Loading...
2013-12-16 Planning Comm Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA December 16, 2013 — 7:00 p.m. Mendota Heights City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Adopt Agenda 4. Approve October 22, 2013 Planning Commission Minutes 5. Public Hearings (7:00 p.m. or shortly thereafter): a. Case No. 2013 -21: Michael McEllistrem of 1349 Knollwood Lane. Lot split of vacant, unaddressed parcel owned by Robert Hockett of 1335 Knollwood Lane. b. Case No. 2013 -22: Dawn Nichols, on behalf of Convent of the Visitation School, of 2455 Visitation Drive. Conditional Use Permit and variances for signage standards. 6. 2014 Meeting Calendar 7. Verbal Review 8. Adjourn Auxiliary 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. 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2 DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3 4 5 6 7 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, 8 October 22, 2012, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Approval of Agenda 16 17 The agenda was approved as submitted. 18 19 Approval of September 24, 2013 Minutes 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Hearings 27 28 PLANNING CASE #2013 -20 29 Edward Sweeney, 777 Wentworth Avenue 30 Wetland Permit for Vegetation Removal at 1562 Wachtler Avenue and 755 31 Wentworth Avenue 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Staff discovered the potential violation and notified the property owner by letter. The property 42 owner was ordered to cease work and address the erosion control and permitting issues 43 immediately. The applicant addressed the issue by installing a silt fence and matting, and also 44 included the seeding to be installed or has been installed on the property. Written statements 45 were requested by the surrounding property owners. The applicant stated that the reason for 46 conducting the work that he did was to remove dead and dying elm trees and ash trees that were PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES October 22, 2013 The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Howard Roston, Michael Noonan, Doug Hennes, Robin Hennesey, Mary Magnuson, and Ansis Viksnins. Those absent: None. Those present were City Planner Nolan Wall, Public Works Director /City Engineer John Mazzitello, and Consultant Planner Stephen Grittman. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUS ON, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2013, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 and Grading Planner Wall explained that this application is an after - the -fact Wetland Permit for removal of vegetation and grading. The applicant lives at 777 Wentworth Avenue and the work was completed with permission of the properties impacted. The area of disturbance is within one hundred feet of a wetland or a water resource area and, therefore, requires a wetland permit. Wetland permit applications are typically processed administratively. Staff felt that because the work was completed on multiple properties a public hearing was required to ensure public comments could be received. October 22, 2013 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 47 on site in order to make room existing birch trees and other vegetation. He also completed minor 48 grading to create a new berm and that was setback approximately between 25 to 40 feet from the 49 creek. 50 51 The removal of the vegetation and the grading are allowable within the buffer area with a permit 52 and compliance with the City's land disturbance guidance document. Staff inspected the property 53 after the notice and it was found to be in compliance with the document. 54 55 56 double the fee for the after - the -fact permit. 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 Mr. Minea also asked what the results would be if the Commission denied this application and 83 what the next steps would be if approved. Planner Wall responded. 84 85 Commissioner Magnuson asked if new trees had been planted, which they had been. 86 87 Mr. John Steenberg, 804 Ridge Place, stated that he would like to see in a wetland permit some 88 definition of where the dimensions are taken from when the City states that they want to have 89 vegetation planted within twenty -five of the creek; from the centerline of the creek or from the 90 normal high water. City Engineer John Mazzitello addressed the question by stating that it would 91 be measured from the normal high water level. 92 Staff recommended approval of this after - the -fact wetlands permit. The applicant also paid Commissioners asked questions regarding how staff became aware of this issue, how the City could make residents more aware of the requirements in these kinds of areas, the amount of the fee that was paid, whether or not this application would have been approved if applied for before the activities took place, and does the City do enough to deter situations where a resident would ask for forgiveness rather than for permission. Mr. Edward Sweeney, 777 Wentworth Avenue, explained that he was unaware that a permit had been required because he was not constructing a building. Commissioners asked how much vegetation and how many trees were removed. Chair Field requested any public comments regarding this application. Mr. Rob McGowan, 780 Wentworth Avenue, commented that he has lived in the area quite a few years and believed that Mr. Sweeney did a professional job; it looked fine, and would not affect the creek. He had no complaints nor has he heard of any. Mr. Timothy Minea, 772 Ridge Place, commented that his niece and nephew were the owners of the property on Wachtler and it was they who gave Mr. Sweeney permission to remove the vegetation. The project was advertised as selective removal of certain trees and the replacement with mature trees. After the project had begun they became aware that quite a large swath of land had been cleared. They had envisioned men with chain saws and hand equipment and were surprised at the use of land clearing equipment and additionally surprised at the substantial amount of fill was imported to the site. October 22, 2013 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 93 Mr. Sweeney apologized for any misunderstanding between him and the Minea family. He also 94 stated that he planted seventeen trees and the measurements he took were to where the bank 95 dropped off, not the high water level. He also addressed other concerns raised by Mr. Minea. 96 97 When requested, Mr. Sweeney explained the grading that had been completed. 98 99 Seeing no one else coming forward, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. 100 101 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO 102 CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 103 AYES: 7 104 NAYS: 0 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 Commissioner Roston stated that he would approve this request because by all accounts it seems 125 to be a mistake or a misunderstanding. However, he believes there should be more severe 126 consequences for after - the -fact zoning requests and applications and requested that staff discuss 127 that with the City Attorney. 128 AYES: 7 129 NAYS: 0 130 131 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its November 5, 2013 132 meeting. City Planner Nolan Wall informed everyone that the Council meeting on November 5 133 would start at 8:00 p.m. rather than the usual 7:00 p.m. 134 135 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AFTER -THE -FACT WETLANDS PERMIT FOR REMOVAL OF VEGETATION AND GRADING WITHIN THE 100' BUFFER AREA OF WATER RESOURCE - RELATED AREA, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The project meets the intent of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the City Code. 2. The project includes erosion and sediment control measures in compliance with the City's Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 3. Wild mix seeding will be planted in the first 25 feet of the water resource - related buffer area. 4. AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: a) Applicant establish and maintain a wild growth buffer area at least 25 feet wide between the creek and berm; b) Approved, wild -mix seeding is planted within the buffer area this fall; and c) Silt fence remains along the edge of the creek until the vegetation is properly established, as determined by the City's Engineering Department Erosion control measures will remain in place until vegetation is established. October 22, 2013 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 136 PLANNING CASE #2013 -16 137 Ken and Mary Paquin, 2471 Pond Circle East 138 Variance for Accessory Structure within the Setback 139 140 Consultant Planner Grittman explained that this request is for a variance to accommodate the 141 location of an accessory structure within a front yard setback. The applicant began construction 142 on this accessory structure and when it was noticed they were given a notification by the City 143 that they needed to stop work on that and obtain the property building permit and a variance 144 from the setback requirements. 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 Staff did not recommend approval of this application as the deviation from the side yard setback 152 would be out of character for this neighborhood and the applicant has identified an alternative 153 location for the storage shed that meets required setbacks, allowing for reasonable use of the 154 property. If the Commission does recommend denial, it is requested that the applicants be given 155 time to remove the structure from its current location to a conforming site. Staff believes this 156 would be a reasonable request given the time of the year. 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 Mr. Paquin was in attendance and addressed the Commission on the proposed location of the 164 accessory structure and his reasons for putting it there, the permissions he received from his 165 neighbors on the proposed location, and his reasons for not building it on the conforming 166 locations in his yard. 167 168 169 170 Mr. Jim Neuharth, 2458 Pine Circle East, stated that if Mr. Paquin moved the structure it would 171 be much more conspicuous to him; whereas where it is currently located it is hardly visible to 172 anyone. 173 174 Seeing no others coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the 175 public hearing. 176 177 COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNESEY, 178 TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 179 AYES: 7 180 NAYS: 0 181 The partially started building is actually located in the western portion of the property, twelve feet from the right -of -way line. The setback requirement is thirty feet. The applicants are proposing to leave the building in its current location; however, they have identified an alternative location that would meet the required setbacks should the application be denied. Commissioners asked questions pertaining to the purpose of the required thirty foot setback from the right -of -way, the landscaping and screening available in the requested location, possible fencing in the right -of -way, other possible locations for the accessory structure on the property, and topography issues. Chair Field requested any public comments regarding this application. October 22, 2013 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 182 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO 183 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PAQUIN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK 184 VARIANCE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 185 1. The proposed site has unique characteristics in the neighborhood with regard to lot shape, 186 home design, mature vegetation, and distinctive topography, and is bounded by public 187 streets on two sides. 188 2. The additional setback standard imposed by a side yard frontage on a public street in 189 combination with the unique characteristics of the site places a substantial burden on 190 locating an accessory structure and constitutes a "practical difficulty" for such use. 191 3. The setback encroachment is screened by existing vegetation on the site and is a greater 192 distance from the side lot line than would be required if the side yard did not abut a 193 public street. 194 4. The encroachment as designed meets the performance standards in the code for accessory 195 structures in all other respects. 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 meeting. 