Loading...
2022-10-25 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda PacketAuxiliary 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, OCTOBER 25, 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 August 23, 2022 Regular Meeting Minutes 3. Public Presentation a. Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Ordinance Overview & Presentation (Dan Petrik, Lake & River Shoreland Program Manager, MN Department of Natural Resources) 4. Public Hearings a. CASE No. 2022-22 Conditional Use Permit – Commercial Recreation Use in the I- Industrial District for property located at 1415 Mendota Heights Road (Drop Shot, LLC – Applicant / Lamar, LLC - Owner) 5. New / Unfinished Business 6. Adjourn Meeting August 23, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 17 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 23, 2022 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 23, 2022 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Commissioners Patrick Corbett, Sally Lorberbaum, Cindy Johnson, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: Chair Litton Field. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of July 26, 2022 Minutes COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 26, 2022. FURTHER DISCUSSION: ACTING CHAIR LORBERBAUM NOTED ON PAGE FIVE, ABOVE ITEM B, IT SHOULD STATE, “…ADVISED THE APPLICANT THAT THE CITY COUNCIL…” ON PAGE SEVEN, THE FIFTH PARAGRAPH, IT SHOULD STATE, “…ZIG ZAG ARCHITECTURE SHOWN IN THE PLAN WOULD…” ON PAGE SEVEN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH FROM THE BOTTOM, IT SHOULD STATE, “…COMMENTED THAT ASKED IF…” AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 (KATZ) Public Presentations A)City Wide Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan – (Presented by HKGI) Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that the City received a grant from Dakota County to develop a city-wide bike and pedestrian master plan. He introduced the consultant present tonight to review the draft plan. He noted that any input from the public could be provided to him or on the interactive mapping tool directly. Gabrielle Grinde, HKGI, stated that they have been working with staff on the development of this plan and are currently in the second phase of engagement. She reviewed the project process which identifying existing facilities, issues, and opportunities. She also reviewed the plan purpose and goals including importance and value of a connected bicycle and pedestrian system, plan strategy and organization. She displayed a map identifying the existing facilities and provided a high-level PC PACKET PG. 1 August 23, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 17 summary of the phase one input. She highlighted examples of the system components that will be included in the recommendations. She also displayed a map identifying the issues and opportunities. She stated that phase two engagement began and few weeks ago and reviewed the activities that have occurred thus far, noting that the interactive map tool is available for engagement. She highlighted the next steps, noting that the draft plan will be presented to the Council at a workshop in September and then at a regular Council meeting in October. Acting Chair Lorberbaum recognized that the interactive mapping tool was included in the Friday News and asked how else this could be publicized to the residents. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek stated that staff has reached out to many groups. He noted that staff has reached out to a local bicycle shop and an email was sent to their mailing list, ADA residents to gain that perspective, and because there was a lack of youth perspective in phase one, they are attempting to solicit more youth comments in phase two. He noted that they are also using social media. Commissioner Johnson stated that cross county athletic coaches utilize the roads for training and stated that she could provide feedback from that group. Commissioner Katz believed that there is a Mendota Heights bicycle club and suggested staff reach out to that group. Commissioner Johnson stated that they could also reach out to the Mendota Heights mom’s club. Ms. Grinde stated that the interactive tool would be great for providing comments and noted that additional comments could be provided to City staff. Hearings A)PLANNING CASE 2022-14 MICHAEL FRATTALLONE, 1010 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY – MRCCA PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Michael Frattallone is seeking approval of a Mississippi 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. 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). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. PC PACKET PG. 2 August 23, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 17 Commissioner Petschel referenced the soil map and asked if that reflects the state of the land before any work was done by the property owner. He asked how the previous owner was allowed to get away with this as it appears the entire area was scraped clean rather than select removal of diseased trees. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided background information noting that the site had returned to a natural state. Commissioner Petschel commented that it would seem there would be room to close a loophole which allowed that previous property owner to receive his bond back. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the previous property owner was allowed to do the clearing as a precursor for development. He provided additional details on the process with that previous property owner. He stated that Mr. Frattallone then purchased the property and removed some of the unwanted vegetation and has now presented a plan to fix the property. Commissioner Toth asked if there was any follow up between property owners to ensure the property was properly managed. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that staff met with the previous property owner a number of times and they believed that enough progress had been made as the intention was for development to occur, noting that development never occurred. Commissioner Johnson commented that the previous property owner was required to plant 13 native trees under the previous approval and stated that in an aerial view those trees were planted. She stated that if that area became overgrown, she could see how Mr. Frattallone could have thought some of those trees were dead or dying. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that there should be a replacement plan for the trees that were removed. He stated that staff would like to see more of those replacements along the east side, of hillside area, or anywhere else on the property. He noted that they have recommended the same species but welcomed any other suggestions as well. He stated that they would like to have the property seeded and covered as soon as possible with the trees planted as well. Commissioner Johnson noted that all the trees recommended are native overstory trees. Acting Chair Lorberbaum referenced the three-year restoration plan and asked if staff checks on the property each year. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that there is no requirement for inspection, but staff would keep an eye on the property because of its history. He stated that the Natural Resources Coordinator or another staff member could regularly visit the site. He noted that they could take photos and continue to provide updates to the Commission if desired. PC PACKET PG. 3 August 23, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 17 Acting Chair Lorberbaum suggested that regular updates be provided. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that staff can provide regular visits to the property, even once per month during the growing season. Commissioner Johnson commented that she believes that relates to the three-year maintenance and management plan. She believed that the trees needed to be planted before those three years. Community Development Director Tim Benetti suggested that the replacement of the trees be allowed to occur within the three-year period, while the restoration plan should be implemented immediately. Commissioner Corbett asked if there is still thistle remaining onsite and whether the plan accounts for that. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that there is still thistle as staff stopped them before they got to that area. He confirmed that staff would want that removed as it is invasive. Commissioner Toth referenced the narrative within the packet which mentions the stop work order. He stated that there have been a number of situations recently where a resident has begun work on their property without knowing the requirement of the MRCCA permit. He asked how the City can do a better job educating residents of the required process. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that there is information on the City website and included in the newsletters. He stated that he intended to send a direct mailing to all property owners in the MRCCA but that has not yet happened. He stated that this year has been a bit odd with a number of wetland violations and this was one of the MRCCA violations that they caught as well. He stated that Mr. Frattallone has been good to work with and he wants to fix this and do a good job. Acting Chair Lorberbaum asked the chances of the runoff going down the driveway and impacting the neighboring property as currently designed. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that there is not a change to the historical drainage patterns of the property. He noted that the property to the west has experienced drainage problems from this property for years. He stated that this plan will not make that issue better or worse. He stated that if a new home is constructed on the second lot, it would need to create stormwater treatment to offset the impervious surface. He noted that this project would not add impervious surface. He stated that there is a condition to replace the 14 trees and those trees could absorb some water. Commissioner Johnson asked if staff has the stormwater flow map for the property. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek described the path drainage takes entering this property from the east and flowing to the west. PC PACKET PG. 4 August 23, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 17 Commissioner Johnson referenced the profile showing the sod and trees. She stated that to the right of the volleyball court the elevation goes up and asked if there is more grading that would be done as the profile sketch does not match the grading of the property. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that staff stopped the grading halfway through. He stated that the applicant can provide more details. Commissioner Toth asked the type of soil on the property. Community Development Director Tim Benetti described the soil conditions. Commissioner Toth stated that type of soil naturally absorbs water. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that the area will act as a natural infiltration basin for the water that comes from the east. He stated that staff hopes that the water would pond or pool in the area of the sand volleyball court. Acting Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Nicole Frattallone, 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway, stated that they are trying to make the property look better. She commented that the weeds were so thick they were trying to improve that and were not aware a permit was needed but would like to move forward in the right way. Stephen Mastey, landscape architect representing the applicant, stated that they are excited to hear from neighbors and will then provide additional input. Alan Anderson, 1645 James Court, stated that his property backs up to the Frattallone property. He commented that there is a significant wooded area that was cleared away. He is thankful that Commissioner Johnson brought up the replacement of trees as there were a significant number of mature trees on the southern half of the property that were removed and do not appear to be a part of the discussion tonight. He recognized that the trees were not on his property, therefore he does not have control over that, but commented that there was wildlife habitat in that area. Acting Chair Lorberbaum asked if the trees on the southern half were removed by the previous owner or current owner. Mr. Anderson replied that the trees were removed by the current property owner. Pat Anderson, 1645 James Court, stated that she was a bit confused by the staff presentation as most of the work mentioned was in front of the house whereas there concern with what occurred in the back of the home. She stated that area was heavily wooded, but those trees are now gone as is the wildlife that used to be in that area. She stated that they were aware of the work the previous owner did as well as the replacement planting that resident did. Commissioner Johnson asked the type of trees that were removed. PC PACKET PG. 5 August 23, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 17 Mrs. Anderson was unsure but confirmed there were not evergreen trees. Mr. Mastey commented that there are a lot of boxelders that are diseased and dying. He provided a quick drainage plan he drew and explained that most of the stormwater comes from the east, moving across the site from right to left. He stated that they are not planning to change the drainage plan and the only grading would be a few inches. He stated that the profile sketch was not perfect and meant to show the trees, recreational land, and sloping of the property which is high on the right and low on the left. He stated that the only grading would be the soil correction that they had planned. He stated that he was on the site five years ago and provided some photographs noting that the area was prepped to make way for a future home site, driveway, and associated improvements. He also provided a photograph of the site as it looks today, noting that they are not requesting to remove significant vegetation but to manage those areas and complete soil corrections. He stated that there is class five material, and the drainage moves across that area to the next property. He stated that they would be loosening that soil up to better drain and then add native plantings that would benefit pollinators and assist in water quality treatment. He provided a sketch of what the area would look like with the volleyball court and landscaping as proposed. Commissioner Toth noted a berm shown in the sketch displayed. Mr. Mastey provided additional details noting that they would keep the inherited grade of the property and would just be amending the soils. He provided additional details on the invasive species that exist on the site and the management that they would like to complete. He stated that with the plantings they are attempting to increase biodiversity, targeting pollinators. He explained why the buffer area around the property is important to their plan. He stated that their plan is to create a habitat for pollinators in that buffer area. He commented that the biggest issue they had is that there was a requirement to plant trees five or six years ago. He noted that since that time those trees may have become diseased and dying. He stated that these property owners inherited landscaping that appeared to be neglected and asked how they could be held accountable for something that was not in great condition when they decided to try to make it better. He stated that the time limits for the trees required by the previous property owner has passed, the property was neglected, and the new property owners are trying to make their property better that allows them to enjoy their property and incorporate biodiversity that is lacking. Commissioner Corbett asked if the applicant would address the concerns of the neighbor. Ms. Frattallone welcomed the neighbors to come over and discuss the trees they were concerned with. Acting Chair Lorberbaum asked if the property owner would be willing to replant trees on the southern portion of the site. Ms. Frattallone commented that there were some dead trees on the southern portion of the property that were leaning towards the home along with invasive. She confirmed that they would be willing to add trees on that portion of the property. PC PACKET PG. 6 August 23, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 17 Commissioner Johnson stated that when she visited the site, looking towards the north there were many cottonwood trees ranging in size and asked the plan for those trees. Mr. Mastey identified the small bushy trees that are invasive in that area. He stated that there are also Chinese elm and buckthorn in that area which are also invasive, and the cottonwoods are mixed in. He stated that in order to manage the invasives, they would need to remove those trees and correct the soils. He did not believe the invasives could be managed without damaging the cottonwoods. Commissioner Johnson commented that cottonwoods are pollinator friendly and desired in the bluff area, therefore she would like to see some of the six-foot cottonwoods remain. Mr. Mastey stated that while it would be nice to keep those trees, they are growing on a parking lot surface and therefore it would be impossible to correct the soils to support the native landscaping without disturbing those trees. He stated that if a cottonwood were to come up after the site is stabilized, they could leave it. Commissioner Johnson commented that while a native planting is good, it does not provide the same biological and ecological benefit as trees. Mr. Mastey agreed but noted that there are trees existing on the site while it lacks the biodiversity that the plantings would provide. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Acting Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Petschel stated that he agrees with the plans for the front, but it sounds like there was removal of an unknown amount of vegetation in the back without a permit and stated that may need to be addressed as a second issue. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that under the previous 2017 plan, the former staff member identified a lot of the areas around the home that would be approved for removal of dead/diseased/dying trees. He stated that Mr. Frattallone agreed that there was work in the back to remove dangerous trees. He stated that the homeowner stated that they are willing to replant in that area and he trusts that staff could work with the homeowner to replace those trees. Commissioner Petschel stated that he is upset by the work of the previous property owner as that work was allowed with the preface that a home would be built. PC PACKET PG. 7 August 23, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 17 Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that he believed the previous property owner had an intention to build a second home or the lot split would not have moved forward. Commissioner Petschel stated that he feels that he was misled by the previous property owner and therefore does not want to fall into that same pit. He asked if the City would be allowed to place a lien on the property for future projects of that nature. Commissioner Katz commented that this is beyond the scope of this case. Commissioner Corbett commented that the presentation mentioned that thankfully nothing in the bluff impact zone (BIZ) was touched but it appears that perhaps there was work in that area therefore it seems like this is an incomplete scope of the project. Commissioner Petschel commented that the property needs to be restored per the MRCCA rules. Commissioner Corbett stated that data needs to be established related to the trees on the southern portion of the property in the same manner the trees on the north are being discussed. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that there is nothing wrong with removing trees in the BIZ if they are considered invasive, or diseased, or dying. He believed that it is fair for the homeowner to offer the replacement trees. Commissioner Toth asked if the homeowner removed those trees or whether the contractor removed the trees. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the contractor did the tree removal and staff spoke with the contractor to stop the work. Commissioner Johnson asked if this could be broken into two permits, requiring the homeowner to come in for an after the fact permit for the south side. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that staff would like to see the site buttoned up as soon as possible and would not want to delay that action. He stated that the Natural Resources Coordinator and Public Works Director can work with the applicant and Mr. Mastey on the tree replanting. Commissioner Petschel stated that if there was substantial removal in that area, it could be brought back as a separate violation. Commissioner Johnson stated that she would prefer to do an after the fact permit for the south side, which would allow this to continue to move forward. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE MRCCA PERMIT TO MICHAEL FRATTALLONE AND FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1010 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY, WHICH WOULD ALLOW VEGETATION CLEARING AND RESTORATION, ALONG WITH SOME PC PACKET PG. 8 August 23, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 17 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, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE NEW IMPROVEMENTS AND WORK DESCRIBED, ILLUSTRATED AND DETAILED ON THE “LANDSCAPE PLAN – FRATTALLONE RESIDENCE – 1010 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY” 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 PLANTING WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH 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 A.M. AND 8:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY; 9:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. 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. 8. THE LOSS OF TREES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY BE EVALUATED FOR REPLANTING. 9. A THREE-YEAR MAINTENANCE PLAN SHALL BE REQUIRED. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL STATED THAT HE DOES NOT WANT TO PUNISH THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNERS FOR THE ACTIONS OF THE PREVIOUS PROPERTY OWNER. HE STATED THAT THIS RESIDENT IS WILLING TO SPEND MONEY TO FIX AN EYESORE AND POTENTIAL WATER ISSUE. HE STATED THAT HE IS NOT THRILLED THAT THIS WILL MOSTLY BE LAWN. HE BELIEVED THAT THE CITY SHOULD LOOK FURTHER INTO HOW IT CAN BIND PEOPLE TO THE WORK THEY SAY THEY WILL DO. PC PACKET PG. 9 August 23, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 17 COMMISSIONER CORBETT STATED THAT THEY HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME DISCUSSING THIS AND APPLAUDS THE WORK OF THIS RESIDENT AS IT IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION BUT BELIEVES THE SAME ATTENTION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOME. ACTING CHAIR LORBERBAUM STATED THAT IS INCLUDED IN THE MOTION. COMMISSIONER CORBETT STATED THAT HE WOULD PREFER TO TABLE THIS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE DATA ON THE TREES THAT WERE REMOVED. COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO TABLE CASE #2022-14 UNTIL MORE INFORMATION IS PROVIDED ABOUT THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. AYES: 3 (CORBETT, TOTH, JOHNSON NAYS: 3 COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL ASKED WHAT WOULD BE NEEDED TO MOVE FORWARD FOR THOSE THAT VOTED TO TABLE. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON STATED THAT SHE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE 14 TREES IN THE PLAN THAT ARE NATIVE. SHE STATED THAT SHE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE SOUTH SIDE HAVE A SEPARATE AFTER THE FACT PERMIT. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL COMMENTED THAT WOULD BE AN ENFORCEMENT ACTION BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT A VEGETATION REMOVAL PERMIT. HE BELIEVED THAT WOULD BE HEAVY HANDED AS THE APPLICANT IS HERE. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON ASKED HOW ELSE THEY COULD ENSURE THE DATA IS PROVIDED AND THE ISSUE IS ADDRESSED IN THE SAME MANNER THIS IS BEING ADDRESSED. SHE NOTED THAT WOULD ALLOW THIS PORTION TO MOVE FORWARD. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI STATED THAT STAFF WILL WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO ADDRESS THAT AREA AND BELIEVED THE CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL IS FAIR. HE STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO GET THIS BACK ON TRACK TO BUTTON UP THE SITE BEFORE WINTER SETS IN. HE BELIEVED THAT THE EVALUATION COULD BE DONE BY STAFF AND PRESENTED AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF 14 TREES BEING ADDED TO THE SITE AS RECOMMENDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL STATED THAT HE AGREES THAT STAFF COULD WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO ADDRESS THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE SITE PRIOR TO PRESENTATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. PC PACKET PG. 10 August 23, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 17 ACTING CHAIRPERSON LORBERBAUM CONFIRMED THAT SHE WOULD AGREE TO THAT. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON ASKED HOW THE INPUT WOULD BE GAINED FROM THE ANDERSONS ON WHAT OCCURRED. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI STATED THAT STAFF WOULD MEET WITH THE APPLICANT AND THEIR LANDSCAPING ARCHITECT IN ORDER TO EVALUATE THE SOUTH SIDE AND COME TO AN AGREEMENT WHICH WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL. HE STATED THAT HE WILL ALSO RECOMMEND THAT THE APPLICANT MEET WITH THE ANDERSONS TO SOLICIT INPUT. HE NOTED THAT THE ANDERSONS COULD REACH OUT TO HIM FOR MORE INFORMATION OR COULD ATTEND THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AS WELL. COMMISSIONER TOTH STATED THAT AFTER STAFF VISITS THE PROPERTY, HE WOULD LIKE THAT INFORMATION TO BE SHARED WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TIM BENETTI CONFIRMED THAT HE COULD SEND THAT INFORMATION TO THE COMMISSION MEMBERS. HE NOTED THAT WOULD ONLY BE INFORMATIVE AND THERE COULD NOT BE DISCUSSION AND THERE SHOULD NOT BE A REPLY TO ALL BY ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. ACTING CHAIR LORBERBAUM REVIEWED THE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE MOTION. AYES: 5 NAYS: 1 (CORBETT) Acting Chair Lorberbaum advised that the City Council would consider this application at its September 6, 2022 meeting. B) PLANNING CASE 2022-19 XCEL ENERGY, 944 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY – MRCCA PERMIT AND VARIANCE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Xcel Energy (Northern States Power Company) is seeking approval of a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit and Variance, in order to replace and install a new ten-foot-high security fence on their natural gas transfer/distribution site, located at 944 Sibley Memorial Highway. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. PC PACKET PG. 11 August 23, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 17 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. Acting Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Brian Sullivan, Xcel Energy, stated that they are continuing to make improvements to their facilities and identified that a better fence should be provided at this location. He provided details on the proposed fence, noting that it would be difficult to crawl to the top. Commissioner Johnson stated that she visited the website of the fence manufacturer and noticed that there were clear pictures of the galvanized finish which can be very striking. She stated that it was her understanding that the fence is also available in black and believed that might be a better fit for the site given the adjacent uses. Mr. Sullivan stated that he was unsure. He stated that the initial response would be to stay with the galvanized finish because it holds up. Commissioner Johnson replied that it is her understanding that the product would be galvanized and then painted black before shipped. She commented that a ten-foot tall, galvanized fence could be visually intrusive. Mr. Sullivan stated that in his experience galvanized does not reflect. Commissioner Toth asked if Commissioner Johnson would request the fence to be black on all four sides, or only the side adjacent to the highway. Commissioner Johnson stated that the product is shown in black as an option. Commissioner Corbett stated that perhaps Xcel has qualified this product in other instances. He noted that perhaps the paint chips off or causes other issues. Commissioner Johnson asked if a preference could be made for black and if Xcel could not use black, the galvanized could move forward. Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that from a zoning standpoint, he would not have the ability to dictate color but because this request is different from what is typically allowed, the Commission could provide that preference. Acting Chair Lorberbaum asked if foliage could be recommended in front of the fence to lessen the impact. PC PACKET PG. 12 August 23, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 17 Community Development Director Tim Benetti commented that the purpose and intent of the fence is to prevent people from climbing the fence but also allow visibility for safety and security and therefore covering the fence with foliage would defeat that purpose. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Acting Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO RECOMMEND 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 SECURITY FENCE ON THE SUBJECT SITE WITH A COLOR PREFERENCE OF BLACK, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT SUPPORTING THIS VARIANCE APPLICATION REQUEST AND CONDITIONS NOTED HEREIN. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Acting Chair Lorberbaum advised that the City Council would consider this application at its September 6, 2022 meeting. C) PLANNING CASE 2022-20 DICK BJORKLUND, 2511 CONDON COURT – LOT SPLIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that 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. 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). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. PC PACKET PG. 13 August 23, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 of 17 Commissioner Johnson noted an update to condition two within the findings of fact. Acting Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Dick Bjorklund, applicant, stated that he began the project in 2015 and provided background information. He stated that he believes a twin home would look better on this lot because of the frontage and the additional space that would be available for greenspace and tree preservation. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Acting Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO RECOMMEND APPROVE 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. 4. THE EXISTING OAK TREES ON THE SITE SHALL BE PRESERVED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Acting Chair Lorberbaum advised that the City Council would consider this application at its September 6, 2022 meeting. D) PLANNING CASE 2022-21 JEFF SIMEK, 1753 SUTTON LANE – PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PC PACKET PG. 14 August 23, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 15 of 17 Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that 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. 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). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Acting Chair Lorberbaum asked if the structure would be called a garage or accessory structure. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the terms are interchangeable. Commissioner Petschel asked if a dedication fee would be required for a plat. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that in this case, the lots were originally platted in the separate developments and therefore park dedication was already paid by each unit. He stated that this would not create a new lot and would simply be combination of lots. Commissioner Johnson asked if the drainage from the new garage would impact the adjacent home. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that there would be a ten-foot side yard setback and the adjacent property would not be impacted. Commissioner Johnson referenced the mention of native grasses and asked for a more detailed explanation. Acting Chair Lorberbaum opened the public hearing. Jeff Simek, applicant, stated that it was always his hope to build a second garage and believes that this setup fits well on the property. He stated that he has spoken with his neighbors to answer any questions. He provided details on the native grasses proposed and other landscaping elements. Commissioner Johnson commented that there are differences between decorative and native grasses and asked that the details be included prior to the City Council meeting. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek provided details on his conversations with a neighboring property owner that did not oppose the project after finding out more details. PC PACKET PG. 15 August 23, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 16 of 17 Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Acting Chair Lorberbaum asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO RECOMMEND 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 SQUARE FEET IN AREA, AND FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1753 SUTTON LANE, BASED ON THE 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 SQUARE FEET 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 OS 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. 5. THE NATIVE GRASS SPECIES SHALL BE SPECIFIED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Acting Chair Lorberbaum advised that the City Council would consider this application at its September 6, 2022 meeting. New/Unfinished Business Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided an update on projects recently approved by the City Council that had recommendations from the Planning Commission. He also noted the workshop occurring the following night. Adjournment PC PACKET PG. 16 August 23, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 17 of 17 COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:34 P.M. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 PC PACKET PG. 17 DATE: October 20, 2022 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Ordinance Overview and Presentation Introduction: Due to the recent issues and concerns expressed by city planning commissioners regarding the new Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) ordinance, rules and standards, especially regarding some of the most recent planning/land use cases, city staff asked if representatives from the MN Department of Natural Resources would graciously attend this upcoming October 25 regular meeting, and provide an overview of the new MRCCA ordinance. This presentation will also include a question/answer session in which commissioners (and the public) may ask or have questions answered related to this updated ordinance and program. Mr. Dan Petrik, Lake and River Shoreland Program Manger with DNR (and a key staff member in developing the MRCCA model ordinance, rules and standards) will be in attendance and making this presentation. Appended to this memo is the MN DNR’s “Guide to City and Township MRCCA Zoning Updates” handout, which Mr. Petrik asked staff to provide to the commissioners prior to this meeting, and will be referenced or used as part of his presentation next Tuesday evening. Action: There is no official action or recommendation needed on this item or matter. This is a presentation item only. PC PACKET PG. 18 01/13/2020 Guide to City and Township MRCCA Zoning Updates What is the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area MRCCA? The Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) is a corridor of land along each side the Mississippi River in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area with coordinated state, regional and local land use planning and zoning. It includes 54,000 acres in 30 local governments along a 72-mile stretch of the river. Land development in the MRCCA has been regulated by city and township-adopted MRCCA plans and zoning regulations since 1976 in compliance with state provisions. These local zoning standards have regulated structure height and setbacks from the river and bluffs as well as vegetation management and removal, land alteration, and subdivision of land to preserve the corridor’s unique natural, recreational, and cultural features. The MRCCA was designated a critical area in 1976 by Executive Order following passage of the Minnesota Critical Areas Act of 1973. The Executive Order was the governing regulation until it was superseded by MRCCA rules in 2017 (Minnesota Rules Chapter 6106). The rules more consistently protect habitat, scenic views and water quality, and allow redevelopment to address contemporary needs such as higher density and mixed uses. In 1988, the National Park Service designated the Mississippi National River & Recreation Area (MNRRA), which shares the same border as the MRCCA. There are no federal land planning or zoning regulations associated with the MNRRA. Why is the MRCCA important? The Mississippi River is one of the most famous rivers in the world. It is the defining feature for the many communities along its banks. Through the Twin Cities metro area, the MRCCA supports a diverse mix of residential, commercial, industrial and recreational uses, as well as river-related industry and transportation. Though the river corridor has been extensively developed, many intact and remnant cultural, natural and scenic areas remain, including bluffs, islands, floodplains, wetlands, historic resources, and native plants and animals. The state rules and local MRCCA plans and zoning regulations are designed to protect these resources while accommodating continued growth and redevelopment. Why is my community updating its MRCCA zoning regulations? Starting in January 2020 and going through approximately December 2022, all communities in the MRCCA will be adopting new MRCCA zoning standards consistent with 2017 MRCCA rules and local MRCCA plans that were recently updated as part of the comprehensive plan 10-year updates. Until a community adopts the new standards, its existing MRCCA zoning standards apply. Contact your local city or township zoning staff with questions about relevant standards and permit requirements that apply to your property. The DNR’s role is to ensure that local government MRCCA zoning regulations comply with the state rules and to provide technical assistance and oversight to local zoning staff. PC PACKET PG. 19 01/13/2020 Overview of New Local Government MRCCA Zoning Regulations Local MRCCA zoning regulations are administered as an overlay district. Within this overlay district, MRCCA zoning regulations guide building and construction, vegetation clearing and restoration, and land alteration. These regulations also affect local decisions on variances and conditional use permits. Following is an explanation of how the new zoning regulations in the 2017 MRCCA rules will affect some of the most common development activities. New Terms Familiarity with the following terms are helpful for understanding MRCCA zoning regulations. These terms are described and mapped in city and township MRCCA plans (a chapter of the comprehensive plan) and summarized below: Bluff. A natural feature with an average slope exceeding 18%. Bluff impact zone. The bluff and land within 20 feet of the bluff. Native plant communities. Plant communities of five acres or greater that meet the quality criteria established by the Minnesota Biological Survey to qualify as a native plant community - identified in local government MRCCA plans. Natural drainage route. Rivers and streams and any other drainage ways identified by local governments. Shore impact zone. 50% of the required structure setback from the river. Significant existing vegetation stands. Largely intact and connected plant communities that contain a sufficient representation of the original native plant community - identified in local government MRCCA plans. Wetland. Transitional lands between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or land covered by shallow water. Building and Construction Structure height and structure setbacks from the river and top of bluffs (the top of an 18% slope) vary for each of the six MRCCA districts (See Table 1). These provisions protect scenic views and keep buildings and other development activity away from sensitive shorelines and slopes that provide habitat and are prone to soil erosion and slope failure. Structure height and setback standards will not change for most property owners. See the MRCCA Boundary and Districts web page to find the district in which your parcel is located. Table 1. Building and constructions standards for each of the six MRCCA districts. Build & Construction Standards Rural Open Space (CA-ROS) River Neighborhood (CA-RN) River Towns and Crossings (CA-RTC) Separated from River (CA-SR) Urban Mixed (CA-UM) Urban Core (CA- UM) Maximum Structure Height 35’ 35’ 48’* Underlying Zoning 65’* Underlying Zoning Mississippi River Structure Setback 200’ 100’ 75’ n/a 50’ Underlying Zoning Bluff Structure Setback 100’ 40’ 40’ 40’ 40’ 40’ *Greater height may be allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. Expansion of Nonconforming Structures Legal nonconforming structures were lawfully permitted when they were built. However, when zoning standards change and these structures no longer conform to the new standards, they become legally nonconforming or “grandfathered.” Nonconforming structures are common in the MRCCA. Minnesota Statute (MS §462.357, Subd. 1e) protects the rights of PC PACKET PG. 20 01/13/2020 the owners of nonconforming structures, and allows for their continued use, including repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement. Under the MRCCA rules, local governments may allow the lateral expansion of legally nonconforming principal structures such as homes, as long as they do not expand further into required setbacks from the river and bluff. Land Alteration Standards (Grading & Filling) Land alteration in areas near water and on steep slopes increases the risk of soil erosion and the movement of sediment into water. A new local government permit is required for the following land alteration activities: • Any activity that disturbs more than 10 cubic yards or 1,000 square feet of soil within the shore impact zone or within 50 feet of a public water, wetland, or natural drainage route, whichever is