Loading...
2011-05-24 Planning Comm Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA May 24, 2011 - 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 4. Approval of the Agenda 5. Approval of the April 26, 2011 Planning Commission Minutes 6. Report on New Statute Affecting Variances 7. Hearings a. Case No. 11-10: Beverly Sargent, 1040 Sibley Memorial Highway, critical area permit for a privacy fence. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. b. Case No. 11-11: Paul Elias, 2242 Lexington Avenue So, conditional use permit and variance request for a detached garage. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. c. Case No. 11-12: Patrick Costello, 2535 Pilot Knob Road, conditional use permit for participative athletics in the industrial zone. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. 8. Verbal Review 9. Adjourn Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at 651-452-1850 with requests. 2 Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2011 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 26, 2011 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 26, 2011, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Vice -Chair Field, Commissioners Magnuson, Noonan, Roston, and Viksnins. Those absent and excused: Chair Norton and Commissioner Hennes. 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 Carla Wirth. Approval ofAgenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of March 22, 2011, Minutes The commission requested a correction on Page 8, sixth paragraph, to indicate: "Caio Cella, Division Manager with Linder's Flower Marts, stated he had nothing to add to staff's presentation." COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 22, 2011, AS CORRECTED. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 (Viksnins) Hearings PLANNING CASE #11-04 (continued) Edward Trost from Schad -Tracy Signs for Mendakota Country Club 2075 Mendakota Drive Conditional Use Permit for a Monument Sign Vice -Chair Field noted the commission, at its March meeting, had reconunended approval of an amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow for a residential property to have more than one monument sign, given a prescribed set of conditions could be met. The commission had also voted to table the request by Mendakota Country Club for a conditional use permit (CUP). Planner Stephen Grittman stated the applicants have submitted revised drawings for the proposed sign and the city has adopted an ordinance amendment to accommodate a second freestanding sign in residential districts for nonresidential use and in this case, a golf course with a CUP. He explained the ordinance amendment and application for a sign with a message area of just under 100 square feet. A photo illustration was displayed of the proposed sign as viewed from the intersection of Dodd Road and Highway 110. He advised that the proposed sign meets the requirements adopted as part of the ordinance amendment. Commissioner Viksnins asked about the size of the sign in the original application. Mr. Grittman stated it was about 200 square feet and now been reduced in height and width. Vice -Chair Field asked if it will be backlit. Mr. Grittman advised the letters will stand out from the sign with lighting behind to create a glow around each letter. P2 Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2011 Steve Watson, general manager of the Mendakota Country Club, and Edward Trost, Schad -Tracy Signs representing the applicant, introduced themselves. Mr. Watson stated the illustration depicts a winter season and during the summer there will be multiple flower gardens surrounding the sign. He added that the backlight will be white in color. Commissioner Noonan asked if the sign will be in the middle of the flower bed or at the edge. Mr. Watson stated it will be surrounded by flowers. Commissioner Roston noted the disclaimer on the sign picture indicating the colors were for illustration purposes only. Mr. Watson assured the commission that the sign will be consistent with the drawing and constructed of neutral colored materials. It was noted that a sign permit is required. Vice -Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Vice -Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 5 NAYS 0 Vice -Chair Field asked if hours were established for when the sign would be lit. Mr. Watson noted it was discussed at the meeting. Vice -Chair field suggested the time be addressed in the conditions of approval. Commissioner Viksnins asked if there would be conditions of approval. Mr. Grittman stated the sign will have to comply with the terms of the ordinance relating to hours of display and use of neutral colors or colors complementary with the main sign. Commissioner Viksnins asked if the initial staff report contained recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Grittman stated the initial staff report dealt more with the ordinance amendment than details of the sign proposal. Commissioner Viksnins stated he would like to know the conditions under consideration. Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek read the conditions approved in the ordinance amendment: the parcel of the sign must be no less than 40 acres in size; parcel of sign must have frontage on at least two public roadways; no more than one sign is allowed facing any one public roadway; the sign shall not exceed 100 sq. ft. in area or 9 feet in height from the average natural grade; sign may be illuminated providing the direct source of light is not visible from a public right-of-way or adjacent properties; sign may not be constructed as internally lit cabinet, shall be constructed in a monument style fashion including a base of natural stone, brick, or other masonry material; sign shall be landscaped with materials subject to the plans submitted with the CUP application; and lighting shall be limited from dusk to midnight. Vice -Chair Field noted the ordinance requires a landscaping plan to accompany the CUP. Mr. Grittman stated a landscape plan would typically identify, in site plan version, where plantings will occur. Vice -Chair Field noted the applicant has testified the sign will be placed in a bed of flowers. Commissioner Roston stated the hours of lighting are contained in the ordinance as being from dusk to midnight. Mr. Grittman noted this sign has heavy exposure to a high traffic highway and industrial area so the lighting will not impact a residential area. Mr. Grittman presented six findings of fact for the CUP as contained in the staff report. Following review, the commission indicated its concurrence with the findings. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AS REQUESTED BASED ON 1) NK Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2011 THE SIX FINDINGS OF FACT AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDINANCE INCLUDING: 1. THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AND SIGN PLAN BE APPROVED BY CITY STAFF. AYES 5 NAYS 0 Vice -Chair Fields advised the city council would consider this application at its May 3, 2011, meeting. PLANNING CASE #11-08 Norbert and Sandra Krebsbach 1230 Culligan Lane Critical Area Permit for a deck Planner Stephen Grittman presented the application of Norbert Krebsbach for a critical area permit in order to construct a deck addition of eight feet in width and six feet in depth to the rear of an existing single family home. The proposed deck would be located off the lower level which walks out to the southwest, facing a natural area that is not visible from the public right-of-way, nor does it face the river. He displayed a map of the subject site, noting it is zoned R-1 and within the critical area. A separate critical area permit is required for any construction within that area. He then displayed a site plan, described the topography and point of access to Culligan Lane, and location of the proposed small deck. Mr. Grittman stated the critical area ordinance restricts new construction on slopes of greater than 18%. In this case, the applicant's property is heavily sloped with an average slope from east to west of approximately 24%. He described the ordinance provisions to allow construction under certain conditions. In staff's view, this application is in compliance with terms of the critical area ordinance provision to allow this construction. Staff finds the proposed deck would not impact to the critical area, is not viewable from the road or river, and comports to critical area requirements. The deck does not extend farther into the lot than the existing deck above and it is understood this will be a wood deck and provide drainage through the deck so it will not impact impervious surface calculations. Staff believed the request was consistent with the terms and requirements of the critical area ordinance and recommends approval subject to several conditions. Commissioner Roston requested clarification of Section 12-3-1413.2 relating to the requirement for a CUP if on slopes greater than 18% but less than 40%. Mr. Grittman explained there are several clauses in the ordinance and staff had this same discussion. Staff found the ordinance is written so existing homes built on lots with average grades greater than 18% but less than 40% prior to 2003 needed a critical area permit but not a CUP. The critical area rules were modified again in 2006, undeveloped lots require no building on slopes beyond 18% and new construction would allow no building on slopes beyond 18%. Commissioner Roston noted the critical area ordinance conditions would then not apply. Mr. Grittman stated staff reviewed the language and assumed that if all ordinances were to apply, pre -2003 construction fell into the clause that required a critical area permit. Mr. Grittman explained the 18% rule came in effect in 2003 and written so existing lots were exempt to the provision if certain conditions were met to not face the river or be viewable to the public. Then, in 2006, there was another update relating to accessory or incidental structures on developed lots by CUP. A deck is not considered an accessory structure but, rather, an expansion of an existing structure, and consistent with the intent of 12.3.7A, since this is a pre -2003 structure and a deck expansion. Commissioner Roston stated if pre -2003, a structure would never require a CUP to build in the critical area. Mr. Grittman stated that is correct if the application involves an existing home. Commissioner Noonan asked about the proposed conditions and logic of Condition 2 relating to the deck allowing water to transmit through and asked what type of retention plans are being requested from the applicant. Given the P4 Planning Commission Minutes April26, 2011 nature of the structure, he felt it was illogical to require a drainage plan. Commissioner Noonan also asked about requiring development, drainage and grading plans to be reviewed by the city engineer. Mr. Grittman stated the applicant's plans are subject to approval by the city engineer. Since the plans are for a simple structure, they may be adequate for the city engineer's review due to minimal impact. If that is not the case, the city engineer would have the ability to request more detailed plans. Commissioner Noonan stated assuming this is a fairly simple structure he hopes there will not be extraordinary requests made of the applicant to prepare elaborate drainage and grading plans. Mr. Grittman stated those onerous plans are not required if the construction is not extensive or complicated. However, this language allows the city engineer the ability to request the plans if found to be needed. Commissioner Noonan asked if there are assurances that if it is a simple construction those onerous requirements will not be placed as suggested in Condition 2. Mr. Grittman stated the city will follow past practice and if cursory staff review is acceptable, that is the review given. Commissioner Magnuson stated the way it is written strongly implies that the applicant will have to submit stormwater retention plans and drainage and grading plans because all are required to be reviewed. She supported language that covered a contingency if something unexpected should occur but was concerned about adopting findings that required the plans to be submitted for approval since they are probably not needed for this application. Commissioner Noonan stated his concurrence and explained the applicant needs to understand what is being expected of him so he submits appropriate plans without spending considerable money producing plans such as this. Commissioner Viksnins suggested: "Any storm water retention plans and grading plans shall be approved by the city engineer, if the city engineer determines such plans are necessary." Vice -Chair Field suggested this be further discussed when a motion is considered. Commissioner Roston pointed out that the draft fmdings of fact include no reference to these plan requirements. The commission discussed the draft findings of fact and draft conditions under consideration. Norbert Krebsbach, applicant, stated they built the house 21 years ago as a rambler walkout. Last year, the insurance company indicated it would not renew the policy unless he addressed the back deck, built steps, or closed off the door. Mr. Krebsbach indicated they felt the best option was a six foot by eight foot deck/landing, which will not impact the back yard or drainage. With regard to the grade, he estimated the back yard is 16-20% but not greater than that. Vice -Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Vice -Chair Field 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 NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. DEVELOPMENT IS NOT TO INCREASE THE RATE OF RUNOFF. THE APPLICANTS SHOULD VERIFY THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DECK TO DEMONSTRATE THE DECK PERMITS RAINWATER TO FLOW THROUGH TO THE EXISTING GROUND; AND M 29 Planning Commission Mimles April 26, 2011 2. APPLICANTS SHALL OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE AND GRADING INFORMATION IF REQUIRED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. Commissioner Noonan explained he proposed revised conditions so submission of additional plans is a discretionary request if staff deemed it to be necessary, rather than making it mandatory. Commissioner Viksnins asked if staff supported the revised language. Public Works Director/City Engineer Mazzitello recommended the following language be considered: "All construction activities must follow the Land Disturbance Guidance document." He stated this document was created to conform with the city's storm water management ordinance and this condition would address Commissioner Noonan's issue as well as the applicant's intent. Commissioner Noonan asked what the applicant would be expected to do in terms of meeting the Land Disturbance Guidance. Mr. Mazzitello stated the only limitation is how long the holes for the footings can be opened. The applicant would not be required to provide a storm water retention plan because the area of disturbance