216 217 PLANNING CASE #2013 -17 218 Southview Design, Inc. 219 Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow Outdoor Storage in the Industrial District 220 221 Consultant Planner Grittman stated that this request is an amendment to the zoning ordinance 222 that would amend the Industrial District by adding a use that was removed from the district a few 223 years ago as an action when the City removed building contractor yards from the Industrial 224 District. The applicants are requesting that a version of that contractor yard allowance. The intent 225 would be to accommodate the occupancy of the site by industrial contractor facility and add 226 outdoor storage as an allowed use in this district. 227 Commissioner Roston stated that he believes Mr. Paquin proposes to do something that is the least intrusive to the neighborhood but is inconsistent with the city code and the Commission should not strive to create strife in neighborhoods where everyone wants something to happen. However, he is concerned that the commission may be inconsistent with how they treat variances going forward. The shape of the lot makes it unique and the location of the two streets on either side makes it imprudent to locate the accessory structure in the location that would be an alternative but compliant. Commissioner Noonan agreed with Commissioner Rostons' comments and added that the maturity of the vegetation in the requested location makes it the best approach. The findings of fact bear out this issue. Commissioners Viksnins, Magnuson, Commissioners Roston and Noonan. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 and Hennes expressed their agreements with Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its November 5, 2013 October 22, 2013 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 228 Consultant Planner Grittman shared the draft amendment to the code with the intent to open the 229 door as narrowly as possible and which would allow contractor yards under a series of specific 230 conditions, by conditional use permit, and identifies that those contractor yards would be 231 specifically accessory only to landscape and building design and construction as a permitted use. 232 Essentially, there would be two additions to the code: 1) adding landscape and building design 233 and construction as a permitted use in the listing of uses and 2) adding in the conditional use list 234 under storage and display of materials and equipment accessory to landscaping and building 235 construction. The staff report identified a series of possible conditions that would be added to the 236 code and applicants under this code would need to demonstrate compliance with each of those to 237 qualify for an appropriate permit. 238 239 240 241 Commissioners asked questions regarding the reasons for the initial policy change, any requests 242 since the initial policy change, and other accommodations within the City. 243 244 245 246 247 248 Chair Field requested any public comments regarding this application. 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 Commissioner Roston, in regards to Section 2C that reads "No storage and display shall be 267 located on any parcel that abuts residentially zoned property", stated that staff should have a 268 more objective definition of `abuts' and it should give a number of feet so there are no arguments 269 raised about what abuts means. 270 271 Consultant Planner Grittman then reviewed the conditions of the proposed code. Mr. Chris Clifton of Southview Design Inc. expressed his reasons for choosing this site, his desire to have his business located in Mendota Heights, and addressed the questions raised by the Commissioners. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 12 -1G OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, DAKOTA COUNTY, BY AMENDING THE PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN THE I, INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT, PROVIDING FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE AND DISPLAY AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO LANDSCAPE AND BUILDING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION BUSINESSES, INCUDING THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN THE DRAFT AMENDMENT October 22, 2013 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 272 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO 273 REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. 274 AYES: 7 275 NAYS: 0 276 277 In response to the question raised by Commissioner Roston, Mr. Tom Sullivan, Broker for 278 Southview Design, commented that there is a residential property located across the old 279 abandoned road that goes between the subject property to the north. He is unsure if that house 280 sits in the Industrial District or is carved out. Consultant Planner Grittman stated that it could be 281 checked out before this is finalized. However, if it is the objective of the Commission to address 282 the proximity idea, staff could certainly carry that forward to Council with some guidance on 283 what a reasonable proximity might be and still accommodate this user. 284 285 286 included. 287 288 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO 289 CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 290 AYES: 7 291 NAYS: 0 292 293 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED TO AMEND THE ORIGINAL MOTION BY, IN 294 ADDITION TO ABUTS, THE ORDINANCE INCLUDE A PROXIMITY RESTRICTION 295 FROM RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS THAT IS MEASURABLE. COMMISSIONER 296 NOONAN AGREED TO THE AMENDMENT OF HIS ORIGINAL MOTION. 297 298 299 change the intent of the ordinance. 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 meeting. 310 311 PLANNING CASE #2013 -18 312 Willin Consultants for Sprint and ISD #197 at 1897 Delaware Avenue 313 Conditional Use Permit for Updates to the Wireless Facility 314 315 Consultant Planner Grittman explained this property is zoned Single Family and is guided for 316 schools and institutional uses and is occupied by Sibley High School. Part of the school facility 317 includes a series of wireless antennas that the school leases to various users around the building Commissioner Roston requested that the guidance suggested by Consultant Planner Grittman be Commissioner Magnuson noted some minor edits to the draft ordinance that did not substantially Additional discussion occurred around why the Commission is proposing a change to the ordinance in light of the previous removal decision by the City Council. There being no other questions or comments by the Commission, Chair Field called for the vote. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its November 5, 2013 October 22, 2013 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 318 itself. Sprint is requesting approval to modify existing equipment on the property by conditional 319 use permit. The extent of the changes are to replace out equipment that they had previously 320 received approval for and with slightly larger but very similar types of wall mounted antennas 321 and roof mounted equipment and cabinets. 322 323 Staff believed this request is consistent with code requirements for these types of installations 324 and recommended approval of the application. 325 326 Mr. John Naypeck, 10285 Imagery Lane, Lakeville, MN, Consultant to Sprint for this upgrade to 327 their equipment, addressed the Commission and answered questions. 328 329 330 been removed. 331 332 Chair Field requested any public comments regarding this application. 333 334 335 public hearing. 336 337 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 338 CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 339 AYES: 7 340 NAYS: 0 341 342 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 343 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON THE 344 FOLLOWING FINDING OF FACT: 345 1. The proposed antenna and accessory equipment modifications meet all of the zoning 346 ordinance requirements and are consistent with the intent of the Conditional Use Permit 347 criteria allowing such features. 348 SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 349 a) The existing equipment (to be replaced) shall be removed within six months of 350 operational migration to new equipment. Antenna and equipment removal shall include 351 the removal of unused mounting equipment and the repair of any damaged wall or roof 352 elements (from equipment anchors). The city must be notified of the time at which the 353 old equipment is no longer operational. A bond must be provided to the city according to 354 ordinance requirements. 355 b) The new antennas and accessory equipment cabinets shall be painted to match the color 356 of the building. 357 c) The new antennas and related equipment shall comply with all FCC regulations. 358 d) The new antennas and related equipment shall comply with all applicable building and 359 electrical codes. 360 e) A lease agreement exists between the applicants and the School District. 361 Commissioners asked questions regarding whether or not the existing equipment had already Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the October 22, 2013 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 362 f) Any applicable federal, state, or local licenses must be submitted to the council prior to 363 receiving a building permit. 364 AYES: 7 365 NAYS: 0 366 367 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its November 5, 2013 368 meeting. 369 370 PLANNING CASE #2013 -19 371 James and Deborah Povolny, 912 Adeline Court 372 Variances for Garage and Dwelling Additions within the Setbacks 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 Consultant Planner Grittman then reviewed the reasons provided by the applicants for the 387 variance requests. 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 Staff recommended approval of the variance for the covered front porch as it would appear that 396 the proposal would be allowed under the terms of the conditional use permit. 397 398 Commissioners asked questions pertaining to the location of the current garage structure, the 399 seeking of a variance for the porch rather than the conditional use permit, and garage 400 alternatives. 401 402 Mr. James Povolny addressed the Commission voicing his disagreement that three -car garages 403 are not the standard in the area and commented on the garage placement alternatives mentioned 404 by staff. 405 406 Chair Field requested any public comments regarding this application. 407 Consultant Planner Grittman explained that this property is zoned and guided for Low Density Single Family Residential Uses and is occupied by a single family home. The applicants have an attached garage on the east side of the house and are proposing to expand that garage further to the east, closer to the property line and a portion of that expansion would extend to within six feet of the side yard property line and the setback requirement is ten feet. They are also seeking a variance to accommodate the construction of a front porch that would connect to the existing structure and extend along the front of the building. There is a clause in the City code that allows these extensions by conditional use permit if they encroach into the front yard by fifty feet or less. The applicants' proposal would comply with those conditional use permit terms, but because they were proceeding under a variance for the garage they also asked for a variance that would apply to their porch request. Staff did not recommended approval of the variance for the proposed garage addition as the home and garage were constructed in their current configuration without the need for a variance in order to comply with required setbacks, other alternatives are available which would keep the proposed garage expansion in compliance with setback requirements, and three -car garages are not the standard in the area. October 22, 2013 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 408 Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the 409 public hearing. 410 411 COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, 412 TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 413 AYES: 7 414 NAYS: 0 415 416 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 417 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE POVOLNY COVERED PORCH SETBACK 418 VARIANCE FOR SETBACK ENCROACHMENT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING 419 FINDINGS OF FACT: 420 1. The proposed covered porch is a reasonable use of the subject property. 421 2. The cul -de -sac lot creates a condition where the front setback is curved to parallel the 422 street and the current location of the home parallel to the west property line results in the 423 encroachment when the roofline of the garage is extended to the west edge of the home in 424 the proposed design. 425 3. The proposed covered porch cannot be accommodated within the required setbacks 426 without altering the design given the location of the garage offset from the existing home. 427 4. The setback encroachment is minimal, and is offset by areas of the same frontage in 428 which the setback is greater than the requirement. 