what the neighbors want or what the Council had in mind with the original
Foxwood Addition. She provided the Planning Commission with her formal written comments. Ms. Gray
respectfully submitted that the request has not been found to meet the variance request elements and should
therefore be denied.
Jennifer Lutz, 548 Foxwood Lane, noted she submitted a letter to the Commission with her concerns. She indicated
she was confused by the request and felt it was premature given the fact a plat was not completed. The history of
the Foxwood Addition was then discussed. At the time the area was developed, it was consistent with the City's
requirements. She indicated the 100 foot r" wa}ssetback to the wetlands was required b the and agreed
upon by the developer. In addition, the roadway was originally planned to be private serving only the three lots,
which made the 50 foot width reasonable.
Ms. Lutz did not want to see her front yard setback changed due to roadway changes, as it would significantly affect
the value of her property. She requested the Commission allow the roadway to remain at 2-5-20 feet as this was the
original intention of the subdivision. The property owners were relying on the covenants to maintain the character
of the neighborhood. If the variance request were approved, the integrity of the neighborhood would be lost.
Ms. Lutz felt the addition of four lots was greatly inconsistent with the original intent of the Foxwood Addition and
the private roadway. She bought into the subdivision relying on the covenants and conditions set by the City
Council and developer. She also felt the proposed subdivision by the Bader's violated the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan as several properties would be unduly burdened. She did not object to the vacant property being developed, but
stated the €en +e nhe Bader's should bear the _burden _of the new develo ment on their
7
Planning Commission Alinutes
Februag 28, 2012
roe on Delaware Avenue and-net-therather than the property owners on Foxwood Lane. Ms. Lutz requested the
Commission deny the variance request.
Commissioner Magnuson questioned if the orange cones on her property were depicting the red line on the map.
Ms. Lutz stated this was the case.
Commissioner Noonan clarified that the front yard setback to the right of way would not be changed however the
distance of the pavement from the house could be decreased. Mr. Sedlacek stated the home has a 30 foot variance
from the 40 foot front yard setback. He indicated the home was built 15 feet from the right of way. Ms. Lutz sought
clarification to the approved setback, and had understood the setback to be from the pavement. Chair Norton
explained that the setback is measured fiom the right of way and not fi•om the pavement.
Commissioner Hennes asked when the home was built. Ms. Lutz explained her husband built the home in 1995 and
that she has lived at the property since 2002.
Commissioner Hennes questioned if the roadway were to remain 20 feet in width if Ms. Lutz would still object to
the potential subdivision. Ms. Lutz stated this was the case as she and her husband objected to additional traffic on
the private roadway.
Tim 9w -ingAune, 554 Foxwood Lane, recommended the Commission deny the variance application submitted by
the Bader's. He thanked her -his neighbors for bringing about their concerns. He encouraged the Cominission to
review the minutes and original documents for the platting of the Foxwood Addition due to the contentious nature of
the development. Mr. 9wfiming— Aune stated the minutes provided context as to why the narrow roadway was made.
He bought into the compromise understanding there were three lots in the subdivision with limited traffic on the
roadway with no future subdivision.
Mr. Qw ,Tg Aune explained Bader's purchased Lot understanding Foxwood Lane was created to service the three
homes and would not service the adjacent land. He stated Foxwood Lane has become a quaint neighborhood and
did not appreciate the proposed subdivision as it would alter the character of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Hennes questioned if the original addition called for three lots. Mr. 9w g-Aune stated the original
documents called for two lots with an outlot in the wetlands. This idea was pushed aside for the final plat of three
lots. He understood it was the City's desire was to conform to City requirements with all new approved plats.
Commissioner Hennes asked if the roadway remained 20 feet in width if he would be in favor of the potential
subdivision. Mr. Owiiinb Aune stated he would still object as this put an undue burden on himself and the Lutz's
property with the additional traffic on the private roadway.
Ms. Lutz read for the record minutes from October 27, 1992 planning commission noting that three lots were
planned for the Foxwood Addition.
Ms. Gray indicated the development could not be more than three lots based on the two and one-half acre lot
minimum. Mr. Mazzitello stated this lot size was the minimum for septic systems.
Jim Kohler, 1695 Delaware Avenue, indicated he has lived in Mendota Heights for a number of years and purchased
the pro e_ at 1695 Delaware in 2008. He commented he did not have a deep history of the Foxwood Addition but
noted he had spoken to the Bader's regarding the proposed subdivision. He pointed out the location of his home on
a plat map for the Commission. He explained this was an emotional issue and stated the Foxwood Addition did
have several exceptions already in place. He encouraged City staff and the Commission to decide what the Bader
parcel should look like when developed. He felt the character of the homes along Delaware Avenue would be
greatly affected if access were granted from Delaware Avenue versus Foxwood Lane. He requested that the
proposed subdivision not adversely affect his property and the future use of his property.
Commissioner Noonan commented the options provided by the Bader's do allow for future access of Mr. Kohler's
property. He questioned if Mr. Kohler supported any of these options. Mr. Kohler did not support the 30 foot
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28, 2012
access off of Delaware Avenue. He stated it was his intention to keep his property as is. However, he did need to
protect his future rights. He understood that his neighbors to the south were also looking to keep their properties as
is, but did not want to rule anything out in the future.
Commissioner Field asked if the 20 foot roadway from Foxwood Lane would properly service his property if
subdivided in the future. Mr. Kohler stated if the Planning Commission was considering the 20 foot roadway was
sufficient to only service the Bader property this was not accommodate any further development of his property or
the property to the south.
Commissioner Field questioned if the utility easement for the roadway off of Delaware Avenue was on his line. Mr.
Mazzitello commented he was not privy to any design plans for a roadway. However, he understood that a 60 foot
right of way easement would be necessary. Mr. Sedlacek indicated this would be a private matter between property
owners and not a matter of the City.
Frank Hickey, 1611 Delaware Avenue, stated the Bader's sent a concept plan to all of the neighbors. He expressed
concern with homes being developed too closely to Delaware Avenue and how this would change the character of
the roadway.
Mr. McGinley offered several clear responses to concerns raised by neighboring property owners. He commented
the variance request was being made by the Bader's as a property owner with land that abutted Foxwood Lane. He
indicated the variance request would not affect Ms. Gray's side yard setback as the roadway would be located away
from the 30 foot setback and buffered near her property.
Mr. McGinley understood the concerns of the neighbors and how the increased density would affect the traffic to the
Foxwood Addition. He reiterated that the Bader's request was a reasonable use of their property to allow for ingress
and egress to their lot. He felt there was a difficulty in accessing or servicing the properties at the back of the Super
Block. The future extension of Ridgewood was not obtained through easements to service the internal properties.
Mr. Bader referred to Minnesota State Statute 462.361 regarding variance denials. He reiterated the fact that he had
a personal interest in the Foxwood Lane lot and he paid to have the roadway paved and snow removed. He
indicated he has spoken with several other politicians regarding his potential subdivision and did not feel a condition
was in place to not allow for the roadway to be extended.
Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES 6
NAYS 0
Commissioner Field expressed concern with the timeliness of the variance request. He felt the "horse was before the
cart" in this manner and would like to see the entire concept plan before approving anything.
Commission Noonan agreed stating a planned unit development (PUD) would eliminate the need for a variance. He
stated the PUD would then address the entire concept while providing the necessary conditions for approval.
Commissioner Hennes was confused due to the fact the variance was necessary to allow for proper access into the
potential development. Without the variance there would be no sense moving forward with the plan.
Commissioner Viksnins indicated the Commission was requesting an advisory opinion. He agreed this was a
complex application and proposal. He thanked those present this evening for providing arguments on both sides of
the issue. He stated he was not prepared to vote on the issue this evening. He suggested a more complete picture of
the situation be created through a PUD.
0
Planning Commission Minutes
Febritag 28, 2012
Mr. Sedlacek explained staff encouraged the full package to be provided to the Planning Commission. However, the
applicant was not interested in spending the funds to create a platted subdivision if the variance was not approved by
the City. He stated it was uncommon for the City to have a variance for one small portion of a plat.
Commissioner Magnuson appreciated the Bader's not wanting to commit funds to the subdivision design process
when the variance was not approved. However, she still questioned if a variance was even necessary for this
request. She was not convinced the variance was necessary. She did not feel the Commission could make a
decision this evening without further information from the applicant.
Commissioner Hennes asked if the Commission had to make a decision this evening. Mr. Grittman indicated the
City had time to hold this item over. Mr. Sedlacek explained the City had 60 days to review a case and this could be
held over for an additional 60 days. The application date was February 6`t'.
Mr. Grittman indicated if the Commission decided to table action on the variance that the Commissioners provide
comment on the additional information needed to make a decision at the next meeting.
Commissioner Noonan suggested the City Attorney be asked if a subdivision could be brought forward on the Bader
property as a PUD without requiring a variance. Mr. Grittman stated the City's Attorney validates the process the
City is going through and has not been asked this question.
Commissioner Field stated potential plans for the Bader property would have to be considered in conjunction with
access to the properties to the south. He requested the City Attorney advise the Commission on this in greater detail
as to how the City could be affected in the future.
Mr. Mazzitello offered comment on the need for a variance speaking to City Code Subdivision Standards Title 11,
Chapter 3, Paragraph 3, B2 outlines the right of way width requirements. He explained that all public right of ways
shall have a minimum right of way width, for any subdivision, of not be less than 60 feet. Due to the fact Foxwood
Lane had an existing 50 foot right of way, the applicant needed to apply for a variance from the City's Zoning Code.
Commissioner Magnuson stated Foxwood Lane was developed to be 20 feet in width with a 50 foot right of way.
She questioned why the City would allow for a 50 foot right of way in the first place and now how the 60 foot right
of way would affect the roadway. Mr. Mazzitello stated the current roadway was an existing non -conformity and
because it would need to be improved, it would need to be brought up to the City's current zoning standards or a
variance would need to be granted.
Mr. Grittman stated it was staff's position that the development would intensify the use of the right of way. A future
extension was not previously contemplated and the roadway does not meet the current standards. For that reason,
the applicant required a variance from the current zoning standards.
Commissioner Noonan asked if a PUD would better allow for this item to be considered. Mr. Grittman commented
a PUD would be one approach to consider the proposed plat. He indicated this would need to be further discussed
with the City Attorney.
Commissioner Field stated a PUD was not before the Commission this evening. He indicated the Commission was
being asked to consider a variance request and he felt he did not have enough information to take action this
evening. Commissioner Field questioned if the Commission could approve a variance based on a concept with
conditions.
