The URL can be used to link to this page

2019-12-19 Planning Comm Agenda Packet CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA December 19, 2019 7:00 PM- Mendota Heights City Hall 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights MN 55118 1. Call to Order / Roll Call 2. Adopt Agenda 3. Approval of the November 26, 2019 regular meeting minutes 4. Public Hearings a. Case No. 2019-30: Concept Plan Review – proposed mixed-use development consisting of a 47-Unit Senior (55+) Apartment, new Restaurant and Co-Working Space facility – located on the city-owned lots in The Village PUD (Dodd Rd./Maple St./Linden St.) b. Case No. 2019-31: Critical Area Permit & Wetlands Permit for a new in-ground swimming pool project – located at 774 Sibley Memorial Highway (Matt & Jeanne Kenevan – Owners-Applicants) 5. Unfinished Business (Planning Items) a. Case No. 2019-20: Variance for new personal self-storage facility in the I-Industrial Zone – located at 1178 Northland Drive (Metro Storage, LLC – Applicants) – TABLED at the August 27, 2019 and September 24, 2019 meetings 6. General Planning Items a. Review and Approve the 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule / Calendar 7. Staff Announcements / Updates 8. Adjourn Meeting 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 Hall at 651.452.1850 with requests. November 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 1 of 9 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 26, 2019 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 26, 2019 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following were present: Chair Mary Magnuson, Commissioners Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Absent: John Mazzitello. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of September 24, 2019 Minutes COMMISSIONER NOONON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2019 AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE 2019-28 METRO STORAGE, LLC, 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Metro Storage, LLC has requested a follow-up to their previous applications for the Conditional Use Permit and Variance on a personal self-storage facility in the Industrial Park. In this particular case, they are asking for a simple line amendment to Title 12-1G-2 Subsection H regarding Floor Area Ratio (FAR). This item was presented under a public hearing process. Mr. Benetti reminded the Commission that the FAR is defined or determined as the numerical value taken through dividing the floor area of the building or buildings by the lot area. In the case of the Metro Storage, LLC their building was to be 118,000 square foot building, which equated to a FAR of 1.24 and the current ordinance is that any facility shall not exceed 0.5. Mr. Benetti reminded the Commission of recent history involving Metro Storage, LLC: • January 22 and February 26, 2019 – zoning ordinance amendment to remove “self-storage” from the list of prohibited uses in the Industrial zone; along with a related amendment to allow such use with certain standards – RECOMMENDED DENIAL November 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 2 of 9 o City Council elected to adopt Ordinance No. 538 removing “Personal Self-Storage Facility” from the list of prohibited uses and allow under a Conditional Use Permit • August 27, 2019 – Conditional Use Permit and Variance to allow for a self-storage facility in the Industrial zone and to exceed the maximum FAR from 0.5 to 1.24 – TABLED • September 24, 2109 – separate recommendation to strike-out the FAR from the Industrial District Ordinance which would make the Variance request unnecessary. RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE CUP only if the strike-out of the FAR was approved by City Council. • October 2, 2019 – City Council tabled the adoption of Ordinance No. 545, which would remove the FAR from the Industrial Zone, along with the CUP request to a workshop meeting • October 28, 2109 – City Council Workshop Meeting – consensus was to keep the FAR intact • November 6, 2019 – City Council DENIED Ordinance No. 545 which would have removed the FAR from the Industrial District Ordinance Metro Storage, LLC is now requesting that the FAR in the Industrial Zone not exceed 1.25, thereby allowing them to construct their proposed 3-story 118,000 square foot self-storage facility. Mr. Benetti shared where self-storage uses are allowed in the surrounding communities, whether by permit, by CUP, or no restrictions. He also shared the FAR standards from said communities. It should be noted that this requested amendment would only apply to personal self-storage uses in the district and would not change or impact the current 0.5 FAR standard for other industrial uses in the district. The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) request remains a tabled item. Commissioner Noonan requested background on the Council’s decision to deny the removal of the FAR from the zoning ordinance. Mr. Benetti replied that some of the comments were that they felt changes were not needed at this time. It had been on the books for a number of years and most of the current uses were under the 0.5 threshold, except for a couple. Overall consensus (3-2) was that the FAR did not need to be removed or changed for this use or any other. Commissioner Noonan then made note of their discussion that typical zoning standards (parking, height, setbacks, landscaping) were sufficient controls and that the FAR was unnecessary. Also, that the nature of self-storage makes anything less than three stories unfeasible. Commissioner Noonan then asked, in terms of the Council discussion, Council took the action to amend the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning to eliminate the prohibition against self-storage facilities. By that action, the whole notion of a self-storage was sanctioned by Council. Mr. Benetti agreed and then he paraphrased a number of other comments that were made. A few of the Councilmembers said that had they known that was use would have required such a higher FAR, they never would have voted favorably for that use to be brought in. However, staff and the Commission were not talking about the FAR at that point, they were talking about the use itself. They did not know the details of what the applicant’s plan was going to be. Mr. Benetti did not want to muddy the water of the original request – which was did the city want to allow this use in the Industrial zone. The Commission originally denied the request; however, the City Council approved it with a Conditional Use Permit. November 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 3 of 9 When the use came back to the Commission, the CUP was easily met except for the Floor Area Ratio (FAR). When discussing, the logical step that the Commission took was to remove the FAR from the ordinance and thereby negating the need for a Variance. Staff assumed that Council would accept that recommendation; however, three out of the five Councilmembers disagreed. Commissioner Noonan stated that the Commission has the very narrow choice of either adopting a zoning standard that takes the FAR up to 1.25 or deny it; and then the Variance comes back. Mr. Benetti confirmed and said that if the Commission recommends denial of this request to increase the FAR for self-storage facilities and the Council upholds that decision, then the Variance request would have to come back to the Planning Commission if the applicant so chooses. Chair Magnuson stated that she watched the City Council meeting and she understood that the Council denied the Commission’s recommendation to eliminate the FAR. She noted that their decision was to not eliminate or change the FAR and keep it at 0.5. She asked if the Commission was to recommend adoption of the code amendment to change the FAR – she was afraid to put this applicant in the position of being in the middle of a ping-pong match with them as the ball. She asked what the likelihood was realistically of this going forward. Mr. Benetti replied that the sentiment he got from the workshop meeting was although there were some councilmembers that still favor the use; most seemed unwilling to support the elimination of the 0.5 FAR standard in the Industrial District. Mr. Benetti further stated the Council ultimately decided at the following council meeting to reject the proposed amendment, thereby leaving the 0.5 FAR standard intact. The Council also suggested planning staff and the city attorney work with the applicant to see if there were any other options or ideas to present at a future meeting. Staff did look at the ordinances and discovered that there are other uses that have specific standards that do allow for flexible allowances like this. He reiterated that the ordinance request would apply only to this specific use. Commissioner Petschel stated that the fact that the Commission is having to change the rules should not negate entirely a Variance because they basically would be admitting this project cannot pass the current standards. The last time they were in they were pretty honest and made no attempt to describe a practical difficulty. The rules did not make their business work. Commissioner Katz asked how they came up with the 1.25; there was discussion based on other models of what is the right number to use. Mr. Benetti replied that their number for the Variance was 1.24; and it was suggested that if 1.25 would work for the Applicant, they should make it 1.25. He also suggested that if they wanted to do a higher number they could do so; however, it is important that when people apply for a Variance, you do not ask for more than what you need or desire. The 1.25 basically meets their current 1.24 for this need. Commissioner Katz asked, given the amount of space that is available for future self-storage units, if someone else does want to come in and construct their own self-storage facility does the city have any numbers about what other storage facilities and their FAR calculations are. Meaning if this goes through and another self-storage use wants to come in; they are now stuck with this 1.25 November 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 4 of 9 FAR and if they want/need more, then they have to go through this same process. Mr. Benetti replied that this was a valid question as there are a lot of ‘what ifs’ built in that question. If someone were to come in with a request for a self-storage facility, their impacts are the same as what Metro Storage had to go through. They are limited by their footprint, setbacks, parking setbacks, landscaping, open space requirements, etc. If that site is bigger or smaller, they still have to maintain the height requirement, the FAR of 1.25, the 50% building footprint threshold and the 25% the open space. Commissioner Noonan stated that if a second user identifies a site in the Industrial Park and they elect to bring forward a self-storage, but it is a much larger site that this one, they are still tied to the 1.25 FAR. However, theoretically the Commission could hear them coming forward and saying that they have a larger site and they need to make their economics work; 1.25 does not give them the critical mass to justify it and they want to do an amendment to take it up to 2.00 for their site. So, this becomes a slippery slope. Commissioner Corbett raised his concern of having an applicant driven amendment opening the door to others. He asked if there was a way to word the amendment so that the raising of the FAR applies to all rather than to a specific applicant/use. Mr. Benetti replied that he believes that to be a good option; however, right now this is what the applicant was requesting. Questions were bantered back and forth about the consequences of recommending approval or denial of the request, potential consequences if the Council were to approve or deny, and Metro Storages next steps if the request was denied by Council. Mr. Jim Walston, attorney for Metro Storage, came forward and stated that he did not have anything to add that hadn’t already been discussed. He believed that after working with staff and the City Attorney they came up with an objective resolution for the zoning ordinance. The Commission asked questions about the footprint of the facility the Councilmembers toured in Burnsville and the similarities of that building to the proposed, and Mr. Heilman’s recollection about the Council discussions. No new information was provided that had not already been shared. Chair Magnuson noted that she was uncomfortable about sending this back to Council and then asked if the Council thought that 1.25 was too much of a jump from 0.5, was there any way that Metro Storage could construct their building. Mr. Heilman replied that there is always a way to do it; however, he would have to go back and work with their acquisitions people to understand metrics to justify anything like that. What he would go back to is that the zoning regulations allow a building of this size. The zoning code and the FAR are in conflict with the remainder of the code. This same building could be built but with only one floor, as opposed to two or three stories. The mass would still be the same, so this is not a mass discussion. It really comes down to intensity. Based on the way they operate they are such a low intensity that FAR does not make sense with their use. This same conflict would be brought up if they had to have a discussion about a Variance. Chair Magnuson asked Commissioner Noonan if the idea of massing was really population or was it density. Commissioner Noonan replied that the massing concern relates to the elimination of the FAR across the entire industrial area. In terms of the floor area and the massing, if they wanted to November 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 5 of 9 follow the zoning and the FAR, they could build the same ‘box’ with the only difference being that instead of three floors, there would only be one floor with a clear span of 40-50-60 feet, which does not meet the consumer storage facility model. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO PROPOSED AN AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 552 BY THE INSERTION OF NEW SECTION H WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR ANY FACILITY SHALL NOT EXCEED 1.25 AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 3, 2019 meeting. General Planning Items A) PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION OF NEW ORDINANCE REGULATING THE TEMPORARY KEEPING OF GOATS FOR PRESCRIBED GRAZING AND NOXIOUS VEGETATION MANAGEMENT IN THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that staff requested feedback on creating a new ordinance to Cite Code regulating the temporary keeping of goats for prescribed grazing and invasive/noxious vegetation management on properties in Mendota Heights. A few years ago, the City provided for some goats at the Pilot Knob park area to help control some of the buckthorn and other weeds that were growing up there, which they did a great job. He spoke to colleagues in other cities and they had success using goats to keep down the buckthorn and other unwanted vegetation. Most of the cities he polled allow for two permits per year, one in the spring and one in the fall. They are 30-day permits that can be extended for other additional periods, depending on how infested the site might be. These permits would allow for a professional licensed company to provide goats to a property, property owners, or homeowners association. This professional would fence the goats in, feed them, watch over them, provide shelter and then they would remove them after the permit period is over; then bring them back a second time. Mr. Benetti noted that Council had expressed concerns when they rented goats about the fecal matter not being too close to water bodies. He suggested a 25-foot no disturbance buffer as far as November 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 6 of 9 the goats are concerned; however, people could go into that area and control the noxious vegetation. Chair Magnuson stated that, as the understood, the process would be that if the Commission had any suggestions or input that they should provide direction. Otherwise, staff would work on an ordinance and bring it back to the Commission for review and approval. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Noonan asked for confirmation that the goats are not brought in and taken out on a daily basis. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Noonan then asked for confirmation that an area of 10,000 square feet could house four goats, and then they could add one goat per X number of square feet. Mr. Benetti confirmed. He then asked if it would be reasonable for a standard Mendota Heights lot. He understood how feasible it could be for a significantly large lot. Mr. Benetti replied that the intent was that staff would carve out the area where this would be needed. For instance, if someone had a regular sized lot with a yard and landscaping but the back one-third was overgrown or wooded, then staff would classify that area only as the area the goats could be in. Commissioner Noonan then asked how the goats are restricted to just that area. It was explained that the company providing the goats would have the entire area where the goats could be fenced in with an electric fence. Commissioner Katz asked about potential noise nuisance to his neighbors. Mr. Benetti replied that currently the city and staff are at an advantage as they can find out what works and what does not work. He has already been told by one community that they have 6-foot high fence allowance. They just realized that a goat cannot eat over a 6-foot high fence, so they need to bring that back down. Some permits require the neighbors to be informed and agree to allow this to come in. Commissioner Katz then asked about the installation of the fences. Mr. Benetti replied that he and staff had no concerns because it is temporary and permitted under the temporary goat grazing permit. Goats are herd animals and even if one were to get out somehow, they are not likely to run off. They stay close to the herd. Also, the company supplying the goats come and check on them daily. Commissioner Petschel asked how often the coyotes get them. Mr. Benetti replied that there have been a few massacres with the chicken coops. It could be an issue, but the benefit is that they are fenced in and hopefully the coyotes would not get in. He did has not heard of it being an issue. In response to the waste generated by the goats, Mr. Benetti replied that it is small pellets and it is easier to just leave it alone. It is next to impossible to pick it up in these areas. This is one of the reasons for the 25-foot buffer between the goats and water bodies. Commissioner Noonan asked if the city was limiting itself by only allowing goats. He asked if there were other grazing animals that could work just as well. Mr. Benetti replied that he believed people were looking at sheep as well, but goats were more manageable and acceptable. Cows are too big. November 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 7 of 9 Commissioner Noonan stated that he understood that staff may go through the exercise as geographically defined areas where this would work and where it would not work. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Permits would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Katz asked if they needed to look at the critical area in another way if they decided to go with this. Mr. Benetti replied that the DNR views buckthorn and other noxious vegetation as something that can go. They have no issues with goats taking out buckthorn, even though it thrives in those environments; however, people want to get rid of it. Commissioner Noonan asked if there were obligations of the landowner to revegetate and stabilize the area once the goats have done their job. Mr. Benetti replied that it usually revegetates itself afterwards. Chair Magnuson stated that the Commissioners would provide feedback, suggestions, and other questions to Mr. Benetti in regard to the permitting of goats for buckthorn and noxious plant removal. Commissioner Toth noted that the City of Eagan had a really nice goat grazing ordinance. Mr. Benetti agreed and stated that Burnsville has a nice one too. Commissioner Noonan thought it would be interesting to know the frequency of permits being pulled as well – on an annual basis. Commissioner Toth asked if there would be any fees to the city when a company comes in. Mr. Benetti replied that the only cost to the city would be if they hired a company to bring goats in for a specific area. All fees are encumbered by the applicant. B) PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION OF A NEW ORDINANCE REGULATING ADULT USE ESTABLISHMENTS AND SEXUAL ORIENTED BUSINESSES IN THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this discussion stemmed from a phone inquiry from outside resident wanting to bring in a male stripper review or business. He discovered that the city’s ordinance does not address this. He has had city attorneys tell him that if it is not in the ordinance, then it is not allowed. However, a number of years ago the Supreme Court decided that adult businesses are a protected right and cities have to allow them in somewhere. The city has to at least provide for the opportunity for them to come into the community or a local government unit. The city has a right to place any type of higher reasonable standards. In the early 2000’s the League of Minnesota Cities provided a model ordinance for cities to adopt, and many cities throughout the metro and statewide adopted ordinances regulating such uses. However, the City of Mendota Heights never created or adopted a similar ordinance. When Mr. November 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 8 of 9 Benetti received the phone call, he approached City Administrator Mark McNeill to devise a way to be proactive on this rather than reactive. After discussions with various individuals and with City Attorney Andrew Pratt, it was discovered that Minnesota State Statute 617.242 may not be enough to eliminate or preclude such uses from the city. Therefore, staff approached City Council, who then adopted Ordinance No. 546, a 12- month Interim Ordinance Placing a Temporary Moratorium on Adult Use Establishments & Sexually Oriented Businesses. This was done to allow staff the time necessary to research and prepare information for the Planning Commission and City Council to consider creating a new ordinance that regulates such uses in the community. Mr. Benetti noted that there are other ordinances and language in those ordinances that can be reviewed/used in this ordinance. Chair Magnuson noted a possible typographical error in Ordinance No. 546 and included massage establishments as needing regulation. Mr. Benetti replied that the city reviewed and tweaked the message therapy licensing ordinance just a few months ago and this moratorium does not affect them at all. Commissioner Katz noted that another city dealt with not only adult establishments, but with pawn shops and licensed firearms at the exact same time. He then asked if Mendota Heights would be considering these as well. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative. Chair Magnuson shared her thoughts by stating that Mendota Heights is predominantly a residential city with small pockets of commercial zones and a small industrial park. So, her recommendation would be, when looking at other ordinances, it would be helpful to look at ordinances adopted by other cities that are similarly situated to Mendota Heights that are predominantly residential with very few areas where these businesses could legitimately exist. She also hoped that the City Council would approve the ability of Mr. Benetti working closely with the City Attorney in crafting the ordinance. Her personal opinion was that the city could not regulate content, but they can regulate time, place, and matter and she would just as soon regulate it to a point of as far as the city could go and not cross the line. Staff Announcements / Updates Community Development Director Tim Benetti wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving, safe travels, and get snowplows ready. Chair Magnuson reminded everyone that the next Planning Commission meeting would be on Thursday, December 19 at 7:00 p.m. due to the Christmas Holiday. Mr. Benetti noted that for that evening, the developer of The Village lots would be presenting their concept plan for Planning Commission review and feedback. They also plan to hold a Public Informational Meeting on December 5. November 26, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 9 of 9 Adjournment COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:23 P.M. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Planning Staff Report DATE: December 19, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-30 CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW – MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT: Grand Real Estate Advisors PROPERTY ADDRESS: City-Owned Lots in The Village (Dodd Rd./Maple St./Linden St.) ZONING/GUIDED: MU-PUD Mixed Use ACTION DEADLINE: January 19, 2020 INTRODUCTION Grand Real Estate Advisors is requesting Concept Plan Review of the new mixed-use development proposal for the city-owned lots, generally located in The Village. The lots are bounded by Dodd Road to the west, Maple Street to the south, and Linden Street to the east (between the Linden Street Lofts condominiums and Mendakota Animal Hospital). A public hearing for this concept plan review was posted and published in the local newspaper, and notice letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 1,320-ft. (1/4 mile) of the subject property. BACKGROUND The subject properties consist of four parcels: Outlot D at 0.95 acres, Lot 1/Blk. 3 at 0.48 acres, Lot 2/Blk. 3 at 0.79 acres, and Lot 1/Blk. 2 at 0.45 acres., or 2.67 acres total. The properties are guided and zoned MU-PUD Mixed Use and have been since 2002. The original and approved Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Master Plan for the Mendota Heights Town Center (now known as The Village of Mendota Heights) included a mix of retail, office and residential uses. The Village PUD is now substantially complete, with the exception of the last phase, referred to as the “West Neighborhood” in the PUD Master Plan. This West Neighborhood called for 14 residential townhomes with 5 home-office style townhomes. These 19 units never materialized under the former developer; and as part of a foreclosure proceeding a number of years ago, the City acquired the ownership rights to these four undeveloped parcels. In early 2017, the City received a separate proposal from Trammell-Crow group from Chicago develop a 5 story, 150-unit senior luxury apartment building (later reduced to four and eventually 3-stories). After considerable discussion with the Trammel group and neighboring residents/citizens, the Council elected not to proceed with a proposed Letter of Intent to purchase, and the developer withdrew their request. Even after this initial development plan was rejected, city staff continued to field a number of inquiries and requests from various developers wanting to either buy or develop these city-owned lots. Staff then Planning Case 2019-30 Village PUD -Concept Plan Review (GREA) Page 2 of 4 requested direction from the city council on how to proceed, and in early 2019 we received permission to prepare an official “Request for Proposals” (RFP) soliciting development ideas or plan from local development groups. On March 19, 2019, the city advertised the RFP in the official city newspaper (Pioneer Press), and posted and noticed the RFP on city’s website and social media outlets, and sent the RFP to over 45 development/real estate groups and individuals. On May 6, 2019, the RFP’s were due the city, and we received only five development proposals. ON may 21st. the Council reviewed the five development plans at a workshop meeting, and later invited two groups: At Home Apartments and Grand Real Estate Advisors (GREA) to make a brief presentation of their plant before the City Council at a later date. On June 4th, At Homes and GREA presented their respective plans, at both an open meeting and later in a closed-meeting session with the city council. After deliberations, the Council chose GREA as the preferred developer of the city owned lots. A letter of intent and purchase agreement for $1,110,000.00 from GREA was later accepted by the City Council. The Village of Mendota Heights PUD The final Master Development Plan and Design Standards for The Village was approved in 2002-2003 and constructed in phases, with most of the center’s construction completing around 2007. The development contains the following uses and amenities: • Diverse mix of retail/office space (single and two-story) • On-street and underground public parking facilities (approximately 400 spaces) • 36-unit condominium units (2 buildings) • 20 row homes (3 buildings) • 60-unit senior apartment building (owned and operated by the Dakota County CDA) • Market Square Park (0.24-acre open space with fountain) • River to River Greenway Trail connection (regional trail) Any changes to the final plan will require an Amendment to the Final PUD Plan in compliance with Title 12, Chapter 1, Article K of the City Code and approval by the City Council. All amendments to a previously General Location of City-Owned Lots Planning Case 2019-30 Village PUD -Concept Plan Review (GREA) Page 3 of 4 approved PUD is made through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application process. The CUP will require the full submittal of site plans, elevation/architectural plans, civil/engineering plans, and landscape plans. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is a new 47-unit market-rate apartment building for seniors (55+) age-restricted housing. Units will range from 1-bedroom units approx. 810-sf. to 950-sf. in size, with 2-bed units 1,000 to 1,350-sf. in size, and 2-bed + den units up to approx. 1,500-sf. in size. The building will provide on-site amenities for the residents including a community room, fitness center and private terrace. The plan also includes a new 4,700 sf. sit-down restaurant (unknown at this time) with an outdoor seating patio area. The new building also provides a 1,757 sf. co-working space, which will be available for residents and outside visitors/tenants. The single, “L-shaped” building will be a 3-story wood framed structure, with a total gross square footage of approximately 108,573-sf. (single-floor building footprint of 28,403-sf.) The building footprint is approximately 24.6% of the total site area. The new building is shown with 17-ft. to 23.1 ft. setbacks off Dodd Road ROW line; a 70-ft. setback from the north line; 21.9-ft. from Linden Street ROW; and 10.4-ft. off Maple Street. The surface parking lot areas are setback approx. 4-ft. from property lines. Access to the apartment building site will take place from Maple Street to the south and from Linden Street to the east. No access is planned or requested directly from or onto Dodd Road. Parking for the development will include 25 surface parking spaces in the front of the building. Access to the underground parking will be from the east side of the building, with a sloped driveway leading underneath the building. The underground area will have 67 spaces dedicated for residents, along with bike/miscellaneous storage areas. The restaurant use will be provided with 41 spaces in the small triangular shaped parcel across Maple Street. A total of 133 spaces will be provided for the development. The new restaurant will consist of 3,020 sf. of seating/eating area, and 1,160-sf. of kitchen space. The outdoor patio of approx. 1,300-sf. will be located on the south side of the restaurant/building. A majority area north of the new apartment facility (Outlot D) will not be developed, and is intended to serve as natural buffer space between the Linden Lofts Condo development. During the preliminary review and assessment of these city-owned properties, staff and the developer noticed an existing boulder retaining wall (built for the Linden Lofts condos site), is encroaching into the Outlot D parcel. The developer, city and condo association reps have been discussing the option of carving-off a segment of this Outlot D to the condo association ownerships, or providing an easement and agreement for the condo owners to take over the ownership and control of this retaining wall. CONCEPT PLAN REVIE PROCESS Approval of a planned unit development is somewhat extensive and thorough. Per City Code Section 12- 1K-6, the procedure for approving a PUD begins with a Pre-Application Conference (usually between the developer and city staff); followed by a Concept Plan review, which leads to a Preliminary Development Plan and the Final Development Plan approvals. As noted earlier, the original The Village PUD & Master Plan was approved in 2002. Section 12-1K-6: G. Amendment to Final Development Plan, provides for the following two options: 1. Minor changes in the location, siting, and height of buildings and structures may be authorized by the council if required by engineering or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the final plan was approved. Such approval shall require the affirmative vote of a majority of all members of the council. Planning Case 2019-30 Village PUD -Concept Plan Review (GREA) Page 4 of 4 2. All other changes in use, or rearrangements of lots, blocks and building tracts, any changes in the provision of common open spaces, and all other changes in the approved final plan must be made by the council under the procedures authorized by this chapter for the approval of a conditional use permit. No amendments may be required by the council because of changes in conditions that have occurred since the final plan was approved or by changes in the development policy of the community. Since this development is not creating a new planned unit development, it would normally not need to go through this Concept Plan Review, and could have simply jumped to the No. 2 option of amendment by means of a CUP process. However, when working with the Developers on this item, it was suggested by city staff, and agreed upon by the Developers, to offer this new development plan first under a general Concept Plan application, to obtain and note any initial thoughts, concerns, comments, suggestions and likes on the project. The purpose of this plan review tonight is to simply receive and record any preliminary comments from the Planning Commission. Staff has also advertised and noticed this application as a public hearing item, so the commission may wish to take any comments from the general public and discuss these openly with the developer and/or city staff. According to the rules of the “official” concept plan review under Section 12-1K-6, the planning commission and the council each in their turn shall make recommendations regarding the concept plan giving reasons for their recommendations, but such action is not and is not intended to be binding on the city in any way, but simply advisory to the applicant on a preliminary basis only. Since this is not an official Concept Plan application for a new/proposed planned unit development, city staff is suggesting this application will only be reviewed by the Planning Commission at this time, with no recommendation needed to be passed on to the city council just yet. Depending on the outcome of the concept plan review by the planning commission, the Developer/Applicant will likely make any necessary changes, and prepare an official PUD Amendment application with a conditional use permit application for the January 27, 2020 regular meeting, followed by the city council consideration at the February 4th meeting. On Thursday, December 5, 2019, the developer hosted a neighborhood information meeting at Mendakota Country Club. According to the developers, the meeting was very well attended, and they received a number of positive comments and addressed a few comments of concerns and issues related to their plans. Staff will defer to the developer on providing the PC a verbal report or update on the outcome and comments made at this meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful and thorough consideration of this proposed new Concept Plan of the Mendota Senior Housing development by Grand Real Estate Advisors. After initial discussion with city staff and the developer, the commission should open and hold the public hearing, allow for any public comments, and close the hearing. Upon closing the hearing, the planning commission may provide final feedback, and make any suggestions or modifications to the plan if needed. There is no official recommendation to be made on this item to the city council; and your comments, suggestions or request for information will be passed directly to the developer for further considerations or revisions as necessary. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Aerial/Location Map 2. Mendota Senior Housing – Concept Plans 3. Landscape Plan 4. Vehicle Access Plan 5. Community Meeting PowerPoint Presentation 1960 700 702 750 1925 699 720 755 745 1933 1938 1944 1887 1899 697 1894 1888 698 1937 1941 1883 730 765 696 764 1882 740 776 772 693 780 692 689 698DODD RDLINDEN ST M A R K E T S T HILLTOP RD MAPLE ST M AIN STOAK STHWY OAK STVALLEY CURVE RDMULLBERRY LNRIDGE PL KARL HOHENSTEI N PL Dakota County GIS City-Owned LotsVillage at Mendota Heights2.67 Ac. (total) - Zoned MU-PUD City of Mendota Heights0180 SCALE IN FEETDate: 1/15/2019 GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. LAND USES City L ots Condomin iums Senior Housing Row Houses Office-Retail Office Retail Park 0.79 ac. 0.45 ac. 0.48 ac. 0.95 ac. EU 66666666666666666666 66666666666666666666666 6 6 6 66666666666666666666666666666 6 66666 6 666666666666666666666666666666³³* * ³** ³ ³³ ³ ³" ³ ( ( "! ³³!!" ³ * ! " " "" " " ! ! " " ³ ³ ³ ³ ³³³ ³ ³ !³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ! """" !³³³³ ³ " """! ³ !"" " "! *³³ ³" * " " " **** ! ! " " ! ! * * * * *!! " " " " * ³³66 66666 66 6 6666666666666666666 6666 66!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 (] 1960 702 750 764 770 1925 781 720 700 755 745 765 780 1933 1938 1944 1899 1941 1937 1894 699 656 1887 730 772 1888 740 698 697 784 698 782 790 776 HWY 62 DODD RDLIN D E N S TM A R K E T S T HILLTOP RD RIDGE PL MAP LE S T M AIN STOAK STHWY OAK STVALLEY CURVE RDKARL HOHENSTEI N PL HWY 62401'298'270'299' 236'149'144'141'138'90'124'275' 101.6'173.5'163.9' 104'108'101'1 4 2'125.7'1 0 4 .8 '106.8'7 4 . 6 '47'86.7'73.5'149' Dakota County GIS Village at Mendota HeightsCity-Owned Vacant Properties(Utilities M ap) City of Mendota Heights0190 SCALE IN FEETDate: 2/26/2019 GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. 0.79 ac.0.48 ac. 0.45 ac. 0.95 ac. 2019-30 11/19/2019 To: Tim Benetti Community Development Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 From Joseph Kimbrell On behalf of: Grand Real Estate Advisors Pope Architects 1295 Bandana Blvd. N Suite 200 St. Paul, MN 55108 Re: Concept Plan Submittal Mendota Heights New Senior Housing Vacant Village Lots Mendota Heights, MN 55118 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 11/18/19 Mr. Benetti, Pope architects is please to submit this letter and the attached initial concept review drawings for our proposed project located on the currently vacant village lots as described in the City of Mendota Heights RFP dated 3/29/19. The proposed project includes 47 units of 55+ age-restricted housing as well as a 4,200 S.F. restaurant and 1,757 S.F. co- working space. The 3-story wood framed structure built over a single story of underground parking is also planned to include community room, terrace, and fitness center tenant amenities. The proposed total gross square footage of the project is approximately 108,573 S.F. with a floor 1 building footprint of 28,403 S.F. The building footprint is approximately 24.6% of the total site area (all four lots). At this size there is a significant amount of site area available for landscaping improvements and open space including a 70’ plus buffer between our project and the nearest neighboring building to the north. The design for this project is guided by a desire to respect and fit into the already established village development in terms of scale and materiality. We will continue to develop the design with this principle in mind. We look forward to presenting these concept plans at the December Planning Commission meeting and to any comments the commission or staff may have. Please let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information regarding this project. Sincerely, Joseph Kimbrell Pope Architects LLC. Issues and Revisions: Commission No: Drawn by: Checked by: SHEET 1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200 ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735 (651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101 www.popearch.com POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION0"1/2"1" TRUE SHEET SCALE 11/18/2019 4:14:08 PM C:\Revit Projects\36142_19071_GREA MENDOTA HGTS_R19-workshared_jkimbrell.rvt A0.1 TITLE SHEET JK DD 36142-19071 MENDOTA SENIOR HOUSING MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN SHEET INDEX SHEET NUMBER SHEET NAME CITY CONCEPT SUBMITTALGENERAL A0.1 TITLE SHEET ✖ A0.2 PARTITION TYPES, SYMBOLS, ABBREVIATIONS A0.3 CODE DATA SUMMARY, UNIT MIX A0.4 LOWER LEVEL LIFE SAFETY PLAN A0.5 FIRST LEVEL LIFE SAFETY PLAN A0.6 SECOND LEVEL LIFE SAFETY PLAN A0.7 THIRD LEVEL LIFE SAFETY PLAN CIVIL C-002 EXISTING CONDITIONS ✖ C-003 TREE SURGERY ✖ C-101 SITE PLAN ✖ C-301 GRADING PLAN ✖ C-401 SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN PLAN ✖ C-501 STORM SEWER PLAN ✖ ARCHITECTURAL A1.1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN ✖ A2.0 OVERALL PLANS - AREA PLANS ✖ A2.1 LOWER LEVEL / PARKING FLOOR PLAN A2.2 FIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A2.3 SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A2.4 THIRD LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A2.5 ENLARGED PLAN AT RESTAURANT A3.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ✖ A3.2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ✖ A3.3 EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVES ✖ A4.1 ROOF PLAN A5.1 WALL SECTIONS A6.1 DETAILS A7.1 OPENING SCHEDULE, DOOR TYPES, FRAME TYPES A8.1 TYPICAL MOUNTING HEIGHTS/ INTERIOR ELEVATIONS A9.1 REFLECTED CEILING PLAN A10.1 INTERIOR MATERIAL IDENTIFICATION & ABBREVIATIONS A10.2 ROOM FINISH SCHEDULE A10.3 FLOOR FINISH & WALL FINISH PLANS PROJECT DIRECTORY OWNER Grand Real Estate Advisors 90 Dale Street South St. Paul, MN 55102 Contact: Judd Fenlon Phone: (651) 492-1741 jfenlon@grandrea.com ARCHITECT Pope Architects 1295 Bandana Boulevard N, Suite 200 St. Paul, MN 55108 Contact: Joseph Kimbrell Phone: (651) 642-9200 jkimbrell@popearch.com CIVIL LANDSCAPE STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL GENERAL CONTRACTOR Wenck 7500 Olson Memorial Hwy, Suite 300 Golden Valley, MN 55427 Contact: Jack Ammerman Phone: (763-252-6897) jammerman@wenck.com TBD TBD Design Build BKBM Engineers 6120 Earle Brown Drive, Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55430 Contact: Anthony Radtke, P.E. Phone: (763) 843-0460 aradtke@bkbm.com NORTH LOCATION MAP SITE LOCATION: MENDOTA SENIOR HOUSINGLINDEN ST. @ MAPLE ST. MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN LINDEN ST. @ MAPLE ST. MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN IMAGE FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY- NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFERRED SUBMITTALS 1. ENGINEERED TRUSS DIAGRAMS 2. REVIEW OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS REPORTS 3. FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM DRAWINGS 4. DESIGN BUILD MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS. BY OTHERS 1 CONCEPT SUBMITTAL 11-18-19 TBD Design Build Wenck 7500 Olson Memorial Hwy, Suite 300 Golden Valley, MN 55427 Contact: Jack Ammerman Phone: (763-252-6897) jammerman@wenck.com STAIR 2-1 3,019.96 SF RESTAURANT STAIR 1-1TRASH ROOM1,101.06 SF 2 BEDRM. 1,100.89 SF 2 BEDRM. 808.15 SF 1 BEDRM. (A)540.39 SFSTORAGE1,096.61 SF 2 BEDRM. 1,410.43 SF 2 BEDRM. + 1,550.69 SF 2 BEDRM. +DEN 940.8 SF 1 BEDRM. (B) 940.92 SF 1 BEDRM. (B) 1,491.02 SF 2 BEDRM. +DEN 3,791.08 SF LOBBY AND HALL 1,757.47 SF CO-WORKING 1,027.52 SF FITNESS MAILVEST. ELEC.GOLF1,157.53 SFREST. KITCHEN1,292.76 SF R. PATIO BATHROOMSR. TRASH1,335.07 SF 2 BEDRM. + 1,248.78 SF 2 BEDRM. + 23,823.53 SF PARKING LEVEL 67 CARS 427.92 SF WORK ROOM STAIR 2-0STAIR 1-0558.75 SF UTILITY 198 SF UTILITY BIKE STRG. AHUAHUBIKE STRG.ELEV.CIRCULATION 1,550.69 SF 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1,369.5 SF 2 BEDRM. + 1,101.06 SF 2 BEDRM. 1,335.07 SF 2 BEDRM. + 1,090.28 SF 2 BEDRM. 1,552.44 SF 2 BEDRM. +DEN 940.8 SF 1 BEDRM. (B) 940.92 SF 1 BEDRM. (B) 1,491.02 SF 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1,023.32 SF 2 BEDRM.1,456.46 SF 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1,101.11 SF 2 BEDRM. 1,101.06 SF 2 BEDRM. 1,573.5 SF COMMUNITY ROOM 493.01 SF C. TERRACE STAIR 1-2STAIR 2-2 1,525.12 SF 2 BEDRM. +DEN 918.05 SF STORAGE 188.58 SF ELEC. 369.03 SF TOILET AND STORAGE 809.33 SF 1 BEDRM. (A) 808.15 SF 1 BEDRM. (A) 946.1 SF 1 BEDRM. (B) TRASH CIRCULATION 1,550.69 SF 2 BEDRM. +DEN 1,369.5 SF 2 BEDRM. + 1,101.06 SF 2 BEDRM. 1,335.07 SF 2 BEDRM. + 1,090.53 SF 2 BEDRM. 1,556.28 SF 2 BEDRM. +DEN 940.8 SF 1 BEDRM. (B) 940.92 SF 1 BEDRM. (B) 1,491.02 SF 2 BEDRM. +DEN 918.05 SF STORAGE 1,023.32 SF 2 BEDRM. 1,217.41 SF 2 BEDRM. + 1,092.58 SF 2 BEDRM. 809.33 SF 1 BEDRM. (A) 1,101.11 SF 2 BEDRM. 1,101.06 SF 2 BEDRM. 1,525.12 SF 2 BEDRM. +DENSTAIR 1-3STAIR 2-3 1,260.51 SF 2 BEDRM. + ELEC. 946.1 SF 1 BEDRM. (B) 807.9 SF 1 BEDRM. (A) TRASH Issues and Revisions: Commission No: Drawn by: Checked by: SHEET 1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200 ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735 (651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101 www.popearch.com POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION0"1/2"1" TRUE SHEET SCALE 11/18/2019 4:14:39 PM C:\Revit Projects\36142_19071_GREA MENDOTA HGTS_R19-workshared_jkimbrell.rvt A2.0 OVERALL PLANS - AREA PLANS JK DD 36142-19071 MENDOTA SENIOR HOUSING MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 3/64" = 1'-0"A2.0 2 FIRST LEVEL 3/64" = 1'-0"A2.0 1 LOWER LEVEL 3/64" = 1'-0"A2.0 3 SECOND LEVEL 3/64" = 1'-0"A2.0 4 THIRD LEVEL 1 CONCEPT SUBMITTAL 11-18-19 PROJECT NORTHTRUE NORTHPROJECT NORTHTRUE NORTHPROJECT NORTHTRUE NORTHPROJECT NORTHTRUE NORTH GROUND LEVEL 100'-0" SECOND LEVEL 113'-0" THIRD LEVEL 124'-1 7/8" JOIST BEARING 133'-3" LOWER LEVEL 89'-0" 11 12 13 1423456789110 GROUND LEVEL 100'-0" SECOND LEVEL 113'-0" THIRD LEVEL 124'-1 7/8" JOIST BEARING 133'-3" LOWER LEVEL 89'-0" DCBA E F GZ Issues and Revisions: Commission No: Drawn by: Checked by: SHEET 1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200 ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735 (651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101 www.popearch.com POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION0"1/2"1" TRUE SHEET SCALE 11/18/2019 4:14:56 PM C:\Revit Projects\36142_19071_GREA MENDOTA HGTS_R19-workshared_jkimbrell.rvt A3.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS JK DD 36142-19071 MENDOTA SENIOR HOUSING MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 3/32" = 1'-0"A3.1 1 SOUTH ELEVATION 3/32" = 1'-0"A3.1 4 WEST ELEVATION 1 CONCEPT SUBMITTAL 11-18-19 GROUND LEVEL 100'-0" SECOND LEVEL 113'-0" THIRD LEVEL 124'-1 7/8" JOIST BEARING 133'-3" LOWER LEVEL 89'-0" 11121314 23456789 110 GROUND LEVEL 100'-0" SECOND LEVEL 113'-0" THIRD LEVEL 124'-1 7/8" JOIST BEARING 133'-3" LOWER LEVEL 89'-0" D C B AEFG Z Issues and Revisions: Commission No: Drawn by: Checked by: SHEET 1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200 ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735 (651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101 www.popearch.com POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION0"1/2"1" TRUE SHEET SCALE 11/18/2019 4:15:10 PM C:\Revit Projects\36142_19071_GREA MENDOTA HGTS_R19-workshared_jkimbrell.rvt A3.2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS JK DD 36142-19071 MENDOTA SENIOR HOUSING MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 3/32" = 1'-0"A3.2 1 NORTH ELEVATION 3/32" = 1'-0"A3.2 2 EAST ELEVATION 1 CONCEPT SUBMITTAL 11-18-19 Issues and Revisions: Commission No: Drawn by: Checked by: SHEET 1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200 ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735 (651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101 www.popearch.com POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION0"1/2"1" TRUE SHEET SCALE 11/18/2019 4:15:47 PM C:\Revit Projects\36142_19071_GREA MENDOTA HGTS_R19-workshared_jkimbrell.rvt A3.3 EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVES JK DD 36142-19071 MENDOTA SENIOR HOUSING MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 1 CONCEPT SUBMITTAL 11-18-19 A3.3 3 NORTH WEST PERSPECTIVE A3.3 2 SOUTH EAST PERSPECTIVE A3.3 1 SOUTH WEST PERSPECTIVE MAPLE STREETSTATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 149 (DODD ROAD)LINDEN STREET>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>L=86.80 R=195.00Δ=25°30'15"CHB=S71°24'36"ECH=86.09S89°59'45"W 76.47N89°59'45"E 50.30L=73.91R=195.00Δ=21°42'58"CHB=N79°08'55"WCH=73.47L=160.91R=480.00Δ=19°12'26"CHB=S33°55'47"WCH=160.16L=114.30R=480.00Δ=13°38'35"CHB=S50°21'17"WCH=114.03S23°27'39"E 125.00S13°23'35"E 212.60L=69.09 R=333.00Δ=11°53'15"CHB=N18°23'21"ECH=68.97L=214.70R=686.38Δ=17°55'20"CHB=N33°17'38"ECH=213.83S47°53'03"E 109.95S46°27'59"E 102.26S41°59'00"W 113.00S30°29'37"W 122.43S42°15'19"W 318.57S42°15'19"W 7.96S89°59'45"W 76.47N89°59'45"E 50.30L=51.17 R=135.00Δ=21°42'58"CHB=N79°08'55"WCH=50.86L=255.67R=630.00Δ=23°15'07"CHB=N42°52'06"ECH=253.92S0°12'52"E 195.67 I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII>>IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII>>>>RIM=865.83INV=857.0 EINV=858.6 NRIM=867.10INV=857.9 WINV=858.0 ERIM=867.94INV=863.1 SINV=862.9 NINV=870.21INV=872.10RIM=865.75INV=860.0 SINV=860.1 NRIM=869.20INV=864.9 SERIM=869.35INV=858.9RIM=871.15INV=859.7RIM=872.88INV=860.2RIM=873.49INV=862.4 NINV=862.5 SRIM=877.86INV=862.3RIM=873.77INV=862.2 NINV=862.2 WINV=865.7 ERIM=871.77INV=860.9 WINV=861.0 EINV=861.0 SRIM=869.26INV=856.8 EINV=856.8 WINV=862.7 NERIM=868.38INV=856.7 EINV=856.6 WINV=856.7 NRIM=868.61INV=859.1RIM=868.22INV=856.0 WINV=856.2 EINV=856.3 SRIM=865.99INV=856.1 EINV=856.1 WINV=861.3 SEN INV COUKLD NOT REACHRIM=865.81INV=861.7 SRIM=868.09INV=856.9 NINV=856.9 WINV=856.9 ERIM=867.87INV=860.3 WCOULD NOT SEE OTHER PIPESROAD DOWN TO 1 LANE VERY BUSY WILL TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT DIFFERENT TIMEINV=859.18RIM=869.41INV=857.5 EINV=857.1 NEINV=857.1 SWRIM=869.04INV=863.3 SERIM=866.99INV=855.3 E/WINV=864.36RIM=867.60INV=863.7 SERIM=867.31INV=858.21>>>>UEOUOUOUOUOUOUGGUEUEOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUUEUEUEUEUECOMCOMTRD 286TRD 383TRD 387TRD 352TRD 353TRD 318TRD 317TRD 316TRD 315TRD 397TRD 324TRD 340TRD 341TRD 344TRD 328TRD 327TRD 304TRD 305TRD 329TRD 346TRD 320TRD 338TRD 351TRD 338TRD 400TRD 382TRD 365TRD 358TRD 356TRD 362TRD 363TRD 371TRD 377TRD 367TRD 359TRD 364TRD 349TRD 332TRD 385TRD 334TRD 307TRD 321TRD 311TRD 343TRD 330TRD 312TRD 306TRD 314TRD 396TRD 303TRD 319TRD 323TRD 360TRD 356TRD 335TRD 302TRD 354TRD 336TRD 310TRD 309TRD 383TRD 322TRD 325TRD 345TRD 347TRD 339TRD 308TRD 348TRD 384TRD 388TRD 337TRD 326TRD 331TRD 333TRD 342TRD 313TRD 389TRD 381TRD 391TRD 346I I>>>>>>6" PVC SAN STUBINV 859.346" PVC SAN STUBINV 858.62>>>>12" HDPE STUBINV=859.9212" HDPE STUBINV=858.1012" HDPE STUBINV=XXX865865870870 8 7 0 8708 7 0 8708 7 0 8 7 0870870 8 7 5 8 7 5 875 8 8 0 880 8 8 5 885 863863864864866866 866 866 866866867867867867867867867 8678688688688 6 8 868868868 868868869869869869869869 869869 871871871 87 1 8718 7 1 8718 7 2 8 7 2 8728 7 3 8 7 3 874 8 7 4 8 7 4 876876876876876876 87 6 8778 7 7 877 87 7 8 7 8 878 878 8 7 9 879 8 8 1 881 8 8 2 882 8 8 3 883 8 8 4 884 8 8 688688 7 5898-0003SHEETDMLJRAMENDOTAHEIGHTSAPARTMENTSMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN11/18/19CONCEPT SUBMITTALPOPE ARCHITECTS, INC.1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101www.popearch.comCONCEPT SUBMITTAL11/18/19WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.7500 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY, SUITE 300GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427(763) 252-6800 | FAX (952) 831-1268WWW.WENCK.COMWARNING:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALLCOOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND/OR RELOCATION OF LINES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FORTHE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIEDSTRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURINGCONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.GOPHER STATE ONE CALLTWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166CALL BEFORE YOU DIGG-002EXISTING CONDITIONSXX>>>>LOT LINEEASEMENT LINESETBACK LINEEXISTING RAILROAD TRACKEXISTING FENCE LINEEXISTING GUARD RAILEXISTING RETAINING WALL LINEEXISTING STORM SEWEREXISTING SANITARY SEWERFMEXISTING FORCEMAINIEXISTING WATERMAINIRRIRREXISTING IRRIGATION LINEGASGASEXISTING UNDERGROUND GAS LINECOMCOMEXISTING UNDERGROUND COMMUNICATION LINEF/OF/OEXISTING UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC LINEUEUEEXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC LINEOUEXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY LINEEXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENTEXISTING EDGE OF GRAVELEXISTING ROAD CENTERLINEEXISTING DITCH CENTERLINEWETEXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARYEXISTING TREE LINEEXISTING CONCRETE SURFACEEXISTING ASPHALT SURFACEEXISTING GRAVEL SURFACEEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING MINOR CONTOUREXISTING MAJOR CONTOURRIGHT OF WAY LINESECTION LINEQUARTER LINEEXISTING EASEMENT LINEEXISTING PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY BOUNDARYEXISTING CURB AND GUTTEREXISTING SANITARY MANHOLEEXISTING CLEANOUTEXISTING STORM SEWER MANHOLEEXISTING STORM SEWER INLETEXISTING STORM SEWER INLETEXISTING FLARED END SECTIONEXISTING CURB STOPEXISTING HYDRANTEXISTING WATER WELLEXISTING WATER VALVEEXISTING AUTO SPRINKLEREXISTING POST INDICATOR VALVEEXISTING WATER METEREXISTING SPRINKLER HEADEXISTING IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVEEXISTING GAS MARKEREXISTING GAS VALVEEXISTING COMMUNICATIONS PEDESTALEXISTING TELEPHONE MANHOLEEXISTING ELECTRICAL PEDESTALEXISTING ELECTRIC METEREXISTING TRANSFORMEREXISTING SIGNEXISTING BOLLARD/POSTEXISTING UTILITY POLEEXISTING ANCHOR CABLEEXISTING LIGHT POLEEXISTING DECORATIVE LIGHTEXISTING STUMPEXISTING DECIDUOUS TREEEXISTING CONIFEROUS TREEEXISTING SHRUB/BUSHLEGENDEXISTING ELECTRIC MANHOLEEXISTING GAS METEREXISTING WETLAND STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 149 (DODD ROAD)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> L =16 0.9 1 R = 4 8 0.0 0 Δ =19°12'2 6 " C H B = S 3 3°5 5'4 7" W C H = 16 0.16 L = 1 1 4 . 