429 5. The encroachment as designed is not incompatible with the uses and character of the 430 neighborhood or locale. 431 6. The request would have most likely been approved if brought forward as a conditional 432 use permit. 433 434 Commissioner Roston noted for the record that the reason the Commission would approve this 435 variance request is because if it had been brought forward as a conditional use permit the 436 decision would have ended up in the same place and it would be a waste of time to start over 437 with a conditional use permit request. 438 439 Commissioner Viksnins agreed with Commissioner Rostons' comments. 440 441 Chair Field recommended that this reasoning should be included in the Findings of Fact for 442 Approval of the Povolny Covered Porch Setback Variance for Setback Encroachment. 443 Consultant Planner Grittman agreed with this suggestion. Commissioner Viksnins accepted the 444 amendment to the motion. 445 AYES: 7 446 NAYS: 0 447 448 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO 449 RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE POVOLNY GARAGE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR 450 SETBACK ENCROACHMENT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 451 1. The proposed garage addition setback encroachment is inconsistent with the intent of the 452 ordinance to promote green space, preserve drainage and utility easement corridors, and 453 minimize crowding between residential properties. October 22, 2013 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 454 2. The majority of homes in the area have two -car garages, so maintaining the existing 455 garage configuration with only two vehicle stalls allows for the continued reasonable use 456 of the property. 457 3. The accommodation of a third vehicle stall could be provided if the garage were located 458 farther toward the rear of the property or if additional lot area were acquired from the 459 adjacent property owner in order to meet the setback without a variance. 460 4. While alternatives to the variance may be less convenient, the proposed encroachment 461 into the required setback area constitutes an unreasonable use of the setback area. 462 463 Commissioner Hennes stated that he was agreeable to the variance request as it is such a 464 miniscule piece of property. 465 466 467 468 Commissioner Roston agreed but believes it should be a text amendment or a conditional use 469 permit; otherwise the commission would start getting onto a slippery slope. He would like to see 470 Mr. Povolny have his garage but believes it needs to be handled with an amendment to the 471 zoning code as opposed to a variance. 472 473 474 `unique circumstances' required to approve a variance request. 475 476 There being no further discussion, Chair Field called for the vote: 477 AYES: 5 478 NAYS: 2 (HENNES, HENNESEY) 479 480 481 meeting. 482 483 Verbal Review 484 485 486 487 PLANNING CASE #2013 -15 Paul and Shannon Burke Critical Area Permit 488 489 490 491 Planner Wall shared that October is National Community Planning Month through the American 492 Planning Association and highlighted an activity that he and Mr. Mazzitello have been involved 493 in, that being the Future Cities Competition at Friendly Hills Middle School. 494 495 COMMISSIONER HENNESSEY MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, 496 TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:52 P.M. 497 AYES: 7 498 NAYS: 0 499 Commissioner Hennessey agreed and wondered if the average person would even notice it. Additional discussion took place regarding the encroachment and the `practical difficulties' or Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its November 5, 2013 Planner Wall gave the following verbal review: • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. October 22, 2013 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231 .2555 Facsimile: 763.231 .2561 planners @nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen W. Grittman DATE: December 11, 2013 MEETING DATE: December 16, 2013 SUBJECT: Subdivision /Lot Combination CASE NO: Case No. 2013 -21; NAC Case 254.04 — 13.20 APPLICANT(S): Robert Hockett /Michael McEllistrem LOCATION: 1335 and 1349 Knollwood Lane ZONING: R -1, Single Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request: Robert Hockett, owner of a single family residence at 1335 Knollwood Lane is also the owner of a landlocked parcel to the west of his residence. That parcel is approximately 99.95 feet deep (east to west) and 248 feet long (north to south). The parcel also adjoins the rear line of his neighbor to the south, Michael McEllistrem at 1349 Knollwood Lane. The two property owners wish to subdivide the portion of the parcel that lies behind the McEllistrem residence, detaching it from the Hockett parcel and joining it to the McEllistrem property. The portion of the property in question is about 70 feet in length by just under 100 feet, a total of about 6,994 square feet. The remaining 17,713 square feet would remain in the ownership of Mr. Hockett. Neither parcel is or would be buildable as a separate parcel. Analysis: The existing property is a legal non - conforming parcel, due to its lack of frontage on any public street. The division of such parcels raises only the concern that property owners understand that no new building rights are granted as a result of the subdivision. To help ensure that this is made clear, it is common to require that new parcels created by such actions are immediately recombined with other adjoining property. The Subdivision Ordinance permits the approval of such subdivisions by metes and bounds descriptions as proposed, rather than full plat. Where no new building site is being created, the minor subdivision is consistent with the requirements of the City's development regulations. Action Requested: The Planning Commission may consider the following action: 1. Approval of a subdivision for Robert Hockett and Michael McEllistrem, splitting a 6,994 square foot parcel from land owned by Mr. Hockett and conveyed to Mr. McEllistrem, with the condition that the newly created parcel is concurrently combined with the McEllistrem property at 1349 Knollwood Lane. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the subdivision, with the condition of recombination as noted. Supplementary Materials: 1. Application Materials dated November 13, 2013 2. Site Location Map Planning Case 2013 -21 Hockett - McEllistrem Lot Split Date: 12/11/2013 0 110 SCALE IN FEET City of Mendota Heights e IF 1 Is /2`' / / /// /.07 ra 1291 • � �", 126=1 RIVERSIDE LN 126 • 1: I co! : 140 j (01 1330 140 13281 140 ■� 132Gi 152 11 N1 N- 1322 1 t� • Al& 7 GIS Map Disclaimer: This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651- 454 -0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. November 13, 2013 City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 ATTN: Nolan Wall Re: Hockett - McEllistrem Lot Split Dear Mr. Wall: Michael J. McEllistrem (612) 977-8221 mmcellistrem@briggs.com Enclosed is the application for lot split approval of the approximately 248 by 100 foot vacant lot immediately west of Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 1, Ivy Falls West Second Edition (the "Vacant Lot "). The Vacant Lot is owned by Robert Hockett and his wife, also owners of Lot 4, Block 1. Mr. Hockett has agreed to sell to me and my wife the portion of the Vacant Lot immediately west of and abutting Lot 3 (owned by us), a parcel approximately 70 feet north to south and 100 feet east to west. We desire to purchase this parcel in order to have additional land for children and grandchildren, and to preserve the privacy afforded by the Vacant Lot. We have surveyed the parcel in question, a copy of which is enclosed. The portion of the Vacant Lot we are purchasing is designated as Parcel A on the survey, and the remaining portion which will continue to be owned by Mr. Hockett and his wife is designated as Parcel B. I request that you place this application on the planning commission's agenda for the December 16th meeting. Please feel free to call me at 612- 977 -8221 if you have any questions or would like to discuss. Additionally, please feel free to contact Robert Hockett at 651- 335 -7790, or by email at rhocket @comcast.net. Very truly yours, Michael J. McEllistrem 5822331v1 1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota - heights.com CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. .20 ' - Z i Date of Application (1 / + / t 3 Fee Paid 4 �n • a -0 Staff Initials //✓1ti2 Street Location of Property in Question: //7/, , Applicant Name: A/ e/ /j75/'7 PH: ‘7..z "77 E -Mail Address: /s1 e//,7,' Q�r ` s. �°'" Address: / 3 V /07,a d °9/ Property Owner Name: /61.f/ /5<oic./? Property Owner Address: 1335 Z.i'r° Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) 7-- G?3�o0 Type of Request: Rezoning Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D. Preliminary/Final Plat Approval Comprehensive Plan Amendment Variance Subdivision Approval Wetlands Permit Critical Area it Otr: ZO f Vf Applicable City Ordinance 'resent Zoning of Propert Proposed Zoning of Property umber I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above property during daylight hours. //, Date Date Signature of Owner (if more than one) Date / / / / / \ tzl tzl / / O 0 O O / 3 TIV3S DIHdV23D / / / / / / r_ o 0 >U) 0 X10 o OZ _m (j)7:1 000 0 zO 0 W m Noai oNnoa 8 O-1 Z TO 1:12 910 <(11 0 -1 z m cD A 5£Z6 :•off •fag n IZ' cr CD aA cD 6 o' g 14 tri 1=1 Iv n r I1• a rt cD 0� ir clog 0 t4 cD cD O CD FD's • r c�D a syOPLi ItZ 21,1(1 •-'s z 0 0 z z -- 70.00 -- 0 0 0 z o -_'1 m 2 z .f) F _ 1 J 0 m --\7 o (5) ic) o �(q C� xi -, �\ -<-1 (\ \ r L;) \ � z 7 � m (, -% _A 1 L6'69 H rn PP 0 °z "o ` .� �'V� Ja~� cD CD rIRLdi ' g. B o '� wooer �CL1 o jfli 0Q iistlgagil d ,•+� 0..0„1.0.0 et) i'• • 0 st. 0 iTi]ft_' (pp oww9„rlic �p gyp' ,-bo A ....0,-.0„ ' a L �' aLij: p' ° °g °ca a ff.a F- 0 . A H B tli wall 01 & cD ii.iIiii . B B LNNp'° m rI g 4' p gaPF &.,c).q pe DQ AC,c . NI (Du, 0 '' vi c/o ;t4"(5arelli _I-. 0 40 eD ■1 0 5' t-1- a, tuliui• E. cn . •-P) 0 R §. 5L moo g •2—sriligge° scp. i. ,--iyril>n" n mmm ° o 5 a0. a tzi 0 o 0 C4 0.'"0 simm5L-ri-IFP- dF ih 2 cD E 0 CD D ar o aO :0 c4 5 O � cC ri °, ooI°O c Pam°`° 6" ;2111 FiiU g cD I�'Oz�% CD (-) ia, tzPill a wre 04 r4t 0. 0-.0 � O 0i21 cf"' rn is R sgi 8 Ft eg ,P7I N. 8 g' :,,, g _L`c: o g'' og 111 hd R c o •n _ 0 - -C 9• O A cD 00 8 cD Cqi B t5' 5 ce Ig CT (-1 titr_i_i• g eg GQ r CD CD Lg O § • cD A l m -.g C� ,Q' p. gW n a Q a or 0 FT A 5-p' E8� P iv 5-00 CD o Cil 4.11 :'.'' S 00'45'00" W 247.45 DESC. -- 247.58 MEAS -- b F trl PP Cli 18' caD pr 0 P ° P r•g51O CD �►p �� c Zw"°�O _2.. o0 5,a• r • 0 - •0o,pr�,F -0Zi 5P-Clat-PL,u3S1.4) p� a 0�cD� �aF e4 8y1• 1 0(IQi,gadi4 — g ©Ar41,Dp O G 0 J.. b © ji5• v5 CD 0 N ow>✓. v '1414nr§45'0Fig alel e•r W p A a' min �o � ° o A 4-t- w , 0 -•0o �Q lz a�o oV cr'N)M'g'F71%P3et lellatiQac? 3. 