Loading...
2023-09-26 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, SEPTEMBER 26, 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 August 22, 2023 Regular Meeting Minutes 3.Public Hearings a.CASE No. 2023-15 Lot Line Adjustment – to authorize a lot line adjustment of the Applicant’s property located at 614 Hidden Creek Trail (Patrick and Mary O’Reilly – Applicant/Owner) b.CASE No. 2023-16 Variance – to authorize an addition on the existing industrial building on the Applicant’s property located at 1480 Sibley Memorial Highway (LCS Company – Applicant/Owner) c.CASE No. 2023-19 Lot Split – to authorize a lot split to create two single family residential lots on the Applicant’s property located at 599 Callahan Place (Luis Barba –Applicant/Owner) 4.New / Unfinished Business a.CASE No. 2023-05 Variance & Conditional Use Permit – to authorize a new garage at 598 Sibley Memorial Drive (Robert Whebbe – Applicant/Owner) 5. Adjourn Meeting 1 August 22, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 5 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 22, 2023 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 22, 2023 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Acting Chair Patrick Corbett, Commissioners Cindy Johnson, Brian Petschel, Brian Udell, Jason Stone, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: Chair Litton Field. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of July 25, 2023 Minutes COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2023. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Hearings A)PLANNING CASE 2023-13 JEREMIAH BATTLES/JON AND HILLARY LENZ, 1666 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS ROAD – MRCCA CRITICAL AREA PERMIT Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp explained that owners Jon and Hillary Lenz are proposing to construct an addition onto their principal structure (residential home) which requires a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) permit. The property is located within the MRCCA overlay district and any improvements and/or expansion of the structure is required to obtain a MRCCA Critical Area Permit. 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. Acting Chair Corbett invited the applicant or their representative to come forward. 2 2a. August 22, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 5 Jeremiah Battles, architect representing the applicant, stated that he is present to answer any questions. He provided a summary of the addition requested that would provide more usable space for the residents. He stated that this project would also address the drainage issues that exist on the property and make the backyard more walkable for the family. Commissioner Katz referenced the letter from the applicant that states that no trees would be removed. Mr. Battles commented that was the initial intent but that has been changed as two trees would be removed as part of this project and several trees would be planted. Commissioner Katz asked and received confirmation that the updated plan shown in the packet is the current plan. Commissioner Johnson commented on the two tree species that would be removed. Tim Johnson, landscaper for the project, provided more details on the two trees proposed for removal. He noted that both of the trees are in decline and commented that they have consulted with an arborist. He provided details on the trees proposed to be planted as well as treatments that would be done on existing trees to protect them. Commissioner Johnson commented that typically with the removal of trees in the MRCCA they request native species to be planted. Mr. Johnson replied that sugar maples are native as are the birch. Acting Chair Corbett opened the public hearing. John Lenz, homeowner, commented that he has lived in the home for 6.5 years and in this area for about 10 years. He stated that he presented to the Council in 2013 to petition for turtle crossing signs at Rogers Lake. He stated that his family is committed to the area and their home but need more space as they have another child they are expecting. He thanked staff for their cooperation during this process. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Acting Chair Corbett asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER UDELL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 3 August 22, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 5 COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE MRCCA CRITICAL AREA PERMIT REQUEST FOR 1666 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS ROAD, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.A BUILDING PERMIT, INCLUDING A FULL GRADING PLAN, MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY SITE WORK. 2.THE PROPOSED PROJECT MUST COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. ALL PLANS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. 3.ALL EROSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS AS APPROVED IN THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN MUST BE PUT IN PLACE PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY GRADING AND SITE WORK ACTIVITIES. SUCH MEASURES MUST REMAIN IN PLACE FOR THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES UNTIL PROPER SITE RESTORATION PLANS ARE COMPLETED. 4.ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY MUST COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND CODES. 5.THE LANDSCAPE PLAN MUST BE PLANTED AND INSTALLED PER THE PLANT SCHEDULE IDENTIFIED ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. ANY DEVIATION FROM THE PLANT SCHEDULE MUST BE WITH AN APPROVED NATIVE PLANT, OR AN AMENDMENT TO THE PERMIT MAY BE REQUIRED. 6.THE FUTURE PERGOLA IDENTIFIED ON THE PLAN SET DATED JULY 20, 2023 SHALL NOT REQUIRE A SEPARATE MRCCA PERMIT PROVIDED IT COMPLIES WITH, AND MATCHES, THE PLANS. 7.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. ON WEEKENDS. 8.ALL DISTURBED AREAS IN AND AROUND THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE RESTORED AND HAVE AN ESTABLISHED AND PERMANENT GROUND COVER IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Acting Chair Corbett advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 5, 2023 meeting. Commissioner Johnson thanked staff and the applicant for the thorough application as well as the detailed landscaping plan and additional trees that will be planted. B)PLANNING CASE 2023-14 GLENN BARON– ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT Planning Director Jennifer Haskamp explained that the applicant, Glenn Baron on behalf of Drop Shot, LLC is requesting consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment to permit Commercial Outdoor Recreation uses in the Industrial Zoning District. Per City Code Section 12-1L-8, any owner of a property within the City may request an amendment to the Zoning Code. The applicant 4 August 22, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 5 has specifically requested an amendment to Section 12-1G-2: Conditional Uses, which is subsection of Article G. Industrial District regulations. The proposed amendment is to add “Commercial Recreation, Outdoor” to the City Code. 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 Director 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. Acting Chair Corbett referenced principle uses and asked how that would apply to a multi-tenant building. Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp commented that in that scenario, the business requesting the outdoor use would become the principle use and the other business would be the secondary. She stated that the owner of the building would also need to be a part of the application in that scenario. Commissioner Petschel asked what would prevent someone from renting a closet in the building to then receive an accessory use for outdoor space. Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp replied that the use of the closet is not a principle use. She commented that there would need to be synergy between the two spaces. Commissioner Katz used the scenario that a bar would like a volleyball court outside and asked if that would be allowed. Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp confirmed that would be correct. Acting Chair Corbett invited the applicant to address the Commission. Glenn Baron, applicant, stated that he owns the building at 1415 Mendota Heights Road, and they are hoping that this change would be approved. He explained that they are in the process of building this club and the outdoor space would be an amenity as they could then offer pickleball courts indoor and outdoor. Sheldon Voss, General Manager for the new club, commented that the outdoor courts would be a great amenity to market for recreational players and members. Acting Chair Corbett opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Acting Chair Corbett asked for a motion to close the public hearing. 5 August 22, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 5 COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER UDELL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 579 AS PRESENTED. FURTHER DISCUSSION: ACTING CHAIR CORBETT COMMENTED THAT THIS IS ALIGNED WITH WHAT THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Acting Chair Corbett advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 5, 2023 meeting. New/Unfinished Business Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp reminded the Commission of the upcoming workshop to be held the following Tuesday. She noted that the application tabled at the last meeting has been withdrawn by the applicant at this time. Adjournment COMMISSIONER UDELL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:39 P.M. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 6 1 PLANNING STAFF REPORT DATE: September 26, 2023 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jennifer Haskamp, AICP -Swanson Haskamp Consulting SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2023-15 Lot Line Adjustment APPLICANT: Patrick and Mary O’Reilly PROPERTY ADDRESS: 614 Hidden Creek Trail ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One-Family Residential/SF Residential ACTION DEADLINE: 01/24/2024 (120-day Review Period) INTRODUCTION Mr. Patrick and Ms. Mary O’Reilly are requesting consideration of a simple lot line adjustment on a 5 acre parcel of land that they currently own, located at 614 Hidden Creek Trail. A public hearing notice for this planning item was published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters were mailed to all properties within 350-feet of the subject property. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The subject property is located at 614 Hidden Creek Trail and resides within the Hidden Creek Estates subdivision. Platted in 2002, the subject property shares its southeastern boundary line with 620 Hidden Creek Trail, which is owned by Matt and Adrianna Birk. Both properties are zoned R-1 and were developed with single-family structures in 2004 and 2005, respectively. The properties are located on the east end of Hidden Creek Trail at the terminus of the cul-de-sac (see map for location). Mr. & Mrs. O’Reilly are proposing to deed approximately 88 square feet to the Birks and reconfigure the lot line between their property and 620 Hidden Creek Trail to align with current improvements that encroach over the property line. The proposed lot line adjustment would better align with how both properties were built and are currently utilized. 7 3a. Planning Report: Case #2023-15 Page 2 A summary of the existing properties, and the proposed configuration is provided in the following table: 614 Hidden Creek Trail 620 Hidden Creek Trail Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Lot Area (Size) 222,866 SF (5.12 Ac.) 222,778 SF (5.11 Ac.) 84,075 SF (1.93 Ac.) 84,163 SF (1.93 Ac.) Lot Width 445 SF 440 SF 173 FT 178 SF Lot Depth 430 SF 430 SF 423 FT 423 FT Side yard setback (shared) 5 FT 5 FT 5 FT 5 FT ANALYSIS City Code Section 11-1-5.C.1., states: “Lot line adjustment request to divide a lot which is 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. . .” The newly described parcel descriptions on the applicant’s survey indicates the O’Reilly property will result in 5.11 acres of lot area, and the Birk’s will contain 1.93 acres of area. This request to modify each parcel’s boundary line meets this City Code section, as the resulting 88 square feet will be added to the Birk’s parcel only; and the line adjustment does not cause the subject lots to be in violation of the zoning ordinance. Furthermore, the Applicant’s properties remain unchanged along the public street frontage; and, as shown in Table 1, each lot will exceeds the minimum lot size of 15,000 sq. ft. for parcels in the R-1 One-Family Residential district. This lot line adjustment will have little, if any, impact upon the neighboring properties, the residual parcel, nor impede the normal use, enjoyment and purpose of the entire Hidden Creek Estates neighborhood. ALTERNATIVES 1.Recommend approval of the lot line adjustment, based on the attached findings-of-fact and based on certain conditions; or 2.Recommend denial of the lot line adjustment, based on the revised findings-of-fact that the proposed adjustment is not consistent with the City Code or Comprehensive Plan and may have a 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 at the next regular meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the lot line adjustment 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. 8 Planning Report: Case #2023-15 Page 3 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Lot Line Adjustment 614 Hidden Creek Trail The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1.The proposed lot line adjustment request meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and is considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2.Approval of the lot line adjustment will have no visible impact on the subject properties; and poses no threat or creates any negative impacts on the character of the neighborhood. 3.The proposed adjustment does not cause any non-conformities on either parcel, based on the applicable zoning district standards for lot size and frontage requirements. 9 10 11 PLANNING STAFF REPORT DATE: September 26, 2023 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jennifer Haskamp, AICP - SHC SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2023-16 VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED YARD SETBACK APPLICANT: LCS Company PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1480 Sibley Memorial Hwy ZONING: I - Industrial LAND USE: I - Industrial ACTION DEADLINE: December 28, 2023 (120-day Review Period) INTRODUCTION The Applicant, LCS Company, is requesting consideration of a variance from the required side and rear yard setback to build an addition onto the existing industrial building located at 1480 Sibley Memorial Highway. A public hearing notice for this planning item was published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters were mailed to all properties within 350-feet of the subject property. At the time of this staff report, the city has not received any inquiries from adjacent property owners requesting additional information regarding the planning item. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Applicant, LCS Company, is seeking a variance from the required side and rear yard setbacks to construct a building addition onto the existing industrial building. The existing business operations have outgrown their existing facility and therefore they are proposing to add on approximately 16,000 square feet to the northeast side of the structure. The addition will include lower level manufacturing space and a mezzanine garage space. The proposed addition will make the existing facility more functional and will allow the business to continue operations on the site. No other changes to the site are proposed. The subject property is bordered by Sibley Memorial Highway on the west property line, Perron Road on the north property line, and State Highway 13 on the east property line. Since the subject property has 12 3b. Planning Report: Case #2023-16 Page 2 frontage on three sides of the property each side with frontage must meet the front yard setback requirements, regardless of if the lot line is front/side/rear. If Sibley Memorial Highway is established as the front, the east property line is the rear which requires a 50-foot setback (Note Perron Road also provides access to the site and could be deemed the front for purposes of evaluation). The subject property is unique since it is bordered by three public road rights-of-way, and for purposes of the analysis each frontage is identified. The proposed addition will encroach approximately 10-feet into the yard setback from Perron Road and approximately 20-feet into the required yard setback from Highway 13. As shown on the plan set the proposed addition includes approximately 12,800 square feet of additional manufacturing floor space and an approximately 2,800 square foot private garage space at the mezzanine level of the facility. The garage area will be connected from a new driveway that loops around the north and east property. This driveway will connect to Sibley Memorial Highway along the north edge of the site. A summary of the existing setbacks and requested variance is provided in the following table: Property Line Setback Required Setback (I) Existing Building Proposed Addition Variance Request for Addition Side Yard Setback (Perron) 40’ ~80’ 40’ and 30’ at angled property line 10’ at angled property line Rear Yard Setback (Hwy 13) 50’ 21’ to ~80’ 30’ 20’ Font Yard Setback (Sibley Memorial) 40’ 15’ No Change NA The primary access of the existing facility is from Sibley Memorial Highway with the “rear” abutting the Highway 13 right-of-way. Based on the aerial, Access to the facility is also provided from Perron Road which borders the north property line and this access will also connect to the new garage on the north east side of the building. The circulation and parking on the site will not change as a result of the proposed addition, with the exception of shifting the driveway on the north and east side of the site to connect to the new garage. In addition to the required yard setbacks, the following dimensional standards are applicable. Other Applicable Industrial (I)Dimensional Standards The proposed project is also subject to dimensional review based on the R-1 zoning district to determine that the proposed addition is consistent with the other requirements of the zoning ordinance. The following summary is provided for your reference: Parking The proposed project adds approximately 12,800 square feet of manufacturing space and approximately 2,800 square feet of garage space, and therefore the additional parking requirement is only applied to the manufacturing area. Section 12-1D-16 F establishes that 1 parking stall for every 800-square feet of manufacturing space is required. The existing building is approximately 41,380 square feet and requires 51 parking stalls (41,380SF/800 = 51 Parking Stalls). The proposed addition of approximately 12,800 square feet requires 16 parking stalls (12,800 SF/800 = 16 Parking Stalls). A total of 67 parking stalls must be provided on the site. The existing parking lot has 70 Parking Stalls and the additional parking area associated with the new garage addition. As proposed, the addition complies with the parking requirement and no additional parking is required. Architecture The proposed addition is compatible with the existing structure and will be designed to match the materials and character of the industrial building. The height of the addition at its tallest point from grade to peak is approximately 18’, which complies with is less than the maximum permitted height in the Industrial zoning 13 Planning Report: Case #2023-16 Page 3 district. This design will match and tie into the existing building materials, and will utilize existing grades to minimize the visual height of the structure and addition. Landscaping A landscape plan was not submitted as part of the application, however, the axon drawings on sheet A405 show that vegetation along the Highway 13 property line will be maintained and/or potentially replaced. During the pre-application meeting with the Applicant, they indicated that the business prefers to keep the building screened, and intended to make sure that the new addition is adequately screened either by existing vegetation in the ROW, or with the planting of new trees. No other area of the site will be disturbed for the project and it is expected that the existing vegetation and landscaping will be maintained. The following analysis regarding the requested Variance from required yard setbacks 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: The LCS property in question is situated between State Highway 133 to the East, Sibley Memorial Highway to the West and South, and Perron Road to the North. As such, all sides of the property abut a street which dictate a 40’ setback requirement. This poses significant practical difficulty for expansion of the existing building as a result, since all sides of the building are more constrained than a typical lot would be. Portions of the existing building are already over the setback line and the most practical way of building the proposed addition is to tie into the existing 14 Planning Report: Case #2023-16 Page 4 building as shown in the plans. By granting a setback variance, LCS would be able to expand in the most logical way while still respecting its surrounding sand neighbors. Staff’s Response: The subject property is constrained by right-of-way along all of its borders which increases the required setback on all of its property lines. Further complicating the site is its irregular shape and the additional right-of-way that was taken along the Highway 13 right-of-way many years ago. The useable area outside of all required setbacks is limited and it is reasonable to expand the structure along the Highway 13 frontage. Expansion along the Highway 13 façade is most logical given the current site development and the large right-of-way associated with Highway 13 ensures the building will still be setback more than 100-feet from the roadway. A practical difficulty related to the site is present and it is reasonable to expand the existing building and use along the Highway 13 frontage. 2.The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner. Applicant’s Response: The parcel in question is uniquely situated between two different highways, which heavily constrain its ability to expand with the standard required setbacks. Additionally, with the way in which these two highways travel and intersect to the south, the parcel has a uniquely non-orthogonal set of property lines that create challenging setback lines to build to. With various angles and curves of these setback lines, building an expansion that suits manufacturing processes becomes more challenging and we believe this proposed plan accomplishes that while still being considerate of the site. Staff’s Response: The subject property is unique because it is bordered by right-of-way on all of its sides and the property is irregular in shape. Staff understands that several years ago the site was further constrained when additional right-of-way was taken along the Highway 13 frontage resulting in a very large public right-of-way. The expansion of the right-of-way impacted the yard setback line even though the physical location of the existing facility did not change. As a result, the buildable area on the east side of the property was reduced, but it is the most logical place for an addition to the building to be placed. The existing site configuration is unique and actions by regulatory agencies affected the buildable area on the site. Staff confirms that this criterion is met. 3.The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Applicant’s Response: If the variance was granted, it would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood for a number of reasons. First, with the nature of the site and its topography, much of the walls of the expansion will be below grade thus limiting its visual impact upon its surroundings. The only portions of the building that will be fully above grade are at the private garage entrance located at the south end of the addition, as well as the new overhead door at the north end. The addition will largely be hidden from both Highway 13 and Sibley Memorial Highway based on how its