Commissioner Magnuson stated eventually a plat will come before the Commission. She stated the fact remains
many years ago a roadway was not extended properly to provide access to these properties. She recommended the
City look at these properties more broadly. Mr. Grittman stated this would be an option if this was the information
the Commission needed to proceed with the request.
Commissioner Magnus suggested staff speak further with the Bader's to have the application withdrawn and brought
back for further consideration as a PUD or plat.
10
Planning Commission ALinndes
Febrntany 28, 2012
Commissioner Viksnins indicated the Commission could also deny the request based on the fact it lacked the
necessary information for approval.
Commissioner Field was not in favor of this option as it would place time restrictions and limitations on the
applicant. He suggested the public hearing be reopened to allow the applicant to respond to the Commission's
discussion.
COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO REOPEN THE
PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES 6
NAYS 0
Mr. McGinley stated he understood the Commission's concern. He stated a plan related to this property was not
going to be completed until the variance issue was resolved. He commented that he and Mr. Bader agreed to table
the issue to allow for additional discussions with staff and the City Attorney.
Commissioner Field indicated he would like further information as to what the variance would service.
Commissioner Magnuson agreed and understood the applicant did not want to complete a full plan. She felt this
was a complicated plan and without the proper information a reasonable decision could not be made.
Mr. Bader stated his preference was Option B, which required a variance. However, if the site were accessed from
Delaware Avenue, he would not require a variance. He indicated he could not control when his neighbors decided
to subdivide, but this should be considered by the Commission. He noted he would continue to work with the
neighbors to bring about a resolution to this situation.
Commissioner Field appreciated these comments as it did provide amore clear picture of how the extended roadway
would be used.
Ms. Lutz commented her home was only 15 feet from the private road, which was approved with the understanding
that Foxwood Lane would remain a private 20 foot roadway. She questioned if there were any other homes in the
City with this reduced setback.
Ms. Gray indicated there was confusion with the variance request. She stated there was no need for a variance
request without a subdivision request. She recommended a more concrete plan be submitted to the City prior to
approving the variance. This would greatly assist the neighbors, City staff and the Planning Commission before a
final decision was made.
Commissioner Field was in favor of continuing the discussion on this item to the March 27°i Planning Commission
meeting. He suggested the City Attorney be present or provide comment on the necessity of the variance.
Chair Norton suggested the applicant provide further information as to the plans for the subdivision to assist the
Commission in making an informed decision.
Commissioner Field indicated he was unclear if Foxwood Lane was a public street or a private road. Mr. Mazzitello
stated Foxwood Lane was a private road constructed in a public right of way. The residents are responsible for
maintaining the roadway.
Commissioner Field questioned if the roadway could even be extended given the fact it was private. He asked if the
variance were to proceed to the Council if the road extension would be a public street. Mr. Mazzitello stated the
roadway would have to be built to City standards to be considered a public roadway. Staff recommends that the
road be built to City standards and maintained by the public works department.
11
Planning Commission Minutes
February 28, 2012
Commissioner Field requested further information from the City Attorney on the private covenants that exist among
the Foxwood Lane residents.
Commissioner Magnuson questioned if the variance were granted if it would violate any City Code or the City's
2030 Comprehensive Plan. She suggested staff provide comment on this issue as well.
Chair Norton questioned if the applicant and his representative were clear of the expectations of the Commission.
Mr. McGinley addressed the Commission stating he would speak with staff and be ready to provide additional
information at the March 27`h meeting.
Chair Norton encouraged Mr. Bader and Mr. McGinley to also speak with the neighboring property owners prior to
the March 27`h meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO TABLE ACTION
ON PLANNING CASE NO. 2012-07 HOLDING THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN TO THE MARCH 27,
2012, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
AYES 6
NAYS 0
Verbal Review
Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review:
PLANNING CASE #2012-04 Henry Sibley High School Variance Request
• Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING CASE #2012-01 City of Mendota Heights Wetland Zoning Amendment
• Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING CASE #2012-02 City of Mendota Heights Critical Area Permitting Process
• Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING CASE #2012-03 City of Mendota Heights Accessory Structures
• This item has not yet been heard by the City Council.
Election of Chair and Vice Chair
COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO APPOINT
STEVE NORTON AS THE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
AYES 5
NAYS 0
ABSTAIN I(NORTON)
COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO APPOINT
LITTON FIELD AS THE VICE -CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
AYES 5
NAYS 0
ABSTAIN 1 (FIELD)
Adiourn
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO ADJOURN
THE MEETING AT 10:39 P.M.
AYES 6
12
Planning Commission Minretes
February 28, 2012
NAYS
Respectfully submitted,
Heidi Guenther, Recording Secretary
13
Planning Commission Minutes
March 27. 2012
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 27, 2012
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 27, 2012, in the
Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
The following Commissioners were present: Chair Norton (arrived at 7:03 p.m.), Commissioners Hennes, Noonan,
Roston, and Viksnins. Those absent (excused): Commissioners Field and Magnuson. 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 ofAgenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of February 28, 2012, Minutes
Commissioner Hennes requested the spelling of Tim Anne's name be corrected in the minutes on Page 8.
Chair Norton arrived at 7:03 p.m.
Mike Bader, 1673 Delaware Avenue, discussed several changes to the minutes.
Assistant to the City Administrator Sedlacek commented it was highly unusual to take corrections to the minutes
from the public. He suggested staff review the revisions from Mr. Bader, revise the minutes and resubmit the
document to the Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO TABLE
APPROVING THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 28, 2012 TO THE APRIL 24, 2012 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
Hearings
PLANNING CASE #2012-07
Michael and Michelle Bader
Variance to Street Right of Way Width for Foxwood Lane
Chair Norton explained the applicant has requested this item be tabled to the April 24, 2012 Planning Commission
meeting.
PLANNING CASE #2012-08
Tim Anne
Subdivision Ordinance Amendment Pertaining to Cul -De -Sac Length
Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Tim Anne for a subdivision Ordinance Amendment pertaining to
cul-de-sac length.
Planning Commission A1initles
March 27, 2012
Mr. Grittman noted that current City Code states cul-de-sacs shall normally not be longer than five hundred feet
(500 feet), including a terminal turnaround which shall be provided at the closed end. Due to the applicant's
request, the city was proposing to remove the word "normally" and adding language stating the five hundred feet
shall be an absolute maximum, and any cul-de-sac in excess of three hundred feet (300') shall require a written
opinion from the Fire Chief to address unique circumstances for any cul-de-sac of three hundred feet (300') to five
hundred feet (500') in length. The applicant also provided a supplement to the request setting four hundred feet
(400') with provisions for consideration by staff. Staff indicated there are only a handful of properties in the
community that still had the opportunity for new streets and subdivisions.
Mr. Grittman recommended that if the Planning Commission would consider approving the subdivision ordinance
amendment, the commission should also consider modifications offered by staff as detailed in the report. Mr.
Grittman stated that staff is comfortable with the current language; while there is not a fixed limit the language does
serve as a reasonable guide. It is important to maintain flexibility for future development.
Commissioner Noonan questioned how many cul-de-sacs in the city were longer than 500' and asked if they would
become non -conforming uses if the language were amended. Mr. Grittman stated he did not have the exact number.
He noted that currently platted streets would remain as public streets and there would be no impact from the
proposed amendment.
Commissioner Viksnins indicated the applicant had concerns with safety if the cul-de-sacs were longer than 500'.
He requested comment from staff on this issue. Mr. Grittman indicated public safety was the reason cul-de-sac
limits exist. He noted the 500' length is common, based upon development which would generate approximately
200-250 trips per day, which was the standard threshold for a typical single-family neighborhood.
Commissioner Viksnins inquired if a private citizen has ever proposed an ordinance amendment in the past. Mr.
Grittman explained this was rare, but not unheard of.
Commissioner Hennes asked if the applicant's request were approved, what impact it would have on Case No. 2012-
07. Mr. Grittman stated with the 500' fixed length for cul-de-sacs, the applicant would be held to this number unless
a variance was requested and approved.
Commissioner Hennes questioned if it was right for the city to take action on this item with the other case pending.
Mr. Grittman stated there would be impacts on pending subdivisions both now and going into the future.
Commissioner Roston inquired if the city had any traffic or safety studies regarding cul-de-sac lengths. 1Vh-.
Grittman indicated a formal study has not been completed by the Fire or Police Department. Mr. Mazzitello stated
the opinion of the Fire Chief and Police Chief were noted in this report and it was their recommendation cul-de-sacs
remain as short as possible to assist with response times.
Tim Anne, 554 Foxwood Lane, stated he was requesting an amendment to the subdivision ordinance. He reviewed
the proposed amended language with the Planning Commission. It was noted the approval of this amendment
supported and protected the interests of property owners. He referred to Planning Case in 2003 in which city code
on length of cul-de-sacs protected his property interest.
Mr. Anne felt his revisions provided clear language for strict enforceability of City Code. He noted lie purchased his
lot with the understanding the cul-de-sac would not be extended. For this reason, the length should not be increased.
He encouraged the city to seek the best planning practices and not allow for variations from City Code. He
requested the Planning Commission approve his language amendment as presented.
Chair Norton opened the public hearing.
Mike Bader, 1673 Delaware Avenue, stated he received notice of this item this morning. He presented the Planning
Commission and staff with a written email and then discussed a letter written on December 23, 2010 to Jake
Sedlacek and John Mazzitello, as well as an April 2007 letter to Sue McDermott. Mr. Bader indicated Mendota
2
Planning Commission Minzdes
March 27, 2012
Heights had at least seven cul-de-sacs that were in excess of 500' feet. Each was approved without a variance. He
spoke with several homeowners living on these extended cul-de-sacs and public safety was not a concern.
Mr. Bader stated this subdivision ordinance was directed towards him personally and felt this was violating his
property rights. He felt this could be seen as spot zoning. Mr. Bader requested the Planning Commission deny the
subdivision ordinance amendment.
Jennifer Lutz, 548 Foxwood Lane, commented she did not feel Foxwood was unsafe with a 20' wide road, given the
fact the road had only three homes. She reminded the Planning Commission that the city was responsible for
creating the 20 foot roadway on the 50 foot easement. Ms. Lutz was concerned about increased traffic on Foxwood
Lane stating this would decrease the safety in her neighborhood. She believed the city should be clear on the length
of a cul-de-sac to ensure it was enforceable.
Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO CLOSE THE
PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES 5
NAYS 0
Commissioner Roston cautioned the Planning Commission from making determinations on roadway restrictions
without the property traffic and safety study information from the Fire and Police Departments.
