2023-07-25 Planning Commission 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, JULY 25, 2023 - 7:00 PM
Mendota Heights City Hall – Council Chambers
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights MN 55118
1.Call to Order / Roll Call
2.Approval of Minutes
a.Approve the April 25, 2023 Regular Meeting Minutes
3.Public Hearings
a.CASE No. 2023-07 Minor Subdivision & Variance – to authorize a lot line adjustment
and variance for property located at 5 Dorset Road and 3 Dorset Road
(Applicants/Owners: Douda – 5 Dorset Road, Kirby 3 Dorset Road)
b.CASE No. 2023-11 Variance – to authorize the construction of a second private
garage (accessory structure) on property located at 1661 Mayfield Heights Road
(Applicants/Owners: Keeley)
c.CASE No. 2023-12 Conditional Use Permit – to authorize the expansion of an
existing attached garage on property located at 1924 Coventry Ct. (Applicant/Owner
–Lemke)
4.New / Unfinished Business
5. Adjourn Meeting
1
April 25, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 9
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 25, 2023
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April
25, 2023 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Commissioners Patrick Corbett,
Brian Petschel, Brian Udell, Jason Stone, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: Commissioner Cindy
Johnson.
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Election of Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair for Year 2023
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STONE TO
ELECT LITTON FIELD AS CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR YEAR 2023.
Chair Field accepted the nomination.
AYES: 4
NAYS: 0
ABSTAIN: 1 (Field)
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER UDELL TO
ELECT PATRICK CORBETT AS VICE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR
YEAR 2023.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
Approval of Minutes
COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER UDELL TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 24, 2023.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL TO
APPROVE THE WORKSHOP MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2023, FEBRUARY 28, 2023,
AND APRIL 17, 2023.
2 2a.
April 25, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 9
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE 2023-03
MICHELLE CULLIGAN ON BEHALF OF LAWRENCE AND MARY
CULLIGAN, 1941 GLENHILL ROAD – MINOR SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE
Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp explained that the applicant, Michelle Culligan, on half of
the owners, Lawrence and Mary Culligan, is requesting consideration of a minor subdivision and
variance on the property generally described as Outlot A, Valley View Oak 2nd Addition. The
subject property is subject to the R-1 One Family Residential Zoning District standards and the
Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) overlay district standards. The proposed
minor subdivision will create two lots denoted as Parcel 2A and 2B on the exhibits. Since the
property is located in the MRCCA overlay district, a variance from City Code Section 12-3-7 C
which stipulates that driveways may not be located in the bluff impact zone (BIZ) would be
required. The applicant is requesting to access proposed parcel 2A by upgrading an existing barn
driveway, and such driveway must be widened in areas that currently cross into the BIZ. The staff
report evaluates both requests concurrently because the minor subdivision cannot be approved
without demonstrating that adequate access to both lots can be provided, which requires approval
of the variance request.
Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; one comment
was received from a resident expressing concern.
Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp 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.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Michelle Culligan, on behalf of the applicant, commented that this is for the lot split and small
variance. She noted that this would be the least disruptive way to maintain nature and use the road
that has existed for over 40 years. She commented that this would provide large buildable areas.
Steve Golias, City of Mendota, commented that he is happy to see this new request compared to
the past request. He stated that he has been a member of the Planning Commission and/or City
Council for many years. He asked if the Fire Department has provided input on the width of the
driveway and whether that would further impact the BIZ.
Sandra Krebsbach asked the result of the lawsuit with this property to protect the slope and asked
if this request would fall within that slope.
3
April 25, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 9
Commissioner Petschel stated that he is not an expert on the ruling but believed it was the nature
of the subdivision proposed given the slope. He stated that it was not that nothing could be built,
but that too much was proposed to be built and that many of the properties would not be buildable
because of the grades involved.
Ms. Krebsbach commented that there was always concern about building on the slope because of
the impact on the property below in Mendota. She commented that the residents in that area live
on a sandstone ledge and did not want to disrupt the ledge.
Chair Field stated that this request is for a driveway variance and therefore they cannot comment
on plans for a home.
Ms. Krebsbach commented that she would like to see additional information. She stated that they
were aware that there would be two homes along Glenhill but noted that the second home would
appear to be in the protected slope area. She wanted to ensure that this variance would not unravel
the court ruling and effort the City went through to protect that area.
Allen Olstein, 1954 Glenhill Road, asked if the barn road has ever supported heavy vehicles, such
as construction vehicles or emergency vehicles and how that activity would impact an unstable
area. He was concerned with any construction activity in that area because it has been deemed
geologically unstable.
Kathy McGuire, 1942 Glenhill Road, stated that she and her husband also lived in the MRCCA at
their previous home. She commented that because this is within the BIZ is receives a secondary
layer of protection. She stated that the guidelines were created for a reason and asked where the
line would be drawn when variances are issued.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek read into the record a written comment received from Jane
McKay at 1949 Glenhill Road who also objected to the variance and provided an alternate
suggestion.
Ms. Culligan noted that the driveway plans would be reviewed at the time those plans are
presented. She provided clarification on the lawsuit which was specific to that actual development
and there was no discussion that the property was not buildable. She stated that since that time,
the DNR has released the new boundaries of the BIZ and the area outside of the BIZ would be
buildable. She commented that there are large, flat areas that are buildable on the property. She
commented that they have done the background work and are presenting this plan which is
minimally invasive. She noted that there are properties with homes on much more sloped area and
within the identified BIZ that have existed for over 40 years. She commented that they are allowed
to develop within areas that are not within the BIZ and that meet the Code requirements. She
stated that the DNR is not concerned with this request, and they have done their best to present
something that retains the natural characteristics of the area. She noted that they could have
presented a third lot but decided not to do that in order to preserve additional trees.
Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close
the public hearing.
4
April 25, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 9
COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER UDELL, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
Commissioner Petschel asked if the driveway expansion as proposed would receive any additional
scrutiny.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that he is not aware of any Code provisions that would
mandate the construction of driveways.
Commissioner Petschel asked if additional review would be required if the driveway would need
to be reinforced with retaining walls.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that the City does not consider a retaining wall to
be a structure if it is below four feet in height.
Commissioner Petschel asked if the applicant would have the right to put a driveway through the
wooded area outside of the BIZ, if the variance were not approved or requested.
Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp confirmed that the applicant would be allowed to do that.
Commissioner Petschel clarified that the variance is a preference of the applicant in order to
preserve additional trees, as they could achieve access by using the alternate route through the
wooded area.
Commissioner Stone asked if there would be liability in approving the variance because of the
previous lawsuit.
Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp replied that she was not working with the City during the
lawsuit, but it is her understanding that there was nothing in the ruling stating that the property
was not buildable, and that ruling was only applicable to that specific application.
COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE LOT SPLIT AND VARIANCE BASED ON THE
FINDINGS OF FACT SUPPORTING THE REQUEST AND WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
1.APPLICANT MUST RECORD THE LOT SPLIT (MINOR SUBDIVISION) AT
DAKOTA COUNTY INDICATING THE NEWLY CREATED PARCEL 2A AND
PARCEL 2B.