0 flllift „mi 0 UP VI �va ° r � .l��i�'�' 8511:Bala; oWW21, A ° vl 8' 8 8 E IP a- & N� 1• O � q cD g Z r•NNP' °�� rlg�' m. ,.c iILiflL w cp r Pc.tilcilK a ,416arclI4, I:6 IA N) P Z I go-- 0 5' ,,,00 .p. er) a 2 2 gilVoill: a aaQ o .,5•, ,� � co i°p,),� 5,90-' oo 00 8 Nom'”- 'A'a'� �� IuCD C , o O I� 10'1 0, 0 Cam, � ° '"�: I:!;o 0 eft- R 0'� . r0+,, -! . — 0. O g 0-0 i1ia •O D • v C >r � lUQ 0 0 ,P ILIPUJ) HI A . tz0s N � F r o ooliFt y X;t741i! BE°NcMOOo o� E E. • 2 0FD 0., .4. ,. W05 -•0E. V-DtAtrAgeM jfff _ O Z CD V�'D N z 1-180 tZigigg 000 v, rl 8 kco FL.. ' ag �a w a -- 70.00 -- \ \ -- 246.90 MEAS -- 247.55 DESC. N 00'45'20" E NON! oNno. z 0 0 Ijz (0000 C00 cc? a) 04 CAI O > N nm 0 z 0 0 z ; r3 I £10Z `iagw0 :gaikanuns 0 cr �b In RI 01 � c (a ti tiri° to "I ttesa otYt �� ) � o Affidavit of Publication State of Minnesota SS County of Dakota ANNE THILLEN , being duly sworn, on oath, says that he /she is the publisher or authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as SOUTH -WEST REVIEW , and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualification as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. (B) The printedNOTICE OF HEARING which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week, for 1 successive weeks; it was first published on SUNDAY the 1 ST day of DECEMBER , 2013 , and was thereafter printed and published on every to and including , the day of , 20 ; and printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive,_' which is hereby acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used in the composition and publication of the notice: *ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ *ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ "abcdefgh ijklmnopq rstuvwxyz Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 2ND day of DECEMBER 20 13 _ - l Notary Public BY: TITLE LEGAL COORDINATOR *Alphabet should be in the same size and kind of type as the notice. TONYA R. WHITEHEAD Notary Public- Minnesota ;Us ` My Commission Expires Jan 31, 2015 (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space $25.00 per col. inch RATE INFORMATION (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter $25.00 per col. inch (3) Rate actually charged for the above matter $ per col. inch 1/13 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ' NOTICE OF HEARING A PUBLIC HEARING, ON A REQUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT AT 1349 KNOLLWOOD LANE ' TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission of Mendota !: Heights will meet at 7:00 P.M:, or as ,I soon as . possible thereafter, on Monday, December, 16, 2013 in the City'Hall"Counoil Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve; Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to ,' consider an , application from Michael McEllistrem to split the lot currently identified as PT OF LOT 27 COtVIM SW COR SW 1/4 E 163.28 FT, TO SW COR LOT 27.' CONT E 135.26 FT TO PT OF BEG N 247.45 FT E 100.03 FT S 1 247.45 FT TO S LINE W 100.0.3 FT TO PT OF BEG.; This request has been assigned Planning Case number 2013 -21. This notice is pursuant to Title 11 (Subdivision), Chapter 2 of the Mendota Heights City Code, Such '.persons as desire to be heard with reference to this : request will . be heard at this meeting. r ' Lorri Smith' City Clerk (South West Review, Dec 1; 2013) 1349 Knollwood Lane - Lot Split Application Public Hearing Notice D v 0 0 0 v 0 0 273767602010 1344 KNOLLWOOD LN ANN M MARKMAN 271715002010 784 EMERSON AVE W ARASH & MAGDA R FOROUHARI 0 273767602020 1330 KNOLLWOOD LN JOHN E & MARY C HELLER 273767502050 El 1355 MEDORA RD JOSEPH H & SANDRA F WOLKOWICZ 270380027030 273767501030 1312 WACHTLER AVE 1383 KNOLLWOOD LN CAROL A NELSON JOSH T KILLIAN 273767601070 271715002070 1297 KNOLLWOOD LN CO 1398 CHERRY HILL RD DAVID J & PAULA M GRAFF MARGARET M BROWN 273767501040 1373 KNOLLWOOD LN DAVID P MADISON 273767601010 781 EMERSON AVE MARY C SWEENEY 270380027041 273767601050 1330 WACHTLER AVE 1321 KNOLLWOOD LN JEFFREY & TAMMY STURM MARY LYNN STANISLAV 271715001020 JEFFREY & TAMMY STURM 270380027050 ID 1316 WACHTLER AVE MARY M WALSH 273767502020 273767601030 1396 KNOLLWOOD LN 0 1349 KNOLLWOOD LN JOHN & EMILY GAINOR MICHAEL 3 & DIANE E MCELLISTREM 271715001021 0 791 EMERSON AVE W JOHN & PAULA GROSENICK m 273767602030 1316 KNOLLWOOD LN NANCY J HAMILTON 273767502030 273767602060 1386 KNOLLWOOD LN 0 1325 MEDORA RD JOHN A TSTE MESLOW NICOLAS 3 & JAMIE K BURI 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. Dakota County assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. Map Scale 1 inch = 376 feet 11/22/2013 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231 .2555 Facsimile: 763.231 .2561 planners @nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen W. Grittman DATE: December 11, 2013 MEETING DATE: December 16, 2013 SUBJECT: Sign Requests — Conditional Use Permit and Variances CASE NO: Case No. 2013 -22; NAC Case 254.04 — 13.19 APPLICANT(S): Visitation School LOCATION: 2455 Visitation Drive ZONING: R -1, Single Family GUIDE PLAN: Institutional — Private School Background and Description of Request: The Visitation School is seeking permits to accommodate a comprehensive signage plan for the School property at the above address. The purpose of the signage plan is to consider existing and planned improvements without requiring additional planning approvals in the future. Future improvements would only require a sign permit as long as compliance with the approved plan is verified. The necessary applications include both Conditional Use Permits and Variances, due to the large parcel size (60 acres ±), large building sizes and uses, and significant setback from the main entrance on Mendota Heights Road (more than 880 feet) where most traffic enters the property. In addition, the applicant is seeking permission to display a digital electronic message on two primary signs, which requires a variance from the general prohibition on such 1 displays. The application package includes a sign permit to retrofit the existing sign at the entrance to the school building, while the additional digital campus directory sign would be constructed at later date, if the variance is approved. Over the past few years, the City has amended the sign regulations to address some of the issues raised by non - residential uses in residential zoning districts, which (apart from those previous amendments) allow only a single 12 square foot sign to identify those uses. The amendments recently adopted by the City include the following Code changes: • A CUP provision allowing an additional "nameplate" sign of up to 100 square feet (under specific conditions). • A CUP provision allowing additional wall signage of up to 100 square feet (again, under specific conditions). Recently, the City approved a Code amendment that accommodates digital message displays, but only in relation to gas station price signage. This type of display has historically been resisted elsewhere in the City, both for commercial and institutional applications. Analysis: The sign regulations currently allow the following signs on the property: • 1 — 12 square foot nameplate sign. • 1 — 100 square foot nameplate sign by CUP (conditions cited below). • 1 — 100 square foot wall sign by CUP (conditions cited below). New Signage. The applicants are seeking the following new signs on the property (this list does not include traffic control signs or other information signs that are not subject to normal sign permitting): 1. "Entry Gate" sign consisting of an arched set of letters over the main entrance drive, supported by columns. This sign would be more than 16 feet in height to provide clearance for underpassing vehicles, a total sign area of 136 square feet (New Sign No. 1). 2. Two Secondary Directory signs at 7 feet in height and 30 square feet in area, with both signs to be installed at a future date. The location of these two signs would be along the entrance drive between the entrance and the parking lot. The purpose of these signs is traffic direction (New Sign No. 3). 3. A "School Gate" sign consisting of two monument posts with identifying logo markings at the main entry to the school building (north side). This sign is 30 square feet in total area, and the overall structure height is approximately 12 feet 2 (although the sign location would be approximately 9 feet at its peak height) (New Sign No. 5). 4. Two "Wayfinding" signs, 12 square feet each, for a total area of 24 square feet. Such signs are traffic directional signs. The Plan indicates one such sign at the southeast corner of the parking lot — a second location is not clear from the materials. The total square footage of the new signs would be 250 square feet. Of these, the primary entrance gate sign would have the only significant exposure to the street or surrounding area. Existing Signage. In addition to these new signs, seven existing signs on the property are proposed to remain in place, although the applicants suggest that those signs may be replaced with new signs of equal size designed to match the new imagery. Those sign are identified as signs 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 on the applicant's table and Exhibit A aerial photograph. These existing signs consist of a variety of wall and directional signs, and total about 104 square feet in area. Replacement Signage. The applicant proposes to replace two existing signs with new signs, both of which would be larger than the existing sign, and both of which are proposed to include a digital message area. Existing signs 3 and 7 currently total about 76 square feet in area (40.8 sf and 34.7 sf), and would be replaced by signs of 75 and 54 square feet respectively, increasing sign area from 76 to 129 square feet for this portion of the request. Summary of Request. In brief summary, the applicant proposes to increase signage on the property from 9 subject signs comprising 175 square feet of sign area to 15 total signs totaling 478 square feet. Under the existing regulations, 3 total signs would be allowed by CUP, with a maximum total sign area of 212 square feet. The approvals necessary to accommodate this request would be as follows: a. Conditional Use Permit for 2nd Nameplate sign. b. Conditional Use Permit for wall sign in addition to nameplate sign. c. Variance for size of 2nd Nameplate sign. d. Variance for total number of signs. e. Variance for total square footage of signs. f. Variance to allow electronic digital messages. g. Variance for sign height. Conditional Use Permits. As noted above, there are two provisions in the code for Conditional Use Permits that would extend the allowable signage on such a site beyond the baseline 12 square foot sign. The first is allowed as follows: Section 12-1D-15 H.3.a. By conditional use permit, a nonresidential use in a residential zoning district which is allowed either as a permitted or conditional use may qualify for a second nameplate sign, provided that each of the following requirements are met: (1) The parcel on which such a sign is proposed may be no less than forty (40) acres in size. (2) The parcel on which such a sign is to be located must have frontage on at least two (2) public roadways. (3) No more than one sign may be allowed to be oriented toward any one public roadway. (4) The sign shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet in area per surface. (5) The sign shall not exceed nine feet (9') in height from the average natural grade at the base of the sign. (6) The sign may be illuminated, provided the direct source of light is not visible from the public right of way or adjacent residential district. (7) The sign may not be constructed as an internally lit cabinet. (8) The sign shall be constructed in a monument style fashion, including a base of natural stone, brick or other masonry material. (9) The sign area shall be landscaped with materials subject to a plan submitted with the CUP application and approved by the city council. (10) Lighting shall be limited from dusk to twelve o'clock (12:00) midnight. The proposed entry gate sign (New Sign No. 1) appears to meet these general criteria, with the exception of height and (depending on measurement) square footage. For the square footage of the sign, the applicants list 136 square feet as the sign size, but dimensions of the sign display area are not provided. When individual letters (such as the proposed sign) are used, the zoning definitions use a frame size that extends 6" around the letters as the area of the sign. Based on staff's rough measurements, it appears that applying this measurement to the sign shown in the drawing, the sign area may be closer to 90 square feet. With regard to height, a variance would be necessary. Variance requests are addressed below. The second Conditional Use Permit clause relates to additional wall signage beyond the allowed nameplate sign. The property currently includes 3 wall signs of about 27 total square feet (Existing Signs 5, 6 and 9). While the signs may be replaced with new graphics, the sign area is not proposed to change under this application. 4 Variances. The proposal includes signage that requires the following variances: 1. Number of signs and total sign area. 2. Height for Entry Gate Sign (New Sign No. 1). 3. Height of School Gate Sign (New Sign No. 5). 4. Sign Display — Electronic Digital Signage (New Signs No. 2 and No. 6) When considering variances, the City is required to find that: (1) The applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner; and (2) The applicant's proposal faces practical difficulties in using the property in this manner due to circumstances that: a. Are unique to the property, b. Are not caused by the applicant, c. Are consistent with the purpose and intent of the City's plans and ordinances, d. Are not out of character with the locality, or neighborhood, in which the property is located. 1. Number and total area of signage The majority of signs on the property are visible, or readable, only to visitors to the internal portions of the facility. For the few signs that are visible, the setbacks are extensive. Due to vehicle parking, existing vegetation, and /or distance, most of these signs are indistinguishable from architectural or landscape features. In this way, the signage may be considered to constitute a reasonable use of the property, or to facilitate reasonable use of the property for private school purposes. Because the intent of sign regulations is primarily to promote positive visual aesthetics and avoid clutter for passing traffic, signs that are internal to the site, and which have little or no impact on surrounding areas can be seen as consistent with the intent of the ordinance, even when such signs exceed the number and square footage allowances. As a result, planning staff is supportive of the general sign number and area variance, based on findings that reflect the variance standards listed above. Specific sign proposals are addressed further in the next paragraphs. 