3 0 R=4 8 0 .00Δ= 1 3 ° 3 8 ' 3 5"CHB=S5 0 ° 2 1 ' 1 7 "WCH= 1 1 4 . 0 3 S23°27'39"E 125.00S13°23'35"E 212.60L=69.09 R=333.00Δ=11°53'15"CHB=N18°23'21"ECH=68.97L = 2 14.7 0 R = 6 86.3 8 Δ = 17°5 5'2 0" C H B = N 3 3°17'3 8" E C H = 213.8 3S47°53'03"E 109.95S46°27'59"E 102.26S 4 1 ° 5 9 ' 0 0 "W 1 1 3 . 0 0 S30°29'37"W 12 2 . 4 3 S42°15'19"W 318.57 S42°15'19"W 7.96I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IIIIII>>>>>>I I I I I I I I I I I I>>>>>>>>INV=870.21INV=872.10RIM=871.15INV=859.7RIM=872.88INV=860.2RIM=873.49INV=862.4 NINV=862.5 SRIM=877.86INV=862.3RIM=873.77INV=862.2 NINV=862.2 WINV=865.7 ERIM=871.77INV=860.9 WINV=861.0 EINV=861.0 SRIM=867.87INV=860.3 WCOULD NOT SEE OTHER PIPESROAD DOWN TO 1 LANE VERY BUSY WILL TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT DIFFERENT TIMEINV=859.18RIM=869.04INV=863.3 SERIM=867.60INV=863.7 SEOU O U O U O U O U O U O U O U O U GGGOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOU COMCOMCOMTRD 286TRD 383TRD 387TRD 352TRD 353TRD 318TRD 317TRD 316TRD 315TRD 397TRD 324TRD 340TRD 341TRD 344TRD 328TRD 327TRD 304TRD 305TRD 329TRD 346TRD 320TRD 338TRD 351TRD 338TRD 400TRD 382TRD 365TRD 358TRD 356TRD 362TRD 363TRD 371TRD 377TRD 367TRD 359TRD 364TRD 349TRD 332TRD 385TRD 334TRD 307TRD 321TRD 311TRD 343TRD 330TRD 312TRD 306TRD 314TRD 396TRD 303TRD 319TRD 323TRD 360TRD 356TRD 335TRD 302TRD 354TRD 336TRD 310TRD 309TRD 383TRD 322TRD 325TRD 345TRD 347TRD 339TRD 308TRD 348TRD 384TRD 388TRD 337TRD 326TRD 331TRD 333TRD 342TRD 313TRD 389TRD 381TRD 391TRD 3465898-0003SHEETDMLJRAMENDOTAHEIGHTSAPARTMENTSMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN11/18/19CONCEPT SUBMITTALPOPE ARCHITECTS, INC.1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101www.popearch.comCONCEPT SUBMITTAL11/18/19WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.7500 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY, SUITE 300GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427(763) 252-6800 | FAX (952) 831-1268WWW.WENCK.COMWARNING:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALLCOOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND/OR RELOCATION OF LINES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FORTHE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIEDSTRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURINGCONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.GOPHER STATE ONE CALLTWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166CALL BEFORE YOU DIGG-003TREE SURVEY MAPLE STREETSTATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 149 (DODD ROAD)LINDEN STREETL=86.80 R=195.00Δ=25°30'15"CHB=S71°24'36"ECH=86.09S89°59'45"W 76.47N89°59'45"E 50.30L=73.91R=195.00Δ=21°42'58"CHB=N79°08'55"WCH=73.47L=160.91R=480.00Δ=19°12'26"CHB=S33°55'47"WCH=160.16L=114.30R=480.00Δ=13°38'35"CHB=S50°21'17"WCH=114.03S23°27'39"E 125.00S13°23'35"E 212.60L=69.09 R=333.00Δ=11°53'15"CHB=N18°23'21"ECH=68.97L=214.70R=686.38Δ=17°55'20"CHB=N33°17'38"ECH=213.83S42°15'19"W 318.57S42°15'19"W 7.96S89°59'45"W 76.47N89°59'45"E 50.30L=51.17 R=135.00Δ=21°42'58"CHB=N79°08'55"WCH=50.86L=255.67R=630.00Δ=23°15'07"CHB=N42°52'06"ECH=253.92S0°12'52"E 195.67 OUOUOUOUOUOUGGOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUCOMCOMTRD 286TRD 383TRD 387TRD 352TRD 353TRD 318TRD 317TRD 316TRD 315TRD 397TRD 324TRD 340TRD 341TRD 344TRD 328TRD 327TRD 304TRD 305TRD 329TRD 346TRD 320TRD 338TRD 351TRD 338TRD 400TRD 382TRD 365TRD 358TRD 356TRD 362TRD 363TRD 371TRD 377TRD 367TRD 359TRD 364TRD 349TRD 332TRD 385TRD 334TRD 307TRD 321TRD 311TRD 343TRD 330TRD 312TRD 306TRD 314TRD 396TRD 303TRD 319TRD 323TRD 360TRD 356TRD 335TRD 302TRD 354TRD 336TRD 310TRD 309TRD 383TRD 322TRD 325TRD 345TRD 347TRD 339TRD 308TRD 348TRD 384TRD 388TRD 337TRD 326TRD 331TRD 333TRD 342TRD 313TRD 389TRD 381TRD 391TRD 346PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY / RESTAURANTMULTI-FAMILY FFE = 871'RESTAURANT FFE = 869.5'3334821061274324 STALLS41 STALLS9'18'18'9'18'9'9'18'9'1 8 '24'24'74.7'24'24'24'24'24'24'70'21.9'23.1'17'10.4'9'18'24'24'9'18'9'25.2'9'18'18'9'24'2 4 '5898-0003SHEETDMLJRAMENDOTAHEIGHTSAPARTMENTSMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN11/18/19CONCEPT SUBMITTALPOPE ARCHITECTS, INC.1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101www.popearch.comCONCEPT SUBMITTAL11/18/19WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.7500 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY, SUITE 300GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427(763) 252-6800 | FAX (952) 831-1268WWW.WENCK.COMWARNING:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALLCOOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND/OR RELOCATION OF LINES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FORTHE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIEDSTRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURINGCONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.GOPHER STATE ONE CALLTWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166CALL BEFORE YOU DIGLOT LINEEASEMENT LINESETBACK LINERIGHT OF WAY LINESECTION LINEQUARTER LINEEXISTING EASEMENT LINEEXISTING PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY BOUNDARYLEGENDCURB AND GUTTERROAD CENTERLINEGRASS / LANDSCAPING#PROPOSED PARKING COUNTBITUMINOUS PAVEMENTCONCRETE SIDEWALKCONCRETE PAVEMENTHEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTLIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTCOLORED CONCRETEXXFENCERETAINING WALL [BY OTHERS]C-101SITE PLAN 865865865865865865870870 870 87 0 87087 5 87 5 875 8 8 0 880 8808 8 5 88 5 863863863863864864864864864864866 866 8668668668668668668678678678678678678678678678 6 7 868868868868868868868868868868868 868 86 9 869 86986986986986987 1 871 871871871 87 1 871872 87 2 872873 87 3 87 3 874 87 4 87 4 87 6 87 6 876 8 7 7 87 7 877 8 7 8 878 878 8 7 9 87 9 879 8 8 1 88 1 8818 8 2 88 2 8828 8 3 88 3 8838 8 4 88 4 8848 8 6 88 6 8 8 7 88 7 MAPLE STREETSTATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 149 (DODD ROAD)LINDEN STREET>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>L=86.80 R=195.00Δ=25°30'15"CHB=S71°24'36"ECH=86.09S89°59'45"W 76.47N89°59'45"E 50.30L=73.91R=195.00Δ=21°42'58"CHB=N79°08'55"WCH=73.47L=160.91R=480.00Δ=19°12'26"CHB=S33°55'47"WCH=160.16L=114.30R=480.00Δ=13°38'35"CHB=S50°21'17"WCH=114.03S23°27'39"E 125.00S13°23'35"E 212.60L=69.09 R=333.00Δ=11°53'15"CHB=N18°23'21"ECH=68.97L=214.70R=686.38Δ=17°55'20"CHB=N33°17'38"ECH=213.83S42°15'19"W 318.57S42°15'19"W 7.96S89°59'45"W 76.47N89°59'45"E 50.30L=51.17 R=135.00Δ=21°42'58"CHB=N79°08'55"WCH=50.86L=255.67R=630.00Δ=23°15'07"CHB=N42°52'06"ECH=253.92S0°12'52"E 195.67 I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII>>IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII>>>>RIM=865.83INV=857.0 EINV=858.6 NRIM=867.10INV=857.9 WINV=858.0 ERIM=867.94INV=863.1 SINV=862.9 NINV=870.21INV=872.10RIM=865.75INV=860.0 SINV=860.1 NRIM=869.20INV=864.9 SERIM=869.35INV=858.9RIM=871.15INV=859.7RIM=872.88INV=860.2RIM=873.49INV=862.4 NINV=862.5 SRIM=877.86INV=862.3RIM=873.77INV=862.2 NINV=862.2 WINV=865.7 ERIM=871.77INV=860.9 WINV=861.0 EINV=861.0 SRIM=869.26INV=856.8 EINV=856.8 WINV=862.7 NERIM=868.38INV=856.7 EINV=856.6 WINV=856.7 NRIM=868.61INV=859.1RIM=868.22INV=856.0 WINV=856.2 EINV=856.3 SRIM=865.99INV=856.1 EINV=856.1 WINV=861.3 SEN INV COUKLD NOT REACHRIM=865.81INV=861.7 SRIM=868.09INV=856.9 NINV=856.9 WINV=856.9 ERIM=867.87INV=860.3 WCOULD NOT SEE OTHER PIPESROAD DOWN TO 1 LANE VERY BUSY WILL TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT DIFFERENT TIMEINV=859.18RIM=869.41INV=857.5 EINV=857.1 NEINV=857.1 SWRIM=869.04INV=863.3 SERIM=866.99INV=855.3 E/WINV=864.36RIM=867.60INV=863.7 SERIM=867.31INV=858.21>>>>UEOUOUOUOUOUOUGGUEUEOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUUEUEUEUEUECOMCOMTRD 286TRD 383TRD 387TRD 352TRD 353TRD 318TRD 317TRD 316TRD 315TRD 397TRD 324TRD 340TRD 341TRD 344TRD 328TRD 327TRD 304TRD 305TRD 329TRD 346TRD 320TRD 338TRD 351TRD 338TRD 400TRD 382TRD 365TRD 358TRD 356TRD 362TRD 363TRD 371TRD 377TRD 367TRD 359TRD 364TRD 349TRD 332TRD 385TRD 334TRD 307TRD 321TRD 311TRD 343TRD 330TRD 312TRD 306TRD 314TRD 396TRD 303TRD 319TRD 323TRD 360TRD 356TRD 335TRD 302TRD 354TRD 336TRD 310TRD 309TRD 383TRD 322TRD 325TRD 345TRD 347TRD 339TRD 308TRD 348TRD 384TRD 388TRD 337TRD 326TRD 331TRD 333TRD 342TRD 313TRD 389TRD 381TRD 391TRD 346I I>>>>>>6" PVC SAN STUBINV 859.346" PVC SAN STUBINV 858.62>>>>12" HDPE STUBINV=859.9212" HDPE STUBINV=858.1012" HDPE STUBINV=XXXPROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY / RESTAURANTMULTI-FAMILY FFE = 871'RESTAURANT FFE = 869.5'870870 867 867868868868868868869869869 869 867 868868868 870870870870 867 868 869 869 869 86 9 871871 8 7 1 871 865861862863864866867868869870 868 869 870 868869 870 869 870868869869869869870870870870868868868868868868869869869869869871871 4:14:14:14:110:1 6:1 14:124:118:111:1 11:1 1.6%1.1%2.8%4.9%1.1%3.2%12.1%4.6%2.1%1.4%3.2%2.5%4.1%1.8 %3.3%1.9%2.5%3.2%2.3%1.3% 1.9 %2.2%2.5%1.5%1.8%1.4%2.5%2.8%2.5%3.2%2.0%1.5%2.0%5898-0003SHEETDMLJRAMENDOTAHEIGHTSAPARTMENTSMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN11/18/19CONCEPT SUBMITTALPOPE ARCHITECTS, INC.1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101www.popearch.comCONCEPT SUBMITTAL11/18/19WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.7500 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY, SUITE 300GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427(763) 252-6800 | FAX (952) 831-1268WWW.WENCK.COMWARNING:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALLCOOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND/OR RELOCATION OF LINES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FORTHE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIEDSTRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURINGCONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.GOPHER STATE ONE CALLTWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166CALL BEFORE YOU DIGC-301GRADING PLANLOT LINEEASEMENT LINESETBACK LINERIGHT OF WAY LINESECTION LINEQUARTER LINEEXISTING EASEMENT LINEEXISTING PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY BOUNDARYLEGENDPROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR901PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR900GRADING LIMITSCONSTRUCTION LIMITSFL=9XX.XXFG=9XX.XXME=9XX.XXSW=9XX.XXEP=9XX.XXEOF=9XX.XXTC=9XX.XXTW=9XX.XXBW=9XX.XXFLOW LINE ELEVATIONFINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONMATCH EXISTING ELEVATIONSIDEWALK ELEVATIONPAVEMENT ELEVATIONEMERGENCY OVERFLOW ELEVATIONTOP OF CURB ELEVATIONTOP OF WALL ELEVATIONBOTTOM OF WALL ELEVATION (AT GRADE)SURFACE GRADE & FLOW DIRECTIONEXISTING MINOR CONTOUREXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR>>>>EXISTING STORM SEWEREXISTING STORM SEWER MANHOLEEXISTING STORM SEWER INLETEXISTING STORM SEWER INLETEXISTING FLARED END SECTIONSTORM SEWERSTORM MANHOLESTORM CATCH BASINFLARED END SECTIONEXISTING SANITARY MANHOLEEXISTING SANITARY SEWERFMEXISTING FORCEMAINIEXISTING WATERMAINEXISTING CLEANOUTEXISTING CURB STOPEXISTING HYDRANTEXISTING WATER WELLEXISTING WATER VALVEDRAINTILESANITARY SEWERWATERMAINWWATER SERVICESSANITARY SERVICEFMSANITARY FORCEMAINSANITARY MANHOLECLEANOUTHYDRANTGATE VALVECURB STOP1.[KEYNOTE 1]2.[KEYNOTE 2]3.[KEYNOTE 3]KEYNOTES#HP=9XX.XXLP=9XX.XXTOP=9XX.XXTOE=9XX.XXRIM=9XX.XXHIGH POINT SPOT ELEVATIONLOW POINT SPOT ELEVATIONTOP OF DITCH SPOT ELEVATIONTOE OF DITCH SPOT ELEVATIONSTRUCTURE RIM SPOT ELEVATIONTNH=9XX.XXTOP NUT HYDRANT SPOT ELEVATIONSURFACE SLOPE (H:V) & FLOW DIRECTIONPIPE CASINGFPFIRE PROTECTION WATER SERVICESTORM CLEANOUTFIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONFMSTORMWATER FORCEMAIN3.0:11.00%3.0:1 MAPLE STREETSTATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 149 (DODD ROAD)LINDEN STREET>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII>>IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII>>>>RIM=865.83INV=857.0 EINV=858.6 NRIM=867.10INV=857.9 WINV=858.0 ERIM=867.94INV=863.1 SINV=862.9 NINV=870.21INV=872.10RIM=865.75INV=860.0 SINV=860.1 NRIM=869.20INV=864.9 SERIM=869.35INV=858.9RIM=871.15INV=859.7RIM=872.88INV=860.2RIM=873.49INV=862.4 NINV=862.5 SRIM=877.86INV=862.3RIM=873.77INV=862.2 NINV=862.2 WINV=865.7 ERIM=871.77INV=860.9 WINV=861.0 EINV=861.0 SRIM=869.26INV=856.8 EINV=856.8 WINV=862.7 NERIM=868.38INV=856.7 EINV=856.6 WINV=856.7 NRIM=868.61INV=859.1RIM=868.22INV=856.0 WINV=856.2 EINV=856.3 SRIM=865.99INV=856.1 EINV=856.1 WINV=861.3 SEN INV COUKLD NOT REACHRIM=865.81INV=861.7 SRIM=868.09INV=856.9 NINV=856.9 WINV=856.9 ERIM=867.87INV=860.3 WCOULD NOT SEE OTHER PIPESROAD DOWN TO 1 LANE VERY BUSY WILL TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT DIFFERENT TIMEINV=859.18RIM=869.41INV=857.5 EINV=857.1 NEINV=857.1 SWRIM=869.04INV=863.3 SERIM=866.99INV=855.3 E/WINV=864.36RIM=867.60INV=863.7 SERIM=867.31INV=858.21>>>>UEOUOUOUOUOUOUGGUEUEOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUUEUEUEUEUECOMCOMTRD 286TRD 383TRD 387TRD 352TRD 353TRD 318TRD 317TRD 316TRD 315TRD 397TRD 324TRD 340TRD 341TRD 344TRD 328TRD 327TRD 304TRD 305TRD 329TRD 346TRD 320TRD 338TRD 351TRD 338TRD 400TRD 382TRD 365TRD 358TRD 356TRD 362TRD 363TRD 371TRD 377TRD 367TRD 359TRD 364TRD 349TRD 332TRD 385TRD 334TRD 307TRD 321TRD 311TRD 343TRD 330TRD 312TRD 306TRD 314TRD 396TRD 303TRD 319TRD 323TRD 360TRD 356TRD 335TRD 302TRD 354TRD 336TRD 310TRD 309TRD 383TRD 322TRD 325TRD 345TRD 347TRD 339TRD 308TRD 348TRD 384TRD 388TRD 337TRD 326TRD 331TRD 333TRD 342TRD 313TRD 389TRD 381TRD 391TRD 346I I>>>>>>6" PVC SAN STUBINV 859.346" PVC SAN STUBINV 858.62>>>>12" HDPE STUBINV=859.9212" HDPE STUBINV=858.1012" HDPE STUBINV=XXXPROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY / RESTAURANTMULTI-FAMILY FFE = 871'RESTAURANT FFE = 869.5'12343455565775898-0003SHEETDMLJRAMENDOTAHEIGHTSAPARTMENTSMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN11/18/19CONCEPT SUBMITTALPOPE ARCHITECTS, INC.1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101www.popearch.comCONCEPT SUBMITTAL11/18/19WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.7500 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY, SUITE 300GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427(763) 252-6800 | FAX (952) 831-1268WWW.WENCK.COMWARNING:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALLCOOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND/OR RELOCATION OF LINES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FORTHE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIEDSTRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURINGCONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.GOPHER STATE ONE CALLTWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166CALL BEFORE YOU DIGC-401SANITARY SEWER ANDWATERMAIN PLANLOT LINEEASEMENT LINESETBACK LINERIGHT OF WAY LINESECTION LINEQUARTER LINEEXISTING EASEMENT LINEEXISTING PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY BOUNDARYLEGENDEXISTING MINOR CONTOUREXISTING MAJOR CONTOUREXISTING SANITARY MANHOLEEXISTING CLEANOUTEXISTING STORM SEWER MANHOLEEXISTING STORM SEWER INLETEXISTING STORM SEWER INLETEXISTING FLARED END SECTIONEXISTING CURB STOPEXISTING HYDRANTEXISTING WATER WELLEXISTING WATER VALVE>>>>EXISTING STORM SEWEREXISTING SANITARY SEWERFMEXISTING FORCEMAINIEXISTING WATERMAINSTORM SEWERDRAINTILESANITARY SEWERWATERMAINWWATER SERVICESTORM MANHOLESTORM CATCH BASINSANITARY MANHOLECLEANOUTHYDRANTSSANITARY SERVICEFMSANITARY FORCEMAINGATE VALVEFLARED END SECTIONCURB STOPPROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR901PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR900GRADING LIMITS1.SANITARY SERVICE BUILDING CONNECTION2.CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY STUB3.WATER SERVICE BUILDING CONNECTION4.CONNECT TO EXISTING WATERMAIN STUB5.EXISTING HYDRANT6.PROPOSED HYDRANT7.NEW WATER SERVICE CONNECTION AT MAINKEYNOTES#FMSTORMWATER FORCEMAINPIPE CASINGFPFIRE PROTECTION WATER SERVICESTORM CLEANOUTFIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION MAPLE STREETSTATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 149 (DODD ROAD)LINDEN STREET>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII>>IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII>>>>RIM=865.83INV=857.0 EINV=858.6 NRIM=867.10INV=857.9 WINV=858.0 ERIM=867.94INV=863.1 SINV=862.9 NINV=870.21INV=872.10RIM=865.75INV=860.0 SINV=860.1 NRIM=869.20INV=864.9 SERIM=869.35INV=858.9RIM=871.15INV=859.7RIM=872.88INV=860.2RIM=873.49INV=862.4 NINV=862.5 SRIM=877.86INV=862.3RIM=873.77INV=862.2 NINV=862.2 WINV=865.7 ERIM=871.77INV=860.9 WINV=861.0 EINV=861.0 SRIM=869.26INV=856.8 EINV=856.8 WINV=862.7 NERIM=868.38INV=856.7 EINV=856.6 WINV=856.7 NRIM=868.61INV=859.1RIM=868.22INV=856.0 WINV=856.2 EINV=856.3 SRIM=865.99INV=856.1 EINV=856.1 WINV=861.3 SEN INV COUKLD NOT REACHRIM=865.81INV=861.7 SRIM=868.09INV=856.9 NINV=856.9 WINV=856.9 ERIM=867.87INV=860.3 WCOULD NOT SEE OTHER PIPESROAD DOWN TO 1 LANE VERY BUSY WILL TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT DIFFERENT TIMEINV=859.18RIM=869.41INV=857.5 EINV=857.1 NEINV=857.1 SWRIM=869.04INV=863.3 SERIM=866.99INV=855.3 E/WINV=864.36RIM=867.60INV=863.7 SERIM=867.31INV=858.21>>>>UEOUOUOUOUOUOUGGUEUEOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUUEUEUEUEUECOMCOMTRD 286TRD 383TRD 387TRD 352TRD 353TRD 318TRD 317TRD 316TRD 315TRD 397TRD 324TRD 340TRD 341TRD 344TRD 328TRD 327TRD 304TRD 305TRD 329TRD 346TRD 320TRD 338TRD 351TRD 338TRD 400TRD 382TRD 365TRD 358TRD 356TRD 362TRD 363TRD 371TRD 377TRD 367TRD 359TRD 364TRD 349TRD 332TRD 385TRD 334TRD 307TRD 321TRD 311TRD 343TRD 330TRD 312TRD 306TRD 314TRD 396TRD 303TRD 319TRD 323TRD 360TRD 356TRD 335TRD 302TRD 354TRD 336TRD 310TRD 309TRD 383TRD 322TRD 325TRD 345TRD 347TRD 339TRD 308TRD 348TRD 384TRD 388TRD 337TRD 326TRD 331TRD 333TRD 342TRD 313TRD 389TRD 381TRD 391TRD 346I I>>>>>>6" PVC SAN STUBINV 859.346" PVC SAN STUBINV 858.62>>>>12" HDPE STUBINV=859.9212" HDPE STUBINV=858.1012" HDPE STUBINV=XXXPROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY / RESTAURANTMULTI-FAMILY FFE = 871'RESTAURANT FFE = 869.5'870 867868869868868869 868869 870870870 867 868 869 869 869 8 7 1 865861862863864866867868869870868 869 86887086 9 8728 7 3 8 7 4 870869PROPOSEDUNDERGOUNDINFILTRATION AREASIZING TO BEDETERMINED111222335898-0003SHEETDMLJRAMENDOTAHEIGHTSAPARTMENTSMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN11/18/19CONCEPT SUBMITTALPOPE ARCHITECTS, INC.1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101www.popearch.comCONCEPT SUBMITTAL11/18/19WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.7500 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY, SUITE 300GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427(763) 252-6800 | FAX (952) 831-1268WWW.WENCK.COMWARNING:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALLCOOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND/OR RELOCATION OF LINES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FORTHE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIEDSTRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURINGCONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.GOPHER STATE ONE CALLTWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166CALL BEFORE YOU DIGC-501STORM SEWER PLANLOT LINEEASEMENT LINESETBACK LINERIGHT OF WAY LINESECTION LINEQUARTER LINEEXISTING EASEMENT LINEEXISTING PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY BOUNDARYLEGENDEXISTING MINOR CONTOUREXISTING MAJOR CONTOUREXISTING SANITARY MANHOLEEXISTING CLEANOUTEXISTING STORM SEWER MANHOLEEXISTING STORM SEWER INLETEXISTING STORM SEWER INLETEXISTING FLARED END SECTIONEXISTING CURB STOPEXISTING HYDRANTEXISTING WATER WELLEXISTING WATER VALVESTORM SEWERDRAINTILESANITARY SEWERWATERMAINWWATER SERVICESTORM MANHOLESTORM CATCH BASINSANITARY MANHOLECLEANOUTHYDRANTSSANITARY SERVICEFMSANITARY FORCEMAINGATE VALVEFLARED END SECTIONCURB STOP>>>>EXISTING STORM SEWEREXISTING SANITARY SEWERFMEXISTING FORCEMAINIEXISTING WATERMAINPROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR901PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR900GRADING LIMITS1.ROOF LEADER SERVICE CONENCTION2.STORM SEWER STUB CONNECTION3.PROPOSED TRENCH DRAINKEYNOTES#FMSTORMWATER FORCEMAINPIPE CASINGFPFIRE PROTECTION WATER SERVICESTORM CLEANOUTFIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION 12 7 4 6 2 10 41 SPACES 3 4 8 4 25 SPACES 4 EXISTING AND NEW TREES TO MAINTAIN BUFFER AT EAST PORTION OF SITE STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 149 (DODD ROAD) LINDEN STREETMAPLE STREETSLOPED ACCESS TO UNDERGROUND PARKING DOG WALK FOR RESIDENTS NEW PARKING LOTS RESTAURANT PATIO ELEVATED 2' ABOVE THE ADJACENT SIDEWALK RESTAURANT AT WEST END OF BUILDING, FIRST LEVEL NEW THREE STORY CONSTRUCTION 2 RESTAURANT ADA PARKING SITE DATA ZONING DISTRICT: MU-PUD BUILDING SETBACKS SEE CIVIL SHEET C-101 FOR PROPOSED SETBACKS SITE AREA LOT ACROSS MAPLE ST. 19,408 S.F. MAIN SITE AREA. (3) LOTS 96,099 S.F. TOTAL SITE AREA. 115,507 S.F. LOT COVERAGE LIMITS "WEST NEIGHBORHOOD" "40% OF AGRREGATED LOT AREA" "SENIOR HOUSING" "60% OF LOT AREA" PROPOSED BUILDING AREA 28,403 S.F. AT FL. 1 24.6% BUILDING LOT COVERAGE PARKING SPACES PROVIDED: BELOW GRADE RESIDENTIAL PARKING: 67 SPACES + BYCICLE STORAGE MAIN SURFACE LOT / GUEST PARKING / ADA PARKING 25 SPACES RESTAURANT PARKING AREA ACCROSS MAPLE ST. 41 SPACE ____ ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES STANDARD 4 VAN 3 Issues and Revisions: Commission No: Drawn by: Checked by: SHEET 1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200 ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735 (651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101 www.popearch.com POPE ARCHITECTS, INC.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION0"1/2"1" TRUE SHEET SCALE 11/18/2019 4:14:19 PM C:\Revit Projects\36142_19071_GREA MENDOTA HGTS_R19-workshared_jkimbrell.rvt A1.1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN Checker Author 36142-19071 MENDOTA SENIOR HOUSING MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 0' PROJECT NORTHTRUE NORTH3015 60 1" = 30'-0"A1.1 1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN 1 CONCEPT SUBMITTAL 11-18-19 MAPLE STREETSTATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 149 (DODD ROAD)LINDEN STREETL=86.80 R=195.00Δ=25°30'15"CHB=S71°24'36"ECH=86.09S89°59'45"W 76.47N89°59'45"E 50.30L=73.91R=195.00Δ=21°42'58"CHB=N79°08'55"WCH=73.47L=160.91R=480.00Δ=19°12'26"CHB=S33°55'47"WCH=160.16L=114.30R=480.00Δ=13°38'35"CHB=S50°21'17"WCH=114.03S23°27'39"E 125.00L=214.70R=686.38Δ=17°55'20"CHB=N33°17'38"ECH=213.83S42°15'19"W 318.57S42°15'19"W 7.96S89°59'45"W 76.47N89°59'45"E 50.30L=51.17 R=135.00Δ=21°42'58"CHB=N79°08'55"WCH=50.86L=255.67R=630.00Δ=23°15'07"CHB=N42°52'06"ECH=253.92OUOUOUOUOUOUGGOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUCOMCOMTRD 286TRD 383TRD 387TRD 352TRD 353TRD 318TRD 317TRD 316TRD 315TRD 397TRD 324TRD 340TRD 341TRD 344TRD 328TRD 327TRD 304TRD 305TRD 329TRD 346TRD 320TRD 338TRD 351TRD 338TRD 400TRD 382TRD 365TRD 358TRD 356TRD 362TRD 363TRD 371TRD 377TRD 367TRD 359TRD 364TRD 349TRD 332TRD 385TRD 334TRD 307TRD 321TRD 311TRD 343TRD 330TRD 312TRD 306TRD 314TRD 396TRD 303TRD 319TRD 323TRD 309TRD 322TRD 325TRD 345TRD 347TRD 339TRD 308TRD 348TRD 384TRD 388TRD 337TRD 326TRD 331TRD 333TRD 342TRD 313TRD 389TRD 381TRD 391TRD 346PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY / RESTAURANTMULTI-FAMILY FFE = 871'RESTAURANT FFE = 869.5'WB-50 - Intermediate Semi-TrailerMAPLE STREETSTATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 149 (DODD ROAD)LINDEN STREETL=86.80 R=195.00Δ=25°30'15"CHB=S71°24'36"ECH=86.09S89°59'45"W 76.47N89°59'45"E 50.30L=73.91R=195.00Δ=21°42'58"CHB=N79°08'55"WCH=73.47L=160.91R=480.00Δ=19°12'26"CHB=S33°55'47"WCH=160.16L=114.30R=480.00Δ=13°38'35"CHB=S50°21'17"WCH=114.03S23°27'39"E 125.00L=214.70R=686.38Δ=17°55'20"CHB=N33°17'38"ECH=213.83S42°15'19"W 318.57S42°15'19"W 7.96S89°59'45"W 76.47N89°59'45"E 50.30L=51.17 R=135.00Δ=21°42'58"CHB=N79°08'55"WCH=50.86L=255.67R=630.00Δ=23°15'07"CHB=N42°52'06"ECH=253.92OUOUOUOUOUOUGGOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUCOMCOMTRD 286TRD 383TRD 387TRD 352TRD 353TRD 318TRD 317TRD 316TRD 315TRD 397TRD 324TRD 340TRD 341TRD 344TRD 328TRD 327TRD 304TRD 305TRD 329TRD 346TRD 320TRD 338TRD 351TRD 338TRD 400TRD 382TRD 365TRD 358TRD 356TRD 362TRD 363TRD 371TRD 377TRD 367TRD 359TRD 364TRD 349TRD 332TRD 385TRD 334TRD 307TRD 321TRD 311TRD 343TRD 330TRD 312TRD 306TRD 314TRD 396TRD 303TRD 319TRD 323TRD 309TRD 322TRD 325TRD 345TRD 347TRD 339TRD 308TRD 348TRD 384TRD 388TRD 337TRD 326TRD 331TRD 333TRD 342TRD 313TRD 389TRD 381TRD 391TRD 346PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY / RESTAURANTMULTI-FAMILY FFE = 871'RESTAURANT FFE = 869.5'SU-40 - Single Unit TruckPumper Fire Truck42.519.920D[+RUL]0D[9HUW33.54215.5310.44.2WB-50 - Intermediate Semi-TrailerOverall Length55.000ftOverall Width8.500ftOverall Body Height12.052ftMin Body Ground Clearance1.334ftMax Track Width8.500ftLock-to-lock time6.00sMax Steering Angle (Virtual)MAPLE STREETSTATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 149 (DODD ROAD)LINDEN STREETL=86.80 R=195.00Δ=25°30'15"CHB=S71°24'36"ECH=86.09S89°59'45"W 76.47N89°59'45"E 50.30L=73.91R=195.00Δ=21°42'58"CHB=N79°08'55"WCH=73.47L=160.91R=480.00Δ=19°12'26"CHB=S33°55'47"WCH=160.16L=114.30R=480.00Δ=13°38'35"CHB=S50°21'17"WCH=114.03S23°27'39"E 125.00L=214.70R=686.38Δ=17°55'20"CHB=N33°17'38"ECH=213.83S42°15'19"W 318.57S42°15'19"W 7.96S89°59'45"W 76.47N89°59'45"E 50.30L=51.17 R=135.00Δ=21°42'58"CHB=N79°08'55"WCH=50.86L=255.67R=630.00Δ=23°15'07"CHB=N42°52'06"ECH=253.92OUOUOUOUOUOUGGOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUCOMCOMTRD 286TRD 383TRD 387TRD 352TRD 353TRD 318TRD 317TRD 316TRD 315TRD 397TRD 324TRD 340TRD 341TRD 344TRD 328TRD 327TRD 304TRD 305TRD 329TRD 346TRD 320TRD 338TRD 351TRD 338TRD 400TRD 382TRD 365TRD 358TRD 356TRD 362TRD 363TRD 371TRD 377TRD 367TRD 359TRD 364TRD 349TRD 332TRD 385TRD 334TRD 307TRD 321TRD 311TRD 343TRD 330TRD 312TRD 306TRD 314TRD 396TRD 303TRD 319TRD 323TRD 309TRD 322TRD 325TRD 345TRD 347TRD 339TRD 308TRD 348TRD 384TRD 388TRD 337TRD 326TRD 331TRD 333TRD 342TRD 313TRD 389TRD 381TRD 391TRD 346PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY / RESTAURANTMULTI-FAMILY FFE = 871'RESTAURANT FFE = 869.5'Pumper Fire Truck39.54234SU-40 - Single Unit TruckOverall Length39.500ftOverall Width8.000ftOverall Body Height13.500ftMin Body Ground Clearance1.367ftTrack Width8.000ftLock-to-lock time5.00sMax Steering Angle (Virtual)40822Pumper Fire TruckOverall Length40.000ftOverall Width8.167ftOverall Body Height7.745ftMin Body Ground Clearance0.656ftTrack Width8.167ftLock-to-lock time5.00sMax Wheel Angle5898-0003SHEETDMLJRAMENDOTAHEIGHTSAPARTMENTSMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN11/18/19CONCEPT SUBMITTALPOPE ARCHITECTS, INC.1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 200ST. PAUL, MN 55108-2735(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-1101www.popearch.comCONCEPT SUBMITTAL11/18/19WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.7500 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY, SUITE 300GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427(763) 252-6800 | FAX (952) 831-1268WWW.WENCK.COMWARNING:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALLCOOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND/OR RELOCATION OF LINES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FORTHE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIEDSTRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURINGCONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.GOPHER STATE ONE CALLTWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166CALL BEFORE YOU DIGC-102VEHICLE ACCESS PLAN PROPOSED VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT MENDOTA HEIGHTS COMMUNITY MEETING D E C E M B E R 5 , 2 0 1 9 O R I G I N A L R F P P E R S P E C T I V E V I E W PROPOSED PROJECT TEAM PROJECT PARTNERS Judd Fenlon Brian Kueppers Steve Norton Paul Dzubnar DEVELOPER ARCHITECT SITE PLAN - Maintain the green space to serve as a buffer to the north - Easy access to many nearby amenities - Surface parking for visitors and underground parking for residents - Restaurant on most public side of the development serving as a gateway to the Village SITE GOALS – PRESERVE GREEN SPACE - Beautiful tree-filled parcel - Understand the value to the city, residents, and patrons of maintaining green space and a buffer to the residential neighborhood to the northeast REF DWBEDROOM 12'-0" X 14'-10"DINING 6'-0" X 6'-0" DEN 9'-0" X 14'-0" KITCHEN 12'-0" X 13'-6" MASTER BEDROOM 13'-0" X 13'-6" W.I. CLOSET 6'-6" X 9'-3" BATHROOM 9'-6" X 8'-10" MECH CLOSET 6'-0" X 2'-0" LIVING 12'-0" X 15'-0"CLOS3' X 2'BATHROOM 11'-0" X 8'-10" SITE GOALS – INCORPORATE 55+ HOUSING - Build and increase sense of community - Limiting to 47 units - Does not add car trips during peak AM and PM travel times - Community Room and fitness amenities - Opportunity to allow residents to remain in their city while providing home options for another generation of Mendota Heights residents. SITE GOALS – CAFÉ & TAVERN - Operator – Paul Dzubnar - Provide breakfast options to fill a market void - Family-oriented restaurant - Contribute to and expand upon the existing dining district BUILDING PLANS – AMENITY LOCATIONS BUILDING AND COMMUNITY AMENITIES - COWORKING SPACE - COMMUNITY ROOM - FITNESS CENTER - RESTAURANT BUILDING RENDERING BUILDING RENDERING BUILDING RENDERING PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS 1. 