2.A DETAILED PLAN, INCLUDING ANY SIGNIFICANT TREE REMOVAL, OF THE
BARN DRIVEWAY EXPANSION MUST BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND
APPROVAL BY THE CITY STAFF. THE EXPANSION/WIDENING OF THE
5
April 25, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 9
DRIVEWAY MUST BE DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE ENCROACHMENT INTO THE
BIZ TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE.
3.ANY FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS OR DEVELOPMENT ON THE SUBJECT
PARCELS, INCLUDING THE MODIFICATION/EXPANSION OF THE BARN
DRIVEWAY, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO MRCCA REVIEW AND ALL NECESSARY
PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED.
4.ALL TRANSFER OR DEED DOCUMENTS WHICH CONVEY THE PORTION OF
LANDS UNDER THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND LOT SPLIT PROCESS AHLL
BE RECORDED WITH DAKOTA COUNTY.
FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER CORBETT COMMENTED THAT THERE HAS
BEEN A LOT OF CONSIDERATION AND TIME SPENT ON REDESIGNING THIS
COMPARED TO THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION. HE COMMENTED THAT HE AGREES
THAT THE BEST OPPORTUNITY/POSITION OF THE DRIVEWAY WOULD BE TO
UTILIZE THE EXISTING BARN ROAD AND BELIEVES THIS TO BE A REASONABLE
USE OF THE LAND.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL COMMENTED THAT HE SUPPORTS THIS BECAUSE THE
PROPERTY HAS THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP AND THIS IS PROBABLY THE LEAST
INVASIVE PROPOSAL. HE NOTED THAT THE BARN ROAD IS AN EXISITNG ACCESS
AND WOULD BE MINIMALLY DISRUPTIVE COMPARED TO REMOVING TREES TO
PROVIDE THE ACCESS. HE NOTED THAT MRCCA DOES NOT PROHIBIT
DEVELOPMENT, BUT INSTEAD PROVIDES A SPECIFIC SET OF RULES TO ACHIEVE
DEVELOPMENT. HE STATED THAT THERE WERE MANY COMMENTS MADE ABOUT
THE STABILITY OF THE LAND BUT THE ONLY QUALIFIED EXPERT THAT MADE
COMMENTS ABOUT STABILITY WERE OF THE APPLICANT. HE CAUTIONED
RESIDENTS ABOUT MAKING THOSE ASSERTIONS.
COMMISSIONER CORBETT AGREED THAT HE SEES THIS AS THE BEST PATH
FORWARD, NOTING THAT EVERYTHING THAT WILL BE BUILT WILL NEED TO MEET
THE MRCCA STANDARDS.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its May 2, 2023 meeting.
B)PLANNING CASE 2023-04
SAINT THOMAS ACADEMY, SAINT THOMAS ACADEMY CAMPUS –
VARIANCE
Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp explained that the applicant, Saint Thomas Academy, is
requesting consideration of a variance from the maximum height of a principal structure to
reconstruct and expand the existing natatorium (pool house) on the Saint Thomas Academy
campus located at 949 Mendota Heights Road. It should be noted that after review of the historic
6
April 25, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 9
files it was determined that no Conditional Use Permit amendment is needed for the proposed
project.
Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments
or objections to this request were received.
Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp 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 the lost parking spaces would be a boulevard to direct traffic.
Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp confirmed that would align and direct traffic.
Commissioner Petschel asked and received confirmation that the road identified to be ripped up
would be replaced with greenspace.
Commissioner Corbett asked if there is a capacity increase noted or anticipated.
Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp replied that the capacity would be about 300 people,
whereas the existing space has a capacity of about 150 people.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Ryan Hoffman, representing the applicant, stated that the Academy is looking forward to getting
this project underway. He commented that the new façade will be more modern and include more
glass. He stated that the five-lane pool will be expanded to eight lanes. He commented that there
would be two or three meets per year that would increase the attendance over the current average
attendance. He confirmed that those meets would not occur during the school day and therefore
the school would have ample parking to support that need.
Commissioner Petschel asked if this project would remove the entire entranceway from that area.
Mr. Hoffman commented that entranceway would remain and provided additional details on the
design.
Commissioner Corbett asked for more details on parking.
Mr. Hoffman commented that often meets are held on weekends.
Marty Schrier, Saint Thomas Academy, stated that he is not aware of any meets that would be held
during school hours when there would be students, staff and visitors onsite at the same time.
Commissioner Corbett asked if the meets would be held at the same time as another sporting event.
7
April 25, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 9
Mr. Hoffman replied that it would be no different than today and believed there would be sufficient
parking to handle the needs.
Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close
the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STONE, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STONE, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT
SUPPORTING THE REQUEST AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1.ALL PARKING MUST BE ACCOMODATED ON-SITE DURING ANY EVENT HELD
AT THE NATATORIUM. IF ADDITIONAL PARKING IS NEEDED, THE PLAN TO
ACCOMMODATE PARKING MUST BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND
APPROVAL BY THE CITY STAFF.
2.THE LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE UPDATED TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF
REPLACEMENT TREES PLANTED EAST OF THE PROPOSED EXPANSION AREA.
3.THE APPLICANT MUST OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS FROM THE
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AND COMPLY WITH LAND DISTURBANCE
REQUIREMENTS.
4.THE APPLICANT MUST OBTAIN ALL REQUIRED CITY PERMITS, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, A GRADING PERMIT AND BUILDING PERMIT.
5.THE APPLICANT MUST OBTAIN ANY NECESSARY PERMITS FROM ALL
APPLICABLE AGENCIES WITH JURISDICTION OVER THE PROJECT.
6.IF ANY CHANGES TO THE PLAN SET ARE PROPOSED, THE APPLICANT MUST
COME BACK TO THE CITY TO DETERMINE THE PROPER PERMITTING
PROCESS.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its May 2, 2023 meeting.
C)PLANNING CASE 2023-05
ROBERT WHEBBE, 598 SIBLEY MEMORIAL DRIVE – VARIANCE AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp explained that Robert Whebbe, the applicant, owner, and
resident of 598 Sibley Memorial Drive, is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a 1,500 square
foot garage and a Variance to City Code Section 12-1D-3.B.2, which regulates the height of the
accessory structure. The applicant is seeking an allowance to construct an approximately 17-foot-
tall garage which exceeds the height of the principal building.
8
April 25, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 9
Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments
or objections to this request were received.
Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp 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 that the Commission give careful consideration to denying the request for
Variance from the height standard or to table the request so that an alternative design solution can
be presented.
Commissioner Petschel asked if the garage door is a standard height.
Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp confirmed that the garage door is of average height. She
commented that it would be likely that any garage would bump up against the height limit in this
case because the home is lower in height. She noted that she did speak with the applicant prior to
the meeting and he is willing to support the recommendation to table and continue to work with
staff.
Commissioner Stone asked if there were any complaints from neighbors.
Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp replied that staff did not receive any written testimony.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Robert Whebbe, applicant, commented that the height of the home is pretty low noting that a
person could touch the gutters from the ground. He provided additional details on the attempt to
design in a manner that would not disturb the solar panels on the home. He stated that rather than
deny the request, he would request that the Commission table this so that he could work with staff
to figure out how to make this work. He confirmed that they would be adding additional solar
panels onto the garage in addition to the panels on the home.
Commissioner Petschel stated that even if the height were lowered slightly, the peak would still
be higher than the existing home.
Mr. Whebbe confirmed that would be true.
Commissioner Petschel commented that there would be no way to have a standard garage door
and not exceed the height of the home in this case.
Mark Kemp, 586 Sibley Memorial Highway, commented that his family agrees with the
recommendation of staff to deny or table in order to find something that works better than what is
proposed.
Jill Kane, 586 Sibley Memorial Highway, commented that they have concern with the overall scale
and height of the garage.
9
April 25, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 9
Mr. Whebbe confirmed that he was agreeable to tabling the request and he would continue to work
with staff in order to present a more appealing option.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED TO TABLE THE REQUEST AND DIRECT STAFF
TO EXTEND THE APPLICATION REVIEW PERIOD AN ADDITIONAL 60 DAYS, IN
COMPLIANCE WITH MN STAT. 15.99.
FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER CORBETT COMMENTED THAT HE
APPRECIATES THAT THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE IS VERY LOW AND IT WOULD
SEEM IMPOSSSIBLE TO BUILD A NEW ATTACHED GARAGE STRUCTURE THAT
WOULD NOT REQUIRE A VARIANCE. HE AGREED WITH STAFF THAT THERE
WOULD BE AN OPPORUTNITY TO REDUCE THE HEIGHT OF THE GARAGE.
COMMISSIONER STONE ENCOURAGED THE APPLICANT TO WORK WITH STAFF
AND SPEAK WITH THE NEIGHBOR, NOTING THAT HE IS NOT OPPOSED TO THE
CONCEPT OF A VARIANCE.
CHAIR FIELD NOTED THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL REMAIN OPEN.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
New/Unfinished Business
No comments.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER UDELL, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:34 P.M.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
10
Planning Commission | Tuesday, July 25, 2023
Planning Case 2023-07 (Variance and Lot Line Adjustment 5 Dorset Road, and 3 Dorset Road)
Page 1 of 7
PLANNING STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: July 25, 2023
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Haskamp, AICP - SHC
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2023-07
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT & VARIANCE
APPLICANT: Jackie Douda & Mary and Tim Kirby
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 5 Dorset Road and 3 Dorset Road
ZONING: R-1 One Family Residential
LAND USE: LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: November 7, 2023 (120-day Review Period)
INTRODUCTION
Jackie Douda, is the Applicant and Owner of the property located at 5 Dorset Road, and Mary and Tim
Kirby are the Applicants and Owners of the property located at 3 Dorset Road. The subject application
includes two requests; 1) A Variance from the minimum lot width/frontage on 5 Dorset Road; and 2) A Lot
Line Rearrangement/Adjustment of the shared property line between the two subject properties.
A public hearing notice for this item was published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters were mailed to
all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. No public comments or objections were
received.
BACKGROUND / SITE
DESCRIPTION
The subject properties are located
in the Somerset View subdivision
which was platted in 1936. Both
properties are zoned R-1 and were
developed in the 1950’s with
single-family structures. The
properties are generally located on
the north side of Dorset Road and
lie west of Delaware Avenue (see
map for location).
Lot sizes in this subdivision are
between approximately 1/3 and
11
3a.
Planning Commission | Tuesday, July 25, 2023
Planning Case 2023-07 (Variance and Lot Line Adjustment 5 Dorset Road, and 3 Dorset Road)
Page 2 of 7
3/4 and the subdivision is developed with single-family residential homes and associated uses
predominantly from the 1950’s. As shown on the map, lot lines within the subdivision were not platted
perpendicular to the roadway is some areas, which affected the positioning of the homes on the property as
shown in the aerial. Homes were generally constructed parallel to the roadway, which in some cases such
as the subject properties, resulted in awkward configurations along side lot lines and rear yard areas.
A summary of the existing properties, and the proposed configuration is provided in the following table:
5 Dorset 3 Dorset
Existing Proposed Existing Proposed
Lot Area (Size) 17,222 SF
(0.4 Ac.)
17,329 SF
(0.4 Ac.)
20,504 SF
(0.47 Ac.)
20,397 SF
(0.47 Ac.)
Lot Width 100’ 84.99’ 149..79’ 164.75’
Lot Depth 174’ 174’ 177 177
Side Yard setback
(shared)
9.0’ 9.0’ 15’ 18.4’
As shown on the table, the Applicants are proposing to reconfigure the lot lines to better align with how the
properties were developed. Both of the homes were constructed in the 1950’s and the homes were
constructed with the front façade generally parallel to Dorset Road. While this development orientation is
logical, the lot lines were not platted perpendicular to the right-of-way which results in awkward side yard
and rear yard configurations. As such, for decades, the properties have generally “used” their lots as if the
lot lines were perpendicular to the right-of-way, especially in the rear yards.
The impetus for this application, is that both property owners wish to formalize the existing condition –
whereby they are each using their rear yards as if the lot lines were perpendicular to the road. By allowing
for the reconfiguration of this shared lot line, the rear yard will become more useable for both properties.
Ultimately, the property Owner of 5 Dorset Road would like to construct a fence around the backyard, and
this will make more sense if the alignment of the lot line is consistent with how both Owners understand
their rear yards to be laid out.
However, while the alignment makes more sense for how the lots are developed and actually used, the lot
line rearrangement will create a legally non-conforming frontage on the 5 Dorset Road property. As such,
the Applicants are proposing the following (see Survey Site Plan):
•To realign the shared side-yard property line between 5 Dorset and 3 Dorset Road to be
perpendicular to the right-of-way line.
•A variance from the required minimum lot width, per City Code section 12-1E-3.D.3.a., to create
a lot with approximately 84.99 Feet of lot frontage.
The following Analysis regarding the proposed request is provided for your review and consideration.
ANALYSIS
City Code Section 11-1-5.C.1., states, “Lot line adjustment request to divide a lot which ais a part of a
recorded plat where the division is to permit the adding of a piece of land to an abutting lot and the newly
created property line will not cause the other remaining portion of the lot to be in violation with this title
or the zoning ordinance...”
12
Planning Commission | Tuesday, July 25, 2023
Planning Case 2023-07 (Variance and Lot Line Adjustment 5 Dorset Road, and 3 Dorset Road)
Page 3 of 7
As shown on Table 1, the resulting lots if the rearrangement is approved will comply with all R-1 Zoning
standards with the exception of the lot width/frontage on 5 Dorset Road. Section 11-1-9 Variances states
that any deviation from the subdivision code requires a variance to be requested, and such variance to be
processed consistent with City Code Section 12-1L-5.
The following analysis regarding the proposed variance is provided.
Variance Process
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.
Section 12-1L-5(E)(1) further provides other issues the city may consider when granting or denying a
variance, noted as follows:
•Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community.
•Existing and anticipated traffic conditions.
•Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety.
•Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan.
•Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate undue
hardship or difficulty.
When considering a variance request, the Planning Commission must determine if these standards have
been met in granting a variance, and provide findings-of-facts to support such a recommendation to the
City Council. If the Planning Commission determines the Applicant has failed to meet these standards, or
has not fully demonstrated a reasonableness in the granting of such variance, then findings-of-fact
supporting a recommendation of denial must be determined.
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.Are there any practical difficulties that help support the granting of this variance? (“practical
difficulties” means the owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted
by City Code)
Applicant’s Response: Yes – When the lots on Dorset Rd were originally divided, they were set at an
angle to the street. However, the houses were built square to the street. Over time, the lots on either
side of the property and my own property, 5 Dorset Rd, began to use the lots as if they were square to
the street. My neighbor at 3 Dorset Rd agreed to file for a lot line adjustment with me to align the
property with how each property owner had been using the lot (e.g. to straighten the lot line square
to the street. In filing for a lot line adjustment with my neighbors at 3 Dorset Rd, we learned of the
requirement that each lot have 100 feet of frontage on the street. Because my neighbor located at 7
Dorset Rd is unwilling to file a similar lot line adjustment, my property would be short of the 100 feet
13
Planning Commission | Tuesday, July 25, 2023
Planning Case 2023-07 (Variance and Lot Line Adjustment 5 Dorset Road, and 3 Dorset Road)
Page 4 of 7
of frontage. The proposed lot line adjustment would leave 5 Dorset Road 15 feet short of the required
100 feet. The frontage of each property will continue to be mowed and maintained as it has been but
approval of this variance would allow the lot line adjustment to proceed even though 5 Dorset Rd will
not have the required amount of frontage to the street. The lot line adjustment represents a common
sense alignment of the line between 3 Dorset Rd and 5 Dorset Rd that accommodates an existing fence
line and square the property to the houses and the road.
Staff’s Response:
The subject property was platted in 1936 and was later developed with a single-family residential house
in 1951. When the property was platted the lot lines were not set perpendicular to the right-of-way line
which created irregular lot configurations on this portion of Dorset Road. As shown by the aerial, when
the homes were constructed in the 1950’s they were developed with the façade parallel to the right-of-
way rather than being developed equidistant between the lot lines. As a result, the side and rear yards
have been used by property owners as if they were regular in shape and size with perpendicular side-
yard property lines. By realigning the property line to be perpendicular it will create more clarity for
all current, and prospective, owners of the subject properties since best practices would suggest that lot
lines should be perpendicular to the right-of-way. The Applicant’s request to realign this property line
to create a more usable rear yard is a reasonable request. Staff confirms this standard is met.
2.The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by
the property owner.
Applicant’s Response: Yes – As described in the answer to the previous question, the lot lines currently
appear to be crooked to the houses and the road. This variance would allow a common sense
adjustment of the lot line to square it to the road and would also align the property line to how the
property was being used by the residents of 3 Dorset Rd and the prior owner of 5 Dorset Rd having less
than the required 100 feet of frontage along the road.
Staff’s Response: The subject property was platted in 1936 and the home was developed on the lot in
1951. The home was constructed and positioned on the lot as if the side yard property line was
perpendicular to the road, and it is likely that at the time of construction it was assumed that the lot line
was in fact perpendicular since that is common practice. The development of the lot in 1951 is what set
the parameters and expectations of the property, which is why both properties (3 Dorset and 5 Dorset)
have used their backyards as if the lot line was perpendicular. This situation was not created by the
existing property owner, and the orientation of the lots in conjunction with their improvements create
a unique situation. Staff confirms that this standard is met.
3.The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Applicant’s Response: No – Because the use of the land will not be altered by this variance, it is unlikely
anyone would even notice the change.
Staff’s Response: The proposed variance will reduce the lot frontage of 5 Dorset Road by
approximately 15-feet. As viewed from the street, or surrounding neighborhood there will be no visible
change. Additionally, there are other lots within the Somerset View subdivision with lot frontage/width
between approximately 75-feet and 100-feet. The proposed resulting lot frontage is 85-feet, which is
consistent with the character of surround lots. Staff confirms that this standard is met.
4.Restrictions on Granting Variances.
The following restrictions should be considered when reviewing a variance:
a)Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
14
Planning Commission | Tuesday, July 25, 2023
Planning Case 2023-07 (Variance and Lot Line Adjustment 5 Dorset Road, and 3 Dorset Road)
Page 5 of 7
The purpose of this variance request is to align the property lines with the way the existing property
owners use their lots and land. Ultimately alignment of the property lines to create a more useable
backyard may increase the value of the subject property, is not the primary reason for this request.
b)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.
Staff finds that requested variance from the minimum lot frontage is consistent with surrounding
properties and land use. No additional lots are created as a result of this request, and the intent is to
align existing use with the legal property lines. As proposed, the requested variance is consistent
and in harmony with the existing R-1 zoning which designates this property for single-family
residential uses.
The subject property is designated as LR-Low Density Residential in the current 2040 Plan. Certain
land use goals and policies are noted below:
•Land Use Goal #2: Preserve, protect, and enrich the mature, fully developed residential
neighborhoods and character of the community.
•Housing Goal #1: Preserve and improve existing neighborhoods and housing units.
o Housing Policy #2: Explore options for flexibility in Zoning Code standards and encourage
reinvestment in existing houses
o Housing Policy #4. Support the maintenance and rehabilitation of the community’s existing
housing stock.
Other guiding principles in the comprehensive plan provide for maintaining, preserving, and
enhancing existing single-family neighborhoods. City Staff believes that the request for a variance
from the minimum lot width is consistent with the goals stated in the comprehensive plan as
referenced above.
ALTERNATIVES for ACTION
1.Recommend approval of the variance and the lot line adjustment, based on the attached findings-of-
fact and based on certain conditions; or
2.Recommend denial of the variance and lot line adjustment, based on the revised findings-of-fact that
the proposed minor subdivision and variance is not consistent with the City Code or Comprehensive
Plan and may have negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood and/or properties; or
3.Table the request, and request more information from the Applicant or city staff to be presented back
to the Planning Commission and the next regular meeting.
15
Planning Commission | Tuesday, July 25, 2023
Planning Case 2023-07 (Variance and Lot Line Adjustment 5 Dorset Road, and 3 Dorset Road)
Page 6 of 7
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the lot line adjustment and variance based on the attached findings of fact
supporting the request, with conditions noted as follows:
1.Applicants must record the Lot Line Adjustment (minor subdivision) at Dakota County indicating
the newly revised property descriptions for the resulting lots.
2.All transfer or deed documents which convey the portion of lands under the lot line adjustment and
lot split process shall be recorded with Dakota County.
16
Planning Commission | Tuesday, July 25, 2023
Planning Case 2023-07 (Variance and Lot Line Adjustment 5 Dorset Road, and 3 Dorset Road)
Page 7 of 7
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Minor Subdivision and Variance
5 Dorset Road and 3 Dorset Road
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed Lot Split and Variance
from the minimum required lot width on 5 Dorset Road:
1.The proposed Lot Split will realign the shared side-yard property line between 5 Dorset Road and
3 Dorset Road to be perpendicular to the right-of-way.
2. The realignment of the property line will not create any additional density or new lots.
3.The resulting lots meet all other dimensional standards except for the minimum required lot
frontage.