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND
DENIAL OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS THAT THE
EXISTING CODE PROVIDES ADEQUATE GUIDANCE TO DEVELOPERS WITHOUT
COMPROMISING SAFETY, AS WELL AS GREATER FLEXIBILITY IN SUBDIVISION DESIGN AS
DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
Commissioner Viksnins indicated the issues for Case No. 2012-07 would be thoughtfully considered by the
Planning Commission and he did not feel a subdivision ordinance amendment was applicable at this time.
Commissioner Hennes agreed, stating the amendment was premature.
AYES 5
NAYS 0
Chair Norton advised the City Council would consider this application at its April 3, 2012, meeting.
PLANNING CASE #2012-09
Barry Sommervold
609 Hampshire Drive
Wetlands Permit for Pool Construction
Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Barry Sommervold for approval of a wetlands permit for pool
construction in the rear yard.
Mr. Grittman noted that applicant has a fence in the rear yard 30 feet from the wetland. This area would remain in
its existing condition to provide a natural buffer. He noted the improvements would be limited to within the fenced
area.
Mr. Grittman presented staff's analysis of the request explaining the proposed project should not have a negative
impact on the wetland, especially with the native vegetation plantings which serve to filter the runoff into the
Plamaing COM177ission Alinntes
March 27, 2012
wetland. The project appears to meet the intent of the Wetlands Ordinance and will not degrade or threaten the
water quality of the wetland. Staff recommended approval of the wetlands permit.
Barry Sommervold, 609 Hampshire Drive, thanked the commission for reviewing his request this evening.
Chair Norton opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE
PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES 5
NAYS 0
COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WETLANDS PERMIT AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE
FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
AYES 5
NAYS 0
Chau Norton advised the City Council would consider this application at its April 3, 2012, meeting.
Verbal Review
Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review:
PLANNING CASE #2012-05 2225 Apache Street Variance to the Front Yard Setback
• Approved bythe City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING CASE #2012-06 949 Mendota Heights Road Variance for Wall Signs and Sign Area
• Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING CASE #2012-07 Michael and Michelle Bader Variance to Street Right of Way Width
• This item was tabled to the April 24, 2012 Planning Commission meeting.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO ADJOURN
THE MEETING AT 7:43 P.M.
AYES
NAYS
Respectfully submitted,
Heidi Guenther, Recording Secretary
H
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 1
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS,
4800 Olson Memorial Highway; Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 plan ners(<-�nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen W. Grittman
DATE: March 22, 2012
MEETING DATE: April 24, 2012
SUBJECT: Variance to Street Right of Way Width
Report Addendum
CASE NO: Case No. 2012-07; NAC Case 254.04 — 12.03
APPLICANT(S): Mike and Michelle Bader
LOCATION: 1673 Delaware Avenue and Lot 3, Foxwood Addition
ZONING: R -1A, Single Family Residential
GUIDE PLAN: Low Density Residential
This report is intended to supplement the original staff report prepared for the February
28, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. A number of questions were raised by the
Planning Commission and those in attendance at the public hearing. In this report, staff
would like to clarify some of those issues as the Planning Commission considers the
continued request.
1. Discussion occurred around the impact of approving a variance without the
benefit of a subdivision plan from the applicant. The Planning Commission
expressed concern that approval of the variance would result in a de facto
approval of a subdivision plan which was not before them, and whose impacts
could not be predicted.
Staff agrees that the lack of a subdivision application in concert with the right of
way variance complicates the decision on the variance. However, approval of
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 2
the variance does not confer any guarantee of subdivision approval. The
applicant's plat— however designed— would need to stand on its own. The
purpose of the variance consideration is merely to consider whether the City will
permit the connection to Foxwood Lane as the sole access to a subdivision, or
whether the applicant will be required to seek an alternative access point
(presumably, Delaware Avenue). If desired, the Planning Commission could
specify this as a part of its findings if approval is recommended.
2. It was suggested that a better approach to this application might have been
through Planned Unit Development rather than variance. A PUD approach could
allow use of Foxwood, and incorporate the ability of the City to evaluate the
entire proposal as a unit, rather than dealing with the right of way width as a
separate, single component.
Again, staff would agree with this suggestion, however, the applicant has chosen
to request the variance to test the acceptability of using Foxwood prior to
investing significant sums in engineering a plat that might be acceptable but for
the access issue. This is a valid application which the City had to accept, even
though, like in the issue above, a larger context for the project would be helpful in
evaluating options.
3. A neighbor raised the issue of the Comprehensive Plan, and the concern that
approval of the variance would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
based on the contention that approval would be inconsistent with the character of
the neighborhood. The Comprehensive Plan includes a Focus Area discussion
on the Somerset ("Superblock") neighborhood as follows:
Somerset Area:
The Somerset area (often referred to as the "Superblock" area)
consists of approximately 160 acres located directly south of Somerset
Country Club and Golf Course. The area is developed with single family
constructed on large lots with private septic systems. The
neighborhood is bounded on the east by Delaware Avenue, the north
by Wentworth Avenue, and the south by Marie Avenue and smaller
single family development to the west. The neighborhood contains
significant wetlands and woodlands making it very rural in quality. The
Comprehensive Plan land use designation of the site is Rural
Residential (RR), and the corresponding zoning classification is One
Family Residential (R -1A).
Due to the existing large lot configuration, parts of the area have the
potential to be further subdivided provided public sewer, water and
road systems would be extended to the area. It appears that the
possibility may exist to either extend the cul-de-sacs or provide a
connection between Ridgewood Drive and the cul-de-sac located in
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 3
the northeast quarter of this section. There may also be the possibility
to further divide parcels on the west and northern portions of the
neighborhood although this may require the acquisition and upgrade
of existing private roads. Further site specific analysis would be
required in order to provide concept designs for the re -subdivision of
this area. It is important to note that infill and further subdivision
within established neighborhoods is often controversial and rarely
supported by 100% of the landowners. Issues concerning assessments
for public infrastructure and possible condemnation proceedings are
likely to arise with redevelopment efforts of the type contemplated in
this section.
Future Land Use Designation: RR, Rural Residential
From this description, the Plan appears to contemplate the possibility both of
future subdivision, as well as the extension of the existing roadways in the
neighborhood. As a guide, the Plan is not determinative of any particular road
alignment or subdivision. Neighborhood character, subdivision design, impacts
on the existing topography and tree cover, all will be at issue with any
development proposal. But it would not appear that the Comprehensive Plan can
be read as precluding the use of Foxwood.
4. Other Issues. In reviewing the construction of Foxwood, staff has discussed the
difficulty of making the required improvements within the existing right of way. It is
not uncommon that street and utility construction occurs outside of the existing right
of way limits through temporary construction easements. In the proposed conditions
to the approval alternative, staff has suggested that the applicant be able to
demonstrate that the street and utilities can be constructed within the right of way
and that any necessary easements are obtained. It is important to make clear that
the acquisition of such easements will be a private party requirement, not a
municipal responsibility.
5. The applicant has submitted additional material related to the impact of the
construction of Foxwood Lane, and a more detailed subdivision layout. The
Foxwood Lane survey detail shows that the existing Lutz home is approximately
20.6 feet from the right of way at its closest point, and approximately 36 feet from the
current edge of pavement. The reconstructed street, under the applicant's proposal,
would result in a setback of 31 feet from the Lutz garage to the new curb line. These
dimensions are valid directly in front of the garage — because the existing pavement
is not centered in the right of way, and meanders through its length, the dimensions
vary somewhat along the Lutz frontage.
With regard to the subdivision layout, the applicants have submitted a drawing
suggesting that the extension of Foxwood Lane could be shifted to the west,
providing for an additional separation between the Gray house and the new street. It
appears that the intent of this drawing is to suggest that the street could be placed
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 4
far enough away from the corner of the Gray home to provide a 30 foot "setback" or
separation from the edge of the extended Foxwood right of way.
The material above, as noted, is intended to supplement the original staff report. The
material below is repeated from that report with only a few amendments to reflect the
updated issues.
Action Requested:
Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following
motions:
1. Recommend approval of the street right of way width variance from 60 feet to
50 feet for the existing portion of Foxwood Lane, with the intent of allowing a
plat which would rely on the existing Foxwood for access to newly subdivided
parcels. This recommendation should be based on the attached draft findings
of fact, and conditioned on the following requirements:
a. All portions of Foxwood, when extended to serve any additional land, shall
be reconstructed at the applicant's expense to City standards, including
street, curb and gutter, and all utilities.
b. The proposed extension should serve no more than 4 new buildable lots
on the applicant's property.
c. The applicant, upon proposing a plat, shall provide evidence that all
easements necessary to construct a 30' wide road and all utilities have
been procured.
d. Any plat subsequently proposed utilizing the existing Foxwood Lane shall
extend public street and utilities to the boundary of the applicant's property
to facilitate future extension by neighboring property owners.
2. Recommend denial of the variance, based on the attached draft findings of
fact.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff believes that the requirements for variance consideration are present. Because
the language for variance approval is open and permissive, the City may consider a
variance when the required conditions are present. In this case, it appears that the
applicant could develop the property to the extent of four new lots with a number of
configurations. While the option necessitating the variance results in an overly long cul-
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 5
de -sac, it also appears to have the least impact on the land, in relation to grading and
tree loss.
Because the conditions resulting in the narrower right of way for the existing Foxwood
Lane are not the result of any actions by the applicant, staff believes that the variance
request can be found to be consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance.
Supplementary Materials:
1. Application Materials dated 2-6-2012
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 6
Draft Findings of Fact for Approval
Variance for Street Right of Way Width for Foxwood Lane
1673 Delaware Avenue and Lot 3, Foxwood
1. The width of the existing Foxwood Lane for access to the future subdivision is
not the result of actions by the applicant.
2. The alternative access points potentially available to the applicant for access
to the future subdivision raise concerns related to:
a. Excessive grading.
b. Steep street grades.
c. Excessive tree loss resulting from development.
d. Additional hard surface and street construction.
e. Additional street construction and maintenance serving no additional
lots.
3. Lots resulting from the use of the Foxwood Lane right of way would be
consistent with others found in the area and in similar zoning districts in the
City.
4. Lots would be able to meet all required zoning standards of the applicable R -
1A zoning district.
5. Using Foxwood Lane for the proposed subdivision would constitute a
reasonable use of the subject land, consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan.
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 7
Draft Findings of Fact for Denial
Variance for Street Right of Way Width for Foxwood Lane
1673 Delaware Avenue and Lot 3, Foxwood
1. The applicant has not adequately demonstrated their consideration of alternative
accesses to the undeveloped portion of 1673 Delaware Avenue.
2. The variance request is in conflict with the findings for a variance granted in
resolution 93-45, where a front setback variance was granted based on the
expectation that Foxwood Lane would only service three total properties.
3. The applicant purchased the Foxwood property with full knowledge of the
existing conditions.