is not big enough nor post -construction storm water treatment because no pervious surface was being added. Commissioner Noonan asked if that information will be made known to the applicant or contractor when the building permit is issued. Mr. Mazzitello answered in the affirmative. COMMISSIONERS NOONAN AND MAGNUSON AGREED TO A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO REVISE THE CONDITIONS AS FOLLOWS: 1. DEVELOPMENT IS NOT TO INCREASE THE RATE OF RUNOFF. THE APPLICANTS SHOULD VERIFY THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DECK TO DEMONSTRATE THE DECK PERMITS RAINWATER TO FLOW THROUGH TO THE EXISTING GROUND; AND 2. APPLICANTS SHALL OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION AND ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES MUST FOLLOW THE LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT AYES 5 NAYS 0 Vice -Chair Field advised the city council would consider this application at its May 3, 2011, meeting. PLANNING CASE #11-09 Karry and Lisa Knoll 1836 Rolling Green Curve Wetlands Permit for landscaping Planner Stephen Grttman presented the request of Karry Knoll for an amendment to a previously approved wetlands permit to add a boulder retaining wall within the 100 foot wetland buffer zone at 1836 Rolling Green Curve. He displayed a site plan of the subject site, noting it is zoned R-1, and a wetlands permit is required for disturbances within 100 feet of a wetland. He explained the original project involved installing an in -ground pool, concrete apron and fence in the rear yard of the property. However, following construction of a portion of the project, the applicant found he would not be able to comply with the maximum slope allowance of 3:1 for the grade from swimming pool deck to edge of wetland. As such, the applicant is requesting to amend the wetlands permit to install a boulder retaining wall immediately adjacent to the pool deck. The boulders will consume approximately 3-4 horizontal feet of the remaining 15 feet between pool deck and wetland, leaving I I to 12 feet of ground. Mr. Grittman advised that the use of natural materials is an acceptable alternative in the wetlands area. An original condition was to focus on natural landscaping in that space, which is a common requirement for treatment at the edge of wetlands to allow water to filter before reaching the wetland. Staff recommends the general agreement be reinforced as a condition in this amendment. Staff found the request was consistent with the wetland ordinance and recommends approval with the three conditions as detailed in the staff report. W Planning Commission Minutes Apri126, 2011 Karry Knoll, applicant, stated he wanted to follow the correct process and assure there is adequate grade for the fence so he asked the city to look at it. He stated he also wants to use correct natural plantings that are not invasive. Commissioner Viksnins stated the commission appreciates the applicant's attention to detail. Commissioner Magnuson asked the applicant if he was open to types of vegetation that would be appropriate. Mr. Knoll answered in the affirmative. Vice -Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Vice -Chair Field 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 NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WETLANDS PERMIT AS REQUESTED AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. ADDITIONAL NATIVE VEGETATION SHALL BE PLANTED BETWEEN THE BOULDER WALL AND WETLAND AREA; 2. ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES MUST FOLLOW THE LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT; AND 3. ANY ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. Commissioner Noonan noted the third condition is a "catch all" and asked why it was included given what the city knows about the project and since the pool and deck were already installed. Mr. Mazzitello explained the amendment to the wetlands permit requires an amendment to the building permit and staff has not yet seen plans for the retaining wall or buffer area. AYES 5. NAYS 0 Vice -Chair Fields advised the city council would consider this application at its May 3, 2011, meeting. Verbal Review Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #11-04 City of Mendota Heights Zoning Amendment • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #11-05 Paul and Anne Welle Conditional Use Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #I1-06 City of Mendota Heights Wetlands Permit/Wagon Wheel Trail • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #11-07 Linder's Garden Center Conditional Use Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Sedlacek announced the annual spring cleanup event that will occur at Mendakota Park from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. on May 7, 2011. In addition, American Bank will host a shred event the same day from 9 a.m. to noon. COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:58 P.M. on P7 Planning Commission Minutes April26, 2011 AYES NAYS Respectfully submitted, Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary z NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 T 1 ___. s�+ n n n nil 5 c I -1E ��� 2��� �iannerS naGr" ing.CG�m I elephione: /63.23 1 .2555 I al.sim�le: / vJ.23 MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: May 19, 2011 RE: Mendota Heights — Variance Standards in Minnesota Statue NAC FILE: 254.04 Two weeks ago, the governor signed a bill enacting a new standard for consideration of variance requests. The legislation is a response to the Minnesota State Supreme Court's decision last year in Krummenacher v. CitV of Minnetonka, a decision that reinforced a rigorous standard for variance review based on "hardship" and whether or not the variance was necessary to allow "reasonable use" of the property. The new statute replaces these terms with "practical difficulties" and an analysis of whether the proposal is to use the property in a "reasonable manner". To review variances, the City's analysis is to be based on the following considerations: • The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. • The ordinance prohibits this manner of use. • The proposed manner of use is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and with the Comprehensive Plan. • The ordinance creates "practical difficulties" in achieving the manner of use. • The difficulties are unique to the property and not created by the owner. • The variance will not alter the essential character of the "locality". Under the previous statutory language, the applicant was required to show that without the variance, there was essentially no reasonable use of the property available. This new standard gives the City some discretion to decide that the proposal is reasonable, even though the minimum legal use would be possible without the variance. At this point, the question is "how much discretion" does the City have? Nobody really knows the answer at this point, and this bill has been at the center of several ongoing discussions. Regardless of the outcome of future discussions over the statute and subsequent amendments to the amendments, we would advise the City to use variances sparingly, and adopt ordinance standards that reflect the City's definition of "reasonable manner" of use. If it is believed that different setbacks, or larger building sizes, or whatever the standard, should be adopted rather than what is currently in place, the City is almost always free to do so. Using the basic standards of the ordinance, rather than case-by-case review of variance requests, will almost certainly lead to fewer legal challenges and more consistent application of zoning regulations. 