Loading...
2023-11-28 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda PacketAuxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Hall at 651.452.1850 with requests. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TUESDAY, November 28, 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 October 24, 2023 Regular Meeting Minutes 3.Public Hearings a.CASE No 2023-27 MRCCA, CUP, & Variance – to authorize a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and variances from the required side-yard and back-yard setbacks to construct a covered entryway and an addition to the existing single-family residence at 1037 Mayfield Heights Lane (David Ellis – Applicant/Owner) b.CASE No 2023-28 CUP and Variance – to authorize a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct outdoor Padel and Pickleball courts and a Variance from City Code Section 12-1D-15(E), which prohibits signs that are painted directly on the outside of buildings (Glenn Baron – Applicant/Owner) 4.New Business 5. Adjourn Meeting 1 October 24, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 14 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 24, 2023 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 24, 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 Cindy Johnson, Brian Petschel, Brian Udell, Jason Stone, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: Commissioner Patrick Corbett. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of September 26, 2023 Minutes COMMISSIONER STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2023. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE 2023-21 CHRISSY AND MIKE RUIZ, 2477 BRIDGEVIEW COURT – WETLAND PERMIT Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp explained that 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. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; no comments or objections to this request were received. She stated that they have since received letters of support for the project. 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. 2 2a. October 24, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 14 Commissioner Katz referenced the comment that similar permits have been given to access wetlands but could not recall reviewing such a request. He acknowledged that all of the work has already been done but noted that his concern is whether this would have been approved ahead of the work being done. He asked if staff went to the site to see if neighbors have similar things. Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp replied that she did not go out to this location, but it was her understanding that there were other places in town where access was provided to the pond for ice skating, although perhaps those are not as extensive. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that there were other encroachments to the same pond. He commented that on Rogers Lake people clear areas to bring in a dock or small boat and this would be a similar situation. Commissioner Stone agreed that there are similar situations on other ponds in the community but noted that in those instances perhaps those property owners requested the proper permission. He provided some examples that he has seen. He stated that he understands the reason someone would want to have that feature but would also think they should follow the process. He acknowledged that the homeowner was probably not aware of the rules. Commissioner Johnson commented that an s or c curve would have been preferred. She stated that it looks like the stairs do not go all the way down to the water and asked the distance between the steps and the water. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that he is unsure of the normal water level as the water could be low right now. He estimated about five feet from the edge of the water. Commissioner Petschel commented that he would guess that several storm sewers dump into this pond. Commissioner Johnson commented that it is important for residents to come before the Commission as there are things that can be done to mitigate. Commissioner Petschel commented that he understands the desire for an s or c curve but the practical impact of that limited area versus dozens to hundreds of acres of pavement that dump into the storm sewer system and end up in this pond. Commissioner Johnson commented that best practices still need to be followed. Commissioner Petschel commented that he was unsure there was a best practice for this type of thing. Commissioner Katz asked the ordinance regulation related to structures of this nature next to a wetland. He recognized that the water level may be low this year because of the drought and asked what would prevent the homeowner from wanting to extend further in the future and whether a future permit would be required for that type of work. 3 October 24, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 14 Commissioner Stone confirmed that a new permit would be needed for additional work as this is just covering the work that has been done. Commissioner Petschel commented that they have historically allowed this type of structure near a wetland. Commissioner Katz asked what the ordinance states. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that currently the City does not have a shoreland regulation and is working on that. He stated that currently the wetland ordinance states that any permanent structures within the wetland boundary requires a wetlands permit. He stated that there are no conditions or restrictions today, but they hope to adopt a new ordinance in the future. Chair Field referenced the staff recommendation, condition four, and asked if it would be the intention that an escrow would be assigned to the project. Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp replied that an escrow is required as part of the submission and therefore that would be retained. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Chrissy and Mike Ruiz, applicants, apologized for his drawing noting that there is an s curve. He commented that if they would have known, they would have applied for the permit before completing the work. He commented that the improvement provides access to the pond. He stated that the pond and life of the pond is important to them. He stated that they worked with the DNR and University of Minnesota and will be taking a class about clean water landscaping, with a potential to receive grant funding. He commented that the vegetation removed was buckthorn and they plan to replant native vegetation in the spring. Mrs. Ruiz commented that their whole neighborhood skates on the pond and access had become a safety issue. She noted that the stairs will allow the kids to access the pond safely. 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 JOHNSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO RECOMMEND 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 REESTABLISH A NATIVE PLANT BUFFER WITHIN 4 October 24, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 14 THE CONSTRUCTION AREA IN THE SPRING, BASED ON THE 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 RESOURCES 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. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its November 8, 2023 meeting. B) PLANNING CASE 2023-22 THOMAS JACOBSON, 2237 ROGERS COURT – LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp explained that the applicant, Thomas Jacobson, 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. 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. 5 October 24, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 14 Commissioner Petschel asked if a garage would have to have access to be considered a garage rather than a shed. Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp replied that specification is not made in ordinance. She stated that there is not a driveway proposed, so that would support this having a less intensive use. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Thomas Jacobson, applicant, stated that he was present to address any questions. He commented that he intends to use the space to store a collector vehicle and vintage snowmobiles. 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 STONE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON THE FINDINGS-OF-FACT SUPPORTING THE REQUEST AND 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 RESULING LOTS. 2. ALL TRANSFER OR DEED DOCUMENTS WHICH COVEY 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. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its November 8, 2023 meeting. 6 October 24, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 14 C) PLANNING CASE 2023-23 THOMAS AND MAUREEN KEELEY, 1661 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS ROAD – MRCCA PERMIT Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp explained that Thomas and Maureen Keeley, applicants and owners, of the property located at 1661 Mayfield Heights Road are requesting a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit to demolish an existing detached garage and construct a new detached garage. 