4.The resulting lot frontage of 5 Dorset Road is approximately 85-feet, which represents a variance
from the standards by approximately 15-feet.
5.The resulting lot frontage of 85-feet is consistent with the neighborhood character, and other lots
within the subdivision typically range from 75 to 110 feet of frontage.
6.The proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the Low Density Residential (LR) density
requirements and the resulting lot sizes are generally consistent with the existing conditions.
7.The Applicant demonstrated that practical difficulties exist related to the historic plat whereby the
side-yard lot lines were not set perpendicular to the road right-of-way.
8.The Applicant demonstrated that the property is unique given the configuration of the lot lines and
orientation of the existing homes.
9.Approval of the variance request and the lot line adjustment will not adversely impact the character
of the neighborhood.
10.That provided the conditions of approval are met, the resulting lots will comply with the intent and
purpose of the R-1 Zoning District and the LR land use designation.
17
Δ
DOR
S
E
T
R
O
A
D
Δ
I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and
that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the
laws of the state of Minnesota.
Print Name
Signature
Date License Number
SCALE IN FEET
12730 182nd Street North | Scandia, Minnesota 55047
Phone: (651)433-0110 | Web: goersls.com
PETER GOERS
5/6/2023 44110
Lot 2, and the southwesterly 10 feet of Lot 1, Block 7,
SOMERSET VIEW, Dakota County, Minnesota.
Those parts of Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 7, SOMERSET
VIEW, Dakota County, Minnesota, lying
southwesterly of a line described as follows:
Commencing at the most westerly corner of said
Lot 1; thence North 55 degrees 37 minutes 25
seconds East, assumed bearing along the
northwesterly line of said Lot 1, a distance of 26.32
feet to the point of beginning of the line to be
described; thence South 37 degrees 17 minutes 04
seconds East a distance of 177.42 feet to the
southeasterly line of said Lot 2, and said line there
terminating.
1. This survey was prepared from legal descriptions
supplied and our in house records and may not
depict all easements, appurtenances or
encumbrances affecting the property.
2. The orientation of this bearing system is based on
the Dakota County Coordinate System, NAD83, 1986
adjusment.
3. All distances are in feet.
4. The area of the existing described property is
17,222 square feet or 0.40 acres. The area of the
proposed described property is 17,329 square feet
or 0.40 acres.
LEGEND
SURVEYOR'S NOTES
CERTIFICATE OF
SURVEY
DOUDA PROPERTY
5 DORSET ROAD
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY - MINNESOTA
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION
REVISIONS: 5/6/23 Added proposed legal description and the
associated new property dimensions and notes.
DRAWN BY: PDG CHECKED BY: PDG
FIELD CREW: PDG FIELD DATE: 4/19/23
DATE ISSUED: 4/20/23 JOB NUMBER: 23-010
PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION
18
DOR
SE
T
R
O
A
D
Δ
Δ
Δ
I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and
that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the
laws of the state of Minnesota.
Print Name
Signature
Date License Number
SCALE IN FEET
12730 182nd Street North | Scandia, Minnesota 55047
Phone: (651)433-0110 | Web: goersls.com
PETER GOERS
5/6/2023 44110
Lot 1, except the southwesterly 10 feet thereof,
Block 7, SOMERSET VIEW, Dakota County,
Minnesota.
Together with that part of vacated Burr Oak Avenue
accruing to said Lot 1 per Document No. 3547902.
Those parts of Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 7, SOMERSET
VIEW, Dakota County, Minnesota, lying
northeasterly of a line described as follows:
Commencing at the most westerly corner of said
Lot 1; thence North 55 degrees 37 minutes 25
seconds East, assumed bearing along the
northwesterly line of said Lot 1, a distance of 26.32
feet to the point of beginning of the line to be
described; thence South 37 degrees 17 minutes 04
seconds East a distance of 177.42 feet to the
southeasterly line of said Lot 2, and said line there
terminating.
Together with that part of vacated Burr Oak Avenue
accruing to said Lot 1 per Document No. 3547902.
1. This survey was prepared from legal descriptions
supplied and our in house records and may not
depict all easements, appurtenances or
encumbrances affecting the property.
2. The orientation of this bearing system is based on
the Dakota County Coordinate System, NAD83, 1986
adjusment.
3. All distances are in feet.
4. The area of the existing described property is
20,504 square feet or 0.47 acres. The area of the
proposed described property is 20,397 square feet
or 0.47 acres.
LEGEND
SURVEYOR'S NOTES
CERTIFICATE OF
SURVEY
KIRBY PROPERTY
3 DORSET ROAD
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY - MINNESOTA
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION
DRAWN BY: PDG CHECKED BY: PDG
FIELD CREW: PDG FIELD DATE: 4/19/23
DATE ISSUED: 5/6/23 JOB NUMBER: 23-010
PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION
19
July 10, 2023
City of Mendota Heights - Planning Commission
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, 55118
Dear Planning Commission,
This letter signifies my intent to file for a variance to the R-1 zoning requirements, which require
a lot width of 100 feet, for my property at 5 Dorset Road. I am simultaneously filing for a lot line
adjustment jointly with my neighbors at 3 Dorset Road to align the property boundary with the
current use of the property along the common sense boundary between the houses. However,
approval of the lot line adjustment will result in my property being 116 feet along the back
boundary but 85 feet at the front boundary along the road. If granted, this variance would allow
for the lot line adjustment. This variance will not result in any changes to the appearance or use
of the property along the street.
Sincerely,
Jackie Douda
20
Variance Application (2019) Page 1 of 3
VARIANCE APPLICATION – CHECKLIST & RESPONSE FORM
Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the
Planning Commission and/or City Council only after all
required materials have been submitted. Application
submittal deadlines are available on the City’s website
or by contacting the City Planner. Late or incomplete
applications will not be put on the agenda.
Office Use Only:
Case #:_____________________
Applicant:____________________
Address:_____________________
The City Council may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the City
Code and impose conditions and safeguards in the variances so granted in cases where there
are practical difficulties in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. "Practical
difficulties", as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property
owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter; the
plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the
landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Please
consider these requirements carefully before requesting a variance.
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS:
Electronic and hard copies of all the required materials must be submitted according to the
current application submittal schedule.
Submit 1 electronic copy and 2 hard copies (full-size/to-scale) of all required plans.
The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete:
Fee, as included in current Fee Schedule (check payable to City of Mendota Heights).
NOTE: Planning Application fees do not cover building permit fees, utilities, or other fees
which may be required to complete the project.
Completed Application Form(s).
Letter of Intent.
Required Plans.
APPLICANT MUST CHECK ALL APPLICABLE ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE SUBMITTAL
Sketch Plan (to-scale drawing or certified survey, if determined necessary):
Location and setbacks of all buildings on the property in question including both existing and
proposed structures.