2 P10 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.2:81.2561 pianners@nacplaiiniiig.com MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Carie Fuhrman / Stephen Grittman DATE: May 19, 2011 MEETING DATE: May 24, 2011 SUBJECT: Critical Area Permit for Fence Installation CASE NO: Case No. 11-10; NAC Case 254.04 -11.11 APPLICANT(S): Beverly Sargent LOCATION: 1040 Highway 13 (Sibley Memorial Highway) ZONING: R-1, One Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: LR, Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request: The applicant, Beverly Sargent, is seeking a Critical Area Permit to allow the installation of a fence along the side yard of her property located at 1040 Highway 13. Specifically, the fence is proposed along the northeast property line which lies perpendicular to Highway 13. The applicant intends to construct a 128 foot segment of fence along the referenced boundary. The new fence would tie into two existing chain link fence segments which would result in a "complete fence" extending along the entire length of the northeast property line (see submitted site plan). The subject site is zoned R-1, One Family Residential, and is located within the Mississippi River corridor. According to Section 12-3-17 of the Zoning Ordinance, any work conducted within the Mississippi River Corridor requires a Critical Area Permit. Analysis: As noted, the applicant wishes to construct a fence segment along the northeast property line of her property. The new fence would link two existing fence segments P11 (chain link) to the northeast and northwest, resulting in a fence which would extend along the entire northeast boundary line. According to the applicant, the new fence is to 6 feet in height and made of wood (Cedar). The fence is to be an "alternating board" design and be one-third open (a resulting opacity of 66 percent). While it is believed no changes to the existing vegetation/landscaping, topography and/or drainage patterns are proposed (as a result of the fence construction), this should be confirmed by the applicant. Fence Standards. Section 12-1 D-6 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes standards for fence construction and location. Section 12-1 D-6.B.1.b requires that fences up to and including six feet in height may be erected on interior lot lines behind the front yard setback line and on rear lot lines. This requirement has been satisfied. Fences are also required to be constructed in such a manner that no less than 30% of the plane between the ground and the top of the fence is open. The applicant has indicated that one third of the fence is to be "open". With approximately 33 percent of the fence being open, this requirement has likewise been satisfied. Critical Area Permit. This property is located within the Mississippi River corridor. Any work conducted within this corridor requires a Critical Area Permit. While it is not believed any landscaping, paving or grade changes are planned in association with the fence construction, this should be confirmed by the applicant. Provided no landscaping paving or grade changes are planned, the project should not have a negative impact on the aesthetic integrity and natural environment of the Mississippi critical area. The Critical Area Ordinance recommends the use of natural materials in building and site construction, including wood fencing such as that proposed. Comprehensive Plan. The subject parcel is guided as LR, Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The fence request is consistent with this land use category, which provides for single family development. Action Requested: After a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: Approval of the Critical Area Permit to install a fence, based on the following findings: the fence project shall not involve landscaping, paving, changing in grades, soil loss, or altering of slopes; therefore, it shall not jeopardize the aesthetic integrity and natural environment of the Mississippi River corridor critical area, subject to the following conditions: 4 a) The applicant confirm that the fence project shall not involve aull loss, r slope alteration landscaping, paving, grade changes, o b) The applicant shall receive a fence permit prior to installation of the fence; and c) The fence shall meet the regulations established in Section 12-1 D-6, including the 30% open design requirement. -OR- 2. Denial of the Critical Area Permit to install a fence, based on the finding that the fence project will negatively impact the aesthetic integrity and natural environment of the Mississippi River corridor critical area. Staff Recommendation; Assuming no landscaping, paving, soil loss, grade or slope alteration are planned, the proposed fence installation should not have a negative impact upon the aesthetic integrity and natural environment of the Mississippi critical area. As a result, Planning Staff recommends approval of the Critical Area Permit to construct the proposed fence. Supplementary Materials: 1. Draft Findings for Approval 2. Draft Findings for Denial 3. Application materials dated May 2, 2011 4. Site Location Map 3 P13 Mri r:...1•....,. s... A.,..r.....,1 Dral Fence Installation in the Critical Area 1040 Highway 13 The proposed fence will have little or no visual impact on the critical area or surrounding property. 2. The fence will create no issues for grading or erosion. 3. The fence is proposed to have minimal impact on the land as it does not involve landscaping, paving, grade changes, soil loss, or altering of slopes. 4. The proposed fence is to be constructed of natural wood material, consistent the requirements of the Critical Area Ordinance and guiding documents. L! off\ LILYDALE a� 1040 Highway 13 eiahts La and PI Site Location Map j Water/Wetlands City Roads Uparcels �_..._r Municipal Boundaries P15 1 would like to build a fence along my property line to the north. The fence would be 6 ft high, and be approximately zz inches from the existing chain link fence. The fence is made of cedar, alternating board and 1/3 open. The fence will be r28ft long. Beverly Sargent 4/29/II Applicant Name caty P16 Mendota eR, APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. Date of Application 5 (2/ i1 /� Fee Paid000— u fes` ��. (Last- (First) I (M) E -Mail Address: Address-. �` LR < a.Ct _ ` �� =_:, _ _ - ----� (Number & Street) (City) ''State) (zip) Owner Name: ------ (Last) (First) (M) Address: (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question -n00')\ — Lega1 Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) LR Type of Request Rezoning _Conditional Use Permit Conditional User Permit for P.U.D. Preliminary/Final Plat Approval Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number— .11 - Present 1 - Present Zoning of Property -ct Present Use _ Proposed Zoning of Property _._ Proposed Use Variance Subdivision Approval Wetlands Permit ,'- Critical Area Permit _Other (attach explanation) Section 73 Zj I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on th7jladditional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspe,.t the above prd erty during daylight hours. V _i Date Received ignature Of Ap-p-lican r (Signature of Owner) 11ol victorAa Curve o Mendota Heights. MN 55113 ' (651) 452-1850 ° FAX (651) 452-894U www.mendota-heights.com Dakota County Real Estate Inquiry P17 Dakota County Real Estate Inquiry Data Updated 4/18/2011. .... ........._ tSip6Y SITr Nl r r � Our ��ev✓ Property roperty Information Pro am Need Help? What's New? Map navigation Select option and click on map: C Zoom In G Zoom Out C Pan Identify Show'Fui1 Gounty Ma.p, Smal Map= ;. PLEASE READ DISCLAIMER This application was developed by the Dakota County Office pf GIS in cooperation with Assessing Services and the Property__Tg? ation &._Records Departments C O V N T T Click on the Dakota County Logo above to return to the home page Page 1 of 1 Legend Total,Value ❑$1 -.