situation on the site. The only portion of it that will be notably visible is from Perron Drive, which is used primarily only by LCS and Hudson Warehouse to the North. The owner wishes to replace many of the trees that will have to be uprooted for the addition on the East side, thus maintaining a vegetated barrier between LCS and the highway. The proposed encroachment on the setbacks will not disrupt the spirit of its surroundings because its neighbor to the north is also an industrial use. As stated above, the new building will be largely invisible to the park preserve to the west, keeping its impact on the surrounding natural areas to a minimum. Staff’s Response: The character of the area is a mix of industrial uses, natural areas and roadways. As described by the Applicant, the addition will primarily be visible from Perron Road and Highway 13, with minimal impact to the Highway 13 corridor if the vegetation is replaced. As proposed, the variance will not adversely impact the essential character of the area and surrounding uses. 15 Planning Report: Case #2023-16 Page 5 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 the requested variance is to allow for the expansion of the existing industrial building in the most logical configuration. There is no other space on the site, while maintaining adequate parking, where the building addition could be located. While the addition is intended to help support the business operations, economic considerations alone are not the reason for the requested variance. 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 subject property is Guided in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan as Industrial, and the property is zoned Industrial. The proposed expansion is to create additional manufacturing area to support the business, which is a permitted use within the Industrial zoning district. As proposed, the requested variance does not change the existing use of the site and it is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance (Title 12). ALTERNATIVES 1.Recommend approval of the variance, based on the attached findings-of-fact and based on certain conditions; or 2.Recommend denial of the variance, based on the revised findings-of-fact that the variance is not consistent with the City Code or Comprehensive Plan and may have a 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 at the next regular meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Variance based on the attached findings of fact supporting the request, with conditions noted as follows: 1)The Applicant shall submit a landscape plan that identifies the tree removal along the east property line and the tree replacement plan. The City staff shall review and approve the landscape plan prior to issuance of the Building Permit. 2)The Applicant must obtain all necessary permits from the Public Works Director and comply with the Land Disturbance requirements. 3)The Applicant must obtain all required City permits, including but not limited to, a Grading Permit and Building Permit. 4)The Applicant must obtain any necessary permits from all applicable agencies with jurisdiction over the project. 5)If any changes to the plan set are proposed, the Applicant must come back to the City to determine the proper permitting process. 16 Planning Report: Case #2023-16 Page 6 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Variance from Required Yard Setbacks to Construct an Addition to the Industrial Building located at 1480 Sibley Memorial Highway The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed Variance request to encroach into the required yard setbacks in the Industrial (I) zoning district: 1.The proposed manufacturing and garage addition is consistent with the current use of the subject property for an Industrial building and business operations. 2.The subject property is guided Industrial in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and a manufacturing facility is consistent with this land use designation. 3.The industrial building used for a manufacturing business is established as a permitted use in the Industrial zoning district, and the proposed addition is an expansion of the use. 4.The proposed variance to encroach into the required yard setback to build the addition is consistent with the setback of the existing façade along Highway 13. The expansion along the east façade will blend into the existing building and will not encroach further into the setback than the existing building. 5.Provided the conditions of the Variance approval are met, the proposed project will not adversely impact the character of the surrounding area. 6.The Applicant has successfully demonstrated that practical difficulties exist that warrant the approval with conditions of the variance request to encroach into the required yard setbacks on the north and east property line. 17 TOP=INV=TOP=INV=TOP=INV=TOP=TOP=INV=BM #1BM #2MATCH LINE10" VCSP SAN S10" VCSP SAN SS H R U B ST R E E ST R E E ST R E E ST R E E ST R E E S53.36L22.218.48S9°41'55"W 242.28E X C E P T I O N240.87EXCEPTION818.8821.5828.9827.5826.0825.9826.0831.9826.9820.3838.0833.4GUARD RAILUGCUGCUGCUGCUGCGASGASOHE24" PVC ST S12" CMP ST S8" DIP W8" DIP W8" DIP W8" DIP W8" DIP WMH838.0817.68" VCSP SAN SMH833.4815.3MH820.3812.3808.85MH820.7810.28" VCSP SAN S17.521.0G O V ' TL O T 2P A R C E L2 4 1 ASEC. 3 3PARCEL 241APARCEL 241AROADMNDOTR/WPLAT19-93PERRON ROADSIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY NO. 13S9°41'55"W 298.59N89°59'16"E33.48N21°38'21"E 687.41N14°44'43"E 184.08N33°31'51"W69.3871.84 N26°45'35"EN89°59'16"E 281.96L.R2.22STASTATCTCTCEMHTLTCSCATCATCATCATCAT24"PVC8"COTHYDTCSGPGPGWPPGWTCSTCSPPEMGEMGEMGGMGWPPRDRDBE24"BOX24"BOXEMG8"COT4-18"COT2-12"COT16"COT3-16"COT21"ASHHYDWVGWGYPHYD4"OAK4"OAKPPPPFOL/SIGNGWPPLP12"BOXHYD3-12"COTPP2-6"ELMCBX18"COT21"COT12"COT12"COTWVHYD4"SPCG6"SPCG8"SPCG3"CRAB3"CRABFWFWFWFWFWFWWVUWPUTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 623118112.5112.5112.5272743.543.515151515PER MNDOT R/W PLAT NO. 19-93PERMANENT PONDING EASEMENT16.516.516.516.5452.50234.91%%130=18°29'04"L=38.71C.BRG=S32°49'44"E%%916=50°19'40"L=105.41R=120.00(D=3°00'00" L=294 %%130=10°36' DESC.)(APPROXIMATE LOCATION)(APPROXIMATE LOCATION)144.5669.00R/W PLAT NO. 19-93ACCESS CONTROL PER MNDOT(B5)(B6)(B7)(B26)(B11)(B29)(B8)(B9)(B10)(B312)175.1033(501.6 DEED)513.16 MEAS.L=303.84R=1473.59%%916=11°50'06"C.BRG=N24°29'16"E66G R A V E LB I T U M I N O U SOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHE30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"40' - 0"30' - 0"40' - 0"PROPOSED ADDITION16,000 GSFSETBACKFRONT SETBACKS I D E S E T B A C K A B U T S S T R E E TRELOCATED PRIVATE DRIVEPRIVATE GARAGE ENTRANCE40' - 0"40' - 0"CITY CONSIDERS THIS SIDE ABUTS A STREET (HWY 13)THUS 40'-0" SETBACK PRESCRIBEDAPPROXIMATE SOIL BORING LOCATIONAPPROXIMATE SOIL BORING LOCATIONAPPROXIMATE SOIL BORING LOCATIONEXISTING PARKING LOT, NO WORKEXIST. MAIN ENTRANCESIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAYEXISTING BUILDINGT. WASMOENI hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a dulyRegistered Architectunder the laws of the state of MinnesotaThomas P. WasmoenDateLicense No.208915-19-2017275 Market Street, Ste. 368Minneapolis, MN 55405612.819.1835 www.firmgroundae.comOWNERSHEET NUMBERSHEET TITLEOWNERPROJECT NO.CHECKED BYDRAWN BYPROJECTNOT FORCONSTRUCTION© COPYRIGHT FIRMGROUNDAE INC.PARTNERS/CONSULTANTS9-21-2021D:\230804_22.090_LCS Expansion_CENTRAL_rnicholsLCQU2.rvt8/28/2023 12:55:16 PMARCHITECTURALSITE PLANA00122.090X. SAMPLELCS STEEL PLANTEXPANSIONLCS1480 SIBLLEY MEM. HWY,MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MNSCHEMATICDESIGN20231" = 30'-0"A0011ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN#ISSUE / REVISIONDATE18 UPUPSTORAGE ONMEZZANINE ABOVE4227 SFSHIPPING/RECIEVING1129542 SFMANUFACTURINGFLOOR11811300 SFSTORAGE/MANUFACTURING119246 SFPARTS STORAGE111370 SFENGINEERING OFFICE104965 SFTUMBLING/DEGREASING1022814 SFTOOL AND DIEPRODUCTION107A1944FGHI6.5E11C332295 SFWOMENS10830 SFMENS109A101B1112 SFOFFICE1051515665514HALL122879 SFTOOL & DIE103BD17181658' - 0"24' - 0"4' - 0"10' - 0"96' - 0"48' - 0"12.511.58.531' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"30' - 