Location of any easements having an influence upon the variance request.
Written consent and waiver of public hearing, in a form prescribed by the city, by the owners
of property within one hundred feet (100') of the boundaries of the property for which the
21
Variance Application (2019) Page 2 of 3
variance is requested, accompanied by a map indicating the location of the property in
question and the location of the property owners who have given consent; or, lacking such
consent, a list of names and addresses of the owners of property within one hundred feet
(100') of the boundaries of the property for which the variance is requested.
If topography or extreme grade is the basis on which the request is made, all topographic
contours shall be submitted.
If the application involves a cutting of a curb for a driveway or grading a driveway, the
applicant shall have his plan approved by the city public works director prior to construction.
Please complete the attached questions regarding your request.
Responses will be presented to the Planning Commission & City Council.
__________________________________________________________________
Please answer the following three questions as they relate to the variance request.
(Note: you may fill-in this form or create your own)
1.Are there any practical difficulties that help support the granting of this variance?
(Note: “practical difficulties" as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the
owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by City Code. Economic
considerations along do not constitute a practical difficulty).
YES NO
Please describe or identify any practical difficulties and/or how you plan to use the property
in a reasonable manner below:
X
When the lots on Dorset Rd were originally divided, they were set at an angle to the street.
However, the houses were built square to the street. Over time, the lots on either side of
the property and my own property, 5 Dorset Rd, began to use the lots as if they were
square to the street. My neighbor at 3 Dorset Rd agreed to file for a lot line adjustment with
me to align the property with how each property owner had been using the lot (e.g., to
straighten the lot line square to the street). In filing for a lot line adjustment with my
neighbors at 3 Dorset Rd, we learned of the requirement that each lot have 100 feet of
frontage to the street. Because my neighbor located at 7 Dorset Rd is unwilling to file a
similar lot line adjustment, my property would be short of the 100 feet of frontage. The
proposed lot line adjustment would leave 5 Dorset Road 15 feet short of the required 100
feet. The frontage of each property will continue to be mowed and maintained as it has
been, but approval of this variance would allow the lot line adjustment to proceed even
though 5 Dorset Rd will not have the required amount of frontage to the street. The lot line
adjustment represents a common sense alignment of the line between 3 Dorset Rd and 5
Dorset Rd that accommodates an existing fence line and squares the property line to the
houses and the road.
22
Variance Application (2019) Page 3 of 3
2.Are there any circumstances unique to the property (not created by the owner) that
support the granting of this variance?
YES NO
Please describe or identify any unique circumstances below:
3.If the variance was granted, would it alter the essential character of the
neighborhood?
YES NO
Why or Why Not? Please explain how the request fits with the character of the neighborhood.
The City Council must make affirmative findings on all of the criteria listed above in order
to grant a variance. The applicant for a variance has the burden of proof to show that all
of the criteria listed above have been demonstrated or satisfied.
X
As described in the answer to the previous question, the lot lines currently appear to be
crooked to the houses and the road. This variance would allow a common sense adjustment
of the lot line to square it to the road and would also align the property line to the how the
property was being used by the residents of 3 Dorset Rd and the prior owner of 5 Dorset Rd.
The variance is required because the adjustment will result in the property at 5 Dorset Rd
having less than the required 100 feet of frontage along the road.
X
Because the use of the land will not be altered by this variance, it is unlikely anyone would
even notice the change.
23
Planning Commission | Tuesday, July 25, 2023
Planning Case 2023-11 (Variance for 1661 Mayfield Heights Rd.) Page 1 of 6
PLANNING STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: July 25, 2023
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Haskamp, AICP - SHC
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2023-11
VARIANCE from Accessory Structure standards
APPLICANT: Thomas and Maureen Keely
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1661 Mayfield Heights Road
ZONING: R-1 One Family Residential
LAND USE: LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: October 24, 2023 (120-day Review Period)
INTRODUCTION
Thomas and Maureen Keeley are the Applicants and Owners (“Applicants”) of the property located at 1661
Mayfield Heights Road, and they are requesting a variance from the Accessory Building standards to permit
two detached garages on the subject property.
A public hearing notice for this item was published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters were mailed to
all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. No public comments or objections were
received.
BACKGROUND / SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject property is located on the west side of
Mayfield Heights Road south of the Mayfield Heights
Ln cul-de-sac. The subject property is part of the
Mayfield Addition subdivision, and the existing home
and detached garage (accessory building) were
constructed in/around 1946.
As shown on the Map, the detached garage is accessed
from a long driveway that crosses the property on the
north side of the house and connects to the detached
garage that is in the rear yard (southwest corner). The
subject property is located in the Mississippi River
Critical Corridor Area (MRCCA), and if this variance
is approved, a separate MRCCA permit would be
required to be obtained for the new structure.
24 3b.
Planning Commission | Tuesday, July 25, 2023
Planning Case 2023-11 (Variance for 1661 Mayfield Heights Rd.) Page 2 of 6
A summary of the request is as follows:
•Construct a new detached garage – 22’x24’ (528 SF).
•Convert the existing garage into a home office – 22’x18’ (396 SF).
•Remove the existing shed.
•Remove the driveway that loops the home connecting to the existing detached garage.
•Replace/install a new driveway that connects to the new garage.
The following Analysis regarding the proposed request is provided for your review and consideration.
ANALYSIS
City Code section 12-1D-3: Accessory Structures regulates all accessory buildings, including private
garages, based on lot size. Per City Code, Garage, Private is defined as, “A detached accessory building
or portion of the principal building, including a carport, which is used primarily for storing passenger
vehicles, trailers, or one truck of rated capacity not in excess of one and one-half (1 ½ tons).” Subsection
1.(2) states that “Single-family residential parcels that do not have an attached garage may be allowed one
detached garage up to seven hundred fifty (750) square feet as a permitted structure, or up to one thousand
(1,000) square feet upon approval of a conditional use permit.”
The subject lot is approximately 0.54 Acres, or 23,659 square feet. The lot is developed with an existing
single-family home and a detached private garage. The existing detached garage is approximately 396
square feet and meets the definition of detached Private Garage. The Applicant is proposing to keep the
existing detached Private Garage, and to construct a second Private Garage on the property that would be
approximately 528 square feet. The proposed request requires a variance from the City Code standard
which limits the number of detached Private Garages to one (1) per property on lots that are less than 0.75
Acres.
A couple considerations include:
•If the Variance to permit the construction of a second garage is approved, the total accessory
building square footage would be approximately 924 square feet. This exceeds the permitted 750
square feet but would be within the conditionally permitted standard of 1,000 square feet.
•The existing detached private garage was constructed with the existing home in 1946. While it is
original to the property, it is not a historic structure with any specific protections or designations.
•The proposed conversion of the existing private garage to a home office does not meet the definition
of a private garage.
•If the Variance to permit the construction of a second garage is approved, the Applicants would be
required to obtain 1) a MRCCA permit for the new structure and all associated landscape
improvements; and 2) a Conditional Use Permit if the size is deemed acceptable.
The following analysis regarding the proposed variance is provided.
