2023-10-24 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, OCTOBER 24, 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 September 26, 2023 Regular Meeting Minutes
3.Public Hearings
a.CASE No. 2023-21 Wetland Permit – to authorize a wetland permit for stairs and a
walkway constructed at the Applicant’s property located at 2477 Bridgeview Court
(Chrissy and Mike Ruiz – Applicant/Owner)
b.CASE No. 2023-22 Lot Line Adjustment and Conditional Use Permit – to authorize
a lot line adjustment of the Applicant’s property located at 2237 Rogers Court and a
Conditional Use Permit to construct a detached garage (Thomas Jacobson –
Applicant/Owner)
c.CASE No. 2023-23 MRCCA Permit – to authorize a Mississippi River Corridor Critical
Area (MRCAA) Permit for construction of a new detached garage and demolition of an
existing accessory building at the Applicant’s property located at 1661 Mayfield
Heights Road (Thomas and Maureen Keeley – Applicant/Owner)
d.CASE No. 2023-24 Variance and Conditional Use Permit – to authorize a
conditional use permit to construct a covered front entry at the Applicant’s property
located at 809 Hazel Court and a variance from front porch setback requirements
(Daniel and Karen Bogg – Applicant/Owner)
e.CASE No. 2023-26 Lot Line Adjustment and Variance – to authorize a lot line
adjustment of the properties located at 2507 and 2511 Condon Court and a variance
from frontage requirements (Johnson Reiland Builders and Remodelers – Applicant)
4.New Business
a.CASE No. 2023-20 Lot Line Adjustment and Variance – to authorize a lot line
adjustment of the Applicant’s property located at 614 Hidden Creek Trail and variance
from the frontage requirements (Heather Stefanski – Applicant/Owner)
5. Adjourn Meeting
1
September 26, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 9
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 26, 2023
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday,
September 26, 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,
Cindy Johnson, Brian Petschel, Brian Udell, Jason Stone, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: None
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of August 22, 2023 Minutes
COMMISSIONER STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 22, 2023.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE 2023-15
PATRICK AND MARY O’REILLY, 614 HIDDEN CREEK TRAIL – LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT
Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp explained that Mr. Patrick and Ms. Mary O’Reilly are
requesting consideration of a simple lot line adjustment on a five-acre parcel of land that they
currently own, located at 614 Hidden Creek Trail.
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 Katz asked if there are records to determine how this was approved in the first
place.
2 2a.
September 26, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 9
Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp believed it was related to the pool and fence and the
improvements predate the record retention requirements.
Commissioner Johnson asked if they attempt to have straight lines for lot lines or whether the jog
would not matter.
Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp replied that the intent would be to right angles as you could
drop pins and run a string.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Partick O’Reilly, applicant, commented that the intent is to clarify the lot line as they have been in
the home for eight years. He believed that this issue existed for ten years before they moved into
the home.
Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close
the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STONE, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BASED ON THE FINDINGS
OF FACT SUPPORTING THE REQUEST, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
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.
FURTHER DISCUSSION: CHAIR FIELD NOTED THAT THE APPLICANT IS A NEIGHBOR
OF HIS AND HE SUPPORTS THE REQUEST. HE NOTED THAT THE PLAT WAS
CREATED AT A TIME WHEN AN EASEMENT WAS RELEASED, SUBJECT TO THAT
PLAT. HE STATED THAT WHILE HE SUPPORTS THIS, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THERE
WOULD BE SUPPORT FOR OTHER CHANGES TO THE PLAT.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 17, 2023
meeting.
3
September 26, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 9
B) PLANNING CASE 2023-16
LCS COMPANY, 1480 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY – VARIANCE
Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp explained that 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.
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 Katz asked how this property is outside of the MRCCA.
Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp replied that the MRCCA border jogs and confirmed that
this site is not within the MRCCA.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that this site is closer to the Minnesota River rather
than the Mississippi River.
Commissioner Katz noted that this is next to Highway 13 and asked if there would need to be any
type of traffic study or related improvement.
Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp replied that the addition would not require additional
parking as the site was already designed to support this level of parking and therefore a traffic
study is not needed.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Ryan Nichols, representing the applicant, introduced the other members of the project team present
tonight and noted that they are present to address any questions.
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 JOHNSON, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
4
September 26, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 9
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT
SUPPORTING THE REQUEST, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A LANDSCAPLE 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 THE 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 PROPERTY PERMITTING
PROCESS.
FURTHER DISCUSSION: CHAIR FIELD ASKED IF THE UNIQUE CHARACTER OF THE
LOT SHOULD BE SPECIFIED IN FINDING SIX.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL REPLIED THAT WAS IMPLICIT AND NOTED THAT IT IS
THE EXPANSION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT CAUSED THE ISSUE. HE PROVIDED
SOME EXAMPLE LANGUAGE THAT COULD BE ADDED TO THAT FINDING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 17, 2023
meeting.
C) PLANNING CASE 2023-19
JOSE LUIS BARBA, 599 CALLAHAN PLACE – LOT SPLIT
Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp explained that the applicant, Jose Luis, 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.
Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; the City
received one inquiry from a resident regarding this item.
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.
5
September 26, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 9
Commissioner Petschel asked the right the City would have to force the work if a bond is held.
Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp provided additional details on that process related to the
temporary living agreement.
Commissioner Katz stated that nothing was mentioned about park dedication related to the lot
split. He asked for details on the order of operation and asked if the park dedication fee would be
charged once the lot split is completed.
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that when there is a plat, park dedication is typically
required at the time of plat but for a lot split that could be required at the time of the building
permit.
Commissioner Stone asked what would stop the resident from going to court to say they do not
want to tear down the house once the new home is built.
Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp replied that the City Attorney would get involved if that
were to occur. She noted that she has seen these types of agreements in other cases and if a bond
or letter of credit is held, along with the temporary living agreement, that would provide the
necessary documentation.
Chair Field noted that the bond or letter of credit would be used to demolish the structure upon the
agreement if that were to occur.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Jose Luis Barba and Sarah Barba, applicants, introduced themselves and are present to address any
questions. He thanked staff for their cooperative efforts, noting that they had previously been
working with prior Community Development Director Tim Bennetti. He stated that they relocated
to Minnesota to be closer to his wife’s family and they are building their forever home.
Mrs. Barba commented that they are living in an outdated home, and they realized that they could
not renovate the home and therefore chose to build a new home to support their family as they
have three children.
Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close
the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
6
September 26, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 9
COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE LOT SPLIT BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT
SUPPORTING THE REQUEST, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
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 PERCENT 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.
FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL ASKED IF THE 120 DAYS
WOULD BE ENOUGH TIME TO BUILD A HOME. IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT TIME
PERIOD APPLIES TO THE TIME THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO DEMOLISH THE OLD
HOME AFTER THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS ISSUED FOR THE NEW HOME.
CHAIR FIELD ASKED IF A CONDITION SHOULD BE ADDED RELATED TO PARK
DEDICATION.
COMMISSIONER KATZ COMMENTED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT FEE
ADDED AS A CONDITION.
PLANNING CONSULTANT JENNIFER HASKAMP STATED THAT CONDITION SEVEN
COULD BE ADDED TO STATE “PARK DEDICATION FEE MUST BE COLLECTED ON
THE NEW LOT PRIOR TO OBTAINING THE BUILDING PERMIT.”
COMMISSIONERS CORBETT AND PETSCHEL AGREED TO THE ADDITIONAL
CONDITION. THE APPLICANTS ALSO AGREED TO THE ADDITIONAL CONDITION.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 17, 2023
meeting.
7
September 26, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 9
New/Unfinished Business
A) PLANNING CASE 2023-05
ROBERT WHEBBE, 598 SIBLEY MEMORIAL DRIVE – VARIANCE AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp explained that at the regular Commission meeting in April,
a duly noticed public hearing was held to consider a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
and 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 three car garage
addition on the existing home, which required a variance from the maximum permitted height to
allow the garage to exceed the height of the principal structure and a CUP to allow a 1,500 square
foot garage. After the public hearing and discussion, the Commission tabled the request so the
applicant would work with staff to revise the plans for the garage to minimize the size/scale of the
structure to reduce the variance requested and to redesign the garage to better match the character
of the subject property and surrounding neighborhood. The applicant has worked with staff to
accomplish those objectives and the revised design is before the Commission. The proposed
revision does not require a new public hearing.
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.
Chair Field recalled that when this was considered in April, the public hearing was left open. He
asked if there has been any feedback from the neighbors that previously expressed concern about
the design.
Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp replied that they have not received any feedback from those
parties. She noted that the input at that time was that they desired the structure to be smaller and
that has been done, reducing the size by 500 square feet. She noted that the applicant had planned
to attend but perhaps was called away for work.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Commissioner Stone stated that he liked the addition to enclose the existing garage but asked how
that could be required.
8
September 26, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 9
Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that would be a question for legal counsel as an
attached and detached garage would not be allowed.
Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp noted that the condition would require that be enclosed and
a letter of credit could be required, which would be an incentive for the applicant to follow through.
Chair Field confirmed the consensus of the Commission to support the additional condition for
enclosing the existing one car garage.
COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER UDELL, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE 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 HIGHWAY
BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT SUPPORT THE GRANTING OF THE
VARIANCE, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
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:
3.APPLICANT SHALL OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
THE PROPOSED GARAGE WITHIN ONE (1) YEAR FROM SAID APPROVED
DATE.
4.APPLICANT MUST ENCLOSE THE ATTACHED 1-CAR GARAGE, WHICH MUST
BE COMPLETED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF COMPLETING THE PROJECT, AND
AN ACCEPTABLE SURETY BOND OR LETTER OF CREDIT WILL BE REQUIRED
AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
FURTHER DISCUSSION: CHAIR FIELD STATED THAT HE LIKES TO HAVE THE
APPLICANT PRESENT AND ASKED IF THAT COULD BE REQUIRED FOR THE
APPLICANT TO ATTEND THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
PLANNING CONSULTANT JENNIFER HASKAMP COMMENTED THAT SHE COULD
SUGGEST THAT BUT IT COULD NOT BE REQUIRED.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 17, 2023
meeting.
Adjournment
9
September 26, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 9
COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:02 P.M.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
10
PLANNING STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: October 24, 2023
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Haskamp, AICP - SHC
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2023-21
AFTER-THE-FACT WETLANDS PERMIT
APPLICANT: Chrissy and Mike Ruiz
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2477 Bridgeview Court
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: January 23, 2023
INTRODUCTION
The applicants are seeking an after-the-fact Wetlands Permit for the installation of stairs and walkway to the
pond on the property located at 2477 Bridgeview Court. The Applicants have already installed the
improvements within the wetland buffer and setback area, but all work has stopped once directed by City
Staff. The purpose of this report is to consider and determine next steps regarding the request.