0"31' - 0"77889924' - 0"24' - 0"24' - 0"10.57.512' - 0"40' - 0"45' - 4"131312121111101024' - 0"12' - 0"25' - 0"24' - 0"24' - 0"24' - 0"18' - 4"100' - 0"36' - 0"115' - 4"182' - 0"37' - 0"3' - 0"40' - 0"18' - 0"12' - 0"15' - 4"6761 SFSHIPPING STAGING16212810 SFMANUFACTURINGADDITION1611081 SFBREAKROOM136T. WASMOENI hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a dulyRegistered Architectunder the laws of the state of MinnesotaThomas P. WasmoenDateLicense No.208915-19-2017NPLAN 275 Market Street, Ste. 368Minneapolis, MN 55405612.819.1835 www.firmgroundae.comOWNERSHEET NUMBERSHEET TITLEOWNERPROJECT NO.CHECKED BYDRAWN BYPROJECTNOT FORCONSTRUCTION© COPYRIGHT FIRMGROUNDAE INC.PARTNERS/CONSULTANTS9-21-2021D:\230804_22.090_LCS Expansion_CENTRAL_rnicholsLCQU2.rvt8/28/2023 12:55:17 PMREFERENCE FIRSTFLOOR PLANA05122.090AuthorLCS STEEL PLANTEXPANSIONLCS1480 SIBLLEY MEM. HWY,MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MNSCHEMATICDESIGN20231/16" = 1'-0"A0511MAIN LEVEL REFRENCE PLAN#ISSUE / REVISIONDATE19 A194FGHEC15659542 SFMANUFACTURINGFLOOR11814CE-XCE-XCE-XA4014A4013A4012A40111069 SFQC LAB139313 SFMEN'S142312 SFWOMEN'S1535' - 0"7' - 2"234235245123.871°101.008°CE-XMI-8SI-4SI-8387 SFPARTS STORAGE15567' - 3"7' - 11 13/16"12' - 0"19' - 4"SI-6BSI-48' - 0"11' - 11 3/16"50' - 9"38' - 5"D261 SFPROD. OFFICE1571712810 SFMANUFACTURINGADDITION1616761 SFSHIPPING STAGING1622392372362332421816789131211101A50124' - 0"12' - 0"25' - 0"24' - 0"24' - 0"24' - 0"18' - 4"24' - 0"24' - 0"24' - 0"24' - 0"4' - 0"251' - 4"131.341°37' - 0"3' - 0"40' - 0"18' - 0"12' - 0"15' - 4"125' - 4"T. WASMOENI hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a dulyRegistered Architectunder the laws of the state of MinnesotaThomas P. WasmoenDateLicense No.208915-19-2017275 Market Street, Ste. 368Minneapolis, MN 55405612.819.1835 www.firmgroundae.comOWNERSHEET NUMBERSHEET TITLEOWNERPROJECT NO.CHECKED BYDRAWN BYPROJECTNOT FORCONSTRUCTION© COPYRIGHT FIRMGROUNDAE INC.PARTNERS/CONSULTANTS9-21-2021D:\230804_22.090_LCS Expansion_CENTRAL_rnicholsLCQU2.rvt8/28/2023 12:55:18 PMMAIN LEVEL FLOORPLAN -NORTHA101B22.090AuthorLCS STEEL PLANTEXPANSIONLCS1480 SIBLLEY MEM. HWY,MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MNSCHEMATICDESIGN20231/8" = 1'-0"A101B1MAIN LEVEL- NORTH ADDITION#ISSUE / REVISIONDATE20 A4FG6.5EC3265A4014BD172604 SFPRIVATE GARAGE158787.51A501MI-12CE-XCE-X16' - 0"12' - 0"12' - 0"NEW ROOF, MANUFACTURINGBELOWEXIST. ROOFEXIST. ROOFEXIST. OFFICE,NO WORK2282 SFSTORAGE205T. WASMOENI hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a dulyRegistered Architectunder the laws of the state of MinnesotaThomas P. WasmoenDateLicense No.208915-19-2017NPLAN 275 Market Street, Ste. 368Minneapolis, MN 55405612.819.1835 www.firmgroundae.comOWNERSHEET NUMBERSHEET TITLEOWNERPROJECT NO.CHECKED BYDRAWN BYPROJECTNOT FORCONSTRUCTION© COPYRIGHT FIRMGROUNDAE INC.PARTNERS/CONSULTANTS9-21-2021D:\230804_22.090_LCS Expansion_CENTRAL_rnicholsLCQU2.rvt8/28/2023 12:55:18 PMSECOND FLOORPLANA10222.090AuthorLCS STEEL PLANTEXPANSIONLCS1480 SIBLLEY MEM. HWY,MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MNSCHEMATICDESIGN20231/8" = 1'-0"A10212.2- HI SECOND LEVEL#ISSUE / REVISIONDATE21 1-MAIN LEVEL100' -0"2-SECOND LEVEL113' -4"3-MFG ROOF BRG117' -4"2.2-HI SECOND LEVEL114' -7"218' - 7 1/2"4' - 0"2' - 9"1' - 3"13' - 4"6' - 2 89/256"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"16' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"4' - 5 39/256"T.O. PANEL121' -4"E02E01E04E01E0410' - 0"1-MAIN LEVEL100' -0"2-SECOND LEVEL113' -4"3-MFG ROOF BRG117' -4"2.2-HI SECOND LEVEL114' -7"4' - 10 33/256"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"4' - 0"2' - 9"1' - 3"13' - 4"T.O. PANEL121' -4"E04E011-MAIN LEVEL100' -0"2-SECOND LEVEL113' -4"3-MFG ROOF BRG117' -4"2.2-HI SECOND LEVEL114' -7"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"7' - 5 27/256"4' - 0"2' - 9"1' - 3"13' - 4"T.O. PANEL121' -4"E01E041-MAIN LEVEL100' -0"2-SECOND LEVEL113' -4"3-MFG ROOF BRG117' -4"2.2-HI SECOND LEVEL114' -7"6' - 3"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 5 57/128"4' - 0"2' - 9"1' - 3"13' - 4"T.O. PANEL121' -4"E01E04E03T. WASMOENI hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a dulyRegistered Architectunder the laws of the state of MinnesotaThomas P. WasmoenDateLicense No.208915-19-2017275 Market Street, Ste. 368Minneapolis, MN 55405612.819.1835 www.firmgroundae.comOWNERSHEET NUMBERSHEET TITLEOWNERPROJECT NO.CHECKED BYDRAWN BYPROJECTNOT FORCONSTRUCTION© COPYRIGHT FIRMGROUNDAE INC.PARTNERS/CONSULTANTS9-21-2021D:\230804_22.090_LCS Expansion_CENTRAL_rnicholsLCQU2.rvt8/28/2023 12:55:19 PMEXTERIORELEVATIONSA40122.090G. SHERWINLCS STEEL PLANTEXPANSIONLCS1480 SIBLLEY MEM. HWY,MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MNSCHEMATICDESIGN2023Keynotes- Exterior ElevationKey ValueKeynote TextE01FABCON PANEL; BROOM FINISH, PAINTED WHITE TO MATCH EXISTING.E02NEW O.H. DOORE03NEW SERVICE DOORE048" ALUM. COPING; BLACK TO MATCH EXISTING.1/8" = 1'-0"A4014MANUFTG EXTR ELEV- EAST1/8" = 1'-0"A4013MANUFTG EXTR ELEV- NORTHEAST1/8" = 1'-0"A4012MANUFTG EXTR ELEV- NORTHWEST1/8" = 1'-0"A4011MANUFTG EXTR ELEV- SOUTH#ISSUE / REVISIONDATE22 A4501SOUTHWEST AXONT. WASMOENI hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a dulyRegistered Architectunder the laws of the state of MinnesotaThomas P. WasmoenDateLicense No.208915-19-2017275 Market Street, Ste. 368Minneapolis, MN 55405612.819.1835 www.firmgroundae.comOWNERSHEET NUMBERSHEET TITLEOWNERPROJECT NO.CHECKED BYDRAWN BYPROJECTNOT FORCONSTRUCTION© COPYRIGHT FIRMGROUNDAE INC.PARTNERS/CONSULTANTS9-21-2021D:\230804_22.090_LCS Expansion_CENTRAL_rnicholsLCQU2.rvt8/28/2023 12:55:23 PMBUILDING AXONSA45022.090AuthorLCS STEEL PLANTEXPANSIONLCS1480 SIBLLEY MEM. HWY,MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MNSCHEMATICDESIGN2023A4502NORTHEAST AXONA4503NORTHWEST AXONA4504SOUTHEAST AXON#ISSUE / REVISIONDATE23 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 24 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: 25 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. 26 PLANNING STAFF REPORT DATE: September 26, 2023 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jennifer Haskamp, AICP - SHC SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2023-19 LOT SPLIT APPLICANT: Jose Luis Barba PROPERTY ADDRESS: 599 Callahan Place ZONING: R-1 One-Family Residential LAND USE: Low Density Residential (LDR) ACTION DEADLINE: November 26, 2023 (120-day Review Period) INTRODUCTION The Applicant, Jose Luise Barba is requesting a Lot Split of the property located at 599 Callahan Place. The proposed lot split will result in two single-family residential lots and both are planned to be developed with a new structure. A public hearing notice for this planning item was published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters were mailed to all properties within 350-feet of the subject property. The city has received one inquiry from a resident regarding the planning items. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing lot into two single family lots that will eventually be developed with two new residential structures. There is an existing single-family residential home on the property that is situated on the east side of the existing property. The existing lot is approximately 0.70 Acres, or 30,636 acres with approximately 179-feet of frontage on the south property line and 134-feet of frontage on the east property line which abuts the Callahan Place right-of-way. The lot, in its current configuration, has right-of-way on two of its property boundaries as Callahan Place curves in this location. 