greater. • Riprap, retaining walls or other erosion control structures to correct an established erosion problem in the shore impact zone and bluff impact zone. There are specific design standards and conditions for constructing these structures. The construction of structures below the ordinary high water level would continue to require a DNR permit or approval. • Erosion control projects and repair & maintenance of existing structures in the bluff impact zone. All other activities are prohibited in the bluff impact zone. Vegetation Removal & Management Standards Retaining vegetation along the river and on slopes is important to stabilize soil and to slow, absorb, and filter stormwater before it runs into the river. Vegetation is also important for retaining the scenic qualities of the river. Local MRCCA regulations include a new vegetation permit and standards for protecting and restoring vegetation. Activities that DO NOT Require a Permit: • Maintenance of existing lawns, landscaping and gardens; • Removal of vegetation in emergency situations as determined by the local government; • The removal of isolated individual trees or shrubs that are not in a contiguous patch, strip, row, or block and that does not substantially reduce the tree canopy or understory cover. Prohibited Vegetation Removal Activities The intensive removal of all or a majority of the trees or shrubs in a contiguous patch, strip, row, or block in protected areas - the shore impact zone, bluff impact zone, within 50 feet of a wetland or natural drainage way or of native plant communities and significant existing vegetative stands - is prohibited. Figure 1 shows some of these protected areas – protected areas are shown in color. Note that isolated trees and shrubs may be removed in protected areas without a permit. Figure 1. Intensive removal of vegetation in prohibited in protected areas. PC PACKET PG. 21 08/07/2020 Allowed Vegetation Removal Activities with a Permit: Some vegetation removal activities in protected areas are allowed with a vegetation permit, including removal: • of vegetation that is dead, diseased, dying, or hazardous; • to prevent the spread of diseases or insect pests; • of invasive non-native species; • to prepare for restoration and erosion control management activities consistent with a plan approved by the local government; • of the minimum necessary for construction allowed with a building permit. River Access on Riparian Lots Local MRCCA regulations include new design standards for river access including access paths and stairways, water-oriented structures and patios and decks (see Figure 2): • Private driveways, parking areas and other impervious surfaces must not be placed in the shore impact zone or the bluff impact zone, except for: o Access Paths: Access paths can be no wider than 8 feet wide in the shore impact zone or 4 feet wide in a bluff impact zone. o Stairways, lifts, and landings: Stairways, lifts, and landings are allowed in the shore impact zone and the bluff impact zone as long as stairways and lifts are no wider than 4 feet and landings no more than 32 square feet. • Decks and patios may encroach into bluff and river setbacks up to 15% of the required structure setback, provided they don’t extend into the bluff impact zone. • One water-oriented accessory structure is allowed for every 300 feet of river frontage. Lots less than 300 feet may have one structure. The water- oriented accessory structure is limited to a 12-foot height, 120 square foot area, and must be at least 10 feet from the water’s edge. These structures are not allowed in the bluff impact zone. • Temporary storage of docks, boats, and other equipment during the winter months are prohibited in the bluff impact zone but allowed in the shore impact zone. Figure 2. River Access Design Standards. MRCCA web address: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/critical_area/index.html PC PACKET PG. 22 PLANNING STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: October 25, 2022 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2022-22 Conditional Use Permit – Commercial Recreation Use APPLICANT: Drop Shot, LLC / Lamar, LLC (Owners) PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1415 Mendota Heights Road ZONING/GUIDED: I-Industrial / I Industrial ACTION DEADLINE: December 6, 2022 INTRODUCTION The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit (CUP) to place a new indoor athletic club facility inside a vacant space within an existing multi-tenant building, located at 1415 Mendota Heights Road. The proposed name of the facility is Twin City Racquet & Squash Club. The property is generally located at the northwest corner of Mendota Heights Road and Pilot Knob Road and is situated in the I-Industrial district. City Code Section 12-1G-2 allows certain defined “commercial recreation” uses by means of a conditional use permit in the Industrial District. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350- feet of the subject property. The city has not received any comments (for or against) this project. BACKGROUND The subject property is generally identified as the “Airport Industrial Center.” This property is 5.85 acres in size, and has approximately 66,000-sq. ft. of multi-tenant office/industrial/storage space, with loading bays to the rear (north) of the building. The site contains three access points off Mendota Hts. Road to the south and one access off Pilot Knob Road to the east, with 106 marked or dedicated parking spaces spread throughout the property. The property currently houses For the Love of Dogs training facility (9,700 sf. of space, indoor dog diving tank, 4 employees); BDS Systems (4,400-sf. of leased space, no employees, pallet/cold storage only) and American Vets (9,600-sf. of leased space, two employees, pallet/cold storage only). The attached commercial office use (the former Lancer Hospitality offices) on the west end of the building consists of approximately 8,000-sf. of vacant office space. PC PACKET PG. 23 Planning Report – 2022-22 (TC Racquet-Squash Club) Page 2 of 7 SCOPE of ACTIVITIES The new indoor racquet club facility or use will take place inside the 21,200-sf. vacant storage/warehouse space situated between the existing office space and the BDS/Am-Vets spaces. This facility will consist of three (3) new pickleball courts, three (3) squash courts (singles and doubles); and three padel courts (note: padel is described as a mix of tennis and pickleball played inside a plexi-walled court). The facility also includes a social gathering space; fitness area; and a golf simulator, with locker/changing/shower rooms. The facility is intended to be a private racquet and tennis club, with secured key-card access to the facility by members only. Access will be restricted or limited to two separate doors opening on the north side of the building. Club members will be able to reserve their preferred playing time or courts on-line through a private membership website, and will be able to enter/exit at their own convenience. The facility does not provide any stadium or large spectator seating. No food or beverage services will be provided, except for private (interior only) vending machines. The proposed club use will have unlimited hours and available to its members at any time. Based upon the proposed court layouts, the pickleball and padel courts can provide up to 4 players (doubles) on each court; and the squash can accommodate 1 to 2 or up to 4 players per court. Assuming all courts were maxed out with players, this would mean up to 28 individuals could be playing or occupying the courts at one time. The “social area” has space for approximately 30 members to sit or rest before, between or after games. The fitness area and golf simulator areas are undefined or not detailed enough to gage accurate number of occupancy or participation in these areas. ANALYSIS of CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Pursuant to Title 12-1L-6, any use allowed by a conditional use permit in a particular zoning district requires submittal of a complete development or site plan for full consideration by the planning commission and city council. The [city] council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the planning commission and the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants or surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets, and the effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan. As previously indicated, City Code Section 12-1G-2 allows certain “commercial recreation” uses by conditional use permit in the Industrial District, and such use(s) are defined as follows: RECREATION, COMMERCIAL: Recreational instruction and participative athletic uses, including jump/trampoline center, golf range/simulator, fitness center, sports training facility, martial arts school, dance school, and similar uses. Staff interprets the use as qualifying for a conditional use permit under the “commercial recreation” definition as a recreational participative athletic use, fitness center, training facility and golf simulator, [and/or] similar use. The City may grant a conditional use provided the following standards are met or proven: a) The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; b) will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards; c) will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and d) the proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan. PC PACKET PG. 24 Planning Report – 2022-22 (TC Racquet-Squash Club) Page 3 of 7 A. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will seriously depreciate surrounding property value. Applicant’s Reponses: a) On the contrary, we believe the creation of our proposed racquet courts will enhance the health, safety and general welfare of the community. These sports contribute to a healthy lifestyle and recreation and will provide an opportunity to local residents to participate in sports that have an easy entry level and general popularity; and b) we don't anticipate any serious traffic congestion nor hazards caused by the creation of a racquets club. Our building as roughly 100 parking spots which is more than adequate to support folks reserving court time; and c) we believe that the creation of indoor racquet courts will positively impact the surrounding property values by bringing something of value to the community. Staff Response: Staff agrees and does not believe the proposed racquet club use at this location will be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community, as they will be simply taking over and remodeling a vacant industrial warehouse space inside an existing “mixed-use” facility. This building- like many others in the Industrial Park, is meant to be “flexible” and allow for a mix of uses or activities. The Airport Industrial Center is currently a 66,000 sq. ft. multi-tenant office/warehouse [flex] building. There currently exists a vacant office space on the west end of the building, while the remainder is a mix of warehouse and a fairly new (and CUP approved) animal training facility. There are no abutting residential zones or uses to the property; so no screening or additional landscaping is required. The building is a concrete block with tip-up panels, and staff assumes all tenant separated spaces are adequately constructed or will provide adequate noise attenuation, if needed. The Applicant will be making interior tenant improvements to the site, and staff (including the Building Official and Fire Marshal) will ensure that adequate ventilation, air circulation, and restroom facilities will be in place before a certificate of occupancy is granted. Per Section 12-1D-16: Off-Street Parking, the following uses and required parking spaces are noted: USE PARKING SPACE(S) REQUIRED Golf course, country club, tennis club, public swimming pool 20 spaces, plus 1 space for each 300 square feet in excess of 1,000 square feet of floor space in the principal structure Skating rink, dance hall, public auction house, golf driving range, miniature golf, trampoline center and similar uses At least 15 spaces, plus 1 additional space for each 300 square feet of floor area over 2,000 square feet Office building and professional office having 6,000 square feet or more of floor area, bank, savings institution At least 1 space for each 200 square feet of net usable floor area Warehouse, storage handling of bulk goods At least 1 space for each 2,000 square feet of floor area The racquet club facility was noted as having 21,250 sf. of floor space, with a mix of varying athletic activities, that may fall under the two upper boxed categories of the Parking Regulation standards, PC PACKET PG. 25 Planning Report – 2022-22 (TC Racquet-Squash Club) Page 4 of 7 namely “tennis club” and “golf driving range” (?) and “similar uses”. By applying both to the proposed use, staff calculated the following: • Tennis Club w/ 21,250-sf. area: 20 sp. + [21,250-1,000 = 20,250 / 300 = 68 sp.] = 88 spaces • Golf / Similar Uses w/ 21,250 sf.: 15 sp. + [21,250 – 2,000 = 19,250 / 300 = 64 sp.] = 79 spaces • Warehouse Uses (BDS / Am-Vets / FTLD): 23,700 sf. (total) / 2,000 = 11.85, or 12 spaces • Office Use w/ 8,000-sf.(net): 8,000 / 200 = 40 spaces Based on these calculations, the total number or spaces needed to support this racquet club use and the existing or future uses on this site amount to 131 to 140 spaces needed. The applicant was tasked with providing an accurate count of the site’s parking spaces, and where additional parking(spaces) could be provide to support all uses on this site. The subject property currently contains 106 marked or dedicated parking spaces. The Parking Plan – Ex. 1 illustrates the site can accommodate 44 additional spaces, or 150 total spaces. There also appears a potential for adding more spaces (if needed) along the front yard/Mendota Heights Road frontage. The 24 parking spaces striped along the back loading dock area was initially a concern with city staff, but the owner claims the two existing warehouse uses do not use or require all five loading dock spaces, and any vehicles parked in this area should not interfere with any heavy truck traffic or deliveries. Upon conferring with the city’s own Recreation Manager, and due to her extensive knowledge of tennis, pickleball and related court activities, it was her professional opinion this club would only allow (at most) 28 players on the indoor courts; and possibly up to same in the social area, and 10-15 members in the fitness area and up to 1-2 in the golf simulator. This would equate to at most 73+/- members, with similar number of parking based on 1 space/member (assuming each drive/park separately). It is staff’s opinion that the 64 spaces situated along the back and side yard area next to the offices will suffice for that space’s parking needs, plus allow for additional club members to park as well in this area. The club’s remaining parking can be accommodated on other parts of the site, and should not pose any off-street parking issues or congestion on nearby streets. While most athletic or fitness clubs may typically see or experience a morning, noon or late afternoon (after work/business hours) levels of participants, the Applicant has stated this facility will be a private club membership only, which should help limit the level of service by allowing members to reserve court times at their own leisure or schedules, so any potential impacts to traffic or parking should be limited or minimal on the site or to the area. There are no plans to add any access points in to the site, nor will any on-street parking be allowed. Staff believes the use will not have any negative impacts or effect upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants (of the multi-tenant building) or surrounding land uses; nor will the use be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community. Moreover, the use may actually provide a nice facility for bettering the health and welfare of the community and allow year-round indoor athletic or fitness activities for the city’s residents. The private club use will likely provide members and participants the ability to stagger their use hours and not cause any congestion or negatively impact the parking needs for this recreation use and the other tenant uses. PC PACKET PG. 26 Planning Report – 2022-22 (TC Racquet-Squash Club) Page 5 of 7 B. The proposed use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the city code and comprehensive plan. Applicant’s Response: d) To our knowledge the creation of racquet courts within our facility at 1415 Mendota Heights Road does not violate any provisions within the City Code and instead will enhance the general we/I-being of the community by bringing recreational and wellness opportunities to residents of Mendota Heights. Staff Response: The subject parcel is guided I-Industrial in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The Plan provides the following goal statement: Goal 3: Encourage and support industrial and commercial development in designated areas. Policies 1. The city will use available resources to identify redevelopment needs. This will include cooperation with Dakota County and the Metropolitan Council to achieve redevelopment objectives. 