The URL can be used to link to this page

2011-10-25 Planning Comm Agenda PacketCITY OP MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Agenda October 25, 2011 - 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of the Agenda 4. Approval of the July 26, 2011 Planning Commission Minutes 5. Approval of the September 27, 2011 Planning Commission Minutes 6. Hearings a. Case No. 2011-30: City of Mendota Heights, Ordinance 439, amending Title 12 of the City Code pertaining to flood districts. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. 7. Old Business a. Discussion of Critical Area Permit Processing b. Discussion of Wetlands Perrnit Processing 8. New Business a. Commercial Property Maintenance Standards b. Institutional Accessory Building Conditional Use Permits 9. Verbal Review 10. Adj ourn Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at 651-452-1850 with requests. Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2011 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 26, 2011 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 26, 2011, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Norton, Commissioners Hennes, Magnuson, Roston, and Viksnins. Those absent and excused: Commissioners Field and Noonan. Those present were City Administrator David McKnight, Assistant City Engineer Ryan Ruzek, and NAC Planner Stephen Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Carla Wirth. Approval ofAgenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of June 28 2011, Minutes Chair Norton requested a correction to Page 15, adjournment motion, to indicated it was seconded by Commissioner Magnuson. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 28, 2011, AS CORRECTED. AYES: NAYS: Hearings PLANNING CASE #11-14 White Pine Holdings 750 Highway 110 Amendment to conditional use permit for planned unit development Planner Stephen Grittman stated this case is a request of White Pine Holdings for an amendment to a conditional permit (CUP) for planned unit development (PUD) for the Mendota Plaza Redevelopment. However, the applicant has asked that consideration be removed from tonight's agenda so they can address comments made in the staff report. Mr. Grittman explained that notifications expire the first week of September so the appropriate action would be to continue the hearing to a subsequent commission meeting. He noted the city council will meet a day before the expiration of the 60 -day extension so there will be time for consideration. Chair Norton referenced an e-mail from Chuck Rothstein, co-owner of White Pine Senior Living, dated July 26, 2011, at 3:30 p.m., requesting the item be removed from tonight's planning commission agenda. Commissioner Roston asked if there is sufficient time to comply with the 60 -day rule in the event this e-mail is not considered to be a legal waiver. Mr. Grittman stated the applicants were sent a letter of extension, leaving the planning commission and council adequate time to consider this application. Commissioner Hennes referenced the July 15 memorandum from Mr. Sedlacek and letter from Mr. Rothstein of the same date. He asked whether the letter from Mr. Sedlacek addressed issues raised by Mr. Rothstein. Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2011 City Administrator Knight answered in the affirmative, noting Mr. Sedlacek's letter was drafted on July 15 but not finished until last week so it is a coincidence the memo and letter are dated the same. He confirmed the city attorney will contact White Pines requesting another extension since they are not in attendance tonight. COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE AUGUST 23, 2011, MEETING WITH THE ANTICIPATION STAFF AND THE APPLICANT WILL RESOLVE ISSUES TO PROVIDE A COMPLETE APPLICATION AND SUBJECT TO THE APPLICANTS AGREEING, IN WRITING, TO EXTEND THE TIMELINE FOR ZONING APPROVALS UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTE 15.99. AYES 5 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the planning commission would consider this application again at its August 23, 2011, meeting. PLANNING CASE #11-22 Phillip Cattanach 2455 Visitation Drive Conditional use permit for an accessory structure, variances for total area of accessory structures, and for an overhang greater than eighteen inches Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Visitation School for approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) and variances to allow the construction of an 1,823 sq. ft. accessory building at 2455 Visitation Drive. The property is zoned R-1, single family residential and guided for low density residential. He displayed a map of the subject site and proposed location of the accessory building that would serve as an outdoor classroom and support space for seasonal sports activities. Mr. Grittman noted the zoning ordinance makes provisions for accessory buildings in the R-1 zoning district subject to setbacks of 10 feet, average roof height of 15 feet, maximum of 425 sq. ft., and a maximum number of accessory buildings. He displayed a site plan identifying the building location, existing vegetation, and explained the grading that would take place. Mr. Grittman advised that when considering a variance, the city must find there are practical difficulties putting the property to the use proposed by the applicant and that the request would use the property in a reasonable manner. There must also be a finding that there are unique conditions on the property creating practical difficulties and that the use would not negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. He presented staff's analysis as detailed in the planner's report and explained that the proposed sixth accessory building would increase the total square footage to 6,335. He noted the maximum allowed in code is 425 sq. ft.; however, the code does not include an incremental increase to address large-sized properties. It was noted this is a 60 -acre site. Mr. Grittman presented the site plan, noting the location of the proposed building is south of the tennis court, about 500 feet from the nearest residential property to the north. He pointed out the significant vegetation around the property and advised that changes to the overall site plan, including accessory buildings of more than 425 sq. ft., require a CUP and, in this case, a variance to allow the size and number of accessory buildings as proposed. Mr. Grittman stated staff recommends approval of the CUP and variances, based on the seven findings of fact as detailed in the staff report and asking the applicant to provide additional information pertaining to a pedestrian circulation plan and updated site plan if changes are being made. He noted the city has approved similar variances on other large institutional property using the finding that the 425 sq. ft. rule does not translate well to institutional uses. Staff finds the tests for a variance and CUP are met, noting the nature of the use is not changing. Commissioner Roston stated he is not opposed to the project but from a policy and procedure standpoint, the city has been reluctant to grant variances in a variety of circumstances. He acknowledged the new variance ruling and 1W Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2011 asked if from a policy standpoint the city is better off considering variances for these types of circumstances than to amend the zoning ordinance. Mr. Grittman stated if the set of conditions are found routinely and the city wants to approve such requests, writing code around those conditions would be better than considering variances. He stated several schools and the golf course have the same issue with accessory buildings. Commissioner Hennes noted the property is zoned residential, as is the Mendakota property, and asked why it is zoned residential instead of institutional. Mr. Grittman explained that Mendota Heights uses the residential district to accommodate schools and some institutional uses instead of having a specific institutional zoning district. Commissioner Hennes noted if this property was zoned something other than residential, the 425 sq. ft. rule would not be an issue. Mr. Grittman stated there are also restrictions on the size of accessory building construction that apply differently in different zoning districts. Since the city does not have a separate zoning district for this type of use, it is left with the zoning language for residential. Commissioner Hennes asked if the city could create a new zoning classification for institutional. Mr. Grittman stated a new district could be created or more specific language developed on standards for this type of use within a residential district. Commissioner Viksnins stated it seems this application is trying to use variance language in a way that does not quite fit. He asked what is found as the unique condition creating the practical difficulty. Mr. Grittman stated the unique condition relates to the size of the use and the size of the parcel not being commensurate with the limitations in the code. Commissioner Viksnins asked if the unique conditions have to lie with the property. Mr. Grittman agreed it is usually parcel based but the city is not technically restricted. Commissioner Magnusson asked about the process to amend the code. Mr. Grittman stated a public hearing would be published and noticed for the commission's August meeting and then taken up by the council at its following meeting. Dawn Nichols, representing the applicant, explained that Visitation was gifted with an opportunity to further enhance student's education by creating an outdoor classroom. As a result, Visitation has been considering, for some time, how to wisely utilize its resources to create a beautiful outdoor classroom to provide additional opportunities for students. If approved, the classroom would be created in memory of Visitation's dear friends who provided the donation. In addition, the small building would provide multi -use for storage of some sports equipment and two bathrooms, which would be a safety, health, and wellness improvement. Ms. Nichols stated they had hoped to dedicate the building done several months ago but that did not come to pass. Visitation has now completed its programming and is at a point to come forward and ask for the city's consideration. Commissioner Magnuson stated she thinks it is a good and creative use and asked if it would cause a problem to delay consideration if the city wanted to amend its ordinance to address institutional properties and eliminate the variance requirement in this case. Craig Larson, Focus Design Build, stated they want to start construction as soon as city approval is received, hopefully by mid-August so the building can be completed late -September and a dedication held. He stated if this project is delayed to the first part of September, the construction schedule would be tight and depending on weather may have to be delayed until spring. 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 VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 5 NAYS 0 Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2011 CHAIR NORTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AS DISCUSSED AND CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE APPLICANT RECEIVE A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE PROJECT PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION; 2. THE CITY ENGINEER PROVIDE COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA AND DRAINAGE IMPACTS; AND, 3. THE APPLICANT PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO A PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION PLAN WITH AN UPDATED SITE PLAN FOR CITY REVIEW PRIOR TO FINAL APPROVAL. Commissioner Roston suggested adding findings added to assure the property supports the variance. He offered the following friendly amendment to add findings: 1. THE PROPERTY IS BEING USED IN A REASONABLE MANNER BECAUSE THE TOTAL BUILDING SIZE OF THE ADDITION, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE OVERALL PROPERTY SIZE, IS REASONABLE; 2. THE PROPERTY IS BEING USED IN A REASONABLE MANNER BECAUSE IT IS AN INSTITUTIONAL USE WITH A SCHOOL AND THIS WILL FURTHER EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR STUDENTS AS WELL AS USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR STORAGE OPPORTUNITIES FOR SPORTS AND BATHROOMS; 3. THE USE IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE IT IS 500 FEET FROM THE NEAREST RESIDENTIAL HOME; AND 4. THE USE WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. Commissioner Viksnins stated he wants to support this application and asked what is unique to this property. Chair Norton stated it is a 60 -acre parcel compared to a parcel of less than an acre that would be typical to a residential property. In addition, the use of the property is unique in that it is an educational institution as opposed to single-family or multi -family residences. Chair Norton noted the staff report contains seven findings of fact that support approval of the CUP and variance for an accessory building in addition to the four stated by Commissioner Roston. Commissioner Viksnins asked if the suggested findings should be included in the motion. CHAIR NORTON ACCEPTED THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT OFFERED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON. Commissioner Magnuson suggested all findings be incorporated into the motion since they address practical difficulties and other requirements for granting a variance. Chair Norton raised the option of creating an institutional zoning district which may avoid this type of variance consideration in the future. Commissioner Magnuson asked if creating an institutional zone would allow them to build additional classroom buildings without city approval. Chair Norton agreed that could be the case, depending on how the language is drafted and requirements to be met. Commissioner Roston noted the language could be written to require a CUP for accessory buildings. Mr. Grittman concurred and indicated the ordinance can be written as the city determines is appropriate. 11 Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2011 Commissioner Viksnins clarified this matter is not included in the motion under consideration but an option the city could pursue. Chair Norton stated that is correct. Commissioner Magnuson asked if the planning commission could recommend the city consider an ordinance amendment so staff could start the process. Mr. Grittman explained that staff could generate a request and bring it to the planning commission or the planning commission could consider calling for a public hearing at a future meeting. CHAIR NORTON ACCEPTED THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE DISCUSSION OF THE UNIQUENESS OF THE PROPERTY AND USE OF THE PROPERTY, AS INDICATED IN STAFF'S FINDING OF FACT NO. 2. AYES NAYS Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its August 2, 2011, meeting. Varhal Rovivw Mr. Ruzek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #11-11 Paul Elias Conditional Use Permit/Variance • City Council denied Variance and continued the CUP. PLANNING CASE #11-13 New Cingular Wireless Conditional Use Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #11-14 White Pine Holdings Conditional Use Permit Amendment C Case had been continued by the Planning Commission and was continued again tonight. PLANNING CASE #11-15 David Bergh Critical Area Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #I1-16 Michael Waldman Wetlands Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #11-17 Michael Cormick Critical Area Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #11-18 John and Rebecca Driscoll Conditional Use Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #11-19 Beverly Sargent Critical Area Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #11-21 David Albrecht Variances C Denied by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hennes asked why the Paul Elias CUP was continued. Chair Norton stated the Council wanted additional information on the garage that was to be built. Commissioner Roston asked staff to provide a recommendation on an ordinance revision to create an institutional zoning district. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:37 P.M. AYES NAYS Respectfully submitted, Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2011 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 27, 2011, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Norton, Commissioners Field, Hennes, Magnuson, Noonan Roston, and Viksnins. Those absent: None. Those present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, Assistant City Engineer Ryan Ruzek, and NAC Planner Stephen Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Carla Wirth. Approval ofAQenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval ofAuQust 23, 2011, Minutes COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 23, 2011, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Hearinzs PLANNING CASE #11-20 New Cingular Wireless 894 Sibley Memorial Highway Conditional Use Permit for wireless antenna modification Planner Stephen Grittman displayed a map of the subject site and indicated the property is zoned B-1, limited business and guided as limited business. He presented the request of New Cingular Wireless for approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow modification to its existing wireless communication tower located south of Sibley Memorial Highway and east of I -35E at 894 Sibley Memorial Highway. The applicant is asking to upgrade its communication equipment located on the tower to replace six existing antennas with a three -sided nine antenna array, add six tower -mounted amplifiers, a tower -mounted surge protector, and replace the existing antenna t -arm with a low profile antenna platform. No change to the tower height is proposed and the addition of the antenna platform will be the primary visual change to the facility. Mr. Grittman indicated the proposed antenna and related equipment modifications to the communication tower are expected to have no physical impact on neighboring properties. The addition of three new antennas and support platform will have some visual impact, but not out of character with the commercial area in which the tower is located. With this in mind, staff recommends approval subject to three conditions as detailed in the staff report. Commissioner Roston asked whether suggested condition 2 that the new antennas and related equipment shall comply with all FCC regulations is necessary. Mr. Grittman stated the city has occasionally added that condition for this type of installation to clarify federal regulations also apply and to address neighbor's concern relating to potential interference. Matthew Kundert, 2625 Monroe Drive NW, Rochester, representing the applicant, stated the project is as described by staff and stood for questions. Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2011 Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Richard Gabriel, 887 Sibley Memorial Highway, stated he is the property owner directly to the east. He indicated the tower property is landlocked and only accessed through his parking lot. Mr. Gabriel stated with the explanation of the project he has no objection to the application. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 7 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A BUILDING PERMIT SHALL BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO NEW ANTENNA AND RELATED EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION; 2. THE NEW ANTENNAS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL FCC REGULATIONS; AND 3. THE NEW ANTENNAS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE ELECTRICAL CODES. AYES 7 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its October 4, 2011, meeting. In recognition of Matthew Kundert's attendance, Chair Norton reordered the agenda to next consider Planning Case #11-27. PLANNING CASE #11-27 New Cingular Wireless 750 Main Street Conditional Use Permit for wireless antenna modification Planner Stephen Grittman presented a map of the subject site and request of New Cingular Wireless for approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow an upgrade to its existing wireless communication antennas located on the clock tower of "The Village of Mendota Heights" development located at 750 Main Street. The applicant would like to replace the six existing antennas with six new antennas, add six tower -mounted amplifiers, and add a tower - mounted surge protector. The equipment is part of the tower structure so there would be no significant visual changes to the clock tower as part of this antenna replacement. The proposed upgrade would enhance the operation of their communication service. Mr. Grittman stated the proposed antenna replacement will be nearly undetectable from a visual standpoint and have no physical impact on neighboring properties. With this in mind, planning staff recommends approval of the CUP subject to three conditions as detailed in the staff report. Matthew Kundert, 2625 Monroe Drive NW, Rochester, representing the applicant, stated this is a minor project and described accurately by staff. He stood for questions. Chair Norton opened the public hearing 2 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2011 Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 7 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A BUILDING PERMIT SHALL BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO NEW ANTENNA AND RELATED EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION; 2. THE NEW ANTENNAS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL FCC REGULATIONS; AND 3. THE NEW ANTENNAS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE ELECTRICAL CODES. AYES NAYS Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its October 4, 2011, meeting. PLANNING CASE #11-26 Frank Pilney 1867 Warrior Drive Wetlands Permit for a seasonal room Planner Stephen Grittman presented a map of the subject site and request of Frank Pilney for approval of a wetlands permit to construct a porch/seasonal room over a portion of an existing deck at 1867 Warrior Drive. The project would cover about half of the deck and extend two feet beyond the edge of the deck toward the wetland. The new addition would result in a setback from the wetland of approximately 80 feet. The property is zoned R-1, one family residential and the zoning ordinance requires a wetlands permit for any work conducted within 100 feet of a wetland to assure the alteration will not negatively impact the quality of the adjoining water resource. Mr. Grittman presented staff's analysis of the request and stated the project appears to meet the intent of the wetlands ordinance and will not degrade or threaten the water quality of the wetland. Additional posts and footings will accommodate the two foot extension. He noted the location of the retaining wall that creates separation between the rear yard and wetland that is in natural vegetation. The applicants have indicated their intent to leave the natural vegetation buffer as it exists. Planning staff recommends approval of the wetlands permit, subject to one condition as detailed in the staff report, since the proposed project should not have a negative impact on the wetland, especially with the native vegetation plantings to filter runoff into the wetland. Frank Pilney, 1867 Warrior Drive, stated this is an existing deck and the project would extend only two feet beyond. Commissioner Magnuson noted one of the findings of fact presumes no soil or vegetation will be disturbed as a result of the project. Mr. Pilney confirmed that is the case. 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. 3 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2011 COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WETLANDS PERMIT AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1. ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES FOLLOW THE LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. AYES NAYS Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its October 4, 2011, meeting. PLANNING CASE #11-28 Robert and Katherine Thompson 979 Caren Road Critical Area Permit for an accessory building Planner Stephen Grittman displayed a map of the subject site and presented the request of Robert and Katherine Thompson for approval of a critical area permit to allow the construction of an accessory shed within the northwest portion of their rear yard at 979 Caren Road. It was noted the subject site is zoned R-1, one family residential and located within the Mississippi River corridor. According to the zoning ordinance, any work conducted within the Mississippi River corridor requires a critical area permit. Staff's review is structured to assure visibility from the River and vegetation/drainage impacts do not occur as part of the proposed project or are mitigated. It was noted the parcel is somewhat flat and would not impact bluff views. Mr. Grittman presented staffs analysis of the request and indicated that considering no landscaping, paving, soil loss, grade or slope alteration is planned, the proposed accessory building should not have a negative impact on the aesthetic integrity and natural environmental of the Mississippi River critical area. As a result, planning staff recommends approval of the critical area permit to construct the proposed rear yard accessory building subject to two conditions as detailed in the staff report. Commissioner Roston asked if the accessory building is in compliance with the zoning regulations. Mr. Grittman answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Magnuson asked if any resident comments have been received. Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek reported the resident to the east called to ask what is being requested and once explained expressed no objection to the application. Robert and Katherine Thompson, 979 Caren Road, applicants, introduced themselves and indicated the accessory building will be used to store their lawnmower, painted to match the house, and located so it will blend into the neighborhood. Ms. Thompson stated they contacted their neighbors who indicated they had no objection. Ms. Thompson advised that they will be on vacation October 4, 2011, and not available to attend the city council meeting. Mr. Sedlacek explained the city likes to have the applicants in attendance in the event the city council has questions. If that were to occur, the application may be tabled to the city council's next meeting. The applicants were agreeable to the matter potentially being tabled. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. 11 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2011 Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 7 NAYS 0 Mr. Grittman noted an error in the staff report and clarified the recommendation is for an accessory shed, not a fence. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE APPLICANT SHALL RECEIVE A BUILDING PERMIT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF THE STRUCTURE, PER THE REPRESENTATIONS IN THE APPLICATION; AND 2. NO GRADING OF OTHER LAND DISTURBANCE OCCURS AS A RESULT OF THE PROJECT. AYES 7 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its October 4, 2011, meeting. PLANNING CASE #11-29 Dodge Nature Center 656 Highway 110 Wetlands Permit to restore an existing pond and dam Planner Stephen Grittman presented a map of the subject site and request of the Dodge Nature Center for approval of a wetlands permit to allow the restoration of the "Lilly Property Pond" within the nature center property. Staff has reviewed the project to assure it meets the city's requirements as well as agency requirements and found there are few land use impacts since the wetlands are contained on the applicant's property. Mr. Grittman explained that the project is a wetland enhancement which will restore wetlands to a previous condition. Planning staff does not have any concerns with the proposed restoration and engineering staff is in the process of reviewing project. Mr. Grittman stated that planning staff recommends approval of the wetlands permit subject to two conditions: review and approval by the city engineer. Commissioner Viksnins noted the staff report finds that the project enhances the wetland and asked if that is a necessary finding or if the standard is that the project not negatively impact the wetland. Mr. Grittman explained the wetland ordinance requires the project not negatively impact the wetland. Commissioner Viksnins noted staff is recommending two conditions of approval and asked how the land disturbance guidance document differs from the city engineer review. Mr. Grittman explained the city engineer will use the land disturbance guidance document as a baseline for his review. He recommended both conditions be included in the planning commission's recommendation. Commissioner Hennes asked about the location to be restored. Assistant City Engineer Ryan Ruzek used a map to point out the location of the project and explained the outlet control structure is no longer holding water in the pond as it did originally. 5 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2011 Commissioner Noonan noted the pond was intended to hold and dissipate water so the repairs are integral to maintain the integrity of the drainage system. Mr. Grittman stated, with regard to stormwater/flood control aspects of the improvements, he assumes that is the result of this project. Commissioner Noonan noted the design report mentions several failing structures which would impair or negatively impact the wetland if left unchecked. Mr. Grittman clarified those impairments have already occurred as part of the failure. Commissioner Field disclosed that he is a past president of the Dodge Nature Center and currently serving on that Board but staff has advised this does not result in a conflict of interest. Dave Napier, Dodge Nature Center Buildings and Grounds Director, stood for questions. Commissioner Field asked Mr. Napier to address the failure of the dam. Mr. Napier stated the dam was built in 1963 and is leaking below the pond's bottom so it has dried up. He explained the DNR has indicated it is good to occasionally drain a pond because it allows the embankment to grow different vegetation and enhance wildlife habitat. The pond was originally built to allow the water to be brought down and refill so the same type of system will be installed but it will be a modem, state-of-the-art structure. 