27 3c. Planning Report: Case #2023-19 Page 2 ANALYSIS The lot split is subject to Tile 11 Subdivision and Title 12 Zoning, and must comply with Section 11-1-5.2 for the lot split, and all resulting lots must conform to the R-1 zoning district standards. It should also be noted that the Applicant is proposing to eventually demolish the existing single-family residential structure on the lot so that two new residential homes can be constructed. Because the intent is to demolish the existing house, the existing setbacks and/or improvements on the lot are not evaluated as they are planned to be removed and demolished when the lots are developed. Additional discussion regarding the removal of the existing home is provided in subsequent sections of this report. The following table is provided as reference for the analysis that follows: Table 1. Proposed Lot Split Standard Proposed Parcel A Complies w/Standard? Proposed Parcel B Complies w/Standard? Land Use 2040 Comprehensive Plan LDR (Low Density Residential) Yes – Meets intent and density. LDR (Low Density Residential) Yes – Meets intent and density. Existing Zoning District R-1 One Family Residential R-1 Yes R-1 Yes Lot Size Min. 15,000 SF 15,614 SF (0.36 Acres) Yes 15,022 SF (0.34 Acres) Yes Lot Width Min. 100 Feet 100 Feet Yes 134.23 Feet Yes As demonstrated in Table 1 the proposed Lot Split and result Parcel A and Parcel B comply with the R-1 zoning district standards and the LDR land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan. The Proposed Lot Split Survey demonstrates that there is buildable area on each parcel that is outside of the required yard setbacks. As shown on the attached exhibits, the existing home would not comply with dimensional standards, and therefore the home must be demolished to comply with the proposed lot configurations. In 2022, the prior Community Development Director and the Public Works Director discussed this with the Applicant and determined that the lot split could move forward provided certain conditions regarding the removal of the existing home were attached to the approval. The Applicant has indicated that they would like to continue to live in the existing home during construction, and once a Certificate of Occupancy is granted for the new home the existing home would be demolished. This would be considered a temporary living agreement 28 Planning Report: Case #2023-19 Page 3 during construction, which is generally acceptable provided conditions are agreed to regarding the removal of the existing home. The following terms were established in 2022: •The Applicant would be required to submit a Letter of Credit (LOC) or Bond, if requested by the City Council, prior to the issuance of the building permit. The LOC, or similar, must cover the demolition costs to ensure that the structure is removed. •The resolution, with the applicable conditions regarding the temporary living during construction and timeline for removal, must be recorded with the Lot Split. The resolution must also indicate whether a Bond or LOC is required. ALTERNATIVES 1.Recommend approval of the lot split, based on the attached findings-of-fact and based on certain conditions; or 2.Recommend denial of the lot split, based on the revised findings-of-fact that the proposed lot split is not consistent with the City Code or Comprehensive Plan and may have a 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 at the next regular meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the lot split based on the attached findings of fact supporting the request, with conditions noted as follows: 1)Applicant must record the Lot Split (minor subdivision) at Dakota County indicating the newly created Parcel A and Parcel B. 2)The Applicant is permitted to live in the existing home during construction. This is a Temporary Living Agreement that is only permitted while the new home is being constructed. 3)Once a Certificate of Occupancy is granted for the new home the existing home must be demolished within 120-days. 4)A Letter of Credit or Bond, if requested by the City Council, must be submitted to cover 125% of the estimated demolition costs. The LOC or Bond must be submitted prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 5)The Resolution and Letter of Credit (or similar) must be recorded at Dakota County and must be of record on both created parcels. 6)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. 29 Planning Report: Case #2023-19 Page 4 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Lot Split of property located at 599 Callahan Place The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed Lot Split of 599 Callahan Place: 1.The proposed Lot Split (minor subdivision) creates two lots, where Proposed Parcel A is 15, 614 square feet and Parcel B is 15,022 square feet. 2.The resulting lots, Parcel A and B, meet all dimensional standards as established in the R-1 zoning district provided the existing structure and improvements are removed and/or demolished. 3.The proposed Lot Split is consistent with the Low Density Residential (LDR) density requirements, and the proposed use of the Lots for single-family residential uses is consistent with the intent and purpose of the LDR designation. 4.The removal of the existing home and improvements will result in two new buildable lots that have adequate area outside of all setback areas to construct a new residential structure. 5.Approval of the lot split to allow for future development of the lots with single-family residential uses will not adversely impact the character of the neighborhood which is developed with low density residential uses. 6.That provided the conditions of approval are met, the resulting lots and any future development will comply with the R-1 base zoning district requirements. 30 July 26, 2023 Dear City of Mendota Heights, It is with great enthusiasm and hope that our family requests approval of our lot to be split into two parcels. The property is located at 599 Callahan Place, Mendota Heights, part of Willow Spring Lot 15. The exis-ng lot is 30,636 SF and is in Zone R-1. Our move to Mendota Heights was unexpected and very welcome. Following a serious cancer diagnosis for our father, who has lived in Mendota Heights for over 10 years, we decided to pack up our lives and three young children and put roots down here. We felt lucky to find 599 Callahan Place when it went on the market in the winter of 2022. It is situated on a quiet street near the grandparents, the school district is phenomenal, and Minnesota is home. As previously noted, our intent is to split the lot into two (2) parcels, Parcel A and Parcel B. Parcel A would be 15,614 SF or .36 Acres, while Parcel B would be 15,022 SF or .34 Acers. Parcel dimensions and areas have been confirmed using survey (survey drawings provided) and follow City Code requirements. The intent would be to build our new home (single family) on Parcel A, located on the west end of the exis-ng lot. We envision a new build that would retain the character of the current dwelling, mesh with the style of homes on our street, and provide a comfortable, sustainable place for us to live. Once the new home was granted occupa-on, the exis-ng home (located on Parcel B) would be demolished. Parcel B would then be restored per City requirements and used for a new home (single family) for our family, in the future. We are enamored with our neighborly neighbors who give meaning to “Minnesota Nice”, frequent the parks and playgrounds, and contribute to the Somerset Elementary community. Mendota Heights con-nues to be a desirable community for young families, and we look forward to being part of this community for many more years. Warmly, Sara & Luis Barba, as well as, Inez (6), Sabino (3), and Rafaela (1) 31 32 33 Planning Case 2022-05 (Variance and Conditional Use Permit 598 Sibley Memorial Highway) Page 1 of 7 PLANNING STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: September 26, 2023 (Initial Meeting Review: April 25, 2023) TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jennifer Haskamp, AICP - SHC SUBJECT: Planning Case 2023-05 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT & VARIANCE APPLICANT: Robert Whebbe PROPERTY ADDRESS: 598 Sibley Memorial Highway ZONING: R-1 One Family Residential LAND USE: LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: October 31, 2023 (Applicant Extension for Review) INTRODUCTION At the regular planning commission meeting in April a duly noticed public hearing was held to consider a request for a Conditional Use Permit and a Variance for a new garage addition on the property located at 598 Sibley Memorial Highway. The Applicant and Owner, Robert Whebbe, proposed to construct an attached 3-car garage addition on the existing home which