4. The extension of Foxwood Lane will require construction of a street in a narrow
right of way in the existing portion, raising concerns over installation of utilities
and maintenance operations.
5. The extension of Foxwood Lane results in a cul-de-sac of approximately 900 feet
which is greater than the City's preferred cul-de-sac street length.
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 8
1101 Victona Curve I Mendota 1-36ght-s. MIN 55118
651.452 850 phone 1651.452,89='0 fax
CITY OF
i0tiENDO7A HEIGHTS
DATE: April 24, 2012
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator
SUBJECT: New materials for Case 2012-07
Since the initial public hearing on February 28, 2012, staff has received several new documents
for the 2012-07 planning file. Included you will find the supplemental report from Steve
Grittman, along with the following attachments:
A. Steve Grittman's planning report from February 28, 2012
B. Email correspondence received April 11, 2012 from Paul McGinley with supplemental
site plans
C. Correspondence received April 19, 2012 from Tim Aune
D. Correspondence received March 27, 2012 from Lisa Gray
E. Correspondence received March 26, 2012 from Michael Bader
F. Email correspondence received March 21, 2012 from Jennifer Lutz
G. Correspondence received March 19, 2012 from Lisa Gray
H. Correspondence received February 28, 2012 from Lisa Gray
Page 1 of 1
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 9
j NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS., INC.
4800' Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners@nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen W. Grittman
DATE: February 23, 2012
MEETING DATE: February 28, 2012
SUBJECT: Variance to Street Right of Way Width
CASE NO: Case No. 2012-07; NAC Case 254.04 —12.03
APPLICANT(S): Mike and Michelle Bader
LOCATION: 1673 Delaware Avenue and Lot 3, Foxwood Addition
ZONING: R -1A, Single Family Residential
GUIDE PLAN: Low Density Residential
Background and Description of Request:
The applicant is seeking approval of a variance to allow an existing platted street to be
used as access to a future subdivision, when the existing street is less than the required
60 feet in right of way width. The existing Foxwood Lane extends from Wentworth Ave
south into the Foxwood subdivision, serving three single family parcels, two of which are
currently developed with houses, and one of which (the parcel owned by the applicant)
is undeveloped.
Foxwood was developed with the expectation that it would terminate in the existing cul-
de-sac, serving only the three lots. However, the applicant also owns the parcel to the
south of the Foxwood plat, extending to Delaware Avenue on the east. In seeking to
subdivide that parcel, the applicant is hoping to extend Foxwood Lane to the south to
serve between one an four additional parcels, depending on the eventual subdivision
plan.
Because Foxwood does not meet the City's requirements for right of way width, a
variance is necessary to consider the proposed extension.
r
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 10
Analysis:
When considering a variance, 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 applicant's materials suggest that these conditions are met due to the following
factors:
• Proposed lot sizes in the eventual plat will meet or exceed the zoning
requirements, and will be larger than many lots recently subdivided in the same
area and zoning district.
• Extension of Foxwood Lane from its current terminus to gain access from
Delaware, is technically feasible but, while meeting the code, would be
detrimental to land, tree cover, and be less acceptable to the neighborhood.
• The difficulties in meeting the required street width relate to topography changes
and tree loss by constructing an outlet to Delaware, and the inability to expand
the existing right of way width, since it is flanked by other property owners.
• The extended portion of Foxwood in the newly subdivided area would meet all
City street requirements.
• The applicants would upgrade the existing portion of Foxwood to City street
standards, even though the right of way cannot be widened.
• The new lots served by the extended Foxwood will match the character of the
area.
The applicant is seeking this variance prior to design of the plat for the new subdivision.
The applicant has opined that Dakota County will likely grant approval to construct a
new street and intersection on Delaware Avenue, along the south boundary line of 1673
Delaware. As such, development of the area is possible from Delaware Ave., although
the grade and tree loss would be much more extensive with that design. The sketch
plan submitted as a part of the application shows that as many as four new buildable
lots would be proposed with that design.
z
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 11
If the variance is not approved, it is expected that the applicant will seek the Delaware
Avenue access proposal in a plat request later this year. if the variance is approved,
the applicant has indicated his preference to submit a plat that extends the Foxwood
Lane cul-de-sac to the south boundary of his property. This sketch plan (labeled
"Option B" in the materials) also shows four new building sites, although the total street
construction would be less than a connection to Delaware would require.
The proposed cul-de-sac in the applicant's preferred option is approximately 900 feet
long from Wentworth. For reference (although this is data is relevant to the future
platting, not the current street width variance), the City's Subdivision Ordinance states
that cul-de-sac streets shall not "normally" be longer than 500 feet. As such, the
language is directive, but not mandatory. The City has approved other cul-de-sacs
greater than 500 feet in length, and this design would be at the discretion of the City, but
would not require a formal variance.
Action Requested.-
Following
equested:
Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following
motions:
1. Recommend approval of the street right of way width variance from 60 feet to
50 feet for the existing portion of Foxwood Lane, with the intent of allowing a
plat which would rely on the existing Foxwood for access to newly subdivided
parcels. This recommendation should be based on the attached draft findings
of fact, and conditioned on the following requirements:
a. All portions of Foxwood, when extended to serve any additional land, shall
be reconstructed at the applicant's expense to City standards, including
street, curb and gutter, and all public utilities.
b. The proposed extension should serve no more than 4 new buildable lots
on the applicant's property.
c. The applicant, upon proposing a plat, shall provide the City with a listing of
all easements necessary to extend Foxwood, to construct a standard city
street and to install all necessary public improvements.
d. Any plat subsequently proposed utilizing the existing Foxwood Lane shall
extend the public street and utilities to the boundary of the applicant's
property to facilitate future extension by neighboring property owners.
2. Recommend denial of the variance, based on the attached draft findings of
fact.
3. Table action on the variance request, pending additional information from
staff or the applicant as directed.
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 12
Staff Recommendation:
Staff believes that the requirements for variance consideration are present. Because
the language for variance approval is open and permissive, the City may consider a
variance when the required conditions are present. In this case, it appears that the
applicant could develop the property to the extent of four new lots with a number of
configurations. While the option necessitating the variance results in an overly long cul-
de- sac, it also appears to have the least impact on the land in relation to grading and
tree loss.
If developed under the Option A design, the applicant would connect to the existing
Foxwood, but would not require the variance since that access point would not be solely
necessary for access to the plat. Because the conditions resulting in the narrower right
of way for the existing Foxwood Lane are not the result of any actions by the applicant,
staff believes that the variance request can be found to be consistent with the intent of
the zoning ordinance.
Supplementary Materials:
1. Application Materials dated 2-6-2012
4 �
U
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 13
Draft Findings of Fact for Approval
Variance for Street Right of Way Width for Foxwood Lane
1673 Delaware Avenue and Lot 3, Foxwood
1. The width of the existing Foxwood Lane for access to the future subdivision is
not the result of actions by the applicant.
2. The alternative access points potentially available to the applicant for access
to the future subdivision raise concerns related to:
a. Excessive grading.
b. Steep street grades.
c. Excessive tree loss resulting from development.
d. Additional hard surface and street construction.
e. Additional street construction and maintenance serving no additional
lots.
3. Lots resulting from the use of the Foxwood right of way would be consistent
with others found in the area and in similar zoning districts in the City.
4. Lots would be able to meet all required zoning standards of the applicable R-
IA zoning district.
5. Using Foxwood Lane for the proposed subdivision would constitute a
reasonable use of the subject land, consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan.
5
®R
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 14
Draft Findings of Fact for Denial
Variance for Street Right of Way Width for Foxwood Lane
1673 Delaware Avenue and Lot 3, Foxwood
Access from Delaware provides a technically feasible opportunity to access
the undeveloped land in questions.
2. The variance request is in conflict with the findings for a variance granted in
resolution 93-45, where a front setback variance was granted based on the
expectation that Foxwood Lane would only service three total properties.
3. The variance request may result in the creation of a non -conformity with the
property located at 540 Wentworth Ave as a conforming side yard setback of
15 feet becomes a front yard setback requirement of 40'.
4. The Applicant purchased the Foxwood property with full knowledge of the
existing conditions.
5. The extension of Foxwood Lane will require construction of a street in a
narrow right of way in the existing portion, raising concerns over installation of
utilities and maintenance operations.
6. The extension of Foxwood Lane results in a cul-de-sac of approximately 900
feet which is greater than the City's preferred cul-de-sac street length.
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 15
Jake Sedlacek
From: Paul McGinley<pmcginley@loucksassociates.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 3:46 PM
To: Jake Sedlacek; Mike Bader (shoey@kkblawfirm.com)
Cc: Paul Kangas
Subject: Bader Variance Request
Attachments: Exhibit - Lutz Home 2012 04-1l.pdf; Exhibit - Fox Lane Variance Request 2012
04-ll.pdf
Jake:
You had indicated that you needed any additional plans from the Baders today, for the meeting on the 24th.
Attached are two plans. One shows the layout preferred by the Baders showing the possible lots, new street surface and
certain dimensional information to houses, etc.
The other is a detail of the existing and proposed street surfaces relative to the Lutz house based upon our on-site,
surveyed locations.
If you need these in any other format or size let me know.
Paul
Paul McGinley, PLS Vice President/Principal Surveyor 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 1 Minneapolis, MN 55369
Direct 763.496.6759 Main 763.424.5505 1 Fax 763.424.5822
pmcginlevAloucksassociates.com I www.loucksassociates_com
1
`i
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 16
L al.
HUM
f65.00 164.2.5
n
f
X
WO
o
.... ..... .
.... .... ..
. . ... . . .... . . ... .
.. .... ....
....
.... . ...
... . .. .... ...
S
—2
PROPOSED GH", T OF WAY.
.. . . ...... .
,
oo
1
\
{Ji
R/
,
0
I L V,
0 0
.. .. ......
m >
o
.0
-990-
. .... -, - ...":
.. ..
I .
- .... ... ..
r64..v
..... ... ... .
.44.
-
• 010-
r
_.
Z!
_
o
0
4
t
. ...... .... .
lf!
L al.
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 17
Wen t worth A venue
(Co. Rd. 8)
---------------
-•Op
I
cg
(D
0
aim
0
Ln
0
24.61
OI
U-Uii
_22- 7j
—2 6—
J1,
I
IN
Ca
I
25-31
10
-LO
-•Op
I
if
(D
0
aim
0
Ln
0
U-Uii
10
-LO
—0-
10
LO
23
c 5;:
Z -z
0
0
MAN
WAI
if
—0-
10
LO
23
c 5;:
Z -z
0
0
MAN
WAI
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 18
Timothy J. Aune & Anne K. Miller
554 Foxwood Lane
Mendota Heights, MN. 55118
April 19, 2012
Mr. Jake Sedlacek
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Re: Mike and Michelle Bader's Variance Application
Dear Mr Sedlacek.
