Loading...
2022-06-30 Planning Commission Work Session MinutesJune 30, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Work Session Page 1 of 5 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION HELD JUNE 30, 2022 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Chair Field called the meeting was called to order at 5:35 p.m. Planning Commission members present included Commissioners Lorberbaum, Johnson, Petschel and Katz. Commissioners Corbett and Toth were absent. Staff in attendance included Community Development Director Tim Benetti, City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson and Jennifer Haskamp of Swanson-Haskamp Consulting. ZONING CODE REVIEW DISCUSSION Consultant Jennifer Haskamp provided an introductory summary of the status of city’s zoning code update and noted that the purpose of the work session was to review the non-conforming analysis conducted. Ms. Haskamp began discussion with talking about form, characters limits that define a district; the importance of addressing controlling factors; and creating new standards as needed. Ms. Haskamp presented and discussed a number of zoning districts or categories that apparently do not exist or are shown on the city’s zoning map – including R-1B One Family residential; R- 1C One Family Residential; B-4 Shopping Center and LB-PUD Limited Business –Planned Unit Development. Ms. Haskamp suggested the city should either eliminate these districts or provide for placement of these in other areas. Ms. Haskamp then provided a brief summary of Non-Conforming uses. The city’s current zoning map was presented, with only the R-1 One Family (light yellow color) and R-2 Two Family Residential (light green) parcels identified. From this mapping, Ms. Haskamp shared the following information: • 24% of the parcels do not fit the minimum lot area standards. • 8.5% of parcels are non-conforming in both lot area and width. • 17% of parcels do not meet the minimum lot width standard. • Of those lots that are nonconforming, the lot widths range from 40’ – 90’. June 30, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Work Session Page 2 of 5 • The 40’ lots are concentrated in North Neighborhood Area; and • Other non-conforming areas, including Friendly Hills, are approximately 60’. A map was then presented identifying the R-1 parcels with nonconforming status based on area; and those nonconforming due to reduced lot width standards. Nonconformities are most noticeable in the North Neighborhood area, with noted or observed conditions: • Front yard setbacks in the North Neighborhood appear to range from 15’ – 20’ depending on the block. • Lots with nonconforming setbacks tend to be correlated with areas not meeting minimum lot width standard. • Most if not all lots meet the rear yard setback. • Many non-conforming areas are concentrated in the North Neighborhood and the Friendly Hills neighborhood (small adjacent central pockets to Friendly Hills are also present), which represent the more “traditional” neighborhood pattern with smaller lot sizes and front yard setbacks that define the character of the area. • Non-conforming areas were platted prior to 1983 and prior to new lot standards being established. • Contiguous areas of “non-conformance” establish and create a specific neighborhood pattern and form. In these areas respecting the required setbacks and lot width would be inconsistent with the character and form of the area. A comment was made that the commission must talk about then agree to an objective – meaning does the city allow the continuation of the nonconforming issues or does it need to be fixed. We need policy-makers on board. Comm. Petschel stated that correcting non-conformities throughout the city may make it harder to pass, but asked how much (percentage) or how many do we attempt to reduce or eliminate. Consultant Haskamp stated the overall goal of zoning updates is to reduce nonconformities, but not necessarily eliminate them all; that would likely be impossible. The goal for most cities it to obtain 10% or less. Consultant Haskamp then reviewed the R-1A One Family Res. District, and stated there is nothing needed to be changed or added. Consultant Haskamp then discussed the R-2 Medium Density Res. Districts; and pointed out that the city does not have many R-2 zoned parcels. The R-2 Zoning District is essentially a “spot zone” and does not match with the existing development pattern; and the district should be reevaluated for the intent and purpose in the revised and updated zoning code. Ms. Haskamp further stated there are existing pockets of townhomes and attached single-family housing types, which are zoned or included in the R-1 zone – which is a mismatch in some areas. June 30, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Work Session Page 3 of 5 Consultant Haskamp then presented the R-3 Multiple Family Res. District, and identified the following issues: • Large tracts with apartment buildings are assumed to have been calculated using the standard in place at the time of the application; • Mismatch: townhomes/attached single-family units were individually platted; • Large lots that contain individual dwelling units meet minimum width; individual dwelling unit lots do not; • The townhome/attached single-family units that are platted with common open space do not meet the standards (developed utilizing a PUD). Ms. Haskamp identified certain areas that may be mis-matched with R-3 Zoning, such as the townhomes in Eagle Ridge or Victoria Highlands. Ms. Haskamp suggested the city would not be “down-zoning” these sites, just zoning or applying a district standard to what is actually developed (physically) in these sites or areas. Ms. Haskamp added that land use decisions are based on either quasi-judicial versus legislative actions, which include zoning (rezoning) or comprehensive plan decisions. The city has much discretion under legislative actions, so the city can change zoning as they deem appropriate. Consultant Haskamp then presented a map of the “Business Districts”. • For the B-1 Limited Business, a large majority of the lots are conforming to area and setback standards; and there are no significant changes needed. • For the B-1A Limited Business Park, the consultant identified a few sites scattered throughout