Loading...
2018-06-26 Planning Comm MinutesJune 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 1 of 21 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 26, 2018 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 26, 2018 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners John Mazzitello, Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, Mary Magnuson, and Michael Toth. Those absent: Commissioner Brian Petschel Approval of Agenda Commissioner Magnuson requested that item 5b be moved to the bottom of the agenda. The Commission agreed. The revised agenda was approved. Approval of May 22, 2018 Minutes COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2018. Commissioner Magnuson asked for some editing of language or clarification be added to the second bullet point under Mr. Dave Kemp’s comments on page 3 of 5 in the minutes. Also, the sentence immediately before the bullet points should be past tense. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE #2018-12 ERICK SCHMIDT, 1133 DELAWARE AVENUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (LARGE GARAGE IN THE R-1 ZONE) Working from materials provided to the commission prior to the meeting, Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Erick Schmidt was requesting to build a new 26’ x 40’ detached garage. City Code Title 12-1D-3 Accessory Structures, Subpart C.2 allows for one detached structure up to 1,000 square feet with an approved conditional use permit. A notice of hearing on this item was posted and published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters were mailed to all property owners within 350-feet of the subject property. No objections or other comments were received as a result of those notices. June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 2 of 21 Mr. Benetti shared an image of the property location in relation to surrounding homes and streets. The lot is 100’ x 150’, or 0.34 acres in size. The site currently contains a 1,922 square foot, 1.25 story single-family home and a 400 square foot detached garage with a 8’ x 18’ covered/storage space. Mr. Benetti then shared images of the current garage and covered space. The current driveway access off of Delaware Avenue will remain as is, as will the remainder of the driveway and turn-around area. The new garage will be 26 feet by approximately 40 feet, but due to an off-set of the 3rd stall building line, the overall footprint area of the new garage will be set at 992 square feet; under the 1,000 square foot limitation. Mr. Benetti reviewed the standards for reviewing a conditional use permit and explained how this request meets those standards. Staff recommended approval of this Conditional Use Permit request with conditions. Mr. Erick Schmidt, 1133 Delaware Avenue, came forward to address any questions from the Commission, of which there were none. He also had nothing to add to Mr. Benetti’s presentation as it felt it was complete and accurate. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LARGER DETACHED GARAGE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The existing use of the subject parcel as a single-family residential dwelling is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. 2. The planned development and use of the 992-sq. ft. detached garage is considered a reasonable request, and is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposed garage use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan. 4. The proposed garage and structure will be compliant with the conditions included in the City Code that allow it by conditional use permit. 5. The new garage represents reinvestment in a residential neighborhood that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for residential land uses. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 3 of 21 1. The proposed detached garage shall be constructed in compliance with all applicable City Code standards noted in Section 12-1D-3 Accessory Structures. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to any demolition, excavation or construction of the new garage addition. 3. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 2, 2018 meeting. C) PLANNING CASE #2018-14 MIKE AND MICHELLE BADER, 1673 DELAWARE AVENUE LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION (LOT COMBINATION) Working from materials provided to the commission prior to the meeting, Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mike and Michelle Bader were requesting approval to subdivide their homestead parcel located at 1673 Delaware Avenue into two separate parcels. One parcel would retain the existing dwelling and be sold while the remaining vacant parcel would be retained by the Baders. A notice of hearing on this item was posted and published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters were mailed to all property owners within 350-feet of the subject property. Staff received two phone calls from concerned neighbors on what was happening. The subject property is located east of Delaware Avenue, between Wentworth Avenue to the north and Marie Avenue to the south. The property is located in the R-1A One Family Residential district and is currently guided RR-Rural Residential. There are no plan to changes to this area. The lot is just over 10 acres in size, 330’ x 700’. There is currently a 3,265 square foot, two story home on the property. The subject property is located inside a geographical area identified as the “Super-Block” or large lot neighborhood. Mr. Benetti shared an image of the super-block area, bordered by Delaware Avenue, Wentworth Avenue, part of Dodd and Marie Avenue. Under the R-1A, all single family lots have to be a minimum of 125’ width and 30,000 square feet. The report indicated that the parcel would be split between an east parcel and a west parcel. The east parcel would equate to 4.23 gross acres with 0.23 of that acreage would be assigned to Delaware Avenue for the right-of-way, resulting in a net acreage of 4.00. The current residence would remain on the east parcel. The west parcel is to be split off and would create a net parcel of 5.82 acres. June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 4 of 21 City code requires that all lots have a minimum street frontage of 125 feet. With this split, there would be no frontage on the west parcel. As part of this request, the applicants are proposing to attach this to Lot 3, which does contain the frontage off of Foxwood Lane; therefore, the 5.82 acres being combined with Lot 3 would result in a 8.32 acre parcel. As part of this lot split, the city is requiring that the applicant combine these parcels; which is allowed by Dakota County. Staff determined that this lot split could be approved as once the west parcel is combined with the third lot, it would no longer be a non-conforming lot. Staff recommended approval of this lot split with conditions. Commissioner Noonan requested clarification in that in the beginning of his report, Mr. Benetti used the term ‘later adjoined to an adjacent lot’; however, he subsequently said that the lot split and the lot combination would be advanced together and recorded appropriately at Dakota County. So that there would be a combination and recording if the lot split is approved. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Noonan then noted that there was mention of a dedication coming off of the east parcel for Delaware Avenue. He asked if this was a condition of approval. Mr. Benetti replied that it is part of the easement dedications that they are providing in the documentations. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek could answer more accurately. Mr. Ruzek replied that the County is already showing an easement line back at that point – the 30-foot mark. The city is requesting an additional 10-foot easement over and above that. However, the County would be able to take prescriptive rights on that land due to their county road being through the property. The reason the city is requiring this additional 10 feet is because that is their standard drainage and utility easement per subdivision requirements. Commissioner Noonan, in relation to the west parcel, asked for confirmation that this would be a new lot. Mr. Benetti replied that it would be a new parcel until it gets combined with the other lot. Commissioner Noonan then noted that in previous lot splits there was a condition of payment in lieu of park land. He asked for confirmation that, in this case, they would not be required because of the addition the west parcel to an existing lot on record. Mr. Benetti confirmed that there would be no park dedication allowed since this is not a buildable lot. If this was a lot being created with frontage as a buildable lot, it would require a park dedication and access fees. Commissioner Mazzitello noted that this ‘super block’ does not have municipal sanitary sewer so all of the homes are on septic systems. He asked if it was known if there was enough room on the east parcel to accommodate the existing system and the installation of a new one should it need to be upgraded. Mr. Benetti deferred to the applicant as the septic system was not indicated on the survey. Commissioner Magnuson asked if there were utilities currently running to Lot 3, Foxwood. Mr. Benetti replied that there is only water at this time; no sewer. She then asked what would happen with sanitary sewer if a home wants to be built on that particular lot. Mr. Benetti replied that they would have to provide their own septic. Staff did inform them that, per city policy, if they or someone else decided to build on that 8.32 acre parcel that they would responsible to bring in sewer and water services. June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 5 of 21 Commissioner Magnuson asked for clarification; if they were to build a single family residence the city would not require utilities – only a septic system. However, if they were to build multiple homes then the city would require full expansion of the utilities. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Mr. Paul McGinley, principle surveyor and vice-president of Loucks Associates, came forward to address any questions from the Commission. He noted that, per Mr. and Mrs. Bader, the septic is just off of the pool area in the rear yard and that there was plenty of room for additional system to the north, if necessary and to the southwest as well. Commissioner Magnuson asked if there was any intent to build on the property at the present time. Mr. McGinley replied that the Baders have not expressed to him any interest in building on it at this time. They have a buyer for the current residence and they have put money down on another home elsewhere. Mr. Mike Bader, 1673 Delaware Avenue, stated that the reason for the application is because they have an offer on the current residence. All three offers received for this property had no desire to purchase the entire 10 acres, they wanted something smaller. This is something that all of the neighboring property owners would like to see done. As far as building on the new parcel, they have no intention of doing so. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Ms. Jennifer Lutz, 548 Foxwood Lane, noted that there are three lots as part of the Foxwood Plat. She is on Lot 1, the lot that borders Wentworth Avenue. As mentioned earlier, they have been down this road before about developing. It is worth noticing that there are restrictive covenants on the lots, which have physical descriptions of each one of the lots. Changing the plat of Lot 3 would change an existing contract that is on file with the County. If the Baders are wanting to append that parcel to Lot 3 and agree that it will remain a single family residence, it would not change the nature. If they find that having a bare lot makes it more desirable for selling and building, etc. then the other residents would have no objections as long as it stays a single family lot. They would also ask for an opportunity to come have an agreement to set change to the plat with the covenants being amended to allow for that parcel but keep it a single family home with no changes to Foxwood Lane. She also noted that she lives within 350 feet of Lot 3, Foxwood; however, she was not provided with a mailed notice of this hearing. She requested that if any hearings on this property were to occur in the future, that all of the residents on Foxwood Lane to be notified. For clarity, Chair Field summarized Ms. Lutz comments as wanting an acknowledgment of a private agreement, which the city, county, and state are not a party to, relating to the third lot in Foxwood. He then informed Ms. Lutz that the city is not a party to this private agreement and was in no position to acknowledge or indicate support of said agreement. Ms. Lutz stated that she understood this but wanted it to be understood that changing the legal description of said lot would be essentially changing a signed contract. The Commission noted that if the property were to be June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 6 of 21 developed in a way inconsistent with the signed agreement, then the covenant holders would have other recourses they could follow to get satisfaction. Commissioner Magnuson suggested that someone check with the County to ensure that, if there is a restrictive covenant that runs with the land that does not pose an impediment to the combination of Lot 3 with the west parcel. It the city were to impose that as a condition of this subdivision and it cannot happen, then the subdivision would have to fail. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the new legal description would still have Lot 3 of the Foxwood Plat as part of the legal description. It would only add the means and bounds from this adjacent un-platted property. If they are comfortable with it as far as amending their existing covenants, it sounds like everything would proceed easily. Mr. Benetti replied that he would check into this. Mr. Tim Aune, 554 Foxwood Lane, stated that he was unopposed to the proposed lot split and annexation of the west parcel of Lot 3, Foxwood provided the following occurs: • Current and any future owners of Lot 3 would be prohibited from claiming any kind of hardship on any variance application going forward from the date of approval • The plat of Foxwood, as well as any records or documents on file with Dakota County, be updated and amended to reflect the new legal description • He was not inferring in any way, shape, or form enforcement, he was only inferring propagation of the information – the County is notified that Foxwood has been replatted and this is now Lot 3. Any materials in their possession should reflect that new plat Commissioner Noonan and Commission Mazzitello both noted that this lot is not being ‘replatted’. What is happening is a lot split and a lot addition, which is a lot less than re-platting. Mr. Benetti replied that typically when there is a lot combination like this, the County will simply discard the old PID on Lot 3 and create a new one because it has a new legal description. A new PID will be assigned to this new parcel. The description would not put Lot 3 in the un-platted area; it will be a combined legal description with a new PID typically. Mr. Aune asked if he was correct in assuming that when that happens, the city would communicate with the County. Mr. Benetti replied that the applicant would bring the surveys to the County and they would record them as part of the recordable documents that go with it, including the lot split combination forms. Also, they bring over the city’s resolution – if the Council approves – to confirm that the city reviewed and approved. The city would then a copy back from the county. The city gives the required materials to the applicant and it is their responsibility to have it recorded. The city does not do that. In an attempt to further clarify the answer to Mr. Aune, Commissioner Noonan stated that once the lot split, if approved, and the combination takes place and the materials are presented to Dakota County for recording, there will be a new title certificate prepared. The new title certificate will bring forward anything that is currently recorded against any of the pieces of property that are then combined into the one lot. Mr. Aune stated that he believes this answered his question. Mr. Aune then stated that it was his wish that, exclusive of the commission as private parties, they could get unanimous agreement to amend the document themselves to provide clarify and June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 7 of 21 ambiguity. He understood that the city has no responsibility, let alone interest, in documents between private parties. Ms. Lisa Gray, 540 Wentworth Avenue, stated that her property borders both the west portion of the Baders property and Foxwood Lot 3. In the past, the Baders have always been looking to develop the property into three or more lots, which she has objected to. She believes that it would go against the essential nature of the neighborhood, which is really important to them who live there. To the extent that they intend to split the lot and append it to Lot 3; to the extent that the intent to do that is to just have a single family dwelling with respect to Lot 3 – she has no objection. However, they will continue to object to any development that is past a single family home. They would request that the record reflect the recommendations of the staff as they are very important to maintaining the viability of that single family neighborhood. They also asked that it be specifically noted that the Baders have stated that they have no plans to develop the property at this point and that the record reflect that they would have no hardship or practical difficulties as an argument if somebody in the future wanted to develop that. Mr. Paul McGinley returned and noted that Lot 3 would remain Lot 3, all of the covenants that relate to Lot 3 will pass down. If someone were to purchase the now 8.3 acre parcel, they would receive all of the title information and all of the covenants that go with Lot 3 – that would carry through with the property so there is no risk of any of those covenants being lost in this process. Lot 3 and the south parcel would just be combined into one tax parcel, which cannot be subdivided in the future without full approval. Lot 3 still exists as it is not being re-platted. Commissioner Noonan asked for clarification that the intent at this point is simply to split the lots that fronts onto Delaware Avenue in two, and then to combine the west parcel with Lot 3, Foxwood to create one PID and one parcel. Mr. McGinley confirmed. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-14 LOT SPLIT (SUBDIVISION) AND LOT COMBINATION REQUEST BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed lot split and combination meet the purpose and intent of the City Code under Title 11 - Subdivision Regulations and can be considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed lot split and lot combination will not create any negative impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood. June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 8 of 21 3. The requirement to have the Applicant legally combine the two parcels, identified herein as Lot 3, Block 1, Foxwood and the West/South Parcel, will eliminate any nonconforming issue or status of the newly created parcel. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The newly created parcel, identified and described as the “West Parcel” on the attached survey drawings (prepared by Loucks - dated 05/24/2018) shall be combined with the existing Lot 3, Block 1, Foxwood. 2. The applicant shall dedicate a new 300-ft. wide (approximate) drainage and utility easement over the westerly part of the “West Parcel”; and dedicate drainage and utility easements over the north 5.00 feet, the south 5.00 feet, the east 40.00 feet (including 30- feet of Delaware Avenue) and the westerly 10.00 feet of the “East Parcel”, and all must be denoted on the certificate of survey or recordable document approved by the city and filed with Dakota County. 3. The new 8.32 acre parcel to be created after the combination process can only be used for one (1) single-family residential dwelling development; unless the Owner receives full consideration and approval by the city of a new subdivision under separate application(s), per City Code Title 11 – Subdivision Regulations. 