required the following land use review 1) a variance from the maximum permitted height to allow the garage to exceed the height of the principal structure; and 2) a conditional use permit to allow a 1,500 square foot garage. After the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission recommended to table the application so that the Applicant could work with staff to revise the plans for the garage. The direction provided by the Planning Commission was to revise the plans to 1) minimize the size/scale of the structure to reduce the variance requested, and 2) to redesign the garage to better match the character of the subject property and the surrounding neighborhood. The Applicant has worked with the staff to accomplish the objectives stated by the Planning Commission, and the revised design is presented and attached to this staff report. A duly noticed public hearing was held in April, and the proposed revision does not require a new public hearing since the Application is in response to the direction provided by the Planning Commission. The following staff report has been updated to reflect the revised plans. BACKGROUND / SITE DESCRIPTION The subject property is located in the Cherokee Park Heights subdivision, which is one of the historically older R-1 One Family Residential zoned neighborhoods in the community. This neighborhood is generally 34 4a. Planning Case 2022-05 (Variance and Conditional Use Permit 598 Sibley Memorial Highway) Page 2 of 7 comprised of smaller, single-family residential lots and properties that were originally platted in 1924. At one point, the subject property combined 3 lots within the subdivision, resulting in the current larger lot configuration. The parcel is generally located near the intersection of Sibley Memorial Highway and Garden Lane (see GIS image – right). The subject property is oriented with its primary frontage along Sibley Memorial Hwy which is the western (front) property line. Adjacent properties are used for similar single-family residential uses, and park is located northwest of the site across Sibley Memorial Hwy. The Cherokee Park Heights neighborhood is developed with smaller, single-family homes generally built with a single-car garage and some homes have two-car garages. There is a 20-foot public alley behind the subject property. The subject property consists of 19,500 sq. ft. (0.44 acres) of land area; and contains an approximately 1,600 square foot one-story dwelling structure built in 1948. The existing home has an attached ~400 square foot single-car attached garage. (See image – below). View of Dwelling – Dakota County GIS According to the Applicant’s survey, the existing dwelling sits approximately 44-feet from the front lot line, 38-feet from the rear lot line, 20-feet from the southerly side lot line, and 68-feet from the northerly lot line. An existing driveway approximately 18-feet wide connects Sibley Memorial Hwy with the current attached garage. The existing driveway is located approximately 64-feet from the side yard lot line to the northeast. The Applicant has revised their plan based on the feedback from City Staff and the Planning Commission, and proposes the following (see Site Plan): •To enclose the existing attached one-car garage and convert this area to living space; and •To construct a new 26’ x 38’ (988 square foot), ~17.5 foot tall, detached garage extending towards the northeast property line; and •To expand the driveway to connect with the new location of the garage and wrap around the garage space into the side yard. 35 Planning Case 2022-05 (Variance and Conditional Use Permit 598 Sibley Memorial Highway) Page 3 of 7 As shown on the Applicant’s submitted Erosion Control Plan, the proposed garage will extend approximately 50 feet northeast into the side yard. The proposed garage is setback approximately 23-feet and the expanded driveway is setback 5 feet from the northeast (side yard) property line; 38 feet from the southeast property line (rear) and is setback behind the principal building facade. As proposed, all setback requirements of the R-1 zoning district are met. As shown on the site plan, the Applicant is now proposing a detached garage which has reduced both the footprint of the structure and the height (area is reduced by approximately 500 square feet). The location of the garage is the same as what was proposed in April, but it is smaller and will not be as tall given the reduced footprint. ANALYSIS City Code Section 12-1D-3: ACCESSORY STRUCTURES states all single-family residential uses are allowed one detached garage up to 750-sq. ft. in size, or up to 1,000 sq. ft. is allowed via a Conditional Use Permit. The Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow for an approximately 988 square foot Garage. As noted, the existing attached garage will be enclosed for additional living space. The proposed garage includes one two-car garage door and one one-car garage door with a total linear footage of 28 feet as viewed from the Sibley Memorial Hwy right-of-way. As proposed, the garage footprint and the garage door height and width comply with the zoning ordinance requirements for detached private garages. Section 12-1D-3.B.2(a) states that in, “All districts: No accessory building shall exceed the height of the principal building.” As described in the narrative and shown on the plan, the proposed detached garage will be approximately 17.5-feet tall. It is estimated that this height exceeds the height of the home by approximately three feet, which is a significant improvement from the prior submission. The Applicant explained to city staff, that the reason for increasing the roof line of the proposed garage higher than the principal building is to avoid further peaks and valleys in the roof line while making the garage still look nice. The garage top plate could be lowered closer to the garage door, but in order to tie the garage roof in with the existing roof, it would not look normal and would require the removal of existing solar panels on the house roof. A noted during the April review, the Applicant’s existing home is a one-story home and any garage, whether attached or detached, will likely exceed the height of the principal structure. The Applicant’s revised plans, while still taller than the principal structure, are much more in scale and character with the existing home and the surrounding neighborhood in which several other homes have detached garages that exceed the height of their principal homes. 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. 36 Planning Case 2022-05 (Variance and Conditional Use Permit 598 Sibley Memorial Highway) Page 4 of 7 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 from April: Yes - With the garage being 30 feet deep and a 5/12 pitch the roof peak will be roughly 6 ½ feet above the top rail. My house at its widest is not 30 feet, therefore even if my garage top plate was equal to my house top plate the garage will still have a higher roof line. In order for my roof to have an equal or lesser roof line I have two options while keeping the footprint. Option 1 – lower the garage door height to less than 7 ft where my vehicle will not fit. Option 2 – lower the garage finished floor below grade. This would be against the suggested erosion control plan for my area causing potential water damage. The reason we elevated the roof to the point on the elevation was to avoid further roof peaks and valleys while keeping an aesthetically pleasing look. We could lower the top plate closer to the top of the garage door but in order to tie the roof in with the existing roof would not look normal and require the removal of solar panels. Staff’s Response: The Applicant’s initial description of the existing house demonstrates that there is a practical difficulty to construct a garage, whether attached or detached, that does not exceed the height of the principal structure. The Applicant’s revised plans minimize the amount of variance requested by developing a detached 3-car garage which is reasonable and consistent with how other properties are developed. 