The URL can be used to link to this page

2020-06-23 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA June 23, 2020 – 7:00 pm Mendota Heights City Hall MN Stat. 13D.021 - Meeting by telephone or other electronic means: Conditions - MN stat. 13D.021 provides that a meeting of a public body may be conducted via telephone or other electronic means if meeting in a public location is not practical or prudent because of a health pandemic or declared emergency. The Mendota Heights City Council has declared a local emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a part of this action and until further notice, all City Council and city commission meetings will be held by telephone or through other electronic means, with social distancing measures to remain in place. All public meetings will continue to follow the requirements of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. Individuals wishing to submit a comment related to the planning request item noticed herein, must mail them directly to City of Mendota Heights, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118, Attn: Tim Benetti; or email to CD Director Tim Benetti at timb@mendota-heights.com. Comments must be received by no later than 6:00 p.m. CDT on the day of the meeting, June 23, 2020. All comments received in a timely manner will be read into the public record at the appropriate point in the meeting. Please note, to comply fully with the Governor’s Executive Order No. 20-20 and stay-at-home guidelines, the Council Chambers will not be open to the public during the planning commission meeting. Interested individuals may access the meeting in real time or later by viewing the meeting replay from Town Square Television (www.townsquare.tv\webstreaming) or the City’s website, or by using the join-by-phone dial- in number below. If the dial-in option is used, the line will be muted, so no outside comments or noise will be recorded. Note that long-distance telephone charges may apply. Because of technological limitations, the number of participants using dial-in cannot exceed 100 callers. As a result, web-stream participation is strongly encouraged. Dial-In / Join by Phone Number: 1-312-535-8110 Access Code: 133 063 5594 (followed by #) _________________________________________________________________________________ 1.Call to Order / Roll Call 2.Adopt Agenda 3.Approve the May 26, 2020 regular meeting minutes 4.Public Hearings a.Case No. 2020-10: Preliminary Plat of MOEHN ADDITION and Variance for property located at 1770 Dodd Road [Fred & Beverly Peterson - Applicants] b.Case No. 2020-11: Preliminary and Final Plat of COSGRIFF PLACE for property located at 1875 Hunter Lane [John Cosgriff - Applicant] 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA June 23, 2020 – 7:00 pm Mendota Heights City Hall c. Case No. 2020-12: Conditional Use Permit to Allow New W ireless-Cellular Communications Equipment on top of Deerwood Bank, located at 1060 Dakota Drive [Verizon Wireless - Applicants] d. Case No. 2020-13: Conditional Use Permit to Allow for Increased Elevation of New Single-Family Dwelling from Previous Dwelling Elevation, located at 638 Ivy Falls Avenue [LDK Builders, Inc. - Applicants] 5. Staff Updates / Announcements 6. 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. 2 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 26, 2020 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 26, 2020 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair John Mazzitello, Commissioners Mary Magnuson, Patrick Corbett, Litton Field, Andrew Katz, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of April 28, 2020 Minutes COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 28, 2020 A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS PERFORMED: COMMISSIONER CORBETT AYE COMMISSIONER FIELD AYE COMMISSIONER TOTH AYE COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO AYE COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL AYE Commissioners Magnuson and Katz joined the meeting. Chair Mazzitello noted that he will continue in the position of Chair tonight as Commissioner Magnuson is out of town and is attending remotely. Hearings A) PLANNING CASE 2020-09 JOHN AND PAULA GROSENICK, 791 EMERSON AVENUE – VARIANCE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that John and Paula Grosenick, owners of 791 Emerson Avenue, are requesting consideration of a variance of three feet from the 30-foot front yard setback requirement to accommodate an addition to their home. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; the City reviewed one letter of objection from the immediate neighbor to the ease, which was included in the staff report. 3 Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Magnuson stated that she noticed the different measurements and asked if there is a standard way in which the front setback is measured. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that page three of the report includes the definition of how setbacks are defined and measured. He stated that this lot is uniquely shaped and unusual with the curvilinear roadway segment along the front lot line. He stated that he provided the other measurements for comparison. Chair Mazzitello opened the public hearing. Community Development Director Tim Benetti read aloud the five-page letter received from adjacent neighbor Mary C. Sweeney of 781 Emerson Avenue, dated May 19, 2020, which expressed her concerns related to the request; and read a second addendum letter from Mrs. Sweeney received on May 26, 2020 (letters appended to these minutes). John Grosenick stated that he is present, as well as his wife and their architect/designer, should there be any questions. Commissioner Corbett asked for details on the barrier to making the addition fit within the setbacks. Jeremy Young, with Roycroft Design, the applicant’s architect, replied that they felt that this was the most logical and least impactful approach. Commissioner Magnuson stated that she understands the aesthetics but asked if there was consideration to setting back the third stall on the garage. She noted that if the third bay were setback three feet there would still be sufficient space for any type of vehicle. Mr. Young replied that by doing that, it would completely change the roof line, which would take away the symmetry. He stated that the goal was to make this look like everything was created at once rather than making this look like an addition. He noted that countless hours were spent modeling different approaches. Commissioner Field stated that he understands that the reason for this design is architectural, aesthetics and cost which does not warrant a practical difficulty for a variance. Mr. Young replied that reducing the size would actually have a lower cost. 4 Chair Mazzitello asked the applicant to define the practical difficulty that would warrant the variance. Mr. Young replied that the difficulty is the symmetry of the house. Chair Mazzitello confirmed that is an architectural element. Commissioner Toth stated that perhaps it would have been nice to see the alternate option with two garage doors rather than three. He stated that this request is a three-foot variance and noted that there would be more questions if the request was for a five-foot variance. Mr. Young stated that had it not been for this unique lot, he would have not even recommended applying for the variance. He stated that he has not dealt with a lot of this shape in his career. Commissioner Toth commented on the uniqueness of the lot, noting that if the home were to be positioned five feet to the west, this would not be an issue. He stated that the Commission has to consider the uniqueness of the lot and presence of the current structure as well. Seeing no one else coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Mazzitello asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS PERFORMED: COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL AYE COMMISSIONER TOTH AYE COMMISSIONER FIELD AYE COMMISSIONER CORBETT AYE COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO AYE COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON AYE COMMISSIONER KATZ AYE COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE WITH FINDINGS OF FACTS THAT THERE IS A LACK OF A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY ARTICULATED IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST AND ALSO ARTICULATED ON PAGE EIGHT OF THE STAFF REPORT. FURTHER DISCUSSION: Commissioner Field stated that he would like to find a way to get to the desired outcome but was having a hard time finding practical difficulties. Commissioner Magnuson agreed and noted that her motion is based on the lack of practical difficulties and that there are a variety of options available to the property owner to meet the required setback. 5 Commissioner Corbett agreed that the practical difficulty test was not met and there are other options available to the homeowner. Paula Grosenick stated that their last resort was coming before the City to request a variance. She stated that they have been numerous conversations and redesigns, but the symmetry and the roofline are a significant consideration. She stated that she believed that they were within the setback and were surprised that they protruded into the setback. She stated that the practical difficulty would be related to the curve of the road and the placement of the home on the lot. Commissioner Field stated that although he has empathy for the neighboring property owner that expressed opposition to the request, his decision is based on the lack of practical difficulty. Commissioner Toth stated that he feels that the applicant has done their diligence in attempting to put this together with their architect, but noted that this will not be the last time the Commission considers a request for a variance of this size. He believed that the applicant has other options that comply with the setback. Commissioner Katz stated that while he has heard many similar comments related to the uniqueness of the lot, there are other options available to the applicant that comply. He hoped that when the applicant makes the next design plan, the applicant puts more thought into the encroachment of the neighboring lot. Chair Mazzitello stated that while he struggles with the true practical difficulty for this lot, the comments from the neighboring property owner should also be considered. He stated that if it were not for the three-foot encroachment into the setback, this project could move forward with just a building permit. He hoped that the neighboring property owner could be considered if the applicant changes their design. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS PERFORMED: COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL AYE COMMISSIONER CORBETT AYE COMMISSIONER KATZ AYE COMMISSIONER TOTH NAY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO AYE COMMISSIONER FIELD AYE COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON AYE Chair Mazzitello advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 2, 2020 meeting. Staff Announcements / Updates Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review: • There are three applications that could come before the Commission the following month. 6 Adjournment COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:47 P.M. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS PERFORMED: COMMISSIONER CORBETT AYE COMMISSIONER FIELD AYE COMMISSIONER TOTH AYE COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL AYE COMMISSIONER KATZ AYE COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON AYE COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO AYE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Planning Staff Report DATE: June 23, 2020 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-17 PRELIMINARY PLAT of MOEHN ADDITION with VARIANCE APPLICANT: Fred & Beverly Peterson PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1770 Dodd Road ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: September 22, 2020 (for plat and variance - with extension) DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Applicants, Fred & Beverly Peterson, are seeking preliminary plat approval to replat their property into three separate lots. The subject property is generally located on the east side of Dodd Road, mid-block between Marie Avenue to the south and Hidden Creek Trail to the north. Property is addressed as 1770 Dodd Road (State Hwy. 149). The plat’s title is being proposed as “MOEHN ADDITION”. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcels. The Applicants have submitted 5 letters of support (included herein) with no letters of objection received at this time. BACKGROUND The applicant’s survey indicates the total area of the property is 2.24 acres; and consists of parts of Auditor’s Subdivision No. 3 and Outlot A, Pine Creek Estates. The property currently contains a 1-1/4 story, 2,209 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with a two car attached garage. 15 The parcel is fairly open in the central section of the lot, with various trees scattered throughout and along the perimeter; with a dense woodland and wetland near the east part of the property. The wetland was delineated by the surveyor on the map, and a Wetland Delineation Report from Soil Investigations and Design, Inc., dated May 13, 2020 was submitted. There is also a 24” HDPE (high-density polyethylene) underground culvert that cuts diagonally across the parcel near the front 1/3 of the lot. The property contains two driveways, with the south driveway coming off Dodd Road and running along the south side of the home, which turns northward behind the house and connects back into the north driveway. This north driveway provides a secondary access to the Peterson’s property off Dodd Road, but also serves as a shared, private driveway for the three homes to the north of this property. This shared driveway was created under the Pine Creek Estates development March of 1992. In 1991, Peter Knaeble and James Taylor requested to re-pat the former Lloyd and Lucille Walker property of 1760 Dodd Road, located immediately to the north. The plat proposed three new lots, with a shared driveway to serve all three lots. The request also included a variance request, since the two back lots did not meet the 100-ft. minimum roadway frontage as was required by City Code at that time. The city planning consultant addressed this issue in his planning report to the Planning Commission (dated Sept. 24, 1991), with the following statements: Due to its long narrow shape, the subject property could be better developed if it were combined with other adjacent properties in a fashion that would allow for the dedication of a public roadway. Such an arrangement could eliminate the need for flag lots and could also contribute to the establishment of a roadway system that could serve a larger area. On this note, the staff has already had inquiries regarding subdivision from the adjacent property owners (note: believed to be Mr. & Mrs. Peterson) to the south who met with us at our September 16th office hours meeting. This property has similar characteristics as the subject property and its subdivision would require similar variances and wetland permits. The combination of these two lots would provide enough room to dedicate the public right-of-way necessary to install a cul-de- sac and thereby eliminate the need for flag lots on either property. The fact that the adjacent property owners are contemplating subdividing their property raises the question of whether there might not be others in this area who would be willing to cooperate in a broader effort. At the very least, we believe it would be prudent to continue the Applicant's request to allow time for them to discuss the possibility of collaborating with the adjacent property owners to the south. Should the City approve the applicant's variance and wetland permit, they would be hard pressed to refuse the same requests from other property owners in this area. In summary, we have serious concerns about the precedent that would be set by granting the variances necessary to allow the proposed flag lots. This concern is related both to the issue of access for emergency and fire vehicles and to the potential impact this precedent would have on the development pattern within the surrounding area. Similar subdivisions could limit the city's ability to develop a roadway system to serve the area. The Petersons at that time in 1991-92 elected not to develop with the Knaeble/Taylor team a plan to install a full-sized public street (recommended by the planners), as they were not ready to develop their lands. Eventually, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Pine Creek plat and related variances, which were later accepted by the City Council, and the final plat approved March 1992. The Peterson’s did however, agreed later to work with the developers Knaeble & Taylor, by sharing the costs of the joint-driveway, sanitary sewer and storm culvert costs, with water service costs deferred “…until and unless any buildable lot adjacent to the driveway owned by the Peterson’s is sold separate and apart from the Peterson’s home.” The Peterson’s have presented to the city a “Covenant to Construct Joint Driveway” document that provides for this language and agreement (attached and included herein). 16 ANALYSIS  Comprehensive Plan The subject parcel is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; and is scheduled to remain guided LR-Low Density Residential under the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant’s request to subdivide the subject property into three parcels, consisting of 1.57 acres of net developed acres, equates to a density calculation of 1.91 units per acre. This calculated level is under the single-family residential maximum density of 2.9 units per acre:  Preliminary Plat The proposed plat creates three new lots from the larger subject parcel: • Lot 1 (tan shade–below) is for the Peterson’s dwelling, is noted as 32,100 sf. (0.74 ac.) in area; • Lot 2 (violet shade) is 100-ft. in width, 130.52-ft. depth dimension, 16,561-sf. (0.38 ac.) of area; • Lot 3 (green shade) consists of 49,179-sf. (1.13-acres) Closer examination of this plat map reveals the new Lot 2, with dimensions of 100’ x 130.52’ equates to 13,052-sq. ft. in area - not 16,561-sq. ft. as noted. A re-check of the area on the Peterson’s main Lot 1 reveals this is actually 35,830-sf., instead of the 32,100 sf. as noted on the plat map. Upon further examination and another site measurement, it appears the “triangular” shaped area between Lot 2 and the diagonal culvert (approx. 3,350-sf.) was intended to be added to Lot 2 and discounted from Lot 1. This plat will need to be corrected. Parts of Lot 2 and 3 will incorporate Outlot A into their platted lands. The 1991 planning file does not clearly explain why this outlot was created under the Pine Creek Estates plat, but it appears it may have been a remnant piece from the old Walker property, which was situated on the opposite side of the new shared driveway. This outlot was eventually conveyed by Knaeble/Taylor to the Petersons. Title 11-3-2 of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district. As shown in the table below and based on the preliminary plat, all proposed parcels meet the applicable R-1 District standards, except for minimum roadway frontage for the two back lots: Standard Lot 1 Existing Lot Lot 2: New Lot Lot 3: New Lot Lot Area 15,000 sf. 32,100 sf. 16,561-sf. 49,179-sf. Lot Width 100 ft. 138.62 ft. 100-ft. (non-public frontage) 100-ft.+ (non- public frontage) Front Yard Minimum: 30 ft. 73+/- ft. 30-ft. 30-ft. Side Yard 10 ft. (min.) 15 ft. (max.) 27-ft. & 49-ft. 15-ft. 15-ft. Rear Yard 30 ft. or 20% avg. lot depth 130+/- ft. 30-ft. 30-ft. To be revised 17 Lot 1 has over 138-feet of frontage along Dodd Road, and is considered a legal, viable lot due to this frontage along a public roadway and proposed size. The other two lots do not have direct access or frontage onto a public roadway, as required by City Subdivision Code 12-3-2: A. Lot Area, Width and Depth: The minimum lot area, width and depth shall not be less than that established by the zoning ordinance in effect at the time of adoption of the final plat. B. Corner Lots: Corner lots for residential use shall have additional width to permit appropriate building setback from both streets as required in the zoning ordinance. C. Side Lot Lines: Side lines of lots shall be approximately at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. D. Lot Frontage: Every lot must have the minimum frontage as required in the zoning ordinance on a city approved street other than an alley. E. Building Setback: Setback or building lines shall be shown on all lots intended for residential use and shall not be less than the setback required by the Mendota Heights zoning ordinance. On those lots which are intended for business use, the setback shall be at least that required by the Mendota Heights zoning ordinance. Due to the request by the Applicants to provide access onto the shared (and jointly owned) driveway, and because this driveway is not an approved city street/alley, this plat requires approval of a variance. Lot 3 contains most of the on-site wetlands present on this property. The plat shows the required 25-foot no disturbance buffer or wetland edge, which will not allow any development activity in this area. Any new single-family development on Lot 3 will require a separate Wetland Permit for review and approval. Lot 2 is over 100-feet away from the established wetland edge, therefore no permit will be needed for any future development on this lot. There appears to be an 8-inch PVC sanitary sewer line and three (3) separate water service lines coming off the mains underneath Dodd Road, that run down the north edge of the driveway and branch off and feed the two lots at 1762 and 1768 Dodd Road. Near the end of this driveway, there is an existing sewer and water stubs that turn southward toward the back part of the Peterson lot, both of which will be used to serve new Lot 3 in the future. Lot 2 will have a new separate water service line tied back into the main under Dodd Road, with a new sanitary service connection to the existing 8” service line.  Variance City Code Section 11-1-9 allows for application of variances for new subdivisions or plats from the strict application of the provisions of this title (Subdivision Regulations), provided the request is made under the general requirements and process of Section 12-1L-5 of Zoning Code. City Code Section 12-1L-5 governs variances. The city 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, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality or neighborhood. It is also noted that economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. In addition, variances are only to be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Section 12-1L-5(E)(1) further provides other issues the city may 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. 18 • 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 undue hardship or difficulty. When considering a variance request, the Planning Commission must determine if these standards have been met in granting a variance, 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. 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance. Response: Title 11-3-2(D) of the Code requires that “every lot must the have the minimum frontage as required in the zoning ordinance on a city-approved street other than an alley.” Although proposed Lots 2 and 3 meet the minimum lot width standards of 100-feet, they do not have frontage on a public roadway. If the city accepts the general understandings and merits of the joint driveway agreement made between the original Pine Creek Estates developers and the Applicants, and the fact the city approved Pine Creek with the current flag-lot configuration as evident today, there appears to be some “precedent” or similar allowance that can be considered in this new subdivision request. Even though the planning consultants in 1991 stated: “…we have serious concerns about the precedent that would be set by granting the variances necessary to allow the proposed flag lots”, there are currently a few other developments or parcels that fit the definition of “flag lots” throughout the city (see Dak. Co. GIS Map images – below), so the value of precedent has been set in other areas of the city. With regards to this value of precedent, the city attorney has offered the opinion: “…approval of a variance is for a specific property only; and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City...” – which is a statement the city now includes on its findings for variances and resolutions of approval. With the exception of the two lots unable to meet this roadway frontage requirement, the proposed subdivision request can be considered consistent with all other applicable Zoning Code requirements. Since there is no change to the residential zoning or land use under this plat, new single-family dwellings in this area and neighborhood can be considered a reasonable use of the properties. The city however, must make a firm determination that by allowing two new lots onto a shared driveway, thereby perpetuating a new “flag-lot” configuration in this area, also constitutes a reasonable request under this proposed plat. 