$50,000 ❑$50,001 -.$150,000 ❑$150,001 -_$300,00[ ❑$300,001 $500,0 OC El Over.$500.000 C Tax Parcels O Market Value C Recent Sales C Year Built C Air Photo C` Torrens Refresh Map Choose ONE search method, enter criteria, and click Go or hit enter key. House #t.- Ga` OR PIN: Go? S CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING May 4, 2011 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, May 24, 2011 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Beverly Sargent to request a critical area permit at 1040 Highway 13. The legal description for this property is as follows: Lot 1, Mayfield Heights (PID #27-47500-00-010). The request for a critical area permit is to construct a privacy fence. 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 Auxiliary aids for disabled persons 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 Administrator at 452-1850. mpreantibourrage et a s6cl'uarpe rapid www.avery.com ARV® 51600 Jtilis7z fel jabarit 51600 1 -800 -GO -AVERY oldman Allen & Katherine Landreville, Alden E Werthauser, Helen )15 James Ct 1010 Sibley Memorial Hwy 1020 Sibley Memorial Hwy lint Paul, MN 55118-3640 Saint Paul, MN 55118-3671 Saint Paul, MN 55118-3671 loore, Lucille T Furchner Ronald A & Cynthia J Zimmerman, Patrick G )28 Sibley Memorial Hwy 1032 Sibley Memorial Hwy 1666 Mayfield Heights Road lint Paul, MN 55118-3671 Mendota Heights, MN 55118-3671 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 )hnson, Mark S Lazarus, Maurice U Brown Gordon F & Judy M 546 Mayfield Heights Road 1650 Mayfield Heights Rd 1034 Mayfield Heights Lane )int Paul, MN 55118-3613 Saint Paul, MN 55118-3613 Saint Paul, MN 55118-3612 offman, Michael R Ellis, David E Bren Gerald C & Karen L 030 Mayfield Heights Lane 1037 Mayfield Heights Lane 1041 Mayfield Heights Lane lendota Heights, MN 55118 Saint Paul, MN 55118-3612 Saint Paul, MN 55118-3612 eine, Michael W Larson Tim & Andrea Hesselroth Gordon D & Elizabeth 054 Sibley Memorial Hwy 1655 Mayfield Heights Rd 1661 Mayfield Heights Rd lendota Heights, MN 55118 Mendota Heights, MN 55118-3614 Saint Paul, MN 55118-3614 �� i" -I I nQ1.0 �1Fn AVU:I1 —AjOAH O5n P20 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Facsimile: �G 1. 5v Nlannerslnacplann:rg.cQm Telephone: 763.23 1 .2555 Facsi,mIi�e: 7 63.23 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Carie Fuhrman / Stephen Grittman DATE: May 19, 2011 MEETING DATE: May 24, 2011 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a detached garage and Variance from maximum area requirement CASE NO: Case No. 11-11, NAC Case: 254.04 -11.10 APPLICANT(S): Paul Elias LOCATION: 2242 Lexington Avenue South ZONING: R-1, Single Family GUIDE PLAN: Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request: The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a detached garage in the rear yard of his property located at 2242 Lexington Avenue South. Specifically, the applicant wishes to replace a dilapidated, single stall detached garage with a new, larger garage. The submitted application includes four alternative garage plans as summarized below: Option 1 - Three stalls, 864 square feet (24' x 36') Option 2 - Two stalls, 832 square feet (26'x 32') Option 3 - Two stalls w/ upper living area, 1,344 square feet (24' x 36' footprint) Option 4 - Three stalls, 864 square feet (24' x 36') Note: Upper level living space included in total building area. The home on the property does not include an attached garage. P21 In conjunction with the conditional use permit request, the applicant has also requested approval of a variance to PYr-PPrI the maximum 750 sgilare foot area requirement applied to detached accessory buildings. As noted, the applicant wishes to construct a building measuring between 832 and 1,344 square feet in size. Analysis: Conditional Use Permit. A conditional use permit is required for the construction of detached garages. According to the applicant, the new garage would replace an existing single stall garage that is currently in a state of disrepair. As noted, the applicant has submitted four alternative garage plans for consideration ranging in size from 832 to 1,344 square feet in size. The plans differ significantly in terms of size, design (roof style) and apparent finish materials. As shown on the submitted site plan, the proposed accessory structure (regardless of chosen alternative) will meet the required 10 feet side and read yard setback requirement. According to the Ordinance, accessory buildings located within residential zoning districts may not exceed 15 feet in height. Building height is measured from the average grade of the front building line to the average distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof. It appears that the height of some of the proposed garage alternatives may exceed such requirement. As a condition of CUP approval, the proposed structure must comply with maximum height requirement of the Ordinance. If the applicant wishes to seek a variance from the 15 foot height requirement, the submission of an additional variance application would be required. The alternative garage plans appear to have differing finish materials including horizontal siding, vertical siding and stone. As a condition of CUP approval, a specific plan alternative should be selected by the applicant. Such plan, drawn to scale, should be modified to specify proposed finish materials, colors and structure height. In consideration of the CUP request, an assurance should be made that the proposed accessory building will be compatible with the site's principal building. To ensure compatibility, it is recommended that the garage match the principal building in color. While not a specific requirement, it the applicant is also encouraged to match the principal building's roof style and roof pitch. According to the Ordinance, only one private garage, either attached or detached, is allowed for each principal residential structure. Thus, it is recommended that the existing detached structure upon the property be removed and re-established in turf and/or driveway pavement as a condition of CUP approval. 