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. Chair Field asked if the Commission would be delegating the review of the restoration plan to staff as it was not included. Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp confirmed that would be the approach recommended. Chair Field opened the public hearing. No comments made. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STONE, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Petschel referenced item four in the staff recommendation and asked if that language would need to be altered to include the restoration plan. Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp stated that the restoration plan is addressed in item two, but the language could be strengthened in item four to include that within the letter of credit. She provided language that could be added. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER UDELL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE MRCCA-CRITICAL AREA PERMIT REQUEST FOR 1661 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS ROAD, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 7 October 24, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 14 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 COORDINATOR. 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 GURANTEE AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING GARAGE AND DRIVEWAY, AND THE RESTORATION PLAN. SUCH GURANTEE 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 A.M. AND 8:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY; 9:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. ON WEEKENDS. FURTHER DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER KATZ ASKED IF THERE SHOULD BE A TIMELINE INCLUDED FOR THE LANDSCAPING/RESTORATION PLAN TO BE SUBMITTED. PLANNING CONSULTANT JENNIFER HASKAMP PROVIDED ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION ON THE 60 DAY RULE AND 60 DAY EXTENSION THAT CAN BE GRANTED FOR REVIEW. SHE STATED THAT BECAUSE THE RESTORATION PLAN IS TIED TO THE LETTER OF CREDIT, THERE WOULD BE A FINANCIAL COMMITMENT TIED TO THAT OBLIGATION AND THEREFORE THAT WOULD BE A MOTIVATOR IN THE RESTORATION PLAN. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON ASKED IF CITY STAFF WOULD REVIEW THE RESTORATION PLAN ONCE IMPLEMENTED. 8 October 24, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 14 PLANNING CONSULTANT JENNIFER HASKAMP CONFIRMED THAT THERE WOULD BE A SITE VISIT TO DETERMINE THAT THE RESTORATION PLAN WAS FOLLOWED AND IS ESTABLISHED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its November 8, 2023 meeting. D) PLANNING CASE 2023-24 DANIEL AND KAREN BOGG, 809 HAZEL COURT – VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp explained that 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 one 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 four-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; 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 the conditional use permit for a 50-square foot front porch and denial of the requested variances with the CUP conditions as noted in the staff report. Commissioner Petschel asked if the lot is nonconforming as it does not have 100 feet of frontage. Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp replied that the lot does have 100 feet of frontage. Commissioner Petschel asked if the house is inside of the 30-foot setback. Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp replied that the home is setback by approximately 30 feet, but recognized that perhaps it does encroach a few inches into that setback. Commissioner Stone asked if the concern is one foot on one side and four feet on the other side. Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp replied that the front porch would encroach by about one foot and the overall size of the structure exceeds the maximum allowed by four feet. She stated that if the width of the front porch were reduced by six inches along the width, the structure would become conforming. 9 October 24, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 14 Commissioner Stone noted that all of the neighbors have signed in support of the structure, noting that this property is located on a dead-end cul-de-sac. Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp commented that is a challenge from the ordinance. She commented that while it is great that the neighbors support the project, the criteria still have to be met. Chair Field asked if it would be appropriate to have two separate votes on this matter. Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp replied that two motions could be made, or one motion, however the Commission is comfortable. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Daniel Bogg, applicant, stated that when they submitted the application for a variance and CUP, it was their understanding that the request could be considered due to unique circumstances not created by the property owner. He stated that the unique circumstance to this property is where the home was built with a very limited setback from the cul-de-sac. He stated that the yellow band showing the setback does encroach into the home. He noted that this request is about four-square feet. He stated that a covered entry is needed for their home, not only for those coming and going to the property, but the residents living there. He commented that the home was built with very little to no setback and it is very flat. He stated that they always wanted to construct a covered entryway and they saved for the past 12 years to get to this point, to now debate about four square feet. He stated that the architect did many dimensional checks of this property and those of the neighbors related to the setback. He stated that the problem they face is that the original concrete pad that was put on the home was very small and the elevation lends itself to a step. He stated that they requested a six-foot pad rather than a five-foot pad to ensure a group of people entering the home would all be covered by the porch and the architect agreed as it was more dimensionally in line with the home as well. He stated that the design is a simple column with an arched cover which is welcoming and still open. He stated that when he submitted the variance request, he felt that the unique setback and location where the home was built caused the problem. He stated that after speaking with staff, the better description would be protection from the elements. He stated that his home faces due east and therefore the morning sun shines onto the front of their property. He recognized that this seems like a minimal request, but the additional space will provide additional protection of the residents and those that live there and visit. He stated that if he would have known more about the process and the staff recommendation for denial, he would have asked his neighbors to attend in person. He stated that he spoke with each of his neighbors in person, sharing his plans, and they all support the project. He noted that each of the neighbors did sign the notice of intent as stated earlier by staff. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER UDELL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 10 October 24, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 14 AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Petschel stated that the only practical difficulty he can see is that the front yard setback of the home is nonconforming, but was unsure if that would make a difference to the respective area. Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp replied that would be very close. She stated that part of the challenge for staff was the issue of precedent and therefore if there is something specific to the parcel that would help in terms of the variance analysis. Commissioner Petschel stated that malsighting of the home has been used as a reason for a practical difficulty and therefore he would suggest that could fit in this instance. He respected that the neighbors support the project but noted that even if neighbors did not support the project, a case should receive the same review. Commissioner Udell commented that the curve as shown on the map should be treated as correct and then it does show it going into the home. He commented that this is an unenviable position in terms of where the home is positioned. Chair Field commented that it would seem that the placement of the home given the cul-de-sac and its arc makes the practical difficulty. Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp reviewed updated findings-of-fact that could be used to support the variance. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STONE, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES FOR A 54 SQUARE FOOT FRONT PORCH FOR 809 HAZEL COURT, BASED ON REVISED FINDINGS-OF-FACT AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.A BUILDING PERMIT, INCLUDING GRADING PLAN, MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY SITE WORK. 2.THE PROPOSED PROJECT MUST COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. ALL PLANS MUST BE REIVEWED AND APPROVED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. 3.ALL EROSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS AS APPROVED IN THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN MUST BE PUT IN PLACE PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY GRADING AND SITE WORK ACTIVITIES. SUCH MEASUSRES MUST REMAIN IN PLACE FOR THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES UNTIL PROPER SITE RESTORATION PLANS ARE COMPLETED. 4.ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY MUST COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND CODES. 11 October 24, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 14 5.ALL WORK ON SITE WILL ONLY BE PERFORMED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:00 A.M. AND 8:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY; 9:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. ON WEEKENDS. FURTHER DISCUSSION: CHAIR FIELD COMMENTED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE HOUSE PLACEMENT AND SETBACK/CUL-DE-SAC, HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SUPPORT APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCES. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its November 8, 2023 meeting. E) PLANNING CASE 2023-26 JOHNSON RIELAND BUILDERS AND REMODELERS, 2507 AND 2511 CONDON COURT – LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND VARIANCE Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp explained that the applicant, Johnson Reiland Builders and 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). 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 Stone asked if the idea is to build two more twinhomes that would be identical to those that already exist. He asked if there would be trees providing separation from the road. Chair Field commented that the only thing before the Commission tonight would be the lot split. Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp commented that they would need to go back to 2015 to see if there were any conditions placed on that change. Chair Field noted that at some point a site plan may come forward that would have those details. Commissioner Petschel asked if lot 2 was nonconforming going back to 2015. 12 October 24, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 14 Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp replied that it became nonconforming in 2022, when the lot split request was approved. She noted that approval included a variance for that frontage. Commissioner Johnson believed that one of the conditions of that lot split was that the oak trees along Mendota Heights Road would remain. Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp noted that they could reinforce in the conditions tonight that any conditions from Resolution #2022-20 would carry forward related to landscaping/vegetation. Commissioner Johnson stated that the trees could have been included in the vacation of right-of- way request. Commissioner Stone commented that he is not opposed to something being built but would like to see that buffer. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Paul Rieland, applicant, provided an aerial photo with the existing vegetation on the site. He commented that it is their intention to keep the oak trees. He commented that the original developer is retired and asked his company to complete the project. He appreciated the opportunity to work with the City. He commented that he is agreeable with what has been presented by the previous developer and engineer in terms of vegetation. Chair Field commented that Commissioner Johnson had recalled the previous vegetation requirements and asked if the applicant would agree to those. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that there was a condition that the oak trees could not be removed and noted that was the only vegetation related condition from previous requests. Mr. Rieland confirmed that they are aware of that requirement and comfortable with that. Commissioner Johnson asked about the plans to protect the oak trees. Mr. Rieland provided details on the process they would use to protect the trees. He noted that these homes would be slab on grade, which is different than the other homes but would still fit well into the area. 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 JOHNSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 13 October 24, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 14 Commissioner Johnson stated that she will be abstaining from this vote because of her professional relationship with the builder. COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STONE, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND VARIANCE BASED ON THE FINDINGS-OF-FACT SUPPORTING THE REQUEST AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 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. 3. ALL PRIOR CONDITIONS RELATED TO LANDSCAPING/VEGETATION SPECIFIC TO THE OAK TREES FROM PRIOR CASES WOULD CARRY FORWARD AND REMAIN IN EFFECT. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 (JOHNSON) Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its November 8, 2023 meeting. New Business A) PLANNING CASE 2023-20 HEATHER STEFANSKI, 614 HIDDEN CREEK TRAIL – LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND VARIANCE Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp explained that 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 so that the respective improvements are on the subject property. 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. 14 October 24, 2023 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 of 14 Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Petschel asked if both property owners are present and have agreed to the request. Heather Stefanski, applicant, commented that the other property owners could not be present but did sign the letter and agree. She stated that those property owners actually approached her to sell her that strip of land. COMMISSIONER STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND VARIANCE BASED ON THE FINDINGS-OF-FACT SUPPORTING THE REQUEST AND 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 RESULING 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. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its November 8, 2023 meeting. Staff Announcements / Updates Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that hopefully a new Community Development Manager will be present at the November meeting for introduction. Chair Field thanked Planning Consultant Jennifer Haskamp for all the work she has done to assist. Adjournment COMMISSIONER STONE MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER UDELL, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:02 P.M. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 15 Planning Commission | Tuesday November 28, 2023 Planning Case 2023-27 (MRCCA Permit & Variance for 1037 Mayfield Heights Ln.) Page 1 of 9 PLANNING STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: November 28, 2023 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jennifer Haskamp, AICP - SHC SUBJECT: Planning Case 2023-27 MRCCA Permit & Variance APPLICANT: David Ellis PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1037 Mayfield Heights Lane ZONING: R-1 One Family Residential LAND USE: LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: February 23, 2024 (120-day Review Period) INTRODUCTION David Ellis is the Applicant and Owner (“Applicant”) of the property located at 1037 Mayfield Heights Lane. He is requesting a Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Permit and variances from the required side-yard and back-yard setbacks to construct an addition to the existing single-family residence. As part of the Application review, staff determined that a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is also needed to construct a covered front stoop that encroaches approximately three 3) feet into the front-yard setback. 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 southern curve of the Mayfield Heights Lane cul-de-sac. Constructed in 1979, the existing structure is a split-level, single family residence. The subject property is located in the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area (MRCCA) in the River Neighborhood sub-district. Significant Existing Vegetative Stands run along the western edge of the parcel, but the property is not in a Bluff Impact Zone (BIZ), nor does it contain any wetlands or other protected natural features. The following Analysis regarding the proposed request is provided for your review and consideration. 