4. Since this application is entirely initiated by the Applicant and due to their own action and preference, any approval of this lot split and lot combination does not in any way provide a future hardship or automatic allowance to the Applicant or any future owners of the 8.32 acre parcel (or adjacent lands), to have this area subdivided in the future with a reduced roadway design equal to the existing Foxwood Lane right-of-way. Commissioner Magnuson asked that the motion be changed from ‘the four recommendations’ to ‘the four conditions’. Commissioner Noonan agreed. Commissioner Noonan requested the applicant to pay particular attention to Condition #3 and Condition #4. These clearly states that there is no future consideration or entitlements by virtue of this application. Commissioner Noonan was very clear in asking the question of the surveyor to make sure that it was clearly understood for all of those in attendance, that strictly what the Commission was doing was to split and combine; not providing any further entitlements or rights. Commissioner Mazzitello noted that, if not for the proposed combination of the west parcel and Lot 3, Foxwood, the lot split would require variances for not having proper frontage and right-of- way access. Therefore, the west parcel on its own could not be developed. There could not be a building on the west parcel at all if not for the lot combination. He offered a friendly amendment to Condition #1 by adding a second sentence stating “No development of the west parcel will be allowed until the aforementioned lot combination is recorded with Dakota County”. Commissioner Noonan accepted the amendment, as did Commissioner Magnuson. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 2, 2018 meeting. June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 9 of 21 D) PLANNING CASE #2018-15 JACKIE AND MIKE CHASE, 1680 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS ROAD CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR NEW SWIMMING POOL AND PATIO/DECK Working from materials provided to the commission prior to the meeting, Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Jackie and Mike Chase were requesting a Critical Area Permit to construct a new swimming pool and patio/deck. The property is located in the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area and requires a Critical Area Permit. A notice of hearing on this item was posted and published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters were mailed to all property owners within 350-feet of the subject property. No comments or objections have been received. The property is located at the tail end of Mayfield Heights Road, which T’s off of Sibley Memorial Highway, is a 1.42 acres in size, zoned R-1 One Family Residential, and guided for low density residential development. In March 2015 the city adopted Resolution 2015-16 approving a critical area permit, conditional use permit, wetlands permit, and variance requests in order to demolish an old dwelling and construct a new single-family dwelling. The site now contains a 3,400 square foot single family home. The proposed location of the pool is a very flat surface area and no part of the boundary or bluff line would be affected by the construction of said pool. The pool would sit a considerable distance away from that and would not affect any of that landscaping or tree area; there is also no loss of trees or vegetation with this construction. Mr. Benetti shared an image of the layout of the existing home, garage, and proposed pool and patio/deck areas. They wish to install a new 16’ x 38’ in-ground swimming pool, with a concrete patio-deck around the perimeter and have a new fence around the outer areas. There would be some new retaining walls along the outer perimeter and a new retention wall to provide for positive drainage. The city also invited the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources representatives to review this application and they had no comments or objections. Mr. Benetti reviewed the standards for reviewing a critical area permit and explained how this request meets those standards. Staff recommended approval of this Critical Area Permit request with conditions. Ms. Jackie Chase, 1680 Mayfield Heights Road, came forward to answer questions from the Commission, which there were none. She had nothing to add to the staff report. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 10 of 21 COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-15 CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR NEW SWIMMING POOL AND PATIO/DECK BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed new swimming pool, patio/deck and retaining wall structures are reasonable and generally acceptable accessory uses of the subject property; and meets the general purpose and intent of the Code, including the location (setbacks) of the pool and retaining wall materials, and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed construction activities will not remove any additional vegetation and the proposed design will not damage or cause any negative or long-term negative effects upon the critical area; nor will the character of the neighborhood be affected or altered. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The Owners/Applicant must obtain an approved building permit prior to any work commencing on the swimming pools or wall structures. 2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 3. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. Commissioner Magnuson noted that under STAFF RECOMMENDATION the first line reads “Staff recommends approval of the critical area permit and variance requests for the proposed retaining wall structure . . .” Mr. Benetti replied that his cut/paste skills are not very good and this was from a previous notation. There is NOT a variance and it is not a proposed retaining wall. It should read “. . . critical area permit for a proposed swimming pool and patio/deck and fence and retaining walls.” There are no variances. The conditions are accurate and reflective. Commissioner Mazzitello accepted the amendment, as did Commissioner Noonan. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 2, 2018 meeting. June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 11 of 21 E) PLANNING CASE #2018-16 SARAH & JASON BARRETT / JOHN & DEANNE BENNETT, 754 AND 760 UPPER COLONIAL DRIVE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, LOT SPLIT/COMBINATION AND VARIANCES Working from materials provided to the commission prior to the meeting, Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Sarah & Jason Barrett and John & Deanne Bennett were requesting a lot line adjustment, lot split-combination and variances for their properties located at 754 and 760 Upper Colonial Drive. A notice of hearing on this item was posted and published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters were mailed to all property owners within 350-feet of the subject property. No comments or objections have been received. Mr. Benetti shared an image of the two properties in relation to the location along Upper Colonial Drive and Wentworth Park. He noted that when the Cherry Hill Addition was approved back in 1960, they created these Outlot A and B. In 1963 the Village of Mendota Heights was granted two separate certificates of title for Outlot A and B; which were eventually incorporated into what is now referred to as Wentworth Park. In 2008 a neighboring parcel asked for a very similar parcel lot line adjustment and received that approval. In 2015 the Council also approved a similar lot line adjustment between 750 and 754 Upper Colonial Drive. To make this lot conform to requirements, the owners requested that the city sell off or deed off a part of Wentworth Park. This almost 4,000 square foot parcel was deeded off to accommodate and ensure this parcel met the area requirements and, more importantly, met the setback requirement. The last four houses along Upper Colonial Drive’s foundations were laid in, they were not laid in properly – probably due to a surveying error in the 1960’s. All of these houses had this lot line requirement. This request would move the lot line between the two properties (754 and 760 Upper Colonial Drive) over by 8.25 feet to eliminate the encroachment on the existing building. Even with the adjustment, the Bennett lot becomes a little bit bigger but it still does not meet site area setbacks of 10 feet, would still remain a non-conforming situation; therefore, a variance is required. To solve the encroachment and to meet the purpose and intent of the city code, even though it is not fully meeting, it still provides a big relief for homeowners. Under the variance process, if the Commission were to accept that it still provides a general relief for the current owners and any future owners. In September 2017, planning staff was notified by a neighboring resident that a new shed was being built in the rear yard area of 754 Upper Colonial Drive; owned by the Barrett’s, and appeared to be located on city-owned park lands. Upon investigation it was determined that this was true and a “stop-work” order was issued. During this inspection, staff also discovered that the property June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 12 of 21 at 760 Upper Colonial Drive (the Bennett’s) may have had a fence and garden installed outside their legal property boundary. The applicants stated that they believed that park land area to be part of their rear yards and were unaware of the ownership by the city. Since these areas were essentially being unused by the city, they asked that the city consider deeding over these two wedge-shaped parcels to them. That way, the garden, fence, and shed encroachments could remain in place, subject to city council approval. The parcel to be created behind 760 Upper Colonial Drive consists of 5,792 square feet, or 0.133 acres. The parcel behind 754 Upper Colonial Drive is 7,242 square feet, or 0.166 acres. If this part of the application were approved, staff would make the necessary changes to the upcoming 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Staff has no objections to this request and noted that no portion of these properties being separated from the park would be buildable on its own or separated. It has to be combined or joined in the two subject parcels as part of this approval. Staff did not have the park land appraised nor any land value determined. The Barrett’s and Bennett’s submitted a letter of intent, whereby each homeowner offered to pay $500.00 (total of $1,000) to the city’s general park fund as payment of these parcels. Previously, the owners of 750 Upper Colonial purchased the small parcel of city land for $100.00 plus legal fees. Staff acknowledges the two owners as having contributed a considerable amount of time, energy, and expense in preparing the survey documents of these properties and that they have also agreed to pay for any legal and title fees to complete the transactions. Also, they have maintained that area of the park land on their own, having believed it to be a portion of their yard. Very little maintenance, if any, has been provided by the public works department. The Parks & Recreation Commission reviewed this application at their meeting on June 12, 2018, listened to staff explanations and reasoning for this lot split and possible transfer of park land to private property owners, the value of which had not been determined. Two primary concerns were raised by the Parks and Recreation Commission: • Are the properties valued properly • Would this action set a precedence and open the city to other requests to sell park land In the end, the Parks & Recreation Commission elected to recommend approval and let the City Council resolve the precedent setting issue and determine value of the land, by a vote of 3-2. Staff recommended approval of this request with conditions. Commissioner Mazzitello asked for clarification that there was no way to place the lot line between the two structures that would allow for two compliant setbacks. Mr. Benetti confirmed. The proposed adjustment would be the minimum needed to get the current lot line off of the structure. June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 13 of 21 Commissioner Corbett asked what had been investigated with respect to privately handling the rear lot line issues versus involving the city. Mr. Benetti replied that the private property owner could fix the encroachments onto the city-owned property. The other alternative would be for the city to impose upon them a code enforcement action to remove the fencing, garden, and partially built shed, and then the city would take it over again. However, for all intents and purposes, the city has not been maintaining or taking care of it. Commissioner Noonan asked if staff considered the city’s need for the park land parcels; do they serve any city need. Mr. Benetti replied that at this point, the answer is no. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that park staff is highly supportive of this application being approved and this land being transferred over to the private land owners. It is a wet area so park staff rarely maintains it. It is not large enough for any recreational uses. Commissioner Toth asked if the property owner, who installed the fencing, had come to the city for a permit. Mr. Benetti replied that he has no record of any permit request. Commissioner Magnuson recollected that in 2015, when they did the Nordin property, they discussed much on how that problem occurred and what likely happened; fully recognizing that it would not be the only lot that would be nonconforming. Upon being asked by Commissioner Noonan, Mr. Benetti replied that the reason for the variance request in this situation, rather than a new PID request as in the Bader application, was for consistency. Since a variance was issued on the neighboring lot in 2015, then a variance was requested here for setback requirements. The variance could be eliminated as the conditions still cover the attachment of the Outlots to the parcels. Commissioner Toth asked if $500 each from the property owners is a fair price because the addition of these parcels increases their lot size and potentially raise their resell value. Mr. Benetti replied that he did not know where the $100 value came from in 2015. According to the Council that $100 value was fair. These property owners are offering five times as much, will pay the legal fees associated with the transfer of ownership, and have maintained the land as part of their rear yards. However, it would be better for the Council to determine fair value because they are ones who did accept the $100 value previously. Mr. Jason Barrett, 754 Upper Colonial, apologized for not doing his homework to determine if he was able to build his shed in the location that it is in. Since has no defense, he would be willing to pay double the fee to obtain a building permit for his shed. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Ms. Carol Lang, 779 Upper Colonial Drive, came forward to address the issue of the unused park land. She stated that Wentworth Park has existed since she moved into Mendota Heights in 1977. Both of the parcels in question have structures already located on them – the fence being built approximately 12 years ago. There is a stand of older beautiful trees in the area and the neighbors do use that area to walk their dogs and the kids play in the woods. It may be unused by the city but it is used by the neighborhood. The park adds to the serene quiet atmosphere that everyone in June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 14 of 21 Mendota Heights enjoys. The city does maintain the property adjacent to these two parcels and she does not understand why they don’t maintain these areas as well. When she walks through there it does not appear to be a ‘wetland’. Her concern is that deeding these parcels to the private property owners would be setting a bad precedence within Mendota Heights. She and her neighbors compiled some recommendations, which she shared with the Commission: • The neighbors support the Bennett’s and the Barrett’s in their mission to get everything resolved; however, they should only purchase the park land that is necessary to maintain their fence, garden, and shed. Leave the rest as open space for the neighborhood to use. • They would like to ensure that the purchase price is of fair market value • She had signatures from 10 people who live on Upper Colonial Drive and Wentworth that support coming up with some compromise agreement Chair Field requested that the signed petition be left with staff for the public record. Commissioner Toth asked if public works was taking care of the property around that area and included mowing the trail, why were these parcels located on the backside of these homes not maintained as well. Mr. Ruzek replied that he spoke with the parks lead staff person and he felt that this part of the property was not usable park land. It could be used as open space; however, the city would not be maintaining this area. Staff has been looking at, as part of the pollinator friendly initiative, looking at not maintaining certain areas. Commissioner Toth expressed his appreciation to the property owners for taking the initiative upon themselves for taking care of these two parcels. Ms. Susan Anzion, 766 Upper Colonial Drive, echoed the suggestion made earlier about the desire to let the property owners keep the pieces they have already been maintaining, just leave the wooded areas behind as park land. She also recommended that the Commissioners come out and take a look at the land. Mr. Stan Lang, 779 Upper Colonial Drive, noted that there is a stream very close to the property under consideration. The stream runs all of the way through the wetlands, through the neighborhood, over the hill, and all of the way down to the river. It is nice to have a barrier property around this that is not being treated by chemicals, there is a lot of wildlife there and he has used it himself lots of times to walk his dogs. It is a delightful little space. Mr. Jason Barrett returned and expressed his appreciation for the feedback from the neighbors and stated that he too value the strip of trees and has no wish to touch them at all. He has no wish to stop the neighbors from walking their dogs back there. He did not that the little stream did not appear to be a part of the land under consideration. It is close; however, it is not on the properties. He has a lot of respect, commitment, and love for the nature and wildlife, which is why they like this property so much. He would not want to prevent anyone from using the land as it exists now. June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 15 of 21 There is a path behind the Bennett’s fence and what he mows as his yard, however, it is not a trail or anything. He has only seen the Anzion’s using it. He has seen some deer back there as well. It seems to him that keeping the access to the park would be a good thing. Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-16 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, VARIANCE, AND LOT SPLIT/COMBINATION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, SUBJECT TO THE DELETION OF ANY REFERENCE TO THE VARIANCE: The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed Lot Line Adjustment and Variance requests: 1. The proposed lot line adjustment and variance requests meet the purpose and intent of the City Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The purpose of the requests are to resolve an existing encroachment over the interior property boundary line. 3. The existing conditions were not created by the current property owners and provides a reasonably relief from these standards; and creates a practical difficulty in adjusting the interior property boundary line in compliance with the lot width standard in order to address the non-conformities created by the encroachment. 4. Other alternatives to attain compliance that would require removal of portions of the dwelling or acquisition of additional property not owned by the applicants, which is deemed impractical. 5. Approval of the requests will have no visible impact on either property and will not negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed Lot Split/Lot Combination and related Variance requests: 1. The proposed subdivision request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The purpose of the requests are to formalize the existing conditions and address the nonconformities created by the encroachments onto city-owned property. 3. The temporary non-conformities created as a result of the requests will be eliminated once the property in-question is combined and dissolved by the private property owners. 4. Approval of the requests will not negatively impact the park or the character of the neighborhood. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CONDITION #1, AND THE INSERTION OF THE LANGUAGE STATING THAT THE COMMISSION June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 16 of 21 WOULD DEFER TO CITY COUNCIL THE DETERMINE THE VALUE OF THE LAND TO BE ACQUIRED BY THE APPLICANTS: 1. The Applicants agree to pay $500.00 to the city’s Park Reserve Fund as payment for each parcel to be transferred to them as part of the lot split approval on the city-owned park land. 2. The Applicants shall combine or attach the new parcels created under the lot split to their own respective homestead parcels. 3. All transfer or deed documents which convey the portion of lands under the lot line adjustment and lot split process shall be recorded with Dakota County. 4. The Applicants agree to pay for any legal fees by the city attorney should any work be done by them in the preparation of a purchase agreement or any other legal documents, title work, and/or recording documents. Commissioner Noonan stated that he listened very carefully to the recommendation and the notion of bifurcating that park land, the surplus land and the back of the Bennett’s to the fence line, just narrows it even more and makes less usable. He also wanted to defer to the Parks & Recreation Commission because they are the stewards of park land within the city. If they have made the decision that it’s not needed for city purposes and it could be declared surplus, and a conveyance to the adjoining owners can be made, he would defer to that decision. However, ultimately Council will have to weigh the recommendations of both the Park & Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission. AYES: 5 NAYS: 1 (CORBETT) ABSENT: 1 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 2, 2018 meeting. B) PLANNING CASE #2018-13 KRISTIN ELMQUIST (OWNER – FOR THE LOVE OF DOGS) ZONING CODE AMENDMENT – DOG TRAINING IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL ZONE Working from materials provided to the commission prior to the meeting, Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Commission was being asked to consider a request from Ms. Kristin Elmquist, owner of For the Love of Dogs located in Hudson, WI, for an amendment to City Code Title 12-1G-1 which would allow dog training or similar uses as a permitted or conditional use in the I-Industrial Zone. A notice of hearing on this item was posted and published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters were mailed to all property owners within 350-feet of the subject property. No comments or objections have been received. Mr. Benetti stated that since has been working for the city, he has received a number of calls from various groups, individuals, and businesses wanting to provide a ‘doggie daycare’ service or business. Almost 90% of them have been looking at the old Laser-Tech building on Lexington Avenue. Ms. Elmquist also looked at this particular site; however, the deal fell through. She has tentatively secured a tenant-lease space at 1415 Mendota Heights Road. June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 17 of 21 Mr. Benetti also noted that he has spoken with his colleagues in other communities and attended a planning seminar; he discovered that doggie daycare type facilities have become very popular with many trying to incorporate them into their ordinances. Ms. Elmquist provides for very professional, on-site dog training only, which would include manners, obedience, tracking and hunting training, along with canine massage therapy services. Also, the facility would contain an indoor pool for dock-diving training and competition. Mr. Benetti noted that the city code is somewhat silent on what could be allowed for animal care or animals per se. There are currently two definitions in the city code: Animal Kennel and Veterinary. Currently, the B-1 Limited Business District allows for a cat clinic as a Conditional Use. The B-w Neighborhood Business and B-3 General Business districts allow Animal Hospital (Veterinary Clinic) as Conditional Use. Even though the city identifies animal kennels under the Title 12 Zoning, there are no allowances for them. Mr. Benetti researched this as far back as 1991 and discovered that it has always been defined, but it was never listed as a permitted or conditional use under any part of the city’s updated zoning ordinances. The City of West St. Paul probably has one of the best description of what a dog training facility is. Mr. Benetti spoke with their city planner and the use or activity over there is very successful and it has generated zero complaints. If the city were to accept this zoning ordinance, they could simply amend Animal Kennels definition as, “A place where three (3) or more of any single type of domestic animal are owned, boarded, bred, cared-for, trained, or offered for sale”. The intent would be that if anyone wanted to have a doggie daycare use in the Industrial Zoning or a training facility, it could come under as a dog kennel and this would cover it. If the city decided to amend the definition to allow for training activities, then they would need to decide or determine which zoning district it would be placed in and if it would be a permitted use or a conditional use. He reminded the commission that by placing this stand-alone use inside a district, there would be no standards affixed to said use, unless the commission recommended otherwise. Mr. Benetti took the West St. Paul standards, and incorporated some of the same standards associated with Vet Clinics, and presented his suggestion for the Animal Kennel ordinance language. Staff recommended the Commission discuss Animal Kennels or Animal/Dog Training Facility; or simply amend Animal Kennel or provide Animal Training Facility as a new use, and where that use should be allowed. June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 18 of 21 Commissioner Noonan noted that if the city were to keep it as a conditional use it provide the city with additional flexibility to be more responsive to specific applications. He would be inclined to go with the conditional use. Chair Field agreed that this should be a conditional use. Commissioner Magnuson suggested that the Commission answer the three major questions: 1. Should the proposed use or activities be a conditional use or a permitted use? 2. Should the city limit use to the I-Industrial District or allow into one or more of the Business Districts? 