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 VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS 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 AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY ENGINEER; AND 2. THE PROJECT IS FOUND TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. AYES i NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its October 4, 2011, meeting. New Business Discussion of Critical Area Permit Processing Mr. Grittman explained this item is before the planning commission based on discussion staff had with public officials on critical area permit (CAP) processing. The ordinance specifies a process for application review, including an expedited process; however, the city council has directed all CAP applications to go through the planning commission for public hearing and recommendation and then the city council for approval. The current code includes an expedited process which allows a CAP to go directly to the city council without planning commission review and recommendation but the ordinance does not include parameters. Mr. Grittman stated staff has prepared code amendment language to define seven conditions for projects that would be permissible to go 0 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2011 directly to the city council to shorten the review process for minor and low impact projects. The amendment also includes sample projects that would be eligible. Mr. Grittman explained that in the past, before city council policy direction to send everything through the planning commission, there was concern that an expedited process would not result in full vetting prior to issuing building permits. Some larger projects were approved under that process without the thorough review typically given by the planning commission. Because of that, the city council adopted policy to direct everything through the planning commission. Mr. Grittman noted the proposed language would set parameters to use an expedited process and if those parameters are not met, the application would follow the process through the planning commission for review and recommendation. Commissioner Hennes asked if tonight's application for the accessory building would have been expedited. Mr. Grittman stated it would have been eligible but he did not determine if the rest of the property exceeded 18%. Commissioner Hennes asked if this expedited process will eliminate one half of CAP cases heard by the planning commission. Mr. Grittman stated he did not conduct an analysis but it may eliminate about one half of the cases. Commissioner Roston asked if the first condition for eligibility, no part of the subject property shall have slopes greater than 18%, relates to the entire property or just the project site. Mr. Grittman stated it would be calculated on the entire property. Commissioner Roston asked if it makes sense to subject the entire property to that requirement, noting a project may be 500 feet from a slope. Commissioner Roston asked whether sample projects should be included. Mr. Grittman stated that language was added and the intent was to try and create illustrations. Commissioner Roston preferred the criteria to be objective so it is clear when the criteria are met rather than providing examples. Commissioner Roston asked if there is a process to assure neighbor objections can be reviewed by the planning commission. Mr. Grittman stated the council always has the authority to refer the application back to the planning commission. Commissioner Magnuson stated it was mentioned by staff that it was the policy of the city council that all CAPs get reviewed by the planning commission prior to city council review. She asked whether it is the city council's standing whether they want to be the first to review these applications. Mr. Sedlacek explained that during several instances with CAPs applications it was asked whether it was necessary to bring the project through a six-week process. Mr. Sedlacek stated the city council recognizes the skill of the planning commission and would prefer applications of this nature come only to the planning commission to be fully vetted. However, the code indicates only the city council can make a land use decision and the planning commission is advisory. The city council has addressed this concern and wants to simplify the process but also to assure it is done correctly. Chair Norton asked if the city council considers consent agendas. Mr. Sedlacek indicated it does but CAP applications have been considered as a regular agenda item to allow the opportunity to hear input. Commissioner Noonan asked how long the current process takes. Mr. Sedlacek stated it is a minimum of six weeks depending on when the application is submitted. Commissioner Noonan asked if the expedited process is approved, will the city council will feel beholden to discuss the issues and become infuriated with doing the work the planning commission would normally do. Mr. Grittman agreed that is a possible outcome and if the city council found itself in that position it may decide to refer applications back to the planning commission. Chair Norton noted that would then lengthen the application process. Commissioner Hennes stated he supports including illustrations and suggested added phrasing to indicate: "a typical project would be..." 7 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2011 Mr. Grittman stated that language could be moved to an introductory paragraph. The planning commission agreed with that suggestion along with revised language. Chair Norton stated that language could also be included in application materials. Commissioner Magnuson asked why six weeks are needed for CAP applications and if applications can be processed more quickly. Mr. Grittman explained that would necessitate waiving the public hearing requirement. Commissioner Field stated he supports an expedited process for applications that are uncontroversial. He indicated that while he values the work of the planning commission thinks there are often cases that take people's time to attend two meetings and a six week process is a long time. Commissioner Field explained the process used by St. Paul where a board of zoning appeals considered noncontroversial cases. Cases are then only brought to the planning commission if the application required expertise in reviewal. Commissioner Viksnins asked what other cities provide an expedited processes. Mr. Grittman stated he does not know. Commissioner Viksnins stated there appears to be support on the planning commission for this proposed language but it may be beneficial to learn what process is used by other municipalities. Mr. Sedlacek reviewed that in 2010 there was a legislative push to change the wetland definition and rules. At that time, it was found Mendota Heights was the most stringent as it relates to the critical area in requiring public hearings for all projects. Commissioner Viksnins stated he supports the first exemption because a project may impact a slope even if 300 feet away. Commissioner Magnuson referenced the fifth exemption, the proposed project shall be in compliance with all other requirements of this chapter and any other applicable regulations. She noted the porch considered at last month's meeting required a variance but the fifth exemption indicates the project has to meet all requirements so it could not involve a variance consideration. Mr. Grittman stated that is correct and a variance would require a public hearing process. Mr. Grittman stated if the planning commission supports this language it could direct staff to schedule a public hearing or the amendment could be further discussed. Commissioner Roston noted the intent is to expedite the process but the city council may be concerned about holding hearings for all of the applications. He raised the option to amend the ordinance to allow the planning commission the right to approve CAP applications subject to the right of appeal to the city council. Mr. Grittman stated he will research the process to make the planning commission the deciding authority for CAPS. The planning commission discussed the process used by St. Paul through a zoning board of appeals. Commissioner Field stated it would be interesting to learn how municipalities with similar critical areas handle the permitting process so there is a point of comparison. Mr. Grittman clarified there is no intent to relax the requirements, just to expedite the process. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO TABLE CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT TO THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT TO CREATE AN EXPEDITED PROCESS TO THE OCTOBER 25, 2011, MEETING. AYES 7 NAYS 0 Discussion of Wetlands Permit Processing Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2011 Mr. Grittman explained the current zoning ordinance provides two basic methods of approval for wetlands permits: a full public hearing before the planning commission with a subsequent fmai consideration by the city council; and, an "expedited" process that goes directly to the planning commission without a formal hearing with a subsequent final consideration by the city council. Mr. Grittman stated the first process consumes abut 45 days and the second may be slightly shorter. This consideration would structure an administrative review and approval process for projects that do not impact the wetland. Mr. Grittman noted with this amendment, projects that are otherwise consistent with city requirements and likely to have little impact on the wetland area, or adjoining properties, may proceed on a quicker timeline. The draft ordinance language would provide three options to city staff. 1) approve as submitted; 2) approve with conditions; or, 3) refer to the planning commission for the regular process. The third option is intended to avoid an administrative denial for which the applicant would then need to file a separate appeal. Mr. Grittman explained that for administrative review, the permit request would result in no change from existing grades, no increase in building or structure square footage, no porch enclosure of an existing deck larger than 200 square feet, no increase in impervious surface coverage, and no reduction in natural vegetation cover. Commissioner Field stated staff is capable of administering such cases and knowing when an application would require planning commission review. Commissioner Noonan asked if any of the three wetland permits considered tonight would have qualified for administrative approval. Mr. Grittman stated the Dodge Nature Center project would not because it involved work in the wetland and the porch enclosure on an existing deck would not because the impervious percentage was being increased. Commissioner Viksnins noted the proposed language for the critical area permit process identified projects that would be subject to the exemption; however, proposed language for the wetland permit process indicated everything is subject to an expedited procedure unless it falls into certain categories. Mr. Grittman stated the former method (projects subject to exemption) may be easier to track and suggested this language be revised to provide parallel examples. Mr. Grittman stated he can change the approach. Commissioner Field supported considering the wetland permit and critical area permit processes in tandem. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO TABLE CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE WETLAND PERMITTING PROCESS TO ALLOW TIME FOR FURTHER LANGUAGE REFINEMENT BY STAFF. AYES 7 NAYS 0 Discussion of Aircraft Noise Attenuation Mr. Sedlacek explained that he had served on the airport relations commission (ARC) for some time and would be presenting this information. He presented the request of the ARC to consider updating the aircraft noise attenuation code (chapter 5 of the zoning code) in several ways. The original code developed in 1987 established aircraft noise reduction zones that were put onto a map and based on airport noise projections at that time. Since that time, there have been a number of changes to airport operations and noise flight tracking and available data. The first change proposed by the ARC is to update the data the city uses for airport noise reduction. The ARC is recommending the city use the 2007 Forecast Mitigation Noise Contour, a map created by the Metropolitan Airport Commission (MAC) as a result of litigation between MAC and several neighboring communities. Mendota Heights was not part of that litigation but ARC recognizes that the map is reliable data and recommending is to use this new map in place of the 1987 noise abatement map with four zones. Mr. Sedlacek stated ARC is also recommending a change in the minimum threshold for noise attenuation. The aircraft noise attenuation code asks that the city have residents mitigate their homes out to the 65 day -night level 0 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2011 (DNL), the average of noise over a 24 hour span in decibels. He explained that 65 DNL was used previously but other communities have now adopted the 60 DN"i.,. The ARC recommends Mendota Heights require noise attenuation standards out to the 60 DNL. Mr. Sedlacek noted the four zones contained in the 1987 map in which sound attenuation is required. With the ARC recommendation to use the 60 DNL, the noise zone would be reduced from the previous lines so the net impact of both the ARC recommendations is a reduced area that would have to be noise attenuated. In that sense, it is a positive change for residents that were required to noise abate before but not if an amendment is approved. Mr. Sedlacek presented the 1987 map and new map created by MAC and described how the noise attenuation areas have been reduced. He referenced table 1 and reviewed the types of building materials (siding roofing, windows, and construction practices) that would provide noise attenuation, noting the city enforces this code by requiring the building permit to be signed off by a registered acoustical engineer. That is how a resident is to meet this standard when the property is identified as being within a noise zone. Mr. Sedlacek stated the ARC feels strongly about this but wants to be sure that the planning commission and city council are comfortable with a revision to change the zoning code. He suggested this issue be discussed and questions framed that can be presented to ARC. Commissioner Hennes stated he lives on Rogers Lake in an airport zone and his house had been soundproofed when he moved in nine years ago. He asked if he would need to retrofit or make adjustments to his home under this revision. Mr. Sedlacek noted Swan Drive on the east side of Rogers Lake is currently within noise zone 4 but according to the airport data, is no longer within the 60 DNL. In that case, there would be no requirements. Commissioner Roston asked if you live in an area of impact and want to build an addition would this revision trigger an obligation to make it compliant. Mr. Sedlacek stated that is the current law and ARC is recommending the noise zone footprint be reduced based on current data from the airport. Commissioner Roston asked why the city is dictating noise attenuation in home construction, noting it is not effective if windows are open. Mr. Sedlacek stated that is a good question and explained the airport has the opinion there should be no residential properties within airport noise zones. Mendota Heights said there would be houses within those zones but the houses would meet these standards. He noted that Mendota Heights was the only community in the 1980's to implement these code requirements because the community recognized that people would build within airport noise zones so the homes should meet a higher standard. Commissioner Roston asked if a building permit is pulled within a noise zone the structure would have additional expense including noise attenuation standards and review by an acoustical engineer. Mr. Sedlacek stated that is correct. Commissioner Magnuson asked if that requirement is only when a building permit is pulled or simply because the house is located within an airport noise zone. Mr. Sedlacek explained it impacts new construction or expansion of an existing structure and if within an airport noise zone the new expansion would have to meet noise attenuation standards. Commissioner Hennes asked why the noise zones have become smaller. Mr. Sedlacek stated the planes are not as noisy and the width of the departure corridor from the parallel runways is narrower. Commissioner Magnuson noted this only applies when the plane departures follow that flight path. Mr. Sedlacek concurred. Commissioner Noonan noted other cities have adopted the 60 DNL and asked if other cities have adopted the 65 DNL. Mr. Sedlacek advised that Mendota Heights is the only city that has not gone to a 60 DNL for noise attenuation. He explained it was the contention of some cities that the airport promised to do noise mitigation to the 60 DNL if the cities allowed the north/south runway. Now other cities have included language in its code to formally recognizing 60 DNL for noise attenuation. 