16 3a. Planning Commission | Tuesday November 28, 2023 Planning Case 2023-27 (MRCCA Permit & Variance for 1037 Mayfield Heights Ln.) Page 2 of 9 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS The existing lot is developed with a single-family, split-level home. The Applicant is proposing to construct an addition to the existing home, which will feature three new bedrooms and a bathroom. The addition will expand the western side of the existing residential structure by 1,146-square feet and consist of two floors. The addition will encroach approximately 37-square feet into the back-yard setback and 50-square feet into the side-yard setback. Furthermore, 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 Applicant is proposing to construct a 39- squarefoot covered front stoop, which will extend about three-feet (3’) into the front-yard setback. This complies with City Code Section 12-1D-4, subsection 2.a.(2) and requires a Conditional Use Permit. Photos of the existing home and lot are provided for reference (Google Maps). In summary, the Applicant is requesting the following: •A MRCCA Permit to construct a 1,146-squarefoot addition to the western side of the existing residential structure. •A Variance from the side-yard setback, given that the addition will encroach approximately 50- square feet into the setback. •A Variance from the back-yard setback, given that the addition will encroach approximately 37- square feet into the setback. •A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct a covered stoop which extends about three-feet (3’) into the front-yard setback. (Note, staff identified this as a requirement as part of their review). ANALYSIS The following analysis is provided for each request: 1) MRCCA permit; 2) Variance from side and rear yard setbacks; and 3) Conditional Use Permit for covered porch. MRCCA CRITICAL AREA 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: Standard Subject Property Conditions MRCCA Sub District River Neighborhood District (CA-RN) Bluff on Site No Bluff Impact Zone (BIZ) No 17 Planning Commission | Tuesday November 28, 2023 Planning Case 2023-27 (MRCCA Permit & Variance for 1037 Mayfield Heights Ln.) Page 3 of 9 Significant Vegetative Stands or Primary Conservation Area (PCA) The proposed addition will be located on the western side of the existing residential structure, more than 100-feet away from any Significant Vegetative Stands. Subject to Section 12-3-9 Vegetation Management Yes. The proposed addition will be located on the western side of the existing residential structure, more than 100-feet from any Significant Vegetating Stands. No trees will be removed as part of the project and new landscaping/turf will be installed. Subject to Section 12-3-11 Land Alteration Standards and Stormwater Management Yes. The proposed project still meets the design standards set forth in subsection B.4.a., which stipulates that twenty percent (20%) of the total parcel area for properties in a RN District be set aside and designated as protected open space. Subject to Section 12-3-12 Site Plan Requirements Yes. Applicant has met Site and Landscape Plan requirements. As described in Section 12-3-4 C.2., the River Neighborhood (RN) sub-district describes the management purpose as follows: “The RN district must be managed to maintain the character of the river corridor within the context of existing residential and related neighborhood development, and to protect and enhance habitat, parks and open space, public river corridor views, and scenic, natural, and historic areas. Minimizing erosion and the flow of untreated storm water into the river and enhancing habitat and shoreline vegetation are priorities in the district.” As indicated on the attached GIS maps, the proposed addition is more than 100-feet from any Significant Existing Vegetative Stands. Furthermore, the placement of the addition on the western side of the property ensures that the natural area on the eastern side of the lot is undisturbed. No trees will be removed to make space for the addition, and the applicant will install landscaping and turf in disturbed areas after construction is completed. The Applicant submitted a detailed planting plan and intends to place a variety of native plantings once construction is complete. This aligns with the management purpose and goals for the RN sub-district. The City’s Public Work Director has reviewed the plans including soil types and has no additional comments regarding the current plans, but notes that all stormwater management and land alteration standards must be met during the construction 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 addition is attached to this report, and the site plan is included. The proposed addition is located on that portion of the site that slopes downward exposing a walkout lower level. The proposed addition will use the existing grades to create a day-lit lower level while expanding the main floor. Given the grades of the site, the proposed addition is approximately 24-feet tall when calculating the average height. The proposed addition exceeds the height of the existing roof line by approximately 6.5-feet. As proposed, the Project complies with the standards set forth in the MRCCA ordinance provided any conditions of approval are met. The location of the addition on the west façade is most desirable so that the existing vegetation on the site is protected to the extent possible. 18 Planning Commission | Tuesday November 28, 2023 Planning Case 2023-27 (MRCCA Permit & Variance for 1037 Mayfield Heights Ln.) Page 4 of 9 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, given the holiday week, no response had been received. A verbal update will be provided with the staff report presentation. 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, 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: A small portion of the setbacks prevent us from being able to use the land for an addition to the single- family home. Staff’s Response: 19 Planning Commission | Tuesday November 28, 2023 Planning Case 2023-27 (MRCCA Permit & Variance for 1037 Mayfield Heights Ln.) Page 5 of 9 The property’s location on a cul-de-sac and the positioning of the house in relation to the front property line and the westerly property line create unique setback lines. The westerly property line is shared with a flag lot, and the “flagpole” portion of the lot abuts the westerly line. This flagpole is approximately 30-feet wide and is only developed with a driveway, resulting in a significant setback between the subject property and the nearest westerly neighbor. Given the cul-de-sac and adjacent flag lot it is logical that any alterations to the house may be complicated by these conditions. Furthermore, it should be noted that the western side of the property is largely wooded and features Significant Existing Vegetative Stands. Therefore, the placement of the proposed addition on the western edge of the lot does not interfere or disrupt the existing vegetation. The western side of the lot also features an existing attached garage. Given this, there is no other logical place for the addition to be installed. 2.The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner. Applicant’s Response: The current setbacks in relation to the amount of unused land. Staff’s Response: Staff confirms that the property’s location on a cul-de-sac and the orientation of the home, including existing garage location, on the lot closer to the westerly property line creates a unique condition. The existence of Significant Existing Vegetative Stands (MRCCA) on the eastern edge of the lot also contributes to a unique circumstance that the Applicant is attempting to preserve by placing the addition as far away from the vegetation as possible. 