55+ housing will keep current Mendota Heights residents in the community and open their single family homes for the next generation of Mendota Heights families; 2. Full service Café and Tavern provides a comfortable community gathering place, including demographics seeking more breakfast options; 3. Co-working studio offering shared space and professional amenities to Mendota Heights’ small business owners and consultants; 4. Local development team familiar with the city and community. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME Planning Staff Report DATE: December 19, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-13 CRITICAL AREA PERMIT & WETLANDS PERMIT APPLICANT: Matt & Jeanne Kenevan PROPERTY ADDRESS: 774 Sibley Memorial Highway ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: January 20, 2020 INTRODUCTION The applicants are seeking a Critical Area Permit and a Wetlands Permit to allow the installation of a new in-ground swimming pool on their property. The subject property is located at 774 Sibley Memorial Highway, which is located next to Ivy Falls Creek. A public hearing notice for this planning item was published in the local newspaper and notice letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. The city has not received any comments or objections on this item. BACKGROUND The subject property is 4.61 acres in size, and contains a 3,000-sq. ft. (finished) single family dwelling. The property is guided and zoned R-1/Low Density Residential (see aerial image – below). Planning Case 2019-31 Page 2 of 7 Approximately 1/4 of the property is developed with the dwelling, driveways and accessory structures. The rear area of the property directly behind the dwelling is fairly wooded; while the remaining 3/4 is heavily impacted by bluffs and the adjacent Ivy Creek Falls water channel, running along the north edge of the property. The bluff edge rises up and near the back side of the property, where it meets up with the rear- yard properties located at the end of Knollwood Lane. The bluff drops down drastically along the creek edge along the north side (see aerial/contour mapping image - below). The subject property is subject to a 20-ft. wide permanent utility easement for an underground sanitary sewer main line that comes from the Knollwood neighborhood to the south, runs northward and through the middle of the subject property, along the north side of the dwelling, where it connects into the main line systems underneath Sibley Memorial Hwy. This new pool project does not impact this easement. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The homeowners plan to install a new 20’ x 36’ in-ground swimming pool, along with a new concrete patio deck around the perimeter of the pool, directly behind the existing home (see site plan image – below). Planning Case 2019-31 Page 3 of 7 The plans also call for a 5-ft. high decorative fence to enclose the pool area, as required by City Code; and a 30’ x 30’ seating area with “proposed retaining wall” features. The edge of the pool structure is situated well over 223-ft. from the easterly property line; 61-ft. from the westerly line; and approx. 1,800-ft. from the southerly line. The plans also show a setback of 28.4-ft. from the pool edge to the adjacent easement line. Approximate measurements made off of city GIS Mapping indicates the pool structure will be 150 to 175 feet from the Ivy Falls Creek channel. The plans call for the installation of silt fencing for erosion control protection, which is typically mandated under the City’s Land Disturbance Guidelines and Surface Water Management Plan. Assurances will be made this erosion control fencing is maintained during and after completion of the project, until all disturbed areas are restored. The shed noted on the plans is located over the permanent easement boundary. City staff is requesting the owners remove or relocate the shed out from the easement area. Wetlands Permit Review Pursuant to City Code Section 12-2-3, the Wetland Systems ordinance applies to wetlands and water resource related areas, and to adjacent land within one hundred feet (100') of normal high water markers of wetlands and water resource related areas as delineated on the official city wetlands systems map. City Code Section 12-2-6 further states that any work or development upon or which would otherwise alter a wetland or potentially impact a water related resource area, must obtain a written permit from the city; with the list of activities noted as follows: 1. The deposit or removal of any debris, fill or other material over 100 cubic yards. 2. Any excavation over 100 cubic yards. 3. The digging, dredging, filling, or in any other way altering or removing any material from water bodies, watercourses, wetlands, floodplain, or natural drainage system. 4. The construction, alteration, or removal of any structure. 5. The removal of vegetation. 6. The altering of any embankment, ponding, or changing of the flow of water or ponding capacity. 7. Permanently storing materials. 8. Disposing of waste materials (including sewage, garbage, rubbish, and other discarded materials). 9. Installation and maintenance of essential services. The purpose of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the City Code Title 12-2-1 is to: • Provide for protection, preservation, maintenance, and use wetlands and water resource-related areas; • Maintain the natural drainage system; • Minimize disturbance which may result from alteration by earthwork, loss of vegetation, loss of wildlife and aquatic organisms as a result of the disturbance of the natural environment or from excessive sedimentation; • Provide for protection of potable fresh water supplies; and • Ensure safety from floods. All major construction activities related to the installation of the new pool and deck are located far enough away from the Ivy Creek and adjacent wetland areas, that this work will have little if any effect upon these adjacent water features. No part of the pool structure, including the deck and required fencing, will encroach or impact the permanent utility easement on this property. Planning Case 2019-31 Page 4 of 7 Due to the proximity of the new pool to these wetland features, the ease of draining a pool into these nearby water features is a concern of the city. The owners need to be aware that per Section 9-2-1 Swimming Pools, the drainage or back-flushing of water from pool shall be directed onto the owner's property or into approved public drainage ways and shall not drain onto adjacent private lands. Drainage onto public streets or other public drainage ways shall require permission of the appropriate local city officials. The scope and scale of this proposed new pool project fits in nicely with the overall large size of the property; and due to the distance of the creek edge from this project site, most of this work should have no impacts to this wetland feature. The following statements are being presented for the Planning Commission to review and consider in your determination of this wetland permit: a) the work should have very little, if any impacts to the adjacent wetland feature; b) the Applicant/Owners will provide for the protection and preservation of the adjacent wetland/water resource feature by installing silt fence and stormwater run-off protection measures as per city staff direction; c) all natural drainage way systems will be maintained during and after the project is completed; and d) the Applicant/Owners will make every attempt to minimize disturbance of the area in order to protect and preserve the natural surroundings, avoid excess loss of vegetation, and avoid any impacts to wildlife and aquatic organisms. Critical Area Permit Review The following standards and provisions are noted per Title 12-Zoning, Ch. 3 Critical Area Overlay District:  Section 12-3-2 of the City Code, the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District is to: • Prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional and national resource • Promote orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas; and • Preserve and enhance its values to the public and protect and preserve the system as an essential element in the city's transportation, sewer and water and recreational systems  Section 12-3-5: Site Planning Requirements: No building permit, zoning approval, or subdivision approval permit or certificate shall be issued for any action or development located in an area covered by this chapter until a site plan has been prepared and approved in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.  Section 12-3-8: Development Standards: A. Objectives: The objectives of dimensional standards are to maintain the aesthetic integrity and natural environment of the Mississippi River corridor critical area. These standards are designed to protect and enhance the shoreline and bluff areas, as well as provide sufficient setback for on- site sanitary facilities, to prevent erosion of bluffs, to minimize flood damage and to prevent B. Structure Setbacks: All new structures shall meet the following minimum setbacks: 1. Setback from Bluff Line: No structure shall be constructed less than forty feet (40') landward from the bluff line of the river. 2. Setback from Normal High Water Mark: No structure or road shall be constructed less than one hundred feet (100') from the normal high water mark of any water body. According to these current City Code standards, the pool is required to be setback at least 40-feet “…landward from the bluff line of the river.” Staff is unsure if this bluff-line setback is actually applicable, since the bluff line on this property is part of the Ivy Falls Creek channel, and not the Mississippi River, which is located on the other side of Sibley Memorial Highway/State Hwy. 13 to the northwest of this site. Planning Case 2019-31 Page 5 of 7 According to the site plan and utilizing the city’s GIS Mapping, it appears the pool structure meets the 40- ft. setback as required under the 1st standard; and as was noted previously in this report, the new pool sits approximately 150-175-ft. from Ivy Falls Creek, so this too appears to meet the 2nd standard noted above. Pursuant to Sect. 12-3-9-A(2)(d)(2)] of the Critical Area Ordinance, retaining walls must be constructed of native stone or wood. As noted previously, the plan identifies a proposed retaining wall (approx. 2-ft. in height) at the corner of the pool patio, which appears to enclose a new sitting/fire-pit area. The plan does not identify the materials to be used in the construction of these walls. Staff is recommending a condition be placed that the retaining wall must be of an approved native looking stone or wood materials. There does not appear to be much grade change(s) necessary to install the new swimming pool and deck in the rear yard area, as most of the existing grade(s) coming off the back are relatively flat and level. The new grades for the pool and patio areas match closely to what exists today. Most of the new elevations or grades from the pool area appear to be matching up or very close (slightly higher) than the existing ground elevations, so the changes will be negligible or minimal. The plan includes a narrow “elbow-shaped” swale around the outer perimeter of the pool deck, and illustrates water being directed westerly and away from the bluff line. This swale should be an ideal feature to help preserve and protect any drainage or water run-off from the pool deck and away from the bluff impact zone and Ivy Creek waterway. Interagency Review In addition to the public and private property owners within 350 feet of the subject parcel, public hearing notices and application materials were sent to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for review and comment. Ms. Jennie Skancke, Area Hydrologist with MN-DNR replied they have no comments or issues with this application or proposed improvements. ALTERNATIVES for ACTION 1. Approve the Critical Area Permit and Wetlands Permit based on certain findings of fact, along with specific conditions of approval as noted herein; or 2. Deny the requested Critical Area Permit and Wetlands Permit based on revised finding(s) of facts as determined by the Planning Commission; or 3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, pursuant to MN State Statute 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested Critical Area Permit and Wetlands Permit to Matt and Jeanne Kenevan, for the property located at 774 Sibley Memorial Highway, which would allow the construction of a new in-ground swimming pool development, based on the attached findings of fact and the following conditions: 1. The new pool structure shall comply with all standards and rules under Title 9 Building Regulations Section 9-2-1: Swimming Pools, and Title 12 Zoning of the City Code, and the Minnesota State Building Code regulations. 2. The new swimming pool and related structural work shall comply with all applicable standards and regulations noted under Title 12, Chapter 2 Wetlands Systems and Chapter 3, Critical Area Overlay District ordinances of the City Code. Planning Case 2019-31 Page 6 of 7 3. No grading, vegetation removal, or construction activity will be allowed in the bluff impact zone or bluff areas. 4. Draining or back-flushing of water from pool shall be directed onto the owner's property only, and shall not drainage directly into the nearby bluff impact zone, bluff area or creek/wetland systems. 5. Any new excavating, grading and/or 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. Full erosion/sedimentation measures shall be installed prior to commencement of work and maintained throughout the duration of the construction project 6. The proposed retaining wall must be constructed of an approved native looking stone or wood material. 7. The shed located in the permanent utility easement must be removed or relocated outside the easement area. 8. A building permit must be approved prior to the commencement of any construction work; site construction shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm weekdays; and 9:00 am to 5:00 pm weekends. 9. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established, protected and permanent ground cover immediately after the pool project is completed. Planning Case 2019-31 Page 7 of 7 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Critical Area Permit & Wetlands Permit for New Swimming Pool Project 774 Sibley Memorial Highway Planning Case No. 2019-31 The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 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 related to the new pool project and allowed under this Critical Area Permit and Wetlands Permit meet the development standards and regulations provided under Title 12, Chapter 2, Wetlands and Chapter 3, Critical Area Overlay District of the City Code. 3. The proposed pool project will not affect or impact the general character of the neighborhood or the surrounding properties. 4. The proposed construction activities will be located in an area of the property that is generally open, thereby avoiding any loss of established trees or vegetation to complete the project; and the project does not require excessive grading work, which could potentially damage or impact the adjacent bluff areas or Ivy Falls Creek corridor. 5. New drainage swales around the outer perimeter of the pool will help alleviate any additional storm water run-off towards the Ivy Falls Creek water channel and bluff zones; and adequate erosion control measures will be required in order to safeguard the bluff and creek features. 6. City staff will closely monitor the subject site and ensure compliance with the city’s Land Disturbance Guidelines are met throughout the duration of the project; and all areas disturbed as part of this pool project will be restored after construction is completed. 666 6 6 6 6666666666666666666666666634 596 533 401 3 7 3348 476535 572 270 3162622 1 9 1 9 9 232182 275600 132 1647 9 74 150521005 1 1 0 3 509248 3 8 3 5 3 1 4072760165 104 9 5 2 35774 782 788 1220 1223 796 1232 754 SIBLEY M EMORIAL HW Y66.4'233' 2 1 3' 1 6 9'275'150' 9 7' 1 3 6' 86' 111' 69'79' 42' 774 Sibley Memorial Highway(Kenevan Residence) City of Mendota Heights0100 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. 12/11/2019 535476 572 600 634 401 3 7 3 596348 594 533 270262 2752492322 1 9 1 9 9 316164 39492 132 182 1 2 3 7 9 74 761 0 3 1001046160 70463525 1 5048 49403053 8 37 363 5323 1 271025842091 9 940 5 2 100359 774 788 782 1223796 1220 754 1232 1238 1235SIBLEY M EMORIAL HW Y774 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HWY.MRCCA - Bluff Impact Zone December 10, 2019 City of Mendota Heights0110 SCALE IN FEET Planning Commission Memo MEETING DATE: December 19, 2019 TO: Chair Magnuson and Planning Commissioners FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2019-20 Metro Storage, LLC - Variance (and Conditional Use Permit) for Personal Self- Storage Facility in the I-Industrial District Introduction The Planning Commission is asked to re-open the discussion and reconsider the Variance application for a new self-storage facility use, located at 1178 Northland Drive. The variance to City Code Title 12-1G-7: Site and Structure Requirements, would allow the self-storage use to exceed the 0.5 floor area ratio standard up to 1.24. Background On August 27, 2019, Metro Storage, LLC presented Planning App No. 2019-20 requesting approval of a CUP and Variance to allow a new three-story, 117,810-sf., personal self-storage facility, along with a Variance to exceed the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) standard of 0.5 with a proposed 1.24 FAR. After discussion, a motion was made to deny the Variance alone, where said motion failed on a 3-3-1 vote, resulting in a no- decision or recommendation. As a result of this vote, the PC made a follow-up motion to table the application until the next regular meeting, and the commission instructed city staff to check and research other community ordinances; and present information of a possible code amendment to the industrial zoning code to alter the floor area ratio standard, if necessary. The general consensus of the commission (that night) was if the city accepted an amendment to the Industrial Zone’s FAR standard, the requested variance would no longer be needed. At the follow-up September 24, 2019 meeting, city staff presented a separate planning report regarding this FAR standard to the Commission, which concluded with a unanimous recommendation (7-0 vote) to strike- out the FAR standard from the I-Industrial District ordinance. After consideration of this FAR amendment, the commission re-opened Planning Case No. 2019-20, and determined the personal self-storage facility meets the conditional use standards for such uses in the I-District (subject to an approved FAR amendment); and made a motion to recommend approval of the CUP to the council. The PC also re-tabled the variance, with the understanding that should the Council accept the new amendment removing the FAR standard, the Applicant could withdraw their variance. On October 2, 2019 the City Council was presented with the recommendation from the Planning Commission, and asked to consider adopting Ordinance No. 545, removing the 0.5 FAR standard in the I-Industrial District; and a separate request to approve the CUP. The Council elected to table the amendment, along with the proposed CUP, in order to discuss this matter at a future council workshop. On Monday, October 28th, the Council convened a workshop, whereby council discussed with city staff and the applicant this FAR item; and upon concluding the discussion, the consensus (majority) of the councilmembers present at the workshop was the Industrial District’s FAR standard should remain intact. At the following November 6, 2019 meeting, the Council initially made a motion to approve the proposed Ord. No. 545, which failed on a 2-3 vote; and a subsequent motion to deny said ordinance was made, which was approved by 3-2 vote. Prior to this action, the council asked the developer: “…if the applicant would return with an amended proposal if the ordinance amendment were denied.” The Applicant offered to work with city planning and legal staff to work on options and present those back to the city. Planning and legal staff later conferred with Metro Storage group, and it was agreed that they would offer-up for separate consideration another zoning code amendment for only “Personal self-storage facility” use, and request a new standard: H. The floor area ratio for any facility shall not exceed 1.25. This new standard would only apply to self-storage uses in the Industrial Zone, and does not affect or impact other industrial uses or the current 0.5 FAR standard under such district. At the November 26th meeting, this new subpart H. amendment was presented to the Planning Commission, which resulted in another favorable and unanimous recommendation to include this new standard under the self-storage uses. However, at the following City Council meeting of December 3rd, the council elected to reject this amendment as well on a 4-1 vote (against). Requested Action Because these two FAR related amendments have been rejected by the council, the planning commission must now give final consideration to the variance that was originally tabled at the August 27th and September 24th meetings. Attached to this memo is the original 08/27/2019 Planning Staff Report (amended 09/24/2019), with the proposed building plans, elevations and attachments. As part of this follow-up action, the Applicant requested if they could provide additional information, justifications and reasoning to lend support for their variance, which staff agreed would be appended to this meeting memo/planning report. However, as of the preparation/completion of the PC Agenda packet, this information was not provided, but will hopefully be available by early next week, before the Thursday night meeting. Staff will distribute this information (via email) to the commissioners as soon as it becomes available. Under the 09/24/19 Planning Report, the recommendations on the variance are still noted under the “Alternatives of Action” heading, which still includes the two optional recommendations to either approve or deny the variance, with certain findings of facts. Assuming no additional tabling of this item, the recommendation will be presented at the January 7, 2020 City Council meeting. Please note that the original public hearing at the August 27th meeting was closed; and since the matter was tabled again at the September 24th meeting, no public hearing was held at that meeting. Although this item is being presented under “Unfinished Business” and without a public hearing, the commission may choose to open the matter up to the general public or audience for comments if so requested. A simple motion from the commission is needed. Attachments 1) Planning Report for Case No. 2019-20 (Amended 09/24/2019) with Plan Attachments 2) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (excerpts) – 08/24/19 and 09/24/19 3) City Council Meeting Minutes (excerpts) 10/02/19; 10/28/19; 11/06/19; 12/03/19 December 13,2019 Via emai onlv to t i mb @,m e nd o t a - h e i ght s. c o m City of Mendota Heights Planning Commission City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Re: Supplement to City of Mendota Heights Planning Case 20L9-20 / Metro Storage, LLC lConAitional Use permit Application and Variance Application for New Self Storage Facility in the Industrial Zone (Floor Area Ratio '6FAR" Variance Application) Dear City Planning Commission Members: please accept this letter as a supplement to the variance application previously submitted to the City of Merrdotu Heights 1"City;; by Metro Storage, LLC ("Metro") in connection with the Conditional Use perriit ('CUP") application for a self-storage facility (the "Project") to be located at