3. Should the city limit it to a dog training facility and just add one more narrow use in the code? (If so - the city needs to take this opportunity to clean-up the current Code language, follow Bloomington’s lead and change the name to “Pet Care or Pet Service Facility” - as opposed to a kennel; and incorporate veterinary clinic and animal hospital under these new defined uses). Commissioner Magnuson also agreed that it should be a conditional use but she would be agreeable to having it in the Industrial District or the Business District, or both. Commissioner Noonan commented that having it in the Industrial District would allow for much larger facilities than would be permitted in the Business Districts. Chair Field agreed. Chair Field opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward. Ms. Kristin Elmquist, owner of For the Love of Dogs based out of Hudson, WI, stated that she is trying to open an additional facility in the Twin Cities Metro area to try and expand her business. Commissioner Magnuson stated that she has no problem with what is being planned; however, this gives the commission an opportunity to clean up their code a little bit. If this were to take a month or more, would that have any negative effect upon their application or schedule? Ms. Elmquist replied that it would kill the deal they have on a potential location. If she is not able to move on the lease quickly, then the landlord will look elsewhere and they would have to withdraw their application. Commissioner Noonan reiterated the comments and ideas made by the commission; however, they do not have an ordinance in front of them to consider. Ms. Elmquist understood but again, explained her dilemma of needing to move quickly to obtain the space. Commissioner Magnuson stated that she is not ready to vote on this document at this time; it is not ready. The commission would probably be looking at reviewing the ordinance at next month’s meeting at the soonest. Ms. Elmquist stated that the landlord would like to see them open their doors by September 1, 2018. Much after that then the landlord would pull the plug on the deal. She asked if the June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 19 of 21 review/adoption of the ordinance and her application for a conditional use permit could happen simultaneously. Commissioner Toth noted that tracking and hunting training typically requires overnight stays for the dogs; however, Ms. Elmquist states that this particular facility would not be kenneling any dogs. Ms. Elmquist responded that any type of overnight training would take place at the Hudson facility and not at this facility. This facility would only be for classes where the owner would also attend and when finished, they would all leave and go home with their owner. Commissioner Noonan stated that if the city were to consider this amendment, then they would want to provide broad definitions and not only tailor it to her specific request. He also agreed that the commission was not in any position to pass an ordinance at this time because they do not have an ordinance to act upon. The best they could do would be to make a strong recommendation to staff, have them bring it back with the necessary homework having been done, and act upon it at that time. In response to Ms. Elmquist’s question about submitting her conditional use permit application at the same time the ordinance was under consideration, Chair Field responded that her application could be submitted but it would have to be contingent upon the ordinance being passed and her application being in compliance with that ordinance. Mr. Benetti agreed and stated that in order to apply standards to a conditional use permit, he would need to have an ordinance to provide those standards. In the interest of brainstorming, Commissioner Mazzitello suggested that the commission have staff craft an ordinance for the July meeting that had a very specific list of permitted uses, and then they could have the insularly uses as conditional. There would be no secondary process for the applicants, but the commission could still have a number the varying uses that have been deliberated under the CUP process. Commissioner Magnuson asked, that since the commission only makes recommendations, if there was any reason why the commission could not entertain a conditional use permit application at the same meeting that they are entertaining an ordinance. In other words, hear and decide on the ordinance and then hear and decide on the conditional use permit. One of the conditions of the CUP would be that the ordinance be adopted by the City Council. Commissioner Mazzitello noted that the risk of that suggestion would be that the ordinance may change, making the CUP application void. However, if the applicant were willing help craft the ordinance, the risk would be less. Commissioner Corbett stated that he believed either of those options was a good idea, he was just unsure which one to pursue. Additional discussions took place regarding an outdoor fenced relief area, kenneling, owners being present with their dogs at all times, length of time for the classes, and sanitation measures. June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 20 of 21 Chair Field brought all back to the task at hand, which was to consider an amendment to the City Code and after listening to everything it appears that the Commission would be in favor. The issue is on what basis and how and how fast can they make it in respect to Ms. Elmquist’s needs and balance the city’s needs. Commissioner Magnuson suggested a recommendation and guidance. It appeared that the commission had settled on three of the big items; however, they do not know if the City Council would agree to that. If the Commissioner were to put forth a recommendation saying this is what they want the ordinance to look like, then they would not have to waste their time crafting an ordinance that the city council would not ultimately agree with. Commissioner Noonan, in an attempt to clarify, said the Commission would: 1) Recommend a refined definition of Pet Service or Pet Care Facility [as discussed]; 2) Recommend a distinction between uses that are permitted as a right versus uses that would require a conditional use permit; and 3) Recommend any use be allowed in the I-Industrial zone only. The Commission requested feedback and direction from the City Council. Chair Field left the public hearing open. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO MAKE THE ABOVE MENTIONED RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 Staff Update on Approved or Pending Developments Community Development Director provided the following updates: Planning Case 2018-11, Wetlands Permit to Sherburne Construction & Hugh Cullen for property located 1179 Centre Point Circle as passed as Resolution 2018-38. No decision has been received on the Michael Development case. The At Home Apartments hosted a tour of their facility with the City Council and other staff members, along with former Mayor Krebsbach and former Councilmember Norton, which everyone enjoyed and were impressed with the facility. It is a very nice, well designed project. There are two items already planned for next month’s Planning Commission meeting. Adjournment June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 21 of 21 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:40 P.M. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1