Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2022-08-23 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Packet
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. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2022 - 7:00 PM Mendota Heights City Hall – Council Chambers 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights MN 55118 1.Call to Order / Roll Call 2.Approve the July 26, 2022 Regular Meeting Minutes 3.Public Presentation a.City Wide Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan - (presented by HKGI) 4.Public Hearings a.CASE No. 2022-14 MRCCA Permit (Vegetation Clearing and Land Alteration Activities) for property located at 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway (Michael Frattallone - Applicant/Owner) b.CASE No. 2022-19 MRCCA Permit and Variance for property located at 944 Sibley Memorial Highway (Xcel Energy - Applicant / Owner) c.CASE No. 2022-20 Lot Split (Subdivision) for property located at 2511 Condon Court (Dick Bjorklund - Applicant/Owner) d.CASE No. 2022-21 Preliminary/Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit for property located at 1753 Sutton Lane (Jeff Simek - Applicant / Owner) 5.New / Unfinished Business 6. Adjourn Meeting July 26, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 10 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 26, 2022 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 26, 2022 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Acting Chair Sally Lorberbaum, Commissioners Patrick Corbett, Cindy Johnson, Michael Toth, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: Chair Litton Field, and Commissioner Andrew Katz. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of June 28, 2022 Minutes COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 28, 2022. FURTHER DISCUSSION: ACTING CHAIR LORBERBAUM NOTED ON PAGE TWO, THE SECOND PARAGRAPH, IT SHOULD STATE, “…OTHER OPTIONS.” ON PAGE THREE, NUMBER FOUR, IT SHOULD STATE, “…C.O. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY…” AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Hearings A)PLANNING CASE 2022-12 DISH WIRELESS, LLC/ISD-197, 1897 DELAWARE AVENUE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that DISH Wireless is seeking a conditional use permit (CUP) to add new wireless or cellular communication equipment on top of the Two River High School facility, located at 1897 Delaware Avenue. Title 12-1D-14 of the Code requires conditional use permit approval for wireless antennas, subject to conditions. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. 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). PC PACKET PG. # 1 July 26, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 10 Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Toth referenced the new antennas that will be mounted and asked if those would be higher than the existing antennas. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the new antennas would be at or below the height of the existing antennas. Commissioner Toth asked if the 15-foot height limitation comes from City Code or whether that is from the manufacturer’s information. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that limitation for roof mounted items is found within City Code. Commissioner Johnson noted that the staff report stated that an environmental impact statement was not applicable. She stated that the FCC talks about an environmental assessment if the facilities will cause human exposure levels and asked those levels. She also asked why the EIS was not applicable. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the FCC licenses and monitors these structures. He noted that those proofs are provided to the FCC to ensure harm will not be caused to humans or the environment. He stated that the FCC licensing is complicated and noted that perhaps the applicant could provide additional details. Commissioner Petschel stated that typically that falls to the equipment rather than the applicant. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the applicant has provided the FCC packet of information and that entity would have the final say on whether there would be any impacts. Acting Chair Lorberbaum suggested that the approval be contingent upon receipt of the FCC license. Rob Viera representing DISH Wireless, stated that T-Mobil and Sprint merged into one which means there are three major carriers. He stated that DISH obtained a permit to provide service in the market as the fourth provider. He stated that this is 5G equipment, therefore it is smaller equipment with one cabinet and three antennas. He stated that the existing Verizon equipment would be larger and higher than their proposed equipment. Commissioner Toth asked if there is a capacity of how many tenants could have equipment on the building, noting that 15 years ago there were no antennas and now there will be three. Mr. Viera replied that it is expensive to come into the market and therefore he does not see a lot more companies attempting to come into the market. He stated that they look for existing locations PC PACKET PG. # 2 July 26, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 10 rather than building new towers. He stated that AT&T is located elsewhere, and the other three carriers would be located on this building. Commissioner Johnson stated that the coverage is shown on the map, with and without this site. She asked if the company is planning any other locations within a two-mile radius. Mr. Viera replied that there would be other locations, but he is not working on those. He stated that he could provide a map with proposed locations. He stated that antenna locations are determined based on the number of customers and service needs. Commissioner Johnson commented that it is her understanding that high frequency 5G requires more towers closer together and asked for more details. Mr. Viera replied that they are not looking to build towers and therefore they look for existing towers or structures with inherent height that could support an antenna. He stated that DISH purchased the BOOST Mobile customers in this market as a starting point. He stated that antennas can be put into right-of-way within certain limitations as they are considered a utility. He noted that this would be a smaller network and the needs would depend on the customer base. He stated that there will be more needed to cover Mendota Heights, but that is yet to be determined. Commissioner Petschel stated that he believes the comments of Commissioner Johnson is related to ultra-wideband which is not what DISH is suggesting. Commissioner Johnson asked if there is data on the radio frequency levels for students and teachers with the antennas and all the phones being used. Mr. Viera stated that the signal propagates up towards the horizon. He stated that the kids in the school will have the best service, noting that phones get warm when they are searching for a signal. Acting Chair Lorberbaum confirmed that the applicant agrees with the right for the City to request a third-party inspection of the equipment if desired. She also referenced the right for the City to require a bond and asked if the applicant is willing to do that. Mr. Viera replied that is covered in the lease and agrees with the condition. Acting Chair Lorberbaum asked how often inspections are done. Mr. Viera replied that things can be adjusted and maintained remotely. He noted that generally speaking someone could visit the site every few months but if everything is operating well, it would not require someone to visit the site as often. Acting Chair Lorberbaum referenced a sticker shown in the packet that had a phone number and stated that she called the number and it stated that the phone number would no longer be valid as of August 1st but provided a new phone number that would be valid after that time. PC PACKET PG. # 3 July 26, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 10 Mr. Viera replied that he did not complete the drawings but noted that a correct phone number would be used. Acting Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Acting Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE NEW WIRELESS ANTENNA IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED BY DISH WIRELESS, AND TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1897 DELAWARE AVENUE, WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT ABIDES BY ALL REGULATIONS IN TITLE 12-1D-14 OF THE CITY CODE, AS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE APPLICANT SHALL ABIDE BY ALL REGULATIONS IN TITLE 12-1D-14 OF THE CITY CODE. 2. THE APPLICANT SHALL MEET ALL FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC) STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS RELATED TO THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THESE NEW ANTENNA FEATURES. 3. A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE APPROVED PRIOR TO ANY INSTALLATION OR NEW CONSTRUCTION WORK. THE APPLICANTS MUST PROVIDE THE NAME AND CONTACT INFORMATION OF A PRIVATE, THIRD -PARTY STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING INSPECTION FIRM OR STRUCTURAL INSPECTOR TO PROVIDE REPORTS TO THE CITY’S BUILDING OFFICIAL CONFIRMING ALL NEW WORK AND STRUCTURAL ADDITIONS WERE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE OF MINNESOTA BUILDING CODES. 4. THE NEW ANTENNAS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE ELECTRICAL CODES. 5. THE NEW ANTENNA ARRAYS AND SUPPORTING STRUCTURAL MATERIALS SHALL BE PAINTED TO MATCH THE EXISTING PAINTED COLOR(S) WITH THE OTHER EXISTING CELLULAR COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT ON THE SCHOOL. 6. NO ADDED LIGHTING OR ADVERTISEMENT OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING ANY NOTICEABLE PROVIDER/COMPANY LOGO SHALL BE PLACED ON ANY PART OF THE ANTENNA ARRAYS, WHICH MAY BE NOTICEABLE OR VIEWED BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC FROM THE GROUND OR SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. 7. A THIRD-PARTY INSPECTION CAN BE REQUESTED AND REPORT PROVIDED TO THE CITY. PC PACKET PG. # 4 July 26, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 10 FURTHER DISCUSSION: ACTING CHAIR LORBERBAUM ASKED IF ANOTHER CONDITION SHOULD BE ADDED RELATED TO INSPECTION. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL ASKED WHO WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COST OF AN INSPECTION, NOTING THAT HE BELIEVED IT WOULD FALL TO THE CITY. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI EXPLAINED THAT WITH COMPLICATED THINGS SUCH AS THIS, THE CITY HAS THE RIGHT TO REQUEST A THIRD-PARTY INSPECTION BE COMPLETED AND PROVIDED DETAILS ON A SIMILAR INSPECTION THE CITY REQUESTED. HE STATED THAT THE CITY IS THEN PROVIDED WITH A REPORT AND CONFIRMED DISH WIRELESS PAID FOR THE INSPECTION IN THE OTHER INSTANCE. THAT REQUIREMENT IS ALREADY INCLUDED IN CONDITION THREE. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON STATED THAT SHE IS AWARE THAT THIS ACTIVITY IS HIGHLY REGULATED BY THE FCC, BUT SHE IS UNSURE THE THOUGHTS OF THE COMMISSION. SHE ASKED IF THERE IS ANY DATA TO SAY WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE BUILDING RELATED TO RADIATION. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL STATED THAT HE REGULARLY SHEPHERDS EQUIPMENT THAT HE DESIGNS THROUGH THE FCC PROCESSES AND EVERY CELL PHONE IS INDEPENDENTLY REGULATED REGARDLESS OF BROADCAST CONDITIONS TO ENSURE IT IS SAFE FOR HUMAN USE. HE PROVIDED ADDIT IONAL DETAILS ON HOW THE SAFE EMISSION STANDARDS ARE DETERMINED AND NOTED THAT THE ROOF IS A GROUNDED METAL SURFACE. HE STATED THAT HE HAS NO CONCERN. ACTING CHAIR LORBERBAUM ASKED IF AN ABANDONMENT BOND SHOULD BE ADDED. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL STATED THAT THIS IS NOT CITY OWNED PROPERTY. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI COMMENTED THAT WILL BE BUILT INTO THE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Acting Chair Lorberbaum advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 3, 2022 meeting. B) PLANNING CASE 2022-13 TIM AND MEGAN ALTIER, 1057 ESTHER LANE – VARIANCE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Tim and Megan Altier, owners of 1057 Esther Lane, are requesting consideration of a variance to encroach approximately 3.3 feet PC PACKET PG. # 5 July 26, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 10 into the 10-foot side yard setback in order to provide an expanded attached garage addition to the existing single-family dwelling. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site. The applicants received one email letter of support from a neighboring resident, and signatures of consent/support from two neighboring owners, including the neighbor to the north who is immediately adjacent to the proposed addition. He also provided a comment received in opposition from a resident but was unsure of the address of that resident. 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 Petschel asked if this is a nonconforming property. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that it is because it does not meet the front setback. Commissioner Corbett asked if this would be a tandem garage or side by side. Community Development Director Tim Benetti clarified that it would be a side-by-side garage. Commissioner Johnson asked how the drainage on that side of the house runs as the neighboring property is lower. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that the drainage goes out to the street and did not see any impacts between the yards. He noted that the block wall would also prevent runoff to the neighboring property. He stated that the driveway will be remaining in place and if it were repaired/replaced, it would need to come into conformance. Commissioner Toth commented that it would seem the existing concrete and wall could be compromised with the construction of the garage. He asked if the City would consider looking at the whole project including the wall to ensure there are not issues with drainage. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that area of concrete would be cut out for the foundation but believes that there would be sufficient space to not impact the wall. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that the wall does not appear to be four feet tall, which is the height that is considered a structure. He believed that the wall would guide the drainage towards the east/street. Commissioner Johnson stated that if a portion of the driveway is being cut out, would that be considered as making a change to the driveway. PC PACKET PG. # 6 July 26, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 10 Community Development Director Tim Benetti acknowledged that the driveway is not in great shape and anticipates that may come in under a separate permit. He stated that removal of that section of the driveway for the foundation would not trigger the new requirements to make the driveway compliant. Tim and Megan Altier, applicants, introduced themselves and noted that their contractor is also present to address any questions. Mr. Altier commented that they had the wall built in 2019 after they purchased their home and remodeled the home. He stated that they also installed drain tile to the street along the wall. Mrs. Altier commented that there is a small slope to the roof that slopes to the backyard. She noted that the gutters were redone and also go into the backyard. Commissioner Toth asked if there would be any room to exclude the 4.7 feet on the side of the garage and expand the garage further into the backyard. Mr. Altier noted that within their narrative they did explain they considered a tandem style garage but stated that would still require a variance. He stated that although the existing garage is attached, there is no entry from inside the garage into the home. He noted that the intention is to be able to enter the home from the garage into their mud room. He stated that they feel that this is the minimum plan to allow two vehicles to be parked inside and walk into the home. Acting Chair Lorberbaum asked if a zig zag would still allow entrance into the home. Mr. Altier replied that although that could be done, it would drive costs up and he did not believe it would look as aesthetically pleasing. He stated that they are still attempting to keep the style of the home and area. Commissioner Johnson referenced materials within the packet that show the proposed addition footprint is shown in grey but then a rectangle is removed and shown in yellow as the preferred footprint. She asked for clarity. Dave Chapman, contractor for the applicant, provided clarification on the proposed footprint versus the survey. Acting Chair Lorberbaum commented that a variance would not be needed with the zigzag. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the zigzag would still require a variance. Commissioner Petschel stated that the only way to avoid the variance would be to use a trapezoidal wall. He asked the width of the lot at its narrowest, noting that would appear the frontage would be less than 100 feet. He commented that this seems to be a problem with the definition of frontage and stated that in the area where the home is built the width of the lot is substantially less than the normal buildable frontage which would support the variance request. He commented that it would PC PACKET PG. # 7 July 26, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 10 support the argument that it is not the fault of the current property owner that the home was built where it was. Acting Chair Lorberbaum asked how close the email comments in support and opposition are to the subject property. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the email received in opposition was from the resident at 574 Butler Avenue, which is not in proximity to the subject property. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied with the location of the resident that provided the email of support. Acting Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Acting Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that Commissioner Petschel is correct that this property was developed prior to the ownership of the Altiers and therefore the circumstance was created by others. He stated that if the home had been centered on the lot there would be no variance needed and a three-car garage could be supported. Commissioner Petschel stated that if the proper dimensions of the lot were required originally, the variance would not be required either. Commissioner Corbett commented that the practical difficulty would then be the shortage of frontage for the lot. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE TO 1057 ESTHER LANE AND TO TIM AND MEGAN ALTIER BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT SUPPORTING THE VARIANCE APPLICATION REQUEST AND THE CONDITIONS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY BASED ON LOT SIZE. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER CORBETT STATED THAT HE BELIEVES THAT THIS REQUEST IS WARRANTED BECAUSE OF THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY DISCUSSION OF COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL. COMMISSIONER TOTH STATED THAT ALTIERS PURCHASED THIS HOME IN 2019 AND THEREFORE IT IS EASY TO SAY THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN WHAT THEY PC PACKET PG. # 8 July 26, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 10 WERE UP AGAINST. HE STATED THAT OFTEN HOMES ARE BUILT IN THE 1960s BEFORE REGULATIONS WERE DEVELOPED AND THEREFORE THIS MUST BE CONSIDERED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS BASED ON WHAT IS BEST FOR THE RESIDENTS AND NEIGHBORHOOD. HE AGREED THAT THIS WOULD BE A GREAT ADDITION TO THE HOME. HE STATED THAT PERHAPS THE OWNER WILL LOOK AT THE DRIVEWAY IN THE FUTURE TO ENSURE THERE IS NO FUTURE PROBLEM WITH DRAINAGE FOR THE NEIGHBORS. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON COMMENTED THAT IN HAVING THE OTHER OPTION AVAILABLE, SHE IS DISAPPOINTED THAT THE COMMISSION IS NOT LOOKING AT THAT AS THE PROPOSAL. SHE STATED THAT SHE DOES AGREE WITH THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES AS DISCUSSED. COMMISSIONER TOTH STATED THAT IF THE ADDITIONAL SPACE WERE ADDED TO THE BACK, IT WOULD ONLY RESULT IN A 1.5 CAR GARAGE WHICH WOULD NOT PROVIDE THE DESIRED RESULT FOR TWO VEHICLES TO BE PARKED INSIDE. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL REFERENCED THE POINT OF THE RESIDENTS KNOWING WHAT THEY BOUGHT INTO, ESPECIALLY IN THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE COMMUNITY. HE STATED THAT WHEN THE HOMES WERE BUILT, THEY WERE CONFORMING AND THE CITY THEN CHANGED ITS REGULATIONS, THEREFORE IT WAS NOT A BUILDER MISTAKE BUT A SITUATION IN WHICH THE CITY CHANGED THE RULES AFTER THE FACT. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON NOTED THAT IS ALSO A SIGN OF THE TIMES IN CHANGING REGULATIONS AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIRES. SHE NOTED THAT PERHAPS A PREVIOUS OWNER OWNED BOTH LOTS WHEN THE LOT SPLIT WAS COMPLETED IN THE PAST, THE SITUATION IS JUST UNKNOWN. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Acting Chair Lorberbaum advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 3, 2022 meeting. New and Unfinished Business A) COMMISSION DATA PRACTICES AND EMAIL UPDATE Assistant City Administrator Kelly Torkelson stated that to support compliance with the Minnesota Data Practices Act, as well as to support a separation of personal communication with Commission communication, the City is rolling out City email addresses for Commission members and provided a brief presentation. Commissioner Petschel asked if there is guidance within the State law for the maintenance of records. PC PACKET PG. # 9 July 26, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 10 Assistant City Administrator Kelly Torkelson replied that it would depend on the type of information. She stated that she can review that information and provide it to Commissioner Petschel as there is a variety of requirements depending on the type of data. Acting Chair Lorberbaum asked who the contact person would be if someone were to have problems accessing their email. Assistant City Administrator Kelly Torkelson replied that she would be happy to help, as would other City staff members. Acting Chair Lorberbaum asked when the new email would be rolled out. Assistant City Administrator Kelly Torkelson commented that she would send out this information later this week. Acting Chair Lorberbaum asked for details on open meeting laws, in specific related to email communication between members of a Commission. Assistant City Administrator Kelly Torkelson provided information on the open meeting laws and related to email communication. Commissioner Johnson stated that as a resident and Master Gardener that regularly communicates with City staff and asked if she should be using her City email or personal email for that purpose. Assistant City Administrator Kelly Torkelson stated that any email sent to City staff, or a Commission member is public data. She stated that a draft email for a Commission or City staff member would be considered public data, whereas a draft email for a resident would not be considered public data. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided an update of recent Council action related to previous Commission recommendations. He also provided an update on the legal actions relating to the Culligan property. He stated that there is a Commission workshop scheduled for the following night at 5:00 p.m. Adjournment COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:21 P.M. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 PC PACKET PG. # 10 DATE: August 23, 2022 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director SUBJECT: City-Wide Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The city is developing a comprehensive plan for recommendations and improvements to bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The planning process includes evaluating where current trails, sidewalks, and on-street facilities are located and where there are gaps and barriers to bicycle and pedestrian movement throughout the city. Dakota County also owns and maintains regional trails in the city to provide non-motorized connections within and outside the community. The final plan will aim to identify strategies to increase access to and participation in bicycling and walking throughout the community, as well as identifying and prioritizing physical improvements that will make the system safer and more connected. The benefits of improving walking and biking capabilities within the community are many. Walking, bicycling, and other non-auto modes of transportation are less expensive; especially with rising gas prices and the cost of vehicle ownership. Additionally, connecting and improving routes expands accessibility for those who may not be able to drive a vehicle, improves overall community health and wellness, and provides environmental benefits. Phase 1 of the plan was completed the end of April, and included a community survey and use of a social pinpoint map where the public could comment on locations that are barriers for access, identify areas with safety or other concerns, and indicate areas that are working well. Phase 2 will include a summary of the plan’s recommendations that will be available for public review and comment. A State Health Improvement Partnership (SHIP) grant is being used to fund the project process, which supports improvements for seniors, children, low-income populations, and those who may be experiencing a health disparity. Strategies and initiatives in the plan will focus on improvements that include education, encouragement, enforcement, evaluation, equity, and engineering. The city consultant, HKGi, will be giving the commission a presentation on the plan. PC PACKET PG. # 11 Supported by the Statewide Health Improvement Partnership, Minnesota Department of Health and the Dakota County Public Health Department. RECOMMENDATION: The Commission is asked to help solicit public engagement for the plan and provide any comments or recommendations. PC PACKET PG. # 12 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BIKE PED PLAN 1 Pedestrian Plan&Bike INTERACTIVE MAPPING TOOL: https://hkgi.mysocialpinpoint.com/mendota-heights-phase-2-map/map#/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUG. 23, 2022 PROJECT UPDATE + PHASE 2 ENGAGEMENT PC PACKET PG. # 13 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BIKE PED PLAN 2 MEETINGS AND ENGAGEMENT EVENTS MEETING EVENT SYMBOL City Staff Meetings Listening Sessions Community Survey Community Open House Advisory Park and Rec Commission Advisory Planning Commission City Council PROJECT PROCESS MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV Task 1: Organize the Effort Task 2: Inventory and Analysis Task 3: Plan & System Recommendations Task 4: Final Plan and Approvals Survey #1Survey #1 Survey #2Survey #2 PC PACKET PG. # 14 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BIKE PED PLAN 3 BIKE & PEDESTRIAN PLAN OVERVIEW EXISTING FACILITIES: • 28 miles of paved trails and sidewalks • 5 miles of wide shoulders / on-street facilities ISSUES: • Arterial roads and Highways act as barriers • Many streets lack sidewalks or off-street trails • Gaps exist in the network OPPORTUNITIES: • SHIP grant to develop a plan • Integrate County facilities and wayfinding • Enhance safety • Make connections / close gaps PC PACKET PG. # 15 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BIKE PED PLAN 4 INCLUDE THE 6E’S: EVALUATION, EDUCATION, ENGINEERING, ENCOURAGEMENT, ENFORCEMENT, AND EQUITY IN THE PLAN PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTERCONNECTED PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE SYSTEM CITY-WIDE INTEGRATE COUNTY GREENWAYS AND TRAILS ALONG COUNTY HIGHWAYS INTO THE SYSTEM PLAN PURPOSE AND GOALS E E E E E E PC PACKET PG. # 16 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BIKE PED PLAN 5 ECONOMICS & COST Bicycling and walking are less expensive than driving, take up less space on roads, and require less area to park at destinations HEALTH & COMMUNITY EXPERIENCE Bicycling and walking allow people to experience the outdoors, see others’ faces, promotes community engagement and connections, and encourages active living and healthy lifestyles SUSTAINABILITY Bikes and feet create less wear and tear on roads and trails than motor vehicles; long-term this costs taxpayers less money for maintenance and repair ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & RECREATION Trails offer access to a variety of urban and natural environments; destination trails bring people into communities for leisure and recreation opportunities and enhance the local economy IMPORTANCE AND VALUE OF A CONNECTED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM PC PACKET PG. # 17 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BIKE PED PLAN 6 PLAN STRATEGIES & ORGANIZATION ‘E’ CATEGORY DEFINITION RECOMMENDATIONS EDUCATION Teaching people to walk and bike safely; teaching motorized movers to watch for non-motorized movers; informing law enforcement; informing legislators of the importance and value of biking and walking Wayfinding signage; Etiquette signage; Bike Rodeo; Safety Camp ENGINEERING Identification of physical barriers to walking and biking; infrastructure improvements to facilitate walking and biking, such as crossings, trails, sidewalks, on-street facilities, bike parking, etc. Crossing improvements, New trails and sidewalks; Safe Routes to Schools; Maintainenance ENCOURAGEMENT Programs that get people excited about walking or biking, advertising and promotional campaigns, outreach, events, etc. Online map of ped/bike routes and loops; Information about destinations and distances by ped/bike; Folks on Spokes (city program, partnership with WSP and SSP) ENFORCEMENT Law enforcement support for both motorized and non- motorized users; appropriately enforce rules and laws to keep people safe Law enforcement to ensure drivers and bicyclists follow the rules of the road or issue penalties; Dog walkers need to control their dogs EQUITY Traffic codes and rules that treat non-motorized movers as equal users of the transportation system; equal access to facilities and destinations for all movement types Review rules within the community; Ensure that community members of all ages and abilities are able to access bike and ped facilities EXPERIENCE Making transportation an experience by design for both motor and non-motor vehicles. Focus on safety, views, destinations, etc. Promote outdoor recreation; Greenway goals; Dark community, which impacts safety (law enforcement recently made reflecting sashes for cyclists and walkers) ETHICS Values-based decision-making process that is centered on ethics, empathy, and equity Value biking and walking facilities on an equal level with motorized facilities EVALUATION Determine if the system is providing valuable and accessible facilities; evaluate the number of users of the ped/bike system Currently evaluating the system with surveys/engagement; Metrics (do complaints go down?); Strava numbers for usership of trails; Evaluate StreetLight data PC PACKET PG. # 18 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BIKE PED PLAN 7 Ivy HillsPark Valley Park Wentworth Park VictoriaHighlandPark MariePark FriendlyMarshPark MendakotaPark Copperfield Ponds RogersLake Park FriendlyHillsPark HagstromKing Park Kensington Park Valley ViewHeights Park Sibley Park Historic PilotKnob NaturePreserve CivicCenterBall Park AcaciaOff-LeashDog Park Market Square Park Minnesota Mississippi Hornbean Gun Club Pickerel Rogers Augusta Lemay O'Neil Pond Snelling Crosby Upper 149 149 913A 51 13 5 13 62 62 5 55 31 43 204 63 46 8 42 51 35E 494 City Bike and Ped System Off Street Bituminous Trail (6'-8' wide) Wide Shoulders/On Street Lilydale Pedestrian Trail (outside Mendota Hts) Greenways Dak. Co. Greenway State Trail Parks and Open Space Cemetery Golf Course Nature Preserve State Property Water City Bike and Ped System Off Street Bituminous Trail (6'-8' wide) Wide Shoulders/On Street Lilydale Pedestrian Trail (outside Mendota Hts) Last Updated 7.20.2022 TDS Wentworth Ave Emerson Ave Marie Ave Mendota Heights Rd Wagon Wheel Rd Village at Mendota HeightsMendota HeightsCity Hall Two Rivers H.S. Friendly Hills M.S. VisitationSchool St. ThomasAcademy Somerset E.S. Dodge Nature Center Mendota E.S. Resurrection Cemetery Mendakota Country Club Somerset Country Club Mendota Hts. Par 3 Mendota Plaza LILYDALE REGIONAL TRAIL MINNESOTA RIVER GREENWAY Mendota Hts. Trailhead Lilydale Trailhead SAM MORGAN REGIONAL TRAIL Costco ¯0 ½1 1½2¼ Miles Mendota Heights - Existing Bike and Pedestrian Facilities St Paul Mpls Fort Snelling BloomingtonI.G.H.Eagan Sunfish LakeWest St PaulLilydale Mendota Mendota Heights Dodd RdDelaware AveIvy HillsParkValleyParkWentworthParkVictoriaHighlandParkMariePark FriendlyMarshPark MendakotaPark Copperfield Ponds RogersLake Park FriendlyHillsPark HagstromKing Park Kensington Park Valley ViewHeights Park SibleyPark Historic PilotKnob NaturePreserve CivicCenterBall Park AcaciaOff-LeashDog Park Market Square Park Minnesota Mississippi Hornbean Gun Club Pickerel Rogers Augusta Lemay O'Neil Pond Snelling CrosbyUpper 149 149 913A 51 13 5 13 62 62 5 55 31 43 204 63 46 8425135E 494 City Bike and Ped System Off Street Bituminous Trail (6'-8' wide) Wide Shoulders/On Street Lilydale Pedestrian Trail (outside Mendota Hts) Greenways Dak. Co. Greenway State Trail Parks and Open Space Cemetery Golf Course Nature Preserve State Property Water City Bike and Ped System Off Street Bituminous Trail (6'-8' wide) Wide Shoulders/On Street Lilydale Pedestrian Trail (outside Mendota Hts) Last Updated 7.20.2022 TDS Wentworth AveEmerson AveMarie Ave Mendota Heights Rd Wagon Wheel Rd Village at Mendota HeightsMendota HeightsCity Hall Two Rivers H.S. Friendly Hills M.S. VisitationSchool St. ThomasAcademy Somerset E.S.Dodge NatureCenterMendota E.S. Resurrection Cemetery Mendakota Country Club SomersetCountry ClubMendota Hts. Par 3 Mendota Plaza LILYDALE REGIONAL TRAIL MINNESOTA RIVER GREENWAY Mendota Hts. Trailhead Lilydale TrailheadSAM MORGAN REGIONAL TRAIL Costco ¯0 ½1 1½2¼ Miles Mendota Heights - Existing Bike and Pedestrian FacilitiesSt PaulMplsFortSnelling BloomingtonI.G.H.Eagan Sunfish LakeWest St PaulLilydale Mendota Mendota Heights Dodd RdDelaware AveIvy HillsParkValleyParkWentworthParkVictoriaHighlandParkMarieParkFriendlyMarshParkMendakotaParkCopperfield PondsRogersLake Park FriendlyHillsPark HagstromKing Park Kensington Park Valley ViewHeights Park SibleyParkHistoric PilotKnob NaturePreserve CivicCenterBall ParkAcaciaOff-LeashDog Park Market Square ParkMinnesotaMississippi Hornbean Gun Club Pickerel Rogers Augusta Lemay O'Neil Pond Snelling CrosbyUpper 149 149913A51 13 5 13 6262555 31 43 204 63468425135E 494 City Bike and Ped System Off Street Bituminous Trail (6'-8' wide) Wide Shoulders/On Street Lilydale Pedestrian Trail (outside Mendota Hts) Greenways Dak. Co. Greenway State Trail Parks and Open Space Cemetery Golf Course Nature Preserve State Property Water City Bike and Ped System Off Street Bituminous Trail (6'-8' wide) Wide Shoulders/On Street Lilydale Pedestrian Trail (outside Mendota Hts) Last Updated 7.20.2022 TDS Wentworth AveEmerson AveMarie Ave Mendota Heights Rd Wagon Wheel Rd Village at Mendota HeightsMendota HeightsCity Hall Two Rivers H.S. Friendly Hills M.S. VisitationSchool St. ThomasAcademy Somerset E.S.Dodge NatureCenterMendota E.S.ResurrectionCemetery MendakotaCountry Club SomersetCountry ClubMendota Hts. Par 3Mendota PlazaLILYDALE REGIONAL TRAILMINNESOTA RIVER GREENWAY Mendota Hts. Trailhead Lilydale TrailheadSAM MORGAN REGIONAL TRAIL Costco ¯0 ½1 1½2¼ Miles Mendota Heights - Existing Bike and Pedestrian FacilitiesSt PaulMplsFortSnelling BloomingtonI.G.H.Eagan Sunfish LakeWest St PaulLilydaleMendotaMendotaHeights Dodd RdDelaware AveEXISTING FACILITIES PC PACKET PG. # 19 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BIKE PED PLAN 8 What are the most important destinations to walk or bike to? (297 Responses) Parks and trails Shopping, dining, and entertainment 67% Schools Residential areas Other Places to work Transit stops or stations Community or civic buildings 9.5% 8% 6% 6% 2% 1% 0.5% Based on the descriptions about how often you walk or bike during warmer months , how would you characterize your attitude towards biking? (297 Responses) What keeps you from walking or biking in Mendota Heights? (258 Responses) (All that applied selected) How important are each of the following to you when planning for the future bicycle and pedestrian network? (297 Responses) I don’t feel safe walking or biking near motorized traffic Trails and sidewalks are too icy or snowy in winter months There are no trails or sidewalks where I want to go I don’t feel safe crossing busy intersections My destinations are too far apart None of the above Other The trails and sidewalks are in poor condition I have too much to carry or transport It’s difficult to find my way around while biking or walking I don’t have any incentives or encouragement to bike or walk Sidewalks and trails are not handicap accessible Safe roads for all roadway users Safe intersection crossings and facilities Having off- road trails for walking and biking separate from motorized vehicles Having scenic and comfortable bike and walk routes near parks and natural corridors Getting to my destination as fast as possible 89% 9% 88% 11%1%2% 77%63% 7% 18%32% 60% 5%5% 33% Very Important Somewhat Important Not Important Strong and Fearless 13% 36%40% 11% Enthusiastic and Confident Interested but Concerned Not Able/ Interested “Other” response themes included: • Issues with trail or sidewalk maintenance • Gaps in the trail, sidewalk, or bikeway network • Safety concerns; coyotes, dogs, traveling with small children, poor lighting, paths close to vehicular traffic, unsafe crossings • Lack of connections or inconvenient routes • ADA accessibility for both adults and children PHASE 1 INPUT ENGAGEMENT & OUTREACH: • Survey questions • Interactive map • Open during April, 2022 RESULTS: • Survey received almost 300 responses • Many concerned about safety (road crossings, off-street trails desired) • Dodd Road mentioned several times • Desire for maintenance of existing trails • Lack of a connected trail network PC PACKET PG. # 20 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BIKE PED PLAN 9 SYSTEM COMPONENTS Component Ped Bike Facility Examples Dakota County Greenways (off street, bituminous, 10’ wide trail, destination trails) X X Mendota-Lebanon Hills Regional Greenway Minnesota River Regional Greenway (incl. Big Rivers Regional Trail) River to River Greenway Off Street Bituminous Trail (6’-8’ wide paved trail)X X Trail along Mendota Heights Rd Trail along Wagon Wheel Rd Trail along portions of Lexington Ave Wide Shoulders On-Street X Shoulders along Dodd Road Shoulders along Hwy 55 Sidewalks (4-6’ wide concrete walks)X Sidewalks in front of business in The Village at Mendota Heights Southeastern MH, along Field Stone Drive and Watersedge Terrace Grade-separated crossing X X Tunnel under Hwy 62, east of Dodd Rd At-Grade crossing X X Painted markings on street, cross walk, yellow alert signage, flashing lights At-Grade crossingGrade-separated crossing Wide Shoulders On-Street Sidewalks (4-6’ wide concrete walks) Off Street Bituminous Trail Dakota County Greenways PC PACKET PG. # 21 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BIKE PED PLAN 10 ISSUES & OPPORTUNITIES PC PACKET PG. # 22 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BIKE PED PLAN 11 PHASE 2 ENGAGEMENT • Interactive Map (Social Pinpoint) • Stakeholder Outreach • Thompson Park Activity Center Advisory council meeting • August 13th Community Open House PC PACKET PG. # 23 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BIKE PED PLAN 12 Pedestrian Plan&Bike INTERACTIVE MAPPING TOOL: https://hkgi.mysocialpinpoint.com/mendota-heights-phase-2-map/map#/ SPREAD THE WORD! REACH OUT TO YOUR NETWORKS! PC PACKET PG. # 24 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BIKE PED PLAN 13 NEXT STEPS • Continue outreach and engagement through August • Aug. 13th: Community Open House • Aug. 23rd: Planning Commission meeting • Sept. 20th: City Council workshop • Oct. 6th: City Council meeting PC PACKET PG. # 25 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BIKE PED PLAN 14 THANK YOU! QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? Gabrielle Grinde PC PACKET PG. # 26 PLANNING STAFF REPORT DATE:August 23, 2022 TO:Planning Commission FROM:Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT:Planning Case No. 2022-14 MISS. RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA PERMIT APPLICANT:Michael Frattallone PROPERTY ADDRESS:1010 Sibley Memorial Highway ZONING/GUIDED:R-1 One Family Res. LR-Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE:October 2, 2022 INTRODUCTION Michael Frattallone is seeking approval of a Miss. River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit in order to approve new land alterations and vegetation clearing on his personal property, located at 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing was published in the Pioneer Press; and notice letters were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the subject property, including the cities of St. Paul and Lilydale. The city has not received any objection or comments related to this MRCCA application. BACKGROUND The subject property is comprised of two separate parcels, with the main/larger parcel of 3.43 acres and the smaller/vacant lot of 1.66 acres. In 2014 the subject property was subdivided into two lots by the former owner Gerald Trooien. The larger lot has an existing home, attached garage, swimming pool and pool house. The smaller parcel was created or intended to be sold-off for development of a separate single-family dwelling. Later in 2016, after discovering some grading work and vegetation clearing was being done without permits, the city halted that work, and advised Mr. Trooien to submit a critical area permit (CAP) and conditional use permit (CUP) for any new or proposed work on the parcels. On March 7, 2017, the city adopted Res. No. 2017-21, which approved a new CAP and CUP to Mr. Trooien for specific (but limited) grading work and vegetation removals. PC PACKET PG. # 27 Planning Case #2022-14 (Frattallone) Page 2 Most of this grading and clearing work done in 2017- 2018 was to provide a new vacant dwelling/building pad site on the vacant lot, and removea number of dead, diseased or invasive trees and vegetation. As a result of this pre-development work, the former owner also created and left a fairly large, circular shaped drainage opening or swale near the southerly part of the vacant parcel (see aerial image – right), which was to be used as a raingarden or stormwater management feature for any new home to be built on the lot. This new home was to be builtjust north of this swale (the cleared/open space), and this swale was intended to be encircled by a new driveway. The lot was never sold or developed; and earlier this year, Mr. Frattallone purchased the both parcels from Mr. Trooien. After settling in, Mr. Frattallone