2 P22 Variance. The applicant has requested a variance to exceed the maximum 750 square foot area requirement applied to detached accessory buildings. The applicant has submitted four building plan alternatives ranging from 832 to 1,344 square feet in size. To be specifically noted is that the calculation of building area does not include upper level cold storage space. If however, the upper level is to be finished and used as a working or living area — that is, finished and heated for human occupancy - it is included in the building area calculation. The City's typical standard for variance approval has been an examination of whether or not the property can be put to reasonable use without a variance, and whether or not there is a condition of the property that creates a hardship in putting the property to reasonable use. This has been a rigorous standard to meet, requiring an applicant to show that without the variance, the property was, essentially, not usable. Earlier this month, the legislature passed a new statute which was signed by the Governor. This revised statute attempts to make the language between municipalities and counties more compatible and replaces "hardship" references with the "practical difficulties" language. The relevant section is as follows: To hear requests for variances from the literal previsions of the erdinaRGe M n instaRGes where their StFiGt enfeFGemeRt weuld Gause undue hardship beGause e GOFGUrnstaRGes unique to the individual property undeF GORsideration, and to grant stIsh variaRGes GRIY when it is demGRstFated that SUGh aGfiens will be *R keepiRg with requirements of the zoning ordinance including restrictions placed on nonconformities Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner,, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone sfia4 do not constitute an undue hardship sarrnf,- of the ordinanGe. Undue reasonable use for the prepefty exists under th hardship alsepractical difficulties. The preceding deletes language requiring "hardship", as well as the concept of "reasonable use". Instead, the statute states that the City "may" grant a variance if it finds "practical.difficulties" in using the property in a reasonable manner that is not allowed under the ordinance ("use" variances are still not allowed — this refers to varying from performance standards in the ordinance). 3 P23 In summary, the City must find the following: • The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. • The ordinance prohibits this manner of use. • The proposed manner of use is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and with the Comprehensive Plan. • The ordinance creates "practical difficulties" in achieving the manner of use. • The difficulties are unique to the property and not created by the owner. • The variance will not alter the essential character of the "locality". Under this standard, the applicant no longer has to show that the ordinance prohibits any reasonable use, only that his/her request is using the property reasonably. If the City finds these tests to be met by the request, the City "may" approve a variance. The new statutory language gives the City, at least in theory, more flexibility as to when it may consider approval of a variance. Along with any increase in flexibility, however, comes a less predictable result. In consideration of the applicant's variance request (from the maximum area requirement applied to detached accessory buildings), the following should be considered: The City has established that a detached accessory building measuring 750 square feet in size is the maximum or "reasonable" limit upon residentially zoned properties. In this regard, a detached accessory structure exceeding this requirement could be deemed "unreasonable" within the context a single family residential neighborhood. In informal conversation, the applicant has indicated that his neighborhood is characterized by "oversized" accessory buildings. In this regard, the applicant believes his proposed building would be consistent in size with other area buildings. In review of aerial photography in the area, the subject neighborhood is in fact characterized by detached accessory building many of which appear to exceed 750 square feet in size. Also to be noted is that many properties in the area have multiple detached accessory structures. On one hand, the existence of large accessory structures in the area may provide a basis to determine the applicant's request (for a detached accessory structure in excess of 750 square feet) as being "reasonable". On the other hand, it is important to note that many of the oversized structures (and multiple structures on a single lot) in the area likely exist as nonconformities. In this regard, question arises whether or not the existence of conditions, which fail to meet current Code requirements, should be a basis for further proliferation of oversized accessory structures. Iv' Action Requested: P24 Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission may make one of the following recommendations: A. Conditional Use Permit 1. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit with conditions based upon a finding that the proposed structure is consistent with the intent of the Conditional Use Permit clause allowing detached garages. Conditions may include the following: a. The City approve the requested accessory structure area variance, — OR - The applicant revises his request to meet the 750 square foot maximum floor area. b. A specific plan alternative be selected by the applicant. Such plans, drawn to scale, shall be modified to specify proposed finish materials, colors and structure height. C. The garage not exceed 15 feet in height. d. The garage match the principal building in color and show compatibility in materials. e. The applicant consider matching the garage's roof style and roof pitch with that of the principal building. f. The existing detached accessory structure on the site be removed and re-established in turf and/or pavement as a part of this project. 2. Denial of the Conditional Use Permit based on a finding that the proposed garage would adversely affect surrounding properties. B. Variance 1. Approval of the Variance as submitted based upon the following findings: a. The proposed detached accessory building is able to meet all other requirements of the Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance. b. The proposed accessory structure is of a size common to the neighborhood. c. The proposed accessory building is consistent with directives of the Comprehensive Plan in that it represents reinvestment in the City's 67 P25 existing housing stock and the removal of an existing, deteriorated stlUit i pro V UI G. d. Construction of the oversized accessory structure will allow vehicles and equipment currently stored outdoors to be stored indoors. As a consequence, such vehicles and equipment will no longer be visible from adjacent properties. e. Construction of the proposed detached accessory building will allow the subject property to be used in a "reasonable" manner. The applicant has shown "practical difficulties" in complying with the strict terms of the Ordinance, which would otherwise prohibit the proposed accessory building size. 2. Denial of the Variance based on the following findings: a. The proposed accessory building is not consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance in that it exceeds the area limit which the City has determined to be "reasonable" within residential zoning districts. b. The amount of accessory storage space proposed upon the subject site could conceivably occur without need for a variance (via a combination of attached and detached garages). C. Approval of the proposed accessory building would set an undesirable precedent in regard to the allowance of future oversized structures. d. The proposed accessory building does not constitute a "reasonable" use of the subject property. Staff Recommendation: While Planning staff is supportive of the conditional use permit to allow a detached accessory structure upon the subject property, Staff does not recommend approval of the associated variance to allow the structure to exceed 750 square feet in size. For the CUP, it has been common for the City to approve detached accessory buildings in neighborhoods where this type of structure is common, and where the building meets the code requirements for size, location and setback. The