the city, and noted that a number of lots located off Bourn Lane do not meet minimum lot standards. Staff later clarified that a number of the lots in this site were actually old home-sites that were acquired and removed by the city, and combined into a recognized and larger (14-,4 acres) site for future development. • For the B-2 Neighborhood Business, it was noted that a number of lots do not meet minimum standards, and that the front yard setbacks are most significant issues. Ms. Haskamp suggested the city determine the intent and purpose of this individual district and analyze how is it different from the other Business districts. • For the B-3 General Business, there are no significant changes needed. • For the I-Industrial district, is was noted that 15% of lots do not meet the minimum area standard; however, it appears that many smaller parcels have the same owner so contiguous parcels would meet the area requirement. Majority of larger lots conform; and there are no there are no significant changes needed Consultant Haskamp then presented some recommendations for district updates: Residential Recommendation #1: Modify existing R-1B Zoning District dimensional standards to address the neighborhoods that are non-conforming; allows for a reduced lot size of 7,500-sq. ft. and min. lot width of 50-ft. and reduced yard (FY, SY, RY) setbacks of 20-ft., 5-ft. and 30-ft. By June 30, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Work Session Page 4 of 5 reducing the lot areas and setbacks, approx. 90% or more of the existing nonconforming lots would become conforming. Residential Recommendation #2: Revise and modify the R-2 Medium Density Residential District that matches and supports attached single-family product types (duplex, twin home, townhomes, etc. It was noted by Consultant Haskamp, that with these residential district changes, the current 2040 Comp Plan can remain as is. These areas are identified as Low Density Residential in the comp plan, and they will remain compliant with the new residential zoning districts. Comm. Lorberbaum asked if this recommendation or any future change is needed to just make some parts of the city or parcels conforming. Comm. Lorberbaum also expressed concerns with providing a reduced 7,500-sf. lot size may become or recognized as an acceptable size for the entire community. Consultant Haskamp and city staff responded the city can specifically identify certain parts of the city for this new R-1B District; and has a lot of discretionary rights to where this zoning category can be placed. Ms. Haskamp stated it is important to provide Intent and Purpose Statements with the new districts, which can limit the placement of R-1B or other districts. Ms. Haskamp suggested the group discuss and address this later. Business Recommendation #1: Establish the Intent and Purpose of each business zoning district. By identifying the purpose of the districts, it will be easier to identify the areas that should be associated with each zone and what dimensional standard should be established to reinforce the character and form of the particular zoning district. Business Recommendation #2: Consolidate the number of business zoning districts from four to two. We propose to create/refine B-1 Neighborhood Business and B-2 General Business. A draft set of standards for each district was provided, which included: • B-1: Min. Lot Area of 15,000-sf. / Lot Width 100-ft. / FY-SY-RY of 20’ – 15’ – 30’ • B-2: Min. Lot Area of 20,000-sf. / Lot Width 150-ft. / FY-SY-RY of 50’ – 40’ – 40’ Under both recommendations, over 90% of the lots would meet the minimum district standards. Consultant Haskamp noted the city should consolidate the B-1 and B-1A districts, which can help in simplifying or reducing similar zoning districts. The purpose and intent statements of the Business districts will define what does fit inside the district. Consultant Haskamp then introduced the PSP – Public/Semi-Public District. This district would be create a unique zone associated with schools, institutions, nature preserves, and city-owned land, with: Lot Area of 1-acre / Lot Width 100-ft. / FY-SY-RY of 75’ – 50’ – 50’ June 30, 2022 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Work Session Page 5 of 5 Some commissioners questioned the lot size, and Consultant Haskamp suggested they could look deeper or provide more analysis later on. Consultant Haskamp then presented a “Rezone for Consistency with 2040 Future Land Use and Zoning Map” diagram, which shows some areas that are guided for Medium Density Residential in 2040 Comprehensive Plan should be rezoned from R-1 to R-2 (revised) for consistency. Ms. Haskamp emphasized that they are not suggesting any comp plan changes, only the areas to be rezoned to fit or match what is physically in these areas. Consultant Haskamp then presented a Draft Zoning Map Incorporating Recommendations image, which shows the suggested or recommended changes to be made throughout the city. Ms. Haskamp suggested that the group should just observe this for now, but hold off on any further review and comments until we progress with other issues related to this project, such as identifying uses for each district (i.e. future workshop). Ms. Haskamp also suggested that we need to address the Administration Section of the Zoning Code, which is somewhat confusing and out of place. Although this section is the least cared about by the public, it remains an important part of the processing and review made by city staff and decision-making made by commissioners and city council. Consultant Haskamp concluded by stating and reminding the commissioners that throughout the duration of this Zoning Ordinance Update project, the commissioner will not be drafting sections or providing new text/language or ordinances; moreover the consultant and city staff will be seeking their feedback, input and direction, and later the consultant and city staff will prepared drafts for review – both by the commission and general public. Staff stated they would recommend hosting another PC Workshop only sometime in late July – possibly same week as the regular July 26, 2022 meeting. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 pm. NOTE: the PowerPoint Presentation from the June 30, 2022 Workshop is attached hereto.