37 Planning Case 2022-05 (Variance and Conditional Use Permit 598 Sibley Memorial Highway) Page 5 of 7 2.The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner. Applicant’s Response from April: Yes – The erosion control plan suggests the finished floor height match existing floor height to mitigate water problems/damage. The topography illustrates that the finished floor towards the back will be the same height as the earth outside, lowering the finished floor height will only increase the potential of water ingress. Staff’s Response: The Applicant’s response is related specifically to the April plans when the garage was proposed to be attached to the structure. While this is no longer the proposal, it is still relevant given that the detached garage is generally proposed in the same location. In addition, the existing home is somewhat unique given that the structure is extremely short and narrow which makes it nearly impossible to build a garage that would be shorter than the home, while still having reasonable garage door heights and a pitched roof. The existing structure was built several decades ago when it was less common to have multiple cars and/or garage stalls. 3.The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Applicant’s Response from April: No – Most dwelling in the neighborhood have 2 car garages or larger. We have intentionally made the roof pitch and design to match the existing along with siding to match existing. It is our intent that upon completion of construction the addition looks as if it were part of the original build. Applicant also provided image of existing solar panels on the roof. (See below) Staff’s Response: The revised garage plans propose a detached 3-car garage which is consistent with how other lots are developed in the surrounding neighborhood. By reducing the size and scale of the garage it is more consistent with the character of the existing home and lot, and will not adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood. 4.Restrictions on Granting Variances. The following restrictions should be considered when reviewing a variance: a)Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. 38 Planning Case 2022-05 (Variance and Conditional Use Permit 598 Sibley Memorial Highway) Page 6 of 7 In this case, the property owner is requesting to add garage space, and convert an existing one-car garage space into more living space to better fit their personal needs. While these improvements will likely improve the economic value and/or marketability of the home (at time of future sale), economic considerations alone are not the sole reason for the variance 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 the requested square footage of the garage addition is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the R-1 One Family Residence district, as this proposed garage addition is consistent with and allowed as a conditional use in the R-1 District. The zoning ordinance clearly states that an accessory building may not exceed the height of a principal building. As noted in the April review, a variance request should minimize the amount of variance requested to the extent possible. The Applicant worked with Staff to find a solution that would minimize the amount of variance requested, while achieving their project objectives of developing a useable garage for the property. 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. As proposed, the revised detached garage plan is consistent with the City’s goals to promote and support investment and rehabilitation of the existing housing stock while preserving the character of existing neighborhoods. ALTERNATIVES for ACTION 1. Recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Variance for 598 Sibley Memorial Highway, based on the following findings-of-fact that support the granting of the variance as requested herein and noted as follows: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of the Variance for height by the following supporting statements: i.) The architectural style of the home and age limit restrict the height of a garage unreasonably, and modern construction will result in a garage height that exceeds the height of a principal building. 39 Planning Case 2022-05 (Variance and Conditional Use Permit 598 Sibley Memorial Highway) Page 7 of 7 ii.) Approving the Variance does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, so approving this Variance should not negatively impact or affect this neighborhood; and iii.) Allowing the garage height on the subject property by means of this variance is considered in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance and is consistent with the current and proposed land use plans, goals and policy statements contained in the 2040 Comprehensive Plans of the community. C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5.E.1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will not impact or pose any negative threats upon the neighborhood or the community in general. D. Approval of the Variance is for 598 Sibley Memorial Highway only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by city staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2023- 05, dated and presented September 26, 2023 (on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2023-____. (final number to be assigned later) F. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to this variance request and to issue the requested Conditional Use Permit. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the variance. The conditions, as recommended to be incorporated within the CUP are as follows: 1) The proposed garage and all other related improvements shall be constructed in compliance with all applicable City Code and State of Minnesota Building Code standards. 2) Approval of the variance is contingent upon City Council approval of the application and corresponding site plan. If the variance and CUP are approved by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed garage within one (1) year from said approval date. 2. Recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit and denial of the variance request for 598 Sibley Memorial Highway, based on the findings-of-fact that confirm the Applicant failed to meet the burden(s) of proof or standards in granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows: STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider Alternative No. 1 to approve the Applicant’s request for a Variance and Conditional Use Permit to construct an approximately 988 square foot detached garage on the property located at 598 Sibley Memorial Hwy. Attachments 1. Revised Garage Site Plan and Elevation – September 2023 40 1 Jennifer Haskamp From:Robert Whebbe <bwhebbe@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, September 22, 2023 7:16 AM To:Jennifer Haskamp Subject:Re: Request for Extension Letter/Email - Urgent Attachments:Garage Height.pdf; Site, Grading, Erosion Control.pdf; Garage Height Red Lined.pdf; Garage.pdf Good morning Jennifer,    Per our discussion I would like to proceed with an 11 foot garage wall height on 1 course of block placing the peak of the  garage at 17 foot 5 inches.     Menards' program will not allow the custom 11 foot wall to be entered, it will require a stud for a 12 foot wall to be cut  down to the appropriate height to make a 11 foot wall.    Thank you  Robert Whebbe    On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 3:25 PM Jennifer Haskamp <JHaskamp@mendotaheightsmn.gov> wrote:  Hey Bob,     Could you just send me the plans for the 11’ garage, with the elevation, and the site plan ASAP? If you send me those  two items, I think I have everything else (I need to have packets together by 9 AM tomorrow, so if you can send tonight  that would be awesome.     Jennifer     From: Robert Whebbe <bwhebbe@gmail.com>   Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2023 2:37 PM  To: Jennifer Haskamp <JHaskamp@mendotaheightsmn.gov>  Subject: Re: Request for Extension Letter/Email ‐ Urgent     That's great!   Is it possible that you can give me a call either anytime today or tomorrow? I just want to make sure I am getting you all  of the information you need from me.      Thank you so much for the help!  41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51