10 Planning Commission Minutes September 27, 2011 Commissioner Noonan asked if someone wanted to construct a 4 -season porch would they have to retrofit the entire house. Mr. Sedlacek stated it would only apply to the expanded area of the new construction. He indicated this was discussed by the ARC and noted that all of Mendota Height's houses in the airport noise zones are sound attenuated. However, it gets to the point raised by Commissioner Roston in how forceful the city wants to be in requiring retrofit of existing homes. Chair Noonan asked if most of the homes are sound attenuated because of MAC improvements or because those homeowners received funding to obtain sound attenuation. Mr. Sedlacek stated he is unsure whether any Mendota Heights homes received financial support from MAC but most of the homes were constructed under these regulations. Commissioner Viksnins felt it would be appropriate for ARC to make the recommendation to the city council. Mr. Sedlacek stated ARC will make such a recommendation but staff felt it appropriate to present to the planning commission to discuss and provide comment. Commissioner Viksnins deferred to the ARC who have expertise in this area. The planning commission concurred. Mr. Sedlacek stated he will provide the planning commission feedback to the ARC and anticipates ARC will make application for the amendment. Verbal Review Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #11-23 Bob Sullwold Variance to front yard setback • Recommended for denial by the planning commission. Applicant revised application based on planning commission feedback to reduce the variance. Approved by the city council based on the revised application. PLANNING CASE #11-14 White Pine Holdings Conditional Use Permit Amendment • Denied by the city council as recommended by the planning commission, encouraged applicants to address issues identified by the planning commission, and shortened time to reapply to 90 days. Commissioner Field asked about the status of the Mendakota sign request. Mr. Sedlacek stated the applicant pulled the sign permit but staff has seen no progress on the project. It was noted the applicant has one year to complete the project from the date the permit is pulled. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:25 P.M. AYES 7 NAYS 0 Respectfully submitted, Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary 11 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 i21e IiOtl�: ID .. IDI .�JJv Facsimile, 76.3.231.25661 r'''lariners@nac—planning.co-m MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE- October 20, 2011 MEETING DATE: October 25, 2011 SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Floodplain Management Regulations CASE NO- Case No. 11-30; NAC Case 254.04 -11.32 APPLICANT(S): City of Mendota Heights LOCATION- NA ZONING: NA GUIDE PLAN- NA Background and Description of Request.- Recently, equest. Recently, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) updated their floodplain maps for Dakota County, including maps specific to the City of Mendota Heights. With the issuance of the updated maps, the City is required to update its floodplain management regulations. By adopting the new flood regulations, the City will be able to maintain its eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. Attached, please find a draft ordinance amendment which would establish updated flood management regulations within the City. The updated provisions would constitute a new zoning ordinance chapter (Chapter 7), replacing the existing flood -related provisions of the Ordinance. The new provisions are based upon a model ordinance prepared by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and include significantly greater detail than the City's current flood -related provisions. Analysis: Existing Ordinance Provisions. The City's existing flood -related provisions are provided in Section 12-1 D-11 of the Zoning Ordinance and identified in the attached draft amendment with strike -through marks. The current provisions identify uses which are permitted within the Floodway and Floodplain Districts. Uses allowed within the Floodway District are limited to buildings and structures which are essential to the operation of the City (i.e. bridges, utility lines etc.) and uses which have a low potential for damage (i.e. agriculture, parking lots, parks etc.). Uses allowed within the Floodplain District are those which are allowed by the base zoning district provided certain steps are taken to minimize potential flood damage. Primary, such steps entail elevating structures to minimize damage. To ne noted is that the reference to the "Floodplain District" in the current standards has been changed to "Flood Fringe District" in the updated standards. Applicable Properties. Like the City's current flood regulations, the draft amendment provisions apply to lands which lie within designated floodway or flood fringe areas as determined by FEMA. Proposed Ordinance Provisions. As noted, the proposed flood standards are based upon the DNR model ordinance and include significantly more detail than the City's current standards. The proposed standards would constitute a new zoning ordinance chapter (Chapter 7) and are identified in the attached draft amendment with underlined text. The following is a summary of the key features of the updated floodplain management standards.- General tandards:General Provisions (Section 12-7-2). This section includes standards related to the following: • General identification of lands to which the floodplain management regulations apply. • Adoption (by reference) of the Flood Insurance Study and Flood Insurance Rate map panels. An updated set of flood -related definitions. The City may wish to move the definitions from this section to the City's general zoning definitions to avoid duplication and overlap. Establishment of Districts (Section 12-7-3). This section makes specific reference to the Floodway and Flood Fringe Districts within the City. Floodway District (Section 12-7-4). This section provides a specific listing of permitted, conditional and accessory uses which are allowed in the Floodway District. Like the City's current standards, uses allowed within the Floodway District are limited to buildings and structures which are essential to the operation of the City and uses which have a low potential for damage. The listing of allowed uses in the updated standards is however, more comprehensive than that provided in the current standards. Flood Fringe District (Section 12-7-5). This section identifies permitted uses within the Flood Fringe District. Like the current regulations, uses allowed in the underlying base zoning districts are referenced. Unlike the current standards however, this section includes detailed standards for commercial and industrial uses which lie within Flood Fringe Districts Subdivisions (Section 12-7-7). This section basically states that no land may be subdivided if it is determined to be unsuitable (for development) by reason of flooding, inadequate drainage, water supply or sewage treatment facilities. Public Utilities Railroads Roads and Bridges (Section 12-7-8). This section stipulates that all public utilities must be flood -proofed in accordance with the State Building Code and/or are elevated to the regulatory flood protection elevation. Manufactured Homes and Manufactured Home Parks and Placement of Recreational Vehicles (Section 12-7-9). This section notes that manufactured homes are prohibited within Floodway and Flood Fringe Districts. To be noted is that manufactured homes are defined (in this chapter) as "transportable" structures. This section further notes that licensed and operable recreational vehicles are allowed only in residential zoning districts and may not be stored in the floodplain. To be noted is that the "floodplain" includes both floodway and flood fringe areas. Administration (Section 12-7-10). This section includes a highly detailed set of permitting requirements related to construction activities within the floodplain. Standards are also included which relate to the processing of variance and conditional use permit requests. Nonconforming Uses (Section 12-7-11). This section notes that legal nonconforming uses which exist within the floodplain may continue to exist subject to certain requirements. In this regard, the following requirements are included: Expansions which increase the degree of nonconformity are not allowed. ® Allowed alterations must be protected from flood damage. ® The cost of structural alterations must not exceed 50 percent of the value of the structure unless certain cost -related conditions are satisfied. • If a nonconforming use is discontinued for 12 consecutive months, it may only be re-established in conformance with the Ordinance. 3 Penalties for Violation (Section 12-7-12). This section establishes procedures related to the handling of Ordinance violations. Amendments (Section 12-7-13). This section notes that all amendments to the floodplain management provisions must be subject to review and approval by the Commissioner of Natural Resources prior to City adoption. DNR Review. The draft amendment has been reviewed by the DNR and has been found to be acceptable. In review, the following comments were offered.- FEMA ffered: FEMA must receive a signed, certified and in -effect ordinance no later than December 2, 2011. 2. Future changes to the flood regulations will require approval by the Commissioner of Natural Resources. 3. Copies of notices and decisions related to variances, conditional use permits and ordinance amendments must be provided to the DNR. Action Requested: After a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: Approval of the of the new floodplain management regulations, based on the following findings: a) Portions of the City may be subject to periodic flooding which results in negative impacts including danger to life, loss of property, public expenditures and impairment of tax base. b) The proposed floodplain management standards provide a reasonable method to analyze flood hazards in the City and minimize negative impacts. c) Adoption of the regulations will enable the City to maintain its eligibility in the national Flood Insurance Program. -OR- 2. Denial of the floodplain management regulations. Staff Recommendation: The updated floodplain management regulations (based upon the DNR model) are intended to better protect and minimize losses within the City's flood hazard areas. M Adoption of the new regulations will also enable the City to maintain its eligibility in the National Flood Insurance program. With this in mind, Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. Supplementary Materials: 1. Application materials dated October 2, 2011 :1 Draft 10/19/11 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 439 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, BY DELETING SECTION 12-11) (RESERVING FOR FUTURE USE), AND ADDING CHAPTER 12-7 OF THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT SECTION 1. Section 12-1B-2 of the Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance (Definitions) is hereby amended to delete the following definitions: t. _b vuuiw aia .. ........ ., .... ''"YY...b .,.., .,....,..... _._._. designFLOOD, DESIGN: The b - eeial b b studies, the 100 year event shall be tise7 + a -.7 tl h +e-E a to h.�v^edv,,ater low area whieh is subjeet to `b' b river, > drainage > lake, pond ef any > b flooding,"d struetufes subjeet to damage > strvetufes and eentents of buildings FLOODWAT- - > > b > lew > lake, or pend whieh -ah- eve afld-zer- outside the ehaniiel or bapJEs of said Fiver,is ge b > lake of p adjoining the ehanne -b > > drainage > lake, Of p0lld +1 fl f the Fivef or stfeaRi .7 f the pwTeseF+h sch._�io� b SECTION 2. Section 12-1D-11 of the Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance (Floodway and Floodplain Districts) is hereby amended to read as follows: regulations father- than inlieu ef, regulations 1 by any ether zeuing elassifieation F 1 „1 an „to,1 All buildings, -F grading a*d deposits that are essential to the operatien deposits ef the een:iraunity tet,-, etufes stieh as bridges, sewer pewer and telephorte line , and other- provided Nondamab.Ypes tl,nt- > of uses, sueh as b >parkinglots,parks, feeFeatiert areas and b twerity Previd that fie building, unjess the ground upon whieh sueh residenee filling er grading arideffaken unless they are designed efeeted, , writingapproved iiq ;t issued. ed. � the eity engineer, at the time ef sueh eenstmetien, il be raised b All buildings, -F > grading and deposits that are permitted under thezoriinb I t• n> provided tl,nt- > 1. No residence twerity shall feet be eenstrueted i unjess the ground upon whieh sueh residenee is to be efeeted, and to at the time ef sueh eenstmetien, > be raised to an elevation no public street feet shall, prier of- designthe the the zening maps, arid the first, less thart erie (I') above of stieli fesidenee shall not be less than three feet (T) above the designfleer -2. Ne basement fleer shall be eenstrueted te an elevatkffl lower thaa the design designed b b b the buildingpart-ef permit.design Ne street grades shall be plaeed at a lower elevation thart the Teelevation. (n, -,l 276 7 15 1991), 3. Filling, into or- er out ef water bodies b may be permitted subjeet to the bh approval water mark of the oity ef eeurioij b kvatef and Minfiseta statutes. (Ord of streets, 276 r-esidences 7 16 1991; and artd2003 ether buildings Gde) at elevations below designGenstfuetion be approved in writingrruist granting of b113effflits. D. Issuartee Of Building Pe mit. Before a t,permit shall be issued for a building, stmeture> eenstruetien <plans, grading this e 'approvalwritteiib (O d 276 7 16 199 Reserved. SECTION 3. Chapter 7 of the Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance (Floodplain Management Ordinance, Two District, One Map Format is hereby added to read as follows: CHAPTER 7 FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE TWO DISTRICT - ONE -MAP FORMAT 12-7-1 STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION FINDINGS OF FACT AND PURPOSE A Statement of Purpose: It is the purpose of this Ordinance to promote the public health safety, and general welfare and to minimize those losses in flood hazard areas by provisions contained herein. B Statutory Authorization: The legislature of the State of Minnesota has in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103F and Chapter 462 delegated the responsibility to local government units to adopt regulations designed to minimize flood losses Therefore the City Council of the City of Mendota Herglrts, Minnesota does ordain as follows: C. Findings of Fact: 1 The flood hazard areas of the City of Mendota Heights Minnesota, are subject to periodic inundation which results in potential loss of life loss of property, health and safety hazards disruption of commerce and governmental services extraordinary public expenditures or flood protection and relief, and impainnent of the tax base all of which adversely affect the public health safety, and general welfare. 