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner. Response: There may be some unique circumstances attributed to this variance request, as the previous Pine Creek Estates development, with its own flag-lot and shared driveway configuration, was not 19 created by the Applicants. Even though the city encouraged the developers (Knable/Taylor) to work with the Applicants back in 1991 to jointly develop their lands together, and seek an alternative to the “private drive” scenario by providing a public roadway to serve all lots, the Applicants chose not to join or develop, which was fully within their rights at that time. The understanding the Applicants had at that time (and since then), is they would be allowed to develop similar to what was approved under Pine Creek Estates plat. The Joint Driveway agreement noted earlier, provides documented evidence that the Applicants agreed to share in some costs for developing and improving the new shared driveway (private roadway) serving the lots in Pine Creek; with language indicating the Applicants would be afforded some allowances to develop similar (lots) in the future. Although this right to similarly develop was never guaranteed to the Applicants under the driveway agreement or the 1991/1992 resolutions of approval, they still provide some suggestions or allowances the Applicants could possibly (and reasonably) develop their lands as proposed under this case. The city must give careful consideration of these issues and the impacts the previous Pine Creek Estates development may have created in this neighborhood, and determine if these add weight to the argument that there are some unique circumstances present in this case. If so, granting this variance for non- roadway frontage may be found acceptable. 3. The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Response: The neighborhood is all but residential in character. The two new lots will provide additional housing opportunities for new home-buyers or residents to the community. The two homes built under the Pine Creek development at 1768 Dodd Road (1998) and 1762 Dodd Road (2000), are nice attractive two story dwellings with assessed values of $630,700 and $705,000, respectively. The Applicants are seeking to remain on their property for now, but may likely decide to sell their own homestead and turn it over for future development of new housing. In either case, the two or three lots to be created under this plat [with the variance], will provide opportunity for considerable re-investment by others to build new single-family homes in the community, and which values would likely be at or exceed the current values of the existing dwellings in the Pine Creek development. The current shared driveway/roadway that is used by the existing homeowners in this area, should not be negatively impacted by a large increase in traffic or trip generations caused by the adding of two (or three) new home sites on to this shared driveway. The essential character of the neighborhood should not be altered by granting this variance.  MnDOT Review The plat was submitted to MnDOT May 23, 2020, shortly after the plat maps were received from the Peterson’s consultants/surveyor. As of the preparation of this report, city staff has not received a review comment letter or similar from MnDOT representatives. Staff anticipates little, if any comments on this plat from MnDOT, due to the low level travel or trip generation impacts to the highway roadway system, with the addition of these two new home sites at this location. MnDOT typically requests or requires dedication of additional right-of-way or easements along its roadway systems wherever needed. Should MnDOT request or seek additional right-of-way dedication along Dodd Road, there appears to be enough land to be granted if needed. Please note, since this is only a preliminary plat, the final plat map will likely be presented in the near future to the Planning Commission for follow-up review. The final plat will become the final plan (or map) that shows any approved lot line layouts, easements and ROW dedications. If MnDOT has any conditions or requirements, staff will present them at that time of the final plat review and direct the Applicant to make adjustments to the plat accordingly. 20  Public Safety Review Fire Department staff reviewed the plat, and have some concerns. There is a fire hydrant located and available near the intersection of the shared driveway with Dodd Road. The driveway measures approximately 450-feet in length, which is an acceptable length for drawing out hoses if needed (600-ft. or less is recommended). The current driveway is only 14-feet in width, and it is unknown at what weight standard (thickness) it was built in the late 1990’s. The fire department is requesting the developer consider widening this driveway to 20-feet, and placing a turn-around (hammerhead or similar) on the end of the driveway. The fire chief also offered as an alternative, if the new homes proposed under this plat were sprinklered, similar to what was required in the Orchard Heights development, the Fire Dept. would find this to be an acceptable alternative. (Note: this information is to be considered preliminary for now; as city staff was directed to discuss these fire safety measures/alternatives with the city Fire Marshal, but was unable to meet with or discuss with him prior to the submittal of this report. Staff hopes to have more or updated information at the meeting next Tuesday night.) ALTERNATIVES for ACTION In forming a recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Commission is asked to determine if the proposed Preliminary Plat is reasonable, and fits in with the general character of the existing developments in and around the adjacent neighborhoods. The Commission must also give careful consideration to the Variance requested under this plat, specifically the allowance to have two lots not meet the required public roadway frontage standard. Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission must select one of the three alternatives for the recommendation: 1. Recommend APPROVAL of the Preliminary Plat of MOEHN ADDITION, along with a Variance to allow two of the three lots in the proposed subdivision to not have frontage along a public roadway system, and for the property located at 1770 Dodd Road, based on the following findings of fact that support the approval of the preliminary plat and variance requested herein, noted as follows: A. The proposed plat generally meets the purpose and intent of the Zoning and Subdivision Codes of the City. B. With the exception of the public roadway frontage requirements for lots, and the need to correct the lot dimensions and area calculations for Lots 1 and 2, the proposed subdivision is generally consistent with all applicable Zoning Code and Subdivision Code requirements of City Code. C. The proposed plat request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. D. The proposed lots will generally meet the minimum standards required under the R-1 One Family Residential District. E. 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.” 21 F. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of the Variance to allowing new lots to be platted without required public roadway frontage, by: i.) With the exception of the two lots unable to meet the required public roadway frontage requirement, the proposed subdivision request can still be considered consistent with all other applicable Zoning Code requirements; and therefore the requested variance can be considered a reasonable request. ii.) The neighboring Pine Creek Estate’s plat layout with flag-lot configurations was approved in 1991-1992, which plat was also approved under a Joint Driveway Agreement, in which said document may have provided for some assumed allowances to the Applicants to develop their lands in a similar fashion in the future, thereby establishing an argument for justifiable precedent and support of this variance to provide additional flag lots in this area; all of which provide some unique circumstances to granting such a variance. iii.) Approving this Variance does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as the neighboring properties and residential neighborhood area will not be affected or negatively impacted by addition of two (or three) new homes in this neighborhood; and iv.) This new plat and related variance is considered in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the current and proposed land use plans for the community. G. 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 Variance 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 needed for this Plat will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. H. Approval of the Variance is for 1770 Dodd Road only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other requested (future) plats or properties throughout the City. All variances must include a project narrative and reasonable justification to the City to approve a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by city staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. I. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2020- 10, dated and presented June 23, 2020 (on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2020-____. (final number to be assigned later) J. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to this Preliminary Plat and Variance requests; as long as those conditions are directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the plat and/or the variance. Conditions related to this planning application are as follows: i.) Park dedication fee in the amount of $4,000.00 for each lot (Lot 2 and 3 only) shall be paid prior to the final plat recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any new building permits by the City. ii.) The areas and lot dimensions for Lots 1 and 2 must be revised to accurately reflect that each lot meets the minimum lot size requirements for R-1 zoned properties. iii.) Final layouts and setbacks for each lot must meet current R-1 One Family Residential district standards and shall be approved under separate building permits for each lot. 22 iv.) No development, structures, grading or construction activity will be allowed in the 25-foot wetland buffer shown on Lot 3 of the plat. v.) All new stormwater management, construction and grading activities for these lots 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. vi.) The wetland line on the plat should use the official delineated boundary Wetland Delineation Report from Soil Investigations and Design, Inc., dated May 13, 2020. vii.) A wetlands permit must be obtained prior to any proposed development activities or new home permit activities on Lot 3. viii.) The Applicant and/or future developer(s) must widen the driveway to twenty-feet (20’) in total width, and provide a turn-around at the end of the shared driveway to accommodate a full-sized fire truck. As an alternative, any new home to be developed on Lots 2 and 3 will require an approved interior fire suppression or water sprinkler system. (TO BE DETERMINED LATER) ix.) Residential construction hours are 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays, and 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on weekends. These work hours shall be strictly adhered to by the Applicant or future developer and/or contractors working on the subject properties. 2. Recommend DENIAL of the Preliminary Plat of MOEHN ADDITION, along with a Variance to allow two of the three lots in the proposed subdivision to not have frontage along a public roadway system, and for the property located at 1770 Dodd Road, 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 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 not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a Variance allowing the two lots (Lots 2 and 3) in the proposed subdivision to not have frontage along a public roadway system. Therefore, the proposed plat is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and the fact the subdivision plat requires a variance in order to plat the two lots in this location, is 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). 