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. No comments or objections were received.
BACKGROUND / PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject property is approximately 0.76 acres in size, and approximately 0.25 acres of the property
extends into the pond located on the rear of the lot. There is an existing single-family structure on the lot
which is oriented towards Bridgeview Court. (See aerial). The pond area is covered by a drainage and utility
easement that extends onto the rear yard of the subject property by approximately 20-feet. The drainage
and utility easement was established as part of the Bridgeview Shores 1st Addition plat when the lots were
originally created.
The property abuts the pond, which is identified as a Type III wetland within the Surface Water
Management Plan and is
identified on the
MNDNR public waters
inventory (PWI) as PW
19-227 W. This pond is
also identified on the
City’s Official Wetlands
System Map from 1977
that is referenced within
the City’s Wetland
Ordinance.
11 3a.
Planning Case 2023-21 (Ruiz) Page 2 of 7
After-the-fact Review
The City Staff was alerted to the activities and improvements being constructed on the subject property and
conducted a site visit. Upon site inspection, the Public Works Director determined that the work completed
required an official Wetlands Permit and informed the applicants to stop work so that the proper permits
could be obtained. The Homeowners stopped all work and have been working with the City Staff to
stabilize the site with proper erosion control and to obtain the Wetlands Permit for the work completed to-
date and planned work for final site restoration in the Spring. The following review is based on the current
and/or existing improvements as well as the proposed final site restoration that has yet to be completed.
Summary of Work Completed to-Date.
The Applicant has installed a walkway and concrete steps that lead to the pond. The purpose of the steps is
to provide access to the pond for winter ice skating on the pond. Based on the aerial it is presumed that
some vegetative clearing, was completed prior to the installation of the stairs and walkway. No Significant
trees were removed. As described in the Applicant’s narrative, the construction area was primarily filled
with invasive species such as Buckthorn. (See site photos on the following pages).
Planned Restoration
There was exposed ground surrounding the construction area where the stairs and walkway were installed.
As described in the narrative, per the direction of the Public Works Director, the Applicant has installed a
fall cover crop of MNDOT 21-111 seed mix, which is covered with hay. A detailed restoration plan has
not been submitted, but the Applicant has provided a conceptual plan and describes their plan within the
LOI. The restoration plan includes reestablishing the wetland buffer with native plants. Given that the work
site was shut down so that this Wetlands Permit could be obtained, the Applicant plans to install the plants
in the Spring. The Applicants are working with the MNDNR to create a more detailed planting plan that is
suitable for the pond buffer area restoration.
ANALYSIS
Pursuant to City Code Section 12-2-3, the Wetland Systems ordinance applies to wetlands and water
resource related areas, and to adjacent land within one hundred feet (100') of normal high water markers of
wetlands and water resource related areas as delineated on the official city wetlands systems map. The
purpose of the Wetlands Systems chapter of City Code Section 12-2-1 is to:
•Provide for protection, preservation, maintenance, and use wetlands and water resource-related areas;
•Maintain the natural drainage system;
•Minimize disturbance which may result from alteration by earthwork, loss of vegetation, loss of wildlife
and aquatic organisms as a result of the disturbance of the natural environment or from excessive
sedimentation;
•Provide for protection of potable fresh water supplies; and
•Ensure safety from floods.
City Code Section 12-2-6 further states that any work or development upon or which would otherwise alter
a wetland or potentially impact a water related resource area, must obtain a written permit from the city;
with the list of activities noted as follows:
1.The deposit or removal of any debris, fill or other material over 100 cubic yards.
2.Any excavation over 100 cubic yards.
3.The digging, dredging, filling, or in any other way altering or removing any material from water
bodies, watercourses, wetlands, floodplain, or natural drainage system.
4.The construction, alteration, or removal of any structure.
5.The removal of vegetation.
6.The altering of any embankment, ponding, or changing of the flow of water or ponding capacity.
12
Planning Case 2023-21 (Ruiz) Page 3 of 7
7.Permanently storing materials.
8.Disposing of waste materials (including sewage, garbage, rubbish, and other discarded materials).
9.Installation and maintenance of essential services.
The project including the walkway and concrete stairs generally meets activities 3, 4 and 5 as listed.
As part of any Wetlands Permit review, the city must consider and evaluate the following standards and
conditions as noted in the Wetland Ordinance Section 12-2-7:
•Runoff from developed property and construction projects may be directed to the wetland only
when reasonably free of silt and debris and chemical pollutants, and at such rates such as not to
disturb wetland vegetation or increase turbidity.
•No deleterious waste shall be discharged in a wetland or disposed of in a manner that would cause
the waste to enter the wetland or other water resource area.
•Removal of vegetation shall be permitted only when and where such work within the W district has
been approved in accordance with the standards of this chapter.
•Removal of vegetation within the W district but outside the wetland shall be limited to that
reasonably required for the placement of structures and the use of property.
Since most of the construction activity is complete, it is unknown what vegetation was cleared or if any
grading occurred to install the steps and walkway. However, based on the site inspection, it appears that
the activities completed to-date did not require extensive grading or earth work. There is a significant
amount of buckthorn in the area surrounding the pond and it is likely that many of the scrub brushy removed
were invasive species including buckthorn. However, since this an after-the-fact permit it cannot be
determined whether native species were removed as part of the project.
The city’s Surface Water Management Plan provides certain guidelines and suggested standards (not
requirements) for the city to follow or implement when dealing with new development near natural water
features. The SWMP recommends a 25-foot no-disturbance/natural vegetative buffer zone from the
wetland edge, in order to provide an extra level or measure of erosion and silt protection, and any
fertilizer/chemical runoff from nearby residential lawn areas. As described in the Applicant’s LOI they
intend to reestablish vegetation within the disturbed area with native species including several trees,
perennials and ground cover as recommended by the Public Works Director. While the stairs and access
will cross this buffer area, the re-establishment of native plans will improve the buffer area once installed
in the Spring.
As shown in the site photos and on the aerial, there continues to be a natural vegetation buffer between the
bond edge and approximately the back 50-feet of the property. This vegetation is intended to be maintained,
and the proposed project will not further alter this buffered area.
Per the recommendation of city staff, the disturbed area has been planted with MNDOT seed mix #21-111
and has been covered with hay. This ground cover will help protect the area over the fall and winter until
the full planting plan is installed in the Spring of 2024.
The existing vegetated pond edge, along with the new trees and recommended buffer planting along this
pond area, will provide adequate and suitable protection (minimize) any run-off generated as a result of the
new steps and cleared walkway area.
The homeowners have demonstrated to city staff a desire to limit the scale and scope of this project and to
reestablish the buffer area, so any impacts to this pond will be minimal.
13
Planning Case 2023-21 (Ruiz) Page 4 of 7
The following Goals and Policy statements from the Natural Resource chapter of the 2040 Comprehensive
Plan provides additional support in granting approval of this after-the-fact Wetlands Permit, as follows:
GOAL 1: Develop a professional, comprehensive, strategic Natural Resources Management Plan for
city-wide natural areas and natural resources.
Policy No. 10. Encourage and promote the use of conservation design principles.
GOAL 2: Protect, connect, restore, buffer, and manage natural areas, wildlife habitat, and other
natural resources, for high ecological quality and diversity of plant and animal species.
Policies:
1. Monitor new developments for restoration and invasive plant management.
4. Restore areas throughout the city with pollinator-friendly or native species to protect and enhance
habitat for native pollinators and birds.
7. Explore the development of ordinances and or policies that establish minimum soil standards for
development and redevelopment that can support turf, plantings, and/or healthy turf alternatives.
10. Prior to approval of landscape and development plans, work with applicants to encourage the
preservation and installation of high ecosystem value communities.
GOAL 3: Protect and restore the natural ecological functions of the city’s water resources with
emphasis on the improvement of stormwater management.
Policies:
2. Work with partners to implement projects and develop and support programs that encourage
infiltration, to reduce stormwater runoff and pollution to water-bodies.
4. Identify areas within the city, including public and private land that are lacking adequate
stormwater treatment, and other stormwater BMPs. Implement projects to establish functioning
stormwater treatment in order to protect and improve the city’s water resources.
5. Implement the city’s Local Surface Water Management Plan (LSWMP) through the use of
ordinances, policies, and development standards.
ALTERNATIVES
1.Approve the after-the-fact Wetlands Permit based on certain findings-of-fact, along with specific
conditions of approval; or
2.Deny the after-the-fact Wetlands Permit based on revised findings-of-fact supporting such a
recommendation as determined by the Planning Commission; or
3.Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, pursuant
to MN State Statute 15.99.
14
Planning Case 2023-21 (Ruiz) Page 5 of 7
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the after-the-fact Wetlands Permit to Chrissy and Mike Ruiz for the property
located at 2477 Bridgeview Court, to allow the installed concrete steps, boulders and walkway to remain
and to re-establish a native plant buffer within the construction area in the Spring, based on the attached
findings-of-fact and subject to the following conditions:
1.The concrete steps and boulders as installed are permitted to remain, but no additional construction or
improvements are permitted under this Wetlands Permit.
2.The Applicants shall submit a detailed landscape plan including plant schedule in the Spring of 2024
prior to installation. The plan shall be reviewed by the City’s Natural Resource Coordinator to ensure
that the plant schedule complies with the City’s approved Native Plant list.
3.Any new excavating, grading and/or construction activity will 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. Full erosion/sedimentation measures shall be reviewed by the city’s Public
Works Director and shall be maintained per their direction through project completion.
4.Prior to the release of any escrow payment, all disturbed areas in and around the project site, including
the buffer area, shall be restored and have an established, protected and permanent ground cover and
Native Plants installed.
15
Planning Case 2023-21 (Ruiz) Page 6 of 7
FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR APPROVAL
After-the-fact Wetlands Permit for Chrissy and Mike Ruiz
2477 Bridgeview Court
Planning Case No. 2023-21
1.The installation of the concrete steps and walkway to the pond required a Wetlands Permit and was
not obtained. Once a stop-work order was issued the Applicants immediately ceased activities and
worked to resolve the issues and obtain the necessary Wetlands Permit.
2.The concrete steps and walkway provide direct access to the pond and will establish a permanent
route to the pond which will indirectly protect the surrounding vegetative buffer. The restoration
plan will include a mix of appropriate wetland buffer plant types that are on the City’s approved
Native Plant List.
3.The proposed project, including those activities completed without a permit and those that have yet
to be complete, are consistent with certain goals and policies as contained within he City’s 2040
Comprehensive Plan provided the conditions are met.