RECEIVED APR 19 20125
I am writing in regards to the updated variance application #2012-07 submitted by
Michelle and Mike Bader. My wife Anne and I are still opposed to this application.
We respectfully ask that the Planning Commission recommend, and the City Council
vote to confirm a resolution denying the variance.
I would like to put forth two questions and offer one solution. My questions are as
follows: Has there been any attempt to solicit from the City Administrator a clear
indication of how vital the back fill of the three parcels on Delaware are to the future
of our community? I had a conversation with the Administrator in February but am
so disgusted by the hearsay that has been put forth in previous hearings I will
refrain comment and ask that his views be put on the record by himself via letter or
live presentation. My second question is if it is of such crucial importance to have
Foxwood Lane eventually become a through street, has there been any effort to
engage the people who reside on Ridgewood Drive?
I understand and appreciate the goal of commission members to find solutions
consistent with City Code, Long Term Planning, and the desires of applicants and
neighbors. This situation is challenging to all parties involved. This issue of
extension has been hanging over our heads since before we moved into our home. I
have spent more time than I would care to admit seeking out a win/win, but have
come to the conclusion there is only one way the Baders can monetize their back
acreage while not affecting the character and property values of their neighbors:
Append their back 5 acres to Lot #3. Doing this would not trigger a nonconformity,
would not impact the expected volume of traffic and construction activity for Lot #1
and Lot #2, nor affect the buffer area of the Grey parcel. The Baders would not face
the expense of constructing a road, installing sewer, which I assume would require a
lift station and a line across the Bader parcel up to Delaware, and most importantly
the certainty of litigation regarding the covenants and the uncertainty of their
outcome. The gross income may not be as high, but the net income could well be
comparable so I would posit this seems like a reasonable course to consider. I
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 19
would also suggest they seek out value to be derived from a conservation easement
for the eastern portion of their acreage. Please feel free to contact me at 651-295-
2607 or tim.aune@comcast.net if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Timothy J. Aune
Cc: Planning Commission Members
C`f—).
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 20
Lisa Gray
540 Wentworth Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
March 21, 2012
Mendota Heights Planning Commission
Mr. Jake Sedlacek
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Re: Bader Variance Application
Dear Planning Commission Members
RECEIVED MAR 2 7 2015
thought it would be helpful, in advance of the Planning Commissions March 27th meeting, to
provide my view of the responses to questions posed by the Planning Commission at its last
meeting.
1. Isn't the request for the variance premature? -
Answer: YES
• The Baders' have acknowledged that the variance is only necessary for
their future development plans and not for an immediate need. They
have not yet submitted a request for either a plat approval or a
subdivision. Instead, they are asking the Planning Commission to
approve a variance based upon a hypothetical situation.
• The Planning Commission appropriately questioned how it could reach a
decision on the variance without a plan for how the variance will be
used. Without knowing precisely how the variance will be put to use
(e.g. a 30' foot paved city street versus a 20' private road, where the
utilities will be placed, whether the road will violate provisions of the
City Code, such as set back provisions, how the prior plat condition
requiring a scenic easement will be maintained) the Planning
Commission cannot determine whether the applicants have met their
burden of establishing that there are practical difficulties in complying
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 21
with the zoning ordinance. More specifically because the Baders have
not set forth exactly how they will "use" the variance, it is impossible for
the Commission to determine that the "owner proposes to use the
property in a reasonable manner." Equally important is the fact that
without knowing the parameters of the use, there is no yardstick upon
which to measure whether the variance will alter the essential character
of the neighborhood.
® Similarly the absence of a full application on the proposed subdivision
plat prevents the Planning Commission from determining whether the
subdivision could be created without the need for a variance. A
premature variance request should not serve as a back door way to
avoid the requirement that if the landowner has a way to proceed
without a variance, the variance should not be granted.
® The Baders are well aware of the appropriate procedures to obtain
approval for their desire to subdivide their land and that is to submit a
request for a subdivision, with all the required documentation, to the
Planning Commission. Then and only then will the Planning Commission
have sufficient information upon which to base its decision on whether
the variance is required.
2. Does the applicant have sufficient legal interest in the right of way width of Foxwood
Lane to have "standing" to bring the variance application?
Answer: NO
® As noted at the last Planning Commission Meeting, the Minnesota
statute addressing the standards for the granting of variances refers
solely to landowners and property owners, not neighboring property
owners. (Minn. Stat. Section 462.357) Here the Baders, by their own
admission, do not own the property for which they seek a variance. To
the contrary the City owns the right of way. The Baders are merely one
set of four abutting landowners. The other abutting property owners all
oppose the variance.
• Nothing in Minnesota statutes or case law gives abutting property
owners the right to initiate a request for a variance. The statute that Mr.
Bader cited at the last Planning Commission Hearing -- Minnesota
Statute 462.361 — speaks solely to the right to appeal a decision by a
ob-
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 22
municipal governing body. Its purpose is to allow an "aggrieved party" a
means of appeal if he believes that a decision by the municipal body has
"injuriously or adversely affected the rights of his property or bears
directly upon his personal interest." Even this right is limited to
situations where the abutting property owner has "particularized
injuries," not some future or inchoate harm. (See Virginia Stansell et.al
vs. City of Northfield et.al. State of Minnesota In Court of Appeals C3-00-
708 (November 7, 2000)(unpublished opinion)).
The statute does not change the long settled rules about who can
initiate a claim. The United States Supreme Court has made it clear that
in order to have standing to bring a claim a person must show that (1)
they have a legally protectable interest in the property which is (a)
concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural
or hypothetical;" and (2) it must be likely, as opposed to merely
speculative, that the interest will be redressed by a favorable decision.
(See Lugan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. Supreme Court 555 (1992);
see also In re Trust in Estate of Everett, 266 Minn. 398.401, 116 N. W. 2d
601, 603 (1962)(to initiate a claim the person must have a right that is
immediate and not a "possible, remote consequence, or mere possibility
arising from some unknown or future contingency)).
• Even the Baders admit that they do not have an immediate need for a
variance. The current road provides them the access they need for their
current use of their property (bare land). The current road also provides
them the necessary access for a home, if they desire to build one. The
only reason there would ever be a need for a variance to the right of
way width of Foxwood Lane is if the Baders obtained approval to
subdivide their property using Foxwood Lane as the access point.
Without a specific request for a subdivision or plat approval their need
for a variance is merely hypothetical — a mere possibility arising from a
future contingency. Furthermore, even if the Commission were to grant
a variance it would still be speculative as to whether their subdivision
request would be granted
3. Are the restrictive covenants between the Foxwood neighbors relevant to the
Planning Commissions' consideration of and decision on the Baders' variance
application?
Answer: YES
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 23
• In a variance application the Commission and the City Council can
consider whatever factors they deem reasonable and relevant, including
the existence of the covenants. Here the covenants are unquestionably
relevant as they have a direct bearing on whether the road extension is
legally feasible. It is without question that the covenants restrict the
expansion of Foxwood Lane. If the Commission were to approve the
variance they would be approving "a road to nowhere."
• The covenants also have a bearing on whether the City would have to
compensate the neighboring landowners if it were to allow or require
that Foxwood Lane be extended and/or converted from a private road to
a city street. The restrictive covenants provide valuable property rights
to the abutting and neighboring property landowners. As such, any
action by the City which infringed, impaired or destroyed these rights
would require the City to compensate the property owners whose
property was affected. (See July 1, 2003 City Council Minutes p. 39, "the
City Attorney tended to agree, that if the City were to require Foxwood
Lane to be turned into a public street, the City would have to compensate
the property owners for the destruction of their property rights with
respect to the protective covenants.")
In closing, I respectfully submit that for the reasons set forth above and the reasons I previously
provided to the Planning Commission, the Baders' variance application should be denied.
Sincerely Yours,
a.
Lisa Gray
0
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 24
Michael M. Bader
Michelle K. Bader
1673 Delaware Avenue
Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118
(651) 287-2028
March 26, 2012
E-MAIL ONLY
lakes rriendotaheights.com
Mr. Jake Sedlacek
Assistant to the City Administrator
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
RE: 1673 Delaware Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
PIN No: 27-02400-010-76
Lot 3, Foxwood
PIN No.: 27-27620-030.01
Dear Mr. Sedlacek:
Thank you for your letter of March 23, 2012.
Yes. We need more time to respond to Lisa Gray's concerns as well as the County's.
Therefore, I request a continuance of the March 27, 2012 Planning Commission hearing to April
24, 2012. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Michael M. Bader
MMB:shh
Cz%'
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 25
cc: By E -Mail Only:
Paul McGinley and Paul Kangas
Dr. Lon Lutz and Jennifer Drill
Jim and Nancy Joyce
Timothy Anne
Anne Miller
Lisa Ann Gray and Gary Canfield
Jim and Michele Kolar
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 26
Jake Sedlacek
From:
Jennifer Lutz <jdlrnjd@comcast.net>
Sent:
Wednesday, March 21, 2012 8:41 AM
To:
Mike Bader
Cc:
Lisaanngray@MAC.com; Mike Bader; jdlrnjd@comcast.net Lutz; Jake Sedlacek; Tim
Aune; Lon Jay Lutz
Subject:
Foxwood Lane
Dear Mr. Bader,
I am writing in response to the letter we received from you and Michelle last week regarding your
proposed development. As I believe it has become painfully obvious, any alteration to the current
Foxwood Lane would require its conversion into a public street. Lon and I maintain that there is not
enough room between our home and the property line to safely accommodate a public street and the
associated increase in traffic. Again, we appreciate the fact that you would like to develop your
property, but Lon and I are unwilling to consider options where we would be required to shoulder the
lion's share of the burden of the disruption due to construction and property devaluation, without any
consideration.
Lisa Gray was kind enough to share with me the letter she sent to you last week. I concur with Lisa's
position and would echo her requests for further information regarding viable development options.
Sincerely,
Jennifer & Lon Lutz
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 27
Lisa Gray
540 Wentworth Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Mendota Heights Planning Commission
Mr. Jake Sedlacek
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Re: Mike and Michelle Bader's Variance Application
Dear Planning Commission Members and Mr. Sedelek:
RECEIVED MAR 19 2012
I am writing to provide you with an update on your request that the Baders reach out to the
neighbors to further discuss their development plans.