3. TABLE the request and direct staff and/or the Applicant to provide additional information as requested, and present said information at the next available meeting. 23 SITE PICTURES 1770 DODD ROAD (PETERSON RESIDENCE) REAR YARD - LOOKING EASTERLY - (TOWARDS PLATTED AREA) LOOKING EASTERLY (LOTS 2 AND 3 AREA) 24 LOOKING NORTHEASTERLY TOWARDS 1762 & 1768 DODD ROAD LOOKING EASTERLY –LOT 3 WOODLANDS / WETLANDS 25 SHARED DRIVEWAY - LOOKING WESTERLY - TOWARDS DODD ROAD SHARED DRIVEWAY - LOOKING EASTERLY 26 1770 DODD ROAD (Peterson Property) Property Information June 11, 2020 0 225 450112.5 ft 0 60 12030 m 1:2,400 Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 PLANNING REPORT DATE: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ACTION REQUESTED: CONSULTING PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCll!TECTS )00 FIHSl :\VENUE J'(OHTl! SU!TL Y.l!l MINNEAPOLIS. ,V\N .°i;';--101 ()l:!·)N-."UlHl 24 September 1991 91-35 Peter J. Knaeble 1760 Dodd Road Subdivision Preliminary Plat Approval, Wetlands Permit, Variance PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The applicant proposes to subdivide the subject property into three single-family lots, two of which would be flag lots. The preliminary plat drawing shows all three lots utilizing the same 15-foot access drive, which would run along the south side of the property and enter onto Dodd Road in roughly the same location as the current driveway. Lot 1 would include the existing home owned by Mr. and Mrs. Walker. 2. The proposed lots meet all of the minimum lot requirements within the R-1 District except for Lots 2 and 3, which do not meet the criteria (100 feet). The applicant is requesting a variance for each of these lots. In addition, the property is traversed by two small drainage ways that are identified on the City's Wetland Systems Map. The applicant is requesting a wetland permit to allow the installation of a culvert to accommodate the proposed access drive for Lots 2 and 3 and to allow construction of the proposed single-family homes to within 80 feet of the centerline of the drainage ways. The latter is being requested even though the footprints of the proposed homes, as shown on the Preliminary Plat, do not encroach upon the 100-foot protected area. Apparently the developers would like to have some flexibility in the exact location and size of the potential homes. 35 Peter Knaeble, Case No. 91-35 Page 2 3. The subject property is a long narrow parcel located east of Dodd Road in an area that has remained predominantly large lot single-family in character. While the property is zoned R-1 it is situated within an area for which no planned pattern of roadways has been defined. This area, which is over 1/4 mile in size is bounded on the west by Dodd Road, on the south by Marie Avenue on the east by Delaware Avenue and on the north by Wentworth Avenue (see attached map). This region contains one of the city's few remaining large contiguous tracts of R-lA zoning. One of the reasons this portion of the city has remained unplanned is the existence of a large wetland system that encompasses much of the central part of the area. Several scenarios for providing roadways through the area have been examined, but no official plan has been adopted. The issue of how to best provide roadways through this area becomes more crucial as properties, like the subject property, around its perimeter are subdivided. The City should consider establishing a master plan to guide the overall development of this area. 4. Due to its long narrow shape, the subject property could be better developed if it were combined with other adjacent properties in a fashion that would allow for the dedication of a public roadway. Such an arrangement could eliminate the need for flag lots and could also contribute to the establishment of a roadway system that could serve a larger area. Obviously, such an arrangement would require not only the establishment of a master plan for the area, but also the cooperation and coordinated effort of surrounding property owners. 5. On this note, the staff has already had inquiries regarding subdivision from the adjacent property owners to the south who met with us at our September 16th office hours meeting. This property has similar characteristics as the subject property and its subdivision would require similar variances and wetland permits. The combination of these two lots would provide enough room to dedicate the public right-of-way necessary to install a cul-de-sac and thereby eliminate the need for flag lots on either property. The fact that the adjacent property owners are contemplating subdividing their property raises the question of whether there might not be others in this area who would be willing to cooperate in a broader effort. At the very least, we believe it would be prudent to continue the Applicant's request to allow time for them to discuss the possibility of collaborating with the adjacent property owners to the south. Should the City approve the 36 Peter Knaeble, case No. 91-35 Page 3 applicant's variance and wetland permit, they would be hard pressed to refuse the same requests from other property owners in this area. 6. In the interim, we would recommend that the City reexamine the issue of how to provide a system of roads for the surrounding area in a manner that accomplishes the City's development objectives most efficiently and with the least environmental impact. 7. Having said this, it is important to note that the applicant has the right to have his proposal reviewed on its own merits. As we mentioned in the first paragraph, the proposed lots meet all but one of the lot size criteria in the zoning ordinance. Lots 2 and 3 are flag lots and do not meet the minimum lot width requirement. The primary concern with flag lots is that they result in homes that are isolated making emergency and fire service more difficult. In the case of the proposed Preliminary Plat, the access drive is particularly long and narrow. The longest flag neck is 452 feet in length. There are several other lots of similar configuration as the subject property within the unplanned area described earlier. By allowing flag lots in this instance the city could be opening the door for many such requests. 8. The Preliminary Plat also shows a small outlot. Such parcels can be a problem in that they are not owned by any of the residents and tend to be left unmaintained. This land should either be incorporated into one of the other lots or could perhaps be offered to the adjacent property owner under some agreement. 9. Permanent access easements would also be required over the narrow portions of Lots 2 and 3. Lot 3 would have to include access easements for both Lots 1 and 2 since it appears that Lot 1 will continue to utilize the existing curb cut onto Dodd Road. Similarly, Lot 2 would have to include access easements for Lots 1 and 3. 10. With respect to the wetland permits, the principal concern would be for the loss of trees on the property. There are significant stands of trees in the areas adjacent to both creeks. According to the Preliminary Plat drawing, there would be no trees affected by locating a house within 80 feet of the creek on Lot 3. However, the plan shows a continuous stand of trees in the area of the creek that runs through Lot 2. The proposed lots are spacious, over twice the minimum size required by the ordinance. There is plenty of room on these lots to accommodate a large home without having to encroach on the 100-foot wetland protection area. We see no reason to grant wetland permits to allow the construction of the homes on Lots 2 and 3 as requested by 37 Peter Knaeble, case No. 91-35 Page 4 granting wetland permits, even when no demonstrated, the value of the ordinance will be undermined. need is severely 11. In summary, we have serious concerns about the precedent that would be set by granting the variances necessary to allow the proposed flag lots. This concern is related both to the issue of access for emergency and fire vehicles and to the potential impact this precedent would have on the development pattern within the surrounding area. Similar subdivisions could limit the city's ability to develop a roadway system to serve the area. 38 39 Mr. Mrs. Fred Peterson Parcel ID: 27-03800-49-010; 1770 Dodd Road, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Wetland Delineation Report by Soil Investigation & Design, Inc. 2809 78th Ave. N. Brooklyn Park, MN 55444 Date: May 13, 2020 40 Project Name and/or Number: PART ONE: Applicant Information If applicant is an entity (company, government entity, partnership, etc.), an authorized contact person must be identified. If the applicant is using an agent (consultant, lawyer, or other third party) and has authorized them to act on their behalf , the agent’s contact information must also be provided. Applicant/Landowner Name: Mr. Fred Peterson Mailing Address: 1770 Dodd Road, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Phone: 651-260-3783 E-mail Address: pbrandt@soilinvestigations.us Authorized Contact (do not complete if same as above): Paul Brandt PSS Mailing Address: 2809 78th Ave. N Brooklyn Park, MN 55444 Phone: 651-260-3783 E-mail Address: pbrandt@soilinvestigations.us Agent Name: Mailing Address: Phone: E-mail Address: PART TWO: Site Location Information County: Dakota City/Township: Mendota Heights, Parcel ID and/or Address: Parcel ID: 27-03800-49-010; 1770 Dodd Road, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Legal Description (Section, Township, Range): Lat/Long (decimal degrees): 44.891764; -93.116257 Attach a map showing the location of the site in relation to local streets, roads, highways. Approximate size of site (acres) or if a linear project, length (feet): 2.24 acres (97,700 sq. ft.) If you know that your proposal will require an individual Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, you must provide the names and addresses of all property owners adjacent to the project site. This information may be provided by attaching a list to your application or by using block 25 of the Application for Department of the Army permit which can be obtained at: http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Portals/57/docs/regulatory/RegulatoryDocs/engform_4345_2012oct.pdf PART THREE: General Project/Site Information If this application is related to a delineation approval, exemption determination, jurisdictional determination, or other correspondence submitted prior to this application then describe that here and provide the Corps of Engineers project number. Describe the project that is being proposed, the project purpose and need, and schedule for implementation and completion. The project description must fully describe the nature and scope of the proposed activity including a description of all project elements that effect aquatic resources (wetland, lake, tributary, etc.) and must also include plans and cross section or profile drawings showing the location, character, and dimensions of all proposed activities and aquatic resource impacts. Boundary & Type determination. 41 42 Project Name and/or Number: Attachment A Request for Delineation Review, Wetland Type Determination, or Jurisdictional Determination By submission of the enclosed wetland delineation report, I am requesting that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District (Corps) and/or the Wetland Conservation Act Local Government Unit (LGU) provide me with the following (check all that apply): Wetland Type Confirmation Delineation Concurrence. Concurrence with a delineation is a written notification from the Corps and a decision from the LGU concurring, not concurring, or commenting on the boundaries of the aquatic resources delineated on the property. Delineation concurrences are generally valid for five years unless site conditions change. Under this request alone, the Corps will not address the jurisdictional status of the aquatic resources on the property, only the boundaries of the resources within the review ar ea (including wetlands, tributaries, lakes, etc.). Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination. A preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) is a non-binding written indication from the Corps that waters, including wetlands, identified on a parcel may be waters of the United States. For purposes of computation of impacts and compensatory mitigation requirements , a permit decision made on the basis of a PJD will treat all waters and wetlands in the review area as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. PJDs are advisory in nature and may not be appealed. Approved Jurisdictional Determination. An approved jurisdictional determination (AJD) is an official Corps determination that jurisdictional waters of the United States are either present or absen t on the property. AJDs can generally be relied upon by the affected party for five years. An AJD may be appealed through the Corps administrative appeal process. In order for the Corps and LGU to process your request, the wetland delineation must be prepared in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, any approved Regional Supplements to the 1987 Manual, and the Guidelines for Submitting Wetland Delineations in Minnesota (2013). http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/DelineationJDGuidance.aspx 43 Technical Evaluation Panel Concurrence: Project Name and/or Number: TEP member: Representing: Concur with road authority’s determination of qualification for the local road wetland replacement program? Yes No Signature: _________________________________________ Date: TEP member: Representing: Concur with road authority’s determination of qualification for the local road wetland replacement p rogram? Yes No Signature: _________________________________________ Date: TEP member: Representing: Concur with road authority’s determination of qualification for the local road wetland replacement program? Yes No Signature: _________________________________________ Date: TEP member: Representing: Concur with road authority’s determination of qualification for the local road wetland replacement p rogram? Yes No Signature: _________________________________________ Date: Upon approval and signature by the TEP, application must be sent to: Wetland Bank Administration Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources 520 Lafayette Road North Saint Paul, MN 55155 44 WETLAND DELINEATION SUMMARY • The site at Parcel ID: 27-03800-49-010; 1770 Dodd Road, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 was inspected on May 8, 2020 for the presence and extent of wetland. • The NWI map showed one wetland complex within site boundaries: PFO1A wetlands exist to the east of the residence. • The entire site was inspected. No other wetlands exist. Please refer to the NWI and “area to be delineated” figures. • The soil survey mapped is not relevant due to filling and soil disturbance. • The DNR Protected Waters Map showed no Protected Water(s) within site boundaries. The nearest Public Water Basin is associated with this wetland. • One wetland was found on the site. We were retained to delineate the wetland area(s) within site boundaries as summarized below. Wetland ID Circular 39 Cowardin Wetland Plant Community Type (Eggers and Reed) 404 Jurisdictional Observations 1 Type 2 PFO1A Forested Temporarily Flooded Wetland 1 is not isolated INTRODUCTION The site was examined on May 8, 2020 for the presence and extent of wetland. The approximately 2.24 acre property is located at Parcel ID: 27-03800-49-010; 1770 Dodd Road, Mendota Heights, Dakota County, MN 55118 The site has one structure on it a single family residence that is not occupied. The property consisted primarily of deciduous trees and mowed grass in upland portions and wetlands of varying vegetative cover in lowland areas (Figure 1). Site topography consists of a nearly level area with a stream running through it. The easterly side of the stream rises to the east. Adjacent land use was residential to the north, east, west, and south. METHODS Wetlands were identified using Routine Determination methodology described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Waterways Experiment Station, 1987) and Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region Version 2.0) as required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. Wetland boundaries were identified as the upper-most extent of wetlands, which met criteria for hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology. Wetland-upland boundaries were marked with pink pin flags. 45 Soils, vegetation, and hydrology were documented at representative locations along the wetland- upland boundary. Plant species dominance was estimated based on the percent aerial or basal coverage visually estimated within a 30-foot radius for trees and vines, 15-foot radius for the shrub layer, and a 5-foot radius for the herbaceous layer within the community type being sampled. Soils were characterized to a minimum depth of 18-32 inches (unless otherwise noted) utilizing Munsell Soil Color Charts and standard soil texturing methodology. Hydric soil indicators used in reporting are from the NTCHS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Version 8.2, 2018) which are commonly found in the Midwest. Plants were identified using standard regional plant keys. Taxonomy and indicator status of plant species was taken from the 2012 National Wetland Plant List (Lichvar, R.W. and Kartesz, J.T. 2009. North American Digital Flora: National Wetland Plant List, version 2.4.0 (https://wetland_plants.usace.army.mil). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH, and BONAP, Chapel Hill, NC.) RESULTS Review of NWI, Soils, and DNR Information The MN DNR Revised National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI) (https://gisdata.mn.gov/) one PEM1C wetland exists on the site and extends to the south and west. (See Figures 2) The Soil Survey of Ramsey County, Minnesota (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/) showed the following soil types within site boundaries (Figure 4). Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Kato silty clay loam Chetek sandy loam, W Water The DNR Protected Waters Map, Hennepin County (https://gisdata.mn.gov/) showed one DNR Protected Water(s) within site boundaries (Figure 3). Wetland Determinations and Delineations Potential wetlands were evaluated in greater detail during field observations on May 8, 2020. One wetland was identified and delineated on the site (Figure 5). Corresponding data forms are included as Appendix A. The following description of wetland and adjacent upland reflects conditions observed at the time of the field visit. At that time, vegetation was actively growing and had not yet begun to senesce. Wetland hydrology was assumed to be normal for that date based on the 30-day rolling precipitation total (Appendix B). A survey of the wetland boundaries will be provided after delineation review is completed. Wetland 1 was a Type 2 (PFO1A) Palustrine Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous Temporarily Flooded vegetation throughout this wetland complex varied from Oak, Quack grass, Creeping 46 Charlie, Ash, Willow and shallow open water. Wetland soils were organic exhibiting saturation at the time if investigation. Adjacent upland was comprised of a similar species. The delineated boundary followed a change in vegetation composition and a change in topography. Other Areas No other areas were shown as wetland on the NWI map. Other areas were mapped with hydric soil by the soil survey but did not exhibit hydrology, no other depressional areas dominated by a hydrophytic plant community were observed on the site. V. CERTIFICATION OF DELINEATION The procedures utilized in the described delineation are based on the COE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual as required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. Both the delineation and report were conducted in compliance with regulatory standards in place at the time the work was completed. All site boundaries indicated on figures within this report are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. Report completed by: Paul J. Brandt PSS Delineation completed by: Paul J. Brandt PSS I hereby certify that this plan, document, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Soil Scientist under the Laws of the state of Minnesota. Print Name: Paul J. Brandt PSS Signature: Date: May 13, 2020 License # 30007 . 47 Appendices A: Figures: Figure 1 – Site Location Map Figure 2 – NWI Wetlands Map Figure 3 – DNR Protected Waters Map Figure 4 – Soils Map Figure 5 – Delineated Wetland Map 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Planning Staff Report DATE: June 23, 2020 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2020-11 Preliminary/Final Plat of “Cosgriff Place” APPLICANT: John Cosgriff PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1875 Hunter Lane ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One-Family Residential/SF Residential ACTION DEADLINE: September 26, 2020 (120-day Review Period) INTRODUCTION John Cosgriff is requesting consideration of a preliminary plat and final plat of a two parcel combination to be titled “Cosgriff Place”. The subject property is located at 1875 Hunter Lane. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcels. The city received no comments or objections on this item. BACKGROUND Mr. & Mrs. Cosgriff are completing the construction of their new home at 1875 Hunter Lane. At the Feb. 27th planning commission meeting, the Cosgriff’s and their southerly neighbor, Mrs. Joy Van of 1885 Hunter Lane, jointly applied for a lot line adjustment, which approved the splitting-off of an approx. 154’ x 154’ square-shaped parcel from Mrs. Van’s property lying directly behind Cosgriff’s main parcel. The Cosgriff’s would then combine it with their own property to create a larger, unified parcel. The added parcel would create 111,250-sf. in total lot area. This split was approved in Res. No. 2020-15 (03/04/20). 56 The Cosgriff’s intended to keep the added parcel as an untouched and preserved natural extension to their current rear yard area. No new development was planned, and the city conditioned that this new parcel must be combined with the Cosgriff’s main tax parcel to avoid any creation of a “non-conforming parcel” without any access or frontage on a public roadway system. After the Cosgriff’s purchased the parcel from Mrs. Van, they sought to combine the smaller parcel with the larger main parcel by lot combination application with Dakota County. However, Dakota County officials deemed the combination unattainable, as the two original parcels were legally established or within two different subdivision plats. County officials stated that when two (or more) separated parcels are requested to be combined for tax purposes, they must lie within the same plat or subdivision boundary. If not, the lot combination cannot take place unless the city approves a new plat; and only then will the county accept a new plat for recording, thereby recognizing the two parcels as one. This preliminary and final plat approval is more of a “house-keeping” item, which will help facilitate the Cosgriff’s desire to merge and create the two legal parcels into one unified (and owned) larger parcel, which is what Cosgriff’s originally sought under the earlier lot line adjustment request. All necessary and required drainage and utility easement are shown on the plat maps, and will be dedicated under the recording of the final plat. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat and Final Plat of Cosgriff Place; or 2. Recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat and Final Plat of Cosgriff Place, based on specific findings of fact which support such a recommendation of denial; or 3. Table the request, and require city staff and/or the applicant to provide additional information as needed or requested, and extend the application review period (if needed) in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat and Final Plat of Cosgriff Place, without any added conditions and/or findings of fact, since those were already established and confirmed in the Lot Line Adjustment request under Planning Case No. 2020-02. Attachments - Location Map - Preliminary Plat of Cosgriff Place - Final Plat of Cosgriff Place 57 1875 HUNTER LANE (Cosgriff Property) Property Information June 11, 2020 0 225 450112.5 ft 0 60 12030 m 1:2,400 Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. 