purpose of the CUP provision is to ensure that such buildings can compatibly exist on the proposed parcel under these conditions. With regard to the variance, however, a different review standard applies. One of the key factors still existing in the new statute is uniqueness — a condition must be present that sets the property apart from others that is driving the need for a variance. The applicant's property is not uncommon in Mendota Heights or the R-1 zoning areas. It 191 would not appear to planning staff that even under a new standard, that the requi,., lents for variance Coneirleratinn are present. Although the subject area is characterized by some large detached accessory structures, their nonconforming status reinforces the notion that structures of such size are not consistent with the City's long-term vision. Thus, the existence of such structures should not justify approval of the requested variance. Supplementary Materials: Application materials dated May 2, 2011 7 P26 P27 Le-nfrl -POin r - - Ile t — 2242 Lexington Ave S ' �1NI on hefiTr — i' I c X m -J 1' Site Location Map A' s Water/Wetlands City Roads Major Roads u parcels Municipal Boundaries W-01 �Yc c S lAsrs �7—���� c, (c '6 e� ��►gyp-mac G P29 CAO try O Pees Heopftts APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. _ it - 11 Date of Application— Fee pplication—Pee 'aid .111 1450 Applicant Name: r _t P- _ l _PH: (Last) (First) (fVi) E -Mail Address: -- �_ fr C f✓��� ����{; lis �`�_ �' Address -L. im i A — - -- — (Number & Street)"/(City) (State) (Zip) Owner Narne:-- (Last) (First) (��) Address: ��- �� a� v S, �_,n�c6�_At' °�2�-'_--�`S% —Q -- _ �-- 1 -- (Number & Street' (City) (State) (Zip) Jtreei Location -i Prop-ei>y iii Q!Uc::stioni. Legal Description & PIN of Property- (Complete Legal from Title or Deed r nust be provided) Type of Request.- -----Rezoning equest: ____Rezoning ___ Conditional Use Permit _Conditional User Permit for P.U.D. Preliminary/Final Plat Approval _Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable 'City Ordinance Number Variance Subdivision Approval —Wetlands Permit Critical Area Permit Other (attach explanation) i Section Present Zoning of Property_—€P t Present Use Proposed Zoning of Property _ X I Proposed Use �;F I I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect thq,aPove property during daylight hours. (Sd6ature of Applicant) Gate Received(Signature of Owner) 1101 Victoria CUR-Ve o Mendota Heights, Mfrs 55 118 - (651) 452-1850 ° PAY, (651) 452-8940 avem. meiidota-heftah is.com O ® o � N N v`g®' Q Y /vvv� C*4 tl �C*4 v � PS 71 ---------------------------- ----------------- Car Garage With Loft Western Style ------------------------------- building height - 20'-61 Ceiling h.. wi'n"dpws draw in light Large side 9 Is Complete list of materials S -by-step instructions tep / 32'Wx26Tx9'H • Two 9'x 8' insulated overhead garage doors (doors differ from picture) • One pre -hung steel entry door • Three windows • 1/2" OSB roof sheathing • Laminated architectural shingles • Rafter construction • 16" overhang on all four sides • 2" x 6" studs 16" on center • Includes garage door openers • Loft • Building Plan 29230 195-7952 07524 0 -,#:M 020 n:: :To order this 016h - t'the Me6aMs, Building'Materlal!6:Desk.� i*" I -M.......... :To order this 016h - t'the Me6aMs, Building'Materlal!6:Desk.� i*" P35 Notification List — 2242 Lexington Ave PAUL E ANDERSON 2234 LEXINGTON AVE S MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120 THOMAS WOHLERS 2218 LEXINGTON AVE S MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120 ERIC DOKKEN 2210 LEXINGTON AVE S MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120 DEAN HOBBS 1057 WAGON WHEEL TRL MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120 LAURENE BUCKMILLER 1053 WAGON WHEEL TRL MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120 JEROLD & LOIS HOBBS 1065 WAGON WHEEL TRL MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120 TIMOTHY M & DIANE C GILLESPIE 1064 WAGON WHEEL TRL MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120 MARK R & CAROL A CEMENSKY 2250 LEXINGTON AVE S MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120 ROGER D TST MANTHEY 2258 LEXINGTON AVE S MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120 ST GABRIEL ERITREAN ORTHODOX 1062 WAGON WHEEL TRL MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120 CATHOLIC CEMETERY 244 DAYTON AVE SAINT PAUL MN 55102-1802 P36 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING May 4, 20 1 1 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, May 24, 2011 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Paul Elias to request a conditional use permit and a variance for a detached garage at 2242 Lexington Avenue So. The legal description for this property is as follows: S 70 FT of N 440 FT of Lot 5, Carolines Lake View (PID #27-16400-00-054). The request for a conditional use permit is to construct a detached garage, the request for a variance is to build the garage larger than 750 square feet. 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 Auxiliary aids for disabled persons 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 Administrator at 452-1850. P37 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsirriiie: 952.595.91837 plan �n vers c r acplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: May 19, 2011 MEETING DATE: May 24, 2011 SUBJECT: Mendota Heights — Crossfit Mendota CUP CASE NO: Case No. 11-12 ; NAC Case 254.04 — 11.12 APPLICANT(S): Patrick Costello LOCATION: 2535 Pilot Knob Road ZONING: I — Industrial District GUIDE PLAN: Industrial Background and Description of Request: The applicants are seeking a Conditional Use Permit to locate "Crossfit Mendota", a proposed athletic training business, in a currently vacant industrial space in a building along Pilot Knob Road. The Zoning Ordinance allows "Participative Athletics" by Conditional Use Permit in the Industrial District. Analysis: Crossfit provides athletic training to its clients, who participate in various conditioning drills and exercises at the direction of a personal trainer or as a part of a class of 8-10 enrollees. The applicants suggest limited weekday open hours of early morning (5 a.m. to 7 a.m.), and evening (5 p.m. to 7 p.m.), with the possibility that morning hours (9 a.m. to 1 p.m.) may occur weekdays and Saturdays. When reviewing requests for Conditional Use Permits, there is a presumption that such use is allowed in the district, provided that the nature of the use can occur compatibly with other land uses in the area, and that the use can meet any reasonable conditions placed on the approval to mitigate potential issues. am The areas of review commonly include the following: • Consistency with current and future land uses in the area. • Compliance with zoning ordinance performance standards. • The use can be accommodated with existing public services, such as roads, sewers, water, etc. • That the use will not tend to depreciate property values in the area. The proposed use has limited hours and occupancy of its proposed site, which is a large industrial building at the northeast corner of Pilot Knob Road and Northland Drive. The facility has been used as an office space, and has parking available from two sides of the building. The space itself consists of approximately 4,350 square feet. For an office site, we would expect this space to generate the need for as many as 17-20 parking spaces. The applicant's information indicates that they will have classes of 8-10 persons, plus