Variance Process
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
25
Planning Commission | Tuesday, July 25, 2023
Planning Case 2023-11 (Variance for 1661 Mayfield Heights Rd.) Page 3 of 6
permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance
and consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Section 12-1L-5(E)(1) further provides other issues the city may consider when granting or denying a
variance, noted as follows:
•Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community.
•Existing and anticipated traffic conditions.
•Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety.
•Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan.
•Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate undue
hardship or difficulty.
When considering a variance request, the Planning Commission must determine if these standards have
been met in granting a variance, and provide findings-of-facts to support such a recommendation to the
City Council. If the Planning Commission determines the Applicant has failed to meet these standards, or
has not fully demonstrated a reasonableness in the granting of such variance, then findings-of-fact
supporting a recommendation of denial must be determined.
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.Are there any practical difficulties that help support the granting of this variance? (“practical
difficulties” means the owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted
by City Code)
Applicant’s Response: Yes – We would like to build a new 2 car garage, along the north back corner
of our lot. Our neighbors RV is regularly parked on our property line. The garage plus new planted trees
will block that view. We have a smaller 1 car garage in the south back corner that is original to the
year of the house (1946). We will be planting trees in front of the exposed side to hide from the street.
Our intent is to convert that into a home office. Preserving this structure will keep the original home
intact and prevent unnecessary landfill impact.
Staff’s Response:
The property was platted in the 1940’s and the home was constructed in 1946 with a small detached
garage (approximately 393 SF) that is typical for its era. While this architectural style is not as common
in new construction today, it is not a unique condition in older neighborhoods. Per City Code, the
Applicants are permitted one detached garage on the property for personal storage and vehicles. Since
the existing garage is present it counts towards the permitted amount and size of garages on the site.
This condition is present in other areas of the community and property owners have chosen to either
replace the old garage with a new garage, or in some cases may have added onto the garage to make it
more functional. Staff understands the desire to keep the structure since it is original to the homestead,
and it is reasonable to desire a more functional garage; however, staff questions whether this represents
a practical difficulty since the existing garage could be removed or potentially expanded to meet the
Applicant’s desired function.
2.The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by
the property owner.
Applicant’s Response: Yes – The house was the first one built in 1946. The location of existing garage
is tucked in the southwest corner of the property away from any structural buildings. Keeping the
26
Planning Commission | Tuesday, July 25, 2023
Planning Case 2023-11 (Variance for 1661 Mayfield Heights Rd.) Page 4 of 6
original garage will allow us to maintain the history and integrity of the property; as well as give us
much needed home office space. Due to the angle of the house, it is difficult to attach a new garage.
Staff’s Response: The subject property was platted and improved in the 1940’s when architectural
styles and expectations, especially related to garage space, was different. Staff agrees that the existing
garage is likely no longer functional and does not meet modern expectations. This circumstance is not
created by the current property owner and is a condition that is specific to the subject lot and its current
improvements.
3.The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Applicant’s Response: No – The new garage will not have any impact on the neighborhood. The new
garage will be located at the back of the property within usual setbacks and with enhanced
landscaping. The new location will reduce unnecessary existing oversized driveway and allow for us to
restore the greenspaces. (please read attached letter)
Staff’s Response: If the proposed variance is approved, it would allow for the construction of a second
detached garage on the subject property and the new structure would be visible from the road right-of-
way. Surrounding homes in the neighborhoods were generally constructed in the 1940s, 1950s and
1960s. Many of the homes in the area include attached, front-facing, garages. The proposed location
and style of the detached garage will appear similar to the surrounding neighborhood. However, based
on an arial review, while some properties have existing storage sheds on their property in addition to
their private garages, most properties are not developed with multiple detached accessory buildings.
While some of the proposed improvements may not be visible from the right-of-way, the proposal to
have two (2) detached accessory buildings that exceed 144-squre feet is inconsistent with how the
surrounding neighborhood is developed.
4.Restrictions on Granting Variances.
The following restrictions should be considered when reviewing a variance:
a)Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
The purpose of this variance request is to allow for the construction of a new private garage
(accessory building), and to allow for the existing detached garage to remain on the property. While
construction of a new detached garage that meets modern standards will likely improve the value
of the property, it is not the sole reason for the request.
b)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.
The proposed variance will not change or alter the use of the property as a single-family home.
However, the proposed conversion of the existing detached private garage for a home office is not
consistent with the City’s zoning ordinance that specifically defines private garages for personal
storage and the keeping of personal vehicles. The proposed re-use of the structure is not consistent
with the zoning ordinance standards, and a variance for use is not permitted per statute.
The proposed use and improvement of the property is consistent with the LR – Low Density
Residential land use designation. However, conversion of the private garage for a home office may
change the character of the existing neighborhood. While there may be a desire to explore whether
this type of adaptive reuse of accessory buildings should be permitted, as the City Code is currently
stated a home office does not meet the definition of a private garage. Certain land use goals and
policies are noted as reference:
27
Planning Commission | Tuesday, July 25, 2023
Planning Case 2023-11 (Variance for 1661 Mayfield Heights Rd.) Page 5 of 6
•Land Use Goal #2: Preserve, protect, and enrich the mature, fully developed residential
neighborhoods and character of the community.
•Housing Goal #1: Preserve and improve existing neighborhoods and housing units.
o Housing Policy #2: Explore options for flexibility in Zoning Code standards and encourage
reinvestment in existing houses
o Housing Policy #4. Support the maintenance and rehabilitation of the community’s existing
housing stock.
ALTERNATIVES for ACTION
1.Recommend denial of the variance, based on the attached findings-of-fact that the proposed variance
is not consistent with the City Code or Comprehensive Plan and may have negative impact on the
surrounding neighborhood and/or properties; or
2.Recommend approval of the variance, based on the revised findings-of-fact and based on certain
conditions; or
3.Table the request, and request more information from the Applicant or city staff to be presented back
to the Planning Commission and the next regular meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial variance based on the attached findings of fact.
28
Planning Commission | Tuesday, July 25, 2023
Planning Case 2023-11 (Variance for 1661 Mayfield Heights Rd.) Page 6 of 6
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DENIAL
Variance from Accessory Structure Standards on property located at
1661 Mayfield Heights Rd.
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of denial of the Variance from the Accessory
Structure Standards on property located at 1661 Mayfield Heights Rd.:
1.City Code Section 12-1D-3.1(2) states that on lots that are less than 0.75 acres, one detached private
garage not to exceed 750 square feet is permitted.
2.The existing accessory building meets the City Code definition of a detached private garage.
3.The proposed construction of a new private garage, provided the existing private garage remains
on the site, is not permitted because it exceeds the permitted number of private garages on a lot.
4.The Applicant failed to demonstrate that practical difficulties exist related to the proposed variance
since the existing private garage may modified to meet modern private garage standards or removed
and replaced with one new larger private garage.
5.The Applicant demonstrated that the property has a somewhat unique condition since it was platted
and developed in the 1940’s, but they failed to demonstrate that other options do not exist that
would be more consistent with the City Code.