58 59 60 Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE: June 23, 2020 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2020-12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICANT: Verizon Wireless (Deerwood Bank – Property Owners) PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1060 Dakota Drive ZONING/GUIDED: B-2 Neighborhood Business / B-Business ACTION DEADLINE: July 20, 2020 (60-Day Review Period) DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Verizon Wireless is seeking a conditional use permit (CUP) for new wireless/cellular antenna equipment, to be installed on top of the existing Deerwood Bank facilities, located at 1060 Dakota Drive. Title 12-1D- 4 of the Code requires conditional use permit approval for wireless antennas and related equipment installations, subject to conditions. A public hearing notice for this item was published in the local newspaper and letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. The city has received two separate comments (husband and wife) expressing some concerns and objection to the CUP request item. Copies of these comments are appended to this report. BACKGROUND / DESCRIPTION of REQUEST The subject parcel is located just east of the Dakota Drive intersection with Lexington Avenue. The property is 1.66 acres in size, and contains a two-story, 17,120-sf. bank/office building. The property is owned by Dakota Financial Center, LLP, and Verizon Wireless will be installing and maintaining the new cellular equipment on the property, while leasing space from the landowners. The plans call for the placement of three, dual-panel antenna arrays on top of the bank building. The cell panels will be supported and connected to three equipment ground cabinets placed next to the bank’s existing trach enclosure, near the southeast corner of the site. 61 According to the Verizon Wireless engineers, “…a new cell site is proposed by a wireless carrier for one or both of two reasons: Coverage and Capacity. A site proposed due to a coverage need is simply intended to fill in an area where the existing wireless coverage is insufficient for devices to connect to the network. Capacity needs are different, in that a capacity site is typically built in an area that has coverage from another site. A capacity need arises when the existing site is responsible for providing that coverage to a large amount of customers, to the point that it cannot handle all of the connections in that area.” The report further states the installation of new cellular communications on the subject property (identified as “MIN AUGUSTA”) is a capacity site. The existing site to the south is serving a large enough number of customers that performance has dropped below acceptable levels. The area served is primarily between HWY 494 and HWY 110 in the Mendota Area. The area appears to primarily serve businesses and homes in the heart of Mendota and Mendota Heights. ANALYSIS Title 12-1D-4 of the Code contains regulations regarding wireless antennas, towers, and accessory structures and requires a conditional use permit in all zoning districts. The purpose of the Code section is to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community while accommodating the communication needs of residents and businesses, and is necessary to: 1. Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties and personal injury from tower collapse through structural standards and setback requirements. 2. Protect the aesthetic qualities of the community by requiring tower and antenna equipment to be screened from properties within viewing distance of the site and to be designed in a manner to blend in with the surroundings and complement existing structures. 3. Maximize the use of existing and approved freestanding antenna towers, buildings, and existing light poles for new wireless telecommunication antennas. 4. Minimize the number of freestanding antenna towers needed to serve the community by utilizing collocation. 5. Facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to the residents and businesses of the city. Wireless Antenna Facility Title 12-1D-14 contains the following provisions, which are analyzed based on the submitted materials: C. Building Mounted Antennas: 1. Permitted Buildings: Antennas may only be mounted on institutional buildings (churches, schools, businesses, etc.) or multiple-family dwellings two (2) stories or higher. Wireless telecommunications antennas are not permitted on attached or detached single-family homes or townhome dwellings. Response: The proposed antenna panels will be mounted on top of an established business – Deerwood Bank, which is located in the B-2 Neighborhood Business District. 2. Flush Mounting; Color: a. Building mounted antennas must be flush mounted to the sides of the building and painted the color of the building exterior unless the applicant can demonstrate to the council that protrusion above the roofline is necessary for communication effectiveness. b. In no case shall building mounted antennas or any attachment thereto be allowed to protrude more than fifteen feet (15') above the roofline of the building. 62 Response: The proposed cell panels are roof-mounted only. The applicant has provided a structural engineering and coverage reports that support the request to place these panels on top of the bank building for added and uninterrupted coverage. The new cell panel equipment will be compliant with the 15-foot height limit (above the roof-line), per City Code. The building color matching standard applies to flush or wall mounted panels and antennas only. E. Aesthetics: 1. Design: All freestanding antenna towers shall be of a monopole type design. The use of guyed towers is prohibited. 2. Color: a. Those portions of all freestanding antenna towers and all antennas which protrude into the air shall be painted eggshell. b. Those portions of all antennas that are flush mounted to the sides of buildings shall be painted to match the exterior of the building. 3. Screening: All accessory buildings to all freestanding towers shall be screened from public view by a landscape plan according to the landscape standards of the appropriate zone and as described in subsection 12-1D-13-2D1 of this article subject to council review. 4. Advertising: Advertising of any kind shall not be permitted on any freestanding antenna tower, antenna, or accessory structure. 5. Lighting: Artificial lighting of any kind shall not be permitted on any freestanding antenna tower, antenna, or accessory structure unless such lighting is required by the FCC, the FAA, or another federal or state regulatory body. If such a requirement exists, only the minimum amount of lighting required shall be allowed. Response: The proposed cell equipment is not considered a freestanding tower; no guyed wires will be present. The framed panels (sleds) are weighted down on top of the building’s roof, as per the structural engineering report. The plans appear to show the new roof-top panels will be mounted on galvanized steel frame (typically gray- colored), and other parts of the panels are noted with “solid color” (color not specified) in the details plan. The color standard noted under this subpart however, states antennas that protrude in the air must be painted eggshell, which is an off-white or slightly tan/yellow tinted color base. As part of this CUP consideration, the Planning Commission may discuss or suggest a different (or preferred) paint color or scheme on the new cell equipment. No advertising or signage (either for the cell provider or bank) is proposed to be placed or displayed on the wireless antenna panels, nor will it ever be allowed. No lighting currently exists, or is proposed, for the wireless antenna facilities. 6. Prohibitions: Structures, functions, uses or activities that are not found by the city to be specifically necessary for the proper functioning of the antennas shall be prohibited on any antenna or tower without express permission from the city unless the city grants a waiver to this requirement. Response: Applicants are required to comply with this provision. 63 G. Accessory Structures for Antennas: 1. Location and General Requirements: Accessory buildings to antennas or freestanding antenna towers must lie completely within all applicable setbacks from all property lines and must otherwise conform to all requirements for accessory buildings within the description of the specific zone. 2. Architecture: a. Accessory structures and equipment buildings shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with any principal structures on the site or, in the absence of such structures, with their immediate surroundings in an aesthetically pleasing manner. b. Accessory structures shall be finished on all sides. c. The planning commission shall review and the council shall approve the design of any accessory structures and equipment buildings. Response: The accessory or support cabinets are planned to be installed next to the existing screened trash enclosure for the bank’s property. These cabinets are secured behind a separate fenced-in area, with locked access doors. H. Additional Requirements: 1. Abandoned Structures: a. Removal Required: Unused or obsolete freestanding antenna towers, antennas, structures or apparatus must be removed within six (6) months of when the operation ceases. b. Bond: A successful applicant shall provide an abandonment bond to the city equal to one and a half (11/2) times the current cost of removal and disposal of all antennas and accompanying apparatus as estimated by a consultant selected by the city and paid for by the applicant, which bond shall be used by the city to remove the antennas and apparatus should they become unused or obsolete and the applicant or its successors or assigns become disbarred or otherwise fail to remove said antennas and apparatus. Response: Since this equipment is being installed on private property, the landowner wields more power or authority over the cell provider’s space and equipment than the city; therefore, any unused or obsolete equipment shall be their responsibility to have removed if needed. As for an abandonment bond, the city normally requires such bonds on city infrastructures (i.e. water towers, buildings, etc.), and does not usually requests/requires a bond when equipment is being affixed on private buildings. Finance Dept. staff also does not support the taking or keeping of a bond for equipment on private properties. 64 2. Other Required Licenses: The applicant must submit proof of any applicable federal, state, or local licenses to the council prior to receiving a building permit. Response: The applicant is required to comply with this provision. 3. Interference with Public Safety Systems Prohibited: The applicant must agree in writing to support, participate in and refrain from interfering with public warning systems and public safety communications and other radio frequencies as may be regulated by the federal communications commission (FCC). Response: The applicant is required to comply with this provision. 4. Coverage/Interference And Capacity Analyses: The applicant shall demonstrate, by providing a coverage/interference analysis and capacity analysis, that the location and height of any freestanding antenna tower or antenna as proposed is necessary to meet the communication, frequency reuse and spacing needs of the communication services system, and to provide adequate coverage and capacity to areas that cannot be adequately served by locating the towers in a less restrictive district or on an existing structure, freestanding antenna tower or antenna including such in neighboring municipalities. Response: The applicant has provided for the city review Capacity and Coverage Analysis Report and maps (see attachments to this report). 5. Compliance with FCC Regulations; Noninterference Required: All new or existing telecommunications service and equipment shall meet or exceed all federal communications commission (FCC) standards and regulations and shall not interfere with any other communications, computers, laboratory equipment or manufacturing equipment, including television and other home electronics. The applicant shall provide to the city a report from a qualified professional engineer guaranteeing noninterference and a copy of the FCC approval of the antenna in regard to noninterference. Response: The applicant is required to comply with this provision; see attached letter. 6. Environmental Impact Statement: In the event that the FCC or other agency or other governmental body having jurisdiction requires the applicant to submit an environmental impact statement or similar document, a copy of this document shall be submitted to the city. Response: Not applicable. 