4.All remaining work will have little, if any impacts to the pond, or the existing on-site drainage or
drainage from surrounding properties.
5.Owner/Applicant will provide additional and suitable wetland protective vegetation and plantings
along the edge of the pond, which will help to reduce any impacts caused by stormwater run-off
from the rear yard areas, and will help reduce any soil and contaminant runoff as a result of the new
concrete steps.
6.Adequate erosion control measures must remain in place as directed by the city staff and until all
areas of the property have been fully planted and restored, which will ensure protection of the pond.
7.The project, through completion, must be done in accordance with the rules and standards of the
City’s Land Disturbance Guidance document; and will be closely monitored by city staff to ensure
compliance with all Building Codes and related City Codes.
16
SITE PHOTOS – 2477 Bridgeview Court
LOOKING TOWARDS POND STANDING UPSLOPE FROM STAIR AND WALKWAY
DISTURBED PROJECT AREA
17
Dear Mendota Heights Planning Committee,
As you know, we are in the middle of a project adding stairs that would give us access to the
pond in the winter. Our goals and plans are as follows:
1.Create a safe way for the kids to access the pond to skate in the winter.
2. No impact to the environment. We haven't removed any plants, dirt, or vegetation other
than invasive species like buckthorn. Please know that this is as important as #1 above to us. It
is important to note a couple of things here - we currently don't use any pesticides or chemicals
on our property both for our kids' sake but also to ensure run off doesn't go to the pond or into
the storm drains. Additionally, since we moved in, in May of 2021, we have added two
pollinator-friendly gardens to our home (one in front and one on the side).
3. Beautification – we hope to add native plants to enhance the area next season. As you are
probably aware it is currently full of buckthorn and other invasive plants. We have reached out
to Taylor Huinker with the DNR and she has given us information regarding vegetation for
screening & slope protection plants in addition to sending us information about Dakota
County's Landscaping for Clean Water Program. We have registered for the 2024 Design Course
in addition to signing up for the grant for native shoreline planting.
Meanwhile, to ensure we have minimized the potential for soil run off into the pond we have
planted a fall cover crop of MN DOT 21-111 oats (and covered with hay) to replace the
buckthorn we removed. We have also added 20 feet of erosion logs on both sides of the steps.
Finally, while we hope to get some great ideas in the spring through Dakota County's Design
Course, at minimum, next spring, we plan to plant the following: 1 silver maple, 1 white oak,
dogwood, Maidenhair ferns, big bluestem grasses, prairie dropseed, Boneset, Goldenrod, blue
vervain, coneflower and common milkweed. The goal is a transformation that is good for the
environment, our family, neighbors, and community.
We welcome any additional recommendations you have both before winter in addition to next
spring when planting season begins.
Sincerely,
Chrissy and Mike Ruiz
18
Silver maple,
dogwood,
Maidenhair ferns,
big bluestem grasses,
prairie dropseed,
Boneset, blue
vervain, coneflower
White oak, big bluestem
grasses, prairie dropseed,
Boneset, Goldenrod, blue
vervain, coneflower and
common milkweed.
19
20
Planning Case 2022-22 (Lot Line Adjustment & Conditional Use Permit – 2237 Rogers Court)
Page 1 of 5
PLANNING STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: October 24, 2023
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Haskamp, AICP - SHC
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2023-22
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPLICANT: Thomas Jacobson
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2237 Rogers Court
ZONING: R-1 One Family Residential
LAND USE: LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: January 26, 2023 (120-day Review Period)
INTRODUCTION
Applicant Thomas Jacobsen is requesting a lot line adjustment to modify the boundary between his property
at 2237 Rogers Court and the property to the northeast at 2225 Rogers Court. The Applicant is also
requesting a conditional use permit to construct a 1,000-square foot detached garage in the rear yard of his
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 properties are located in the Eide Estates
subdivision, which was platted in 1979. Both are zoned
R-1 and were developed in the late 1980s with single-
family residential homes. The properties are located on
the northwest side of Rogers Court and are just south of
the Rogers Court cul-de-sac (see map for location).
The property at 2237 Rogers Court is currently 31,154-
square feet (0.72 acres). The proposed lot line
adjustment, if approved, will expand the subject
property by approximately 1,516-square feet (0.03
acres), bringing the entire property to a total of 0.75
acres. Per City Code 12-1D-3: Accessory Structures,
21 3b.
Planning Case 2022-22 (Lot Line Adjustment & Conditional Use Permit – 2237 Rogers Court)
Page 2 of 5
subsection C.1.b(3), lots between 0.75 – 1.5 acres in size are permitted one (1) additional detached garage
equaling 1,000-square feet with a conditional use permit.
Subsequently, the Applicant is also applying for a conditional use permit to construct a 1,000-square foot
detached garage in the rear yard. The existing shed will be removed, and the proposed structure will be
installed in accordance with all required setbacks. An overhead electric transmission line runs along the
western boundary of the parcel; however, per the submitted survey and aerial photos, the proposed garage
does not appear to encroach on the transmission line easement.
A summary of the existing properties, and the proposed configuration is provided in the following table:
2225 Rogers 2237 Rogers
Existing Proposed Existing Proposed
Lot Area (Size) 26,693 SF
(0.61 Ac.)
25,177 SF
(0.58 Ac.)
31,154 SF
(0.72 Ac.)
32,670 SF
(0.75 Ac.)
Lot Width 147’ 140’ 116’ 123’
Lot Depth 248’ 241’ 263’ 263’
Frontage 229’ 223’ 116’ 123’
Side Yard setback
(shared) 5.0’ 5.0’ 5.0’ 5.0’
In summary, the applicant is proposing the following:
•To move the shared side-yard property line between 2225 Rogers and 2237 Rogers by 6.75-feet
(totaling 1,516-square feet) to the northeast.
•To construct a 1,000-square foot detached garage in the rear yard, in accordance with City Code
12-1D-3: Accessory Structures, subsection C.1.b(3).
The following Analysis regarding the proposed request is provided for your review and consideration.
ANALYSIS
Lot Line Adjustment:
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 . . .”
If the rearrangement is approved, the resulting lots will comply with all R-1 Zoning standards, including
lot frontage/width and area. Staff determines that the proposed adjustment complies with all applicable
dimensional standards of the R-1 zoning district, including lot area, frontage and applicable setback
requirements.
Analysis regarding the proposed conditional use permit is provided below.
22
Planning Case 2022-22 (Lot Line Adjustment & Conditional Use Permit – 2237 Rogers Court)
Page 3 of 5
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.
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 garage 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 not be visible from the road, 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.
e)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 subject property is guided Low Density Residential (LR) in the City’s comprehensive plan and
zoned for R-1. Both establish that use of property should generally be for single-family residential
and supporting accessory uses.
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…
Furthermore, City Code 12-1D-3: Accessory Structures, subsection C.1.b(3) states:
One detached private garage may be allowed on residential property as a second garage by
permitted use, or by conditional use permit, according to the following table:
Lot Size Permitted Conditional Use Permit
>0.75 acre – 1.5 acres 750 SF 1,000 SF
23
Planning Case 2022-22 (Lot Line Adjustment & Conditional Use Permit – 2237 Rogers Court)
Page 4 of 5
Currently, the Applicant’s property is less than 0.75 acres. Therefore, a second detached garage is
not permitted. However, if the lot line adjustment is approved, the Applicant’s property will expand
by approximately 0.03 acres, totaling 0.75 acres. This will make it possible for the 1,000-square
foot detached garage to be constructed provided a conditional use permit is obtained.
Staff determines that the proposed project is consistent with the City’s zoning and comprehensive
plan, as well as the City Code as it relates to accessory structures and private garages.
ALTERNATIVES for ACTION
1.Recommend approval of the lot line adjustment and conditional use permit, based on the attached
findings-of-fact and based on certain conditions; or
2.Recommend denial of the lot line adjustment and conditional use permit, based on revised findings-of-
fact that the proposed lot line adjustment and conditional use permit are 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.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the lot line adjustment and conditional use permit 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.
3.It is the Applicant’s responsibility to confirm with Northern States Power Company (Xcel Energy) that
the proposed detached garage does not encroach on a power line easement. The Applicant must obtain
any required permits or approval from Xcel prior to construction.
4.The exterior of the proposed detached garage must be in harmony with the existing primary structure.
5.The existing shed must be demolished within six months of approval of the conditional use permit and
lot line adjustment.
24
Planning Case 2022-22 (Lot Line Adjustment & Conditional Use Permit – 2237 Rogers Court)
Page 5 of 5
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Lot Line Adjustment and Conditional Use Permit for
2237 Rogers Court
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request:
1.The proposed detached garage will allow for the continued use of the property for single-family
and supporting accessory uses.
2.The proposed detached garage 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 detached garage will not adversely
impact or affect health, safety or welfare of the surrounding neighborhood.
5.The proposed detached garage will be compliant with all other standards and conditions included
in the City Code and State Building Codes.
6.The proposed detached garage represents an investment in a residential neighborhood which is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for residential land uses.
7.The realignment of the property line will not create any additional density or new lots.
8.The proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the Low Density Residential (R-1)
requirements and the resulting lot sizes are generally consistent with the existing conditions.
25
ROGERS COURT2237 ROGERS CT
EXISTING LOT AREA = 31,154 SF / 0.72 ACRES
PROPOSED LOT AREA = 32,670 SF / 0.75 ACRES
2225 ROGERS CT
EXISTING LOT AREA = 26,693 SF/0.61 ACRES
PROPOSED LOT AREA = 25,177 SF / 0.58
ACRES
EXCHANGE PARCEL AREA
= 1,516 SF / 0.03 ACRES
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PROP
O
S
E
D
A
C
C
E
S
S
O
R
Y
STRU
C
T
U
R
E
FLOO
R
E
L
E
V
=
8
9
0.
5X 889.3890890
890
891
892889 889
REMOVE
EXISTING
SHEDX 889
.
9
AREA
=
1
0
0
0
S
F
2%2%2%38.026.5
890890891892
34.9ΔPID#27-23365-01-200
BENCHMARKS
ELEVATION BASED ON INFORMATION AS SHOWN ON THE MNDOT GEODETIC
WEBSITE. SURVEY DISK 1917C WITH AN ELEVATION OF 887.61 WAS USED FOR
THIS SURVEY (NAVD 88)
CONTACT:
Tom Jacobson
2237 Rogers Court
Mendota Heights, MN 5520
Phone: 651.270.5431
Email: tom@binderheating.com
LEGEND UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOTES:
THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HAVE BEEN LOCATED FROM FIELD SURVEY
INFORMATION AND EXISTING DRAWINGS. THE SURVEYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEE
THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN COMPRISE ALL SUCH UTILITIES IN THE
AREA, EITHER IN SERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE SURVEYOR FURTHER DOES NOT
WARRANT THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE IN THE EXACT
LOCATION INDICATED ALTHOUGH HE DOES CERTIFY THAT THEY ARE LOCATED AS
ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE. THIS SURVEY HAS
NOT PHYSICALLY LOCATED THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. GOPHER STATE ONE
CALL LOCATE TICKET NUMBER(S) 232334374/91. SOME MAPS WERE RECEIVED,
WHILE OTHER UTILITIES DID NOT RESPOND TO THE LOCATE REQUEST. ADDITIONAL
UTILITIES OF WHICH WE ARE UNAWARE MAY EXIST.