6.The Applicants failed to demonstrate that the variance will not adversely impact the surrounding
neighborhood since other lots within the area do not contain multiple detached accessory buildings.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Planning Staff Report
MEETING DATE: July 25, 2023
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Haskamp, AICP - SHC
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2023-12
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for Increased Elevation of Dwelling
APPLICANT: Tim and Barb Lemke
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1924 Coventry Court
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One-Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: October 26, 2023
INTRODUCTION
The Applicants are seeking a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to permit the expansion of their existing
attached private garage. If the proposed expansion is approved, the total garage square footage will be
approximately 1,300 square feet.
A public hearing notice for this item was published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters were mailed to
all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. One member of the public made an
inquiry regarding the proposed project.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located on the terminus of
Coventry Court and is oriented north-to-south. The
front façade of the home faces north and the existing
attached garage is accessed from a driveway that
connects to the cul-de-sac.
(See Map for lot orientation and configuration)
39 3c.
Planning Case 2023-12 CUP for Garage Expansion at 1924 Coventry Ct. Page 2 of 6
The existing home includes an attached three (3) car garage which was constructed in 1989. As shown on
the applicant’s plans, the existing garage is approximately 870 square feet (see street view below).
City Code Section 12-1D-3: Accessory Structures, subsection C.1.b.(1)(B) stipulates that the size of
attached private garages, “More than one thousand two hundred (1,200) up to one thousand five hundred
(1,500) square feet is allowed via a conditional use permit.”
The Applicant is proposing to add onto the existing garage, adding a small area to the front (north elevation)
resulting in a total garage area of approximately 1,300 square feet. As proposed, the front yard setback will
be approximately 35-feet from the front yard line and approximately 16-feet from the side yard line. As
proposed, the garage addition complies with the minimum yard setback requirements.
Since the proposed project will result in a garage area that is between 1,200 square feet and 1,500 square
feet and Conditional Use Permit is required.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Pursuant to Title 12-1L-6, the city recognizes that the development and execution of Zoning Code is based
upon the division of the city into districts within which regulations are specified. It is further recognized
that there are special or conditional uses which, because of their unique characteristics, cannot be properly
classified in any district or districts without consideration, in each case, of the impact of those uses on
neighboring land or the public need for the particular location.
To provide for these needs, the city may approve a conditional use for those uses and purposes, and may
impose conditions and safeguards in such permits to ensure that the purpose and intent of this chapter is
effectively carried out.
The City may grant a conditional use provided the proposed use demonstrates the following:
a)Use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community,
b)Use will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards,
c) Use will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value, and
d)Use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter and the comprehensive plan.
40
Planning Case 2023-12 CUP for Garage Expansion at 1924 Coventry Ct. Page 3 of 6
A. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the
community; will not cause serious traffic congestion or hazards; nor depreciate surrounding
property value.
Staff Response: The proposed project is to expand the existing attached garage by approximately 470
square feet. The proposed expansion will result in a slight adjustment to the façade of the existing home
(north) which will be visible from the public right-of-way, and to expand the garage on the south side
of the home. The proposed northern expansion area will not alter or impact the height of the structure,
and it is designed to be consistent with, and compatible with, the principal structure façade. The
proposed expansion is intended to support the existing single-family use of the property and will
provide additional personal storage for the homeowner. As designed and shown on the Applicant’s
submission, the proposed addition will blend in with the existing architectural design, meets all required
setbacks and other dimensional standards of the R-1 zoning district, and will have no adverse impact
to traffic or surrounding property values.
B. The proposed use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the city code and comprehensive
plan, including all applicable performance standards, so as not to be in conflict on an on-going
basis.
Staff Response:
The Applicant is proposing to use the expanded garage area for storage of personal items and vehicles.
Section 12-1D-3 defines a private garage as, “A detached accessory building or of the principal
building, including a carport, which is used primarily for storing passenger vehicles, trailers…” As
stated in the Applicant’s letter of intent, the purpose of the expansion is to allow for more personal
storage, which is consistent with the City Code definition and meets the purpose and intent of the R-1
zoning code. The subject property is guided Low Density Residential (LR) in the City’s comprehensive
plan, which establishes that use of property should generally be for single-family residential and
supporting accessory buses. The proposed expansion will not alter or change the use of the structure or
the private garage area and is consistent with the city’s adopted comprehensive plan.
REQUESTED ACTION / ALTERNATIVES
Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following
actions:
1. Recommend APPROVAL of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for the expansion of the
existing attached private garage as shown on the Applicant’s submission dated June 28, 2023.
2. Recommend DENIAL of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to expand the existing attached private
garage , with specific findings of facts determined by the Planning Commission that support such
a recommendation of denial; or
3. Table the requested planning application item, direct staff or the applicant to provide additional
information (if needed); and allow this item to be brought back for further review at a future
planning commission meeting; and extend the application review period an additional 60 days,
pursuant to MN State Statute 15.99.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the expansion of the existing attached garage
located at 1924 Coventry Court, based on the findings of fact of support, subject to the following conditions:
1. The proposed expansion of the existing attached garage must comply with the Applicant’s submitted
plans dated June 28, 2023.
41
Planning Case 2023-12 CUP for Garage Expansion at 1924 Coventry Ct. Page 4 of 6
2.The proposed expansion shall be constructed in compliance with all applicable and other City Code
and Minnesota State Building Codes.
3.The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to commencement of any site activities or
construction.
4.All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in compliance with
applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land
Disturbance Guidance Document.
5.Residential construction hours are 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays, and 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on
weekends. These work hours shall be strictly adhered to by the Applicant and all contractors working
on the property.
6.Approval of the conditional use permit is contingent upon City Council approval.
ATTACHMENTS
1.Letter of Intent
2.1st Floor Plan (Applicant’s submission)
3.Elevation (Applicant’s submission)
42
Planning Case 2023-12 CUP for Garage Expansion at 1924 Coventry Ct. Page 5 of 6
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Conditional Use Permit for
1924 Coventry Ct.
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request:
1. The proposed garage expansion will allow for the continued use of the property for single-family
and supporting accessory uses.
2. The proposed garage expansion does not alter or change the existing single-family use of the
property.
3. The proposed garage expansion meets the definition of private garage per the City Code.
4. Provided the conditions of approval are met, the proposed garage expansion will not adversely
impact or affect health, safety or welfare of the surrounding neighborhood.
5. The proposed garage expansion will be compliant with all other standards and conditions included
in the City Code and State Building Codes.
6. The proposed garage expansion represents a investment in a residential neighborhood which is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for residential land uses.
43
6/28/23
Jennifer Haskamp, Community development Director
Mendota Heights Planning Commission
I am applying for a conditional use permit as I am proposing to add to the front and back of my attached
garage.
As proposed, It will be 100 sf +/- over size allowed per city code. (1300sf vs 1200sf allowed).
The additions will be well within the required setbacks (40’ +/- to street vs 30’ allowed & 16’ to side yard
setback vs 10’ allowed)
I want additional storage/garage area so I can store my snowmobile & 4-wheeler at home vs off site.
Thank You
Tim & Barb Lemke
1924 Coventry Court
Mendota heights, Mn 55118
44
45
46
47