began working on his property by clearing some dead/diseased trees and vegetation, and performed some significant re-grading of the site, and installed a partly built volleyball court in this area – and all without a permit. When made aware of this work, the city contacted and met Mr. Frattollone on the site, and advised him of the new MRCCA ordinance and rules (which he was unaware of), and issued an immediate “Stop-Work” order. Staff later met with new owner and his landscape design consultant to develop an updated site/restoration plan under the new MRCCA Ordinance rules. Mr. Frattallone has stated that he has no desire to sell-off or develop this vacant parcel at this time; and instead is seeking to keep it or enjoy it as his own added yard and open space with the other parts of the property. ANALYSIS – MRCCA PERMIT A subject property is situated in the RN -River Neighborhood District. Properties located in the RN-District are characterized or governed by the following principles: a. Description. The RN district is characterized by primarily residential neighborhoods that are riparian or readily visible from the river or that abut riparian parkland. The district includes parks and open space, limited commercial development, marinas, and related land uses. b. Management Purpose. The RN district must be managed to maintain the character of the river corridor within the context of existing residential and related neighborhood development, and to protect and enhance habitat, parks and open space, public river corridor views, and scenic, natural, and historic areas. Minimizing erosion and the flow of untreated storm water into the river and enhancing habitat and shoreline vegetation are priorities in the district. PC PACKET PG. # 28 Planning Case #2022-14 (Frattallone) Page 3 Along the northerly boundary of the site is where the mapped bluffs are located, identified as the cross- hatched areas – and the related 20-foot buffer or bluff impact zone (BIZ), as noted by orange-hatched areas (see MRCCA map image- above). The green shaded areas represent a Significant Vegetation Stand, which is considered a primary conservation area (PCA) under the new MRCCA ordinance. PRIMARY CONSERVATION AREAS (PCA) means resources and features, including shore impact zones, bluff impact zones, floodplains, wetlands, gorges, areas of confluence with tributaries, natural drainage routes, underground springs, unstable soils and bedrock, native plant communities, cultural and historic properties, and significant existing vegetative stands, tree canopies, and other resources identified in local government plans. The Owner/Applicant has provided a new site restoration/landscape plan (below) which illustrates the area where the former circular swale and proposed house pad was going to be placed, is now being converted into recreational lawn space, and includes a new and wide native plantings buffer around the northerly and easterly edges of this lawn space. The plan also shows the 40’ x 60’ volleyball court next to the driveway. As evident by the site photos taken by city staff (07/13/2022 - below), the swale is now filled, and the ground is now open and bare, with most of the surface vegetation removed. This area was absent of many trees due to the former owners CAP approval in 2017 to remove a number of trees on this site. While not evident in the pictures, Mr. Frattallone claimed the area was overtaken by large, unmanaged overgrowth of noxious weeds and vegetation, including Canada thistle. PC PACKET PG. # 29 Planning Case #2022-14 (Frattallone) Page 4 As evident on the phots above (with Mr. Frattallone providing perspective), this site was and remains impacted and overgrown with large standing Canada thistle, which is an invasive species that should be removed immediately to contain and control its spread to other adjoining properties. Pursuant to City Code Section 12- 3-9: VEGETATION MANAGEMENT, this section applies to: 1. Shore impact zones; 2. Areas within 50 feet of a wetland or natural drainage route; 3. Bluff impact zones; 4. Areas of native plant communities; and 5. Significant existing vegetation stands identified in the MRCCA plan. As evident on the phots above (with Mr. Frattallone providing perspective), this site was and remains impacted and overgrown with large standing Canada thistle, which is an invasive species that should be removed immediately to contain and control its spread to other adjoining properties. PC PACKET PG. # 30 Planning Case #2022-14 (Frattallone) Page 5 Only the following intensive vegetation clearing activities are allowed with a vegetation permit: a. Clearing of vegetation that is dead, diseased, dying, or hazardous; b. Clearing to prevent the spread of diseases or insect pests; c. Clearing to remove invasive, non- native species; d. Selective removal of keystone species; e. Clearing to prepare for restoration and erosion control management activities consistent with a plan approved by the City; and f. The minimum necessary for development that is allowed with a building permit or as an exemption under Section 12- 3- 15. Per 12- 3-9: D. the following activities are allowed with a Vegetation Permit, which may or may not include intensive vegetation clearing activities: a. Clearing of vegetation that is dead, diseased, dying, or hazardous; b. Clearing to prevent the spread of diseases or insect pests; c. Clearing to remove invasive, non- native species; d. Selective removal of keystone species; e. Clearing to prepare for restoration and erosion control management activities consistent with a plan approved by the City; and f. The minimum necessary for development that is allowed with a building permit or as an exemption under Section 12- 3- 15. Furthermore, the same section provides for General Performance Standards, in addition to the submittal and review of a restoration plan, which include the following: a. Development is sited to minimize removal of or disturbance to natural vegetation; b. Soil slope stability, and hydrologic conditions are suitable for the proposed work as determined by the City Engineer; c. Clearing is the minimum necessary and designed to blend with the natural terrain and minimize visual impacts to public river corridor views and other scenic views; d. Vegetation removal activities are conducted to expose the smallest practical area of soil to erosion for the least possible time, and to avoid bird migration and nesting seasons; and e. Any other condition determined necessary to achieve the purpose of this section. The vegetation restoration plan must satisfy the application submittal requirements in Section 12- 3- 12 and: a. Vegetation must be restored in one or more of the following restoration priority areas: 1) Areas with soils showing signs of erosion, especially on or near the top and bottom of steep slopes and bluffs; 2) Shoreline areas within twenty-five feet (25') of the water with no natural vegetation, degraded vegetation, or planted with turf grass; 3) Areas on steep slopes and bluffs that are visible from the river with no natural vegetation, degraded vegetation, or planted with turf grass; or 4) Other approved priority opportunity areas, including priorities identified in the MRCCA plan. b. Include native vegetation that provides suitable habitat and effective soil stability, runoff retention, and infiltration capability. Vegetation species, composition, density, and diversity must be guided by PC PACKET PG. # 31 Planning Case #2022-14 (Frattallone) Page 6 nearby patches of native plant communities and by Native Vegetation Establishment and Enhancement Guidelines, as they may be amended or revised from time to time. c. Any highly erodible soils disturbed during removal and/ or restoration must be stabilized with deep- rooted vegetation with a high stem density. d. Vegetation removed must be restored with native vegetation to the greatest extent practicable. The area (square feet) of the restored vegetation should be similar to that removed to the greatest extent practicable. e. For restoration of removed native plant communities, restored vegetation must also provide biological and ecological function equivalent to the removed native plant communities. The area (square feet) of the restored vegetation should be equivalent to that removed to the greatest extent practicable. f. Be prepared by a qualified individual or a licensed professional familiar with and experienced with native landscape materials and planting techniques; and g. Include a maintenance plan that includes management provisions for controlling invasive species and replacement of plant loss for three (3) years. As part of the MRCCA Permit – Vegetation Clearing Checklist, applicants are asked a series of questions: 3. Explain how the proposed clearing is the minimum necessary and designed to blend with the natural terrain and minimize visual impacts to public river corridor views and other scenic views. If the clearing is required for development allowed with a permit, also explain how the project was located to minimize the removal or disturbance of natural vegetation: Applicant’s Response: Per Mn Dept of Ag Fact Sheet (attached) the primary weed proposed to be cleared is Canada thistle. As responsible stewards of this land it is required to be removed as it is a MN Dept of Ag_prohibited species. Since views to this property are already fully screened - there is no visual impact to river corridor. 4. Describe (and attach photo of) the vegetation being removed (ground cover, understory, tree), and names of plants, if known: Applicant’s Response: Canada thistle / Cirsium arvense – see attached fact sheet and site photos 5. Explain how vegetation removal activities will be conducted or phased in order to expose the smallest area of soil to erosion for the least possible time: Applicant’s Response: Since this area is relatively flat on the upper plateau & interior of the property we are proposing to simply treat noxious weeds with appropriate herbicide with a certified professional. Once herbicide has completed its task then in one mobilization the installation team will physically remove stalks/dead vegetation as needed to prepare seed bed for native seeding/plantings and recreational lawn as specified per plan. It is staff’s opinion that the site cleared by Mr. Frattallone was mostly unmanaged and ignored by the previous owner, which allowed the site to become overgrown with a large swath of noxious weeds and invasive plantings. Mr. Frattallone has hired a licensed and reputable landscape architect and design firm to provide a suitable restoration plan that we feel meets most if not all of these submittal requirements and standards within the MRCCA Ordinance. Approval of this vegetation removal plan and restoration plan will include a number of conditions that are presented in this section. Land Alteration Standards and Stormwater Management MRCCA Ordinance Section 12-3-10 provides for specific allowances and standards related to Land Alteration and Stormwater Management. The purpose of this section is to establish standards that protect water quality from pollutant loadings of sediment, nutrients, bacteria, and other contaminants, and maintain the stability of bluffs, shorelines, and other areas prone to erosion. PC PACKET PG. # 32 Planning Case #2022-14 (Frattallone) Page 7 Land Alteration: Within the bluff impact zone (BIZ), land alteration is prohibited, except for the following, which are allowed only by permit. a) Erosion control consistent with a plan approved by the City and consistent with Section 12-3-10. F. b) The minimum necessary for development that is allowed as an exception under Section 12-3-15; and c) Repair and maintenance of existing buildings and facilities. Construction or replacement of rock riprap and other erosion control structures within the bluff impact zone is allowed with a permit consistent with the provisions of Section 12-3-10. F., provided that: a. If the project includes work at or below the OHWL, the commissioner must approve or permit the project. b. The structures are used only to correct an established erosion problem as determined by the City. c. The size and extent of the structures are the minimum necessary to correct the erosion problem and are not larger than the following, unless a professional engineer determines that a larger structure is needed to correct the erosion problem: 1) Retaining walls must not exceed five feet (5’) in height and must be placed a minimum horizontal distance of ten feet (10’) apart; and 2) Riprap must not exceed the height of the regulatory flood protection elevation. There are no new walls or rip-rap to be installed under this project. All of the work proposed under this plan is outside any nearby bluff impact zones (BIZ) or steep sloped areas. The former owner received permission to re-grade existing slopes greater than 18% - 40% under the previous critical area permit (CAP) in 2017, and created the depressed drainage swale on the parcel. Mr. Frattallone filled in this swale; cleared the noxious weeds and invasive vegetation, and shaped-graded the large open area of the proposed recreation lawn space and outer edges. There does not appear to be any major changes in grades made to the site. Stormwater Management: In the bluff impact zone, stormwater management facilities are prohibited, except by permit if: a. There are no alternatives for storm water treatment outside the bluff impact zone on the subject site; b. The site generating runoff is designed so that the amount of runoff reaching the bluff impact zone is reduced to the greatest extent practicable; c. The construction and operation of the facility does not affect slope stability on the subject property or adjacent properties; and d. Mitigation based on the best available engineering and geological practices is required and applied to eliminate or minimize the risk of slope failure. In all other areas, storm water runoff must be directed away from the bluff impact zones or unstable areas. As noted previously, all of this work is outside of the BIZ, and any stormwater run-off is intended to run down towards the driveway, and towards the sand volleyball court. With the establishment of the new grades and tie-in to the existing and surrounding grades in and around this site, this open lawn space is expected to capture or help filter and reduce stormwater runoff from the north and easterly edges of