COUNTY/CITY:
REVISIONS:
PROJECT LOCATION:
DATE REVISION
2237/2225
CALL BEFORE YOU DIG!
TWIN CITY AREA:TOLL FREE:1-800-252-1166651-454-0002
Gopher State One Call
EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
ROGERS COURT
1. BEARINGS ARE BASED ON COORDINATES SUPPLIED BY THE DAKOTA COUNTY
SURVEYORS OFFICE.
2. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN PER GOPHER ONE LOCATES AND
AS-BUILTS PLANS PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
3. THERE MAY SOME UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, GAS, ELECTRIC, ETC. NOT
SHOWN OR LOCATED.
4. THE FIELD SURVEY OF THIS PROPERTY WAS CONDUCTED ON AUGUST 22,
2023.
SURVEY NOTES:
CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA
COUNTY
2237 ROGERS COURT - PID NO. 27-23365-01-200
(LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR 2237 ROGERS COURT IS PER OWNERS AND
ENCUMBRANCES REPORT BY EDGEWATER TITLE GROUP DATED AUG.
17, 2023.)
Lot Twenty (20), Block (1) in Eide Estates, according to the recorded
plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota. Torrens property Certificate
No. 177433.
2225 ROGERS COURT - PID NO. 27-23365-01-210
(LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR 2225 ROGERS COURT IS PER AVAILABLE TAX
RECORDS)
Lot Twenty-one (21), Block (1), Eide Estates, according to the recorded
plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota.
PID#27-23365-01-210
09-29-2023 INITIAL ISSUE
CERTIFICATION:
I hereby certify that this plan 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.
Daniel L. Thurmes Registration Number: 25718
Date:__________________
NO TITLE INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED FOR 2225 ROGERS COURT.
THE OWNERS AND ENCUMBRANCES REPORT PROVIDED FOR 2237
ROGERS COURT BY EDGEWATER TITLE GROUP DATED AUG. 17, 2023
DID NOT LIST ANY EASEMENTS.
ALL EASEMENTS SHOWN ARE PER THE PLAT OF EIDE ESTATES AND
CONSIST OF THE FOLLOWING:
- DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT PER THE PLAT OF EIDE ESTATES.
- NSP EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 37993.
- 50 FT. NSP ELECTRIC LINE EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 102356.
- 30 FT. GAS LINE EASEMENT PER DOC. NO. 30288.
*ALL EASEMENTS LISTED ARE SHOWN GRAPHICALLY ON THE SURVEY.
ADDITIONAL EASEMENTS OF WHICH WE ARE UNAWARE MAY EXIST.
TITLE NOTES:
JACOBSON RESIDENCE
0
NORTH
20 40
ZZ23806
SURVZZ806
LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT
SURVEY
LAND SURVEYING, INC.
CORNERSTONE
Suite #200
1970 Northwestern Ave
Stillwater, MN 55082
Phone 651.275.8969
Fax 651.275.8976
dan@
cssurvey
.net
PROJECT NO.
FILE NAME
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
UNDERGROUND CABLE TV
UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC
UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE
OVERHEAD UTILITY
UNDERGROUND GAS
SANITARY SEWER
STORM SEWER
WATERMAIN
FENCE
CURB [TYPICAL]
CONTOURS
PROPOSED CONTOUR
PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION
DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE
PROPOSED EXCHANGE PARCEL
PROPOSED ACCESSORY BUILDING
FOUND MONUMENT
SET 1/2" IRON PIPE
MARKED RLS NO. 25718
CABLE TV PEDESTAL
AIR CONDITIONER
ELECTRIC MANHOLE
ELECTRIC METER
ELECTRIC PEDESTAL
ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
LIGHT POLE
GUY WIRE
POWER POLE
GAS MANHOLE
GAS METER
TELEPHONE MANHOLE
TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
SANITARY CLEANOUT
SANITARY MANHOLE
CATCH BASIN
STORM DRAIN
FLARED END SECTION
STORM MANHOLE
FIRE DEPT. CONNECTION
HYDRANT
CURB STOP
WATER WELL
WATER MANHOLE
WATER METER
POST INDICATOR VALVE
WATER VALVE
BOLLARD
FLAG POLE
MAIL BOX
TRAFFIC SIGN
UNKNOWN MANHOLE
SOIL BORING
SPOT ELEVATION
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
CONIFEROUS TREE
DECIDUOUS TREE
09-29-2023
EXISTING LOT AREAS:
2225 ROGERS CT EXISTING LOT AREA = 26,693 SF/0.61 ACRES
2237 ROGERS CT EXISTING LOT AREA = 31,154 SF / 0.72 ACRES
PROPOSED LOT AREAS:
PROPOSED EXCHANGE PARCEL AREA = 1,516 SF / 0.03 ACRES
2225 ROGERS CT. PROPOSED LOT AREA = 25,177 SF / 0.58 ACRES
2237 ROGERS CT. PROPOSED LOT AREA = 32,670 SF / 0.75 ACRES
PARCEL AREAS:
PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
PROPOSED 2237 ROGERS COURT - PID NO. 27-23365-01-200
Lot 20 and the southwesterly 6.75 feet of Lot 21, Block 1 in EIDE
ESTATES, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County,
Minnesota.
PROPOSED 2225 ROGERS COURT - PID NO. 27-23365-01-210
That part of Lot 21, Block 1, EIDE ESTATES, according to the recorded
plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota lying northeasterly of the
southwesterly 6.75 feet thereof.
PROPOSED EXCHANGE PARCEL:
The southwesterly 6.75 feet of Lot 21, Block 1 in EIDE ESTATES,
according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota.
934.9 X
PROPOSED GRADING NOTES:
1) VERIFY CITY REQUIRED EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AND
PROVIDE ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTATION TO THE CITY AS NECESSARY.
2) VERIFY RIGHTS WITHIN THE NSP ELECTRIC LINE EASEMENTS AND
COORDINATE WITH APPROPRIATE PARTIES.
3) CALL GOPHER STATE ONE CALL BEFORE ANY CONSTRUCTION
ACTIVITIES AND KEEP ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITES OFF OF THE
GAS EASEMENT IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.
890
26
Planning Commission | Tuesday October 24, 2023
Planning Case 2023-23 (MRCCA Permit for 1661 Mayfield Heights Rd.)
Page 1 of 6
PLANNING STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: October 24, 2023
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Haskamp, AICP - SHC
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2023-23
MRCCA Permit for Detached Accessory Garage
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: February 15, 2024 (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 Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA)
Permit to demolish an existing detached garage and construct a new detached garage.
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 existing 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 therefore the removal of the existing garage and the
27 3c.
Planning Commission | Tuesday October 24, 2023
Planning Case 2023-23 (MRCCA Permit for 1661 Mayfield Heights Rd.)
Page 2 of 6
construction of a new detached garage requires an MRCCA permit.
A summary of the request is as follows:
•Remove the existing detached garage.
•Remove the existing shed.
•Remove the driveway that loops the home connecting to the existing detached garage.
•Construct a new detached garage – 26’x28’ (728 SF).
•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.
Proposed Improvements
The existing lot is developed with a single-family home, detached garage and shed. The existing garage is
located on the southwest corner of the lot and is located within, or near, the Bluff Impact Zone (BIZ). The
garage is connected to Mayfield Heights Road via a long driveway that loops north of the home. The
proposed project is to remove the existing approximately 18’x22’ (329 SF) garage, the existing small shed
and the driveway. In its replacement, the Applicant proposes to construct a new 26’x28’ (728 SF) garage
on the southeast corner of the lot which will be connected to Mayfield Heights Road by a new driveway
and curb cut. The proposed garage and driveway are situated further away from existing vegetation and
the BIZ which are primarily located on the southwest corner of the lot. This will allow for the reduction of
impervious surface area and restoration of the area with landscaping and vegetation.
Both the existing home and the detached garage are shown in the images below. The new garage is proposed
to be constructed generally adjacent to the existing home and will essentially be placed approximately 50-
feet in front of the old garage location closer to the Mayfield Heights Rd right-of-way.
Photos of the existing home and lot are provided for reference (Google Maps).
ANALYSIS
MRCCA Critical Are Permit
Per Title 12, Chapter 3 Critical Area Overlay District a Critical Area Permit is required for the subject
project. The following summary of the site is provided as reference:
28
Planning Commission | Tuesday October 24, 2023
Planning Case 2023-23 (MRCCA Permit for 1661 Mayfield Heights Rd.)
Page 3 of 6
Standard Subject Property Conditions
MRCCA Sub District Separated from River
Bluff on Site? No
Bluff Impact Zone (BIZ) Yes, the Bluff Impact Zone crosses the southwest
corner of the lot (See attached map). The
demolition of the existing accessory garage is
partially within the BIZ. Restoration of the area to
more natural conditions is required. The proposed
detached garage is setback 40-feet from the BIZ.
Significant Vegetative Stands or Primary
Conservation Area (PCA)
No. The proposed detached garage is located
more than 100-feet from any PCA or significant
vegetation.
Subject to Section 12-3-9 Vegetation
Management
No, does not meet criteria as structure and
impervious surface will be removed and
restoration to a more natural landscape is
proposed. No significant vegetative removal
required as part of the proposed improvements.
Subject to Section 12-3-11 Land Alteration
Standards and Stormwater Management
Yes. A new detached garage is permitted but
stormwater must be diverted from any BIZ area.
The demolition and new construction are both
subject to the Land Alteration and Stormwater
standards.