2. Height for Entry Gate (New Sign No. 1) The sign proposed as the Entry Gate is the most prominent sign with regard to public exposure. It is located to span the entry driveway near the roundabout at Mendota Heights Road. As noted above, although the sign is listed at 136 square feet by the applicants, it appears that it may be more property measured at around 90 square feet (based on staff's rough measurements). 5 As such, the primary variance consideration here would be for height. The proposed sign is 16 feet in height measured to the bottom of the span, meaning that the peak of the span is closer to 20 feet above the roadway. The sign ordinance lists 9 feet as the allowable maximum height for such signs under the CUP provisions. While it is true that the sign height would need to be 16 feet to allow for clear passage of vehicles on the entry drive, an entry sign could easily be designed that meets the 9 foot height without the driveway span. In fact, but for the lettering identifying "Visitation School ", the structure is otherwise allowed. If the School identification lettering were placed on the supporting monuments, under the 9 foot height limit (or some other similar arrangement), this structure would not require a variance, and the signage would be allowed under the CUP. With regard to the specific requirements of variance consideration, the ordinance amendment that created the CUP allowance was clear about the conditions under which the CUP was to be considered. There do not appear to be special or unique conditions on this property that create practical difficulties in complying with those conditions. As such, planning staff does not recommend the height variance for the Entry Gate Sign, although as noted, the structure itself would not appear to be subject to regular zoning requirements. 3. Height of School Gate Siqn (New Siqn No. 5) The School Gate Sign consists of a pair of monuments in the entry courtyard that create an arrival marking for the main entrance on the north side of the building. The paired structures are about 12 feet tall, with logo panels on each monument. The logo panels themselves appear to be approximately 9 feet above the sidewalk surface, with the structure portions of the sign extending above the panels. With freestanding signs, height is measured to include the entire structure. Thus, while the message portion of these monuments appears to meet the height requirement, the top of the structure exceeds the 9 foot limitation. It should be noted that at 12 feet, the structure is well below the surrounding building wall height by a significant margin. Again, when considering variances, the intent of the regulations is a key component of the analysis. The proposed school gate monuments are within the entry courtyard, with limited visibility to areas beyond the property itself. As noted, the message portions of the sign structure appear to meet the 9 foot limitation. While it is clearly possible to construct a monument structure that is 9 feet in height overall, the lack of visibility into the site suggests that the intent of the ordinance is met in this case, and that the imposition of a 9 foot height limitation would create a practical difficulty in the construction of what otherwise appears to be a reasonable use of the property. Therefore, staff is supportive of the height variance for this portion of the request. 4. Sign Display - Electronic Digital Signage (New Signs No. 2 and No. 6) The applicant is proposing to construct two digital message boards to supplement the other signage on the property. Both of these signs are proposed to replace existing signs. The first of these (New Sign No. 2) would serve as a directional and information sign to incoming visitors, and would replace Existing Sign No. 3 (note in the applicant's table an increase in square footage from the existing 40.8 square feet to a proposed 75 square feet). The new sign is proposed to be a monument design with two panels, one which directs traffic to the two primary buildings where the driveway turns, with the second panel proposed as an electronic digital message board. The panel itself is about 30 square feet in area. The second electronic display is proposed to be part of a "Welcome Digital Display" sign facing the parking lot along the north side of the building. The existing manual message board in this location (Existing Sign No. 7) would be replaced by New Sign No. 6. The proposed sign is also a monument design with a maximum height of 9 feet, and a display area of 54 square feet, increased from the existing 34.7 square feet. In the past, the City has been reluctant to accommodate this type of signage. The current ordinance language includes the following within the prohibited sign section: In all districts, illuminated signs or devices giving off an intermittent, steady, or rotating beam consisting of a collection or concentration of rays or lights greater than two (2) square feet in area. An exception was made recently under an amendment to the ordinance which created an allowance for the use of such technology for gas station price signage. Beyond this, such electronic signs have not been permitted. To consider a variance, the City would need to find that in this unique circumstance, the use is reasonable, there are unique conditions creating a practical difficulty in complying with the regulations, and that the proposed sign would both be in keeping with the intent of the ordinance and not out of character with the area. Planning staff does not believe that the proposed digital displays can comply with the terms of the variance criteria. If such signs are to be considered, it would be preferable to do so by amendment rather than variance. Action Requested: Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a second nameplate sign of up to 100 square feet for non - residential uses in an R -1 zone. 7 2. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to allow wall signage in excess of the standard 12 square feet for non - residential uses in an R -1 zone. 3. Consideration of a Variance to exceed the maximum number and square footage for signage (3 signs at 212 square feet maximum, 15 signs at 478 square feet proposed). 4. Consideration of a Variance to height for Entry Gate Sign (20 feet ± over the standard of 9 feet in height). 5. Consideration of a Variance to School Gate Sign (12 feet ± over the standard of 9 feet in height). 6. Consideration of a Variance to Sign Display (Electronic Digital Message Board). Staff Recommendation: Conditional Use Permits. Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permits (Actions 1 and 2) to allow an increase in signage for the nameplate and wall signage as proposed. These amendments were written to expand the opportunities for additional sign exposure for non - residential uses in residential zoning districts, with an understanding that the 12 square foot rule is inadequate in most cases to identify large sites. See draft findings of approval on Page 10. Variances. Staff further recommends approval of the Variance to allow up to 15 signs on the property, in excess of the 3 otherwise allowed, along with the increase in sign area to the amount proposed in the sign application (Action 3). Staff believes that the intent of the sign ordinance is met in that the vast majority of the signs, and sign area, will be visible to internal traffic and visitors only. Without visibility from external locations, no issues are raised for traffic confusion or negative aesthetics for surrounding roadways and property. Given the amount of traffic and uses on the site, adequate internal signage is beneficial to the property, and facilitates reasonable use. Without the variances, the applicants would indeed have a practical difficulty in making reasonable use of the property. See draft findings for approval on Page 11. Staff does not recommend approval of the height variance for the Entry Gate sign proposed to span the entrance driveway at Mendota Heights Road (Action 4). There are a number of alternatives that could accommodate entrance signage at this intersection without the need for a variance to the height. As noted, staff believes that the entrance gate structure may be allowed under the existing zoning regulations as a landscape feature, but not as a sign. Further as noted, staff believes that the total area of the sign, which may be up to 100 square feet under the terms of the CUP, meets the requirement as designed, and would still be able to meet the standard if designed to be in compliance with the height standards. As such, no variance is necessary for the area of this sign. See draft findings for denial on Page 12. 8 For the School Gate monument within the entry courtyard, planning staff recommends approval of the height variance for the structure, with the understanding that the logo panel meets the 9 foot height standard (Action 5). As noted in this report, the signage is generally indistinguishable from other architectural features in the area, and does not appear to be visible to surrounding property. See draft findings for approval on Page 13. Finally, staff does not recommend approval of the Electronic Digital message signs (Action 6). Approval of this technology would not appear to be consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance, or with past decisions on digital messaging on school property. It is clearly possible to construct signage that meets the display requirements of the code, and as such, there does not appear to be any practical difficulty in complying with the terms of the code in this respect. If the City believes that such signage is appropriate, an amendment would be the preferred way to pursue this technology. See draft findings for denial on Page 14. For all approvals granted, the applicants have suggested that the individual sign permits are likely to be phased in over a period of a few years. This application represents a comprehensive signage plan for the site, and will govern the installation of new signage, and the consideration of new sign permits, over the near term. If the applicants propose a change to any of the terms of the City's approval, with regard to location, size, or number of signs, an amendment to this approval would be necessary. Minor modifications of a few feet, or reductions in size, would be considered to be within the scope and intent of the approvals granted to this application. Supplementary Materials: 1. Application materials dated 11/22/13 Draft Findings of Fact for Approval Conditional Use Permit for a Second Nameplate Sign Conditional Use Permit for Additional Wall Signage Visitation School 2455 Visitation Drive The following findings of fact are made in support of approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a second freestanding sign on the above identified property: 1. The applicant for a second nameplate and additional wall signage has property along Mendota Heights Road, a major transportation corridor in the City. 2. Institutional uses predominate along this roadway, generating significant traffic from the large facilities and mix of activities on the subject property. 3. The main buildings on the property, although fronting on Mendota Heights Road, are set back significant distances without extensive visual exposure to the main entrance drive. 4. The property, and visiting traffic, would benefit from additional exposure at the main entrance drive, beyond that of the zoning allowances of 12 square feet. 5. The applicants have proposed additional nameplate and wall signage that meets the intent of the Zoning Ordinance allowances for non - residential uses in a residential zone, and (with specific exceptions noted in the staff report) the particular requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. The proposed signage would not be visible from, nor compromise the character of, the residential neighborhood that adjoins the applicant's property. 7. Where portions of the site signage may be visible, extensive setbacks and existing vegetation make such signage unreadable to residential property. 8. Subject to consideration of specific variances processed concurrently with the Conditional Use Permits, the proposed signage is compatible with the character, design, and materials as intended for such uses. 10 Draft Findings for Approval Variance for Sign Number and Area Visitation School 2455 Visitation Drive The following findings of fact are made in support of approval of a variance for the number and square footage of signs on the above identified property: 1. Sign display for much of the signage on the property is only visible to internal site users, and not to the general public. 