2 Methods Used to Analyze Flood Hazards This Ordinance is based upon a reasonable method of analyzing flood hazards which is consistent with the standards established by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 3 National Flood Insurance Program Compliance This Ordinance is adopted to comply with the rules and regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program codified as 44 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 59 -78 as amended so as to maintain the community's eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program- 12-7-2 ro rg am" 12-7-2 GENERAL PROVISIONS A Lands to Which Ordinance Applies This Ordinance shall apply to all lands within the jurisdiction of the City of Mendota Heights shown on the Official Zoning Map and/or the attachments thereto as being located within the boundaries of the Floodway and Flood Fringe Districts. B Establishment of Official Zoning Maw The Official Zoning, Map together with all materials attached thereto is hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this Ordinance. The attached material shall include the Flood Insurance Study Dakota County Minnesota And Incorporated Areas, Flood Insurance Rate Mgp panels therein numbered 27037CO014E 27037C0017E, 27037C0018E, 27037C0019E 27037C0036E 27037C0080E and 27037CO081 E and the Flood Insurance Rate Map Index (Map Number 27037CINDIA) all dated December 2 2011 and prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The Official Zoning Map shall be on file in the Office of the City Clerk and the Zoning Administrator. C. Interpretation: 1. In their interpretation and application the provisions of this Ordinance shall be held to be minimum requirements and shall be liberally construed in favor of the Governing Body and shall not be deemed a limitation or repeal of any other powers granted by state statutes. The boundaries of the zoning, districts shall be determined by scaling, distances on the Official .Zoning Map. Where interpretation is needed as to the exact location of the boundaries of the district as shown on the Official Zoning Map, as for example where there appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary and actual field conditions and there is a formal appeal of the decision of the Zoning, Administrator, the Board of Adjustment shall make the necessary interpretation All decisions will be based on elevations on the regional (100 -year) flood profile, the ground elevations that existed on the site at the time the Community adopted its initial floodplain ordinance or on the date of the first National Flood Insurance Program map showing the area within the 100 -year floodplain if earlier, and other available technical data. Persons contesting the location of the district boundaries shall be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case to the Board of Adjustment and to submit technical evidence. D Abrogation and Greater Restrictions: It is not intended by this Ordinance to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing,_ easements covenants or deed restrictions However where this Ordinance imposes greater restrictions the provisions of this Ordinance shall prevail All other ordinances inconsistent with this Ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of the inconsistency only. E Warning, and Disclaimer of Liability: This Ordinance does not imply that areas outside the floodplain districts or land uses permitted within such districts will be free from flooding or flood. damages. This Ordinance shall not create liability on the part of the City of Mendota Heights or any officer or employee thereof for any flood damages that result from reliance on this Ordinance or any administrative decision lawfully made thereunder. F Severability If any section clause provision or portion of this Ordinance is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction the remainder of this Ordinance shall not be affected thereby. G Definitions: Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this Ordinance shall be interpreted so as to give them the same meaning as they have in common usag,e and so as to give this Ordinance its most reasonable application. Accessory Use or Structure A use or structure on the same lot with and. of a nature customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use or structure. Basement Any area of a structure uicluding crawl spaces having its floor or base subgrade (below ground level) on all four sides regardless of the depth of excavation below ground level. Conditional Use A specific We of structure or land use listed in the official control that may allowed with appropriate conditions or restrictions as provided in the official zoning controls or building codes and upon a finding that: A. Certain conditions as detailed in the zoning ordinance exist. B. The structure and/or land use conform to the comprehensive land use plan if one exists and are compatible with the existing neighborhood. Equal Degree of Encroachment A method of determining the location of floodway boundaries so that flood plain lands on both sides of a stream are capable of conveying a proportionate share of flood flows. Flood A temporary increase in the flow or stage of a stream or in the stage of a wetland or lake that results in the inundation of normally dry areas. Flood Frequency The frequency for which it is expected that a specific flood stage or discharge may be equaled or exceeded. Flood Fringe That portion of the floodplain outside of the floodway. Flood fringe is s nonymous with the term "floodway fringe" used in the Flood Insurance Study for the Dakota County Minnesota And Incorporated Areas. Floodplain The beds proper and the areas adjoining a wetland lake or watercourse which have been or hereafter may be covered by the regional flood. Flood Proofing A combination of structural provisions changes, or adjustments to properties and structures subject to flooding_ primarily for the reduction or elimination of flood damages. Floodway The bed of a wetland or lake and the channel of a watercourse and those portions of the adjoining flood plain which are reasonably required to carry or store the regional flood discharge. Lowest Floor The lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure used solely for parking of vehicles building access or storage in an area other than a basement area is not considered a building's lowest floor. Manufactured Home A structure transportable in one or more sections which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when attached to the required utilities. The tenn "manufactured home" does not include the term "recreational vehicle." Obstruction Any dam wall wharf, embankment levee dike pile abutment projection excavation channel modification culvertbuilding, wire, fence stockpile refuse fill structure or matter in along across or projecting into any channel watercourse or regulatory flood plain which may impede retard or change the direction of the flow of water, either in itself or by catching or collecting debris carried by such water. Principal Use or Structure All uses or structures that are not accessory uses or structures. Reach A hydraulic engineering term to describe a longitudinal segment of a stream or river influenced by a natural or man-made obstruction. In an urban area the segment of a stream or river between two consecutive bride crossings would most typically constitute a reach. Recreational Vehicle A vehicle that is built on a single chassis is 400 square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projection is designed to be self- propelled or permanently towable by a li hg t duty truck and is designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational camping travel, or seasonal use. For the purposes of this Ordinance the term recreational vehicle shall be s iy lonymous with the_term travel trailer/travel vehicle. Regional Flood A flood which is representative of large floods known to have occurred generally in Minnesota and reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to occur on an average frequency in the magnitude of the 100- year- recurrence interval. Regional flood is synonymous with the tenor "base flood" used in a flood insurance study. Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation The regulatory flood protection elevation shall be an elevation no lower than one foot above the elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the flood plain that result from designation of a floodway. Structure Anything constructed or erected on the ground or attached to the around or on-site utilities including but not limited to, buildings, factories, sheds detached garages cabins manufactured homes and other similar - items. Substantial Damage Damage of any origin sustained by a structure where the cost of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. Substantial Improvement Within any consecutive 365 -day period any reconstruction, rehabilitation (including normal maintenance and repair) repair after damage addition, or other improvement of a structure the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the "start of construction" of the improvement. This term includes structures that have incurred "substantial damage," regardless of the actual repair work perfonned. The tern does not however, include eitber: A Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state or local health sanitary or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions. B Any alteration of an "historic structure," provided that the alteration will not preclude the structure's continued designation as an "historic structure " For the purpose of this Ordinance "historic structure" shall be as defined in 44 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 59.1. Variance A modification of a specific pennitted development standard required in an official control including this Ordinance to allow an alternative development standard not stated as acceptable in the official control, but only applied to a particular property for the purpose of alleviating a hardship practical difficulty or unique circumstance as defined and elaborated upon in a community's respective planning and zoning enabling legislation. H Annexations: The Flood Insurance Rate Map panels adopted by reference into 12-7-2(B) above may include floodplain areas that lie outside of the corporate boundaries of the City of Mendota Heights at the time of adoption of this ordinance If any of these floodplain land areas are annexed into the City of Mendota Heights after the date of adoption of this ordinance the newly annexed floodplain lands shall be subject to the provisions of this ordinance immediately upon the date of annexation into the City of Mendota Heights. 12-7-3 ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS A. Districts: 1 Floodway District The Floodway District shall include those areas designated as floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Map adopted in 12-7-2(B). 2 Flood Fringe District The Flood Fringe District shall include those areas designated as floodway fringe The Flood Fringe District shall include those areas shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map as adopted in 12-7-2(B) as being within Zones AE but being located outside of the floodway- B. Compliance: No new structure or land shall hereafter be used and no structure shall be constructed, located extended converted repaired maintained or structurally altered without full. compliance with the terms of this Ordinance and other applicable regulations which apply to uses within the jurisdiction of this Ordinance All uses not listed as permitted uses or conditional uses in City Code are prohibited. In addition a caution is rovided here that: 1 New manufactured homes replacement manufactured homes and certain travel trailers and travel vehicles are prohibited by City Code. 2 Modifications repair and maintenance additions structural alterations normal maintenance and repair, or repair after damage to existing nonconforming structures and nonconforming uses of structures or land are regulated by the general provisions of this Ordinance and specifically 12-7-11. 3 As -built elevations for elevated or flood proofed structures must be certified by ground surveys and flood proofing techniques must be designed and certified by a registered professional engineer or architect as specified in the general provisions of this Ordinance and specifically as stated in 12-7-10 of this Ordinance. 12-7-4 FLOODWAY DISTRICT (FW) A Permitted Uses Standards for Floodway Pennitted Uses: 1 Permitted uses shall be any use of land which does not involve a structure, a fence, an addition to the outside dimensions to an existing structure (including a fence) or an obstruction to flood flows such as fill excavation or storage of materials or equipment. 2 The use shall not obstruct flood flows or increase flood elevations and shall not involve structures fill obstructions excavations or storage of materials or equipment. B_ Conditional Uses: 1. Conditional uses shall be permissible in the underlying zoning district and shall have low flood damage potential. 2 Structures accessory to the uses listed in Section 12-7-4(A) and (3) — (8) immediately below. 3 Extraction and storage of sand gravel, and other materials. 4 Marinas boat rentals docks piers wharves and water control structures. 5 Railroads streets bridges utility transmission lines, and pipelines. 6 Storage yards for equipment machinery or materials_ 7. Placement of fill or construction of fences. 8 Structural works for flood control such as levees dikes and floodwalls constructed to any height where the intent is to protect individual structures. C Standards for Floodway Conditional Uses: 1 All Uses: No structure (temporary or permanent) fill (including fill for roads and levees) deposit obstruction storage of materials or equipment or other uses may be allowed as a conditional use that will cause any increase in the stage of the 100 -year or regional flood or cause an increase in flood damages in the reach or reaches affected. 2 All floodway conditional uses shall be subject to the procedures and standards contained in 12- 7-10(D) of this Ordinance. 3. Fill: (a) Fill dredge spoil and all other similar materials deposited or stored in the flood plain shall be protected from erosion by vegetative cover, mulching riprap or other acceptable method. (b) Dredge spoil sites and sand and gravel operations shall not be allowed in the floodway unless a long -tern site development plan is submitted which includes an erosion/sedimentation prevention element to the plan. (c) As an alternative and consistent with Subsection (b) immediately above, dredge spoil disposal and sand andrad vel operations may allow temporary, on-site storage of fill or other materials which would have caused an increase to the stage of the 100 -year or regional flood but only after the Governing Body has received an appropriate plan which assures the removal of the materials from the floodway based upon the flood warning time available The conditional use permit must be title registered with the property in the Office of the County Recorder. 