Subject to Section 12-3-12 Site Plan
Requirements
Yes. Must include Site Plan and Landscape Plan
As described in Section 12-3-4 C.3., the Separated from River (SR) sub-district describes the management
purpose as, “...provides flexibility in managing development without negatively affecting the key resources
and features of the river corridor. Minimizing negative impacts to primary conservation areas and
minimizing erosion and the flow of untreated storm water into the river are priorities…” As indicated on
the attached GIS maps, the Bluff Impact Zone (BIZ) crosses and covers the far southwestern corner of the
site and it appears that a portion of the existing detached garage is located in the BIZ. As shown on the Site
Plan, the Applicant intends to remove/demolish the existing garage once the new garage is constructed. The
area will then be restored with landscaping described as soil, to fill as needed, and grass. The removal is
beneficial to the quality of the BIZ provided proper restoration of the area is completed. The location of the
new garage will also improve the conditions on the site as it will be located outside of the required BIZ
setback area and is located closer to the road right-of-way thereby reducing the necessary driveway length
substantially. As propose, the new garage will be setback approximately 45-feet from the BIZ boundary.
There are no other Primary Conservation Areas on the site, and the nearest significant vegetative stands are
located more than 100-feet from the proposed detached garage. All stormwater must be managed in
compliance with the City’s stormwater and land disturbance requirements which are requirements of the
Building Permit process.
Per Code Sect. 12-3-12, the Detailed Site Plan must be drawn to scale and the proposed project accurately
described through narrative and supporting maps and/or plans. The plan set for the new garage is attached
to this report, and the site plan is included. The proposed new garage location is sited on a relatively flat
area of the lot and there are no significant grades. As noted previously, the proposed location is better than
the existing garage location as it is setback appropriately from the BIZ. Restoration of the land once the
29
Planning Commission | Tuesday October 24, 2023
Planning Case 2023-23 (MRCCA Permit for 1661 Mayfield Heights Rd.)
Page 4 of 6
existing garage and driveway is removed is planned and described as soil and grass. The City’s Public Work
Director has reviewed the plans including soil types and has no additional comments regarding the current
plans. Restoration of the former garage site with vegetation including shade seed/blanket mix is proposed
post construction. The Applicant did not include a detailed planting plan, but instead simply describes
restoration within their Letter of Intent which is attached.
While staff agrees that removal of the existing garage and driveway will improve the site conditions, it is
recommended that a more detailed restoration plan be submitted for review by the City’s Natural Resources
Coordinator. The Restoration Plan should, at a minimum, include the installation of native plants as
identified on the Native Plant list to comply with the MRCCA standards. This plan should be submitted for
review and approval prior to a Building Permit being issued.
Additionally, the Applicant notes that they hope to construct the new garage this fall and that demolition of
the existing garage and driveway is not planned for Spring. While this timeline is logical, it does create a
situation where the lot will be non-conforming throughout the winter. Staff recommends the planning
commission consider requiring a letter of credit (LOC) or Bond, or other acceptable financial instrument as
approved by the City, for the demolition of the garage and driveway. This has been provided as a draft
condition within this report for your discussion.
INTERAGENCY REVIEW
Under the MRCCA Ordinance, the city is required to submit the MRRCA permit request to the MNDNR
and the National Park Service (NPS). The plan set and project information was transmitted to both agencies
for their review and comment. At the time of this report the agencies have not provided written response,
and Staff will provide a verbal update of their correspondence at the Planning Commission meeting.
ALTERNATIVES
1.Approve the MRCCA-Critical Area Permit request for 1661 Mayfield Heights Road, which would
allow for the demolition of the existing detached garage and driveway, construction of the new detached
garage and driveway, and landscape improvements based on the findings-of-fact that the proposed
project is compliant with the policies and standards of the MRCCA Overlay District and City Zoning
Code standards, with certain conditions; or
2.Deny the MRCCA-Critical Area Permit request for 1661 Mayfield Heights Road, based on the revised
or amended findings-of-fact that the application does not meet certain policies and standards of City
Code as determined by the Planning Commission; or
3.Table the request; direct staff to work with the Applicants and allow them more time to refine the site
plan for the property and extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance
with Minnesota State Statute 15.99.
30
Planning Commission | Tuesday October 24, 2023
Planning Case 2023-23 (MRCCA Permit for 1661 Mayfield Heights Rd.)
Page 5 of 6
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the MRCCA-Critical Area Permit request for 1661 Mayfield Heights Road,
with the following conditions:
1.A building permit, including a grading plan, must be approved by the City prior to the
commencement of any site work.
2.A full restoration plan for the area where the demolition of the existing garage and driveway must
be submitted for review and approval by the Natural Resources Coordination. Generally, the
Applicant’s description to fill and seed the area with grass is permitted, but the restoration plan
must be updated to include the inclusion of native plants.
3.All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be properly protected over the winter months
until such time the planting and restoration plan can be installed in the Spring of 2024.
4.A letter of credit (LOC), Bond or other acceptable financial guarantee as determined by the City
shall be submitted for the demolition of the existing garage and driveway. Such guarantee shall be
submitted with the application for a building permit.
5.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.
6.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.
7.All grading and construction activity must comply with applicable federal, state, and local
regulations and codes.
8.All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM Monday
through Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM weekends.
31
Planning Commission | Tuesday October 24, 2023
Planning Case 2023-23 (MRCCA Permit for 1661 Mayfield Heights Rd.)
Page 6 of 6
FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR APPROVAL
MRCAA -Critical Area Permit
for
1661 Mayfield Heights Road
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1.The proposed demolition of the existing garage and driveway, construction of a new detached
garage and driveway, and landscape project meets the general purpose and intent of the Mississippi
River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Separated from River Overlay District.
2.The proposed work and disturbance to construct the detached garage and landscape improvements
are low-intensity, and the project includes restoration of the area once developed with a detached
garage and driveway with greenspace and native vegetation. The proposed project is within the
spirit and intent of the MRCCA Separated from River Overlay District that provides for flexibility
within the management purpose.
3.The proposed removal of the existing detached garage and driveway will reduce the amount of
impervious surface on the site, and provided proper restoration is completed, will improve the Bluff
Impact Zone thereby further supporting the MRCCA ordinance objectives.
4.The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the
community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not seriously
depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in harmony with the general
purpose and intent of the City Code and the Comprehensive Plan.
5.The construction of the detached garage shown in the plan must comply with all standards and
regulations of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay District and Zoning Ordinance
and other applicable ordinances; represents reinvestment in a residential neighborhood that is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for residential land uses; and is consistent with
current single-family development pattern of the neighborhood.
32
Tom Keeley
1661 Mayfield Heights Rd
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Thursday, October 19
Jennifer Haskamp
City Planner
SHC, LLC
Dear Jennifer:
I am submitting this letter with the intent to gain approval to build a new two-car garage. We are
requesting approval due to the current one-car garage does not fit our family needs.
The location of the new garage is in the submitted plans. Since the new location is different than
the current driveway and existing garage, once completed, we will remove the existing driveway
and garage per the terms of the permit. We have a separate contractor that will remove the
existing garage, due to cost savings on the project. With full removal of asphalt, brick, and
concrete slab, we will be replacing that with soil and planting grass.
Our expected timing once approved will be Spring of 2024.
Sincerely,
Tom Keeley
33
10/18/23, 10:47 AM Dakota County GIS
https://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/dcgis/1/1
1661 Mayfield Heights
Land Use/Land
Development
MRCCA Bluff Impact
Zones
Mississippi River
Corridor Critical Area
(MRCCA) Districts
DISTRICT
CA-RN
CA-ROS
CA-RTC
CA-SR
CA-UC
CA-UM
Water
Property Information
Addresses
Parcel Lines
Tax Parcels
Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed.
This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or
for zoning verification.
Map Scale
1 inch = 75 feet
10/18/2023
34
35
Planning Commission | Tuesday, October 24, 2023
PLANNING STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 24, 2023
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Haskamp, AICP - SHC
SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2023-24
VARIANCE & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPLICANT: Daniel and Karen Bogg
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 809 Hazel Court
ZONING: R1 – One Family Residential
LAND USE: LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: January 19, 2023 (120-day Review Period)
INTRODUCTION
Applicants Daniel and Karen Bogg are requesting a conditional use permit and a variance to construct a
covered entry on the front of their house. The proposed entry extends about 1-foot into the City’s permitted
25-foot front porch setback. It also exceeds the City’s 50-square foot maximum for front porches by
approximately 4-square feet.
The Applicants submitted written consent from all
property owners within 100 feet of the boundaries
of the subject property. Therefore, the requirement
for a public hearing notice has been waived for the
variance request. However, a CUP is still required
and therefore a public hearing notice was placed in
the Pioneer Press. As of the date of this report, no
inquiries or written testimony has been received for
this application.
BACKGROUND/SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject property is located in the Simek
Rearrangement subdivision which was platted in
1972. The property is zoned R-1 and was
developed in 1975 with a single-family structure. The property is located on the north-west side of the Hazel
Court cul-de-sac (see map for location).
36 3d.
Planning Commission | Tuesday, October 24, 2023
City Code Section 12-1D-4: Yards and Open Spaces, subsection 2.a. stipulates that “covered and/or
enclosed entryways (porches, decks, stoops, or similar structures) that extend into the front yard setback
require the approval of a conditional use permit.” The proposed covered entryway encroaches into the front
yard setback by approximately 6-feet at its furthest point, which requires both a 1) Conditional Use Permit
for that portion of the porch between 30-feet and 25-feet setback which is an allowed exception, and 2) a
Variance to exceed the 5-foot exception into the yard setback by one foot.
The area of the proposed enclosed porch between the 30-foot and 25-foot setback is approximately 54 SF,
which exceeds the permitted area by approximately 4-feet (see Section 12-1D-4, subsection 2.a.(2)). This,
along with the entryway’s encroachment into the front yard setback, requires a variance from the City’s
dimensional standards.
Many of the houses in the neighborhood also have covered porches and entryways. Therefore, the proposed
entryway would not be out of character with the surrounding area.
A summary of the existing setbacks and requested variance is provided in the following table:
Requirement Standard Existing
Building
Proposed
Addition
Variance Request for
Addition
Side Yard
Setback
10’ 30’ (north)
~11’ (south)
No Change NA
Rear Yard
Setback
30’ 90’ at closest
point
No Change NA
Font Porch
Setback
(Hazel Court)
25’ ~30’ – 35’ 24’ at curved
property line
1’ at curved property line
Maximum area of
enclosed porch
within between
30’ and 25’
setback
50 SF None 54 SF + 4 SF
As illustrated by the table above, the property meets all the setback requirements for a R-1 lot in its current
configuration. The proposed variance would adjust the front yard setback requirement by 1-foot along the
curved portion of the property line. The rear and side yard setbacks would remain unchanged. The proposed
porch exceeds the maximum permitted area by approximately 4 SF.
The following Analysis regarding the proposed request is provided for your review and consideration.
ANALYSIS
Conditional Use Permit
City Code Section 12-1D-4: Yards and Open Spaces, subsection 2.a.(1-3) stipulate that a Conditional Use
Permit for an entryway or similar structure that extends into the front yard setback may be approved,
subject to compliance with the following conditions:
37
Planning Commission | Tuesday, October 24, 2023
(1)Such structure may not extend into the front or side yard more than five feet (5’).