7. Nonconformances: Existing nonconforming freestanding antenna towers, antennas, or accessory structures shall be allowed to continue operation unless use of the freestanding antenna tower, antenna, or accessory structure for its intended purpose ceases for a continuous period of six (6) months, in which case, resumption of use shall require a reapplication for a conditional use permit. Response: The applicant is required to comply with this provision. 8. Area Map: All applications for either a freestanding antenna, a freestanding antenna tower, or a building mounted antenna shall be accompanied by a map of all existing towers and antennas of the same provider within a two (2) mile radius of the proposed site and all future planned antennas of the same provider for the next five (5) years within a two (2) mile radius of the proposed site. Response: See attached maps. 9. Costs to Applicant: All costs of an application, including, but not limited to, those incurred by city staff time and resources, engineering studies by consultants, and other data as may be required by the city staff, the planning commission or the city council shall be borne in full by the applicant. Response: The applicant is required to comply with this provision. 65 10. Variances: The council may at its discretion waive any or all of the requirements of this section in order to approve a unique "stealth" or "camouflage" design of freestanding antennas or poles or building mounted antennas if, in the opinion of the council, said apparatus will be sufficiently disguised as trees, light poles, church steeples, or other similar objects. Response: Not applicable; the Applicant has not requested variances to any provisions or standards required to install the proposed cellular equipment or facilities. 11. Prohibitions: Use of mobile cell/PCS sites or COWs (cell sites on wheels), or any other temporary antenna apparatus is strictly prohibited except in the case of emergency equipment used for public safety purposes for a limited time during or in the immediate aftermath of a natural disaster or other emergency. (Ord. 429, 8-3-2010) Response: The applicant is required to comply with this provision. ALTERNATIVES for ACTION Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend APPROVAL of the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed cellular/wireless communication equipment at 1060 Dakota Drive, based on the findings of fact that the new equipment will be fully compliant with the standards and regulations of the City Code; or 2. Recommend DENIAL of the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed cellular/wireless communication equipment at 1060 Dakota Drive, with specific findings of facts as determined by the Planning Commission that support such a denial; or 3. TABLE the request, pending additional information if requested by the Planning Commission; and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60-days, in compliance with MN STATUTES 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The proposed wireless antenna equipment will not result in any significant physical changes to the existing bank building; and the visual impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods will hopefully be reduced by the placement of the antenna structures near the center of the bank building’s roof. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the new cellular-wireless antenna communication equipment at 1060 Dakota Drive, with the condition that the applicant abides by all regulations in Title 12-1D-14 of the City Code, as outlined in this planning report. 66 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit for Cellular-Wireless Antenna Equipment 1060 Dakota Drive (Deerwood Bank) The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed conditional use request: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the conditional use permit requirements allowing such wireless equipment and facilities. 2. The proposed project will not negatively affect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. 3. Installing the new wireless antennas and equipment will help increase the capacity and coverage needed in the city’s service area. 67 From:Tim Benetti To:Tim Benetti Subject:FW: Contact City Hall (form) has been filled out on your site. Date:Wednesday, June 17, 2020 7:26:00 AM -----Original Message----- From: Please Do Not Click Reply [mailto:support@govoffice.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 12:34 PM To: cityhall <cityhall@mendota-heights.com> Subject: Contact City Hall (form) has been filled out on your site. Your Site has received new information through a form. Form: Contact City Hall Site URL: www.mendota-heights.com ------------------------------------------------- First and Last Name: John Buri Email Address: jrburi@stthomas.edu Phone Number: (651)253-3132 Comment or Question: I am contacting you to say that I am opposed to the construction of a new cell phone tower behind our current property at 1075 Mary Adele. When we moved to Mendota Heights (from Saint Paul), we were seeking a "more country feel" without leaving a general urban environment. We found that here in Mendota Heights. It seems that there are many other locations where a new cell phone tower could be built without disrupting such a serene neighborhood. 68 From:Tim Benetti To:Tim Benetti Subject:FW: Contact City Hall (form) has been filled out on your site. Date:Wednesday, June 17, 2020 7:29:08 AM -----Original Message----- From: Please Do Not Click Reply [mailto:support@govoffice.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 1:06 PM To: cityhall <cityhall@mendota-heights.com> Subject: Contact City Hall (form) has been filled out on your site. Your Site has received new information through a form. Form: Contact City Hall Site URL: www.mendota-heights.com ------------------------------------------------- First and Last Name: kathy buri Email Address: kmburi@hotmail.com Phone Number: (612)859-5849 Comment or Question: I would like to give my input into the proposed cell phone tower at the deer bank location. We live at 1075 Mary Adele. The houses on my side of the street already have power lines running through our front yards. It seems unfair to put a cell tower behind our back yards. I propose another location so that four houses are not penalized in their front yards as well as behind our back yards. Thank You! Kathy Buri 69 1060 DAKOTA DR. (Deerwood Bank) Property Information June 11, 2020 0 225 450112.5 ft 0 60 12030 m 1:2,400 Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. HWY 62 LEXINGTON AVENUEDAKOTA DRIVE 70 MIN AUGUSTA Capacity and Coverage Analysis 05 /06/2020 Joshua Martin, RF Engineer – Verizon Wireless This document will demonstrate the purpose of the proposed Verizon cell site MIN AUGUSTA in Mendota, MN. This site is primarily a capacity site providing an offload to the cell site to the south. Capacity Offload vs. Coverage Typically a new cell site is proposed by a wireless carrier for one or both of two reasons : Coverage and capacity . A site proposed due to a coverage need is simply intended to fill in an area where the existing wireless coverage is insufficient for devices to connect to the network . Capacity needs are different, in that a capacity site is typically built in an area that has coverage from another site . A capacity need arises when the existing site is responsible for providing that coverage to a large amount of customers , to the point that it cannot handle all of the connections in that area . Capacity Analysis MIN AUGUSTA is proposed as a capacity site . The existing site to the south, MIN MENDOTA, is serving a large enough number of customers that performance has dropped below acceptable levels. The area served by MENDOTA is primarily between HWY 494 and HWY 110 in the Mendota Area. The area appears to primarily serve businesses and homes in the heart of Mendota and Mendota Heights. In the following requested coverage plots it will be apparent MIN AUGUSTA does not cover a large geographic area but it will certainly unburden the area currently served by MIN MENDOTA. Coverage Analysis Coverage is most often demonstrated by RSRP levels, or the power levels received by a device connecting to the network. Measured in decibels, higher RSRP results in more reliable connections . Certain benchmarks of RSRP is what we look for when we make a determination that coverage is “good” (RSRP greater than -85 dB), “fair” (typically RSRP between -85 dB and -95 dB), and “poor” (RSRP less than -95 dB). Connections are possible in all three categories, however, in fair to poor coverage areas, the connection may become less reliable, especially if there are other obstacles in the way (being indoors, significant foliage or other structures , etc.) The coverage maps on the following pages will show the existing coverage , as well as the proposed coverage once MIN AUGUSTA is activated . Red areas show where the coverage is “good”, green where coverage is “fair”, and blue where coverage is “poor”. The goal then of any site with a coverage objective is to maximize “good” coverage and minimize “poor” coverage. 71 MIN Augusta and sites within 2 miles 72 Name Latitude Longitude Street Address MIN AUGUSTA 44.8831 -93.144825 1060 Dakota Drive SUNFISH 44.8875 -93.109385 1897 Delaware Ave. MENDOTA 44.8692 -93.147989 2411 Lexington Ave. South WATCHER 44.9027 -93.16475 2259 Rockwood Avenue SHEPARD 44.9111 -93.146644 1082 Montreal Ave. MIN JUPITER SC 1 44.8577 -93.16772222 2660 Eagan Woods Drive MIN JUPITER SC 2 44.8637 -93.169644 1457 Northland Drive MIN JUPITER SC 3 44.8637 -93.1628 1357 Northland Drive MIN JUPITER SC 4 44.8637 -93.159639 1286 Northland Drive Verizon Wireless Sites in Prediction Area 73 Current RSRP Levels 74 RSRP Levels with MIN AUGUSTA 75 Current Best Server Map 76 Best Server Map with MIN AUGUSTA 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 Date:I hereby certify that this plan,specification or report wasprepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect underthe laws of the state of MINNESOTA.ROBERT J. DAVIS, Reg. No. 12427Signed:11/11/201997 Date:I hereby certify that this plan,specification or report wasprepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect underthe laws of the state of MINNESOTA.ROBERT J. DAVIS, Reg. No. 12427Signed:11/11/201998 Date:I hereby certify that this plan,specification or report wasprepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect underthe laws of the state of MINNESOTA.ROBERT J. DAVIS, Reg. No. 12427Signed:11/11/201999 Date:I hereby certify that this plan,specification or report wasprepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect underthe laws of the state of MINNESOTA.ROBERT J. DAVIS, Reg. No. 12427Signed:11/11/2019100 Date:I hereby certify that this plan,specification or report wasprepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect underthe laws of the state of MINNESOTA.ROBERT J. DAVIS, Reg. No. 12427Signed:11/11/2019101 Date:I hereby certify that this plan,specification or report wasprepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect underthe laws of the state of MINNESOTA.ROBERT J. DAVIS, Reg. No. 12427Signed:11/11/2019102 Date:I hereby certify that this plan,specification or report wasprepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect underthe laws of the state of MINNESOTA.ROBERT J. DAVIS, Reg. No. 12427Signed:11/11/2019103 Date:I hereby certify that this plan,specification or report wasprepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect underthe laws of the state of MINNESOTA.ROBERT J. DAVIS, Reg. No. 12427Signed:11/11/2019104 Date:I hereby certify that this plan,specification or report wasprepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect underthe laws of the state of MINNESOTA.ROBERT J. DAVIS, Reg. No. 12427Signed:11/11/2019105 Date:I hereby certify that this plan,specification or report wasprepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect underthe laws of the state of MINNESOTA.ROBERT J. DAVIS, Reg. No. 12427Signed:11/11/2019106 Date:I hereby certify that this plan,specification or report wasprepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect underthe laws of the state of MINNESOTA.ROBERT J. DAVIS, Reg. No. 12427Signed:11/11/2019107 Date:I hereby certify that this plan,specification or report wasprepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Architect underthe laws of the state of MINNESOTA.ROBERT J. DAVIS, Reg. No. 12427Signed:11/11/2019108 109 110 111 Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE: June 23, 2020 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2020-13 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for Increased Elevation of Dwelling APPLICANT: LDK Builders, Inc. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 638 Ivy Falls Avenue ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One-Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: July 29, 2020 INTRODUCTION The applicants are seeking a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a new single-family dwelling 3 feet (revised from an original request and public notice of 4-feet) above the previous dwelling structure. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350- feet of the subject property. The city received one comment from a neighboring resident expressing concerns of the new home at this location. BACKGROUND The subject site is located mid-block between Dodd Road (east) and Sylvandale Road to the west. The site is a rectangular shaped property, consisting of two legal, combined parcels, totaling 25,191 sq. ft. in area, with 110-ft. of linear frontage along Ivy Falls Avenue. The property previously contained a 1,296-sf., single-story dwelling with a two-car tuck-under garage, built in 1955 (see images-below). 112 LDK Builders purchased this property late last year and removed the old dwelling. Afterwards, they submitted a new home building permit for a new 5,380-sf. two-story, single-family dwelling (see partial elevation images – below). City Code Section 12-1E-1 provides for Minimum Requirements for Single-Family Residential Districts, such as minimum floor area, structure dimensions, basements and roof pitches. Subpart 5 of this section requires certain standards for first floor elevations of new homes: a. Tear down and construction of new single-family dwellings and additions, modifications, and alterations to existing dwellings shall not raise the first floor elevation more than one foot (1') above the existing condition. c. By conditional use permit, the first floor elevation may be increased by more than one foot (1') from the existing condition in order to meet one or more of the following conditions: (1) Elevate the lowest level of the dwelling to an elevation of two feet (2') above the 100-year flood elevation, as established by the federal emergency management agency (FEMA). (2) Protect the dwelling from groundwater intrusion. Existing groundwater elevation shall be determined by a professional registered engineer in the state of Minnesota or by a certified hydrologist, and the results provided for review and consideration. (3) Meet state building code, city code or other statutory requirements. (4) Comply with standard engineering practices, including, but not limited to, grading, drainage, access, or utility connection at the discretion of the city engineer. The original plan called for a new home to be built one-foot (1’) above the previous dwelling’s elevation of 934.3-ft. (see survey image & info –below). However, while digging for the new foundation, the builder discovered an unusually high groundwater level approx. 4-5 feet below the normal surface elevation, and work was halted immediately. 113 The builder requested city staff’s guidance on this groundwater and building elevation issues; and with the Public Works Director’s knowledge and experience of working in this Ivy Falls neighborhood area, and other issues and concerns with other residential dwellings in this same neighborhood, it was suggested that the builder re-design and request to raise the proposed home elevation by an amount or level high enough to stay out of the high groundwater on this lot. After personally meeting with the builder on the subject lot, the builder and city staff agreed to revise the original proposed elevation request from 938.3 (4’ increase) to a reduced 937.3, or 3-ft. above the original dwelling elevation. The developer also agreed to submit a revised plan on the house with slightly reduced roof pitches and roof-lines of house, in order to reduce (as much as possible) the impacts the higher elevated home may present with the properties next door. A conditional use permit is required for any such request to develop a new home in excess of one-foot (1’) above the elevation of the old home; and this request falls under the category of subpart c.(2) and c.(4) noted above. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Pursuant to Title 12-1L-6, the city recognizes that the development and execution of Zoning Code is based upon the division of the city into districts within which regulations are specified. It is further recognized 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 city may 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 effectively carried out. The City may grant a conditional use provided the proposed use demonstrates the following: a) Use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, b) Use will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, c) Use will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value, and d) Use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter and the comprehensive plan. 114 A. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; will not cause serious traffic congestion or hazards; nor depreciate surrounding property value. Staff Response: This Ivy Falls Avenue neighborhood consists of a variety of one and two-story homes, some with similar “tuck-under” garage designs as the previous dwelling’s design of the 1950’s. There are also appears to be a few, newer homes with straight drive in garages as well. Staff is unsure if these similar tuck-under garage style homes were built due to the presence of high ground water elevations existing back in the 1950’s, or if this was simply a preferred building style at that time. The previous home was setback 14.7 ft. from the west lot line (with 642 Ivy Falls Ave.) and 46.2-ft. from the easterly line (with 630 Ivy Falls Ave.). The new home is now planned to have setbacks of 30.4-ft. from the west and 15.6-ft. from the east line. Regardless of this new two-story design, increased setbacks and higher elevation, staff does not believe the proposed new home location and elevation will be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and community, as this new home should fit nicely with the other established residential homes. The new home is for single-family living only, so there should be no serious or increased impacts to traffic congestion or safety, and there appears to be no conclusive evidence or reasons to believe a new home would seriously depreciate surrounding property values due to this home. Staff feels the proposed use of the subject property as a single-family dwelling, even one that is elevated higher than the neighboring properties, remains in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning code and the comprehensive plan. B. The proposed use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the city code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, so as not to be in conflict on an on-going basis. Staff Response: City Code Section 12-1E-1 (noted above), states all single-family dwellings shall have a basement under at least 50% of the first floor level. For usefulness and habitable space reasons, most basements are built with 9-10 foot walls of either poured concrete or concrete blocks. Since this proposed basement (and any basement) is preferred by most residential owners to be kept warm and dry, and due to the debilitating effect water has on structures, it is imperative this basement space be kept free and clear as much as possible from any groundwater penetration or saturation, which can cause leaks, structural failures and property damage to the home, and pose potential health and safety impacts (i.e. mold) for homeowners. The east side elevation of the new home is shown at 934-ft., while the next door home at 630 Ivy Falls is shown at 932.5-ft., so a 1.5+ ft. difference on this side. The west side of the new home is shown with a ground elevation of 933-ft., while the home to the west at 640 Ivy Falls is at 927.8-928.4-ft., which is almost a 6-ft. difference. This difference however, is minimized even further by the greater (almost 2x) setback from this side-yard, which should help lessen the impacts of the higher home elevation when viewed from this neighboring property. The Applicant is providing a reasonable request to raise the elevation of this new home, due to the known presence of groundwater in this area. Raising this home by such a level may likely set the house a bit higher than others on each side of it, but it should all be done within all other site development standards (setbacks, roof-heights, etc.) that are required for single family structures. It is Staff’s belief that proposed conditional use for the subject residential site conforms to the general purpose and intent of the city code (zoning) and the comprehensive plans. 115 REQUESTED ACTION / ALTERNATIVES Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following actions: 1. Recommend APPROVAL of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to raise the proposed single-family dwelling by three-feet (3’) from the previous dwelling’s elevation, based on the findings-of-fact to support such a recommendation, with certain conditions; or 2. Recommend DENIAL of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to raise the proposed single-family dwelling by three-feet (3’) from the previous dwelling’s elevation, with specific findings of facts determined by the Planning Commission that support such a recommendation of denial; or 3. Table the requested planning application item, direct staff or the applicant to provide additional information (if needed); and allow this item to be brought back for further review at a future planning commission meeting; and extend the application review period an additional 60 days, pursuant to MN State Statute 15.99. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the conditional use permit to LDK Builders, Inc. to raise the proposed single-family dwelling by three-feet (3’) from the previous dwelling’s elevation, based on the findings of fact of support, subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed single-family dwelling first floor-elevation shall be constructed no higher than the proposed first floor elevation of 937.3 feet as noted on the survey from Sathre-Bergquist, Inc., dated May 29, 2020. 2. The proposed dwelling shall be constructed in compliance with all applicable and other City Code and Minnesota State Building Codes. 3. The applicant shall obtain a revised and approved building permit prior to any resumption of excavation or construction on the new dwelling structure. 4. 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. 5. Residential construction hours are 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays, and 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on weekends. These work hours shall be strictly adhered to by the Applicant/Owner and all contractors working on the property. 6. Approval of the conditional use permit is contingent upon City Council approval of the application and corresponding site plan. If the CUP is approved by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a revised building permit for construction of the proposed dwelling within one-year from said approval date. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location/Aerial site map 2. Survey/Site Plan 3. New Dwelling Elevation Plans 116 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit for 638 Ivy Falls Avenue The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1. The known presence of the high groundwater in this residential neighborhood and property creates significant site impacts and hardship for developing this site; whereby a new dwelling one-foot (1’) above previous dwelling elevation makes it nearly impossible to safely and effectively develop this lot without raising the new elevation at least three-feet (3’). 2. The proposed redevelopment and use of the subject parcel as a new single-family residential dwelling will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposed dwelling structure will be compliant with the all other standards and conditions included in the City Code and State Building Codes. 4. The new single-family dwelling represents a considerable reinvestment in a residential neighborhood that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for residential land uses. 117 SITE PHOTOS – 638 IVY FALLS AVENUE 118 119 638 IVY FALLS AVE. (LDK Builders) Property Information June 11, 2020 0 225 450112.5 ft 0 60 12030 m 1:2,400 Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. 120 121 122 123 124 125