3.The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Applicant’s Response: There would only be a small infringement on the current setbacks. Staff’s Response: Many houses in the neighborhood feature a mid-century modern architectural style, so the proposed addition would not alter the existing character of the surrounding area. Furthermore, the addition will not impede nor intrude upon the views of the neighboring property at 1041 Mayfield Heights Lane, as the proposed addition will abut the neighboring driveway and be hidden behind a dense tree line. 4.Restrictions on Granting Variances. The following restrictions should be considered when reviewing a variance: a)Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The purpose of this variance request is to allow the property owners to utilize their property in a way that corresponds with their current needs. The variance will also permit the Ellis family to expand their home in a way that compliments the existing architecture and the constraints of the lot. The addition may increase the value of the subject property, but this is not the primary reason for the request. b)Variances are only to be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and consistent with the comprehensive plan. Staff finds that requested variances from the side-and-back yard setbacks are consistent with surrounding properties and land use, particularly given the presence of the abutting flag lot. No additional lots are created as a result of this request, and the intent is to permit the homeowners to 20 Planning Commission | Tuesday November 28, 2023 Planning Case 2023-27 (MRCCA Permit & Variance for 1037 Mayfield Heights Ln.) Page 6 of 9 expand their existing home in a way that compliments the existing structure and the property as a whole. As proposed, the requested variance is consistent and in harmony with the existing R-1 zoning which designates this property for single-family residential uses. The subject property is designated as LR-Low Density Residential in the current 2040 Plan. Certain land use goals and policies are noted below: •Land Use Goal #2: Preserve, protect, and enrich the mature, fully developed residential neighborhoods and character of the community. •Housing Goal #1: Preserve and improve existing neighborhoods and housing units. o Housing Policy #2: Explore options for flexibility in Zoning Code standards and encourage reinvestment in existing houses o Housing Policy #4. Support the maintenance and rehabilitation of the community’s existing housing stock. Other guiding principles in the comprehensive plan provide for maintaining, preserving, and enhancing existing single-family neighborhoods. City Staff believes that the request for a variance from the minimum lot width is consistent with the goals stated in the comprehensive plan as referenced above. 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 covered front stoop is intended to support the existing and proposed single-family use of the property. The proposed stoop will also have no adverse impact to traffic or surrounding property values. 21 Planning Commission | Tuesday November 28, 2023 Planning Case 2023-27 (MRCCA Permit & Variance for 1037 Mayfield Heights Ln.) Page 7 of 9 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: As designed and shown on the Applicant’s submission, the proposed covered stoop only encroaches into the front-yard setback by approximately three-feet (3’), is only 37-square feet in size, and will not exceed the height of the principal structure. It is therefore well within the conditions put forth in City Code Section 12-1D-4, subsection 2.a.(2), which states: Covered and/or enclosed entryways (porches, decks, stoops, or similar structures) that extend into the front yard setback shall require the approval of a conditional use permit, subject to compliance with the following conditions: 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. 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 covered entryways. ALTERNATIVES 1.Approve the MRCCA-Critical Area Permit, Variance requests, and/or Conditional Use Permit request for 1037 Mayfield Heights Lane, which would allow for the construction of a 1,146-squarefoot addition to the existing residential structure and a covered stoop 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, Variance requests, and/or Conditional Use Permit request for 1037 Mayfield Heights Lane, 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 and may have negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood and/or properties; or 3.Table the request; direct staff to work with the Applicants and allow them more time to refine the plan for the property and extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with Minnesota State Statute 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the MRCCA-Critical Area Permit, Variance requests, and Conditional Use Permit request for 1037 Mayfield Heights Lane, 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. 22 Planning Commission | Tuesday November 28, 2023 Planning Case 2023-27 (MRCCA Permit & Variance for 1037 Mayfield Heights Ln.) Page 8 of 9 2.The proposed project must comply with all requirements of the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. All plans must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director. 3.All erosion control requirements as approved in the Erosion Control Plan must be put in place prior to the commencement of any grading and site work activities. Such measures must remain in place for the duration of the construction activities until proper site restoration plans are completed. 4.All grading and construction activity must comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes. 5.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. 23 Planning Commission | Tuesday November 28, 2023 Planning Case 2023-27 (MRCCA Permit & Variance for 1037 Mayfield Heights Ln.) Page 9 of 9 FINDINGS-OF-FACT FOR APPROVAL MRCAA -Critical Area Permit, Variances, and a Conditional Use Permit for 1037 Mayfield Heights Lane The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1.The project includes a comprehensive planting plan. The Applicant will install turf and native vegetation once construction is complete. The addition and covered stoop are also planned in such a way that the existing natural features on the lot will be disturbed to the least extent possible. Therefore, the proposed project is within the spirit and intent of the MRCCA River Neighborhood sub-district that provides for flexibility within the management purpose. 2.The proposed addition will allow for the continued use of the property as a single-family structure. 3.The proposed addition represents an investment in a residential neighborhood which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for residential land uses. 4.The Applicant has demonstrated that there are unique circumstances of the lot that support the request for a variance from the strict interpretation of the ordinance. 5.The Applicant has demonstrated that there are practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance due to the existing orientation of the home, location and placement on a cul-de-sac and presence of significant vegetation which is recommended for protection through the City’s MRCCA ordinance requirements. 6.The proposed covered stoop meets all of the conditions put forth in City Code Section 12-1D-4, subsection 2.a.(2). 7.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. 8.The construction of the addition and the covered stoop as 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. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 1037 Mayfield Heights Ln 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 = 25 feet 5/8/2023 35 MENDOTA LILYDALE PICKEREL LAKEMISSISSIPPI RIVERMINNESOTA RI VE R DODD RDValley Park North Valley Park South Wentworth Park Ivy Hills Park Marie Park Ivy Falls Civic Center Park Victoria Highland Park Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Overlay Map City of Mendota Heights µMRCCA OVERLAY DISTRICT PARKS Municipal Boundary Line TH 13Delaware Ave.Dodd Rd.Wentworth Ave. Marie Ave.Marie Ave.Lexington Ave.Wachtler Ave.Hunter Lane36 10/9/23, 5:32 PM Dakota County GIS https://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/dcgis/1/1 Dakota County, MN Land Use/Land Development Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Districts DISTRICT CA-RN CA-ROS CA-RTC CA-SR CA-UC CA-UM Water MRCCA Bluff Impact Zones Property Information Addresses Parcel Lines 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 10/9/2023 37 8/7/23, 5:47 PM MRCCA Primary Conservation Areas (PCAs) arcgis.dnr.state.mn.us/portal/apps/Embed/index.html?webmap=e3ef3c1e55504511a1d00be51d035861&extent=-93.3925,44.8455,-92.9881,45.002&home=true&zoom=true&previewImage=false&scale=…1/1 Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area MRCCA Boundary City and Township Boundaries Parcels MRCCA Primary Conservation Areas Natural Drainage Routes Shore Impact Zones Native Plant Communities Significant Existing Vegetative Stands Bluff Impact Zone Wetlands 100 Year Floodplain River Legend Light Gray Canvas    0 50 100ft  2938 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 6' 11"6' 3"4' 2"6' 5"10'9"1' 5"5'2"5' 4"5' 4"6'2"4'11"5'5"13' 7"12' 7"11' 4"4' 0"15' 1"13' 0" 4' 8 "5' 6"28' 1"28' 1"17' 5"17' 5"28' 1"28' 1"7' 1"35' 4"5"1 6'54 1 ""5"4 144 54'2""2"66636''5556'55141114414141414114114 15' 0"15' 1"4'11"7'4"6'5"8' 6 "9' 9"9'9"9 '6 "9' 5"7' 10"3' 7"2'4"1' 5"4'0"17'5"7'117' 5"17' 5"928' 1"28' 1"28' 1"28' 1"28'1"3355'44"6' 2"74'2"6' 1"3' 1"10' 6"4' 5" 4' 3 "6' 10"2' 9"3' 11"2' 8"6' 3"2' 8"18' 6"2' 0"20' 0"28' 0"20' 0"42' 3" 23' 9 "7"1' 4"5"7"1' 1"8' 9"3' 1"7"19' 11"28' 