(2)Such structure shall be limited in size to fifty (50) square feet.
(3)Such structure may not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal
building.
The proposed covered entryway extends more than five feet (5’) into the front yard, and therefore a variance
from this standard is required (See analysis in subsequent sections). The porch also exceeds the maximum
size as stipulated in subsection (2) by approximately 4-square feet.
Given that the porch extends further into the setback than permitted by CUP and exceeds the maximum
size for a porch a variance from both of these standards is required. Since these are two separate issues, the
variance analysis provided in the subsequent section and recommendations follow considering both
requests. With respect to the porch design and architecture it is consistent with the existing architecture of
the principal structure and the surrounding neighborhood. The addition of the porch is consistent with the
City’s goals and policies that support reinvestment in the existing housing stock.
Analysis:
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.
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 covered porch is intended to improve the exterior appearance of the single-family
home, and provide a covered area when entering the front door. The proposed porch will not be
determinantal to the health, safety or general welfare of the surrounding neighborhood, will not
impact traffic congestion or hazards, and will have no adverse impact on surrounding property
values.
e)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:
38
Planning Commission | Tuesday, October 24, 2023
The subject property is guided Low Density Residential (LR) in the City’s comprehensive plan and
zoned for R-1. The proposed porch will not change or alter the existing use of the property as a
single-family residence. The porch, provided the Applicant complies with the conditions, will meet
all applicable performance standards and will enhance the subject property and surround
neighborhood.
Variance
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:
Due to the construction of our residential home with a very limited city setback, our proposed
covered entry and landing extends slightly past the city allowed 25ft front porch setback. The
practical difficulties and unique circumstances of our property lines and build site support the
granting of this variance.
Staff’s Response:
39
Planning Commission | Tuesday, October 24, 2023
The property’s location near the cul-de-sac terminus and the positioning of the house in relation to the
front property line create a unique front setback line. It is logical that any alterations to the front of the
house may be complicated by these conditions, however, the home is generally setback 30-feet which
complies with the City’s ordinances. Given the existing conditions, a front porch is permitted with a
Conditional Use Permit to extend into the front yard setback by 5-feet. The applicant does not describe
why the porch could not have been designed to comply with the standard since the majority of the
proposed porch does fit within the area between the 25’ and 50’ setback area.
A variance from the permitted size of the porch is also requested. The Applicant does not address this
within their narrative. Based on the submitted plan the porch exceeds the maximum permitted area by
approximately 4-feet. Staff does not believe that this criterion 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:
Due to the construction of our residential home with a very limited city setback, our proposed
covered entry and landing extends slightly past the city allowed 25ft front porch setback. The
practical difficulties and unique circumstances of our property lines and build site support the
granting of this variance.
Staff’s Response:
Staff confirms that the property’s location on a cul-de-sac and the orientation of the home on the lot
creates a difficult front property line setback. However, the majority of the porch does meet the required
yard setback, and there is no description as to why the porch must be the size proposed (that is, why
the porch could not be designed to have 6” to 1’ of less depth and thereby complying with the code). If
the depth of the porch was reduced by 6” to a foot, it would meet the setback requirement and the
maximum area requirement. Staff does not believe that this criterion is met.
3.The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Applicant’s Response:
If our variance was granted, the proposed covered entry would not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood. There are currently a number of homes in the neighborhood with covered entries. The
addition of a covered entry would create depth and dimension to the front of our home and help to
update the 1975 design. All these items bring aesthetics and value to the neighborhood, our neighbors,
and us.
Staff’s Response:
Many houses in the neighborhood have covered entryways, so the proposed structure would not alter
the existing character of the surrounding area. The entryway would also align with goals included in
the City of Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan, such as:
•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.
40
Planning Commission | Tuesday, October 24, 2023
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 front yard porch requirement is consistent with the goals stated in the Comprehensive Plan
as referenced above.
Notably, the Applicant also obtained signatures of support regarding the variance from neighbors
within a 100-foot radius of the subject property. This illustrates that that the proposed change aligns
with the interests and desires of the local community. Staff believes that this criterion 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.
The purpose of the requested variance is to allow for the installation of a covered entryway in the
most logical location. The entryway cannot be placed elsewhere on the house without placing
significant burden on the Applicant or compromising the existing style and use of the front of the
house. While the entryway is intended to add value to the property and the neighborhood at large,
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.
Staff finds that requested variance from the front yard porch setback is consistent with surrounding
properties and land use. As proposed, the requested variance is also consistent and in harmony with
the existing R-1 zoning which designates this property for single-family residential uses.
ALTERNATIVES
1.Recommend approval of the conditional use permit and denial of the variance request for
809 Hazel Court, 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:
2.Recommend approval of the conditional use permit and approval of the variance for 809
Hazel Court, based on revised findings-of-fact that support the granting of the variance as
requested herein.
3.Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60
days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99, so that additional information may be provided.
a.If this action is taken, Staff requests direction from the Planning Commission as to the
changes/modifications to the plan that could be considered at the next available Planning
Commission meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
41
Planning Commission | Tuesday, October 24, 2023
Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration to Alternative No. 1 or No. 3, to
either approve the request for a conditional use permit and deny the requested variances or to Table the
request so that an alternative design solution can be presented.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of conditional use permit for a 50-square foot front porch, and denial of the
requested variances, with the following CUP permit conditions:
1.The depth of the proposed porch must be reduced to comply with the 25-foot front yard setback,
thereby reducing the square footage of the porch to 50 square feet between the 30-foot and 25-foot
setback area.
2.That the plans be updated and submitted for review and approval by the city staff prior to the
issuance of a Building Permit for the proposed porch.
3.A building permit, including a grading plan, must be approved by the City prior to the
commencement of any site work.
4.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.
5.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.
6.All grading and construction activity must comply with applicable federal, state, and local
regulations and codes.
7.All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM Monday
through Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM weekends.
42
Planning Commission | Tuesday, October 24, 2023
FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DENIAL
OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A COVERED FRONT
PORCH for
809 Hazel Court Road
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit:
1.That a covered front porch that extends up to five (5) feet in the front yard setback is a permitted
exception within the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
2.Once the porch is modified, the area of the porch between the 30’ and 25’ setback is 50 square feet
which complies with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
3.The proposed porch, as modified, is consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
4.The proposed porch will improve an existing home which supports the City’s goals and policies as
adopted in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of denial of the proposed Variances:
1.The Applicant has failed to meet the burden of demonstrating that unique conditions exist on the
property to justify the granting of a variance; and furthermore, the applicant failed to adequately
justify the need for granting this variance.
2.The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that practical difficulties exist in complying with the
zoning ordinance and applicable R-1 dimensional standards.
3.The Applicant did not describe or explain why the size of the porch could not be designed to comply
with the applicable setback, thereby complying with the maximum size standards.
4.Because the City finds that the first and second criteria of the three-part test (practical difficulty
and unique characteristics of the land) is not met by the Applicant the applicable criteria have not
been met.
43
September 21, 2023
Leter of Intent:
We (Daniel and Karen Bogg) are reques�ng a variance from the City of Mendota Heights to construct a
covered entry on the front of our house. A por�on of the covered entry will be located outside of the
city’s allowed 25 foot front porch setback. Addi�onally, the proposed 72 square feet concrete pad of the
covered entry is more than the city’s allowed 60 square feet. These are the reasons why a variance is
requested. If a variance is granted, our intent is to pour the concrete founda�on this fall (weather
permi�ng) and have a contractor build the covered entry in the spring. The covered entry would help to
create dimension to the front of our house, add curb appeal, and enhance the neighborhood. Thank you
for your considera�on.
44
45
1a renovation to the home ofCOPYRIGHT 2023 ACACIA ARCHITECTS, LLC
20 SEPTEMBER 2023
-
-
-
-Daniel & Karen Bogg809 Hazel CourtMendota Heights, MN 55120UP
UP
3'-6
"
6'-0
"
+/-12'-0"+/-6'-0"+/-14'-
0
"72.00 sq ftDO
W
N
150' SIDE PROPERTY LINE
76' FRONT PROPERTY LINE60' FRONT PROPERTY LINE30' SIDE
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
116' SIDE PROPERTY LINE115' REAR PROPERTY LINE10' SIDE SETBACK
10' SIDE SETBACK30' REAR SETBACK30' FRONT SETBACK25' FRONT PORCH SETBACK25' FRONT
PORCH SETBACK
30' FRONT SETBACKCOVEREDENTRY DRIVE
HAZEL COURTNEW FRONT WALKPIN LOCATED
PIN LOCATED
SITE NOTES:
1.) SITE INFORMATION TAKEN FROM SURVEY BY ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING, CO.
2.) ZONING: R-1 ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
3.) FRONT SETBACK: 30'
4.) FRONT & SIDE PORCH SETBACKS: 5' ALLOWANCE FOR PORCHES LESS THAN 50 SQ FT & MUST NOT EXCEED PRINCIPAL ROOF HEIGHT.
4.) SIDE SETBACK: 10'
5.) REAR SETBACK: 30'
6.) STRUCTURAL COVERAGE: 25% OF 17,954 SQ FT. = 4,488 SQ FT.
7.) IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE: 25% = 4,488 SQ FT.
1,779.43 sq ft
EXISTING HOUSE
TRUE NORTH
DRAWING INDEX
1. SITE PLAN
2. ML PLANS BEFORE & AFTER & ELEVATIONS
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
1 SITE PLAN "AFTER"
1
THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PLAN SET FOR COST ESTIMATING
ONLY. ALL STRUCTURAL NOTES ARE ASSUMPTIONS;
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING TO FOLLOW.
A MATERIALS LIST SHOULD ACCOMPANY THIS DRAWING SET.
ALL 11" X 17" COPIES ARE REDUCED 50% (HALF SCALE ).
46
2a renovation to the home ofCOPYRIGHT 2023 ACACIA ARCHITECTS, LLC
20 SEPTEMBER 2023
-
-
-
-Daniel & Karen Bogg809 Hazel CourtMendota Heights, MN 55120UP
8'-5 5/8" CLG.
7'-10 3/4" CLG.
8'-1 1/2" CLG.
RETAINING WALL
DRIVEGARAGE
LIVING ROOM
ENTRY
FAMILY ROOM
APPROXIMATEPREVIOUSLANDINGUP
6'-0"12'-0"1'-0"
NOTES:
1.) CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL
EXISTING CONDITIONS.
GARAGE
LIVING ROOM
ENTRY NEW COVERED
CONCRETE
LANDING
NEW 3' DR.