2. Numerous sign locations are important to distribute and direct traffic within the site and along the main entry drive. 3. Sign display that is visible to external traffic or property owners appears to be within the allowances of the sign ordinance. 4. Restricting sign numbers and square footage to just 3 signs with no more than 212 square feet, as required by the ordinance, would create a practical difficulty in making reasonable use of the property, which is comprised of large buildings and generates different types of traffic. 5. Because only a limited portion of the proposed signage is visible to the general public, the signage as proposed complies with the intent of the sign ordinance, which is to limit traffic confusion and negative aesthetic impacts on surrounding property. 6. The sign plans as proposed (or as modified under the City's approval) facilitate reasonable use of the property as a private school and monastery, uses which are consistent with the zoning and land use plans of the city in this location. 11 Draft Findings for Denial Variance for Sign Height for Entry Gate Sign Visitation School 2455 Visitation Drive The following findings of fact are made in support of denial of a Variance for the height of the Entry Gate sign on the above identified property: 1. The proposed sign is the most prominent sign visible to the general public and adjacent roadways. 2. The proposed gate span structure may be allowed as a landscaped feature, but would be inconsistent with the ordinance as a sign. 3. The ordinance creates a special exemption for signs of this size by CUP, with the specific requirement that such signs meet a 9 foot height limitation. 4. The applicants can design a sign which meets the standards in a variety of ways without violating the regulations, suggesting that the proposed sign height is not necessary to make reasonable use of the property. 5. There are no practical difficulties unique to this property that would interfere with putting it to reasonable use under the applicable zoning standards. 6. Granting of this variance would be establishing a privilege for this property which has been denied to others in the district. 12 Draft Findings for Approval Variance for Height of School Gate Sign Visitation School 2455 Visitation Drive The following findings of fact are made in support of approval of a variance for the height of the School Gate Sign on the above identified property: 1. Sign display for much of the signage on the property is only visible to internal site users, and not to the general public. 2. The proposed sign is significantly lower than the surrounding building height. 3. The message portion of the structure appears to meet the 9 foot height standard, and only the architectural portion of the structure rises above that elevation. 4. Because the proposed signage is not visible to the general public, the signage as proposed complies with the intent of the sign ordinance, which is to limit traffic confusion and negative aesthetic impacts on surrounding property. 5. The sign plans as proposed (or as modified under the City's approval) facilitate reasonable use of the property as a private school and monastery, uses which are consistent with the zoning and land use plans of the city in this location. 13 Draft Findings for Denial Variance for Use of Electronic Digital Display Technology Visitation School 2455 Visitation Drive The following findings of fact are made in support of denial of a Variance for the installation of electronic digital display signs in two locations on the above identified property: 1. The use of electronic digital message display would not be consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance, which prohibits such signs. 2. The property can be identified with signage meeting the existing regulations, suggesting that there is no practical difficulty unique to the property that would justify a variance. 3. The ordinance permits this type of display only for gas stations, under limited conditions, in business districts in the City. 4. The use of electronic digital display is not consistent with the character of the area or with similar uses in similar districts in the City. 5. There are no practical difficulties unique to this property that would interfere with putting it to reasonable use under the applicable zoning standards. 6. Granting of this variance would be establishing a privilege for this property which has been denied to others in the district. 14 Planning Case 2013 -22 Convent of the Visitation Signage CUP & Variances Date: 12/12/2013 0 325 SCALE IN FEET City of Mendota Heights BLUEBILL DR !wl y I i jp! _ _:, ! •. 1 41 aE ! /i Or fi . : ,9 1 v s A - ,yl ti ., . or - frri MENDOTA H K _ st / r _ !TA:7ton I • t /7 '---,g,:__Kf,a, Ilr \•) n • ra1i — ir✓s .11. s : ", GIS Map Disclaimer: This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651- 454 -0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. OPUS OPUS DESIGN BUILD L.L.C. 10350 Bren Road West Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343 (952) 656 -4444 FAX (952) 656 -4529 TRANSMITTAL To: City of Mendota Heights 1 101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Attention: Nolan Wall Date: November 22, 2013 Job # 30300.00 Re: Visitation School 2455 Visitation Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55121 We are sending you: [X] Attached [ ] Under Separate Cover [X] VIA Hand Delivery The Following: Copy of Letter Shop Drawings Prints [ ] Plans Change Order [ ] Sepias [ ] Samples [ ] Specifications [x] Check# - Appl Fee SHEET NO. NO. OF COPIES DATED DESCRIPTION 1 Application Fee (CUP) 1 1 1.22.13 Application for Consideration of Planning Request 1 1 1.22.13 Letter of Intent - Visitation Convent and School 1 1 1.22.13 Conditional Use Permit Checklist Application 1 1 1.22.13 Variance Application 1 1 1.22.13 Signage Permit Application 1 11.22.13 Comprehensive Campus Signage Plan. 1 1 1.22.13 Site Survey Prepared by: Opus Design Build L.L.C. These are transmitted: [X] For Approval [ ] For Review and Comment [ ] Amend & Resubmit Copies for Approval [ ] For Your Use [ ] No Exceptions Taken [ ] Rejected - See Remarks [ ] As Requested [ ] Make Changes Noted [ ] For Your Information [] Notes: xc: File Sincerely, OPUS DESIGN BUILD L.L.C. Scott Shifflett 952 - 656 -4471 Project Manager APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. 2 ' ! 3 - Z Z Date of Application, 12- / 3/ Fee Paid S D Staff Initials Street Location of Property in Question: _2955 Visitation Dx. Applicant Name: Dawn N; rho, s PH: A�1 -683 -171.0 E -Mail Address: dnichols @vischool.org Address: 2455 Visitation Dr., Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Property Owner Name: Convent of the Visitation School Property Owner Address: 2455 Visitation Dr., Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) See survey attached. Type of Request: Rezoning X Variance X Conditional Use Permit Subdivision Approval Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D. Wetlands Permit Preliminary /Final Plat Approval Critical Area Permit Comprehensive Plan Amendment Other: Applicable City Ordinance Number. 12- " 1'� I S Sectic Present Zening of.Property l2- — ( Present Use /L-- s 4-,r4- 4-r -�i Proposed Zor ing of Property R - l Proposed'Use I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above property during daylight hours. ///Z 2/13 X44.4/ Signature of Applicant Date Signature of Owner Date Signature of Owner (if more than one) Date City of Mendota Heights Conditional Use Permit Request Page 1 City Process: Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission and /or the City Council only after all required materials have been submitted. Late or incomplete applications will not be put on the {:use Ntd., :; Z i 3 - 2 "t.' Dail i 7' a /1 AnpII arlt' V ; , ; r a I- Pnone 1 Fad ( « , I ti,` Location o6 Prppprbj a <t s V,rt r, v Off er ApproVals'\reeded / Relevant OrdlnaricasISect ons:- I Z 1 b- l s c A agenda. Planning Timeline: If proper and complete application materials (date) then the public hearing or review and supportive documents are submitted by of your case will be conducted by the Planning of the public hearing, or Planning on (date). Commission on (date). Following completion Commission review, the City Council may consider your application Applicant Requirements: o Dated original of all of the materials checked, must be submitted by the end of the business day on the Monday before the first Tuesday of the month. o If all original materials are 11 x 17 or smaller — you need to only submit originals. o If materials are larger than 11 x 17, please provide 22 copies, folded to 8 '/s x 11. o Any drawings in color - must submit 22 copies The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete: Fee: ($350 Normal, $500 for Planned Unit Development) check payable to the City of Mendota Heights. o Please note that this Planning Application fee does not cover building permit fees, utilities or other fees which may be required for you to complete your project. 1 Completed Application Form (Only original need be submitted) 0 Letter of Intent. The Dimension Plan shall include: tat 1. Lot dimensions and area. ❑ 2. Dimensions of proposed and existing structures. C NAA) ❑ 3. "Typical" floor plan and "typical" room plan. WV AI 4. Setbacks on all structures existing or proposed on property in question. ❑ 5. Proposed setbacks. (N /4) Conditional Use Permit Checklist (modifted 8/2012) City of Mendota Heights Conditional Use Permit Request Page 2 The Site Development Plan shall include: yi 1. Architectural elevations (type and materials used on all external surfaces). ❑ 2. Location and candle power of all luminaries. N/A 3. Location of all existing easements. f "r vey ❑ 4. (If necessary) Location and number of existing and proposed parking spaces. ❑ 5. (If necessary) Vehicular circulation. ❑ 6. (If necessary) Sewer and water alignment, existing and proposed. The Grading Plan shall include: ❑ 1. Existing contour. ❑ 2. Proposed grading elevations. ❑ 3. Drainage configuration. ❑ 4. (If necessary) Storm sewer catch basins and invert elevations. ❑ 5. (If necessary) Spot elevations. Cl 6. (If necessary) Proposed road profile. The Landscape Plan shall include: ❑ 1. (If necessary) Location of all existing trees, type, diameter and which trees will be removed. ❑ 2. (If necessary) Location, type and diameter of all proposed plantings. ❑ 3. (If necessary) Location and material used of all screening devices. Notes: Conditional Use Permit Checklist (modified 8/2012) City of Me dota Heights Variance Checklist /Questionnaire Page 1 Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission and /or the City Council only after all required materials have been submitted. Late or incomplete applications will not be put on the agenda. Office Use Only: Case No: 2—P 13 -- - 2- Applicant: V ; c , °re-- - ,-, Address: 2-9 s S v s .'I L4 ,- .... air. Planning Timeline: If a complete application is submitted by (date) then the public hearing or review of your case will be conducted by the planning (date). Following completion of planning commission on commission review, the city council may consider your application on (date). A variance is a request to exceed City of Mendota Heights zoning standards. Under Minnesota State Law, a variance requires that a practical difficulty exists. Practical difficulty has two parts: a unique condition exists on the property (not created by the landowner); the proposed use of the property is reasonable. It is essential that the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Please consider these requirements carefully before requesting a variance. Applicant Requirements: ▪ Dated original of all of the materials checked must be submitted by the end of the business day the Monday before the first Tuesday of the month. O If all original materials are 11 x 17 or smaller — you need to only submit originals. O If materials are larger than 11 x 17, please provide 22 copies, folded to 8 '/z x 11. 