ll78 Northland Drive, Mendota Heights' The purpose of this supplement is to provide additional commentary in supporl of Metro's uuriun.e application *iih t"rp".t to the application of City Ordinance Title 12- 1G-7F providing that Floor Area Ratio (FAR) shall not exceed 0.5. FAR, means (by City Ordinance definition) ..the numerical value obtained through dividing the floor area of a building or buildings by the lot area on which such building or buildings are located". The Metro Project, if the CUP and FAR variance were approved would have a 1.24 FAR. The FAR for the Project is not the result of accident or lackof attention to design, rather it is the result of purposeful architectural planning that has evolved over the years in the self storage industry to utilize vertical design components for safety and security of tustomers and their property, and for ecological and efficient pulposes -- all of which will result in an aesthetically pleasing structure that will (at a minimum), complement existing structures in the City's Industrial Park. The procedural history of Metro's applications for zoning text amendments to modify FAR requirements will not be repeated here, as it is assumed that Mr. Benetti will summatize the same. It is Metro,s position in this regard that Metro was following directives or indications from the City Community Development Department, the City Planning Commission and the City Council as it relates to efforti to amend zoningtext amendments regulating FAR. Ms,srQ6H?ft"*lb&0,1&WBoulton Boulevard Lake Forest,lLq0045 847-235-8900 Fax:847-235-8901 www.metrostorage'com The criteria for the City to consider in connection with the grant of a variance is based upon a three part analysis of considerations for the City to determine. These were addressed in Metro's variance application. Those three considerations are: 1. The first consideration: Are there practical clfficulties that help support the granting of this variance? (Note: ,,practical dfficulties" as used in connection with the granting of a variflnce, means that the owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the City Code. Economic consitlerations alone do not constitute a practical dfficulty. In addition to the nanative in the variance application and the subsequent dialogue between Metro, the Planning Commission and the City Council, it is evident that the obstacle for City approval of the Project is simply due to the fact that the FAR restriction is inconsistent with other City regulatory criteria for allowing a fully enclosed, aesthetically pleasing and secure self-storage facility that efficiently uses space. There are no issues with compliance of lot area coverage limitations, height restrictions, setbacks, open space requirements or parking requirements as these items will be regulated by the City's Industrial District Site and Structure Requirements I . In addition the use would be regulated by the seven CUP standards 2. FAR restrictions are generally used by cities to regulate the intensity of uses and to prevent "stacking" that would cause a strain on neighborhood harmony, municipal services, traffic, and customer safety. In the present application, the 0.5 FAR limitation is obsolete and creates a significant oopractical difficulty" with respect to the present ',generation" of design for self-storage facilities, that are designed to provide for: (a) an eco-friendly foot print, (b) a limited number of access points, (c) use of vertical stacking consistent with municipal height regulations, (d) an efficient utilization of horizontal and vertical demising walls as a security barrier. Simply put, Metro cannot construct the Project any other way. As such, the 0.5 FAR restriction is not a useful restrictive tool for the City to assure the comprehensive and permanent restrictions on a self storage facility to be located in the industrial park. Due to the 'onew generation" design of self-storage facilities, Metro has encountered an instance in another jurisdication where FAR restriction have been determined to be inconsistent and not mesh with other applicable code regulations. In that instance, the municipality found FAR, while useful to regulate the intensity of the use of a commercial use with significant employee, goods and customer traffic, was inconsistent with the inherent passive use of a self storage facility. As such, a variance was pursued and granted b".unr. it was determined that the FAR restriction for a self storage facility is inconsistent with other restrictive ordinance criteria. In several suburban Twin Cities municipalities, there is no FAR requirement for self storage facilities, perhaps due to the inapplicablity of such restriction for self storage facilities. 2DMNORTH #7084218 v1 It should also be noted that no one has offered a reason that promotes the safety and welfare of the community as to why the FAR for the Project should remain at 0.5. Evidence of the foregoing is the fact that City staff and Metro were directed to put forth an effort to consideririteria to amend the zoning text to either eliminate FAR or increase it to a ratio that is consistent with current self-storage design criteria). 2. The second consideration: Are there circumstunces anique to the property (not created by the owner) that support the grunting of this vuriance? Answer: No. As stated in the variance application, the variance request is not due to any property characteristics, but is due to the inconsistency between the FAR restriction and the City's Site and Structure Requirements' 3. The third consideration: If the vuriance was grunted, would it alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Answer: No. Metro maintains that the essential character of the neighborhood would not be negatively affected. Respectfully submitted, METRO STORAGE LLC By: Robert Heilman Vice President of Development / Registered Architect JDMNORTH #7084218 v1 End Notes * Site Plan Pursuant to Title I2-G-7 Site and Structure Requirements for Industrial District uses, the [pertinent] standards are noted below, with responses (ln italic print) following each: A. Not more than fifty percent (50%) of the lot area shall be occupied by buildings. . The storage buildingwill have afootprint of 39,270 squarefeet covering 40.9% of property which is below the 50% maximum building coverage allowed by city code. B. Structure Height: No structure shall exceed forty-five feet (45') in height. * Plans callfor the building's roof-line at 42'-6" and up to 44'-6" at the highest pint of the (high) paraPet. C. Setbacks: Side Yards Abutting a Street on a Corner Lot: Side yard abutting a street on a corner lot shall be not less than forly feet (40') in width. o The proposed storage facility is setback at 40-ft. from Hwy 55 right-of-way line and 40-ft. off Northland Drive ROW line. The "roadway" to the east of the subject site (between the property and General Pump) is not a true roadway or of a private driveway or access way. The 40-ft. setback is not needed along this east line. F. Floor Area Ratio: Floor area ratio shall not exceed 0.5. FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) is the numerical value obtained through dividing the floor area of a building or buildings by the lot area on which such building or buildings are located. In this case the FAR is calculated as follows: . TOTAL BLDG. AREA : 39,270-sf, x 3 : I17,81)-sf. c LOT AREA -- 2.2 acres or 95,920-sf, o FAR CALC: I17,810 / 95,920 : 1.24o/o, which is well above the 0.50 standard. The proposed storagefqcility requires approval of avariance to this standard. G. Minimum Lot Requirements: Lot Area: 1 acre / Lot Width: 100 feet Front Yard Setback: 40-ft. Side Yard Setback: 30-ft. or 40-ft abutting street Rear Yard: 50-ft. o The lot is 3.76 acres and exceeds the I acre minimum. o Thefront lot width dimension is 153-ft. wide along Northland Drive; and 255-ft along the back MnDoT ROW. Both dimensions exceed the 100-ft, standard. o Front Yard setback (from Northland Dr,) is 40-ft. o Side Yard (westerly along Hwy 55) is 40-ft. o Rear Yard setback is 83'-4 ". 4DMNORTH #70842'18v1 2 .:. Parking/Access Plan The pioposed storage facility plans call for the main access to be located near the north end of the facility, coming off the private driveway/access road only. This access will lead customers/visitors to the front main entryway and north access (secure overhead door entryway) into the facility. This area contains six (6) spaces. Farther down the easterly ur..r, road, five (5) additional spaces will be provided along the side of the facility' Customers who enter the storage facility will also have access to 11 interior spaces. The new City Code standard for self-storage facility requires one (1) space per 6,000-sf. of storage space. The plan calls for 85,065-sf. of net storage space: CALC: 85,065 / 60000 = 14.18, or 1,5 stalls. Title l2-lG-2:Uses P ersonal self- storage facility, provided that : A. Any and all storage shall be inside the building. Exterior storage of personal vehicles, recreational vehicles, trailers, and equipment is strictly prohibited. B. The storage facility shall have a security system adequate to limit access to persons renting at the facility. C. Facility shall not be located closer than one-quarter (l/4) mile from any residential use and/or residential zone. D. All drive aisles and parking surfaces must be curb and guttered, with asphalt or concrete. E. The use shall have no more than three (3) overhead doors or bays to be used for entering/exiting the facility. F. Access to any fenced-in exterior area shall be available to emergency responders in a manner acceptable to the fire marshal. G. Common parking space available to all visitors shall be provided at a rate no less than one space per six thousand (6,000) square feet ofstorage area. 5DMNORTH #7Q84218 vl August 27, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 7 MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 27, 2019 (EXCERPTS) A) PLANNING CASE 2019-20 METRO STORAGE, LLC, 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE –CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE for NEW SELF STORAGE USE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Metro Storage, LLC was requesting a Conditional Use Permit and Variance to develop a new climate controlled self-storage facility in the Industrial Park. The storage facility would be located on the vacant parcel located at the southeast corner of Northland Drive and Highway 55 (1178 Northland Drive). Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. The parcel is 2.2 acres in size and is currently guided and zoned I-Industrial. The property was previously owned by General Pump (next door) and has been sitting vacant for a number of years. The initial review of this application revealed the possibility of a wetland on the site. According to the Dakota County GIS mapping, the 2011 National Wetland Inventory layer showed a PEM1A wetland on the site. The applicant hired Kjolhaug Environmental Services to inspect and perform a wetland assessment. The report came back and indicated no wetlands were present or delineated on the subject parcel. Metro Storage provided some concept images of their proposed building – a new three-story, 117,810 square foot, fully contained, climate controlled, interior only self-storage facility. It has light-colored limestone features, precast panels along the front, nice break-up of color with some glass curtain walls on the entryway. Mr. Benetti shared images or renderings of what the building would look like. Mr. Benetti then reviewed the criteria to be met in the granting of a CUP (Title 12-1L-6): a. Not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community b. Nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards c. Nor will seriously depreciate surrounding property value, and d. That the same is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter and the comprehensive plan He then reviewed the conditions to be met per the code amendment that now allows for personal self- storage uses as a conditional use in the Industrial Zone: A. Any and all storage shall be inside the building. Exterior storage of personal vehicles, recreational vehicles, trailers, and equipment is strictly prohibited. B. The storage facility shall have a security system adequate to limit access to persons renting at the facility. C. Facility shall not be located closer than one-quarter (1/4) mile from any residential use and/or residential zone. D. All drive aisles and parking surfaces must be curb and guttered, with asphalt or concrete. E. The use shall have no more than three (3) overhead doors or bays to be used for entering/exiting the facility. F. Access to any fenced-in exterior area shall be available to emergency responders in a manner acceptable to the fire marshal. August 27, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 7 G. Common parking space available to all visitors shall be provided at a rate no less than one space per six thousand (6,000) square feet of storage area. Staff believed that all of these conditions / standards have been met. Mr. Benetti then reviewed the criteria or standards to be met when granting a Variance and the applicant’s response to those standards: 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner 3. The Variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties The Variance is required because the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), at 1.24, exceeds the allowable 0.5. Mr. Benetti researched other neighboring cities and beyond and found that the buildings in their Industrial Zones ranged from 30%-35% (Inver Grove Heights and Eagan) and up to 50% (West St. Paul). The maximum lot coverage ranged from 70%-75% to 95%. Bloomington and St. Paul are the only ones that have an FAR, and they range from 1.0 to 2.0. Most of the neighboring cities do not use or apply an FAR. We also limit out building height and footprint and impervious surface percentages. Mr. Benetti explained that the applicant’s plans demonstrate that all of the Industrial Zone standards are being met, except for the FAR. Staff recommended that the Commission give serious consideration to this application because the FAR is probably a bit more of what they should expect in a community of the size of Mendota Heights and that this Variance is only for the personal self-storage use and shall apply specifically to this site and its use only. Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Petschel asked why there was not an option to approve the Conditional Use Permit but deny the Variance. Mr. Benetti replied that this is an option if the Commission so wished. However, the applicant would prefer that the Variance be approved. If the Commission were to approve the CUP without the Variance, they would essentially be approving a 1-story building. Commissioner Noonan asked if they were to only approve the CUP, would the applicant have to come back and rework their site plan and thus, get a renewed approval of the CUP. Mr. Benetti replied that may be a possibility. Commissioner Petschel asked if denying the Variance would cause time penalties for re-application on the site. Mr. Benetti replied that it would not cause any time penalties, as there are no time penalties for CUP’s or Variances. Chair Magnuson, noting that the city only has an FAR of 0.5, stated that they were limiting any development of any remaining area within the Industrial Park to single-story structures. Mr. Benetti concurred. She then asked, when the City Council considered the amendment to the ordinance, was there any conversation about changing the FAR requirement. Mr. Benetti replied that he had a discussion with the former planner and he indicated that this FAR never came up in the discussions on the ordinance. He was August 27, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 7 shocked when he heard about it because it had never been an issue but that he probably should have changed it when the ordinance was updated several years ago. Commissioner Noonan disagreed as the Industrial Park was developed under an FAR of 0.5 and it was never brought up as an issue before. This is an interesting one because it is proposing an FAR of significantly higher than what others in the Industrial Park have worked with. To suggest a 3-story building cannot be done with a 0.5 FAR is not an accurate statement. Commissioner Mazzitello stated that the 0.5 FAR rule has existed as the Industrial Park has developed. It does not mean that the Industrial Park was developed under the 0.5 FAR; it was just in code. The Sun Country headquarters is just one example of a multi-story building in the Industrial Park that was developed under a time when they had to have an expansive surface parking lot for the building. Their lot is big enough to lower their FAR. This is a unique situation under consideration; where the lot is small, the building being proposed fits on the lot. It is important to realize that this FAR rule applies to the entire Industrial Zone and he would be willing to provide an expensive dinner if every lot in the Industrial Zone were developed within the 0.5 FAR; but that is that they weren’t. Commissioner Petschel asked what if they wanted to build a 7-story building. Commissioner Mazzitello replied they would run into the height restriction. Commissioner Petschel stated that it was only a restriction; to apply a one restriction arbitrarily as opposed to another. Commissioner Mazzitello stated that his point was that the FAR was an antiquated requirement. FAR, antiquated or not, conversations continued. It was pointed out that if the proposed building were to remain inside the current footprint and have only one story, it would be below the required FAR of 0.5. Commissioner Toth, going back to the timeframe between 2009 and 2014, this lot was identified as a wetland. Now coming back to July 26, 2019 it is not a wetland. He asked if there was a misunderstanding or if additional soil was placed on the property. Mr. Benetti replied that it has been his experience working with wetland mapping, especially from a National Wetland Inventory, it is generalized or best estimate sometimes. Sometimes it is based on old historical interpretation of aerial mapping. The GIS mapping flags the city to inform owners or applicants that there is potential for a wetland and they need to investigate for accuracy. If the Wetland Report, done independently, comes back and says there is a wetland, then they would have been talking about how to mitigate that on site or do some other type on-site mitigation. Fortunately, that is why they hired these people to come out and do an independent testing or analysis and they came back and said there was no longer a wetland on the site. Mr. Bob Heilman, VP of Development with Metro Storage, Mr. Quinn Hutson of CNH Architects, and their engineer from Wier & Associates came forward. Mr. Heilman answered the question regarding the wetland by stating the parcel, through their investigation in Phase 1, was an area that was used by MnDOT as an off-ramp relocation when they did the roadwork. There is approximately 6-feet of fill on that site – it goes from 6-feet to approximately 12-feet. None of that is natural material. This was done before the 2000’s. Mr. Heilman then gave a brief history on Metro Storage and their footprint in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area. As for the FAR, Mr. Heilman stated that what they have experienced is that the issue is the intensity of their use is so low – basically the lowest use; however, the FAR is high and the intensity of the use is so low that they offset each other. Also, in this case, they are meeting all other aspects of the code – height, building coverage, impervious surface coverage – he could essentially build the same building but with only one floor and no one could tell from looking at the outside. They find this to be inconsistent with the FAR – it does not match the other codes to be found in the zoning code. August 27, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 7 Mr. Hutson continued with highlights of the specific building by sharing an image of the site plan and explaining that they are not pushing the limits of the site but putting in a building that is proportionate to the site. He also shared a rendering of the building elevation. Addressing the FAR issue, Mr. Hutson noted that looking at the building from the outside it matches other buildings in the Industrial Park – including ones with high ceilings inside. They are just a different type use and that is what makes it different. This use is different than other industrial uses permitted in the park. The only thing that brings up the FAR is how they use the inside of the building. Commissioner Petschel asked if Mr. Hutson could provide any type of argument as to why they have a practical difficulty. Mr. Hutson replied that they feel that the practical difficulty is that the FAR is inconsistent with this particular approved industrial use – because of its extreme low intensity the FAR does not consider that in the way that it would for other types of industrial buildings. They feel that is a hardship for this particular type of use. Commissioner Noonan stated that the FAR is a standard across the entire Industrial Area; it is not specifically targeted to this use. So it is a standard that applies across the industrial and it is not specifically targeted to this site or to this use. Commissioner Noonan was having a hard time with that explanation as a practical difficulty since it is a universal standard across the entire Industrial Area. Mr. Hutson agreed that the standard is universal across the Industrial Area; however, it would be a hardship for any site that would be considering this use. Commissioner Noonan asked, when the zoning was amended to add personal storage in the Industrial Area, why was that not raised as a discussion point given the fact that the standards were published and existed. His understanding was that all that was asked for was to add personal storage as a permitted use within the Industrial Area and not seek to do any modifications to the zoning standards. Mr. Heilman replied that they had an idea on the design of the building; however, they were just attending to the use at that point in time. It was a general use for the area and that was their concentration at that time. Commissioner Noonan noted that one could suggest that a general use should operate under the zoning standards that were there and were posted. If there were a fundamental difficulty they should have been raised and discussed as part of the zoning change. Mr. Heilman replied that he could see Commissioner Noonan’s point; however, this is a use that is fairly new to zoning – it was never conceived even ten or fifteen years ago. That is why Metro Storage is here, they are asking for the change based on this new type of use of storage – multi-story, climate controlled, interior, generation five storage. A lot of municipalities he goes to have nothing in their code regarding self-storage. So they go along and develop it as they go through the approval process. Their stance is that FAR is partially to limit intensity on a property. They are coming from the equation with the lowest, other than cemetery, intensity of use for a building. Commissioner Toth asked approximately how many storage units would be in the building. Mr. Heilman replied that based on rentable square footage of 83,000, the units on average are approximately 100 (some at 25 square feet and some as high as 300 square feet) – so that would equate to approximately 810 to 830 rental units. Commissioner Toth then questioned the amount of traffic that the building may see on the average day with the number of parking spaces they have – how did they come up with those numbers. They have said many times that this would be a low traffic area, but now they are looking at 800+ rental units and they are saying that it would be a low volume of traffic. Metro Storage was estimating (one space per 6,000 square feet). Mr. Heilman replied that this comes from the National Institute of Traffic Engineers and their manual, which includes key studies for various different uses of facilities. August 27, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 7 Commissioner Katz asked if their personal data for Metro Storage matched the data from the National Institute of Traffic Engineers. Mr. Heilman replied that within the storage sector, the typical product is about the same size as is being proposed. Commissioner Katz clarified his question by asking if Metro Storage had other facilities of this size and are they seeing traffic of only six (6) trips per day. Mr. Heilman replied in the affirmative and said he could back up what they were claiming. Chair Magnuson asked when the issue of the Variance became apparent, did they give any consideration to scaling back the size of the building so it would be more compatible with the FAR. Mr. Heilman replied that he could not make a project viable to meet the FAR; no matter what, he would have had to be here for a Variance on the FAR. Commissioner Corbett asked how long it would take to fill this facility or to become stable. Mr. Heilman replied that the pro-forma is roughly three years. However, their facilities in Blaine and Burnsville the lease up was less than two years. Mr. Heilman concluded by stating that the stormwater report obviously works for all of the regulations and they are not changing anything other than what is existing. They are maintaining the water on their site because of their development. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson suggested that the Conditional Use Permit and the Variance be considered separately; and that the Variance be considered first. Commissioner Noonan agreed since the outcome of the decision on the Variance may necessitate modification to the plans under the Conditional Use Permit. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that if the Commission were to deny the Variance, technically they should deny the Conditional Use Permit because they are intertwined with each other. Commissioner Noonan replied that they could only deny the Variance. A CUP cannot be denied; it can only have conditions imposed upon it. Commissioner Noonan stated that if the Variance is denied, then the Commission could table the Conditional Use Permit. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-20 VARIANCE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT THAT CONFIRM THE APPLICANT FAILED TO MEET THE BURDEN(S) OF PROOF OR STANDARDS IN GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED HEREIN, NOTED AS FOLLOWS: August 27, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 7 A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the City may only grant Variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three -part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the Variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The City hereby determines the Applicant has not fully met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of this Variance to exceed the floor area ratio requirement of 0.5 for Industrial District uses; and therefore the City hereby finds the proposed personal self-storage project is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and there are other alternatives on the property due to its large size; and is therefore not considered a reasonable use of the property. C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three -part test (reasonable use of the property) is not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood). Commissioner Noonan added that he had considerable difficulty finding the ‘practical difficulty’ in this instance. The last comment of the applicant was quite telling; the only reason they were pursuing the floor area they had, and therefore the Variance, was because it did not work from an economic point of view. That is not a basis for approving a Variance. Either the city has a Zoning Ordinance or they do not, that applies across the board. He has sensitivity to the discussions on intensity but it is also massing as well. For the reasons being is that the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance are very clear and have been very clear from day 1. In this case of Variance of 1.25 he finds is beyond what is reasonable in this consideration. Commissioner Petschel stated that the argument that other cities do not have a similar requirement does not hold any water. It looks like fine project and he does not disagree with the project; however, the Commission cannot change the ordinance through a Variance. Especially since they have been nick picked in court over their own code and their own procedural application of that code. Given that there was not even an attempt to offer a practical difficulty other than they need this to make money, he could not support it. Chair Magnuson stated that she personally could see where this is one of those situations – it reminds her a little bit of schools in a residential zone where there is a requirement in place that seems to be perhaps no longer necessary or potentially outdated and that is creating a hang up. The fact of the matter is that it exists. She asked, time wise what would it take if there was any inclination to change that code to either modify the FAR or eliminate entirely, and would that pose a significant time problem for this application. Mr. Benetti replied that currently the applicant’s action deadline was set for October 6, 2019; they are still within the first 60-day rule under this application. It could be extended another 60 days or they could provide a letter stating that they waive the statutory review period. In the meantime, if they wish to come back and apply for an amendment to the code – they could easily come in and they would like to have the FAR restricted or they could amend their own CUP standards to allow for a higher FAR. Chair Magnuson stated that she would be more comfortable changing the code if the code needs to be changed, rather than trying to work around a long-standing standard by Variance. Commissioner Mazzitello agreed with Chair Magnuson’s comment about issuing Variances where the code if flawed; it would be better to amend/correct the flawed code. The FAR does not match up with the other requirements within the code. He then asked if there was a FAR standard in the Business District (no), is there one in the High-Density Residential District (no), so why is it here. His argument is that it either should not be here or it should be a number that is consistent with 50% lot coverage and a height of 30-45- feet. The FAR is inconsistent with the rest of the code. That is the practical difficulty. Therefore, he would August 27, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 7 not support the motion for denial. He would support either granting this Variance or a tabling so there could be a code amendment to change or eliminate the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standard from the Industrial Zone. AYES: 3 (Noonan, Petschel, Magnuson) NAYS: 3 (Mazzitello, Corbett, Toth) ABSTAIN: 1 (Katz) COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO TABLE THIS ENTIRE APPLICATION UNTIL THE SEPTEMBER 2019 MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, DURING WHICH TIME STAFF IS INSTRUCTED, OR THE APPLICANT IS INSTRUCTED, TO COME UP WITH A CODE AMENDMENT TO THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE CODE TO ALTER THE FLOOR AREA RATIO STANDARD AND REQUEST THE APPLICANT ENTERTAIN AN EXTENSION OR WAIVE THE STATUTORY REVIEW PERIOD AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 September 24, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 3 MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 24, 2019 (EXCERPTS) C) PLANNING CASE 2019-27 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS / METRO STORAGE, LLC ZONING CODE AMENDMENT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained this request was filed on behalf of Metro Storage, LLC with cooperation with the City of Mendota Heights looking at amending the city’s current floor area ratio (FAR) standard for uses in the I-Industrial District. This item was presented under a fully noticed public hearing; not comments or objections were provided. On August 27 of this year, the Planning Commission heard a request from Metro Storage, LLC for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a new three-story, 117,810 square foot interior only self-storage facility. Self-storage uses were recently added under Ordinance 538 approved in May 2019. Metro Storage, LLC also requested a Variance to the FAR standard, which is currently 0.5 and they wanted to go up to 1.23. The motion failed on a 3-3-1 vote, resulting in no decision or recommendation. A follow-up motion was made to table the decision and staff was directed to prepare and present a separate code amendment to the industrial zoning code to alter the FAR standard. The FAR is a numerical value obtained by dividing the floor area of a building or buildings by the lot area on which the building is, or to be, located. The 0.5 FAR standard imposes challenging restrictions on the planned or desired overall size of a proposed building space, especially when referring to the construction of a multiple storied building. Staff provided a Comparison Table of Metro Cities FAR/Lot Coverage/Building Height Standards, showing that a majority of the cities in the area do not have an FAR in their industrial districts. However, Bloomington, Minneapolis, and St. Paul do have FARs. These range from 2.0 – 5.0, which is a lot more than Mendota Heights currently has. Others have ranges from 0.5 to 1.5. Mendota Heights is consistent with building coverage, lot cover, green space, and building height requirements. Upon reviewing the FAR of buildings currently in the city’s industrial district, all of the buildings meet or are below the 0.5 ratio; with the exception of one that is at a 0.92 ratio. There is one other that is at 0.51. Staff requested that the Commission either remove the current FAR or amend the ordinance with a new higher ratio standard of 1.5 or 2.0. Commissioner Petschel asked if there was a case that justifies the existence of the FAR that is not taken care of by the height; maybe something like 5-foot ceilings. Commissioner Noonan noted that he reviewed the discussion in the minutes of the last meeting and wondered at what point the FAR, in many suburban locations, was deemed somewhat antiquated. And was it antiquated because the FAR, in its current location, was there to control the massing. Whereas, combining the building coverage, the setbacks, the height limitations, the parking regulations, increases the limitations and therefore says a lot about eliminating the FAR all together. Chair Magnuson noted that any city, with the exception of South St. Paul, that had an FAR did not have a maximum building coverage. The cities that did not have FARs tended to have a maximum building coverage or maximum lot coverage. It seemed to her that the trend is to have one or the other, but not both. September 24, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 3 The only question she would have then would be was if there was any need or interest in addressing green space, in addition to maximum building coverage. Mr. Benetti replied that in the industrial district there is increased setbacks for the business and industrial districts for their parking. There are more than what is seen in a typical residential or business center. There are larger setbacks for parking and for buildings – the purpose of which is to allow or provide for the increased green space. Commissioner Corbett asked what the intent of a minimum FAR was – just to drive efficient use. Mr. Benetti replied that was probably the correct intent. It is to limit the scale of a development. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-27, ORDINANCE NO. 544, “AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, ARTICLE G, I INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, CHAPTER 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING FLOOR AREA RATIO STANDARDS” where the subpart section F. Floor Area Ratio: Floor area ratio shall not exceed 0.5, under Sect. 12-1G-7 is removed AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 2, 2019 meeting. D) PLANNING CASE 2019-20 METRO STORAGE, LLC, 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE Community Development Director Tim Benetti reminded the Commission that this item was tabled at the last Planning Commission Meeting in order to allow staff and the Applicant time to prepare and present a new Zoning Code Amendment to remove the floor area ratio (FAR) requirements. That zoning amendment was just recommended for approval by the Commission in the previous public hearing. Since that amendment has been recommended for approval, the request for the Variance can be disregarded. Mr. Benetti reviewed the information for the Conditional Use Permit that was shared at the August 27, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting for this three-story, interior only, self-storage facility. The building would be just under 118,000 square feet total, has nice features, the site fits well, parking would be along the front and side, one entry in / out, all of the setbacks are met, all parking lot setbacks are met, no need for a Variance, all new lighting will be downcast cut-off, retention pond adding to the open space, and landscaping. Chair Magnuson asked, since an applicant has been filed for a Variance, would it be more appropriate to see if the applicant would like to withdraw the application. The Commission could take action on it or could September 24, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 3 laterally determine that the issue is moot at this point because of the ordinance proposal going to the City Council. She would feel more comfortable if the applicant were to simply withdraw the Variance request. Commissioner Mazzitello noted that the ordinance amendment has not been adopted by the City Council yet. It is possible that they would not adopt it, in which case the Variance would still be needed. Commissioner Noonan suggested, rather than having the applicant withdraw the Variance request, that the Commission would table the application until the Council takes action. Chair Magnuson clarified that he suggested that the Commission take action on the CUP, table any action on the Variance, and wait to see what the City Council does on the proposed amendment. If the Council were to approve the proposed amendment, then the applicant could circle back with staff to withdraw the request for Variance. Commissioner Petschel asked if there would be any rationale to adding a condition to the CUP basically making it subject to the adoption of the proposed ordinance amendment. Commissioner Mazzitello replied that the proposed ordinance does not affect the CUP. Commissioner Mazzitello asked, if the City Council were to not adopt the proposed amendment, does the applicant have to wait another month to come back to the Planning Commission for them to act on the application for Variance. Mr. Benetti replied that the Variance should be tabled pending the action of the City Council. If the proposed amendment is denied, then the applicant would have to come back to the Planning Commission if they decided to go ahead with the FAR above 0.5. The CUP would have to come back as well. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PLANNING CASE 2019-20 FOR METRO STORAGE LLC AT 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE SUBJECT TO ALTERNATIVE #1 IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF MEMO ON PAGE 2 AND 3 Mr. Benetti noted a correction on page 3 – striking of Condition #12. Commissioner Mazzitello accepted the correction as part of his motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 2, 2019 meeting. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO TABLE THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR METRO STORAGE, LLC UNTIL AFTER CONSIDERATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-27 ORDINANCE NO. 544, “AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, ARTICLE G, I INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, CHAPTER 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING FLOOR AREA RATIO STANDARDS” where the subpart section F. Floor Area Ratio: Floor area ratio shall not exceed 0.5, under Sect. 12-1G-7 is removed ON OCTOBER 2, 2019; AND THE APPLICANT BE DIRECTED TO WITHDRAW THE REQUEST FOR VARIANCE SHOULD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT BE ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, December 3, 2019 B) ORDINANCE NO. 552 AMEND CODE SECTION 12-1G-2 ALLOW INCREASED FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) STANDARD NOT TO EXCEED 1.25 FOR PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY USES IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT - METRO STORAGE, LLC Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided background on this application for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance from Metro Storage, LLC to allow for a new three-story, 117,810 square foot personal self- storage facility. The variance was needed to allow them to exceed the floor area ratio from 0.5 to 1.24. The Planning Commission initially made a motion to deny the Variance (3-3-1), which resulted in no recommendation. After working with the Planning Commission and the Council, staff brought a code amendment to the Council to eliminate the FAR for all uses in the Industrial District. This amendment was denied on a 3-2 vote. Additional discussions were held with Metro Storage, LLC and the action before the Council is to review a code amendment for only “Personal self-storage facility” use and request a new standard – that being “H. The floor area ratio for any personal self-storage facility in the Industrial district shall not exceed 1.25”. This would not affect other industrial uses or the current 0.5 FAR standard under such district. This item was heard under a public hearing by the Planning Commission on November 26, 2019 who recommended approval by a vote of 6-0. Councilor Duggan asked who came up with the 1.25 FAR concept. Mr. Benetti replied that the applicant came up with the 1.25 figure. Councilor Duggan stated that this is not their city and not their rules. The city should be the one to determine those. He stated what he does not understand is, there was no discussion in the early application of the FAR until they came back requesting the Conditional Use Permit. He explained that he was very uncomfortable with the applicant getting around the need for a variance by changing the Code regulations. Councilor Petschel stated, as a point of clarification, that when the first item came before the Council, adding personal self-storage facilities as an approved use in the Industrial District, it had nothing to do with the building plans. There were no formal architectural plans presented to the city. Nobody knew that the building would be challenged by the FAR. She did not support the change to the City Code to allow personal self-storage uses in the Industrial Park and has never been in favor of this project from the beginning. She continued by stating that she does not like the fact that the Council has been presented with a project that says, ‘change your conditional use’ and ‘change your FAR’. Councilor Duggan stated that the rules have been made for the city and not for individual businesses. The current standards are being pushed aside. He did not believe this was the way a city should be run. Councilor Duggan stated he did not believe that the Council could create an ordinance that would then permit a variance. The applicant knew what they were going to do; whether they thought about it or not, the rule was still there. The applicant is saying that they cannot do business under that rule, so they need a variance. Mr. Pratt replied that this is true, unless the Council as the legislative body of the city wants to change the actual code language. December 3, 2019 Mendota Heights City Council Page 2 of 3 Councilor Duggan stated that if he had known they would need a variance to the FAR regulation, then he would not have been supportive of this request in August. Councilor Miller stated that he was in agreement with Councilors Duggan and Petschel. He toured the facility in question in Burnsville and thought it was a well-managed, beautiful building. Had he known that the FAR would be an issue, then he would not have continued to support it. He was confident that if it was built in Mendota Heights, it would be run as well and be just as beautiful. Councilor Paper stated that the Planning Commission was unanimous in their recommendation to allow the FAR up to 1.25 for this specific use. He wondered, if the Council had determined the appropriate number on their own by discussing it in a work session setting, if things would be different. Councilor Duggan replied that the City already had the 0.5 FAR in place. He did not see any reason to change it. Councilor Petschel pointed out that the initial request that came before the Council was the consideration of the use in the Industrial Park. No architectural drawings were presented at that time, and they typically are not presented at that time. After the use is approved, then the architectural drawings and specifications come forward, and at that point, staff does the formula to see exactly what the FAR is going to be with the building. This is a series of steps an applicant goes through in terms of approving a building. To keep going back and saying ‘had I known’ – the Council had no way of knowing because there were no architectural drawings available. She did not support the change in the use but that was a totally different consideration than what is before the Council now, which is actual architectural drawings and a formula that exceeds the existing FAR. Councilor Paper asked how staff defines a floor. Mr. Benetti replied that the definition is ‘usable floor space’. Mayor Garlock noted that he has received a lot of favorable comments from residents that would like to see a self- storage facility in the Industrial Park. He took the time to go to Burnsville to look at their facility. Their facility is better than a lot of the facilities in the Industrial Park. He was in favor of changing it to a permitable use in the Industrial Park. Then he looked at the recommendations from the Planning Commission to remove the FAR from the ordinance, which was a 6-0 recommendation. He was in favor of that also. It was sent back to the Planning Commission for them to work out something with the applicant. It comes back to the Council now with a 6-0 vote from the Planning Commission recommending approval to increase the FAR for self-storage facilities only. He stated that he was in favor of that also. Councilor Duggan asked if this would come under the concept of spot zoning. Mr. Pratt replied this is not spot zoning because the changes under consideration apply to all defined personal self-storage facilities within the Industrial District. Councilor Miller questioned if the Council had set up a series of additional parameters that would make any future self-storage occupants limited in what they could do within the Industrial Park. Mr. Pratt confirmed. Mayor Garlock opened the floor for questions or comments from the public. Mr. Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, stated that early on, the applicant tried to provide detailed information about the storage facility. The Council rejected it because that was not the issue before them. What was before the Council was whether or not the Council would permit self-storage facilities in the community. It was also clear that the applicant knew what they were going to put there. They should have known about the FAR as well. The changing of the FAR to 1.25 based on a particular business is poor city planning. He stated that he did not feel that this application was a good idea. Mr. Jim Walston, representing Metro Storage, stated that there is a perception problem with what Metro Storage is trying to accomplish. They identified this site and the property has been vacant for decades. It is an ideal site for this type of use. It is going to have great curb appeal and meets all criteria except for the FAR. It was brought up a December 3, 2019 Mendota Heights City Council Page 3 of 3 few times in the previous discussion that Metro Storage is telling the city to push aside its ordinances and telling the city what to do to meet their own business objectives. Metro Storage has gone through all of the legal requirements asked by the city to apply for what they wanted to do. They respect the city’s governing authority over its own land use decisions. They have been patient and have extended the statutory deadlines. As he stood before the Council on November 6, 2019, it was discussed that they meet with city staff to come up with a solution. They did that and brought it to the Planning Commission. They voted 6-0 in favor and now it is before the Council. He stated that the practical impacts of having a FAR that is higher than 0.5 are being overstated. There has been some research done by the city staff that indicated there were a number of municipalities having a FAR in excess of 0.5; or some cities have deleted it altogether. With other regulatory restrictions the city has for this type of use; the height, the setbacks, the green space, parking, etc.; in addition to those other items that the Council put forward, Metro Storage is able to meet all of them. With FAR, because this is a later generation of a type of facility for self- storage, the city does have the stacking and that would be an issue if there was a more intense use. People are not accessing their storage units on a daily basis. The intense use of that just does not happen in this type of business. The FAR requirements, if this amendment is approved, would not be inconsistent with other cities. Councilor Duggan moved to deny ORDINANCE NO. 552 AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE G. BY ADDING A NEW FLOOR AREA RATIO STANDARD FOR PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY USES IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 (Garlock) City Attorney Andrew Pratt informed the Council that a variance application may come forward. Planning Staff Report (Amended 09/24/2019) DATE: August 27, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-20 Conditional Use Permit & Variance for New Self-Storage Facility in the Industrial Zone APPLICANT: Metro Storage, LLC PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1178 Northland Drive ZONING/GUIDED: I-Industrial / I- Industrial ACTION DEADLINE: October 6, 2019 INTRODUCTION Metro Storage LLC is requesting a conditional use permit and variance to develop a new climate controlled self-storage (interior only) facility in the city’s I-Industrial District. The storage facility site is being proposed for the vacant parcel generally located at the southeast corner of Northland Drive and Highway 55, which was recently assigned a new parcel address of 1178 Northland Drive. This planning request item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the local Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcel. No comments (or objections) to this request have been received by the city. BACKGROUND As noted in the Applicant’s narrative, Metro Self Storage is a family owned and operated self-storage Company that opened its first mini storage in 1973; and the company has grown to include over 140 facilities in 16 states. Earlier this year, Metro Storage requested consideration of a Zoning Code Amendment to allow self-storage facilities in the Industrial District. At that time, “personal self-storage facility” was listed as one of a few prohibited uses in the I-Zone. The zoning amendment was initially reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 22nd, followed by final consideration at the February 22nd meeting, where a recommendation of denial to this ordinance amendment request was made by the commission. The amendment matter was then reviewed subsequently by the City Council on March 19th, April 23rd, May 7th, and finally May 21st, whereby the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 538, which removed “Personal Self-Storage Facility” from the prohibited list, and allows such uses by means of a conditional use permit in the Industrial District. The subject parcel is a 2.2 acre parcel, zoned and guided I-Industrial District. The property was previously owned and controlled by the neighboring business to the east, General Pump at 1174 Northland Drive. The General Pump facility was built in 1994, and this adjacent parcel was acquired by GP as a future site for business expansion space if needed. This site has remained vacant since 1994 (historic aerial mapping Planning Case 2019-20 Metro Storage CUP-VAR. Page 2 of 13 imagery actually indicates the site as vacant since the mid -1930’s); and was recently sold off by GP to the current owners MH Northland Drive Ventures, LLLP. Pursuant to amended Title 12-1G-1, Metro Storage is allowed to present this development plan for the new self-storage facility under the conditional use permit process. As part of this CUP application, the proposed development requires submittal of a detailed and complete site plan for full consideration by the planning commission and city council. The Applicant has also submitted a Variance to certain floor area ratio (FAR) requirements established in the Industrial District, which will be explained and analyzed later in this report. It should be noted that Metro Storage originally submitted their CUP and Variance applications on June 24, 2019; however, this original application was deemed incomplete, due primarily to the discovery by city staff of a potential wetland on the site. According to Dakota County GIS mapping, the 2011 National Wetland Inventory layer showed a PEM1A wetland on the site. A PEM1A wetland is classified and described as follows: USFWS/NWI Code Classification description Common Description PEM1A Palustrine emergent persistent wetland, temporarily flooded Fresh or interior marsh, persistent vegetation, topographically high The Applicant immediately hired Kjolhaug Environmental Services to inspect and perform a wetland assessment on the subject site; and on August 7th, the city received a Site Assessment report from Kjolhaug that no wetlands were present or delineated on the subject parcel. An excerpt portion of this wetland report is appended. PROJECT DESCRIPTION  Building Plan/Elevations Metro Storage plans to construct a new three-story, 117,810-sf. fully contained, climate controlled, interior only self-storage facility. Exterior of building includes architectural precast panels with multiple finishes to create a pleasing image and break-up the facade. The precast panels will have a 16-foot-high base of real brick inserts of two contrasting brick colors to create a strong visual base around the ground story. The building uses a large sized light-colored limestone style precast finish with grooved panel joints breaking up the precast into large block visual elements. The main entry at the northwest corner is highlighted with flat metal panels and extensive glass allowing views into the lobby and upper storage floors. The sides and back walls also include significant additional glass window panels allowing daylight into the building corridors. The included perspective rendering shows the interest the different materials and massing provides, creating a very nice-looking building. A decorative metal canopy is planned for the front entry and at each of the internal drive’s glass overhead door entrances. (SEE IMAGE BELOW) Planning Case 2019-20 Metro Storage CUP-VAR. Page 3 of 13  Site Plan Pursuant to Title 12-1G-7 Site and Structure Requirements for Industrial District uses, the [pertinent] standards are noted below, with responses (in italic print) following each: A. Not more than fifty percent (50%) of the lot area shall be occupied by buildings. • The storage building will have a footprint of 39,270 square feet covering 40.9% of property which is below the 50% maximum building coverage allowed by city code. B. Structure Height: No structure shall exceed forty-five feet (45') in height.  