W/ SIDELIGHTS
STEEL BEAM
6X6 WRAPPED
POSTS
NEW FRONT WALK
FAMILY ROOM
2X6
RAFTERS
WOOD BEAM 8'-0+/-11'-5 1/2"+/-9"4'-0" MIN.1'-0"7'-5 1/2"+/-2"EAST ELEVATION
NEW
DOOR
12
6
PENDANT
CONTINUOUS STEEL BEAM
WRAPPED W/ TRIM 2X6
NEW COVERED ENTRY
PIER FOOTINGS (ALT: FULL FOOTINGS)CONCRETE LANDING
FILED VERIFY
WINDOW
CLEARANCE
REMOVE RETAINING WALL & ADJUST GRADE
1X4
1X6
9"
1'-0"
NORTH ELEVATION
PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 MAIN LEVEL PLAN "BEFORE"
2 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 MAIN LEVEL PLAN "AFTER"
2
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
3 EAST ELEVATION
2
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
4 SOUTH ELEVATION
2 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
5 NORTH ELEVATION
2
47
48
Planning Commission | Tuesday, October 24, 2023
Planning Case 2023-26 (Variance and Lot Line Adjustment 2511 and 2507 Condon Ct.)
Page 1 of 7
PLANNING STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: October 24, 2023
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Haskamp, AICP - SHC
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2023-26
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT & VARIANCE
APPLICANT: Johnson Reiland Builders & Remodelers
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2511 Condon Court
2507 Condon Court
ZONING: R-2 Two Family Residential
LAND USE: Medium Density Residential - Townhouse
ACTION DEADLINE: February 8, 2023 (120-day Review Period)
INTRODUCTION
Applicant Johnson Reiland Builders & Remodelers is requesting a lot line adjustment to modify the
boundary between 2507 Condon Court and the property directly to the south at 2511 Condon Court. The
Applicant is also requesting a variance from the 100-foot width requirement for lots in R-2 districts. Dick
Bjorklund Properties, LLC owns both properties and intends to build a duplex with one unit on each parcel
address (0-lot line on shared property line).
A notice of hearing was published in the Pioneer Press; and notice letters were mailed to all owners within
350-feet of the subject property. The city has not received any objection or comments related to this
application.
BACKGROUND / SITE DESCRIPTION
In May 2014, Mr. Bjorklund requested two single-family residential properties located at 2511 and 2525
Condon Court (previously existed on this site) to be considered for a land use amendment and rezoning.
The request was to revise the previous land use designation from LB-Limited Business to MR-Medium
Density Residential, and rezone the two parcels from R-1 One Family Residential to R-2 Medium Density
Residential. The amendment and rezoning were approved by Ord. No. 470 (adopted 01/06/2015). The land
use designation and zoning on this site has remained as MR-Medium Density and R-2 Two Family
Residential since 2015.
49 3e.
Planning Commission | Tuesday, October 24, 2023
Planning Case 2023-26 (Variance and Lot Line Adjustment 2511 and 2507 Condon Ct.)
Page 2 of 7
In June 2015, Mr. Bjorklund requested to re-plat the two residential properties on this site into five (5) new
and separate parcels (see plat image-below). The preliminary plat was approved by Resolution No. 2015-
48 (adopted 07/07/2015) and the Final Plat of The Oaks of Mendota Heights was later approved under
Res. No. 2017-32 (adopted 05/02/2017).
Since 2015, Mr. Bjorklund has completed the construction of twin homes at 2515-2519 Condon Court
(Lots 4 and 5) and 2525-2529 Condon Court (Lots 2 and 3). Mr. Bjorklund elected to forgo building a
new single-family dwelling on Lot 1 and will instead offer the lot as a third twin home site.
In August 2022, Mr. Bjorklund submitted a lot split request to divide Lot 1 into two parcels (Parcel A and
B) of 12,154-square feet and 10,927-square feet, respectively. The lot split was approved by Resolution
2022-20 (adopted 12/01/2022).
50
Planning Commission | Tuesday, October 24, 2023
Planning Case 2023-26 (Variance and Lot Line Adjustment 2511 and 2507 Condon Ct.)
Page 3 of 7
At present, Mr. Bjorklund and his contractor, Johnson Reiland Builders & Remodelers, are requesting a lot
line adjustment and variance to move the current boundary line south by approximately six- feet (6’). While
the alignment makes more sense for how the lots will be used, the rearrangement will create a legally non-
conforming frontage for the property at 2511 Condon Court. As such, the Applicant is proposing the
following (see Survey Site Plan):
•To move the shared side-yard property line between 2507 and 2511 Condon Court by
approximately six-feet (6’) (totaling 794-square feet) to the south.
•A variance from the required minimum lot frontage, per City Code section 12-1E-3.D.3.a., to
further reduce the lot width from 79.7 feet to 73.6 feet. (Note that the existing lot at 2511 Condon
is non-conforming with respect to lot frontage.)
A summary of the existing properties, and the proposed configuration is provided in the following table:
2507 Condon 2511 Condon
Existing Proposed Existing Proposed
Lot Area (Size) 12,197 SF
(0.28 Ac.)
12,991 SF
(0.30 Ac.)
10,890 SF
(0.25 Ac.)
10,090 SF
(0.23 Ac.)
Lot Depth 120’ 120’ 188’ 188’
Frontage 152’ 158’ 79.7’ 73.7’
Side Yard setback
(shared) 0’ 0’ 0’ 0’
The two other twin home developments to the south were created with similar parcel divisions over each
unit. This lot or parcel separation provides for each unit to be separately owned and controlled, with its
own legally described land area underlying each unit. The proposed layout of these two-unit parcels is
consistent with what was approved by the City under the original Oaks of Mendota Heights plat of 2015.
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 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 . . .”
As shown on Table 1, the resulting lots if the rearrangement is approved will comply with all R-2 Zoning
standards with the exception of the lot width/frontage on 2511 Condon. 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.
51
Planning Commission | Tuesday, October 24, 2023
Planning Case 2023-26 (Variance and Lot Line Adjustment 2511 and 2507 Condon Ct.)
Page 4 of 7
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:
There are no practical difficulties. The surveyor has demonstrated how the homes will get in and house
and have turn arounds areas for backing up and heading out to the street. The Variance to move the
centerline still allows for ample side lot space with the neighbor homes and is well within the allowed
setbacks.
Staff’s Response:
As the applicant notes, there are no apparent practical difficulties that necessitate the lot line adjustment
nor the variance from frontage requirements. However, adjusting the lot line may assist with egress into
the site. Staff would suggest that a practical difficulty can be created if access is not desirable and does
not facilitate easy use of the site for parking, backing up, etc. The change does support the usage, safety,
and overall practicality of the property.
52
Planning Commission | Tuesday, October 24, 2023
Planning Case 2023-26 (Variance and Lot Line Adjustment 2511 and 2507 Condon Ct.)
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:
None.
Staff’s Response:
The lots are located at the corner of Mendota Heights Road and Condon Court. This positioning
generates unique lot shapes. Furthermore, 2507 Condon is not located on Condon Court itself, and is
instead only accessible via 2511 Condon Court. Thus, it is logical that driveway access and egress may
be complicated by these conditions. While the Applicant did not offer a reason or justification, staff
does believe that the adjustment will result in a safer and more accessible lot.
3.The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Applicant’s Response:
This Variance does not alter the essential character but instead allows for the existing street-scape to
be preserved and the new homes to be built within the existing setbacks to the neighbors’ homes.
Staff’s Response:
The proposed variance will reduce the lot frontage of 2511 Condon by approximately 6-feet. As viewed
from the street or from the surrounding neighborhood, there will be no visible change. Additionally,
there are other lots within the subdivision with lot frontage/width between approximately 50-feet and
80-feet. The proposed resulting lot frontage is 73.3-feet, which is consistent with the character of
surrounding lots.
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 align the property lines with the way the applicant intends
to develop the lots. Ultimately, alignment of the property lines will help to create a more accessible,
and safer, driveway for the eventual homeowner. Economic considerations are 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. The property was
already non-conforming and exists in a subdivision largely composed of similarly non-conforming
lots. Thus, reducing the lot frontage by an additional 6-feet will not exacerbate the non-
conformance, nor will it produce adverse impacts to surrounding properties.
As proposed, the requested variance is consistent and in harmony with the existing R-2 zoning
which designates this property for townhome and attached housing development at suburban
densities.
53
Planning Commission | Tuesday, October 24, 2023
Planning Case 2023-26 (Variance and Lot Line Adjustment 2511 and 2507 Condon Ct.)
Page 6 of 7
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 revised findings-of-fact that the
proposed lot line adjustment and variance are 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.
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 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.
54
Planning Commission | Tuesday, October 24, 2023
Planning Case 2023-26 (Variance and Lot Line Adjustment 2511 and 2507 Condon Ct.)
Page 7 of 7
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Lot Line Adjustment and Variance
2511 and 2507 Condon Court
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed lot line adjustment and
variance from the minimum frontage requirement:
1.The proposed lot line adjustment will create a safer driveway and access for the new twin home
that is planned to be constructed on the site.
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, and the eventual improvements must comply with all R-2 dimensional standards for
setbacks.
4.The resulting lot frontage of 2511 is approximately 73.3-feet, and the existing configuration is
already non-conconforming. The further reduction in lot frontage will not significant alter or
change the existing configuration but will improve the safety of the lot.
5.The resulting lot frontage of 73.7-feet is consistent with the neighborhood character, and other lots
within the subdivision typically range from 50 to 80 feet of frontage.
6.The proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the Medium Density Residential (R-2)
requirements and the resulting lot sizes are consistent with the R-2 minimum lot size requirements.
7.While the Applicant did not demonstrated that there are practical difficulties, the city finds that the
lot line adjustment will assist with site usability, safety, navigability, and overall practicality once
the lot is developed.
8.Approval of the variance request and the lot line adjustment will not adversely impact the character
of the neighborhood.
9.That provided the conditions of approval are met, the resulting lots will comply with the intent and
purpose of the R-2 Zoning District.
55
56
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
57
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:
58
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.
59
Planning Commission | Tuesday, October 24, 2023
Planning Case 2023-20 (Variance and Lot Line Adjustment 641 and 645 Hampshire Dr.)
Page 1 of 7
PLANNING STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: October 24, 2023
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Haskamp, AICP - SHC
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2023-20
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT & VARIANCE
APPLICANT: Heather Stefanski
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 641 Hampshire Drive
ZONING: R-1 One Family Residential
LAND USE: LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: January 23, 2023 (120-day Review Period)
INTRODUCTION
Applicant Heather Stefanski is requesting a variance and lot line adjustment to modify the boundary
between her property at 641 Hampshire Drive and the property directly to the west at 645 Hampshire Drive.