4. Accessory Structures: (a) Accessory structures shall not be designed for hunan habitation.. (b) Accessory structures if permittedshall be constructed and placed on the building site so as to offer the minimum obstruction to the flow of flood waters: (1) Whenever possible structures shall be constructed with the longitudinal axis parallel to the direction of flood flow; and (2) So far as practicable structures shall be placed approximately on the same flood flow lines as those of adjoining structures. (c) Accessory structures shall be elevated on fill or structurally dry flood proofed in accordance with the FP -1 or FP -2 flood proofing classifications in the State Building Code. As an alternative an accessory structure may be flood proofed to the FP -3 or FP -4 flood proofing classification in the State Building Code provided the accessory structure constitutes a minimal investment does not exceed 500 square feet in size at its largest projection and for a detached garage the detached garage must be used solely for parking of vehicles and limited storage All flood proofed accessory structures must meet the following additional standards: (1) The structure must be adequately anchored to prevent flotation collapse or lateral movement of the structure and shall be designed to equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls; (2) Any mechanical and utility equipment in a structure must be elevated to or above the regulatory flood protection elevation or properly flood proofed; and (3) To allow for the equalization of hydrostatic pressure there must be a minimum of two "automatic" openings in the outside walls of the structure having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding. There must be openings on at least two sides of the structure and the bottom of all openings must be no higher than one foot above the lowest adjacent grade to the structure Using human intervention to open a para eg door prior to flooding will not satisfy this requirement for automatic openings. 5. Storage of Materials and Equipment: (a) The storage or processing of materials that are in time of flooding, flammable explosive or potentially injurious to human animal or plant life is prohibited. (b) Storage of other materials or equipment may be allowed if readily removable from the area within the time available after a flood warning and in accordance with a plan approved by the Governing Body. 6 Structural works for flood control that will change the course current or cross section of protected wetlands or public waters shall be subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statute, Chapter 103G Community -wide structural works for flood control intended to remove areas from the reg_ulatoa flood plain shall not be allowed in the floodway. 7 A levee dike or floodwall constructed in the floodway shall not cause an increase to the 100 - year or regional flood and the technical analysis must assume equal conveyance or storage loss on both sides of a stream. 12-7-5 FLOOD FRINGE DISTRICT (FF) A. Permitted Uses: Permitted uses shall be those uses of land or structures listed as permitted uses in the underlying zoning use distrjq(s). B Standards for Flood Fringe Permitted Uses: 1 All structures including accessory structures must be elevated on fill so that the lowest floor including basement floor- is at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation. The finished. fill elevation for structures shall be no lower than one (1) foot below the regulatory flood protection elevation and the fill shall extend at such elevation at least fifteen (15) feet beyond the outside limits of the structure erected thereon. 2 As an alternative to elevation on fill accessory structures that constitute a minimal investment and that do not exceed 500 square feet at its largest projection may be internally flood proofed in accordance with 12-7-4.C4. 3 The storage of any materials or equipment shall be elevated on fill to the regulatory flood protection elevation. C. Standards for All Flood Fringe Uses: 10 1 Fill shall be properly compacted and the slopes shall be properly protected by the use of riprap vegetative cover or other acceptable method The Federal Emer egncy Management Agency (FEMA) has established criteria for removingthe special flood hazard area designation for certain structures properly elevated on fill above the 100 -year flood elevation - FEMA's requirements incorporate sp cific fill compaction and side slope protection standards for multi -structure or multi -lot developments These standards should be investigated prior to the initiation of site preparation if a change of special flood hazard area designation will be requested. 2 Flood plain developments shall not adversely affect the hydraulic capacity of the channel and adjoining flood plain of antri ibutary watercourse or drainage system where a floodway or other encroachment limit has not been specified on the Official Zoning Map. Commercial Uses - accessory land uses such as yards railroad tracks and parking lots may be at elevations lower than the re ug latory flood protection elevation. However, a permit for such facilities to be used by the employees or theeg neral public shall not be granted in the absence of a flood warning system that provides adequate time for evacuation if the area would be inundated to a depth and velocity such that when multiplying the depth (in feet) times velocity (in feet per second) the product number exceeds four (4) upon occurrence of the regional flood. 4. Manufacturing and Industrial Uses - measures shall be taken to minimize interference with nonnal plant operations especially along streams having protracted flood durations. Certain - accessory land uses such as Yards and parking lots may be at lower elevations subject to requirements set out in Section 12-7-5 C3 In considering pen -nit applications due consideration shall be given to needs of an industry whose business requires that it be located in flood plain areas. 12-7-6 RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE 12-7-7 SUBDIVISIONS A Review Criteria: No land shall be subdivided which is unsuitable for the reason of flooding inadequate drainage water supply or sewage treatment facilities. All lots within the floodplain districts shall be able to contain a building site outside of the Floodway District at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation All subdivisions shall have water and sewage treatment facilities that comply with the provisions of this Ordinance and have road access both to the subdivision and to the individual building sites no lower than two feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation_ For all subdivisions in the flood plain the Floodway and Flood Fringe District boundaries the regulatory flood protection elevation and the required elevation of all access roads shall be clearly labeled on all required subdivision drawings and platting documents. 7.2 Removal of Special Flood Hazard Area Designation- The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has established criteria for removing the special flood hazard area designation for certain structures properly elevated on fill above the 100 -year flood elevation_ FEMA's requirements incorporate 11 specific fill compaction and side slope protection standards for multi -structure or multi -lot developments. These standards should be investigated prior to the initiation of site preparation if a change of special flood hazard area designation will be requested. 12-7-8 PUBLIC UTILITIES, RAILROADS, ROADS, AND BRIDGES A Public Utilities All public utilities and facilities such as gas electrical sewer, and water supply systems to be located in the floodplain shall be flood proofed in accordance with the State Building Code or elevated to above the regulatory flood protection elevation. B Public Transportation Facilities Railroad tracks roads and bridges to be located within the flood plain shall comply with 12-7-4 and 12-7-5 of this Ordinance. Elevation to the regulatory flood protection elevation shall be provided where failure or interruption of these transportation facilities would result in danger to the public health or safety or where such facilities are essential to the orderly functioning of the area Minor or auxiliary roads or railroads may be constructed at a lower elevation where failure or interruption of transportation services would not endanger the public health or safety. C On-site Sewage Treatment and Water Supply Systems: Where public utilities are not provided: 1) On- site water supply systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems- and 2) New or replacement on-site sewage treatment systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters and they shall not be subject to impairment or contamination during times of flooding. Any sewage treatment system designed in accordance with the State's current statewide standards for oii-site sewage treatment systems shall be determined to be in compliance with this Section. 12-7-9 MANUFACTURED HOMES AND MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS AND PLACEMENT OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES. A Manufactured homes are not permissible under this Title. B Licensed and operable recreation vehicles are allowed only within residential districts and shall not be stored in floodplain areas. 1 No structural additions or accessory structures may be attached to recreational vehicles in any zoning district. 12-7-10 ADMINISTRATION A Zoning Administrator: The Zoning Administrator or other official designated by the Governing Body shall administer and enforce this Ordinance. If the Zoning Administrator finds a violation of the provisions of this Ordinance the Zoning Administrator shall notify the person responsible for such violation in accordance with the procedures stated in 12-7-12 of the Ordinance. B. Permit Requirements: 12 1 Permit Required A Perinit issued by the Zoning Administrator ui conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance shall be secured prior to the erection, addition, modification, rehabilitation (including normal maintenance and repair), or alteration of any building, structure or portion thereof prior to the use or change of use of a building structure, or land; prior to the construction of a dam fence or on-site septics stem; prior to the change or extension of a nonconforming use; prior to the repair of a structure that has been damaged by flood fire tornado or any other source; and prior to the placement of fill excavation of materials or the storage of materials or equipment within the floodplain. 2 Application for Permit Application for a permit shall be made to the Zoning Administrator on forms furnished by the Zoning Administrator and shall include the following where applicable: plans drawn to scale showing the nature location dimensions and elevations of the lot; existing or proposed structures fill or storage of materials; and the location of the foregoing in relation to the stream channel. 3 State and Federal Permits. Prior to granting a pen -nit or processing an application for a conditional use r)ennit or variance the Zoning Administrator shall detennine that the applicant has obtained all necessary state and federal permits. 4 Certificate of Zoning Compliance for a New Altered or Nonconforming Use. It shall be unlawful to use occupy, or permit the use or occupancy of any building or premises or part thereof hereafter created erected changed converted, altered, or enlarged in its use or structure until a certificate of zoning compliance shall have been issued by the Zoning Administrator stating that the use of the building or land conforms to the requirements of this Ordinance. 5. Construction and Use to be as provided on Applications, Plans, Permits, Variances and Certificates of Zoning Compliance. Permits conditional use permits, or certificates of zoning compliance issued on the basis of approved plans and applications authorize only the use, arrangement and construction set forth in such approved plans and applications, and no other use arrangement or construction. Any use arrangement, or construction at variance with that authorized shall be deemed a violation of this Ordinance, and punishable as provided by 12-7- 12. 6 Certification. The applicant shall be required to submit certification by a registered professional engineer, registered architect or registered-] and surveyor that the finished fill and building elevations were accomplished in compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance Flood proofing measures shall be certified by a registered professional engineer or registered architect. 7 Record of First Floor Elevation. The Zoning Administrator shall maintain a record of the elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) of all new structures and alterations or additions to existing structures in the floodplain. The Zoning Administrator shall also maintain a record of the elevation to which structures or alterations and additions to structures are flood proofed. 8 Notifications for Watercourse Alterations_ The Zoning Administrator shall notify, in riverine situations adjacent communities and the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources prior to the community authorizing any alteration or relocation of a watercourse. If 13 the applicant has applied for a permit to work in the beds of public waters pursuant to Minnesota Statute Chapter 103G this shall suffice as adequate notice to the Commissioner of Natural Resources A copy of said notification shall also be submitted to the Chicago Regional Office of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 9. Notification to FEMA When Physical Changes Increase or Decrease the 100 -year Flood Elevation As soon as is practicable but not later than six (6) months after the date such supporting information becomes available the Zoning Administrator shall notify the Chicago Regional Off -ice of FEMA of the changes by submitting a copy of said technical or scientific data. C. Board of Adjustment: 1 Rules The Board of Adjustment shall adopt rules for the conduct of business and may exercise all of the powers conferred on such Boards by State law. 2 Administrative Review. The Board of Adjustment shall hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement decision or determination made by an administrative official in the enforcement or administration of this Ordinance. 3. Variances. The Board of Adiustment may authorize upon appeal in specific cases such relief or variance from the terms of this Ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest and only for those circumstances such as hardship practical difficulties or circumstances unique to the property under consideration as provided for in the respective enabling legislation for planning and zoning for cities or counties as appropriate. In the granting of such variance, the Board of Adjustment shall clearly identify in writing the specific conditions that existed consistent with the criteria specified in this Ordinance, any other zoning regulations in the community, and in the respective enabling legislation that justified the granting of the variance. No variance shall have the effect of allowing in any district uses prohibited in that district, permit a lower degree of flood protection than the regulatory flood protection elevation for the particular area or permit standards lower than those required by state law. The following additional variance criteria of the Federal Emergency Management Agency must be satisfied: (a) Variances shall not be issued by a community within any designated regulatory floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result. b) Variances shall only be issued by a community upon (i) a showing of good and sufficient cause(ii) a detennination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant and (iii) a determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense_ create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances. (c) Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief. 4 Hearings Upon filing with the Board of Adjustment of an appeal from a decision of the Zoning Administrator, or an application for a variance the Board of Adjustment shall fix a reasonable time for a hearing and give due notice to the parties in interest as specified by law. 14 The Board of Adjustment shall submit by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources a copy of the application for proposed variances sufficiently in advance so that the Commissioner will receive at least ten days notice of the hearing. 