On March 8th, the Baders sent a letter to me, Lon and Jennifer Lutz, Tim Aune and Anne Miller,
stating their desire to work with us to solve the access issues. In this letter they indicated their
surprise that the Lutz home was in the area of 15 feet from the right of way and expressed their
belief that the solution was to "give me more land by my house in exchange for moving
Foxwood to the area of my driveway." Unfortunately as with their other concepts, insufficient
detail was provided to enable me to fully understand its impact on the quiet enjoyment of my
property. In response to their letter, I wrote to the Baders to ask them to provide me with
additional information and to suggest that they look to alternatives that exist that do not
require a variance. The information I requested encompasses many of the same questions that
the Planning Commission asked the Baders to provide to the Commission at or before the next
Planning Commission Meeting on March 27th. I informed the Baders that once I have this
information I would be willing to sit down with them to discuss reasonable proposals that retain
the essential characteristics of the neighborhood and maintain the value of the surrounding
properties
I have enclosed both of the letters for your review and consideration.
Sincerely Yours,
'111� Z,
Lisa Gray
Enclosures
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 28
Michael M. Bader
Michelle K. Bader
1673 Delaware Avenue
Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118
651-905-1673
March 8, 2012
BY E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Dr. Lon Lutz and Jennifer Drill
548 Foxwood Lane
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Mr. Timothy Aune
Ms. Anne Miller
554 Foxwood Lane
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Lisa Ann Gray and Gary Canfield
540 Wentworth Avenue West
St. Paul, MN 55118-2830
Dear Lon, Jennifer, Tim, Anne, Lisa and Gary:
We write in followup to the Planning Commission meeting. As indicated at that meeting
and in prior correspondence, Michelle and I would like to work with you on solving the access
issues.
To that end, I have asked Loucks to survey the right of way. Again, it would help to have
Lon and Jennifer's permission for the surveyor to go on your property to get accurate readings.
We were as surprised to hear Paul's calculation that Lon and Jennifer's home was in the
area of 15 feet from the right of way. Obviously, this came as a shock to Jennifer as well.
As we discussed with the Garretts some years ago (before Lisa and Gary moved in), I
sincerely believe the solution is to give Lisa and Gary more land by their house in exchange for
moving Foxwood to the area of their driveway. Lisa and Gary would gain more acreage,
everyone would have a shorter walk to get the mail and garbage and we would all have a wider,
safer street. How wide, is, again an issue we would like to have your input on.
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 29
Dr. Lon Lutz and Jennifer Drill
Mr. Timothy Aune
Ms. Anne Miller
Lisa Ann Gray and Gary Caufield
Page Two
March 8, 2012
If you don't want monuments, we are fine with that but I seem to recall someone bringing
that issue up when we paved the road. So, your thoughts on that issue would also be welcome.
Finally, we would suggest that creating a landscaped buffer in the area of Lisa and Gary's house
would be preferable to the overgrown buckthorn that is choking out the existing trees on Lot 3
and the rest of our western lot.
Lisa also mentioned in one of her e-mails that she had some alternative thoughts on
access. We would like to hear those ideas and any ideas our Foxwood neighbors may have.
If some or all of you think a meeting might help, you are all welcome at our house. Call
or e-mail Mike at 612-865-1845, or e-mail at bader@kkblawfirm.com.
Best regards,
Mike and Michelle Bader
�J
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 30
0
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 31
Lisa Gray
540 Wentworth Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Mike and Michelle Bader
1673 Delaware Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Dear Mike and Michelle
%Q71/to Rn
I am in receipt of your March 8th letter and appreciate your outreach to me. As a backdrop, I
continue to be concerned about the effect of your development plans and variance request on
the essential character and safety of our neighborhood. My concern is heightened by the fact
that neither the plans you submitted with your variance request, nor your proposal regarding a
"land swap" involving my property, provide enough detail to fully understand their impact on
the quiet enjoyment of my property. It seemed that the Planning Commission had a similar
concern regarding their inability to assess the impact of the variance without a detailed plan.
With this back drop in mind, if you could prepare a plan or plans that include significantly more
detail I would be willing to sit down and talk with you about them. The detail that I would
need to see is as follows:
1. A detailed drawing of the land swap you are proposing, showing the location and
dimension in square feet. If your plan adversely impacts my septic system please
include the detail as to how you will address this issue.
2. The exact path of your proposed expansion of Foxwood, including the widening of
the current lane as well as your proposed extension. I would like to see the exact
distance between the road and property shown in lineal feet as a measurement
on the preliminary plat drawing, as well as the same measurement from the other
properties adjoining the plat. I would like to see this for whatever plans you are
still considering (e.g. Plan B and the use of my property).
3. The number of lots and their configuration (i.e. where do they sit relative to my
property, the 3 Foxwood lots and the wetlands). You should be aware that I
believe that having a total of 6 lots is way too dense for this quiet and secluded
neighborhood.
4. What you will do to conserve the current scenic easement and landscape buffers.
5. What you will do to provide additional landscape/scenic buffers to ensure that
the current houses view and country -like settings are retained.
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 32
6. Detail regarding the provision of utilities to the new lots (i.e. will they be served
by private sewer systems or will they have city sewer; if the latter, what is the
exact location for installation of the city sewer).
7. What procedures will you put in place to help mitigate the impact of construction
on Foxwood Lane and our neighbors?
8. Specific engineering detail for handling stormwater drainage as referenced in
your February 21, 2012, letter to me.
9. Whether you expect to have protective covenants that attach to the new
properties and the provisions that they would contain.
These matters are very important to me and to my neighbors and we need additional
information to respond to you and to provide input into the City review process. As you
apparently agree, it is important that you devise a plan that will not result in the road coming
any closer to the Lutz property; having the pavement come closer to their home will result in a
completely untenable situation for them. I also think it is important to find a way to buffer all
three properties from additional road traffic. One of the main reasons I bought my home was
its secluded setting and I do not want to lose that valuable feature.
As I am sure you are aware, there are a number of obstacles that you will need to address in
order to proceed using Foxwood Lane, including but not limited to, the 1993 preliminary plat
conditions that run with Foxwood, the protective covenants and the need for a variance. As a
-consequence I encourage you to further consider your other options for access.
In particular, I believe you should give consideration to the options that do not require a
variance. For instance, have you thought about approaching your back property from the
south? From the comments made at the Planning Commission meeting on February 28, it
would appear that this is a possibility, particularly because Mr. Kohler indicated that he and his
neighbor wanted the right to develop their properties at some time in the future. Coming from
the south seems to be a more feasible plan as (i) it would affect only the properties owned by
the people who have indicated they want the right to develop their property; and (ii) would
not, to my knowledge, require a variance. Although the timing may not be ideal for you, it
would at least give you a plan that could provide you with more confidence that it could be
achieved. It may also address the City's desire to see a more comprehensive plan for the
Sommerset area.
It would also seem that you would benefit from further exploration of access from Delaware as
you have indicated that such access would avoid the need for a variance. I appreciate that you
believe this approach is more expensive for you, but with all due respect the burden of the
development is more appropriately placed on you, rather than on your neighbors. Of course
with any of these plans it would be vital that the essential character of the neighborhood be
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 33
preserved by maintaining similar sized lots, protecting the woodlands and wetlands and
ensuring appropriate landscape barriers between properties.
As I indicated from the start, I am willing to discuss reasonable proposals that retain what I
believe are the essential characteristics of the neighborhood and maintain the value of the
surrounding properties. Please let me know. when you have the information I requested
prepared and we can arrange a mutually convenient time to get together.
Respectfully Yours,
Lisa Gray
Ccs: Tim Aune and Anne Miller
Lon and Jennifer Lutz
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 34
Lisa A. Gray
540 Wentworth Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
February 24, 2012
Mr. Jake Sedlacek
Assistant to City Administrator
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Re: Mike and Michelle Baders' Variance Application
Dear Mr. Sedlacek:
RECEIVED FRYo1S
I am now in receipt of a copy of Mr. Grittman's memorandum pertaining to the Baders' variance
request. Upon reviewing his report, I was struck by the fact that it appeared to assume that the
information contained in the Baders' application was accurate, without an independent review of the
full record before the Planning Commission. For instance, the report at page 2 states: "The applicant's
materials suggest that these conditions are met due to the following factors...."
Please know I am not in any way calling into question the veracity of the Baders. I do want to point out,
however, that their application is based simply on their view. As the applicants, the Baders have the
burden of establishing that they have met the conditions required for a granting of the variance, I would
urge that the Planning Commission consider the entire record, rather than merely relying on information
contained in the Baders' application. In order to assist the Planning Commission in viewing Mr.
Grittman's report in light of a fuller record, I have prepared the chart below. Obviously, this is only a
snapshot of certain of the issues, and will not obviate the need for consideration of the entire record.
Grittman Report Statements
Facts From the Record
"Foxwood was developed with the expectation
That there would be only three lots was more than
that it would terminate in the existing cul-de-sac,
an "expectation" it was a condition to the
serving only the three lots." (Report, p_ 1)
approval of the plat. The City specifically required
that the minimum acreage of the lots be 2 % acres.
(Gray Exhibit B). It was also a contractually agreed
upon limitation set forth in the restrictive
covenants each landowner became subject to at
the time of purchase. (Gray Exhibit A)
"In seeking to subdivide that parcel, the applicant
Each of the plans submitted by the Baders showed
is hoping to extend Foxwood Lane to the south to
at least four additional parcels. (Bader Variance
serve between one and four additional parcels,
Application) If there are other plans, they were not
depending on the eventual subdivision." (Report,
included in the information sent to the neighbors
P-1)
"Proposed lot sizes in the eventual plat will meet
All of the neighboring properties that abut the
(i)
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 35
or exceed the zoning requirements and will be
larger than many lots recently subdivided in the
same area and zoning district" (Report p.2)
proposed division are larger than 2 acres; the
proposed plans show certain of the lots to be
significantly smaller than 2 acres. (See Plat and
Bader Application)
"Extension of Foxwood Lane from its current
The proposed variance and extension of Foxwood
terminus to gain access from Delaware, is
DOES NOT MEET CODE; would be detrimental to
technically feasible but, while meeting the code,
the land and to tree cover and would be equally if
would be detrimental to land, tree cover, and be
not more unacceptable to the neighborhood.
less acceptable to the neighborhood" (Report p.
Bader sketch drawings show the proposed
2)
expansion of Foxwood Lane as breaching
the scenic access easement that the City
required as a condition to the approval of
the Foxwood development (Gray Exhibit
B)
• The expansion of Foxwood Lane would
result in yard setback non -conformity for
540 Wentworth. (City Code 12-1E-4: R -IA:
One Family Residential District subsection
D) This code section requires that a side
yard abutting a street shall not be less
than 30 feet in width. Currently the side
yard setback is only 15 feet
• The expansion of Foxwood would result in
a violation of City Code 12-1D-4, which
directs that "no yard or other open space
shall be reduced in area dimension so as to
make such yard or other open space less
than the minimum required by this
chapter and if the existing yard or other
open space as existing is less than the
minimum required it shall not be further
reduced." (City Code 12-1D-4). The Lutz
home, based on a prior grant of a variance
is already less than minimum required,
and thus according to the City Code,
cannot be further reduced.