7"22'10"23'11"13'0"46' 9 "ExistingHouse5' 11"2' 4"Garage5' 11"2' 4"Driveway8' 0"1' 9"WSideProperty Line8' 0"2' 2"3' 0"3' 0"56"565'64' 0"4' 0"2' 2"2' 2"c6' 2"6' 2"1' 8"1' 8"28'1"28' 1"28' 1"NSWE6' 5"8' 2"10'5'Dimension Key:10' 3"6' 6"22' 9"23'5"ProposedRemodel AdditionBuildout(illustrating Lower Level only)13' 11"4' 5"28' 1"11' 0"1' 6"9' 1"26' 9"20' 1"2' 7"5' 5"8"6"1' 0"3' 5"12' 3"2' 1"8' 11"7' 0"11' 6"8' 1"12' 5"5' 4"31' 6"6' 9"3' 6"2'2"2'10"2' 2"1'11"2'10"3' 4"1' 3"1'3"ExistingDrain Basin8' 0"2' 2"SetbackLine8' 0"2' 2"11' 5"1' 8"1' 8"1' 8"1' 8"1' 8"1' 8"1' 8"1' 8"1' 8"1' 8"1' 8"1' 8"1' 8"1' 8"1' 8"1' 8"1' 8"1' 8"1' 8"1' 8"1' 8"1' 8"111888"3"''742'1111'2"1884'2110""100'8"88"1'8"1'3"""2'2"1"1'''09999 ''6 """"210' 3"10' 4"2' 3"2' 3"2' 1"2' 1"2'1'128' 1"28' 1"2' 1"2' 1"2' 1"2' 1"9"777'08'9"0"8'11"5' 9"5' 9"884' 1"4' 1"""2' 9"2' 9"2' 2"2' 2"20' 1"20' 2"1' 9"1' 9"1' 9"1' 9"1' 9"1' 9"2' 2"2' 2"99"99'9'9"5' 9"5' 9"27"1' 1"27"1' 1"27"1' 1"37"1' 1"57"1' 1"67"1' 1"77"1' 1"77"1' 1"97"1' 1"111' 1"1' 1"121' 1"1' 1"131' 1"1' 1"121' 1"1' 1"121' 1"1' 1"141' 1"1' 1"151' 1"1' 1"141' 1"1' 1"151' 1"1' 1"151' 1"1' 1"161' 1"1' 1"181' 1"1' 1"201' 1"1' 1"119"19"3' 1"3' 1"3' 1"3' 1"171' 1"1' 1"5' 3"76'4"76' 10"2' 7"2' 7"101' 1"1' 1"87"1' 1"17"1' 1"PINK TINTAREA:IntenttoRetainExistingLandscape/Vegetation7' 1"9' 10"15' 3"2' 2"20' 5"10' 2"53' 11"20'01' 10"1' 1"10'31' 10"1' 1"9' 11"David Ellis1037 Mayfield Heights LaneMendota Heights, MN 55118612-414-4730Lilydale Garden Center10/1/23 Original10/5/23 Modified10/11/23 Modified10/23/23 ModifiedNatives Planting Design by PerryScale pending PDF output size:See Dimension Key;not for use as a construction document;verify dimensions on siteNative Plant Selections & DescriptionsEXISTING VEGETATION IN BUILDOUT AREA TO PROPERTY LINE:Box Elder treeADJACENT VEGETATION BEYOND (W) PROPERTY LINE:A - Black Walnut treeB - Box Elder treesC - Cottonwood treeD - Canada Red cherry treeE - Swamp White oakF - Maple treesG - Queen Anne's LacePROPOSED:FRONT ENTRANCE / WALKOUT GRADE NATIVE PLANTINGS FOR THE HOME LANDSCAPE —1 – baptisia australis – false indigo, sun-part sun, 3-4’h, blue flowers2–n/a3 – prairie dropseed4–n/a5 – American elderberry, sun-part sun, 9’h, fragr wht fl, berries6 – big bluestem, sun, 6-8’h, blu blade, red-brown in winter, seed head7 – rudbeckia hirta – black-eyed Susan, sun, 2’h, yellow fl w/ blk ctr – bees, butterfly8 – asclepias tuberosa – butterfly milkweed, 3’h, bright orange flowers - butterfly9 – schyzachirim - little bluestem, sun, 3’h, blue blade, red-purple in winter, seed head10 – cornus - pagoda dogwood, sun-part sun, 15’hx20’w, pale yellow fl, purple-blk fruit11 – baptisia alba - wild white indigo, sun-part sun, 2’h, white flowers on spikes - bees12 – arisaema triphyllum – Jack in the Pulpit, sun-part shade, 1.5’h, green fl, red berries13 – viburnum trilobum – American highbush cranberry, sun-part shade, 9’h, fragr wht fl, red fall color, red berries14 – asclepias incarnata - swamp milkweed, sun-part sun, 4’h,15 – iris versicolor – blue flag, sun-part sun, 3’h, blue or lav fl – bees, butterfly16 – cornus sericea – red osier dogwood, 18’h, red stems in winter, berries17 – eupatorium maculatum – Joe pye weed, sun-part sun, 5’h, fuzzy pink flower18 – salix discolor – pussy willow, sun-part shade, 20’h, fuzzy catkins19 - PINK TINT AREA = intent to retain existing vegetation20 – sorbus americanus - Showy mountain ash, 20-25’hx15-20’w, white fl, orange cluster of berries, fall color53' 1"61' 4"9' 2"141' 1"1' 1"A11"1' 6"B11"1' 6"B11"1' 6"B11"1' 6"F10"1' 6"F10"1' 6"E11"1' 6"D11"1' 6"C11"1' 6"F10"1' 6"G1' 0"1' 6"ProposedEdging Lines(customer choice)8' 5"3' 3"Entrance LevelPatio(Concrete)8' 0"3' 3"FrontEntrance8' 0"2' 2"Landscaped Planting BedsFinished withNatural Shredded Wood Mulch(customer choice)14' 3"4' 5"30' 5"16'2"3' 0"3' 0"9' 0"7' 0"16' 7"10' 6"10"10' 6"10"8' 6"10' 8"10' 8"3' 0"3' 0"10"3' 0"10"3' 0"10"3' 0"10"3' 0"10"3' 0"10"3' 0"10"3' 0"10"3' 0"10"3' 0"10"3' 0"10"3' 0"10"3' 0"10"3' 0"10"2' 1"2' 1"37"1' 1"2' 1"2' 1"37"1' 1"2' 1"2' 1"37"1' 1"2' 1"2' 1"37"1' 1"2' 1"2' 1"37"1' 1"2' 1"2' 1"37"1' 1"2' 1"2' 1"37"1' 1"2' 1"2' 1"77"1' 1"2' 1"2' 1"77"1' 1"2' 1"2' 1"77"1' 1"2' 1"2' 1"77"1' 1"2' 1"2' 1"77"1' 1"2' 1"2' 1"77"1' 1"42' 9"2' 9"97"1' 1"1"2'12' 9"2' 9"97"1' 1"2' 7"2' 7"87"1' 1"2' 3"2' 3"111' 1"1' 1"2' 3"2' 3"111' 1"1' 1"c6' 2"6' 2"131' 1"1' 1"2' 1"2' 1"37"1' 1"2' 1"2' 1"37"1' 1"2' 3"2' 3"111' 1"1' 1"2' 3"2' 3"111' 1"1' 1"Lower Level/WalkoutPatio(Concrete)9' 9"3' 3"Lower Level Access(Concrete)9' 4"2' 2"EgressWell8' 0"2' 2"5' 2"7'11"47 Planning Case 2023-28 (Variance and Conditional Use Permit 1415 Mendota Heights Road) Page 1 of 9 PLANNING STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: November 28, 2023 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jennifer Haskamp, AICP - SHC SUBJECT: Planning Case 2023-28 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT & VARIANCE APPLICANT: Glenn Baron PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1415 Mendota Heights Road ZONING: I Industrial LAND USE: Industrial ACTION DEADLINE: February 29, 2024 (120-day Review Period) INTRODUCTION Glenn Baron is the Applicant and Owner (“Applicant”) of the property located at 1415 Mendota Heights Road. He is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct outdoor Padel and Pickleball courts (outdoor recreation) and a Variance from City Code Section 12-1D-15(E), which prohibits signs that are painted directly on the outside wall of buildings. 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 northwestern corner of the intersection of Mendota Heights Road and Pilot Knob Road (see map – Dakota County GIS). It is also less than a mile from an I-494 onramp, Highway 13, and Highway 55. The site contains three access points off Mendota Heights Road to the south and one access off Pilot Knob Road to the east, with 155 marked or dedicated parking spaces spread throughout the property. The lot itself and a majority of the surrounding properties are zoned for Industrial uses. The Dog Tank (2415 Pilot Knob Rd) and Southview Design are current tenants on the subject property and all tenants share the parking and principal structure on the site addressed collectively with 1415 Mendota Heights Rd. 48 3b. Planning Case 2023-28 (Variance and Conditional Use Permit 1415 Mendota Heights Road) Page 2 of 9 In October 2022, the Applicant submitted a request for a CUP to construct a new indoor athletic club facility (to become The Heights Racquet & Social Club) inside the then vacant space within the multi-tenant building. The CUP was approved by Resolution 2022-82 (adopted 11/01/2022), and the Applicant recently obtained a certificate of occupancy so that the club can open. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS The Applicant is proposing to construct two outdoor Padel courts and four outdoor Pickleball courts on both the northern and southern edges of the property (see Site Plan). The intent is to give club members space to play both sports during Minnesota’s warmer months. Per Ordinance No. 579, outdoor commercial recreation spaces are permitted in Industrial Districts with a CUP provided certain criteria are met. The Applicant is also proposing to install painted signage on the western side of the primary structure. The sign will be visible from Pilot Knob Road and direct club members to the facility entrance and parking. Per City Code Section 12-1D-15(E), signs painted on the outside of buildings are prohibited, so the Applicant is requesting a Variance from this standard. ANALYSIS 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: Staff believes the use will not have any negative impacts or effect upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants (of the multi-tenant building) or surrounding land uses; nor will the use be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community. Moreover, the use will provide a nice facility for bettering the health and welfare of the community and allow year-round athletic or fitness activities for the city’s residents. The private club use will provide members and participants the ability to stagger their use hours which should mitigate potential congestion or parking issues on the site. 49 Planning Case 2023-28 (Variance and Conditional Use Permit 1415 Mendota Heights Road) Page 3 of 9 Furthermore, the courts will be installed in a largely industrial area, so any noise generated will not be disruptive to any residential neighborhoods. 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 I-Industrial in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The Plan provides the following goal statement: Goal 3: Encourage and support industrial and commercial development in designated areas. 1. The city will use available resources to identify redevelopment needs. This will include cooperation with Dakota County and the Metropolitan Council to achieve redevelopment objectives. 