trainers. Presuming that the number of trainers is only a few, the use should generate much less parking demand or traffic that an office of similar size. There is no reason to believe that that use will impact any of the other items in the list above, and should be compatible with the intent of the zoning district. Action Requested: Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may recommend one of the following: 1. Approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit as submitted, based on the findings attached to this report. -or- 2. Denial of the proposed Conditional Use Permit, based on findings that the use would be incompatible with the office/industrial nature of the surrounding area, and would raise concerns related to traffic, property values, or other issues. Staff Recommendation: Planning staff recommends approval of the CUP as presented. The use should be lower volume and less intense, based on the applicant's description, than other permitted uses in the district. Moreover, the Zoning Ordinance anticipates these types of uses in the Industrial District by listing them under the Conditional Use Permit Allowance. Supplementary Materials: 1. Application materials dated May 2, 2011 N Draft Findings of Fact for Approval Crossfit Mendota Conditional Use Permit 2535 Pilot Knob Road • The use will be consistent with current and future land uses in the area. • The use comply with zoning ordinance performance standards. • The use can be accommodated with existing public services, such as roads, sewers, water, etc. • That the use will not tend to depreciate property values in the area. P40 rPt 0 f ---"I EAGAN MEN ■ k7m !, Fm!m 2535 Pilot Knob Road Site Location Map Water/Wetlands City Roads Major Roads parcels �� _! Municipal Boundaries A/!1 I-- CrossFit CrossFit Mendota Sandra Krebsbach Mayor City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Date 4/29/11 Dear Sandra, 915 West 7th Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 I am writing this letter to express my intent on opening a health club/fitness studio in the city o T 651-246-1736 pat@crossfitmendota.com Mendota Heights. I would like to request a Conditional Use Permit for the building located within www.crossfitmendota.com the zone marked for Industrial Use. The building, called the Pilot Knob Service Center, is located on 2535 Pilot Knob Road. CrossFit Mendota will provide a top-notch core strength and conditioning program to its clients. The program consists of constantly varied, functional movements done at a high intensity. CrossFit Mendota will be equipped with pull-up bars, squat racks, olympic style barbells, weights, dumbbells, kettlebells, rowing ergonometers, medicine balls, and gymnastic rings. The floor will be covered with rubber matting. This equipment will be situated or stored along the walls so that the the majority of the floor space will be free of obstacles. The office spaces will be used as changing areas. The bathrooms will be utilized by CrossFit Mendota clients for changing, standard use, and for showering. Our class times will likely be held from 5-7 am, 5-7 pm M -F, with possible class times between 9 am - 1 pm M -Sat. Personal training one-to-one sessions may occur at various times through the day. Attendance to CrossFit Mendota classes will vary from 8-10 people at a time. Sincerely your 'I cr Patrick Costello M1 �e.elel I C i t,v o Mendota flel'ahts APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF /�. L ✓vss -(-� � PLANNING REQUEST Case No. Date of Application _c A. Fee Paid Applicant Name�tr S I p C�� - . (Last) (First) (M) �^ E -Mail Address: • � Jac � � r� s I o .i.._. .Address: (Number & Street) (City). State).* (Zip) Owner Name' �r ��.� st (First) (M) Address.�-t (Number & Street) City) (State) Street Location of Property in Question: Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed mutt be provided) C��et -._ / � (1 ., KJ c7 Type.of Request: l�a k>� �-'7� ��� - o!- c�� �, Rezoning Variance �- i Uj 061 0> Ci U Condi tional Use Permit Subdivision Approval Conditional User. Permit for P.U.D. Wetlands Permit Prelim inary/Final.Plat Approval Critical Area Permit Comprehensive. Plan Amendment Other (attach. explanation) Applicable City Ordinance Number Section - Present Zoning of Property Present Use Proposed Zoning of Property Proposed Use I hereby declare -that all statements made In this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials 'and agentsto ins ect the ab ve property during daylight hours. Date Received •(Signatur- of Applicant) M (Signature of Owner) ' 1101. Victoria curve • Mendota Heights. mri 56118. • (661) 452-1860 FAx (661) 452-8940 ww.w mendota-heights.com APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. Date of Application Aa" 2 iii Fee Paid 121 _ Applicant Name; PH: (Last) (First) (M) E -Mail Address: �. 1' �.. s ?-A c'Z :Add.ress: �i l: % _- —(Zip) (Numb-er. & Street) (City). (State)-' Owner Name's;u"w� (Last) (First) (M) Address: — (Number & Street) (City) (State) (zip) Street Location of Property in Question: Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed mint be provided) ci 2Q-Oo - -L.v3� — �Ji1 ✓�� Ctn.. �- Type •of Request: Variance - Rezoning • Rezoning �, 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). f, Applicable City Ordinance Number Section_ --- .��v: �S tV 4 �ti w Present Zoning of Property.k' (?resent Use �t Proposed Zoning of Property ` _ _ Proposed Use l JQL=� I hereby declare .that all statements made in this request and on the addition material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to ins the above_property during daylight hours. ignature of Applicant) Date Received (Signature of Owner.) 1101.Vietoria Curve • Mendota Heights, MN 66118. • (661) 462-1860 FfiX (661) 462"8940 www.mendota-heightsxom . P44 FOR LEASE Pilot Knob Service Center 2535 Pilot Knob Road, Suite 122 Mendota Heights, MN I<EY PLAI'--) For more information contact: Zach Anderson (952)-854-8309 zanderson@paramountre.com Phil Simonet (952) 854-8381 psimonet@paramountre.com PLAN I •J RTF - Available Sq. Ft.: 4,320 P45 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING May 4, 2011 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, May 24, 2011 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Patrick Costello to request a conditional use permit for participative athletics use at 2535 Pilot Knob Road. The legal description for this property is as follows: L 4 Blk 1 Carew Business Center (PID #27- 16300-01-040) and L 3 B 1 Carew Business Center (PID #27-16300-01-030). The request for a conditional use permit is allow a fitness center use in a building zoned for industrial use. 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 Auxiliary aids for disabled persons 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 Administrator at 452-1850. P46 Notification: 350' of 2535 Pilot Knob Road BRI (MN) LLC % THOMSON REUTERS PROPERTY TAX SERV ONE NEW YORK PLAZA 34TH FLOOR NEW YORK NY 10004 MILIPITAS-FLEMING ASSOCIATES 433 CAMDEN DR N STE 1070 BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210-4434 NORTHLAND DRIVE BUSINESS CENTER LLC 2522 NORTHLAND DR MENDOTA HEIGHTS MN 55120 KNITCO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP % HART A KULLER 225 SOUTH SIXTH ST STE 3500 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402 MENDOTA MGMT CO LLC 2515 PILOT KNOB RD MENDOTA HEIGHTS MN 55120-1135 TR MENDOTA HEIGHTS LLC % MARVIN F POER AND COMPANY 2211 YORK RD STE 222 OAK BROOK IL 60523 NORTHLAND LAND CO 3500 80TH ST W MINNEAPOLIS MN 55431-1068