• It is entirely unacceptable to the
neighborhood directly affected by the
variance as evidenced by the letters in
opposition. (Anne, Lutz, Gray and
Weyerhauser letters). Not one Delaware
neighbor has indicated on the record
their opposition to the Baders'
alternatives to use Delaware
* The Foxwood expansion would result in a
breach of the restrictive covenants that
protect the Foxwood Lane lots and
IN
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 36
neighboring properties, putting the
neighbors in direct conflict
"The difficulties in meeting the required street
I am unsure if this comment relates to the
width relate to topography changes and tree loss
Delaware options or the Foxwood extension. To
by constructing an outlet to Delaware, and the
the extent it was intended to apply to egress off of
inability to expand the existing right of way width,
Delaware, these same issues exist for the Foxwood
since it is flanked by other property owners."
expansion.
(Report p.2)
"The new lots served by the extended Foxwood
The new lots will not match the character of the
will match the character of the area." (Report p.2)
area. Although within the size required by the
zoning ordinance, the proposed lots are
significantly smaller than the current adjoining
lots. (See Bader Variance Application and Plat of
affected properties)
"The applicant has opined that Dakota County will
In the Foxwood alternative the land that would be
likely grant approval to construct a new street and
adversely affected by loss of tree cover includes in
intersection on Delaware Avenue, along the south
significant part land not owned by the Baders and
boundary line of 1673 Delaware. As, development
land which is subject to a City imposed 30' scenic
of the area is possible from Delaware Ave.,
easement; in the Delaware option the loss of tree
although the grade and tree loss would be much
cover is on land owned by the Baders. (Gray
more extensive with that design. The sketch plan
Exhibit B)
submitted as a part of the application shows that
as manly as four new buildable lots would be
Each of the sketch plans submitted by the Baders
proposed with that design."
show four new buildable lots. (Bader Variance
Application)
While the option necessitating the variance results
The record does not reflect that any independent
in an overly long cul-de-sac, it also appears to have
analysis was made with respect to this issue, nor
the least impact on the land in relation to grading
have any design or engineer plans been presented
and tree loss. (Report p.4)
which would substantiate this conclusion. As
noted above, the impact to which Mr. Grittman
refers is to land already owned by the Baders who
are seeking to benefit from their planned
development.
Because the conditions resulting in the narrower
The Baders' purchased their Foxwood property
right of way for the existing Foxwood Lane are not
knowing that:
the result of action by the applicant staff believes
• Foxwood Lane was a private road that was
that the variance request can be found to be
built and approved by the City to serve as
consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance.
egress for the three plotted Foxwood lots.
(Report p. 4)
• The Foxwood property was subject to
protective covenants that prohibited
further sub -division.
• The protective covenants identified a
"Restricted Area" and a "No Cut Zone"
which contained significant restrictions on
2012-07, April 24, 2012 - Page 37
changing the character of the natural
setting of the Foxwood Lane development.
• The protective covenants specifically
prohibited grading, removal of soil,
placement of soil or fill and construction of
any improvements (other than
landscaping) in the "No Cut Zones," which
they knew or reasonably should have
known would prohibit the construction of
or an expansion of a road through this
area.
(Gray Exhibits A and B)
As a final matter 1 also want to emphasize that I am not asking, nor do I expect the Planning Commission
to enforce the restrictive covenants agreement. 1 do believe, however, that their existence and the
Bader's knowledge of them at the time of their purchase are facts that can and should be taken into
consideration in determining whether the Baders' have met their burden of proving the legal elements
necessary for obtaining a variance.
I appreciate that this submission is being made shortly before the February 28, 2012 Planning
Commission Hearing, and I apologize. I did my best to get this prepared and submitted as soon as
possible after receiving the Grittman report.
Again, thank you for considering my views.
Lisa Gray
OW
2012-10, April 24, 2012 - Page 1
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 2012, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.231 .2555 Facsinile. 763.231 .2561 planners@nacpla nning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen Grittman
DATE: April 19, 2012
MEETING DATE: April 24, 2012
SUBJECT: Variance for Driveway Setback
CASE NO: Case No. 2012-10; NAC Case 254.04 — 12.09
APPLICANT(S): Joseph Igo
LOCATION: 862 Wagon Wheel Trail
ZONING: R-1, Single Family Residential
GUIDE PLAN: Low Density Residential
Background and Description of Request:
The applicant wishes to expand the width of his driveway toward the side property line
to create an additional parking space on the paved surface. The applicant currently has
a two car garage with a setback from the side property line consistent with the minimum
requirement of 10 feet. The current driveway edge lies approximately 11 feet from the
side property line. The setback regulation for driveway surfaces is 5 feet from side
property lines.
Analysis:
When considering variances, 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,
2012-10, April 24, 2012 - Page 2
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 applicant contends that the additional parking space is necessary to accommodate
vehicles owned by residents of the property, and to accommodate circulation given the
two -car garage, existing tree plantings, lack of maneuverability for vehicles within the
existing driveway.
Side setbacks for driveways are intended to ensure that green space exists between
residential properties, and to accommodate the common drainage and utility easements
along property lines. The zoning ordinance does not permit parking of vehicles on
grass or other unsurfaced areas.
Under the existing conditions, the applicant can expand his driveway width by about six
feet toward the side property line and meet the setback requirement. Six feet is narrow,
but usable for parking, particularly for smaller vehicles. The average width of most
vehicles, including small trucks and SUVS is just under 72 inches. The applicant
indicates that while the area on the other, interior, side of the driveway would raise
issues as a parking area, it may be expanded by a foot or two without interfering with
existing trees and other improvements.
Action Requested:
After a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following
alternative actions:
Approval of the variance for driveway setback as requested, based on draft
findings attached to this report. If a recommendation for approval is considered,
it may be appropriate to request that the area of encroachment into the setback
includes some measures to reduce runoff (such as pervious pavers rather than
solid pavement), and that some form of landscape/screening is considered
adjoining the parking area adjacent to the neighboring property.
2. Denial of the variance for driveway setback, based on draft findings attached to
this report.
Staff Recommendation:
Planning staff does not recommend the variance. As noted in the analysis, it would
appear that the available six feet is adequate to park a typical passenger vehicle. While
it is understood that a wider surface would be more desirable, the requirements for
variance do not appear to be present, including conditions of uniqueness, or character
of the locality, in that the five foot setback standard has been routinely applied to new
driveways throughout the community.
2
2012-10, April 24, 2012 - Page 3
As suggested in the alternatives above, if the Planning Commission believes that the
variance request is reasonable in this context, the City may consider a requirement for
alternative paving materials that permit drainage to flow into the soil, and a potential
landscape screen in the remaining three feet to mitigate the impact of the reduced
parking setback.
Supplementary Materials:
1. Application Materials dated 3/28/12
3
2012-10, April 24, 2012 - Page 4
Draft Findings of Fact for Approval
Igo Driveway Setback
Variance for Setback Encroachment
862 Wagon Wheel Trail
The proposed driveway expansion is a reasonable use of the subject property.
2. The proposed driveway expansion will reduce traffic in the public street by
accommodating vehicle parking and easier maneuvering on private property.
3. The proposed driveway expansion can not be accommodated within the required
setbacks without interfering with existing driveway use, given the location of the
garage.
4. Expansion of the driveway on the other (east) side can not be accomplished due
to existing site improvements and existing trees.
5. The site conditions create practical difficulties in complying with the intent of the
ordinance.
9
2012-10, April 24, 2012 - Page 5
Draft Findings of Fact for Denial
Igo Driveway Setback
Variance for Setback Encroachment
862 Wagon Wheel Trail
The proposed driveway expansion is inconsistent with the intent of the ordinance
to promote green space, preserve drainage and utility easement corridors, and
minimize crowding between residential properties.
2. The proposed parking space can be accommodated by an expansion of the
driveway meeting the setbacks without variance, including the potential for
expanding a portion of the driveway to the east.
3. While alternatives to the variance may be less convenient, the proposed
encroachment into the required setback area constitutes an unreasonable use of
the setback area.
2012-10, April 24, 2012 - Page 6
City of Mendota Heights:
wish to add an addition onto my driveway so that it can accommodate another car. We currently have
three drivers in our family, with another on the way.
The current city code allows me to add an additional six feet, as I need to stay 5 feet away from the
near lot line.
It is not feasible to add onto the left (east) side as that would locate the driveway on top of my front
entry steps. The only alternative is to add to the right (west). I currently have 11 feet from the edge of
my driveway to the lot line.
I have a narrow driveway to begin with, and six feet of addition space is barely enough room for one car.
am requesting a variance to the ordinance so that I can make the driveway 7 or 8 feet in width. The
accompanying photos and drawing show the proposed driveway width. The red stake represents 7 feet
and the green one 8 feet. The addition would be done in cement so that it more closely matches the
existing driveway.
This driveway expansion will not have a structure on it and will only be used to park a car.
Thank you for your consideration,
go
Joseph T
U�
2012-10, April 24, 2012 - Page 7
• 101 V.,.__-fr. Curve_ "lcndc ;n*c t -1 -Ni =a8
1. is i ..hnne.
CITY OF
Mcr\IGOT/-\. HEIGHTS
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION
OF PLANNING REQUEST
Case No. 10 Fee Paid l J/ ;Zs L
Date of Application 3 (2 ® ( 1-2- Staff Initials
Applicant Name: J 65 � � - 1� PH: (S�r ` 7— l �
E -Mail Address: �a 13N
Address:—
Owner Name: ,i_jAh � � /�"�� - C)
Address:' �,v�✓
Street Location of Property in Question: W -SAI Wdee UAI �-
Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided)
Addfl� /V
Type of Request:
Rezoning
Conditional Use Permit
Conditional User Permit for P.U.D.
Preliminary/Final Plat Approval
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
N
_Variance
Subdivision Approval
Wetlands Permit
Critical Area Permit
Other (attach explanation)
Applicable City Ordinance Number Section
Present Zoning of Property Present Use .
Prop. sed.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 inspecrt the above property during daylight hours.
Date Received
(Sigyature of Ap ' °ant)
(Sign re f
2012-10, April 24, 2012 - Page 8
CITY OF
MEr'J00 T A HEIGHTS
SIGNATURES OF CONSENT FOR VARIANCE REQUEST
To: The Planning Commission, City of Mendota Heights
From; property Owners of
JL
RE:
We the undersigned .— - _ — _
understand the terms and conditions of the requested variance for
We have no objections to this request and do hereby give our written consent and consent to
waiver of public hearing.