0. Any drawing in color — must submit 22 copies. The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete: O Fee: ($100 Residential, $150 Commercial), check payable to City of Mendota Heights o Please note that this Planning Application fee does not cover building permit fees, utilities, or other fees which may be required for you to complete your project. o Completed Application Form (only original need be submitted) O Sketch plan showing all pertinent dimensions, and including the location of any easements having an influence upon the variance request. o If written consent by the property owners within 100 feet of the boundaries of the subject property is obtained, the city may waive the requirement for a public hearing. Signature form should be accompanied by a map indicating the location of the property in question and the location of property owners who have given consent. Please complete the attached questions regarding your request for a variance to city code. Variance Checklist (modified 09/2013) City of Mendota Heights Variance Checklist /Questionnaire Page 2 1. In your opinion, is the variance consistent with the current land use in the neighborhood? Yes(X)No( ) Why or why not? The variance requests included in the submittal are consistent with the current use of the property and compliment the adjacent educational facilities to the west across lake drive. Visitation School and Visitation Monastery are bounded to the west and south by another education institution and undeveloped property owned by Visitation. To the north and east are residential properties. However, the setbacks between the building types are significant. The closest adjacent property to the north is 232' and to the east over 700' to the nearest Visitation building. 2. In your opinion, does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? Yes (X) No ( ) Why or why not? The proposed request is reasonable and focuses on providing a unified standard to communicate way finding directions, current information, as well as to communicate a visitor's arrival to the school. With a new primary entry and additional facilities, it is extremely important to clearly communicate Visitation's brand and provide students, staff, parents, visitors, and emergency responders adequate way finding within the campus. 3. Please describe the circumstances unique to the property (not created by you). Visitation School and the Visitation Monastery are unique in that they are deeply set back from the entry to the site located on Mendota Heights Road. All visitors to the site share this access to the Monastery, Middle School, Early Learning Center, Upper School, and athletic facilities. Ensuring that visitors safely travel through the site with minimized traffic motions, and are kept up to date with important notifications is essential. In previous applications Mendota Heights has taken issue with applications that do not address the issues below. Please note that Visitation's application addresses the concerns in the following ways: Driver Safety: By setting signage internal to the campus out of public view or approximately 250' away from the property line driver safety on public roadways is maintained. Speed limits posted by Visitation School within the site are 15 mph allowing for visitors to read way finding signage safely while traveling to their destination. Impact to the public: The proposed signs are not visible to public right of ways or are set back approximately 250' from the property line minimizing impact to those on public roadways. The existing street and parking lighting will be significantly brighter than the proposed signs at the setbacks proposed. The images included in the proposal looking back at the building from Lake Drive illustrate this. Proliferation of Signage: Visitation's property and its needs are truly unique. It is unlikely that many properties can comply with a requirement that the graphic signage be truly internal to the site and 250' away from the property line. Neighborhood Character: Both signs proposed in this application replace existing internally lit signage of similar size and locations. These signs will display identical information however will be more energy efficient and improve employee safety. 4. In your opinion, will the variance, if granted, fit with the character of the neighborhood? Yes(X)No( ) Why or why not? lithe variances are granted, the current beauty and integrity of the neighborhood will be maintained and reinforced. The area around Visitation's campus is a balanced mix of natural woodland and prairie, well -kept residences, and educational institutions. Visitation's plans outlined in the submittal complement existing features within the campus and are primarily internal to the site reinforcing the character of the area while improving the safety and way finding for those that visit. APPLICATION FOR SIGN PERMIT City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 (651) 452 -1850 (651) 452 -8940 PERMIT FEE SITE ADDRESS DATE OFAPPLICATION 255 is 40-1101 ve_ /0 - /6- 20/3 OWNER (Name) (Address) (Tel. No., Including Area Code) VIS - 'w Schedl 2455 V/si 'abort bri'vK R deist. iiie, I ES N 55714' CONTRACTOR (Name) (Address) (Tel. No. luding Area Code) 9 F'ro (743) L/$2- • 7qet7 , ?eti lLVI Egli , , . . 927K .meson f' S-hrJ /V6, Bla,ene, P 53M Type of Building Used As Building Estimated Cost Contractor's City License No. /3 -,241 Budding Permit No. TYPE OF SIGN ❑ WALL ❑ ROOF ❑ PROJECTING GROUND ❑ MARQUEE ❑ TEMPORARY ❑ OTHER MAX. DIMENSION © „ /--1) s . T. VERTICAL � - F FT. HORIZONTAL SIGN AREA 5 ' ` SQ. FT. NO. OF SIDES / DISTANCE FROM GROUND TO SIGN BASE FT. HEIGHT OF SIGN /b ' -94 "T.,. SETBACK OF SIGN FROM PROPERTY LINE t xrthre, FF. ILLUMINATED = YES ❑ NO ALLOWABLE SIGN ARE ON PROMISES FT. SKETCH OF SIGN ZacaiQ A-&(-1-21 6.1 irdtlAi 04;q0( ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND SIGNATURE: The undersigned hereby represents upon all of the penalties of law, for the purpose of inducing the City of Mendota Heights to take the action herein requested, that all statements herein are true and that all work herein mentioned will be done in accordance with the Ordinances of the City of Mendota Heights, the State of esota, d rulings of the Building Department. ORO SIGNATURE APPROVED OPUS OPUS DESIGN BUILD, L.L.C. 10350 Bren Road West Minnetonka, MN 55343 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mendota Heights Planning Department FROM: Scott Shifflett DATE: November 22, 2013 RE: Letter of Intent Concerning Proposed Signage at Visitation School Both the Visitation School and the Visitation Monastery are set within a sixty -two acre site in the northwest quadrant of Mendota Heights Road and Dodd Road in Mendota Heights. The original structures were constructed in 1966 with several additions and remodels since that time. With the recent approval and construction of the Visitation STEM Center and Heart Commons projects, a comprehensive review of the existing signage was performed. With a new primary entry and additional facilities, it is extremely important to clearly communicate Visitation's brand and provide parents, visitors, and emergency responders adequate way finding within the campus. The buildings on campus total approximately 213,000 square feet. All are situated within the well landscaped and wooded campus. The setbacks of the buildings and distances from various features to adjacent property lines are outlined in a provided site plan. Most existing signs are internal to the campus, not visible from adjacent properties, or are well setback from the property line. A summary of existing signage is outlined in Exhibit A — Existing Signage. As shown, Visitation School's current signage includes a monument sign, internally lit directories /message boards, way finding, and building signage. As part of the comprehensive signage plan, many of the current elements will be replaced over time with new signs of equal square footage and complementary finishes. In addition to the replacement of existing signs, new signs will be added to complete the vision of the campus wide signage plan. New signage locations, elevations and details are shown in Exhibit B — New Signage. The replacement of existing signage and addition of new signage would be scheduled in multiple phases starting with the digital welcome sign in 2014 and the remainder to follow over the next two to three years. Acknowledging the city zoning ordinance for properties zoned residential, we are asking the Planning Commission for the following variances. 1. Variance for a total of 478 SF of signage as outlined in the comprehensive sign plan square footage summary in lieu of 12 SF. Page 2 2. Variance for sign #1 shown in Exhibit B - "Visitation School" to be installed at the main entry on Mendota Heights Road at over 9' above natural grade to allow for 16' clearance as shown. 3. Variance for new sign #5 shown on Exhibit B- "School Gate" to have a top elevation of 11' -8" above natural grade in lieu of 9'. 4. Variance for the replacement of existing internally lit message sign #3 on Exhibit A with more modern and energy efficient electronic display as shown in elevation #2 on Exhibit B "Campus Directory Digital Display ". 5. Variance for the replacement of existing internally lit message sign #7 on Exhibit A with more modern and energy efficient electronic display #6 on Exhibit B "Digital Welcome Display ". Limiting the allowable square footage of signage within a large campus with several unique building entries encumbers the use and safety of the property. The signage within the campus is mostly internal to the site or is greater than 230 feet away from adjacent property lines. The installation of the "Visitation School" archway at the campus entrance off of Mendota Heights Road notifies visitors that they have arrived on campus and must be installed at a height that allows emergency services and other service vehicles to access the site. New digital directories will replace two existing internally lit directories /message signs. Both signs are internal to the property or are set back no less than 337 feet from an adjacent property line. Both are generally shielded by vegetation or changes in elevation. Within the submittal documents we have included photographs from the intersection of Rogers Ave and Lake Drive and the intersection of Swan Drive and Lake Drive. From Swan Drive the proposed signage is well screened by vegetation and generally not visible. The image from Rogers Avenue shows the large setback from the property line and how diminutive the appearance of the sign is from that distance. Visitation is a unique applicant with a unique request for signage internal to a large campus, far away from adjacent properties or public roads. In addition, Visitation School will agree to apply the following restrictions to this signage in order to maintain the existing character of the campus: • All messages will be static text displaying current information. No flashing images or video media will be displayed. • The signage lighting will turn on no sooner than 6:00 am and will be turned off no later than 10:00 pm. One of the many benefits at Visitation is the beauty of the monastery and school grounds. The proposed comprehensive signage plan maintains the character and beauty of the campus while improving the traffic flow and safety of the site. We appreciate the consideration and welcome the opportunity to answer any questions concerning this project. Sincerely, Scott Shifflett Project Manager Opus Design Build L.L.C. November 18, 2013 City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 DA,.KTRDNICS Re: Proposed Electronic Message Board for Visitation School To Whom This May Concern: We would like to provide the following comments and explanation regarding the proposed Daktronics Electronic Message Board for Visitation School in Mendota Heights, MN. Daktronics, Inc is the world leader in the design and manufacturing of electronic display systems. We are committed to providing LED displays that adhere to the regulatory environment, working closely with our customers for a responsible approach to the market. Although Section 12- 1D -15.E does not allow animated or flashing signs within R, B -1 or B -2 districts, please consider the following information regarding the proposed electronic message board. Aesthetics of Electronic Message Boards Manual changeable copy signs have the potential for mis- matched letters and bland fonts, unlike electronic signs, which allow for clear, easy to read messages. Electronic message boards improve the aesthetics of a community, when properly regulated. The proposed sign for Visitation School is located within the school's property, several hundred feet from the nearest roadway and thus, far away from any other signage. As a result, with the addition of such sign at Visitation School, the city of Mendota Heights will still maintain its residential character. Safety It is important to note several studies have been performed over the years reviewing whether electronic signs are a hazard to traffic safety. None have shown these signs are a hazard. Methods of operation have already been developed and approved by the Federal Highway Administration as well as the majority of states that appropriately regulate this valuable technology. Also, I have included a link with additional safety studies, http : / /dakfiles.daktronics.com /. In particular, note the Texas A &M on- premise safety study that was completed. This