Tim and Eileen Wilkin own the neighboring property and are in support of both applications.
The prior owner of the subject property installed landscaping and a shed on a permanent foundation along
what was believed to be the western boundary of the subject property. After purchasing the subject property,
the Applicant built a fence along the lot line that was believed to be accurate. The Applicant later discovered
that the fence, landscaping, and shed actually reside on the neighboring lot owned by the Wilkins. The
variance and lot line adjustment applications are intended to align the legal boundaries of both lots with the
physical improvements. The Wilkins have agreed to sell 1,077 square feet to the Applicant so that the
property line can be shifted approximately six feet to the west to so that the respective improvements are
on the subject lot.
The Applicant submitted written consent from all property owners within 100 feet of the boundaries of the
subject property. Therefore, the requirement for a public hearing has been waived.
60 4a.
Planning Commission | Tuesday, October 24, 2023
Planning Case 2023-20 (Variance and Lot Line Adjustment 641 and 645 Hampshire Dr.)
Page 2 of 7
BACKGROUND / SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject properties are located in the
Hampshire Estates subdivision, which was
platted in 1987. Both are zoned R-1 and were
developed in the late 1980s with single-family
structures. The properties are located on the
north side of Hampshire Drive and lie east of
Huber Drive (see map for location).
The property at 645 Hampshire Drive is
nonconforming for lot width and has
approximately 94.7 feet of frontage. The subject
property at 645 Hampshire Drive conforms to all
zoning standards, except that the existing
improvements such as the fence and shed do not
comply with applicable setback requirements. If
the lot line adjustment is approved, the frontage
and lot area of 645 Hampshire will be reduce and require a variance from the standards.
While the R-1 zoning district standards require 100-feet of frontage, the character of the surrounding
neighborhood includes lots that range in width between 70 and 110 feet.
A summary of the existing properties, and the proposed configuration is provided in the following table:
645 Hampshire 641 Hampshire
Existing Proposed Variance Existing Proposed
Lot Area
(Size)
15,157 SF
(0.35 Ac.)
14,080 SF
(0.32 Ac.)
120 SF from
lot area
16,319 SF
(0.37 Ac.)
17,396 SF
(0.40 Ac.)
Lot Depth 170’ 170’ NA 177’ 177’
Frontage 94.7’ 88.69’ 6.07 ft
(reduction) 107’ 113’
Side Yard
setback
(shared)
12.9’ 6.9’
NA
0’ 5.0’
By allowing for the reconfiguration of this shared lot line, the side and rear yards will align with the existing
fencing and landscaping on both properties. However, while the alignment makes more sense for how the
lots are actually used, the lot line rearrangement will increase the non-conformity of the lot at 641
Hampshire Drive reducing the frontage by approximately 6-feet and the lot area to approximately 14,080
SF. The following is a summary of the proposed lot line adjustment and variance request (see Survey Site
Plan):
•To shift (rearrange) the shared side-yard property line west that lies between 651 and 645
Hampshire Drive by approximately six feet thereby reducing the property at 645 Hampshire by
approximately 1,077 square feet.
•A variance from the required minimum lot width and lot area, per City Code section 12-1E-3.D.3.a.
61
Planning Commission | Tuesday, October 24, 2023
Planning Case 2023-20 (Variance and Lot Line Adjustment 641 and 645 Hampshire Dr.)
Page 3 of 7
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 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 . . .”
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 641 Hampshire. 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.
Furthermore, City Code Section 12-1D-2(A) states: “A lot of record existing upon the effective date of this
chapter in an R district, which does not meet the requirements of this chapter as to area or width, may be
utilized for single-family detached dwelling purposes, provided the measurements of such area or width
are within seventy percent (70%) of the requirements of this chapter . . .”
The proposed lot line adjustment would result in the transfer of approximately 1,077 square feet from 641
Hampshire to 645 Hampshire; however, the total area of 645 Hampshire would still be comfortably within
seventy percent (70%) of the dictated requirements. Additionally, it should be noted that the existing
frontage on 645 is non-conforming, and the requested variance is to further reduce the frontage but the
resulting frontage will still exceed the 70% threshold as established by the requirements of a legal non-
conforming lot as described.
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
62
Planning Commission | Tuesday, October 24, 2023
Planning Case 2023-20 (Variance and Lot Line Adjustment 641 and 645 Hampshire Dr.)
Page 4 of 7
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 practical difficulties include mature landscaping and a shed that were installed based on
understanding of where the lot line was. There is no easy way to remove them to conform with the
current lot lines. We believe our request is reasonable as it does not change the use of the property as
single family residence and both parties agree to this change. Moreover, all neighbors support this
variance application.
Staff’s Response:
The presence of mature landscaping, a shed, and a fence that were installed based on the assumption of
the location of the existing lot line based on how the properties were used by several owners. This
presents a valid practical difficulty since these improvements and landscaping have been installed and
maintained over several years. It can be time-consuming, cost prohibitive and disruptive to remove
these features, especially since the improvements have been present for several years. Furthermore,
removal of mature landscaping goes against the goals outlined in the City of Mendota Heights 2040
Comprehensive Plan, which seek to protect natural resources within the City. Conforming to the current
lot lines could impose a significant burden on the property owner and potentially cause a disturbance
in the neighborhood as a whole.
2.The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by
the property owner.
Applicant’s Response:
Neighborhood has varying lot width between 70ft – 110ft. 645 Hampshire was already non-conforming
and did not meet the code. This neighborhood is unique because it has a range of lot widths. We did
this in good faith, we believed the lot lines matched the improvements that were being put in place and
now want the legal boundary to fit with the physical improvements of the property. Both parties (645
and 641 Hampshire Drive) are in support of this change.
Staff’s Response:
The existing landscaping and shed were installed prior to the Applicant’s purchase of the property.
Although the Applicant installed the fence, this was done on the assumption that the shed and
landscaping aligned with the legal property boundary. Therefore, the circumstance necessitating the
variance was not created by the property owner. Furthermore, the property was already non-conforming
and exists in a subdivision largely composed of similar lots, some of which are non-conforming for lot
width. Thus, reducing the lot frontage by an additional 6-feet will not significantly change the existing
lot configurations, nor will it produce a lot that is inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
63
Planning Commission | Tuesday, October 24, 2023
Planning Case 2023-20 (Variance and Lot Line Adjustment 641 and 645 Hampshire Dr.)
Page 5 of 7
3.The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Applicant’s Response:
No, it would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. It is not an intensification of use as
these will remain single-family residences. This will not change the character of the neighborhood and
will appear the same from the right of way. IT is correcting the legal boundaries to match the physical
improvements. All neighbors within 100ft of both 645 and 641 Hampshire Drive and signed to support
this variance. There are also additional neighbors that we discussed this with that also signed to
support this application.
Staff’s Response: The proposed variance will reduce the lot frontage of 645 Hampshire by
approximately 6-feet and reduce the lot area by approximately 1,077 SF resulting in a variance of
approximately 120 square feet. As viewed from the street or from the surrounding neighborhood, there
will be no visible change. Additionally, there are other lots within the Hampshire Estates subdivision
with lot frontage/width between approximately 70-feet and 100-feet. The proposed resulting lot
frontage is approximately 89-feet, which is consistent with the character of surrounding lots.
Notably, the Applicant obtained signatures of support from neighbors within a 100-foot radius of the
subject properties. This illustrates that that the proposed change aligns with the interests and desires of
the local community.
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 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 and lot area 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:
•Natural Resources Goal #2: Protect, connect, restore, buffer, and manage natural areas,
wildlife habitat, and other natural resources, for high ecological quality and diversity of plant
and animal species.
•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.
64
Planning Commission | Tuesday, October 24, 2023
Planning Case 2023-20 (Variance and Lot Line Adjustment 641 and 645 Hampshire Dr.)
Page 6 of 7
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 and lot area 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 revised findings-of-fact that the
proposed lot line adjustment and variance are 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.
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.
65
Planning Commission | Tuesday, October 24, 2023
Planning Case 2023-20 (Variance and Lot Line Adjustment 641 and 645 Hampshire Dr.)
Page 7 of 7
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Lot Line Adjustment and Variance
641 and 645 Hampshire Drive
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed lot line adjustment and
variance from the minimum frontage requirement:
1.The proposed lot line adjustment will align the legal property boundaries with existing landscaping
and permanent improvements located on the respective lots.
2.The realignment of the property line will not create any additional density or new lots.
3.The property at 641 Hampshire will be brought into full compliance with the R-1 zoning
dimensional standards as a result of the lot line adjustment.
4.The existing lot frontage at 645 Hampshire is non-conforming and further reducing the lot frontage
by 6-feet does not exacerbate or cause adverse impact to the lot or surrounding properties.
5.Reducing the lot area of 645 Hampshire results in a variance of approximately 120-square feet from
the minimum lot area, but this reduction will have minimal or no impact on the surrounding lots or
neighborhood.
6.The resulting lot frontage of 75.5-feet is consistent with the neighborhood character, and other lots
within the subdivision typically range from 75 to 100 feet of frontage.
7.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.
8.The Applicant demonstrated that practical difficulties exist related to the existing landscaping and
shed, which were installed prior to the Applicant’s purchase of the property.
9.Approval of the variance request and the lot line adjustment will not adversely impact the character
of the neighborhood.
10.All neighborhoods within 100-feet of the property indicated their support of the requested variance
and lot line adjustment demonstrating agreement that the request is consistent with the
neighborhood character.
11.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.
66
67
68
69
70
SheetProperty Split for:1 of 3c 2015 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
The Eileen Wilkinliving Trust
CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
2422 Enterprise Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
(651) 681-1914
www.pioneereng.comFax: 681-9488
Cad File: 122056000.dwg
Date:11-30-22
Folder #: 884
Drawn by:KSO
EXISTING CONDITIONS EXHIBIT 71
SheetProperty Split for:2 of 3c 2015 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
The Eileen Wilkinliving Trust
CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
2422 Enterprise Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
(651) 681-1914
www.pioneereng.comFax: 681-9488
Cad File: 122056000.dwg
Date:11-30-22
Folder #: 884
Drawn by:KSO
PROPOSED PARCEL EXHIBIT 72
SheetProperty Split for:3 of 3c 2015 Pioneer Engineering, P.A.
The Eileen Wilkinliving Trust
CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
2422 Enterprise Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
(651) 681-1914
www.pioneereng.comFax: 681-9488
Cad File: 122056000.dwg
Date:11-30-22
Revised: 12-21-22
Folder #: 884
Drawn by:KSO
PROPOSED EASEMENT EXHIBIT 73