this property. The landscape consultant has stated the native plant landscape border and the large open lawn will help reduce, slow-down and filter stormwater runoff. The low point of this site is where the new sand volleyball court was paced; and the consultant has stated that by its own design and depth of sand (layers) installed, this court can actually serve as an open capture and filtration system for stormwater run-off. PC PACKET PG. # 33 Planning Case #2022-14 (Frattallone) Page 8 Per 12-3-10. F. Conditions of Land Alteration Permit Approval. No permit for land alteration shall be approved unless: 1. Temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control measures to retain sediment onsite are consistent with the best management practices in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual, as it may be amended or revised from time to time; 2. Natural site topography, and soil and vegetation conditions are used to control runoff and reduce erosion and sedimentation; 3. Construction activity is phased when possible; 4. All erosion and sediment controls are installed before starting any land disturbance activity; 5. Erosion and sediment controls are maintained to ensure effective operation; 6. The proposed work is consistent with the vegetation standards in Section 12-3-9; and 7. Best management practices are used for protecting and enhancing ecological and water resources as identified in Best Practices for Meeting DNR General Public Waters Work Permit GP 2004-0001, as it may be amended or revised from time to time. It is staff’s opinion that the Applicant will meet all of these conditions as part of this land alteration activity. The new landscaping to be installed and provided in this area will be adequate and should provide for the protection as required under the MRCCA Ordinance. Mr. Frattallone has installed erosion protection measures on the site, and the owner will remain responsible for maintaining measures throughout completion of the project. As part of any Land Disturbance Permit issued by city for any new construction project, the Applicants will be required to submit for review a Storm Water Pollution Prevention (SWPP) plan, which will ensure all erosion protection measures are installed and in place prior to any construction work begins and maintained throughout the duration of the project. The Applicants may also need a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from Minn. Pollution Control Agency as well. INTERAGENCY REVIEW The city is required to give Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources and National Park Service at least 20- day notice of any new MRCCA Permit application request. These notices were emailed (08/02/2022) directly to the appropriate staff; and responses from both agencies indicated they have no comments or issues with the proposed grading and landscaping improvement project by Mr. Frattallone. The city also mailed notices related to this MRCCA Permit request and project to the cities of Lilydale and Saint Paul for review/comments, and received no responses or comments from either community. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the MRCCA Permit request to Michael Frattallone and for the property located at 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway, which would allow vegetation clearing and restoration, along with some existing and finished land disturbance and grading activity, and placement of a new sand volleyball court all based on the findings-of-fact that the proposed project is compliant with the policies and standards of the MRCCA Ordinance and City Code, and subject to certain conditions; or 2. Deny the MRCCA Permit request to Michael Frattallone and for the property located at 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway, based on the recommendation the application and project does not meet certain policies and standards of the MRCCA Ordinance and City Code, based on revised findings-of-facts determined by the Planning Commission; or 3. Table the request; direct staff to work with the Applicants and allow more time to revise or refine the plans submitted for review, and/or provide additional information for the Planning Commission to further consider, and extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. PC PACKET PG. # 34 Planning Case #2022-14 (Frattallone) Page 9 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider approval of the proposed Michael Frattallone and for the property located at 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway (Alternative No. 1), with the following conditions: 1. The new improvements and work described, illustrated and detailed on the “Landscape Plan- Frattallone Residence – 1010 Sibley Memorial Hwy.” and any other plans related to this project, shall be the only work or improvements allowed and approved under this new MRCCA Permit. 2. All new native plantings will be consistent the MNL Savanna Mix – Shortgrass seed planting list as provided by the Applicant. 3. No existing trees or vegetation is allowed to be removed unless they are identified as diseased, dying, or dead, or considered invasive or noxious vegetation. Any other trees or vegetation requested to be removed by the Applicant must be reviewed and approved by the city’s Natural Resources Coordinator. 4. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during any new grading, planting and construction work activities. 5. All grading and construction activity will follow applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. The Applicants must submit and receive a SWPP Permit and NPDES Permit (if necessary) prior to start of any new construction work. 6. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM Monday through Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM weekends. 7. The City will issue a certificate of compliance after the vegetation restoration plan requirements have been completed to the satisfaction of Public Works Director. FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR APPROVAL Miss. River Corridor Critical Area Permit for 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway The following Findings-of-Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed MRCCA Permit request: 1. The proposed site improvements and construction activities of grading and replanting (restoring) the areas of the subject property are deemed minimally invasive; necessary to correct erosion issues and help reduce stormwater runoff or negative impacts to the adjacent natural environment and properties. 2. The overall construction of these site improvements, including new trees and landscaping, will comply with all standards and regulations of the MRCCA Ordinance. 3. The improvement and construction work as detailed in this report and on the landscape, plan is all reasonable and within the spirit and intent established under the MRCCA Overlay District regulations. 4. The proposed work will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; does not create any known hazards; will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan. PC PACKET PG. # 35 1010 1015 1020 992 995 996 1034 1631 1028 1639 1645 1030 1032 1651 165710111015 1646 1650 1040 991 1652 10371666 1665SIBLEY ME M O RIAL H WY JAMES RDThis imagery is copyrighted and licensed by Nearmap US Inc, which retains ownership of the imagery. It is being provided by Dakota County under the terms of that license. Under that license, Dakota County is allowed to provide access to the “Offline Copy Add-On for Government”, on which this image services is based, at 6-inch resolution, six months after the capture date, provided the user acknowledges that the imagery will be used in their normal course of business and must not be resold or 1010 SIBLEY MEM. HWY MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN MRCCA MAP City of Mendota Heights0100 SCALE IN FEET Legend MRCCA Districts CA-ROS CA-RN CA-SR CA-RTC Bluff Elements 18% and 75 Degree Bluffs 18% over 25 ft Bluffs 20 ft bluff buffer 75 Degree Bluffs MRCCA Boundary Municipal Boundary Date: 7/12/2022 PC PACKET PG. # 36 1010 1015 1020 992 995 996 1034 1028 1631 1639 1645 1030 1032 1651 165710111015 1646 1650 1040 991 16521666 1037 1665SIBLEY MEM O RI AL H W Y JAMES RDThis imagery is copyrighted and licensed by Nearmap US Inc, which retains ownership of the imagery. It is being provided by Dakota County under the terms of that license. Under that license, Dakota County is allowed to provide access to the “Offline Copy Add-On for Government”, on which this image services is based, at 6-inch resolution, six months after the capture date, provided the user acknowledges that the imagery will be used in their normal course of business and must not be resold or 1010 SIBLEY MEM. HWY. MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN MRCCA MAP City of Mendota Heights0100 SCALE IN FEET Legend Bluff Elements 18% and 75 Degree Bluffs 18% over 25 ft Bluffs 20 ft bluff buffer 75 Degree Bluffs Primary Conservation Areas Significant Veg. Stand Native Plant Communities MRCCA Boundary Municipal Boundary Date: 7/27/2022 PC PACKET PG. # 37 1010 1015 1020 992 995 996 1034 1028 1631 1639 1645 1030 1032 1651 165710111015 1646 1650 1040 991 16521666 1037 1665SIBLEY MEM O RI AL H W Y JAMES RDThis imagery is copyrighted and licensed by Nearmap US Inc, which retains ownership of the imagery. It is being provided by Dakota County under the terms of that license. Under that license, Dakota County is allowed to provide access to the “Offline Copy Add-On for Government”, on which this image services is based, at 6-inch resolution, six months after the capture date, provided the user acknowledges that the imagery will be used in their normal course of business and must not be resold or 1010 SIBLEY MEM. HWY. MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN MRCCA MAP City of Mendota Heights0100 SCALE IN FEET Legend Bluff Elements 18% and 75 Degree Bluffs 18% over 25 ft Bluffs 20 ft bluff buffer 75 Degree Bluffs Primary Conservation Areas Significant Veg. Stand Native Plant Communities MRCCA Boundary Municipal Boundary Date: 7/27/2022 Project Area & Restoration Area (Approximated) PC PACKET PG. # 38 SAND VOLLEYBALL COURTRECREATIONAL LAWNMN NATIVE LANDSCAPES SAVANNA MIX SHORT GRASS SEED (12,485 SF) WITH 756 NATIVE PLUGS (4’ O.C.)PC PACKET PG. # 39 SECTION THRU LANDSCAPE 0’ 10’SCALE : 1’ = 10’ LOOKING NORTHLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, INC.STEPHEN MASTEY, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTPO BOX 176 / 3511 LAKE ELMO AVE N LAKE ELMO MN 55042P. 651.646.1020EMAIL : STEPHEN@LANDARCINC.COMPC PACKET PG. # 40 Note: t"PROPOSED 4,000 S.F. PAD" shown on Parcel B is not being considered under MRCCA Permit Application No. 2022-14 PC PACKET PG. # 41 # " "##!# # !# # # # 'D ! "#&D ') * ' #"D %&%&D +D D &)D D '#"'D " D (D D ( #" D "#&!( #"D 9/-=598D !1809=-D 1534=<D '/-61D DD D B D 1 8 9 = 1 < D ;98D ! 9 8 > 7 1 8 = D 1-;583D -=>7D <<>710D 9.D "9 D D$%%D ;@3D AD "D D 41;1.AD /1;=52AD =4-=D =45<D :6-8D <>;?1AD 9;D ;1:9;=D @-<D :;1:-;10D .AD 71D 9;D >801;D 7AD 05;1/=D <>:1;?5<598D -80D =4-=D D -7D -D 0>6AD 5/18<10D -80D '>;?1A9;D >801;D =41D 6-@<D 92D =41D '=-=1D 92D !5881<9=- D -=10D =45<,0-AD 92D C "" " " "" "" """ " "" !" " " " " PC PACKET PG. # 42 PC PACKET PG. # 43 PC PACKET PG. # 44 PC PACKET PG. # 45 PC PACKET PG. # 46 PC PACKET PG. # 47 PC PACKET PG. # 48 PC PACKET PG. # 49 PC PACKET PG. # 50 PC PACKET PG. # 51 PC PACKET PG. # 52 PC PACKET PG. # 53 PC PACKET PG. # 54 PC PACKET PG. # 55 PLANNING STAFF REPORT DATE:August 23, 2022 TO:Planning Commission FROM:Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT:Planning Case No. 2022-19 MRCCA PERMIT & VARIANCE APPLICANT:Xcel Energy PROPERTY ADDRESS:944 Sibley Memorial Highway ZONING/GUIDED:R-1 One Family Res. / P-Park and Open Space ACTION DEADLINE:September 29, 2022 INTRODUCTION Xcel Energy (Northern States Power Company) is seeking approval of a Miss. River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit and Variance, in order to replace and install a new ten-foot (10’) high security fence on their natural gas transfer/distribution site, located at 944 Sibley Memorial Highway. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing was published in the Pioneer Press; and notice letters were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the subject property, including the cities of St. Paul and Lilydale. The city has not received any objection or comments related to this application. BACKGROUND The subject property is generally located south of the intersection of Sibley Mem. Hwy. and Lilydale Road. This facility is the natural gas transfer and distribution site for the adjacent Sibley Propane Tank Facility next door – 800 Sibley Mem. Hwy. (refer to GIS image – right). This property is situated in the R-1 One Family Residential District. The property contains two parcels comprising of 0.74 and 0.67 acres, or 1.41 total acres. According to Xcel, this site has been in use since the 1960’s. The site is fairly open, with a 6-foot high security style fencing (barbed wire extensions on top) around its perimeter; and contains a number of small support structures, control boxes, valves with pipe extensions, and a larger tank-looking structure with three vertical exhaust vents. (refer to site photos – appended to end of this report). No major changes are planned inside the facility. PC PACKET PG. # 56 Planning Case #2022-19 (Xcel – MRCCA Permit-Variance) Page 2 Per City Code Sect. 12-1E-3, any use considered an “Essential Service” (i.e. telephone station, booster or pressure regulating station, wells and pumping stations, electrical power substations, etc.) are considered a conditional use under the R-1 District. Staff was unable to find any record if the city granted Northern States Power (now Xcel) any CUP for such gas distribution center at this location, but it is assumed this use was approved and in compliance under the R-1 Zone since its development in the 1960’s. Due to the deteriorating condition of the existing fence and a high desire to increase security around this facility, Xcel is proposing to remove this older fence material and install a new ten-foot (10’) high security fence around the perimeter. The fence will comprise of a rust-resistant metal mesh fence material, which will provide screening (opacity) of 75%; which will allow some limited viscidity to first responders or employees as they