2. Transitions between adjoining land uses will be required for adjacent residential uses, and will be encouraged between compatible land uses (e.g. transition between a general manufacturing and retail use will be encouraged). 3. Amenities within the industrial and commercial districts will be encouraged to promote a more vibrant and attractive place for workers. Staff believes the proposed project is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan that encourages redevelopment of the industrial areas. The proposed use also provides an amenity within the industrial park that can be utilized by both residents and patrons/workers in the area. This type of use is compatible with the spirit and intent of the Industrial Zoning District and provides commercial reinvestment in an existing building. Furthermore, pursuit to Ordinance No. 579, outdoor commercial recreation is permitted in Industrial Districts, provided the following conditions are met: a) The outdoor commercial recreation use must be accessory to a permitted or conditionally permitted principal use. b) Outdoor recreation uses must be compatible and consistent with the principal use. c) Adequate parking must be provided on site. The total area used for the outdoor commercial recreation use shall be used to determine the required number of stalls and calculation based on the principal use. d) A site plan must be submitted to show the site layout, type and location of outdoor recreation uses proposed, the parking configuration, any proposed exterior lighting locations, and proposed landscaping. e) An operations plan must be submitted that includes the proposed hours of operation. a) The outdoor commercial recreation use must be accessory to a permitted or conditionally permitted principal use. Staff Response: Staff confirms that this condition is met. The proposed outdoor recreation amenities will be accessory to the property’s permitted and principal commercial recreation use. b) Outdoor recreation uses must be compatible and consistent with the principal use. Staff Response: 50 Planning Case 2023-28 (Variance and Conditional Use Permit 1415 Mendota Heights Road) Page 4 of 9 Staff confirms that this condition is met. The proposed outdoor recreation amenities are in harmony with the property’s permitted and principal commercial recreation use. A Conditional Use Permit has been obtained for The Heights Racquet & Social Club indoor operations, and this Permit will allow for compatible outdoor courts that will be operated seasonally to supplement the principal operations. c) Adequate parking must be provided on site. The total area used for the outdoor commercial recreation use shall be used to determine the required number of stalls and calculation based on the principal use. Per Section 12-1D-16: Off-Street Parking, the following uses and required parking spaces are noted: Golf course, country club, tennis club, public swimming pool 20 spaces, plus 1 space for each 300 square feet in excess of 1,000 square feet of floor space in the principal structure Skating rink, dance hall, public auction house, golf driving range, miniature golf, trampoline center and similar uses At least 15 spaces, plus 1 additional space for each 300 square feet of floor area over 2,000 square feet Office building and professional office having 6,000 square feet or more of floor area, bank, savings institution At least 1 space for each 200 square feet of net usable floor area Warehouse, storage handling of bulk goods At least 1 space for each 2,000 square feet of floor area The racquet club facility was noted as having 21,250-squarefeet of floor space, with a mix of varying athletic activities, that may fall under the two upper boxed categories of the Parking Regulation standards, namely “tennis club” and “golf driving range,” and “similar uses.” By applying both to the proposed use, staff calculated the following: • Tennis Club w/ 21,250-sf. area: 20 sp. + [21,250-1,000 = 20,250 SF / 300 SF= 68 sp.] = 88 spaces • Golf / Similar Uses w/ 21,250 sf.: 15 sp. + [21,250 – 2,000 = 19,250 SF / 300 SF= 64 sp.] = 79 spaces • Outdoor Pickleball/Padel (Accessory Use to Tennis Club/Golf/etc.): 3,520 SF (Pickleball Courts) + 4,356 SF (Padel Courts) = 7,876 SF / 300 = + 26 Spaces • Warehouse Uses (BDS / Am-Vets / FTLD): 23,700 sf. (total) / 2,000 = 11.85, or 12 spaces • Office Use w/ 8,000-sf.(net): 8,000 / 200 = 40 spaces Based on these calculations, the total number or spaces needed to support this racquet club use and the existing or future uses on this site amount to 157 to 166 spaces needed. The Applicant’s Site Plan identifies 155 parking spaces on the site. While most athletic or fitness clubs typically experience a morning, noon, or late afternoon (after work/business hours) rush, the Applicant has stated this facility will be a private club membership only, which should help limit the level of service by allowing members to reserve court times at their own leisure or schedules. Staff believes that the lower end of the range of needed spaces is likely adequate given the existing tenant mix on the site, as well as the variable hours of operation for the racquet club. However, the minimum standard must be met. As such, staff recommends including a condition that the Site Plan be updated to demonstrate a minimum of 157 parking stalls are available on site. It should also 51 Planning Case 2023-28 (Variance and Conditional Use Permit 1415 Mendota Heights Road) Page 5 of 9 be noted within the conditions that all parking must be handled onsite for the multi-tenant building, including all activities associated with The Heights Racquet and Social Club. Any indication that the site is under parked may result in a required amendment to this Permit, and a reasonable solution to accommodate all parking on site must be provided. d) A site plan must be submitted to show the site layout, type and location of outdoor recreation uses proposed, the parking configuration, any proposed exterior lighting locations, and proposed landscaping. Staff confirms that the Applicant provided a site layout plan, which included details about the location of the outdoor recreation amenities, parking, and proposed landscaping. No additional proposed exterior lighting is contemplated at this time. The Applicant has indicated that the outdoor operations will occur seasonally, and outdoor activity will generally be limited to daylight hours. f) An operations plan must be submitted that includes the proposed hours of operation. The Applicant has stated that the operations of the outdoor recreation will be managed consistent with the operations established in the CUP for The Heights Racquet and Social Club. Essentially, the outdoor courts simply supplement and are accessory to the indoor racquet club activities. The hours of operation will be seasonal and limited to daylight hours, anticipated from 7:00 AM to Dusk. Staff believes the proposed project has either met the Conditional parameters outlined in Ordinance No. 579. 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 52 Planning Case 2023-28 (Variance and Conditional Use Permit 1415 Mendota Heights Road) Page 6 of 9 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 entrance to The Heights Racquet and Social Club is through a door adjacent to the building’s loading dock. This area is on the backend of a shared warehouse and is not visible form the front end of the building that Google Map uses for the address. We would like to paint the Club’s logo on a section of the building that faces Pilot Knob Road (see attached depiction) that will be an easily identifiable wayfinder. Staff’s Response: Given that the entrance to the facility is located on the back of the shared principal structure, it is logical that the Applicant wants to provide signage that directs club members in the right direction. Furthermore, installing clear, visible signage may help visitors locate the facility more easily and prevent additional driving around the industrial area and the co-mingling of personal vehicles and large delivery trucks and/or semi-trucks that are common in an industrial park. Therefore, the location of the facility at the back of the shared warehouse presents a unique practical difficulty which the Applicant is attempting to overcome in a non-intrusive and aesthetic way. Staff believes 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: This is a shared warehouse and the address of the building directs people to the front of the building. We believe attractive signage can alleviate this problem and direct people to the back loading dock off of Pilot Knob Road. Staff’s Response: Staff confirms that the facility’s entrance is located on a part of the shared building that is not visible from either Pilot Knob Road or Mendota Heights Road. Given the location of the operation within