Plans call for the building’s roof-line at 42’-6” and up to 44’-6” at the highest point of the (high) parapet. C. Setbacks: Side Yards Abutting a Street on a Corner Lot: Side yard abutting a street on a corner lot shall be not less than forty feet (40') in width. • The proposed storage facility is setback at 40-ft. from HWY 55 right-of-way line and 40-ft. off Northland Drive ROW line. The “roadway” to the east of the subject site (between the property and General Pump) is not a true roadway, but more of a private driveway or access way. The 40-ft. setback is not needed along this east line. F. Floor Area Ratio: Floor area ratio shall not exceed 0.5. FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) is the numerical value obtained through dividing the floor area of a building or buildings by the lot area on which such building or buildings are located. In this case the FAR is calculated as follows: • TOTAL BLDG. AREA = 39,270-sf. x 3 = 117,810-sf. • LOT AREA = 2.2 acres or 95,920-sf. • FAR CALC: 117,810 / 95,920 = 1.24%, which is well above the 0.50 standard. The proposed storage facility requires approval of a variance to this standard. G. Minimum Lot Requirements: Lot Area: 1 acre / Lot Width: 100 feet Front Yard Setback: 40-ft. Side Yard Setback: 30-ft. or 40-ft. abutting street Rear Yard 50-ft. • The lot is 2.2 acres and exceeds the 1 acre minimum. • The front lot width dimension is 153-ft. wide along Northland Drive; and 255-ft. along the back MnDOT I-494 ROW. Both dimensions exceed the 100-ft. standard. • Front Yard setback (from Northland Dr.) is 40-ft. • Side Yard (westerly along Hwy 55) is 40-ft. and Easterly SY is 30-ft. • Rear Yard setback is 83’-4”.  Parking/Access Plan The proposed storage facility plans call for the main access to be located near the north end of the facility, coming off the private driveway/access road only. This access will lead customers/visitors to the front main entryway and north access (secure overhead door entryway) into the facility. This area contains six (6) spaces. Farther down the easterly access road, five (5) additional spaces will be provided along the side of the facility. Customers who enter the storage facility will also have access to 11 interior spaces. The new City Code standard for self-storage facility requires one (1) space per 6,000-sf. of storage space. The plan calls for 85,065-sf. of net storage space: CALC: 85,065 / 6,000 = 14.18, or 15 stalls. Planning Case 2019-20 Metro Storage CUP-VAR. Page 4 of 13 Metro Storage proposes 11 exterior stalls and 11 interior stalls, or total of 22-stalls. The rear (south) end of the facility will have a one-way, exit only driveway leading out from the building, and back on to the adjacent private drive/access road. A trash enclosure area is also planned near this back entryway. The enclosure should match the exterior materials of the main building.  Grading/Drainage/Utility Plan The subject site is relatively flat throughout, except for a small 4-5-ft. high earthen berm along the westerly edge (HWY 55 ROW line). The grading plan calls for minimal grading of the site to accommodate the finished floor elevation (FFE) of the proposed building at 894-ft. A small Infiltration Basin #1 is planned on the south side of the building, with drainage swales and inlets to take in storm water drainage from the private driveway to the east and other hard surfaced areas. The new basin will be tied in to an existing 15-inch storm pipe that leads out to a wetland feature in MnDOT ROW. This basin is also planned to have a rip-rapped emergency outflow (EOF) along the west edge of the basin/swale area in case of abnormal or excessive storm events. Infiltration Basin #2 is an elongated drainage area along the west side of the proposed building. This basin will take storm water drainage from the north parking lot area, and roof drains from the building. The storm water management report submitted by the Applicant’s consultants (Rehder & Associates) indicates the required volume control (based on 1.20 acres of proposed impervious surface area), that 4,792 cu. ft. of rate control is needed on this site. The report indicates that Basin #1 provides 2,907 cu. ft. of volume, while Basin #2 provides 4,259 cu. ft. of volume, or 7,166 cu. ft. of total volume provided. The building’s utilities will be tied into the existing (main) service lines underneath Northland Drive to the north. Water service will be provided to the building by a 1-inch copper service line for typical/potable water needs; and a 6-inch DIP (ductile iron pipe) for fire suppression or interior sprinkler systems. The building’s sanitary service will be provided by a new 6-inch PVC pipe, with a clean-out located at the angled junction of said line. The city’s Public Works Director has reviewed the plans and storm water report, and does not have any issues with this report (or findings) at this time; or placed any additional requirements or conditions related to this request.  Landscape Plan Pursuant to Title 12-1G-6, any new development in the Industrial District shall be landscaped with grass, trees, shrubs, or other planted ground cover, in accordance with detailed landscaping plan. Plans call for the removal of a few trees scattered throughout the site. The original submitted landscape plan included a few deciduous trees such as honey locust, hackberry and river birch; with velvet pillar crab trees for ornamentals; Black Hills spruces for evergreen trees; and sumac, spirea, and dogwoods for low-growth shrubs. This original landscape plan was submitted to the city’s recognized master gardeners, who recommended a few changes to the plan: - substituting ironwood trees for the river birch; - replacing the velvet crabs with serviceberry species; - replace tor spirea bushes with Little Bluestem species; - replace sumacs with honeysuckle, serviceberry, chokeberry, or prairie drop seed grasses; - replace the proposed rock mulch beds with shredded wood mulch; and - substitute the MnDOT 25-121 seed mix with a preferred MnDOT or other native seed mix. Planning Case 2019-20 Metro Storage CUP-VAR. Page 5 of 13 The Landscape Plan was revised and resubmitted, with changes made to the ornamental crabs to serviceberry trees; rock beds are now shown with shredded wood mulch beds, and the seed mix has been revised to a Native Seed Mix #33-261. The Commission may wish to discuss with the Applicant if other substituting (in line with the Master Gardeners recommendations) are warranted, such as replacing the river birch with ironwood; spirea with bluestems; sumac with honeysuckle, serviceberry or chokeberry varieties. This same Code provision also states that “the owner shall have a continuing responsibility to maintain such landscaping and any required screening in reasonable condition at all times.” The plans call for the all new planting areas and lawn areas to be irrigated, which should provide for the daily maintenance and care called for under this ordinance, along with the routine maintenance and care (mowing, weeding, fertilizing, etc.) of the ground by on-site management. City Code also requires a bond in an amount not to exceed one and one-half (11/2) times the cost of landscaping and screening shall be required to guarantee the placement and construction thereof as required in this chapter.  Lighting Plan The lighting plan calls for approx. 21 new “trac wall mount” style lights, which appear to be a downcast/cut- off type light standard mounted along the outer walls of the building. The light plan does not include any new pole lights. Pursuant to Title 12-1I-15, Lights for illuminating parking areas, loading areas or yards for safety and security purposes shall create a reading of no more than 0.2 foot-candle at the shared property line with a commercial or industrial use or public right of way, and shall create a reading of zero foot-candles at the shared property line with residentially zoned property. The photometric (light intensity) plan for the site indicates the new lighting meets these standards, and is approved.  Aircraft Noise Attenuation Pursuant to Title 12-4-1, the City finds that development within certain areas of the city is impacted by aircraft noise; that said noise is beyond the regulatory authority of the city to control; that certain uses of land are inappropriate in areas of high aircraft noise; that some structures do not adequately attenuate aircraft noise resulting in negative impacts on the health, safety and welfare of the residents or inhabitants of the structures; that, through proper construction methods, the means exist to attenuate aircraft noise to interior levels which alleviate such negative impacts; and that the requirements of this chapter are necessary to promote and preserve the health, safety and welfare of the citizens. Review of the Metropolitan Airport Commission’s Noise Contour Map – 2016 indicates the subject site appears to be inside the established “60 DNL” noise contour line. The DNL is defined as: “The day-night sound level, or the twenty four (24) hour equivalent continuous sound level (time averaged A-weighted sound level) from 12:00 midnight to 12:00 midnight, obtained after the addition of ten (10) dBA to sound levels measured from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.” Any application for a city building or occupancy permit pertaining to land located in an aircraft noise zone must demonstrate compliance with the provisions of this chapter prior to the issuance of such permit. Per 12-4-7 Noise Compatibility Table (refer to partial table – below), industrial uses located in the 60-70 Actual Noise Contour are noted as “CNST” or Consistent, which is defined as “Acceptable Land Uses” Land Use Type Actual Noise Contour Leq(81+) (76-80) (71-75) (60-70) Industrial, communication, utility 25 CNST CNST CNST Planning Case 2019-20 Metro Storage CUP-VAR. Page 6 of 13 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS Pursuant to Title 12-1L-6, any use allowed by a conditional use permit in a particular zoning district requires submittal of a complete development or site plan for full consideration by the planning commission and city council. The [city] council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the planning commission and the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants or surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets, and the effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan. The City may grant a conditional use provided the proposed use will: a) not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, b) nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, c) nor will seriously depreciate surrounding property value, and d) that the same is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter and the comprehensive plan. A. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will seriously depreciate surrounding property value. Staff Response: The overall general use and purpose of the self-storage facility at this location does not appear to produce any activity, level of service, or production of materials that could be considered detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Staff is unaware of any negative impacts or impairments attributed to similar commercial storage uses found in other cities, nor discovered any evidence, information or testimony from other cities that these personal storage uses have caused any negative traffic congestion, hazardous situations or depreciated property values due the placement of such facilities next to other commercial or industrial uses. The new storage facility should be compatible with the adjacent commercial and industrial uses in the Industrial Park, including General Pump next door, and the smaller office uses along Northland Drive (south of Mendota Heights Road). The site is being accessed off two separate driveways from what is considered a private driveway/roadway installed by General Pump in 1994. No part of this site will have direct access on to Northland Drive or Highway 55. It is projected the number of trips to and from the self-storage site will be minimal, and will not result in any congestion problems getting in or out of this site or area. B. The proposed use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the city code and comprehensive plan. Staff Response: City Code Title 12-1L-6 Conditional Use states: “The development and execution of this chapter is based upon the division of the city into districts within which the regulations are specified. It is recognized, however, that there are special or conditional uses which, because of their unique characteristics, cannot be properly classified in any district or districts without consideration, in each case, of the impact of those uses on neighboring land or the public need for the particular location. To provide for these needs, the council may by resolution approve a conditional use for those uses and purposes, and may impose conditions and safeguards in such permits to ensure that the purpose and intent of this chapter is carried out.” Planning Case 2019-20 Metro Storage CUP-VAR. Page 7 of 13 As indicated previously, the subject site is located in the Industrial Zone. As part of a proposed Zoning Text Amendment application/request from the same Applicant, city Zoning Code now allows for personal self-storage uses as a conditional use, subject to the following standards: Personal self-storage facility, provided that: A. Any and all storage shall be inside the building. Exterior storage of personal vehicles, recreational vehicles, trailers, and equipment is strictly prohibited. B. The storage facility shall have a security system adequate to limit access to persons renting at the facility. C. Facility shall not be located closer than one-quarter (1/4) mile from any residential use and/or residential zone. D. All drive aisles and parking surfaces must be curb and guttered, with asphalt or concrete. E. The use shall have no more than three (3) overhead doors or bays to be used for entering/exiting the facility. F. Access to any fenced-in exterior area shall be available to emergency responders in a manner acceptable to the fire marshal. G. Common parking space available to all visitors shall be provided at a rate no less than one space per six thousand (6,000) square feet of storage area. • The Applicant has provided a plan that shows no outdoor storage of vehicles will be allowed; all parking areas shall be for customers, visitors or employees at the site. • The facility is accessed only by means through a front door entryway, and through one main overhead roll-up door on the north end, which is opened by a security card or key-pad. Only paid customers or clients will have access to the interior of the facility. Once the door is opened, vehicle enters, the door closes immediately afterwards and the facility is secured again. • The facility is well over 2,000+ feet from Lemay Shores townhome development, and over 1,800+ feet from Hillside Gables (Dakota County workforce housing site off Lexington Avenue). • There are no fenced-in exterior areas planned for this site; all storage will be inside the building. Access to the interior areas of the storage facility will be reviewed and approved by the city’s Building Official and Fire Marshal as part of any new building permit review. • As noted previously, the required parking for the new building is based on the useable storage area of the facility, which in this case is 15-spaces. The Applicant intends to provide 11 exterior and 11 interior spaces for customers/clients. It is Staff’s belief that proposed conditional use for the proposed personal self-storage facility at this location, and specifically to Metro Storage, LLC, conforms to the general purpose and intent of the city code and comprehensive plan, including almost every site and performance standards under the I- Industrial District, except for the required floor area ratio (FAR) requirements, which will be detailed in the Variance analysis below. VARIANCE ANALYSIS Pursuant to City Code Title 12-1G-7 Site and Structure Requirements for the Industrial District, not more than 50% of the lot area shall be occupied by buildings; and the floor area ratio (FAR) shall not exceed 0.5. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is defined (or determined) as: the numerical value obtained through Planning Case 2019-20 Metro Storage CUP-VAR. Page 8 of 13 dividing the floor area of a building or buildings by the lot area on which such building or buildings are located. In this particular case, the proposed three-story storage facility is 117,810 sq. ft. (39,270 sf. each floor). With a lot area of 2.2 acres, or 95,920-sf., the FAR is calculated as follows: FAR CALC: 117,810 / 95,920 = 1.23 The proposed FAR of 1.23 represents an approximate 250% increase over the 0.5 standard. The Applicant defends this higher FAR request based on the following statement (from their narrative): “While the proposed project meets all the city requirements listed above, we are requesting a variance related to the ordinance Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit which we believe is not consistent with this newly added Industrial zoning use. Since the building massing, height, and site coverage are within requirements, the only aspect of the building that drives this above the listed FAR is that the building has multiple floors within the building unlike other industrial uses. There is no impact of the added floors from the exterior and due to the very low intensity of this use, there will be less activity than for a single-story building of other approved Industrial uses. This variance is covered in more detail in the Variance Application form submitted.” City Code Section 12-1L-5 governs variance requests. The Planning Commission must consider a number of variables when recommending or deciding on a variance, which generally fall into two categories: (i) practical difficulties; and (ii) impact to the community. The “practical difficulties” test contains three parts: (i) the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance; (ii) the plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner; and (iii) the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Also, economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Section 12-1L-5(E)(1) further references other variables the City can consider when granting or denying a variance, noted as follows: • Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community. • Existing and anticipated traffic conditions. • Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety. • Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan. • Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty. When considering a variance request, the Planning Commission must determine if these standards have been met in granting a variance, either partially or whole, and provide findings of facts to support such a recommendation to the City Council. If the Planning Commission determines the Applicant has failed to meet these standards, or has not fully demonstrated a reasonableness in the granting of such variance, then findings of fact supporting a recommendation of denial must be determined. As part of any variance request, Applicants are required to prepare and submit their own responses and findings, which for this case are noted below (in italic text): 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance. Applicant’s Response: The proposed project complies with all Site and Structure requirements under 12-1G-7 of the City Zoning Code (as recently amended by City Ordinance 538) for building height, setbacks, building area, lot coverage and parking requirements. However, the floor area ratio (“FAR”) is 1.24. 12-1G-7F of the City Ordinance provides that the FAR shall not exceed 0.5. Thus the FAR for the Planning Case 2019-20 Metro Storage CUP-VAR. Page 9 of 13 Project exceeds City Ordinance requirements. This is a difficulty and is a result of the Project’s comprehensive design that enhances “drive by” aesthetics, customer/occupant safety, property security and the efficient three story horizontal utilization of floor space. The design features of the Project promotes a reasonable use of the property providing a desirable visual appearance along Hwy 55. Since there is a low intense overall use of the property due to nature of the business, the applicant will be able to efficiently use the full building height for vertical storage space, without compromising safety, security or aesthetics. 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner. Applicant’s Response: The variance request is not due to any property characteristics, but is due to the inconsistency between the Ordinance building area limitation, building height limitation and the FAR limitation, particularly for this recently amended Industrial zoning use. 3. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Applicant’s Response: The proposed use of the property will have an overall low intensity operational nature and will be consistent with the characteristics of surrounding land uses- to the north and northeast, which are light industrial, office facilities, and office warehouse buildings with parking and landscaped areas. Outside surface parking usage for the Project will be less intense than parking usage at the properties to the north and northeast. The surrounding land uses to the west and south are Highway 55 and Interstate 494. Staff Response: The floor area ratio (FAR) standard is an effective way to calculate the bulk - or mass of building volume on a development site, and is often used in conjunction with other development standards such as building heights, lot coverage and lot area. FAR can sometime assist in a community’s desire to limit over- intensification or over-development of a site. FAR can be used to either limit the intensity of land use to lessen the environmental impacts of development or to control the mass and scale of development. In some cases, calculating a site’s FAR with these other standards, it helps lessen impacts to the site, such as a need for more parking, increased hard surfaces, and additional on-site storm water management systems. From reviewing a number of adjacent city ordinances and their industrial zoning district standards, some have maximum building coverage percentages ranging from a low of 30%-35% (Inver Grove Hts. & Eagan) and up to 50% in West St. Paul. Maximum lot coverage (total impervious surface cover) range from 70- 75% up to 90-95% in some cities. Cities of Bloomington and St. Paul allow for uses in certain commercial/business/industrial districts with an FAR from 1.0 to 2.0. Most of our suburban neighboring cities do not use or apply the FAR standard to industrial uses (business/commercial) in their respective zoning districts. Most of these cities appear to only limit building size (footprint), height and impervious surface percentages. Most of these cities’ height standards seem to range in or around 30-45 feet in height, which could accommodate 3 to 4 story buildings. The Applicant’s plan demonstrates that all other Industrial Zone development and site standards will be met under this plan, including lot size (dimensions), setbacks, height, and building coverage. Because the city allows for buildings in the Industrial district to be up to 45-feet in height, this provides ample opportunity for the Applicant/Developer to provide additional stories and space for this very specific use on this vacant industrial parcel; and which use they pursued to allow such use in this district, and granted approval earlier this year. Staff would suggest the city give serious consideration to allowing this proposed self-storage use at this location, even with the added FAR, due in part to the fact the proposed use meets many of the other Industrial District standards, and the use will be limited to only this site. Planning Case 2019-20 Metro Storage CUP-VAR. Page 10 of 13 Since this proposed use is very new to the community, and a very specific use in this Industrial district, city staff is offering to make a condition that this variance (and related CUP) is only for this personal self- storage use; and shall apply specifically to this site only. Should Metro Storage open and operate the business for a few years, and decide to close down the storage facility and sell-off the property, any future owner(s) or operators of this site would be limited to a self-storage uses only. Any other permitted industrial user that took over the site, would need to comply with current I-Industrial District standards, such as parking and FAR and all others listed under the district’s regulations. ALTERNATIVES for ACTION Should the Commission elect to strike-out or modify the current 0.5 FAR standard to allow the new personal self-storage facility, it must decide on one (or possibly two) of the following “Alternatives for Action”. 1. Recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit request for Planning Case No. 2019-20, based on the following findings of fact that support the granting of said CUP, noted as follows: A. Pursuant to City Code Title 12-1G-2, Metro Storage LLC is allowed to have a personal self-storage facility, provided that: i. Any and all storage shall be inside the building. Exterior storage of personal vehicles, recreational vehicles, trailers, and equipment is strictly prohibited; ii. The storage facility shall have a security system adequate to limit access to persons renting at the facility; iii. Facility shall not be located closer than one-quarter (1/4) mile from any residential use and/or residential zone; iv. All drive aisles and parking surfaces must be curb and guttered, with asphalt or concrete; v. The use shall have no more than three (3) overhead doors or bays to be used for entering/exiting the facility; vi. Access to any fenced-in exterior area shall be available to emergency responders in a manner acceptable to the fire marshal; and vii. Common parking space available to all visitors shall be provided at a rate no less than one space per six thousand (6,000) square feet of storage area. B. The Applicant has demonstrated through their submitted site plan, that the proposed self-storage facility on the subject property either meets or exceeds all of these standards established under Title 12-1G-2 for said use, zone, and is supported by the following findings of facts: i. The proposed self-storage use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor depreciate surrounding property values. ii. The proposed self-storage use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the current City Code and Comprehensive Plan, including all applicable performance standards, except for the floor area ratio requirements, and which requires acceptance and approval of a related variance for such standard, noted herein. Planning Case 2019-20 Metro Storage CUP-VAR. Page 11 of 13 iii. The property on which the use will be located is currently in compliance with all applicable city code standards. C. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2019- 20, dated and presented August 27, 2019 (and on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2019-____. D. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to his Conditional Use Permit request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the conditional use. Conditions related to this application are as follows: 1. The new storage facility building shall be constructed in conformance to building and site plans certified by a registered architect and/or licensed engineer. 2. Trash enclosure must be made to match the exterior finishes of the principal building. 3. Rooftop mechanical units shall be of a low profile variety. All ground-level and rooftop mechanical utilities, other than low profile rooftop units, shall be completely screened with one or more of the materials used in the construction of the principal structure, to be reviewed by the Planning Department and verified as part of the building permit review process. 4. Final landscaped plan shall be approved by the city staff in cooperation with the city’s Master Gardeners. 5. A performance bond or letter of credit shall be supplied by the applicant in an amount equal to at least one and one-half (11/2) times the value of such screening, landscaping, or other improvements, to be submitted at time of building permit approval. 6. The Developer shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan and which have died shall be replaced as soon as seasonal or weather conditions allow. All landscape areas must be irrigated. 7. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction commencement. 8. 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. 9. All applicable fire and building codes, as adopted/amended by the City, shall apply and the buildings shall be fully-protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system. 10. All new buildings must comply with the Aircraft Noise Attenuation standards as found under Title 12-4-1 of City Code. 11. Any new sign(s) proposed under this development plan must meet the standards of City Code Title 12-1D-15: Signs. 12. The conditional use permit for the personal self-storage facility and the related variance allowing the new building to exceed the required floor area ratio standard of 0.5 to 1.24, is only for the Applicant - Metro Storage, LLC, its subsidiaries and assigns of the property and Planning Case 2019-20 Metro Storage CUP-VAR. Page 12 of 13 all future owners of the subject property, provided the site is used exclusively as a personal self-storage facility. Any other permitted use or use by conditional use permit shall be made complaint with all current I-Industrial District zoning and site development standards at that time. • Note: should the Commission choose to recommend denial of this CUP, they must determine and offer reasonable findings of facts to support such action.) If the FAR remains in effect (left intact), then the Commission must choose one of the two following recommendations on the Variance, which would accompany the CUP recommendation: 2. Recommend approval of the Variance request for Planning Case No. 2019-20, based on the following findings of fact that support the granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a Variance to allow the proposed personal self-storage facility to exceed the floor area ratio requirement of 0.5 for Industrial District uses up to 1.24, based on the following findings: i.) the proposed structure and project complies with all Site and Structure requirements under 12-1G-7 of the City Zoning Code (as recently amended by City Ordinance 538) for building height, setbacks, building area, lot coverage and parking requirements, except for the 0.5 FAR standard, and yet the design features of the Project promotes a reasonable use of the property providing a desirable visual appearance along Hwy 55, since there is a low intense overall use of the property due to nature of the business, the applicant will be able to efficiently use the full building height for vertical storage space, without compromising safety, security or aesthetics. ii.) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, due in part to the inconsistency between the Ordinance building area limitation, building height limitation and the FAR limitation, particularly for this recently amended Industrial zoning use; iii.) The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhoods; since the proposed use of the property will have an overall low intensity operational nature and will be consistent with the characteristics of surrounding land uses- to the north and northeast, which are light industrial, office facilities, and office warehouse buildings with parking and landscaped areas. C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variances upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. Planning Case 2019-20 Metro Storage CUP-VAR. Page 13 of 13 D. Approval of this Variance is only for Metro Storage, LLC, the Applicant as noted herein, and their successors and assigns, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variances must be applied for separately, provide a project narrative, and present and demonstrate a reasonable need or justification to the City in order to approve a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2019- 20, dated and presented August 27, 2019 and later appended and presented on September 24, 2019, and is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2019-____. 3. Recommend denial of the Variance request, based on the findings of fact that confirm the Applicant failed to meet the burden(s) of proof or standards in granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the City may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The City hereby determines the Applicant has not fully met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of this Variance to exceed the floor area ratio requirement of 0.5 for Industrial District uses; and therefore the City hereby finds the proposed personal self-storage project is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and there are other alternatives on the property due to its large size; and is therefore not considered a reasonable use of the property. C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the property) is not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood). 4. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration of the Conditional Use Permit and Variances to be considered for this new self-storage facility; and if the Commission wishes to approve the CUP as presented herein, or add/modify the conditions as noted herein, you may choose Alternative No. 1 as noted above. If the Commission wishes to either approve or deny the Variance related to the excess FAR standard, it may choose either Alternative No. 2 or 3 respectively, with findings of facts that give support to either action. I-494I-35EHWY 5 5 494 RAMPI- 3 5 E RAMP I-94 RAMPMENDOTA HEIGHTS RD NORT HL AND DRTRAPP RD 494 LOOPI-35E LOOPLEXINGTON AVELEMAY LAKE RD S E R VIC E R D W E A G A N D A L E B LV D 494 RAMPI-494 I -35E RAMPI-35E RAMPI-35EH WY 5 5 I-94 RAMP494 L O O P 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE Metro Storage Site City of Mendota Heights0390 SCALE IN FEETDate: 8/7/2019 GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. 9 8 0 4 3 9 2 8 0 4 0 1 255185 1681 7 1 8 3 100531571 7 8 2 0 0 1 0 1001001 0 1174 1196 1171 HWY 5 5 I-4 9 4494 R A M P N O R TH LA N D D R HWY 5 5 1178 NORTHLAND DRIVE Metro Storage Site City of Mendota Heights090 SCALE IN FEETDate: 8/7/2019 GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. 7300 WEST 147TH STREETSUITE 504APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124-7580(952) 431-4433 June 23, 2019 Project Narrative: Metro Self Storage – Mendota Heights . The Metro Self Storage project is a new 3-story climate-controlled facility proposed for Northland Plaza in Mendota Heights. Metro Self Storage is a family owned and operated self-storage company that opened its first mini storage in 1973. The company has grown to include over 140 facilities in 16 states and prides itself in providing the best storage experience in the industry. The project site is accessed off Northland Drive on its north property line and abuts Highway 55 on the west and Interstate 494 on the south. The property is a 2.2 acre remaining site within this otherwise developed area. The property is zoned I - Industrial as are the properties surrounding the site except for a strip of B3 – General Business properties to the north. The storage building will have a footprint of 39,270 square feet covering 40.9% of property which is below the 50% maximum building coverage allowed by ordinance. There is 45,014 square feet of green space providing 46.9% landscaped area proposed for this site. The landscape plan indicates a variety of overstory trees, ornamental trees and shrubs to provide interest and emphasize elements of the building design. Exterior of building includes architectural precast panels with multiple finishes to create a pleasing image and break-up the facade. The precast panels will have a 16 foot high base of real brick inserts of two contrasting brick colors to create a strong visual base around the ground story Above this base the building uses a large sized light-colored limestone style precast finish with grooved panel joints breaking up the precast into large block visual elements. The light-colored panels are also broken up with a rhythm of slightly higher full brick panels many of which include additional glass windows creating aesthetic interest along each façade. The main entry at the northwest corner is highlighted with flat metal panels and extensive glass allowing views into the lobby and upper storage floors. The sides and back walls also include significant additional glass window panels allowing daylight into the building corridors. The included perspective rendering shows the interest the different materials and massing provides, creating a very nice-looking building. Along with this we have provided a decorative metal canopy at the front entry and at each of the internal drive’s glass overhead door entrances. The civil engineering drawings indicate the grading, paving and drainage approach for the project. The stormwater design collects rainwater from the roof and pavement into below grade stormwater piping. This stormwater will be piped to the west stormwater infiltration pond which along with the other stormwater pond on the site are designed to infiltrate all new impervious surface areas. Consequently, no additional stormwater will leave this site above the minor previously approved flow from the adjacent property. Pavement and curb design are also included in these drawings along with utility connections. The site access is off Northland Drive just east of Highway 55 entering on the existing shared private drive serving the property to the east. The first entry of this private drive leads to a parking lot at the front of the building near the office entry and the entrance to an internal one-way drive- through access down the middle of the storage building. This internal drive allows clients to enter and park in the climate-controlled area while they load or unload items from their storage unit. Self-storage is a very low traffic producer compared to any other commercial business that would otherwise be considered on this Industrial zoned site. Consequently, there is a very small demand for parking stalls, typically with only a few clients visiting the facility at any given time. There is room inside the building for 11 parallel parking stalls. Added to this are 10 exterior stalls on the north and east sides of the building resulting in a total of 21 stalls. This is 6 stalls more than the ordinance minimum 15 stall requirement. The leasing office for the facility will be in the northwest corner of the building with parking immediately adjacent for customers to access the office. First time customers would park at the office and lease a unit. On subsequent visits customers would pull into the building through the north entry overhead door leading to the interior drive-through lane, access their storage unit, and then exit at the south side. The facility will be staffed by a Property Manager (PM) everyday with weekday hours being 9:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. and shorter on the weekend. Other employees will be a Storage Consultant (SC) and a Maintenance Technician (MT). Each customer will have a proprietary PIN number to access the facility. Facility access hours are from 6 a.m. until 10 p.m. The building will be automatically locked down at that point and no further access can be achieved. The access system keeps daily records of all entries. The facility will also be monitored by 16 security cameras that are accessed by the PM in the office as well as being able to be viewed from a web-based platform by management. Cameras will cover virtually all public areas of the building. The site lighting will include all new highly efficient LED light fixtures with moderate lighting levels appropriate for this use. All light fixtures are building mounted, fully shielded, dark sky compliant and provide strong cut-off at the lot edges. While the proposed project meets all the city requirements listed above, we are requesting a variance related to the ordinance Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit which we believe is not consistent with this newly added Industrial zoning use. Since the building massing, height, and site coverage are within requirements, the only aspect of the building that drives this above the listed FAR is that the building has multiple floors within the building unlike other industrial uses. There is no impact of the added floors from the exterior and due to the very low intensity of this use, there will be less activity than for a single-story building of other approved Industrial uses. This variance is covered in more detail in the Variance Application form submitted. In conclusion, the proposed new Metro Self Storage facility provides for an attractive building and landscaped site to meet the storage needs of Mendota Heights residents. With the very low traffic generation and activity associated with this proposed use, this climate-controlled self-storage facility will fit well into this commercial neighborhood. On behalf of Metro Self Storage, we are pleased to have this opportunity to bring this new business to Mendota Heights. Sincerely, Quinn S. Hutson, AIA, LEED AP Principal CNH Architects, Inc. Variance Application (2019) Page 1 of 3 VARIANCE APPLICATION – CHECKLIST & RESPONSE FORM Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission and/or City Council only after all required materials have been submitted. Application submittal deadlines are available on the City’s website or by contacting the City Planner. Late or incomplete applications will not be put on the agenda. Office Use Only: Case #:_____________________ Applicant:____________________ Address:_____________________ The City Council may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the City Code and impose conditions and safeguards in the variances so granted in cases where there are practical difficulties in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. "Practical difficulties", as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Please consider these requirements carefully before requesting a variance. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: Electronic and hard copies of all the required materials must be submitted according to the current application submittal schedule. Submit 1 electronic copy and 2 hard copies (full-size/to-scale) of all required plans. The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete: Fee, as included in current Fee Schedule (check payable to City of Mendota Heights). NOTE: Planning Application fees do not cover building permit fees, utilities, or other fees which may be required to complete the project. Completed Application Form(s). Letter of Intent. Required Plans. APPLICANT MUST CHECK ALL APPLICABLE ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE SUBMITTAL Sketch Plan (to-scale drawing or certified survey, if determined necessary): Location and setbacks of all buildings on the property in question including both existing and proposed structures. Location of any easements having an influence upon the variance request. Written consent and waiver of public hearing, in a form prescribed by the city, by the owners of property within one hundred feet (100') of the boundaries of the property for which the 2019-20 Metro Storage LLC Variance Application (2019) Page 2 of 3 variance is requested, accompanied by a map indicating the location of the property in question and the location of the property owners who have given consent; or, lacking such consent, a list of names and addresses of the owners of property within one hundred feet (100') of the boundaries of the property for which the variance is requested. If topography or extreme grade is the basis on which the request is made, all topographic contours shall be submitted. If the application involves a cutting of a curb for a driveway or grading a driveway, the applicant shall have his plan approved by the city public works director prior to construction. Please complete the attached questions regarding your request. Responses will be presented to the Planning Commission & City Council. __________________________________________________________________ Please answer the following three questions as they relate to the variance request. (Note: you may fill-in this form or create your own) 1.Are there any practical difficulties that help support the granting of this variance? (Note: “practical difficulties" as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by City Code. Economic considerations along do not constitute a practical difficulty). YES NO Please describe or identify any practical difficulties and/or how you plan to use the property in a reasonable manner below: Variance Application (2019) Page 3 of 3 2.Are there any circumstances unique to the property (not created by the owner) that support the granting of this variance? YES NO Please describe or identify any unique circumstances below: 3.If the variance was granted, would it alter the essential character of the neighborhood? YES NO Why or Why Not? Please explain how the request fits with the character of the neighborhood. The City Council must make affirmative findings on all of the criteria listed above in order to grant a variance. The applicant for a variance has the burden of proof to show that all of the criteria listed above have been demonstrated or satisfied. Comm. No.: Date: Metro Self Storage -Perspective View 19051 06/24/19 S id e y a rd to a S tre e t4 0 ' - 0 "33' - 0"Fr ont yar d40' - 0"10' - 0"Pa r k i n g Se t b a c kBu il d i n g Se t b a c k B u ild in g S e tb a c kParking Set backPr oper t y Li ne80' - 0"75' - 0"70' - 0"55' - 0" 2 5 ' - 0 "1 1 0 ' - 0 "1 0 ' - 0 "Gross Area (footprint) = 39,270 s.f. x 3 = 117,810 s.f. R e te n tio n P o n d Proposed 3 Story BuildingDr i ve t hr u5 5 ' - 0 "2 5 ' - 0 "3 0 ' - 0 "HC 6 3 L O A D IN G H i g h w a y 5 5N o r t h l a n d D r i v e I n t e r s t a t e 4 9 4 11 Pr o p e rt y L i n e I nf i l t r at i on PondTrash73' - 0"287' - 0"33' - 4" 4 0 ' - 0 "1 6 2 ' - 0 "1 0 ' - 0 "Rear y ar d50' - 0" Existing Building Monument sign E x it -O n e W a y20' - 0" 2 2 0 ' - 0 "Site Statistics: Site Area 95,920 SF 2.2 Acres Setback Statistics: Building Setback -Front Yard to Street 40 Feet Building Setback -Side Yard to Street 40 Feet Building Setback -Side Yard 30 Feet Building Setback -Rear Yard 50 Feet Parking Setbacks 10/20 Feet Building Area Statistics: Proposed Building Area 39,270 SF Proposed Building Area Coverage 40.9 % Maximum Building Area Coverage Allowed 50.0 % Lot Coverage Statistics: Total Site Impervious Area (Parking & Walks)11,640 SF Total Proposed Building Area 39,270 SF Total Proposed Landscape Coverage 45,010 SF Total Proposed Landscape Coverage %46.9 % Parking Statistics: Parking Required (Personal Self-Storage)15 stalls 85,065 SF Net Storage Area / 6,000 SF per stall Parking Provided Exterior 11 stalls Interior (parallel along internal one-way aisle 11 stalls Total Stalls Provided 22 stalls FAR -by Ordinance 0.5 FAR -Proposed 1.24 Pr oper t y Li neProposed 3 Story Building H i g h w a y 5 5N o r t h l a n d I n t e r s t a t e 4 9 4Pr o p e rt y L i n e Existing Building Existing Building Existing Building D r i v e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A B C D E F G H J K L M A B C D E F G H J K L M © COPYRIGHT BY CNH ARCHITECTS, INC.7300 WEST 147TH STREET SUITE 504 APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124-7580 (952) 431-4433CNH NO.: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 151 REVISIONS: DATE:C:\Users\TJordan\Documents\19051 - Metro Storage Mendota Heights_tjordan.rvt8/9/2019 1:58:43 PMCITY SUBMITTAL -Rev 1 CS01Preliminary Site PlanMetro Self Storage1178 Northland DriveMendota Heights, MN 5512019051 06/24/19 1" = 30'-0"CS01 2 Schematic Overall Site Plan 1 08/08/19 Revised Submittals 1" = 80'-0"CS01 1 Area Plan w Neighboring Buildings 1 1 1 1 1 Floor 1 100' -0" Floor 2 116' -0" Floor 3 128' -0" T.O. Parapet 142' -6" High Parapet 144' -6" Precast wall panel with thin brick, dark Precast wall panel, smooth finish Precast wall panel with thin brick, medium Lighted box sign, maximum 100 s.f. Suspended canopy with recessed can lights, typical Aluminum and glass sectional door LED wall pack light, full cut-off Floor 1 100' -0" Floor 2 116' -0" Floor 3 128' -0" T.O. Parapet 142' -6" High Parapet 144' -6" Precast wall panel with thin brick, dark Precast wall panel, smooth finish Precast wall panel with thin brick,medium Aluminum storefront windowPrecast wall panel, smooth finish LED wall pack light, full cut-off Suspended canopy with recessed can lights, typical Floor 1 100' -0" Floor 2 116' -0" Floor 3 128' -0" T.O. Parapet 142' -6" High Parapet 144' -6" Precast wall panel with thin brick, dark Precast wall panel, smooth finish Precast wall panel with thin brick, medium Aluminum storefront window Flush metal panels Aluminum storefront window Precast wall panel, smooth finish Precast wall panel, smooth finish Rooftop unit, screened Lighted box sign, maximum 100 s.f. LED wall pack light, full cut-off Floor 1 100' -0" Floor 2 116' -0" Floor 3 128' -0" T.O. Parapet 142' -6" High Parapet 144' -6" Precast wall panel with thin brick, dark Precast wall panel, smooth finish Precast wall panel with thin brick, medium Suspended canopy with recessed can lights, typical Rooftop unit, screened Flush metal panels Aluminum storefront window system Aluminum and glass sectional door LED wall pack light, full cut-off Exterior Material -Area Percentages (%) Precast -Smooth Finish 46 % Thin Brick -Dark Color Thin Brick -Medium Color Metal & Glass 25 % 17 % 12 % 100 % 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A B C D E F G H J K L M A B C D E F G H J K L M © COPYRIGHT BY CNH ARCHITECTS, INC.7300 WEST 147TH STREET SUITE 504 APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124-7580 (952) 431-4433CNH NO.: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 151 REVISIONS: DATE:C:\Users\TJordan\Documents\19051 - Metro Storage Mendota Heights_tjordan.rvt6/24/2019 11:17:58 AMCITY SUBMITTAL CS02Exterior ElevationsMetro Self StorageHighway 55 and Northland DriveMendota Heights, MN 5512019051 06/24/19 1/16" = 1'-0"CS02 1 South Elevation 1/16" = 1'-0"CS02 4 East Elevation 1/16" = 1'-0"CS02 3 West Elevation 1/16" = 1'-0"CS02 2 North Elevation CS021 CS02 2 CS02 4 CS02 3 80' - 0"5' - 0"70' - 0"5' - 0"120' - 0"15' - 0"5' - 0"35' - 0"25' - 0"30' - 0"25' - 0"Drive aisle Office/ Reception Parking ( 11 stalls ) Trash 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A B C D E F G H J K L M A B C D E F G H J K L M © COPYRIGHT BY CNH ARCHITECTS, INC.7300 WEST 147TH STREET SUITE 504 APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124-7580 (952) 431-4433CNH NO.: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 151 REVISIONS: DATE:C:\Users\TJordan\Documents\19051 - Metro Storage Mendota Heights_tjordan.rvt6/24/2019 11:16:59 AMCITY SUBMITTAL CS03Schematic Floor PlanMetro Self StorageHighway 55 and Northland DriveMendota Heights, MN 5512019051 06/24/19 1/16" = 1'-0"CS03 1 First Floor Plan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A B C D E F G H J K L M A B C D E F G H J K L M © COPYRIGHT BY CNH ARCHITECTS, INC.7300 WEST 147TH STREET SUITE 504 APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124-7580 (952) 431-4433CNH NO.: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 151 REVISIONS: DATE:C:\Users\TJordan\Documents\19051 - Metro Storage Mendota Heights_tjordan.rvt6/24/2019 11:32:23 AMCITY SUBMITTAL CS04LightingMetro Self StorageHighway 55 and Northland DriveMendota Heights, MN 5512019051 06/21/19 12" = 1'-0"CS04 3 Light Contour Map 1" = 1'-0"CS04 1 Lighting Wall Pack 1" = 1'-0"CS04 2 Lighting Recessed