5 Decisions The Board of Adjustment shall arrive at a decision on such appeal or variance within 60 days In passing upon an appeal the Board of Adjustment may, so long as such action is in conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance reverse or affnn, wholly or in part or modify the order, requirement decision or determination of the Zoning Administrator or other public official It shall make its decision in writingsetting etting forth the findings of fact and the reasons for its decisions In granting a variance the Board of Adjustment may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards such as those specified in Section 10.46 which are in conformity with the purposes of this Ordinance Violations of such conditions and safeguards, when made a part of the terns under which the variance is granted shall be deemed a violation of this Ordinance punishable under 12-7-12 A copy of all decisions granting variances shall be forwarded by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources within ten (10) days of such action. 6 Appeals Appeals from any decision of the Board of Adjustment may be made, and as specified in this community's official controls and also by Mimiesota Statutes. 7 Flood Insurance Notice and Record Keeping The Zoning Administrator shall notify the applicant fora variance that: 1) The issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the base flood level will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance up to amounts as high as $25 for $100 of insurance coverage and 2) Such construction below the 100 -year or regional flood level increases risks to life and propgrty. Such notification shall be maintained with a record of all variance actions A conununity shall maintain a record of all variance actions including justification for their issuance and report such variances issued in its annual or biennial report submitted to the Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program. D Conditional Uses The City Council shall hear and decide applications for conditional uses permissible under this Ordinance Applications shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator who shall forward the application for consideration. 1 Hearings Upon filing with the Zoning Administrator an application for a conditional use pen -nit, the Zoning Administrator shall submit by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources a copy of the application for proposed conditional use sufficiently in advance so that the Commissioner will receive at least ten days notice of the hearing - 2. Decisions The City Council shall arrive at a decision on a conditional use within 60 days. In granting a conditional use permit the City Council shall prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards which are in conformity with the purposes of this Ordinance_ Violations of such conditions and safeguards when made a part of the terms under which the conditional use permit is granted shall be deemed a violation of this Ordinance punishable under 12-7-12. A copy of all decisions granting conditional use permits shall be forwarded by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources within ten (10) days of such action. 3 Procedures to be followed by the City Council in Passing on Conditional Use Permit Applications Within all Flood Plain Districts: 15 (a) Require the applicant to furnish such of the following information and additional information as deemed necessary y the City Council for determining the suitability of the particular site for the proposed use: (1) Plans drawn to scale showing the nature location dimensions and elevation of the lot, existing or proposed structures fill storage of materials flood proofing measures and the relationship of the above to the location of the stream channel; and (2) Specifications for building construction and materials flood proofing filling dredging grading channel improvement storage of materials, water supply and sanitary facilities. (b) Transmit one copy of the information described in subsection (a) to a designated engineer or other expert person or agency for technical assistance where necessary, in evaluating the proposed project in relation to flood heights and velocities the seriousness of flood damage to the use the adequacy of the plans for protection and other technical matters. (c) Based upon the technical evaluation of the designated engineer- or expert, the City Council shall determine the specific flood hazard at the site and evaluate the suitability of the proposed use in relation to the flood hazard. 4 Factors Upon Which the Decision of the City Council Shall Be Based_ In passim upon conditional use applications, the City Council shall consider all relevant factors specified in other sections of this Ordinance, and: a) The danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused b encroachments. (b) The danger that materials nnay be swept onto other lands or downstrearn to the injury of others or they may block bridges culverts or other hydraulic structures. (c) The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the ability of these systems to prevent disease contamination and unsanitary conditions. (d) The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect Of such damage on the individual owner. (e) The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community. (f) The requirements of the facility for a waterfront location. (g) The availability of alternative locations not subject to flooding for the proposed use. (h) The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development and development anticipated in the foreseeable future. (i) The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive_ plan and floodplain management rograrn for the area. 16 (j) The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles. (k)The expected heights velocity, duration rate of rise and sediment transport of the flood waters expected at the site. (1) Such other factors which are relevant to the purposes of this Ordinance. 5 Time for Acting on Application The City Council shall act on an application in the manner described above within 60 days from receiving a completed application. 6 Conditions Attached to Conditional Use Permits. Upon consideration of the factors listed above and the purpose of this Ordinance the City Council shall attach such conditions to the granting of conditional use pen -nits as it deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of this Ordinance Such conditions may include but are not limited to, the following: (a) Modification of waste treatment and water supply facilities. (b) Limitations on period of use occupancy and operation. (c) Imposition of operational controls sureties and deed restrictions. (d) Requirements for construction of channel modifications compensatory storage, dikes, levees and other protective measures. (e) Flood proofing measures in accordance with the State Building Code and this Ordinance. The applicant shall submit a plan or document certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the flood roofing measures are consistent with the regulatory flood protection elevation and associated flood factors for the particular area. 12-7-11 NONCONFORMING USES A A structure or the use of a structure or premises which was lawfiil before the passage or amendment of this Ordinance but which is not in conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance may be continued subject to the following conditions Historic structures as defined by this Ordinance shall be subject to the following provisions: 1 No such use shall be expanded changed enlarged or altered in a way that increases its nonconformity. 2 Any structural alteration or addition to a nonconforming structure or nonconforming use which would result in increasing the flood dainage potential of that structure or use shall be protected to the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation in accordance with any of the elevation on fill or flood proofing techniques (i.e.,FP-1 thru FP -4 floodproofing classifications) allowable in the State Building Code except as further restricted below. 3 The cost of all structural alterations or additions to any nonconforming structure over the life of the structure shall not exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure unless the conditions of this Section are satisfied. The cost of all structural alterations and additions must 17 include all costs such as construction materials and a reasonable cost placed on all manpower or labor. If the cost of all previous and proposed alterations and additions exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure then the structure must meet the standards of 12-7-4 or 12- 7-5 of this Ordinance for new structures depending upon whether the structure is in the Floodway or Flood Fringe District, respectively. 4 If any nonconforming use is discontinued for 12 consecutive months any future use of the building premises shall conform to this Ordinance. The Assessor shall notify the Zoning Administrator in writing of instances of nonconforming uses that have been discontinued for a period of 12 months. 5. If anv nonconforming use or structure is substantially damaged, as defined in Section 12-7- 2(G) of this Ordinance it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance The applicable provisions for establishing new uses or new structures 12-7-4 or 12-7-5 will apply depending upon whether the use or structure is in the Floodway or Flood Fringe District, respectively. 6. If a substantial improvement occurs, as defined in Section 12-7-2(G) of this Ordinance, from any combination of a building addition to the outside dimensions of the existing building or a rehabilitation reconstruction alteration or other improvement to the inside dimensions of an existing nonconforming building then the building addition and the existing nonconforming building must meet the requirements of 12-7-4 or 12-7-5 for new structures depending upon whether the structure is in the Floodway or Flood Fringe District, respectively. 12-7-12 PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION A Violation of the provisions of this Ordinance or failure to comply with any of its requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with grants of variances or conditional uses) shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as defined by law. B Nothing herein contained shall prevent the City of Mendota Heights from taking such other lawful. action as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation. Such actions may include but are not limited to: 1_ In responding to a suspected Ordinance violation the Zoning Administrator and local government may utilize the full array of enforcement actions available to it including but not limited to prosecution and fines injunctions after -the -fact pen -nits, orders for corrective measures or a request to the National Flood Insurance Program for denial of flood insurance availability to the guilty party. The community must act in good faith to enforce these official controls and to correct Ordinance violations to the extent possible so as not to jeopardize its eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. 2. When an Ordinance violation is either discovered by or brought to the attention of the Zonin Administrator, the Zoning Administrator shall immediately investigate the situation and document the nature and extent of the violation of the official control. As soon as is reasonably possible this information will be submitted to the appropriate Department of Natural Resources' and Federal Emergency Management Agency Regional Office along with the community'splan of action to correct the violation to the degree possible. 18 3 The Zoning Administrator shall notify the suspected party of the requirements of this Ordinance and all other official controls and the nature and extent of the suspected violation of these controls If the structure and/or use is under construction or development, the Zoning Administrator may order the construction or development immediately halted until a proper permit or approval is granted by the community. If the construction or development is already completed then the Zoning Administrator may either: (1) issue an order identifying the corrective actions that must be made within a specified time period to brim the use or structure into compliance with the official controls-, or (2) notify the responsible party to apply for an after -the -fact pennit/development approval within a specified period of time not to exceed 30 dam 4 If the responsible party does not appropriately respond to the Zoning Administrator within the specified period of time each additional day that lapses shall constitute an additional violation of this Ordinance and shall be prosecuted accordingly. The Zoning Administrator shall also upon the lapse of the specified response period notify the landowner to restore the land to the condition which existed prior to the violation of this Ordinance. 12-7-13 AMENDMENTS The floodplain deslQnation on the Official Zoning Map shall not be removed from floodplain areas unless it can be shown that the designation is in error or that the area has been filled to or above the elevation of the regulatory flood protection elevation and is contiguous to lands outside the flood plain. Special exceptions to this rule may be permitted by the Commissioner of Natural Resources if he determines that, through other measures lands are adequately protected for the intended use. All amendments to this Ordinance including amendments to the Official Zoning Map, must be submitted to and approved by the Commissioner of Natural Resources prior to adoption. Changes in the Official Zoning Map must meet the Federal Emergency anagement Agency's (FEMA) Technical Conditions and Criteria and must receive prior FEMA approval before adoption The Commissioner of Natural Resources must be given 10 days written notice of all hearings to consider an amendment to this Ordinance and said notice shall include a draft of the Ordinance amendment or techn Ica] study under consideration. SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval and publication of a su nmary ordinance, as required by law and/or charter. Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this day of November 2011. Attest: we, CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor Sandie Thone, City Clerk 20 Applicant Name: RIL-d ty of Mendota APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. Date of Application l�at Fee Paid PH: L6 'k ;� 1 1 a (Last) (First) (M) e r E -Mail Address:` P " y {� �+ ..43 1 F dm) Address: I I�>` :��•=�� -�c�fr 3 (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Owner Name- UA II (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 must be provided) Type of Request Rezoning Conditional Use Permit Conditional User Permit for P.U.D. Preliminary/Final Plat Approval Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number Present Zoning of Property Proposed Zoning of Property E `.L Present Use Proposed Use Variance Subdivision Approval Wetlands Permit Critical Area Permit '` Other (attach explanation) Section _7 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. o (Sig,nature of Applicant) a Date Received I 1 1 1 (Signature of Owner) 1161 WctoTia Ctuve o -_Mendota H-e5ghts, HN 55118 ;651) 452-1850 ® PAX (651) 452-6940 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS XIEMOU DATE: October 11, 2011 TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator SUBJECT: Floodplain Management Ordinance The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has issued updated flood plain maps for Dakota County, including Mendota Heights. With the issuance of updated maps, the city is required to update City Code pertaining to floodplain management. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has been coordinating with FEMA to ensure that every community has proper code in place adopting floodplain maps and guiding land use decisions in designated floodplains and flood fringes. The City of Mendota Heights has one parcel of land zoned for residential included in. the Flood Fringe Zone, identified to have a .2% chance of flooding annually. In addition to this parcel, there is considerable land in Fort Snelling State Park which is subject to more frequent flooding. The attached ordinance is based on the model ordinance from the DNR. The proposed ordinance is more comprehensive than our current code; staff is recommending adoption of the new ordinance as title 7 of the Zoning Code and striking existing language. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources M(nnesota Division of Ecological and Water Resources 010x 3L, 5010 Lafayette Road ° St. Raul MN • 55155-4032 � h Will& DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES October 5, 2011 The Honorable Sandra Krebsbach Mayor, City of Mendota Heights City Hall 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Mayor Krebsbach: CONDITIONAL STATE APPROVAL OF FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE & REQUIRED NEXT STEPS The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) received a proposed floodplain management ordinance for the City of Mendota Heights from Jake Sedlacek, Assistant City Administrator, on October 4, 2011. This proposed floodplain ordinance is being adopted to incorporate the Flood Insurance Study, Dakota County, Minnesota And Incorporated Areas and the accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Map panels with an effective date of December 2, 2011. This ordinance is also being adopted to incorporate state and federal floodplain management standards to maintain the city's eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). I am pleased to inform you that the above-cited draft floodplain management ordinance is in compliance with Statewide Standards and Criteria for Management of Floodplain Areas of Minnesota Minnesota Rules, Parts 6120.5000 to 6120.6200. Therefore, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103F, I hereby give conditional state approval of the above-cited draft floodplain management ordinance. To the best of my knowledge, this draft ordinance is also in compliance with the floodplain management standards of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This approval is valid upon adoption of the draft ordinance by the city and receipt by this office of three (3) certified copies of the adopted ordinance amendments and the affidavit of publication, along with a completed "Ordinance Certification Checklist" that I have included. Please forward these documents to Ceil Strauss, the DNR's State NFIP Coordinator in St. Paul at the above -noted address_ Upon receipt and verification, Ms. Strauss will transmit one copy of these materials to Mr. John Devine at FEMA's Chicago Regional Office. Please remember, FEMA must receive a signed, certified, and in -effect ordinance no later than December 2, 2011 _ To allow sufficient time for processing and transmittal, we request that you submit the requested materials to the DNR no later than November 23, 2011 which is the day before the Thanksgiving holiday. If FNMA has not received the documentation by the map effective date, FEMA will suspend the City of Mendota Heights from the National Flood Insurance Program. Please be advised that any future amendment of this draft ordinance or change in the designation of flood prone areas requires prior approval of the Commissioner. In addition, you are required to send copies of hearing notices and final decisions pertaining to variances, conditional uses, and ordinance amendments to this agency. Please send these notices directly to DNR Waters' Area Hydrologist Craig Wills at DNR, Ecological & Water Resources' Division, 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN, 55106. www.dnr.state.mn.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 16�1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CONTAINING A MINIMUM OF 10% POST -CONSUMER WASTE The Honorable Sandra Krebsbach October 5, 2011 Page 2 Please rely on Mr. Wills for day-to-day assistance in enforcing this ordinance. You can also contact Mr. Wills at (651) 259-5757 or at craig.wills@state.nui.us. The DNR greatly appreciates your community's cooperation and initiative in providing for the reduction of flood damages through the adoption and administration of this ordinance. Sincerely, Dale E_ Homuth Conservation Assistance and Regulation Manager Enclosure (Ordinance Certification Checklist) ec: Jake Sedlacek, Assistant City Administrator John Devine, FEMA Cell Strauss, NFIP State Coordinator Terri Yearwood, DNR Eco -Waters' Regional Manager Liz Harper, DNR Eco -Waters' Assistant Manager Craig Wills, Area Hydrologist ^z 713 ( 4°Qg o0a„ N DX5510X s M1.5 1983 (NAD 83), Western I 1000 -meter Universal Tra Bench mark (see explana panel) River Mile MAP REPOSITORII Refer to Map Repositories list EFFECTIVE DATE OF COU -. FLOOD INSURANCE RA" DECEMBER 2, 201 EFFECTIVE DATE(S) OF REVISION( For community map revision history prior to countywide mal table located in the Flood Insurance Study report for this jun To determine if flood insurance is available in this communil National Flood Insurance Program at 1-800-638-6620. (SEE MAP IN CONTAINS: COMMUNITY iMENDOTA, CITY MENDOTA NEIG 250 0 500 - 150 0 (SEE MAP IN CONTAINS: COMMUNITY iMENDOTA, CITY MENDOTA NEIG Es) god -ied ;ers bot and 91y, Nlth J of are ons i in Dior i on ited vitt iths 3or t arse oid. I of nap acy i of ons .ion pan at the rxs mal J. nes Ved JQ ntly c 44° 54° 4972000m MISSISSIPPI RIVER 488000m E 489000m E **27037CQ015E **27037CO016E 27037CO017E 27037CO036E *27037CO040E 27037CO041 E **27037CO042E 12/2/2011 12/2/2011 12'2/2011 E, d E� O U O U UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD Wm-- W® ® o e d a e o e Z00 O CITY OF LILYDALE N� a � a m &12 156 27037CO018E 27037CO014E 27037C0044E 12/2/2011 12/2/2011 CITY OF 27037CO043E 12/2/2011 WEST SAINT PAUL g 12/2/2011 CITY OF 149 Mississippi River MENDOTA �j e a 35E � 27037CO019E O O CITY OF o 12/2/2011 4 SOUTH SAINT PAUL Q® u� CITY OF 4 MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY OF SUNFISH LAKE 27037CO080E 12/2/2011 *27037CO105E 27037CO10 13 55 494 ' 12/2/2011 494 SOUTH SAINT PAUL z r MUNICIPAL AIRPORT o 71 27037COO81 E 0 cA 12/2/2011 �� ! CITY OF O �r� �� lNVER { GROVE *27037CO110E-- 0 9 ! / AAA CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO DATE: October 25, 2011 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administra SUBJECT: Critical Area and Wetlands Permit Processes Discussion The September 2011 planning commission meeting included discussion of critical area permits and wetlands permits. Staff provided reports outlining potential conditions for expediting the permitting process for minor projects. The commission provided feedback to staff tabling both matters to the October agenda. Staff was unable to compile the requested material for this month's meeting and intends to have a detailed report for the November 2011 planning commission meeting. As requested by the commission, additional information will include a refined list of projects which may be considered "minor" in the critical area. A similar list will be developed for projects within the 100 foot buffer to wetland areas. Staff will also have a report detailing how other communities within the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area handle critical area permits. Action Required None. NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 2032, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231 .2555 f=acsimile: 763.231-2561 pianners@nacplartning.com om MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen W. Grittman DATE: September 22, 2011 MEETING DATE: October 25, 2011 SUBJECT: Commercial/Industrial Property Maintenance CASE NO: 254.04 APPLICANT(S): NA LOCATION: NA ZONING: NA GUIDE PLAN: NA Background: Attached to this memorandum is an outline of a potential Commercial/Industrial Property Maintenance Code. The outline utilizes a list of topics that is loosely designed to parallel the City's Residential Property Maintenance Code. We have grouped maintenance requirement topics to follow both that code, and the issues most likely to be raised based on applicable zoning regulations. At the upcoming Planning Commission meeting (October 25), we would like to review this list with regard to two specific categories of comment. First, we should discuss whether these topics are ones for which the City would like to regulate maintenance, and related to this, whether there are other topics to include. Second, we should discuss specific parameters for regulation, that is, how much detail should be included under each of the various topics. It is possible to be general, and refer to zoning standards in most cases. It is also possible to be highly prescriptive. As has been discussed previously, there are only a few commercial properties that have raised maintenance issues for the community. As such, creating a code that balances between addressing the actual concerns, and adequately anticipates likely future problems without going overboard is the primary task with this project. Action Requested: The Planning Commission is asked to review the list of topics, and we will walk through the outline at the upcoming meeting to address the items referred to above. With this input, and comments to be gathered from the City Council, we will then prepare a draft ordinance, from which we can examine specific code language under each topic area. No formal action is necessary at this point. Supplementary Materials: 1. Draft C/I Property Maintenance Outline Draft Commercial/Industrial Property Maintenance Code, Chapter 12-8 Outline of Contents 12-8-1: FINDINGS AND PURPOSE STATEMENT 12-8-2: DEFINITIONS 12-8-3: BUILDING AND STRUCTURE APPEARANCE AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS A. Building Materials Condition - Paint, Deterioration, Etc. B. Architectural Elements — Function and Condition - Cornices, Pilasters, Gutters, Glass, Windows and Doors, Mechanical Equipment, Etc. C. Building maintenance adjacent to Residential Areas 12-8-4: MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR VACANT BUILDINGS A. Continued Maintenance during vacancies B. Reasonable Security Measures 12-8-5: LANDSCAPING AND GROUNDS MAINTENANCE A. Vegetation Trimming and Replacement — Trees and Shrubs B. Weeds C. Grass Mowing, Irrigation D. Patios, Sidewalks, Decks, Etc. E. Parking Lot Pavement, Striping, Curbing F. Fencing G. Ground maintenance adjacent to Residential Areas 12-8-6: ACCESSORY USES, BUILDINGS, AND STRUCTURES A. Building Materials Condition B. Architectural Elements C. Storage, Screening 12-8-7: ACCUMULATIONS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS A. Prohibition against accumulations of unapproved materials 12-7-8: RUBBISH, GARBAGE, AND TRASH A. Trash Enclosure Maintenance — Condition, Gates, Screening, Materials B. Requirements for Trash and Rubbish Pickup 12-8-9: STORMWATER DRAINAGE A. Requirements to maintain drainage ways and clear stormwater structures B. Prohibition on maintaining conditions resulting in stormwater flow to public ways 12-8-10: ABATEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES A. To be reviewed with City Attorney and Police Department NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.. 4800 Bison Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, #VIN 55422 Telephone: 783.231 .2555 Facsimile: 763.231.266 11 plariners@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: CASE NO: APPLICANT(S): LOCATION: ZONING: GUIDE PLAN: Background: Mendota Heights Planning Commission Stephen W. Grittman September 22, 2011 October 25, 2011 Zoning Ordinance Amendment — Institutional Accessory Building Regulations in Residential Districts Case No. ; NAC Case 254.04 — 11.29 City of Mendota Heights RM m NA At a recent Planning Commission meeting, a request for accessory building construction was considered for the Visitation Convent and School. The process to accommodate this request, as it has been for other institutional uses, required Conditional Use Permit approval, coupled with consideration of Variances related to number, size, and total square footage of accessory buildings in a residential district. The City's zoning ordinance allows institutional uses, such as schools, places of worship, golf courses, nature centers, and governmental buildings, in residential districts. The Accessory Building regulations for the residential districts, however, are structured to address accessory buildings that are typical of residential uses rather than institutional activities. While the City's practice has been to address this discrepancy through the variance process, it was suggested that an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance be considered that would establish specific accessory use regulations for institutional land uses. The current regulations in the Residential Districts provide for the following: • Detached garages of between 440 square feet and 750 square feet. • Detached non -garage buildings of 144 square feet for single family property. • Detached non -garage buildings totaling 425 square feet for property over 4 acres in size. • Detached non -garage buildings up to 1,000 square feet by Conditional Use Permit. • Maximum of 3 accessory buildings for any principal use. For the uses identified above as "institutional", most of the properties in the City occupied by such uses have need for accessory buildings exceeding these regulations. To increase the allowance for such buildings, the City can use many different benchmarks, such as: 1) Setting a higher square footage threshold across the board for non-residential uses, such as 5,000 square feet, or some other threshold size. 2) Setting a proportionate square footage threshold based on the size of the parcel in question. (The Mendota Heights Par 3 is 17 acres.) 3) Setting a proportionate square footage threshold based on the size of the principal building on the property. 4) Retaining the CUP requirement, specifying review criteria, but removing the cap square footage for non-residential uses in the R districts. This item is intended to provide a background for discussion and develop direction for staff to create a draft ordinance. Action Requested: No specific action is requested at this time. As noted, this is intended to serve as a discussion item, from which staff will prepare a draft ordinance and schedule a public hearing for a future meeting. Supplementary Materials: None