the multi-tenant facility it is difficult to place wayfinding and signage on the site that would adequately direct club members to the facility. The Applicant did not initially develop the site, and The Heights Racquet and Social Club is an adaptive reuse of a structure that was originally intended to operate as a warehouse/storage area which is typically not intended to be “visible” from a right-of-way. Staff believes this criterion is met. 3. The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Applicant’s Response: The building is located in an industrial area of the city. Staff’s Response: The surrounding neighborhood is largely zoned and utilized for industrial uses. Many of the neighboring structures feature small signs or other distinguishing features. Other businesses within the shared warehouse also have signs. While the proposed signage would be unique in that it would be the 53 Planning Case 2023-28 (Variance and Conditional Use Permit 1415 Mendota Heights Road) Page 7 of 9 only mural in the area, it would still complement the existing area and would not adversely impact the surrounding area. Restrictions on Granting Variances The following restrictions should be considered when reviewing a variance: a) Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The Applicant has expressed that the facility’s entrance may be difficult to find, given that it is located at the back of a shared warehouse. Therefore, the Applicant’s request to install a painted sign is intended to assist with wayfinding, not for economic reasons. 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 believes the proposed project can be considered in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. It is also compatible with the spirit and intent of the Industrial Zoning District. Staff finds that it aligns with the following goals, which are outlined in the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan: Goal 3: Encourage and support industrial and commercial development in designated areas. 1. The city will use available resources to identify redevelopment needs. This will include cooperation with Dakota County and the Metropolitan Council to achieve redevelopment objectives. 2. Transitions between adjoining land uses will be required for adjacent residential uses, and will be encouraged between compatible land uses (e.g. transition between a general manufacturing and retail use will be encouraged). 3. Amenities within the industrial and commercial districts will be encouraged to promote a more vibrant and attractive place for workers. ALTERNATIVES for ACTION 1. Recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit and the Variance with certain conditions and based on the findings- of- fact that the proposed racquet club use will be compliant with the standards and regulations of the City Code; or 2. Recommend denial based on the findings of fact(s) determined by the Planning Commission, that the Conditional Use Permit and Variance requested herein 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, pending additional information as requested by the Planning Commission and direct city staff to make certain revisions before final consideration is given on this planning item; with direction to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with Minnesota State Statute 15.99. 54 Planning Case 2023-28 (Variance and Conditional Use Permit 1415 Mendota Heights Road) Page 8 of 9 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit and the Variance for 1415 Mendota Heights Road, based on the attached findings-of-fact and with the following conditionals of approval: 1) The purpose of the wall mural is to provide clear wayfinding to The Heights Racquet and Social Club. The design of the mural must be consistent with the drawing submitted. Any significant alterations to the design may require a separate variance. 2) The Site Plan must be updated to demonstrate a minimum of 157 parking stalls are available on the site. A revised and updated site plan must be submitted for review and approval by the City Staff prior to any building permit being issued. 3) All parking for the multi-tenant building must be accommodated on site. Any indication that the site is under parked may result in required amendments to the Site Plan and/or the Conditional Use Permit. 4) The hours of operation for the Outdoor Commercial Recreation (Padel and Pickleball Courts) shall be seasonal and limited to 7:00 AM to Dusk. 5) No additional exterior lighting was reviewed or approved as part of the Conditional Use Permit. Any exterior lighting, if related to lighting of the pickleball/padel courts, may require an amendment to the Permit. 6) The Applicant must obtain all necessary permits from the Public Works Director and comply with the Land Disturbance requirements. 7) The Applicant must obtain all required City permits, including but not limited to, a Grading Permit and Building Permit. 8) The Applicant must obtain any necessary permits from all applicable agencies with jurisdiction over the project. 55 Planning Case 2023-28 (Variance and Conditional Use Permit 1415 Mendota Heights Road) Page 9 of 9 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit and Variance for 1415 Mendota Heights Road The following Findings-of-Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit and Variance request to install outdoor padel and pickleball courts and a painted sign on the exterior of the principal structure: 1. The Proposed outdoor recreation use (padel and pickleball courts) is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance for property in the Industrial district. 2. The proposed principal and accessory use are an adaptive reuse of an industrial building which is consistent with the City’s goals for reinvestment and redevelopment with the industrial zoning district. 3. The proposed outdoor padel and pickleball courts are accessory to the principal use of The Heights Racquet and Social Club which is an indoor commercial recreation use. 4. Provided the conditions are met, the site will provide adequate parking for the multi-tenant building. All parking will be accommodated on-site and no adverse impacts off-site are anticipated. 5. The proposed outdoor recreation use of padel and pickleball courts is consistent with the surrounding light industrial uses and will not adversely impact the value of surrounding properties. 6. Provided parking is adequately managed onsite, there will not be negative impacts to traffic flow on the surrounding road network. 7. The Applicant has successfully demonstrated that practical difficulties exist, that there are unique circumstances of the property, and that the proposed wall mural/sign will not adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood. 8. The proposed signage will assist with wayfinding efforts and may help to minimize the amount of personal vehicle traffic in the industrial area. 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 The Heights Racquet & Social Club 1415 Mendota Heights Road, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 November 21, 2023 City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 RE: Letter of Intent, Conditional Use Permit To Whom it may Concern: The Heights Racquet & Social Club is opening December 1st, 2023 with indoor Padel, Squash and Pickleball courts. We believe the addition of outdoor Padel and outdoor Pickleball courts for use during Minnesota’s warmer months would be greatly appreciated by the members of the club and would enhance the appeal of this club to the City of Mendota Heights. We have submitted drawings showing the addition of four outdoor Pickleball courts and two outdoor Padel courts. No residential structures are in close proximity to either set of courts and as such we believe the installation of these courts would serve to offer a valued amenity without the typical noise complaints incurred when Pickleball courts are located near residential neighborhoods. Padel is a popular racquet sport in Europe and is just now being introduced in the US. We are the first facility to offer the opportunity to learn and play this sport in Minnesota and one of the few in the Midwest. For the uninitiated, Padel is a mix between tennis and pickleball. We believe The Heights Racquet and Social Club will enhance the health and general welfare of the community. These sports contribute to a healthy lifestyle and recreation and will provide an opportunity for Mendota Heights residents to participate in sports that have an easy entry level and general popularity. The initial response to the Heights Racquet & Social Club has been very positive as we field inquiries and schedule tours for prospective members. We believe strongly that the Club will be an excellent addition to the City of Mendota Heights. Sincerely, Glenn Baron Partner The Heights Racquet & Social Club 64 65 66 67 68