study also concluded that on- premise signs did not lead to an increase in crashes. To view this study, click on the link, select "Safety Studies" and look for the Texas A &M study. Considering the studies performed evaluated the safety of electronic signs along roadways with much higher speeds than average parking lot speeds, the proposed electronic sign will not create any additional safety hazards. Automatic Dimming Technology DAKTRON I CS DAKTRDN 1 CS The perceived brightness of an LED sign is dependent on a variety of factors. Ambient light conditions play the largest role in impacting the brightness of the display. An LED sign communicates its messages by emitting light. It therefore must not be too dim, since it cannot be distinguished in sunlight; nor should it be too bright, as the image will be distorted and difficult to read. During the course of the day, the sign will periodically adjust its brightness levels to ensure it is operating appropriately. Automatic dimming technology is an asset as it ensures electronic signs are not overly bright, given the ambient light conditions. This adjustment is possible because of the photocell /light sensor. Daktronics' LED signs come equipped with a light sensor, which detects the ambient light level, and adjusts the sign's brightness accordingly. Brightness The sign comes equipped with the ability to not exceed the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) -based standards of 0.3 foot candles above ambient light as measured using a brightness meter at a preset sign -to- viewer distance; in this case 50 feet (distance calculated using the square root of the area of the sign times 100). The nearest residential areas, across Lake Drive, are located over 300 feet away from the proposed sign. Since the illumination levels will continue to decrease as the distance away from the display increases, the light visible to the residential areas would be minimal and most likely immeasurable. Also, the presence of other ambient light from adjacent roadways, parking lots, streets, the moon, etc. further reduces the measureable light from the proposed digital on- premise sign. For example, the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America standards (as compiled by the International Dark Sky Association) for outdoor illumination dictate that average lighting for local roadways should be 0.4 foot candles. When considering the sign is equipped with the ability to not exceed 0.3 foot candles above ambient light at its highest illumination on the roadway, the light from said display would be absorbed by the light from the school, the parking lot and Lake Drive, located near the proposed sign location. Community Benefit The proposed electronic message board for Visitation School would actually benefit the community as a whole, especially families with students that attend Visitation School. Such sign would allow school administrators to more effectively relay information about school activities and events as a message could be changed with a few clicks of a button. Additionally, the sign would allow administrators to display multiple messages throughout a single day, which is useful when needing to relay several announcements at one time. A manual changeable copy sign severely limits the amount of information that can be relayed and frequently does not allow for several different messages to be relayed at once, without cluttering up the sign. The ability to display different messages will increase the school's communication with its students and families. An increase in communication to students and families served by Visitation School increases the chance of such individuals' involvement with the school and the community as a whole. Please let us know if you have any questions. Best Regards, DAKTRONICS, INC. DAKTRON I CS ampa, Angela Bailey State and Local Regulatory Affairs 605 - 692 -0200 Ext. 56808 DA,.KTRDNICS 0 DAKTRON I CS 02 OPUS. THE OPUS GROUP www opus-group.com • 1— Opus AE Group, Inc. --------- , 4 - - - - ---\ - ----- -- , -_„- : "-------"---: ;.\ \'• \ \ ‘.' q. - - ,,..„ , _..., __.1,,A., \,,i - . —_ z*-4- - •-•,.., - \ '. \ ..... .. ., ....1. t....,-,.) ■•=ar:V.:::.8,42,Skyt jr,, _s_lv__ _,.._. . . .: _I _ ...' \ ....: . 2, ,.., r_- 7 .. ... frt .. .- IL -- -'4diON.- 144 ---:z, — _ , ___ • ;4:1111 Li • '.. 1 \ _ - _ • _ ...... ='; r • ; ; ................... , -a. -1- • --,.--z•-,b1-,-----7.-,--:" .... --'''‘,•;‘,:,--„,-- i; ,:,.. . ..... ...ki 7 .\■-'L - - 3 -7 4 /- IA■k, , , 1 ( , , , , , -,... • , „ ,,, / , r. ....i /"._ ---::-_-----_.-_-_--_-_-_--,11 i; '\•:) - I- \ _i - f- „,,,z; ) ( ----_1,-, --- - -- '— `--•-:4'---\ \ ,-1•,_ -, s-, ---_,-„ _ .-,,••:--.. ..sr - t- r : "'; 1 =1., - --------•-z,---,----4-- 7- - 1 1 ..„) ,) _ ; 4 ..: k .•Az,. -,.___ \ \ \ \ - -1 i ■ ■ -/ ,.-' ; 7 - --- --":----„:7-------:- --_ __„_/7,_ ,..,_ ,__ •_.,_ ..._ 7)4._ _ I„ / '. ‘ _ _ -7- 1 / _ -,,,, ', s , ;•-/ 1---k, ----„ - Ir 1 ,,•- --.;, ;.,- , -- , _________, ,_ „as -.... -,__ - ,,,, \ _ ,--- - , ., —:,--••:---, -='-'_'.-..----`17-` - - -=‘• i ) \ - V ' ", ■ + 1.7'. \ '4; __7:__ ___,____•7,---...7— ........ -.-2--- ' - _ / .... 4 _ 00 02 1- - ; i -7 / •I-4, t : - t - .i,• ... \-- 4 , , • 1— --n; --- -•■ ... \ .... .. \ \ - ..... - - \:•■ • _ • \ 24" 4 / I- 0-F-=- =•-• =4_ / - ‘7; 7 r. 7 r /// 7 401 Ill/ • ..... \ / ... 1114,7/i /7 faiL \`..% Project dgOO 01. Date ii7/81f6 By Sheet of Measurement Summary Closest School building to Visitation property line: 160' Closest School building to adjacent property line: 232' Distance from visual display board to adjacent property line: 337' /00' Hoe) View From Rogers and Lake Drive PT ;ell EN. fr. a + ..- •�.r q efi., .'.. -.: =._'• • Y;-'' L;■_ y era.=. — - - -- -, _ - . + y_ - .. - k4_ View From Swan and Lake Drive Exhibit A — Existing Signage Type: 1. Monument Sign 6' -4" x 3' -8" Brick enclosure 11' -8" x 6' -9" 2. Visitation Soccer Field Sign 4' -4" x 6' -6" 3. Site Directory Sign (Internally Lit) 8' -2" x 5' 4. Way Finding Sign 4' x 2' 5. Building Signs - ELC 12'x9" 6. Building Sign — Fine Arts 8' -9" x 9" 7. Site Directory (Internally Lit) 8' x 4' -4" 8. Directional Sign 4' x 3' -2" 9. Building Sign — Mary 0 Foley Athletic Center 15' -6" x 9" Comprehensive Sign Study Exhibit A — Existing Signage 1. Monument Sign Size: 6' -4" x 3' -8" Quantity: 1 Total SF: 23.2 41100.,_ VISITATI 11n \\�Tf RI .1NF) t"----1W t i41 t ;r1( 41ki 2. Visitation Soccer Field Sign Size: 4' -4" x 6' -6" Quantity: 1 Total SF: 28.2 r •._4 $ • 4trt hl• s `: r. ♦4,f440.to fit 3. Site Directory Sign (Internally Lit) Size: 8' -2" x 5' Quantity: 1 Total SF: 40.8 4. Way Finding Sign Size: 4' x 2' Quantity: 1 Total SF: 8.0 Sign Description and Quantities 5. Building Signs - ELC Size: 12' x 9" Quantity: 1 Total SF: 9.0 vortitiagme 6. Building Sign — Fine Arts Size: 8' -9" x 9" Quantity: 1 Total SF: 6.6 Exhibit A — Existing Signage 7. Site Directory (Internally Lit) Size: 8' x 4' -4" Quantity: 1 Total SF: 34.7 MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL A FAITH FILLED NEW 'Y AR CELEBRATE JESUS BIRTH 8. Directional Sign Size: 4' x 3' -2" Quantity: 1 Total SF: 12.7 T Athletic Cev IIII t F Fine Arts Ce; fg E School Entrar 5 F Early learnini ter #4 9. Building Sign — Mary 0 Foley Athletic Center Size: 15' -6" x 9" Quantity: 1 Total SF: 11.6 Sign Description and Quantities Exhibit B - New Signage NEW SIGNAGE Comprehensive Sign Plan SIGNAGE TYPES BY ORDER OF ARRIVAL 11 4 11 6 Entry Gate Campus Directory (w/ Digital Display) Secondary Directory Way- finding Signage School Gate Digital 'Welcome' Display ENTRY GATE © CAMPUS DIRECTORY DIGITAL DISPLAY SECONDARY DIRECTORY WAY- FINDING SIGNAGE SCHOOL GATE DIGITAL `WELCOME' DISPLAY SERVICE DRIVE GYM fte- FINE ARTS MAIN ENTRY/ HEART OF SCHOOL NELSON Visitation School Signage Standard Design 2 Fxhihit B New Signage SIGNAGE DETAILS 0 CLEARANCE HEIGHT PER NATIONAL CLEARANCE CODE 51 -4" MONASTERY Adhisuora V00o1 SCHOOL Foley Fite Aets Heart Gymnasium Parking SIGNAGE TYPE #1 'Entry Gate" SURFACE AREA: 136 SF QUANTITY: 1 1 J 11' -8" 2' -2" �A =M I AIM =M -MMMM iI 10' -6" \AS11 A SCIJIMIL MONASTERY SCHOOL 1 PlneArcs Gym m Parking SIGNAGE TYPE #2 'Campus Directory & Digital Display' SURFACE AREA: 75 SF QUANTITY: 1 OPEN CLEARANCE HEIGHT - OPEN 2' -2" SIGNAGE TYPE #3 'Secondary Directory' SURFACE AREA: 30 SF QUANTITY: 2 SIGNAGE TYPE #4 'Future Way Finding' SURFACE AREA: TBD QUANTITY: TBD SIGNAGE TYPE #5 'School Gate' SURFACE AREA: 30 SF (15 SF /unit) QUANTITY: 1 NELSON Nelson Upper Midwest Operatlng Company, LLC a licensed affllate 1201 Marquette Avenue South - Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55403 Phone : (612) 822 -1211 (612) 822 -1886 Consultant Client Description Hate Convent of the Visitation School-STEM and Heart Visitation School Signage 2455 Visitation Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Pro,t Title & Address EXTERIOR SIGNAGE DESIGN Sheet Title Pro] No 12 01007 00 Drawn By PM Pro,t Manager Prepared By Designer Date MG Reviewed By Checker Date Approved By APPROVER Date A1.1 ELL DIMENSICNS END CCNDITIO 5 MUST BE CHECKED END VERIFIED PHIMB'TO PROCEEDING WITH TH WORK. @NELSON 2012 L RIGHTS RESERVED NOTES: 1. All surface area calculations provided exclude structural foundation composed of brick and concrete. 2. Signage 'Types' are organized as order of arrival to site. FINISH MATERIALS: BRONZE METAL WHITE METAL PLATE RED ACCENT METAL PLATE CONCRETE BRICK NELSON Visitation School Signage Standard Design 3 Exhibit B New Signage 1 ENTRY GATE NELSON Visitation School Signage Standard Design 4 Exhibit B New Signage 2 CAMPUS DIRECTORY /DIGITAL DISPLAY t ISITATION SCHOOL Cm MONASTERY Admissions Visitor; SCHOOL b Foley. Fins Arts Hort Gymnasium Parking sim rw�a i>nwenairi Vr� IWO EMI Ito NELSON Visitation School Signage Standard Design 5 Exhibit B New Signage 3 SECONDARY DIRECTORY p MONASTERY Admissions Visitors SCHOOL iJ Foley Fine Arts Heart Gymnasium Parking NOTE: PHOTO LOCATION FOR REFERENCE ONLY. REFER TO MAP FOR ACTUAL SIGNAGE LOCATION NELSON Visitation School Signage Standard Design s Exhibit B - New Signage 5 SCHOOL GATE NELSON Visitation School Signage Standard Design Exhibit B New Signage 6 WELCOME DIGITAL DISPLAY 1 Vi5itrati0ri School =MI .- �_ r -- ∎ ∎1 ∎.∎ MINIM •----- - - - - -- ! ∎=1•-- !MMI OM MN WO M-- - - =nPN =NEM NI •_----------l---s- - - -1 ∎ ∎1 I■ - - - -i— � __-- l-- - -N =I∎ I=A - - - - -- — —1 -- - - - -- __■ __--------------i— - - - - - -- —i•— ___l_I•_■ 8' -1 - Visitation School Middle School Tailgate Friday, September 20 5 -7p.m. Saint Thomas Academy visitation Sehrxd Furnish and 'meta 11(11 ' x °- 0" SIF LED 11 lur1:natea bier ur.1en` EJIg 9 A. AI:JrniriJm aid Al;.rn ntJrrl Foc Fini =.Fi i PMr : #` k5F E ur ,r D.: ou eci Fac,e _a:.keo it _exan Lapp RcLt d Cir sle ,w th F r5.1, Surracc 1 -r n.ucert.'•ii'1jf1- Vector Graphic Needed for Production C. 2''E- x S'' 1 S" fled '. - -crlcr 2wrnri fv'sssage Cel-I:er Cpl icral'ra dal vcr °r G brick bale ay. I_ tb wr . For Curlcept . Text Square Fc .], =: '1(15q.J.are Feet Video Di_- play+S'cLuareF -eta1e: 24.4 S;:ua Feet 4 SPECTRUM alevic. rf.`a ,44.e 7S1 L%7 7227 l CJ._Je.�131 MEIZEMEIMEREM • • ...!15512 C- Customer Approval Date NELSON Visitation School Signage Standard Design 8 Visitation Convent and School Comprehensive Sign Plan Square Footage Summary Existing Sign # Description Existing (Y /N) Current SF New Sign # New/ Replacement Sign SF Change (SF) 1 Monument Sign At Mendota Heights Rd. Yes 23.2 - 23.2 0 2 Visitation Soccer Field Sign Yes 28.2 - 28.2 0 3 Internally Lit Way Finding /Directory Sign Yes 40.8 2 75 34.2 4 Way Finding /Directory Sign Yes 8 - 8 0 5 Building Sign - Early Learning Center Yes 9 - 9 0 6 Building Sign - Fine Arts Yes 6.6 - 6.6 0 7 Internally Lit Way Finding /Message Sign Yes 34.7 6 54 19.3 8 Way Finding /Directory Sign Yes 12.7 - 12.7 0 9 Building Sign - Mary O'Foley Athletic Center Yes 11.6 - 11.6 0 - Entry Gate No 0 1 136 136 - Secondary Directories No 0 3 60 60 - School Gate No 0 5 30 30 - New 3'x4' Way Finding Signs No 0 4 24 24 TOTAL 175 478 304 4 -/1111111.1.1 CITY OF Or m MENDOTA HEIGHTS DATE: December 16, 2013 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: 2014 Meeting Calendar 1101 Victoria Curve 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota- heights.com The following are the proposed regular Planning Commission meeting dates for 2014. All dates are the 4th Tuesday of the month with the normal 7:00 P.M. start time. In an effort to formalize the planning application submittal due dates for inclusion on the City website, please be prepared to discuss any potential changes to the 2014 calendar. January 28 February 25 March 25 April 22 May 27 (day after Memorial Day) June 24 July 22 August 26 September 23 October 28 November 25 (Thanksgiving week) December 23 (Hanukkah /Christmas week — was rescheduled this year)