enter the site. The new fence will be constructed with 8-ft wide by 10-ft. high panels, supported by evenly spaced posts fixed into the ground. Since the facility is situated in the R-1 Zone, all fences in residential zones are limited to 6-ft. in height. Zoning Code does allow for 10-foot high fences with tennis courts and other sport court areas on residential properties, but does not indicate or provide any special allowances/exceptions to substations or other utility service sites such as this one. ANALYSIS – MRCCA PERMIT The subject site is situated in the SR-Separated by River District of the MRCCA Overlay (see image – below left). The MRCCA Map image (below-right) indicates the bluff impact zone (BIZ) as orange/hatched areas; steep slopes (black-hatched area) and significant vegetative stands (green shaded area). A majority of this developed or working site is not impacted by any of these primary conservation areas; and the new fence does not impact any bluff, steep slopes or native veg. stands as well. PC PACKET PG. # 57 Planning Case #2022-19 (Xcel – MRCCA Permit-Variance) Page 3 Properties located in the SR District are characterized or governed by the following principles: Description. The SR district is characterized by its physical and visual distance from the Mississippi River. The district includes land separated from the river by distance, topography, development, or a transportation corridor. The land in this district is not readily visible from the Mississippi River. Management Purpose. The SR district provides flexibility in managing development without negatively affecting the key resources and features of the river corridor. Minimizing negative impacts to primary conservation areas and minimizing erosion and the flow of untreated storm water into the river are priorities in the district. In addition, providing public access to and public views of the river, and restoring natural vegetation in riparian areas and tree canopy are also priorities in the district. Per Section 12-3-8. E., Public utilities must comply with the following standards: 1. High-voltage transmission lines, wind energy conversion systems greater than five (5) megawatts, and pipelines are regulated according to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 216E, 216F, and 216G respectively; and 2. If overhead placement is necessary, utility facility crossings must minimize the visibility of the facility from the river and follow other existing right of ways as much as practicable. 3. The appearance of structures must be as compatible as practicable with the surrounding area in a natural state with regard to height and width, materials used, and color. 4. Wireless communication facilities must comply with Section 12-3-5. B.6. There is no new high-voltage line, wind energy systems, pipelines or wireless communication systems proposed under this project. Pursuant to new City Code Section 12-3-12, no building permit, zoning approval, or subdivision approval shall be issued for any action or development located in an area covered by this chapter until a site plan has been prepared and approved in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. The new ordinance also provides for new rules and standards for new developments, which may include Land Alteration activities and Vegetation Management (removals and replanting). Subpart D. of this section also includes an allowance for “Minor Developments”, which include minor improvements that can be approved directly by the City Council, without Planning Commission review or recommendation, and without a public hearing, but only if the minor project and plans conform to the general standards of this section. Eligible projects for an Administrative MRCCA Permit include small building additions, decks; fences; etc. Although this “fence” could be considered a Minor Development or improvement under this section, the need for the variance to exceed the maximum fence height of 6-feet in the residential zone necessitates the planning commissioner review of the variance, which requires a standard public hearing review. VARIANCE ANALYSIS City Code Section 12-1L-5 governs variance requests. 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. PC PACKET PG. # 58 Planning Case #2022-19 (Xcel – MRCCA Permit-Variance) Page 4 Section 12-1L-5(E)(1) further provides other issues the city may consider when granting or denying a variance, noted as follows: x Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community. x Existing and anticipated traffic conditions. x Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety. x Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan. x 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-fact to support such a recommendation to the City Council. If the Planning Commission determines the Applicant has failed to meet these standards, or has not fully demonstrated a reasonableness in the granting of such variance, then findings-of-fact supporting a recommendation of denial must be determined. As part of any variance request, Applicants are required to prepare and submit their own responses and findings, which for this case, are noted below (in italic text), followed by a brief staff response: 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance. Applicant’s Response: The practical difficulty associated with this request is that security and safety standards have changed since the facility was first constructed. Changes have been made to the natural gas system include replacing pipeline in ten area that allow for pipeline inspections to be made with inline tool. The proposed fence height of 10 feet brings the security of the site into compliance with current standards. Staff’s Response: The existing 6-foot high chain-linked fencing with barbed wire extensions appears in poor shape, and does not provide adequate or suitable security for the subject site. Staff agrees the 10-foot high security fence proposed by the Applicant is reasonable and consistent with other security measures needed for such utility sites. The subject property, although situated in the R-1 One Family Residential district, does not look, function or operate as a typical single-family residential use or development. Therefore, this new fence will serve a very specific use and purpose that is not normally seen in all residential areas throughout the community., Replacement of the new fence on the same layout as the old one means there will be little to no impacts upon the surrounding properties or removal of any trees or landscaping. Staff believes this request for the higher fence of 10-feet is reasonable. 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner. Applicant’s Response: The Mendota Station has been in place for many decades. The standards for securing the facility has changed. A taller perimeter fence is a better deterrent then the existing 6' tall fence with barb wire on top. The chain link can be cut with a bolt cutter or can be scaled easily because of the toe holds the fence provides. The barb wire can be compromised by throwing a rug over the top. The proposed mesh steel fence is much more difficult to scale due to the opening size of the mesh and the 10' height deters scaling. Staff’s Response: As noted previously, the subject site is situated in the R-1 Zone, and obviously does not have the same look and feel as a typical “R-1” zoned neighborhood or uses. The demand for higher or increased security for such an important utility service area is duly noted and recognizable; and the city should provide support to local utility agencies seeking better means or measures to providing security to such sites. Staff feels this property and the request for increased fence height is due to circumstances unique to this property. PC PACKET PG. # 59 Planning Case #2022-19 (Xcel – MRCCA Permit-Variance) Page 5 3. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Applicant’s Response: The property is surrounded on three sides and to the south by Xcel Energy's Sibley Plant, and the city owned parcel to the south and City open space and trail. The proposed fence will add some appropriate visual screening to the facility. The proposed screen will be 75% opaque, the screen will buffer views into the facility but provide first responders and Xcel employees visual awareness of the environment prior to entering the station. Staff’s Response: Due to the subject site’s proximity along this highway and between the two roadway ramp/entrance systems, along with the vacant and heavily wooded city-owned parcel, staff believes this variance for the higher fence would have little, if any impacts with other nearby uses, or any neighboring residential zoned uses. INTERAGENCY REVIEW The city is required to give Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources and National Park Service at least 20- day notice of any new MRCCA Permit application request. These notices were emailed (08/02/2022) directly to the appropriate staff; and a response from both agencies indicating no comment or issues with the proposed fence improvement work proposed by Xcel. The city also mailed notices related to this MRCCA Permit request and project to the cities of Lilydale and Saint Paul for review/comments, and received no responses or comments from either community. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend APPROVAL of the MRCCA Permit and Variance to Xcel Energy and for 944 Sibley Memorial Highway, which would allow the replacement and installation of a new security/screening fence up to 10-feet in height, based on the following findings-of-fact and proposed conditions: A. The proposed ten-foot (10’) high fence improvement will help provide added screening measures and security for this utility service site, and meets the general purpose and intent of utility service uses that are governed by the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) District ordinances and standards. B. The replacement of the older and smaller fence with the new oversized fence on the subject site is deemed minimally invasive, and is considered a necessary upgrade in order to provide added security and protection to this utility site. C. This higher fence will not impact any nearby bluffs, bluff impact zones, steep slopes, natural vegetative stands, or woodlands. D. The proposed new fence work will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; or creates any impacts to traffic or pedestrian visibility (sight-lines) or hazards; will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and also, is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan. E. The overall construction of this new security fence improvement will comply with all standards and regulations of the MRCCA Ordinance and any related Zoning Ordinance, State Building Codes, and other applicable ordinances; and represents a considerable investment by the Applicants (Xcel Energy) to an important utility service feature in the community. F. 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. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a PC PACKET PG. # 60 Planning Case #2022-19 (Xcel – MRCCA Permit-Variance) Page 6 Variance to allow a residential fence height increase from 6-ft. to 10-ft. by the following findings: i.) the proposed ten-foot fence height is considered a reasonable request by the Applicant and for the subject property due to the Applicant’s strong desire to provide suitable screening, and provide better, adequate and suitable security measures needed to protect this important utility site; and for this reason, the request is not solely based on economic considerations alone; ii.) although this property is situated in the R-1 One Family Residential District, and is considered an essential service/utility (conditional) use in the R-1 zone, said use does not compare to or function as a typical single-family residential use under this zoning category, thus making this property “unique” and special enough to warrant the granting of a variance for added fence height; and iii.) the new fence will not impact or alter the essential character of this neighborhood. 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 will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. H. Approval of this variance is for 944 Sibley Memorial Highway only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance; and 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. 2022-19, dated and presented August 23, 2022 (on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2022-____. (final number to be assigned later) J. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to his Variance request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows: i.) The proposed higher fence shall require a building permit (instead of zoning permit) as per Minnesota State Building Codes. ii.) All construction activity will follow applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. iii.) All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM Monday through Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM weekends. 2. Recommend DENIAL of the MRCCA Permit to Xcel Energy based on the recommendation the application and project does/does not meet certain policies and standards of the MRCCA Ordinance and City Code based on revised findings-of-facts determined by the Planning Commission, and deny the Variance request for the higher fence based on the findings-of-fact that confirm the Applicant failed to meet the burden(s) of proof or standards in granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the City may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying PC PACKET PG. # 61 Planning Case #2022-19 (Xcel – MRCCA Permit-Variance) Page 7 out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The City hereby determines the Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a variance for increased fence height to ten-feet (10’). The proposed higher fence is not essential to the overall and continued use of the subject property; and the fact the addition requires a variance for normal fence height standards is not warranted under this case; and is therefore not considered a reasonable use of the property. C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the property) is not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood). 3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider Alternative No. 1, approval of the proposed MRCCA Permit request from Xcel Energy and for the property located at 944 Sibley Memorial Highway, along with the Variance to install a new ten-foot (10’) security fence on the subject site, based on the findings-of-fact supporting this variance application request, and the conditions noted herein. PC PACKET PG. # 62 8/12/22, 9:05 AM Dakota County GIS gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/1/1 Sibley Gas Transfer/Distribution Site -944 SMH 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,yy or for zoning verification. Map Scale 1 inch =150 feet 8/12/2022 PC PACKET PG. # 63 941 949 949 I- 3 5E SIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYLI L Y D A L E R D SIB L E Y M E M O R I AL RA M P SIB L E Y ME M O R I A L L O O P I- 3 5E This imagery is copyrighted and licensed by Nearmap US Inc, which retains ownership of the imagery. It is being provided by Dakota County under the terms of that license. Under that license, Dakota County is allowed to provide access to the “Offline Copy Add-On for Government”, on which this image services is based, at 6-inch resolution, six months after the capture date, provided the user acknowledges that the imagery will be used in their normal course of business and must not be resold or 944 SIBLEY MEM. HWY. MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN MRCCA MAP - General City of Mendota Heights0100 SCALE IN FEET Legend MRCCA Districts CA-ROS CA-RN CA-SR CA-RTC MRCCA Boundary Municipal Boundary Date: 8/1/2022 PC PACKET PG. # 64 941 949 949 I- 3 5E SIBLEY MEMORIAL HWYLI L Y D A L E R D SIB L E Y M E M O R I AL RA M P SIB L E Y ME M O R I A L L O O P I- 3 5E This imagery is copyrighted and licensed by Nearmap US Inc, which retains ownership of the imagery. It is being provided by Dakota County under the terms of that license. Under that license, Dakota County is allowed to provide access to the “Offline Copy Add-On for Government”, on which this image services is based, at 6-inch resolution, six months after the capture date, provided the user acknowledges that the imagery will be used in their normal course of business and must not be resold or 944 SIBLEY MEM. HWY. MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN MRCCA MAP - BIZ - PCA's City of Mendota Heights0100 SCALE IN FEET Legend Bluff Elements 18% and 75 Degree Bluffs 18% over 25 ft Bluffs 20 ft bluff buffer 75 Degree Bluffs Primary Conservation Areas Significant Veg. Stands Native Plant Communities MRCCA Boundary Municipal Boundary Date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ƅW274MWMRZIWXMRKXSIRLERGIWIGYVMX]ERHWEJIX]SJXLIJEGMPMX] -QTVSZIQIRXWMRGPYHI •,QVWDOOLQJD¶WDOOVHFXULW\IHQFHDURXQGWKHSHULPHWHURIWKH6WDWLRQ o0HVK)DEULF)HQFHRSDFLW\LV o3DQHOVDUH¶ZLGHDQG¶WDOO o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¶KHLJKWZLOOSURYLGHVFUHHQLQJRIWKHIDFLOLW\ZKLOHVWLOOSHUPLWWLQJILUVW UHVSRQGHUVDQG;FHOHPSOR\HHVYLVXDODZDUHQHVVSULRUWRHQWHULQJWKHIDFLOLW\ &RQVWUXFWLRQ7LPLQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ7LPLQJ 2XULQWHQWLVWRVWDUWFRQVWUXFWLRQLPPHGLDWHO\DIWHU UHFHLYLQJDSSURYDORIRXUDSSOLFDWLRQDQGSHUPLWV2XUJRDOLVWRKDYHWKHSURSHUW\VHFXUHGSULRUWR IUHH]HXSWKLVZLQWHU 3HUPLW 0LVVLVVLSSL5LYHU&RUULGRU&ULWLFDO$UHD3HUPLW •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¶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ariance Application Checklist Page 4 of 5 Please answer the following three questions as they relate to the variance request. Responses will be presented to the Planning Commission & City Council. (Note: you may fill-in this form or create your own) __________________________________________________________________ 1.Are there any practical difficulties that help support the granting of this variance? (Note: “practical difficulties" as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by City Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty). YES NO Please describe or identify any practical difficulties and/or how you plan to use the property in a reasonable manner below: 2. Are there any circumstances unique to the property (not created by the owner) that support the granting of this variance? YES NO Please describe or identify any unique circumstances below: 3. If the variance was granted, would it alter the essential character of the neighborhood? YES NO Why or Why Not? Please explain how the request fits with the character of the neighborhood. X X X The practicle difficulty associated with this request is that security and safety standards have changed since the facility was first constructed. Changes have been made to the natural gas system include replacing pipeline in teh area that allow for pipeline inspections to be made with inline tool. The proposed fence height of 10 feet brings the security of the site into compliance with currant standards. The Mendota Station has been in place for many decades. The standards for securing the facility has changed. A taller perimeter fence is a better deterrent then the existing 6' tall fence with barb wire on top. The chain link can be cut with a bolt cutter or can be scaled easily because of the toe holds the fence provides. The barb wire can be compromised by throwing a rug over the top. The proposed mesh steel fence is much more difficult to scale due to the opening size of the mesh and the 10' height deters scaling. The property is surrounded on three sides by roads and to the south by Xcel Energy's Sibley Plant and City open space and trail. The proposed fence will add some appropriate visual screening to the facility. The proposed screen will be 75% opaque, The screen will buffer views into the facility but provide first responders and Xcel employees visual awareness of teh environment prior to entering the station. PC PACKET PG. # 70 PC PACKET PG. # 71 12' Wide Secondary Access Gate 10' Tall Security Fence at Property Line 20' Wide Gate 10' Tall Security Fence at Property Line Pr o p e r t y L i n e Property Line P r o p e r t y L i n e 10' Tall Security Fence at Property Line P r o p e r t y L i n e 10' Tall Security Fence P r o p e r t y L i n e T r a i l Fence Location Planfor the Mendota Station10' Tall Security Fence Parcel ID 270230004021 &270230004030Address944 Sibley Memorial Hwy Mendota HeightsTract Area: 1.4 AcresZoning: R-1 Single Family Residential DistrictDetail &Photo ofProposedFencePC PACKET PG. # 72 Xcel - Mendota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ó685)$&($5($ LQò6,=(%'$7(&5($7(''(6,*1('%<UROXUT6&$/( 0$66 OE0$7(5,$/6((%20;;;;;;;;;$1*/(6)5$&7,216685)$&(),1,6+81/(6627+(5:,6(63(&,),('72/(5$1&(6,1&+00'2&80(17,'Xcel - Mendota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ó685)$&($5($LQò6,=(%'$7(&5($7(''(6,*1('%<UROXUT6&$/( 0$66 OE0$7(5,$/6((%20;;;;;;;;;$1*/(6)5$&7,216685)$&(),1,6+81/(6627+(5:,6(63(&,),('72/(5$1&(6,1&+00'2&80(17,'Xcel - MendotaXcel - Mendota PC PACKET PG. # 75 7<37<3 127(6 '2127,167$//75,/2%()$67(1(56,1&/8'(,1,16758&7,213$&.$*(60$//)250$7&25(21/2&.6833/('%<27+(56&5(9'(6&5,37,21'$7((1*,1((5$5(3/$&(')$671(58:,7+8 7/6%3$57 '(6&5,37,2183'$7('3(57+5,9(58&5(3/$&(3$57 : %3(5(&558,7(047<3$57180%(5'(6&5,37,21 -$0%:07)/*35(+81**$7(/+ '225&(&2/+5921'835,1/&1 5(029$%/(7+5(6+2/'35(+81**$7( +,1*(7$;'153 ,1),//:07;63$102' (;,7'(9,&(921'835,1 1/230':+ 921'835,10 /75,06(70 /1/59/+5 6$5*(17&</,1'(5+286,1*:',63&25(' %'225&/26(5/&1;3('$$/8065,7%:06 6/((9(1876%2/76125721&/26(5 &/26(5%5$&.(7 (/(&75,&$/32:(575$16)(53257 &29(5*$7(&21'8,7 '2256,/(1&(558%%(5 86&5(:;3$1+($'66 6&5(:; 6&5(:*5 86&5(:;3$1+($'66 +1871876681& %5$&.(7*$7()5$0(0$75,;$/3+$ 3/8*51',' 8;)/$7+($'3+,//,3666 8;)/$7+($'66'%$$%&'$PHULVWDU3HULPHWHU6HFXULW\86$,QF7XOVD'5$:1%<UROXUT9B685)$&(),1,6+7+,5'$1*/(352-(&7,21&+($775($70(17'5$:,1*&203/,(6:,7+$60(<0 127,&(723(562165(&(,9,1*7+,6'5$:,1*$1'257(&+1,&$/,1)250$7,21$PHULVWDU3HULPHWHU6HFXULW\86$,QFFODLPVSURSULHWU\ULJKWVWRWKHPDWHULDOGLVFORVHGKHUHRQ7KLVGUDZLQJDQGRUWHFKQLFDOLQIRUPDWLRQLVLVVXHGLQFRQILGHQFHIRUHQJLQHHULQJLQIRUPDWLRQRQO\DQGPD\QRWEHUHSURGXFHGRUXVHGWRPDQXIDFWXUHDQ\WKLQJVKRZQRUUHIHUUHGWRKHUHRQZLWKRXWGLUHFWZULWWHQSHUPLVVLRQIURP$PHULVWDU3HULPHWHU6HFXULW\86$,QFWRWKHXVHU7KLVGUDZLQJDQRUWHFKQLFDOLQIRUPDWLRQLVWKHSURSHUW\RI$PHULVWDU3HULPHWHU6HFXULW\86$,QFDQGLVORDQHGIRUPXWXDODVVLVWDQFHWREHUHWXUQHGZKHQLWVSXUSRVHKDVEHHQVHUYHG/(*$&<,'6+((72)35(+81**$7(0;$/+;63$102'+23+':)/$1*('&21),*85$7,21'HIDXOW'5$:,1*180%(5 $/7,' 0$3+0/0;)/92/80(LQó685)$&($5($ LQò6,=(%'$7(&5($7(''(6,*1('%<UROXUT6&$/( 0$66 OE0$7(5,$/6((%20;;;;;;;;;$1*/(6)5$&7,216685)$&(),1,6+81/(6627+(5:,6(63(&,),('72/(5$1&(6,1&+00'2&80(17,'Xcel - MendotaXcel - Mendota PC PACKET PG. # 76 PC PACKET PG. # 77 PC PACKET PG. # 78 PC PACKET PG. # 79 PC PACKET PG. # 80 PC PACKET PG. # 81 PC PACKET PG. # 82 PC PACKET PG. # 83 PLANNING STAFF REPORT DATE: August 23, 2022 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2022-20 LOT SPLIT –SUBDIVISION REQUEST APPLICANT: Dick Bjorklund PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2511 Condon Court ZONING/GUIDED: R-2 Two-Family Residential/MR-Medium Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: December 1, 2022 INTRODUCTION Mr. Dick Bjorklund is seeking approval to subdivide a parcel of property generally located near the southwest corner of Condon Court and Mendota Heights Road. The property is officially addressed as 2511 Condon Court. This proposed lot split is actually a division of the lot in order to create two separate parcels for a new twin home development, thus providing a legal dividing (or demising) line between both residential units. This lot split/subdivision request requires city review and approval before any plat or survey can be accepted and recorded by Dakota County. 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 has not received any objection or comments related to this application. BACKGROUND In May 2014, Mr. Bjorklund requested two original single-family residential properties located at 2511 and 2525 Condon Court (previously existed on this site) to be considered for a land use amendment and rezoning. The request was to revise the previous land use designation from LB-Limited Business to MR- Medium Density Residential, and rezone the two parcels from R-1 One Family Residential to R-2 Medium Density Residential. The amendment and rezoning were approved by Ord. No. 470 (adopted 01/06/2015). The land use designation and zoning on this site has remained as MR-Med. Density and R-2 Two Family Residential since 2015. Later in June 2015, Mr. Bjorklund requested to re-plat the two residential properties on this site into five (5) new and separate parcels. The preliminary plat was approved by Resolution No. 2015-48 (adopted 07/07/2015) and the Final Plat of The Oaks of Mendota Heights was later approved under Res. No. 2017- 32 (adopted 05/02/2017). The original plan by Mr. Bjorklund was to create four lots (Lots 2 thru 5, Block 1) for two attached twin homes (4 units); and one lot (Lot 1, Block 1) would be reserved as a single-family residential development specifically for Mr. Bjorklund’s use (see plat image - below). PC PACKET PG. # 84 Planning Case #2022-20 (Bjorklund)Page 2 In early 2021, Mr. Bjorklund filed a petition to have the city vacate a section of Mendota Heights Road right-of-way (approx. 5,000 sq. ft.) located directly north of this Lot 1 (see aerial image and survey/sketch images – below). On June 1, 2021, the City Council conducted a hearing on this vacation request, and later adopted Res. No. 2021-40, which authorized the vacation and attachment of this vacated ROW to the abutting parcel – Lot 1, Block 1 The Oaks of MH. It was noted in the council report that the vacated ROW attachment would result in Lot 1 becoming over 23,000-sq. ft. in area. Mr. Bjorklund has completed one of the twin homes at 2515-2519 Condon Ct., and is nearing completion of the other twin at 2525-2529 Condon Ct. The applicant is now electing to forgo building a new single- family dwelling on Lot 1 at this time, and has decided to offer this lot as a potential third twin home site. The Applicant has submitted a Lot Split Survey that illustrates the larger combined parcel (Lot 1 + vacated ROW) equals 23,081-sq. ft. of total land area, and the request includes a is to split this parcel into two (Parcels A & B) of 12,154-sq. ft. and 10,927-sq. ft. in area. PC PACKET PG. # 85 Planning Case #2022-20 (Bjorklund)Page 3 ANALYSIS Pursuant to City Code Section 12-1E-7: R-2 Medium Density Res. District, dwelling units containing two (2) and up to twenty-four (24) units are permitted uses. A new twin home at this location would be a permitted use, similar to what was approved on the Lots 2-5 of this plat. The following are the minimum development standards for certain R-2 uses: Lot Dwelling Lot Area / Area Lot Unit Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 1 family 15,000 sf 15,000 sf 100'30'10'30' 2 family 20,000 sf 1 10,000 sf 100'30'10'30' The required lot area or area is noted as 20,000 sf. As noted previously, the overall (expanded) Lot 1 now measures 23,081-sf. in area. This lot area only applies to the overall lot size – not the individual unit sized parcels. For that requirement, each “unit” must have a minimum of 10,000-sf., which is met by Parcel A measuring 12,154 sf. and Parcel B with 10,927-sf. of lot unit area, respectively. The overall lot has frontage along Condon Court of 206.27-ft. + 19.39-ft. o r 225.66-feet. The proposed twin home setbacks are shown with a 30-foot front yard setback from Condon Court and 58.6 feet from Mendota Heights Road; a 21.0-ft. setback from the south side yard; and 33.5-ft. from the rear yard. The two other twin home developments to the south were created with similar parcel divisions over each unit (see aerial map image – below). This lot or parcel separation provides for each unit to be separately owned and controlled, with its own legally described land area underlying each unit. The proposed layout of these two-unit parcels is consistent with what was approved by the City under the original Oaks of Mendota Heights plat of 2015. PC PACKET PG. # 86 Planning Case #2022-20 (Bjorklund) Page 4 REQUESTED ACTION Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of the lot split based on the attached findings-of-fact and conditions of approval as noted herein; OR 2. Recommend denial of the lot split based on revised or determined findings of fact; OR 3. Table the request, pending additional information from staff or the Applicant. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission is asked to determine the effect of the proposed lot split on the character and development of the neighborhood in forming its recommendation to the City Council. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the lot split as submitted, with the following conditions: 1) Approval of this lot split configuration is only for the benefit of accommodating a new attached twin home dwelling between both parcels. The splitting of this R-2 zoned lot does not provide any allowance to develop a detached single-family dwelling and/or detached townhome dwelling on each new parcel. 2) As part of any new building permit application for the new twin home development, the Applicant and/or contractor shall submit full grading and utility plans subject to review and approval by city staff. 3) Park dedication fee of $4,000 (for one added residential unit) will be paid before the subdivision is allowed to be recorded with Dakota County. FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Lot Split – Subdivision Request for 2511 Condon Court The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed lot split request meet the overall spirit, purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed subdivision and any new (future) residential dwelling will not create any negative impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood; and the increased front yard setbacks will ensure the new homes are in alignment with other residential uses along Orchard Place. 3. The two lots resulting from the lot split meet City Code minimum standards and are comparable in size and frontage to other lots in the neighborhood. PC PACKET PG. # 87 PC PACKET PG. # 88 2511 2487 819 2535 2525 2515 2519 2529 816 819 DODD RDCONDON CTMENDOTA HEIGHTS RD I-494 LOOP DODD RD RAMPDODD RDThis imagery is copyrighted and licensed by Nearmap US Inc, which retains ownership of the imagery. It is being provided by Dakota County under the terms of that license. Under that license, Dakota County is allowed to provide access to the “Offline Copy Add-On for Government”, on which this image services is based, at 6-inch resolution, six months after the capture date, provided the user acknowledges that the imagery will be used in their normal course of business and must not be resold or distributed for the City of Mendota Heights0100 SCALE IN FEETDate: 8/5/2022 2511 CONDON COURT (DICK BJORKLUND) PC PACKET PG. # 89 PC PACKET PG. # 90 PC PACKET PG. # 91 PLANNING STAFF REPORT DATE:August 23, 2022 TO:Planning Commission FROM:Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT:Planning Case No. 2020-11 PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICANT:Jeff Simek PROPERTY ADDRESS:1753 Sutton Lane ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One-Family Residential/LR-Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE:December 1, 2022 (120-day Review Period) INTRODUCTION Mr. Jeff Simek is requesting consideration of a preliminary/final plat of three parcels to be titled “B Marie Addition”. As part of this platting, Mr. Simek is also requesting a conditional use permit to construct a new 26’ x 38’ detached garage. The property is located at 1753 Sutton 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 - INFORMATION Mr. Simek’s property contains a 2,323-sq. ft. single-story rambler dwelling, built in 1956, and currently has a 986-sf. three car attached garage (see image – below left). The property consists of three, separate tax i.d. parcels (see image – lower right). The main dwelling parcel consists of 0.69 acres of area and is legally defined as Lot 6 & 7, Block 1, Somerset No. 2 Addition. The two narrow parcels to the rear of the property were created by splitting off the back 20-feet of the adjacent lots – Lot 3 and Lot 4, Block 1 of Somerset Park No. 3 Addition, and these consists of approximately 0.06 and 0.04 acres, respectively. PC PACKET PG. # 92 Planning Report: Case #2022-21 (Simek) Page 2 Mr. Simek initially approached city staff requesting permission to build a new 26’ x 38’ (988-sf.) detached garage on the larger property parcel, which requires a minimum of 0.75 acres or more for residential zoned lands. Since the main [dwelling] parcel only consisted of 0.69 acres, Mr. Simek was denied the opportunity to request the CUP at that time, unless he was able to combine all three of his owned parcels into one single parcel. Mr. Simek attempted to combine all three parcels into one single tax parcel, which is a common request made by homeowners wishing to do so, with Dakota County Assessor’s approval. Dakota County officials however, refused to accept the combination request, as the three parcels are legally established or within two different subdivision plats (Somerset No. 2 and Somerset Park No. 3). It is now county policy 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 multiple parcels as one. This preliminary and final plat approval is more of a “house-keeping” item, which will help facilitate Mr. Simek’s goal of constructing a new detached garage on the newly combined parcels. 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. City staff does not have any concerns or issues with recommending approval of this simplified plat. CUP ANALYSIS Pursuant to City Code Title 12-1D-3: Accessory Structures, owners of larger, single family sized parcels are allowed to have an additional (or larger) detached private garage, either as a permitted (accessory) use or by conditional use permit, according to the following table: Lot Size Permitted Conditional Use Permit 0.75 acre or less Not allowed Not allowed >0.75 acre - 1.5 acres 750 sq. ft. 1,000 sq. ft. >1.5 acres - 2.5 acres 1,000 sq. ft. 1,200 sq. ft. >2.5 acres - 5.0 acres 1,500 sq. ft. 1,800 sq. ft. >5 acres 2,000 sq. ft. 2,400 sq. ft. As noted previously, the proposed platting of the three combined parcels would create a new unified parcel of 0.80 acres (per Applicant’s survey). As a result of this replatting, the Applicant can request a new detached garage up to 750-sf. garage as a permitted right (building permit), or a garage greater than 750-sf but not to exceed 1,000-sf. can be approved by means of conditional use permit (CUP). Title 12-1L-6-E-1 of the City Code contains standards for reviewing a conditional use permit request, with the following standards to be taken into consideration: The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and the proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan. The new garage proposed by the Applicant appears to be a very nice design; is intended to match with the appearance and architectural elements of the current home. The Applicant has indicated he is requesting to build the new detached garage to provide additional (interior) vehicle parking, storage for lawn mowers and other miscellaneous household equipment, and general storage. PC PACKET PG. # 93 Planning Report: Case #2022-21 (Simek)Page 3 The garage is planned to be built at the end of the current driveway apron. There are no plans to increase or add any more driveway to the site. The new garage will have two, 9-ft. wide overhead doors on the front and one, 9-ft. door along the side wall (facing the rear yard); along with a side service door and two windows opening to be provided (see image – below). The garage will have either cedar or cement board siding – to match in color with the existing dwelling, and asphalt shingled roof. The proposed garage setback of 10-feet from the side yard and 30-ft. from rear yard meets Code. Although not required, the Applicant also provided a current impervious surface calculation of 5,885-sq. ft. or 17% or the enlarged (0.80 acre) parcel, versus the added/after development impervious area of 6,871-sq. ft. or 20.4% of impervious surface. The Applicant has provided a Landscape Plan, which shows the removal of four trees to accommodate the installation of this new garage: one 24” elm, a 20” locust’ and two pine trees (see tree images – below). The plan calls for the placement of a row of new hydrangea shrubs and native prairie grass bed along the south side of the garage, plus two (2) new crab fire crabapple trees in the back yard, and one red maple and lilac bush long he south(side) yard space. As demonstrated above, the proposed oversized garage on this larger parcel will have minimal or nominal impacts on lot coverage; or impervious surface coverage; nor should it impact any natural drainage along this side and rear yard areas. PC PACKET PG. # 94 Planning Report: Case #2022-21 (Simek) Page 4 City staff has personally inspected the subject property and took note of its proposed layout on the lot and in relation to the surrounding properties. The new garage proposed by the Applicants appears to be a nice design, and should easily accommodate the needs of parking larger personal vehicles and storage desired by the homeowners. Staff further believes the new, larger garage will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the neighborhood or the community; or cause any serious traffic congestion, hazards; or seriously depreciate surrounding property values. This proposed garage appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan; and the CUP to allow a larger, oversized garage can be reasonably supported due to the size and scale of this residential parcel. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the Preliminary/Final Plat of “B Marie Addition”, along with approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow the oversized garage at 1753 Sutton Lane, both based on specific findings-of-fact and with certain conditions; or 2. Recommend denial of the Preliminary/Final Plat of “B Marie Addition” and the Conditional Use Permit to allow the oversized garage at 1753 Sutton Lane, based on specific findings-of-fact (as determined by the commission) and which support such a recommendation of denial on both applications; 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. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider Alternative No. 1, approval of the Preliminary/Final Plat of “B Marie Addition”, along with the Conditional Use Permit to allow the oversized garage not to exceed 988- sq. ft. in area, and for the property located at 1753 Sutton Lane, based on the attached findings-of-fact and subject to the following conditions: 1. The new detached garage must match the overall architecture and design of the existing residential dwelling on the subject property, and shall not exceed 988-sq. ft. in size (building area). 2. The proposed detached garage shall be constructed in compliance with all applicable City Code standards noted in Section 12-1D-3 Accessory Structures and Minnesota Building Code standards. 3. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to any excavation or construction of said garage. 4. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. Attachments - Applicant’s Narrative - Survey – 1753 Sutton Lane - Preliminary/Final Plat of B Marie Addition - Site and Grading Plan - Erosion Control Plan - Landscape Plan - New Garage Elevation Plans PC PACKET PG. # 95 Planning Report: Case #2022-21 (Simek) Page 5 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Preliminary/Final Plat of “B Marie Addition” and Conditional Use Permit for Oversized Detached Garage 1753 Sutton Lane The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1. The proposed plat is a necessary means of combining parcels situated in differing subdivisions into one larger and unified parcel (for tax purposes), and meets the general purpose and intent of the Subdivision Code. 2. The proposed plat meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. All required easements will be dedicated under this plat for the benefit of the city, its agents and representatives, private and/or public utility service providers, along with state and county agencies as needed. 4. The proposed development and use of the 988-sq. ft. detached garage are considered a reasonable request, and consistent with the general standards and policies of the City Zoning Code. 5. The proposed garage use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan. 6. The proposed garage and structure will be compliant with the conditions included in the City Code that allow it by conditional use permit. 7. The new garage represents reinvestment in a residential neighborhood that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for residential land uses. PC PACKET PG. # 96 /"33"5*7&+4*.&, PC PACKET PG. # 97 8/18/22, 8:44 AM Dakota County GIS gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/1/1 1753 Sutton Lane 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,yy or for zoning verification. Map Scale 1 inch =50 feet 8/18/2022 PC PACKET PG. # 98 PC PACKET PG. # 99 PC PACKET PG. # 100 PC PACKET PG. # 101 PC PACKET PG. # 102 PC PACKET PG. # 103 PC PACKET PG. # 104 PC PACKET PG. # 105 PC PACKET PG. # 106 PC PACKET PG. # 107 PC PACKET PG. # 108 "... * .Y)9 +!(. . %.&),..... ' - .. ɲńɜɳɕɋȬʂ ɴ»Éȏʂ . ɝɞʂàʂ ȝ,DžɌÒʂɍƛƲrȈƯƿʂǀǦȞțĿňʂĽrŎĶDŽʂ cǻLjkƢŦʂū } cɟù ôğʂ ĒVʂŝǑʂŀȡȩDZ Ŷ } ʂ ȫEŰDzǷķʂǾɠȢʂ ǂtʂ ƹ"ʂ şy"ʂ pŖʂ =DǴǿɡ& :ʂ Ʃʂ ȷSʂŅ ƣŘɒʂ Ǹ;ƗƎɢĆ áʂ F0¼ʂ Šǔ8ʂʼnp<ɖʂ 1 ŭɣĭ:Uʂ 0Çʂ evʂ u NJƏʂ Eŷ Ǭ ʂ ǭEe<ĈaƁƉʂdž½ʂšǕʂ Ɛ Njʂ 'œħʂ \ĂK]\ĢʂVʂŢyʂ 2ʂ9¾Ġ9ʂ ' ʂ ƳD njũʂ sǵ H ʂ HƻŚŏ!tƞÈȧT!úûēĉ`ʂÑʂY×ØʂɤîĞP Ƌʂ ǒ ǍĹoʂǼj ǓŸƤfʂűƜ1sȄA H ʂ |ƾ;<JĊ&&Ɔʂ 0¿ʂȸ#ʂƴ Ƹ Őƪʂ ȓ©DŪɥʂ Ȏʂ 0#ʂ ţǖʂ u ǚɎʂ 1 F=ʂk Ŕj Ǯ Jʂ ]ĔĜâʂȽÀʂťʂ Ƒ ǎʂ;Ĩʂ Ƅɱ^ü:ʂɂÁʂ Ťʂ 2ʂɃ"ȖȾʂb ʂ {ǏĻoʂ2 F=ʂ Ƶŕ v'fʂɵ2Ƕư ʂɊśŒJ!^&ĝãT!ýþ ĕċ`ʂȐʂä9 ʂ ɦZUP¹ʂ # .. . . Ʌɘʂņʂ ,ʂ wʂ Ǣ ʂ ʂ ȿʂ ʂ ʂ ʂ ʂ ǧiʂ q(ʂ 7¡ʂ L,&V6C> TCZ@M56E I!?1- c M.&W6C@ UCZ@M47E J"A2/ : åʂʂ õæČčÂʂ ɉȘģəăWɧɈɀ ɔʂ ªOÃʂ«¬ ĤÄĄXʂĎÙʂ ʂ Åʂ ďçÚ#%ʂ #ʂȊʂ ɨɩʂ ȋʂ ʂʂ Qɪʂ5¢£ʂÆɫʂ®8ʂRʂ ƫʂ 3 ʂ Xöʂ Ų gʂ ƥʂ Cnʂ wʂǗhʂ ?ʂ ʂ .ʂ W_%_%ʂ ʂʂ Sʂ ȗʂ ʂlʂ ʂ)ʂ Ȇ>5ʂ C¤ʂ ʂ /ʂ ʂ Rʂ èÛÔʂ IJʂ İʂɆ$ʂ$ʂ $ʂ$ʂ §ʂ 3fh .OŃ bŮƟ'ƍīʂ {1ʂɄɇʂƮƝŬʂřŗĸǥ ɮaĘZêʂ LJ| ōʂ iX ɯɰʂƅʂ . Țɚɛʂ ęÞʂ $ (ʂ Õżŧʂ ʂ.~ǣʂ Ȍ¨ȍǝʂ ųGA*ʂ * ʂ ʂ ɶʂ Ǟʂ ƶʂ ʂ .4ʂ Mǽ ʂCʂ ʂ ¯ 3 ʂ ʂ Ŵ+ʂ - Ǥʂ L¥ʂM ǟʂ +ʂ +ʂ /mʂ 6ɬN ʂIǠʂ lʂ ʂ ~ž ʂ °ɭNʂ ,Ȁʂ I ʂ ʂ 4 ʂ Lɷ± ʂ ʂ ʂ· z ʂ @² nʂ Ş ʂ 6ij6 ʂ ʂ ) ʂ ß ʂ *ȁʂ ?ʂ ʂ ʂ ʂ ?/ ʂ ĵʂ ʂ ʂ ʂ h/ʂ ɸʂ ǡʂ-Gʂ ʂ g ʂ ɗʂ ʂxʂ -ʂ @ ʂ ǹʂ z(ʂ 3 ʂ ǰ 4 ʂ ƃʂ Ƨ ʂ*ʂ Ǜʂ ƀʂ dʂ(Ɩ> ŵ ʂ ʂ ʂ ŋdƬ3>ʂǨŽƒǙʂƓʂ ¸8ʂ ǜʂ 4@őĺʂAƔŹȃʂI,ʂ ıʂ xʂ Ŝmʂ iȂǐʂ +_sv` F}z|wa^Nle 0at\a x~ %dyKzmn ɹʂ ƭ ʂ G ʂ ǩ) ʂ Łʂ șʂ ł+ĩʂ ƌʂ Ǫʂ - ʂ ³ÿʂ éĥĖʂ Ƈƈǘ ʂ ʂ .ʂĪʂ Ā%KėāĦʂ qʂ)"ʂ ʂ ÜÝʂ ʂ ) )%!) $)& () "'$) ) #$) &) # $) ) ) ) (Q =;jp Og] koS{u< ȮȪɑȺȔɁȇȑʂůƚ5ʂƠƦʂǃĐïðġʂ ƙʂļƨʂ ƕľBŌʂ ǁǫƽdzȅſBŨʂ ŻBŇÊʂ ȶÖȤĴȨĬźǺƺʂ ʂƷȥɓÌʂƂʂljȦøʂ ȉËʂƊȯíóȟɐȳȼƘQŊǯʂ ƱȠȻʂȕȒɏɺʂ ɻɼɽɾįºɿĮʂ ë7Yđ7[[ʂ ȣòȹñ¦ÍʂÏʂȵơȱȴȭȲȰʂ ƼȜʂ Óʀʂ P $ G r[b Îʂě¶ʁ÷ʂ ´ÐʂµìĚćąʂ Rq*#D8B'H /$1'6&$3(3/$16,0(. 6$'',7,21 PC PACKET PG. # 109