2. Transitions between adjoining land uses will be required for adjacent residential uses, and will be encouraged between compatible land uses (e.g. transition between a general manufacturing and retail use will be encouraged). 3. Amenities within the industrial and commercial districts will be encouraged to promote a more vibrant and attractive place for workers. City Code Title 12-1L-6 Conditional Use states: “The development and execution of this chapter is based upon the division of the city into districts within which the regulations are specified. It is recognized, however, that there are special or conditional uses which, because of their unique characteristics, cannot be properly classified in any district or districts without consideration, in each case, of the impact of those uses on neighboring land or the public need for the particular location. To provide for these needs, the council may by resolution approve a conditional use for those uses and purposes, and may impose conditions and safeguards in such permits to ensure that the purpose and intent of this chapter is carried out.” The club is planning to install one of the three padel courts outside the building in the front yard area. As noted, City Code Section 12-1G-2 allows for “commercial recreation” uses as a CUP in the I- Industrial District, but under said district the use “…must be conducted within a completely enclosed building.” Furthermore, City Code Section 12-1D-6: Fences: provides language addressing fences for tennis courts. Since this padel court will likely require the enclosure (note: for the purpose of this report, the padel court is being treated as or considered similar to a tennis court) and “…any fence used for the enclosure of tennis courts shall not exceed ten feet (10') in height, and shall not be located within the required front yard.” Due to the padel court located outside the building and in the front yard area, and the likelihood of a fence or enclosure needed for this court, this padel court will not meet City Code and will not be allowed. Even without this outdoor court, Staff believes the proposed “indoor recreational use” can be considered in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and comprehensive plan; and that there is no reason to believe that the proposed use will be contrary to the standard of review for conditional use permits listed above; and should be compatible with the spirit and intent of the Industrial Zoning District. PC PACKET PG. 27 Planning Report – 2022-22 (TC Racquet-Squash Club) Page 6 of 7 ALTERNATIVES for ACTION Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend APPROVAL of the Conditional Use Permit, with certain conditions and based on the findings- of- fact that the proposed racquet club use will be compliant with the standards and regulations of the City Code; or 2. Recommend DENIAL of the Conditional Use Permit request, based on the findings of fact(s) determined by the Planning Commission, that the Conditional Use Permit requested herein does not meet certain regulations or standards under City Code; or 3. TABLE the request, pending additional information as requested by the Planning Commission and direct city staff to make certain revisions before final consideration is given on this planning item; with direction to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with Minnesota State Statute. STAFF RECOMMENDATION City staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed Twin City Racquet and Squash Club facility and commercial recreational use in the I-Industrial District, based on the attached findings-of-fact that and with the following conditions of approval: 1. All racquet or athletic activities shall be conducted entirely within the enclosed building. The outdoor padel court shown on the submitted site plan is not approved and will not be allowed under this CUP approval. 2. The 24 parking spaces located on the back side of the building and the 16 spaces located on the east edge of the existing parking area, as illustrated on the site plan must all be striped. 3. Outdoor storage and display of materials is prohibited. 4. A sign permit shall be required prior to installation of any additional tenant signage on the subject parcel/building. No banner or temporary signs will be allowed. 5. A building permit shall be required prior to any applicable demolition or tenant space improvements. 6. No on-street parking or blocking of loading areas is allowed. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Aerial/Location Site Map 2. Letter of Intent 3. Site Plan / Athletic Club Layout 4. Ex. -1 Parking Plan Layout PC PACKET PG. 28 Planning Report – 2022-22 (TC Racquet-Squash Club) Page 7 of 7 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Planning Case No. 2022-22 Conditional Use Permit for Twin City Racquet & Squash Club Drop Shot, LLC (Applicant) 1415 Mendota Heights Road The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed indoor commercial recreation use and conditional use permit request: 1. The proposed conditional use allowing the new commercial recreational use (Twin City Racquet and Squash Club) in the Industrial District will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor cause any serious traffic congestion or hazards, nor depreciate surrounding property values. 2. The new recreational use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the zoning code and comprehensive plan, including I-Industrial District performance standards. 3. The proposed recreational use on the subject property should not impact or negatively affect the required parking needs of the Applicant’s business needs or the other leased tenant or future tenant needs on the site. PC PACKET PG. 29 October 6, 2022 City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 RE: LETTER OF INTENT To Whom it May Concern: It is our intention to create a racquets club at 1415 Mendota Heights Road. The club would consists of • 3 Pickleball Courts • 3 Padel Courts • 3 Squash Courts Pickleball has become an incredibly popular sport enjoyed by individuals of all ages and abilities yet the options to play this sport year-round in Minnesota are extremely limited. The creation of indoor pickleball courts is an excellent opportunity for players to enjoy this sport year-round. Padel is a popular racquet sport in Europe and is just now being introduced in the US. We would like to be one of the first facilities to offer the opportunity to learn and play this sport in the Midwest. For the uninitiated, Padel is a mix between tennis and pickleball. Squash is a racquet sport that has been played in Minnesota for close to 100 years. There are limited opportunities to play this sport and we believe an addition of squash courts in Mendota Heights will be well received. Participants would come primarily from the surrounding area and would reserve court times on line prior to playing. Please see our response statements to the following standards: a) The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community. On the contrary, we believe the creation of our proposed racquet courts will enhance the health, safety and general welfare of the community. These sports contribute to a healthy lifestyle and recreation and will provide an opportunity to local residents to participate in sports that have an easy entry level and general popularity. b) The proposed use will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards -we don't anticipate any serious traffic congestion nor hazards caused by the creation of a racquets club. Our building as roughly 100 parking sports which is more than adequate to support folks reserving court time. c) The proposed use will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value -we believe that the creation of indoor racquet courts will positively impact the surrounding property values by bringing something of value to the community. PC PACKET PG. 30 d) The proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose ond intent of the City Code ond the comprehensive plan -To our knowledge the creation of racquet courts within our facility at 1415 Mendota Heights Road does not violate any provisions within the City Code and instead will enhance the general we/I-being of the community by bringing recreational and wellness opportunities to residents of Mendota Heights. We look forward to developing our proposed project in conjunction with city officials. You can reach me with questions via email at sgnerb@gmail.com or phone at 612. 759.1278 B~~ Glenn Baron Partner Drop Shot LLC PC PACKET PG. 31 SUBJECTPROPERTYPC PACKET PG. 32 PC PACKET PG. 33 PC PACKET PG. 34