Sincerely,
NAME (Please Print) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (INCL. LOT)
z
2-](Z�/�
G� r
on
862 Wagon Wheel Trail
0 40 III
March 16, 2012
SCALE IN FEET
City of
Mendot
Heihts]
g
100
---------------- ---
100
855
ZN
849
p
cc
-239-1332 �- 1 inch —1 One Small Square = One Foot SCALE: I„ ® ®°
E
24, 2012 - Page 12
2012-10, April 24, 2012 - Page 13
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
NOTICE OF HEARING
A PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD
SETBACK FOR A DRIVEWAY EXPANSTION AT 862 WAGON WHEEL TRAIL
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, April 24, 2012 in the
City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to
consider an application from Joseph Igo.
The applicant is seeking a two foot variance to the side yard setback in order to
expand their driveway.
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
2012-10, April 24, 2012 - Page 14
Disclaimer. Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not Map Scale
guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search, inch s feet
appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification.
2012-11, April 24, 2012 - Page 1
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, II z
4300 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone. 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 plan ners(o)nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen Grittman
DATE: April 19, 2012
MEETING DATE: April 24, 2012
SUBJECT: Variance for Accessory Building Size and Number
CASE NO: Case No. 2012-11; NAC Case 254.04 — 12.08
APPLICANT(S): Visitation School and Convent
LOCATION: 2455 Visitation Drive
ZONING: R-1, Single Family Residential
GUIDE PLAN: Institutional
Background and Description of Request:
Visitation School is seeking permission to construct two dugouts for the softball field in
the northwest corner of their property. Because these structures are enclosed with a
roof, they qualify as accessory buildings, and as such, require zoning approvals. The
current ordinance retains the accessory building requirements for such uses under the
residential regulations. Under this code, additional accessory building space (and the
number of such buildings) will require a variance.
A proposed ordinance amendment (spurred by a previous Visitation request for a
detached classroom building) that would allow non-residential uses in the R-1 district to
exceed the normal residential limits has not yet been adopted.
2012-11, April 24, 2012 - Page 2
Analysis:
When considering variances, 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.
In this case, the addition of dugouts for an existing outdoor recreation field would easily
appear to meet the "reasonable use" test. With regard to the conditions for the
"practical difficulties" test, the regulations impose extensive restrictions on what is
otherwise a permitted use in the zoning district. There are three schools in the City that
could be expected to use their properties in this way (out of residentially zoned parcels
in the thousands). With regard to character, the proposed structures will shelter an
existing use that is permitted, and is not introducing any new activity to the property.
Moreover, the proposed dugouts are more than 200 feet to the nearest residential
property, and at least 300 feet to the nearest residential structure. It would appear that
the terms for variance are easily met in this case.
The pending ordinance amendment would regulate accessory building space as a
percentage of the total parcel area. For the Visitation property of approximately 49
acres, total accessory building space could be as much as 10,700 square feet. With the
addition of the dugouts at 120 square feet each, total accessory building floor area on
the site will be approximately 6,575 square feet. As such, if the amendment is
eventually adopted as written, the applicants will easily be conforming to that code.
Action Requested:
Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following
recommendations:
Approval of the proposed variance for two dugout structures as proposed, based
on findings attached to this report.
2. Denial of the proposed variance, based on findings to be generated from
testimony at the public hearing.
2
2012-11, April 24, 2012 - Page 3
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the variances. As noted, the structures are consistent
with the current use of the site, will have little or no visual impact on adjacent property,
and would be consistent with the terms of the proposed code amendment for accessory
building construction. With these conditions, the request meets the required tests for
variance approval, including reasonableness, and practical difficulties.
Supplementary Materials:
1. Application materials dated April 2 and April 13, 2012
2012-11, April 24, 2012 - Page 4
Draft Findings of Fact for Approval
Visitation Convent and School
Conditional Use Permit and Variance for Accessory Building
2455 Visitation Drive
The proposed accessory buildings (softball dugouts) will be located in an area
that does not affect surrounding property.
2. The site on which the proposed buildings are to be constructed is unique and
distinguished from other residential properties, consisting of more than 50 acres.
3. The proposed accessory buildings will have little or no impact on surrounding
residential property with a separation from the closest residential building of
approximately 300 feet.
4. The proposed buildings will support an activity that is clearly incidental and
accessory to the principal use of the property, and is not expected to increase
traffic or have other impacts on public services.
5. The proposed accessory buildings will not change the use of the property, either
in type or intensity.
6. The proposed building meets all other zoning requirements.
7. The proposed building is not expected to create and drainage or stormwater
issues, and such drainage will be handled by on-site stormwater management.
!I
2012-11, April 24, 2012 - Page 5
Convent of the
vw - I fi/a/
April 13, 2012
City of Mendota Heights
Mr. Jake Sedlacek
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Re: Planning Case File #2012-11
Dear Mr. Sedlacek,
The Convent and Academy of the Visitation wishes to apply for an accessory structure variance to
construct two softball dugouts on the varsity softball field on the far western portion of our campus.
The dugouts are a normal and usual addition to a softball field because it gets the players and
equipment out of the mud and weather elements and they provide a resting place for the players.
Since the softball dugouts are relatively small structures (home -120 sq. ft. and visitors - 85 sq. ft.) and
the
mpact on the neighorho
the fact that they are located on our campus's far perimeter,
fieldland the home dugobt is buts
very small. There are a number of trees around the south
into the side of a hill which conceals it even further. There are also a number of trees surrounding the
outfields.
We have submitted a set of building plans completed by Opus and plan to use quality products. The
shake design is consistent with other school accessory structures.
We are submitting an additional $100 to offset city planning expenses. If there is anything else needed
please contact me at 651-683-1701 or 651-398-9980 and rdavern@vischool.org.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Davern
Director, Finance & Operations
Non Scholae, Sed Vitae.
Notfor School, butfor Life.
2455 Visitation Drive o Mendota Heights, MN 55120 > Phone: (651) 683-1700 - Fax: (651) 454-7144 - Web site: wwwvisitation.net
2012-11, April 1 .g-•
/ Convent of thei1-499
�-
March 29, 2012
City of Mendota Heights
Mr Jake Sedlacek
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Dear Mr. Sedlacek,
We are submitting a Conditional Use Application with the intent of building two softball
dugouts on our varsity field, or the one closest to the lake. We have enclosed the application,
drawings, and check for your review. Since the dugouts are a fairly straight forward structure
we hope these items will suffice.
if you need anything else before the planning review please call me at 651683-1701 or my cell
at 651-398-9380. 1 understand the planning commission will review the plans soon. This would
be a great help since we are very interested in constructing the dugouts in the near future.
Many thanks for everyone's time and efforts reviewing the documents.
C
Richard J. Davern
Director, Finance & Operations
Non Scholae, Sed Vitae.
Notfor&hool, butforLife.
2455 Visitation Drive o Mendota Heights, MN 55120 e Phone: (651) 683-1700 o Fax: (651) 454-7144 a Web site: wmy..visitation.net
2012-11, April 24, 2012 - Page 7
1101 Vjrloja Curve I Mendota Heights, 1,1N 55118
651.452.1850 phone I 651.452.8940 fa
CITY OF
1\/IEf,JDCJTA HEIC—l"TS
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION
OF PLANNING REQUEST
Case No. '2-4v,2,- � 11 - Fee Paid
Date of Application J12-liz- Staff Initials t e*�
Applicant Name: PH: C/ I - L7 0
E -Mail Address:
Address:
Owner N�
Address: S'
Street Location of Property in Question:
Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must he provided)
Type of Request:
Rezoning 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)
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.
(Sig atur�eof Applicant)
Date ReceivedtrSe V1191
(Signature of Owner)
cn
O
::3
l
0
zy
O
O
W
N
2012-11, April 24, 2012 - Page 9
z
0
}—
U
LU
U)
0
Q
6mPaIlLLlaa45\4�+tl\u 6isa p\+agwnNa �a fo+d\�H
U1
70
m
W W
N X
o
v d
O
� O =
O w0
m
Q
OZ~
3 `n
O �Q
d
U W -d F
O
O
S
d
p S
m
Z
_
N
ln0
�O
�.--.
W Z N
J
O
_Z Z O O D
w O
U Iq=Q—W
WO
O J
N
W OQ
O= W�
N NASO
SZ
W
Sm2'�O �S
N J�UI
UJOO to
J 00
=
��D
W p O V 0 W
00
= 0
<
¢�¢
= OWUW�v
I- F
0"CL
O¢
<QJ
Jd OO�
O W QO O
V
UJ wN QJ
W W O Z
ON
NZ
x p
V
m F ��� Q xVl
0 J do
=SU
ON
x
z
0
}—
U
LU
U)
0
Q
6mPaIlLLlaa45\4�+tl\u 6isa p\+agwnNa �a fo+d\�H
U1
70
m
2012-11, April 24, 2012 - Page 10
Z
W
s
W
0
I
6MP'a1111aa45\qa�V\u6isap\�agwnry�oafoid\� H
(n N
C N
^� o
O
E
M
L-
LL
0
0
0
w
0
2012-11, April 24, 2012 - Page 11
z
w
3
d
W
�/)AS
1 >
Y m W
Z S YQ 0
� N = O
OU Q N U
< Q o Q
p O O N Ow
W m Z Qp U U
� mZ
Nm =d U
0 3 o m Qa 'iQ
o z g ';, m
m m
N � p
F---� I
II 3DVdS VOV 1 ` 1 30VdS VOV ( `�
U � K
O Z O
Z Z
z
z
O O
Q
O X O Hq m
N
rn
�—
O
(n
0
N �Q
c3� U--1
O
0
w tr o Q ¢
w w
N W NIH
N N w O
ON
10 �
IN a -
N
Ern p-aq!11aa 4S\4��Y\u6! sa4\�a gwnNpafo�d\�H
2012-11, April 24, 2012 - Page 12
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
NOTICE OF HEARING
A PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST FOR VARIANCES AND A CONDITIONAL
USER PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT DUGOUTS AT 2455 VISITATION DRIVE
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, April 24, 2012 in the
City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to
consider an application from Dick Davern on behalf the Convent of the Visitation.
The applicant is seeking to construct two dugouts on the softball field at Convent
of the Visitation School. This request requires a conditional use permit for two dugouts,
as well as a variance for the total number of accessory structures and a variance for the
total area of accessory structures.
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
2012-11, April 24, 2012 - Page 13
Dakota County, MN
Disclaimer. Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not Map Scale
guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search, I inch ® 569 feet
appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification.