Loading...
2014-11-25 Planning Comm Agenda Packet CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSIONAGENDA November 25, 2014 – 7:00 p.m. Mendota Heights City Hall 1.Call to Order 2.Roll Call 3.Adopt Agenda 4.Approve October 28, 2014Planning Commission Minutes 5.Public Hearings(7:00 p.m. or shortly thereafter): a.Case No. 2014-34: Glenn Petersen. Wetlands Permit at 2361 Field Stone Court and 508 Watersedge Terrace. b.Case No. 2014-33: T-Mobile, on behalf of the on behalf of the Ridge South Condo Association. Conditional Use Permit for Upgrades to a Wireless Antenna Facility at 1850 Eagle Ridge Drive. c. Case No. 2014-31: Boyd Ratchye and Susan Light. Lot Split and Lot Width Variance at 2270 Wagon Wheel Court. d.Case No. 2014-35: Matthew and Mary Paquette. Proposed Code Amendment to allow chickens in residential zoning districts. 6.Verbal Review 7.Staff Annoucements 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 Hallat 651.452.1850 with requests. 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 1 1CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3 4PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES 5October 28, 2014 6 7The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 828, 2014, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. 9 10The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., CommissionersHoward 11Roston,Michael Noonan, Mary Magnuson, and Ansis Viksnins.Those absent:Doug Hennes. 12Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall and Public Works Director/City Engineer John 13Mazzitello. 14 Approval of September 23, 2014Minutes 15 16 17COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSONTO 18APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2014, AS PRESENTED. 19 20AYES: 5 21NAYS: 0 22ABSENT: 1 23 Approval of Agenda 24 25 26Chair Litton Field requested that the agenda be amended as the applicant for Planning Case 2014- 2731 have requested that it be laid over. 28 29There being no one in attendance who wished to speak regarding this matter, COMMISSIONER 30ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN TO LAY OVER 31PLANNING CASE 2014-31 TO THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 32SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 25, 2014 33 34AYES: 5 35NAYS: 0 36ABSENT: 1 37 Hearings 38 39 40PLANNING CASE #2014-30 41GreenWood Design Build, LLC, 750 Hilltop Road 42Front Yard Setback Variance 43 44Planner Nolan Wallexplained that the applicant was seeking a Variance from the front yard 45setback requirements to construct a new single family residential dwelling. This parcel is 0.48 46acres or approximately 20,862 square feet and is the existing lot of record that was subdivided 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 2 47from 1925 Dodd Road in 2010 as part of Planning Case 2010-25. The lot is zoned R-1 and guided 48for low density residential development on the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant purchased the 49subject parcel and intends to construct a new 2,267 square foot dwelling. 50 51The ‘string-line’ rule was previously in affect for determining the front yard setback line; however, 52as discussed in the approval of the lot split in 2010 that provision impacted the location of the 53future dwelling on the subject parcel due to the lot sizes and setbacks of those abutting properties. 54This ‘string-line’ rule provision was amended in 2010 and includes a formula that determines the 55minimum front yard setback for lots that are located in between two developed abutting properties. 56 57If the existing code revision is applied in this case, the required front yard setback for the new 58dwelling on the subject parcel would be 57.3 feet. Planner Wall shared images of the setbacks and 59the proposed dwelling. The proposed setback survey was also included as part of this request. The 60applicant is proposing to utilize the 30-foot front yard setback, which is based on the applicants 61preferred location for the new dwelling, which is the minimum standard for a typical lot in the 62R-1 Residential district. 63 64Planner Wall shared the thresholds that would apply in this variance request. 65 66Staff recommended approval of the front yard setback variance request for construction of a new 67single-family dwelling on the subject parcel. 68 69Commissioners asked questions regarding the old ‘string-line’ rule. 70 th 71Mr. Scott Loehrer, President GreenWood Design Build, LLClocated at 4820 W. 77, Edina came 72forward to address the Commission and to answer questions. 73 74Commissioners asked questions regarding thereasons for moving the dwelling forward as much 75as requested andthe topography of the lot. 76 77Chair Fieldopened the public hearing. 78 79Mr. Steve Lemay, 764 Hilltop Road, stated that in 2010 he and his wife did not care for the plan 80to divide the lot. Herecognizes that it is a buildable lot but sees no reason why they should change 81it now. He shared images from his front window and claimed that the location of the proposed 82building would detract from their yard as, essentially, the new dwelling would be in their front 83yard. He also explained the water drainage issues they have currently and believes the location of 84the new dwelling would cause further issues. When asked, he admitted that no matter where the 85new residence was located, it would negatively impact their front yard. 86 87Mr. Paul Plum, 1933 Dodd Road – and the owner of 1925 Dodd Road – is the one who applied for 88the lot split in 2010. Everyone has been very accurate in their description of the situation so far. 89As the homeowner of the two properties most directly involved, he stated that he was in favor of 90pushing the home more towards the street with the variance so that it would be further away from 91his own backyard. 92 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 3 93Ms. Joan Cochrane, 1937 Dodd Road, noted that no matter where the new residence is located she 94will be able to see it. They have a wraparound deck and when she sits out there, they will be able 95to look at her and she will be able to look at them. She would be in favor of whatever makes the 96most sense and works for the neighbors. She requested the contractor keep her deck and the other 97home’s view in mind when design the new dwelling. 98 99Ms. Susan Lucio, 1888 Valley Curve, mentioned that one of the reasons she moved into the 100neighborhood was because of the large front yards; making it a very cozy and warm area. Her 101children played in her large front yard because their back yard is small. She expressed her desire 102to keep the trees in the neighborhood and not have the dwelling so close to the street. 103 104Mr. Richard Kouri, 1888 Valley Curve, claimed that if the Commissioners visited the area during 105the day they would see why this new residence should not be so close to the street. It would ruin 106the appearance of the neighborhood and the rules should stay as they are. 107 108Mr. John White, 1897 Wachtler Avenue,voiced his opposition to so many homes being built in 109the areathatare out of character with the neighborhood. He is now looking at a 2.5-story garage 110out his bay window. 111 112Mr. John Vanbogart, 1920 Wachtler Avenue, stated that his concern is less about the setback, 113although he believes the home should be a little further back from the road, and more about the 114esthetics. Moving this home too close to the street is going to be a problem and will change the 115look and feel of the neighborhood. If they have to move the home forward, do not move it forward 116too far. 117 118Mr. Scott Loehrerreturned to address the concerns expressed by the residents by stating that 119GreenWood is not trying to make mad neighbors. He noted that moving the proposed dwelling 120back further would make it sit higher due to the topography of the lot. He also stated that if the 121variance request is not approved, then his company would build the home in the back corner where 122it would meet all of the code requirements, would have a very small backyard, and would be 123approximately 27feet from the neighboring lot line. However, they would be willing to move the 124home back 45 feet from the lot line instead of the proposed 30 feet \[the current required setback is 12557.3 feet\]. 126 127Chair Fieldasked for a motion to close the public hearing. 128 129COMMISSIONER VIKSNINSMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, 130TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 131 132AYES: 5 133NAYS: 0 134ABSENT: 1 135 136Commissioners asked questions regarding the status of the 60-day ruleand the possibility of an 137extension. 138 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 4 139COMMISSIONER VIKSNINSMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO 140TABLE PLANNING CASE 2014-30, FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCETO THE 141NOVEMBER 25, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGWITH A STRONG 142ENCOURAGEMENT TO THEAPPLICANT TO MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORS FOR 143DISCUSSION. 144 145AYES: 5 146NAYS: 0 147ABSENT: 1 148 149PLANNING CASE #2014-22 150City of Mendota Heights 151Proposed Code Amendments 152 153Planner Nolan Wall explained that this is a continuation of a discussion from the September 23, 1542014 Planning Commission Meeting. The City is considering various amendments to the Zoning 155and Subdivision Ordinances within the City Code. Over the past year, staff has identified a number 156of potential amendments packaged into a single application for consideration. The goal would be 157to clean up, clarify, and simplify certain sections in order to improve the interpretation and 158implementation of those ordinances. 159 160The reason for this case being tabled was in regards to the traffic studyrequirement portion of the 161proposed amendments. Commissioners were provided a tracked changes copy of the proposed 162amendment in their meeting packet. 163 164Commissioners expressed their appreciation for the changes that were made. However, discussions 165continued on whether or not the changes were substantial enough. 166 167Commissioners asked questions regarding if the definition of development or redevelopment is in 168the code. 169 170As this public hearing was left open at the last meeting, Chair Fieldasked if anyone was present 171who wished to speak in regards to this case. 172 173COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS TO 174CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 175 176AYES: 5 177NAYS: 0 178ABSENT: 1 179 180 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 5 181COMMISSIONER NOONANMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO 182RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2014-22,DRAFTORDINANCE 467 183 184AYES: 5 185NAYS: 0 186ABSENT: 1 187 188Chair Field noted that this would be considered at the next City Council Meeting scheduled for 189Wednesday, November 5, 2014. 190 Verbal Review 191 192 193Planner Wall gave the following verbal review: 194 195PLANNING CASE #2014-26 196Wayne Cummings, 2054 Acacia Drive 197After-the-fact Wetlands Permit Wetland Permit for Vegetation Removal 198Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission 199 200PLANNING CASE #2014-27 201Sarah and Aaron Macke, 744 Woodridge Drive 202Critical Area Permit 203Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission 204 205PLANNING CASE #2014-28 206Sarah and Aaron Macke, 744 Woodridge Drive 207Code Amendment Request for Exception to Swimming Pool Fencing Requirements 208Split decision at the October 7, 2014 City Council Meeting; subsequently tabled 209Denied by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission at their October 21021, 2014 City Council Meeting 211 212PLANNING CASE #2014-29 213Visitation School, 2544 Visitation Drive 214Conditional Use Permit for an Electronic Display Sign 215Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission 216 217PLANNING CASE #2014-20 218Paul and Shannon Burke, 645 Sibley Memorial Highway 219After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit for Clear Cutting in the Critical Area 220Ultimately approved by the City Council 221 222Planner Wall mentioned that the City Council and staff appreciated the work that the Commission 223did with this difficult issue. With the conditions that were proposed that the Planning Commission 224recommended, the City Council increased the life of the performance bond on the landscaping to 22536 months. They also added an additional change to the recommendation that would allow for 226additional geotechnical studies as needed in the future to be paid for by the applicant, if that is 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 6 227determined to be necessary. There was also an additional condition included that the City has the 228right to inspect the property over the span of that time period to monitor the regrowth and require 229a restoration plan be implemented if necessary. 230 231Commissioners asked if the City Council had discussed any civil penalties. Planner Wall replied 232that Councilmembers discussed the citation and staff is to bring back additional information to 233continue that discussion with them internally and with the prosecuting attorney. 234 Staff Announcements 235 236 237Grading has started at the United Properties site on Northland Drive for their 97,000 square 238foot industrial building. They anticipate submitting for a building permit in the near future; 239staff anticipates construction to begin in the spring. 240Grading may start as early as next week on the Lemay Shores project. They intend to 241construct a model home on the site this year, weather permitting. 242Based on the discussion for the After-the-Fact Wetlands Permit in the Augusta Shores 243development, staff reached a compromise in authoring a wetlands permit agreement with 244the entire townhome association to allow buckthorn removal in compliance with a number 245of conditions and best management practices. 246The next Planning Commission meeting is Tuesday, November 25, 2014. 247 Adjournment 248 249 250COMMISSIONER ROSTONMOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO 251ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:54 P.M. 252 253AYES: 5 254NAYS: 0 255ABSENT: 1 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 7 DATE: November 25, 2014 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2014-34 Wetlands Permit Application APPLICANT: Glenn Petersen PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2361 Field Stone Court/580 Westview Terrace ZONED/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: January 11, 2015 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is seeking a Wetlands Permit to construct a fence in the rear yard of the subject parcel.The proposed structureis within 100 feet of a wetland or water resource-related area and does not meet the conditions for an administrative approval. Title 12-2-6(A) of the Code requires a wetlands permit for the construction, alteration, or removal of any structure within the 100-foot wetland or water resource-related buffer area. BACKGROUND The subject parcel at 2361 Field Stone Court is 0.56 acres(24,578 square feet) and contains an existing single-familydwellingabutting a pondin the rear yard. In addition, it is zoned R-1 One Family Residential and guided for low density residential development. The applicant intends to construct a 48-inch, black vinyl chain-link fence along the property boundary lines of therear yard. A portion of the proposed fence would connect into an existing fence located on the neighboring property at 580 Westview Terrace, which has been agreed-upon by both parties and received a wetlands permitfor constructionin 2011,as part of Planning Case 2011-16. ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan The subject parcel is guided LR Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant’s request to construct a fence on the property is consistent with the continued use as a single-family residential dwelling. Wetlands Permit The purpose of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the Code is to (Title 12-2-1): Provide for protection, preservation, maintenance, and use wetlands and water resource-related areas; 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 8 Maintain the natural drainage system; Minimize disturbance which may result from alteration by earthwork, loss of vegetation, loss of wildlife and aquatic organisms as a result of the disturbance of the natural environment or from excessive sedimentation; Provide for protection of potable fresh water supplies; and Ensure safety from floods. The proposed fence will follow the rear yard property boundary lines and be near a portion of the normal high water mark of the adjacent pondwithin the 25-foot non-disturb buffer area. The proposed project would not remove any existing vegetationor cause soil disturbance within the buffer area, besides digging for the fence posts. The City typically recommends the non-disturb bufferareafrom the normal high water mark of wetlands/water resource-related areas to ensure appropriatevegetativebuffers areas are maintained. In this case, there is little to no existing vegetative buffer to be disturbed. The Engineering Department has reviewed the request and determined the proposed fenceis acceptable due to no change in the existing vegetative cover and limited soil disturbance withinthe 25-foot non-disturb area. If approved, and dependent on the weather conditions, the fence wouldbe installed immediately after obtaining a building permit. Additional requirements regarding residential fences, contained in Title 12- 1D-6 of the Code, will be reviewed as part of the building permit application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Wetlands Permit with the following conditions: 1.A building permit is obtained prior to construction of the proposed fence. 2.Area between the proposed construction and the normal water level of the pond is to remain naturally vegetated. 3.Construction shall be in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. ACTION REQUESTED Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1.Recommendapproval of the Wetlands Permit for construction of a fencewithin the 100-foot buffer area of a water resource-related area, based on the attached findings of fact, with conditions. OR 2.Recommend denial of the Wetlands Permit for construction of a fence within the 100-foot buffer area of a water resource-related area,based on a findingthat the proposed projectwill have negative impacts on the water resource-related area and is therefore inconsistent with the Wetland Systems Chapter of the City Code. OR 3.Table the request. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1.Site Map 2.Planning Applications 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 9 FINDINGS OF FACT FORAPPROVAL Wetlands Permit for Fence 2361 Field Stone Court/508 Watersedge Terrace The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1.The project meets the purpose and intent of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the City Code. 2.No existing vegetation within the wetland/water resource-related bufferarea will be removed. 3.Soil disturbancein the buffer area will be limited to post-digging, and no part of the wetland/ water resource-related area will be disturbed. 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 10 Planning Case 2014-34 City of 2361 Field Stone Court Mendota 580 Watersedge Terrace 040 Heights Date: 11/13/2014 SCALE IN FEET 2355 2362 LEGEND 100' Wetland Buffer 25' Non-disturb Buffer 2366 580 Connection to existing fence 2361 584 2363 Proposed Fence 590 580 584 2361 590 2363 Aerometrics 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. 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 11 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 12 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 13 From:Dan Larsen To:Nolan Wall;Dan Larsen Subject:Wetlands Permit Request Glen Petersen Date:Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:21:34 AM Hello Nolan, Please consider approval for a wetlands permit to install a new 48 inch high black chain link fence at 2361 Fieldstone Court. The proposed fence is a maintenance-free, heavymill vinyl clad chain link system to be installed in the rear yard only. It will follow property boundaries, connect to one neighbor's existing fence at 580 Watersedge Terrace, and the homeowner (purchaser) has verbal and written permission from both adjacent neighbors to proceed with this project. The proposed layout will not require removal of bushes, trees or any other vegetation. The homeowner (purchaser) wishes to have this project completed as soon as possible. If the permit is approved, the project can be started immediately pending weather conditions. I am available to discuss this project and also attend a Planning Commission meeting and/or Council meeting. -- Thanks for your consideration, Dan Larsen Midwest Fence Residential Sales Supervisor (please include your name if texting) 651-214-7022 cell 651-451-2222 office 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 14 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 15 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 16 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 17 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 18 DATE: November 25, 2014 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2014-33 Conditional Use Permit for Wireless Antenna Facility Upgrades APPLICANT: T-Mobile/Ridge South Condominium Association PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1850 Eagle Ridge Drive ZONED/GUIDED: R-3 Multiple Family Residential/HR High Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: January 5, 2015 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit for wireless antenna facility upgrades to the existing facility at 1850 Eagle Ridge Drive.Title 12-1D-4 of the Code requires conditional use permit approval for wireless antennas, subject to conditions. BACKGROUND The subject parcel is approximately 2.7acresand contains a multi-family residential condominium building (see aerial map). The parcel is zoned R-3 Multiple Family Residential and guided for high density residential development.The existing T-Mobile wireless antenna and accessory structure were approved by conditional use permit in 2006, as part of Planning Case 2006-33. An additional building-mounted wireless antenna facility on the west side of theroof was approved in June, as part of Planning Case 2014-16. ANALYSIS Title 12-1D-4 of the Code contains regulations regarding wireless antennas, towers, and accessory structures and requires a conditional use permit in all zoning districts. The purpose of the Code sectionis to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community while accommodating the communication needs of residents and businesses, and is necessary to: 1.Avoid potential damage to adjacent properties and personal injury from tower collapse through structural standards and setback requirements. 2.Protect the aesthetic qualities of the community by requiring tower and antenna equipment to be screened from properties within viewing distance of the site and to be designed in a manner to blend in with the surroundings and complement existing structures. 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 19 3.Maximize the use of existing and approved freestanding antenna towers, buildings, and existing light poles for new wireless telecommunication antennas. 4.Minimize the number of freestanding antenna towers needed to serve the community by utilizing collocation. 5.Facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to the residents and businesses of the city. The proposed wireless antenna facility upgrades include the following: Three (3) new antennas (1 per sector) Three (3) new RRU’s (1 per sector) One (1) new FBBC Module to existing LTE FSMF Module at the base station The Code section also contains the followingspecific evaluation criteria for a conditional use permit application. Wireless Antenna Facility Title 12-1D-14 contains the following provisions, which are analyzed based on the submitted materials: C. Building Mounted Antennas: 1.Permitted Buildings: Antennas may only be mounted on institutional buildings (churches, schools, businesses, etc.) or multiple-family dwellings two (2) stories or higher. Wireless telecommunications antennas are not permitted on attached or detached single-family homes or townhome dwellings. The existing location is on top of a three-story multi-family residential dwelling structure. 2.Flush Mounting; Color: a.Building mounted antennas must be flush mounted to the sides of the building and painted the color of the building exterior unless the applicant can demonstrate to the council that protrusion above the roofline is necessary for communication effectiveness. Not applicable, the existing building-mounted wireless antenna structure was approved in 2006. According to the application materials, the subject site contains several tall trees near theantenna location that prohibit the antennas from being flush-mounted. b.In no case shall building mounted antennas or any attachment thereto be allowed to protrude more than fifteen feet (15') above the roofline of the building. The upgraded equipment will be compliant with the 15-foot height limit. 3.Agreement To Mount OnCity Property: If both the applicant and the city consent to mounting the antennas on the city's water tower or other municipal building, a developer's agreement may be necessary at the discretion of the city in addition to a conditional use permit. Not applicable. 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 20 E. Aesthetics: 1. Design: All freestanding antenna towers shall be of a monopole type design. The use of guyed towers is prohibited. Not applicable. 2. Color: a. Those portions of all freestanding antenna towers and all antennas which protrude into the air shall be painted eggshell. The existing wireless antenna structure is painted brown to match the condominium building’s exterior brick. The upgraded equipment will be the same color. b. Those portions of all antennas that are flush mounted to the sides of buildings shall be painted to match the exterior of the building. Not applicable. 3. Screening: All accessory buildings to all freestanding towers shall be screened from public view by a landscape plan according to the landscape standards of the appropriate zone and as described in subsection 12-1D-13-2D1 of this article subject to council review. The existing accessory equipment is located within a fenced area. No changes to the existing screening or fence are included as part of the proposed project. 4. Advertising: Advertising of any kind shall not be permitted on any freestanding antenna tower, antenna, or accessory structure. No advertising currently exists, or is proposed, for the wireless antenna facility. 5. Lighting: Artificial lighting of any kind shall not be permitted on any freestanding antenna tower, antenna, or accessory structure unless such lighting is required by theFCC, the FAA, or another federal or state regulatory body. If such a requirement exists, only the minimum amount of lighting required shall be allowed. No lighting currently exists, or is proposed, for the wireless antenna facility. 6. Prohibitions: Structures, functions, uses or activities that are not found by the city to be specifically necessary for the proper functioning of the antennas shall be prohibited on any antenna or tower without express permission from the city unless the city grants a waiver to this requirement. The applicant is required to comply with this provision. F. Safety: 1. Report Of Compliance: For a freestanding antenna tower, the applicant must provide a report from a licensed qualified professional structural engineer certifying that the tower will meet or exceed current EIA/TIA-222-E standards including, but not limited to, standards for withstanding meteorological conditions such as high winds and radial ice. 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 21 The applicant has submitted a structural analysis report that may be reviewed by a City-contracted structural engineer, at the applicant’s cost, to verify compliancewith the applicable standards if determined necessary by the Building Official. 2. Compliance With Building And Electrical Codes: All antennas, freestanding antenna towers, and accessory structures shall conform to all building and electrical codes. The applicant is required to comply with this provision. 3. Fencing: The applicant may be required by the council to erect a security fence around any freestanding antenna. The existing accessory equipment is located within a fenced area. No changes to the fence are included as part of the proposed project. G. Accessory Structures For Antennas: 1.Location And General Requirements: Accessory buildings to antennas or freestanding antenna towers must lie completely within all applicable setbacks from all property lines and must otherwise conform to all requirements for accessory buildings within the description of the specific zone. 2. Architecture: a. Accessory structures and equipment buildings shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with any principal structures on the site or, in the absence of such structures, with their immediate surroundings in an aesthetically pleasing manner. b. Accessory structures shall be finished on all sides. c. The planning commission shall review and the council shall approve the design of any accessory structures and equipment buildings. Not applicable, no changes to the existing footprint of the accessory structure or fence are included as part of the proposed project. H. Additional Requirements: (responses summarized from the applicant’s letter) 1. Abandoned Structures: a. Removal Required: Unused or obsolete freestanding antenna towers, antennas, structures or apparatus must be removed within six (6) months of when the operation ceases. b. Bond: A successful applicant shall provide an abandonment bond to the city equal to one and a half 1 (1/) times the current cost of removal and disposal of all antennas and accompanying apparatus as 2 estimated by a consultant selected by the city and paid for by the applicant, which bond shall be used by the city to remove the antennas and apparatus should they become unused or obsolete and the applicant or its successors or assigns become disbarred or otherwise fail to remove said antennas and apparatus. The applicant is required to comply with these provisions. 2. Other Required Licenses: The applicant must submit proof of any applicable federal, state, or local licenses to the council prior to receiving a building permit. The applicant is required to comply with this provision. 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 22 3. Interference With Public Safety Systems Prohibited: The applicant must agree in writing to support, participate in and refrain from interfering with public warning systems and public safety communications and other radio frequencies as may be regulated by the federal communications commission (FCC). The applicant is required to comply with this provision. 4. Coverage/Interference And Capacity Analyses: The applicant shall demonstrate, by providing a coverage/interference analysis and capacity analysis, that the location and height of any freestanding antenna tower or antenna as proposed is necessary to meet the communication, frequency reuse and spacing needs of the communication services system, and to provide adequate coverage and capacity to areas that cannot be adequately served by locating the towers in a less restrictive district or on an existing structure, freestanding antenna tower or antenna including such in neighboring municipalities. The attached map, submitted as part of the 2006 conditional use permit application,illustrates the available coverage in the area. The proposed project will not expand the coverage area, but will enhance coverageand capacitywithin the current area. 5. Compliance With FCC Regulations; Noninterference Required: All new or existing telecommunications service and equipment shall meet or exceed all federal communications commission (FCC) standards and regulations and shall not interfere with any other communications, computers, laboratory equipment or manufacturing equipment, including television and other home electronics. The applicant shall provide to the city a report from a qualified professional engineer guaranteeing noninterference and a copy of the FCC approval of the antenna in regard to noninterference. The applicant is licensed through the FCC to operate within the Minneapolis Major Trading Area (MTA), which includes Mendota Heights, and is required to comply with all safety and non-interference requirements. 6. Environmental Impact Statement: In the eventthat the FCC or other agency or other governmental body having jurisdiction requires the applicant to submit an environmental impact statement or similar document, a copy of this document shall be submitted to the city. Not applicable. 7.Nonconformances: Existing nonconforming freestanding antenna towers, antennas, or accessory structures shall be allowed to continue operation unless use of the freestanding antenna tower, antenna, or accessory structure for its intended purpose ceases for a continuous period of six (6) months, in which case, resumption of use shall require a reapplication for a conditional use permit. The applicant is required to comply with this provision. 8. Area Map: All applications for either a freestanding antenna, a freestanding antenna tower, or a building mounted antenna shall be accompanied by a map of all existing towers and antennas of the same provider within a two (2) mile radius of the proposed site and all future planned antennas of the same provider for the next five (5) years within a two (2) mile radius of the proposed site. See the attached map submitted as part of the 2006 conditional use permit application. 9. Costs To Applicant: All costs of an application, including, but not limited to, those incurred by city staff time and resources, engineering studies by consultants, and other data as may be required by the city staff, the planning commission or the city council shall be borne in full by the applicant. 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 23 The applicant is required to comply with this provision. 10. Variances: The council may at its discretion waive any or all of the requirements of this section in order to approve a unique "stealth" or "camouflage" design of freestanding antennas or poles or building mounted antennas if, in the opinion of the council, said apparatus will be sufficiently disguised as trees, light poles, church steeples, or other similar objects. Not applicable. 11. Prohibitions: Use of mobile cell/PCS sites or COWs (cell sites on wheels), or any other temporary antenna apparatus is strictly prohibited except in the case of emergency equipment used for public safety purposes for a limited time during or in the immediate aftermath of a natural disaster or other emergency. (Ord. 429, 8-3- 2010) The applicant is required to comply with this provision. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The proposed wireless antenna facility upgrades will not result in any significant physical changes to the existing structures. The visual changes will relate primarily to the addition of thenew antennas and will be painted to match the existing equipment. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for wireless antenna facility upgrades to an existing facility, with the condition that the applicant abides by all regulations in Title 12-1D-14 of the City Code, as outlined in the Staff report. ACTION REQUESTED Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1.Recommendapproval of the conditional use permit for wireless antenna facility upgrades to an existing facility, based on the attached findings of fact, with conditions. OR 2.Recommend denial of the conditional use permit for wireless antenna facility upgrades to an existing facility, based on the finding of fact that the proposed project is inconsistent with the Code and Comprehensive Plan. OR 3.Table the request. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1.Aerial Site Map 2.Planning Application, including supporting materials. 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 24 FINDINGS OF FACT FORAPPROVAL Conditional Use Permit Request for Wireless Antenna Facility Upgrades to an Existing Facility 1850 Eagle Ridge Drive The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1.The proposed project is consistent with the conditional use permit requirements allowing such facilities. 2.The proposed project will not negatively affect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. 3.Upgrading the wireless antenna facility’s antennas and equipment will help increase the data and call capacity in the service area. 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 25 Planning Case 2014-33 City of 1850 Eagle Ridge Drive Mendota 075 Heights Date: 11/17/2014 SCALE IN FEET 1857 1849 1859 1851 1855 1853 1870 1870 1870 1870 1900 1900 1900 1900 1940 1900 Aerometrics 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. 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 26 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 27 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 28 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 29 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 30 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 31 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 32 City of Mendota Heights Eligible Facilities Request Submitted: 11/03/2014 Local Government Permit Application #: TBD Site Address: 1850 Eagle Ridge, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Re: Additional Requirements (12-1D-14) H. Additional Requirements: 1.Abandoned Structures: a.Removal Required: Unused or obsolete freestanding antenna towers, antennas, structures or apparatus must be removed within six (6) months of when the operation ceases. b.Bond: A successful applicant shall provide an abandonment bond to the city equal to one and a half (11/2) times the current cost of removal and disposal of all antennas and accompanying apparatus as estimated by a consultant selected by the city and paid for by the applicant, which bond shall be used by the city to remove the antennas and apparatus should they become unused or obsolete and the applicant or its successors or assigns become disbarred or otherwise fail to remove said antennas and apparatus. As per the stated requirement in the original submittal for CUP in 2006, T-Mobile will comply with this requirement. A bond was submitted with the original CUP in 2006 and will not be required for this application request for modification. 2.Other Required Licenses: The applicant must submit proof of any applicable federal, state, or local licenses to the council prior to receiving a building permit. As per the stated requirement in the original submittal for CUP in 2006, T-Mobile will comply with this requirement. 3.Interference With Public Safety Systems Prohibited: The applicant must agree in writing to support, participate in and refrain from interfering with public warning systems and public safety communications and other radio frequencies as may be regulated by the federal communications commission (FCC). As per the stated requirement in the original submittal for CUP in 2006, T-Mobile will comply with this requirement. 4.Coverage/Interference And Capacity Analyses: The applicant shall demonstrate, by providing a coverage/interference analysis and capacity analysis, that the location and height of any freestanding antenna tower or antenna as proposed is necessary to meet the communication, 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 33 frequency reuse and spacing needs of the communication services system, and to provide adequate coverage and capacity to areas that cannot be adequately served by locating the towers in a less restrictive district or on an existing structure, freestanding antenna tower or antenna including such in neighboring municipalities. Maps have been provided with the original 2006 CUP application that illustrates the available coverage in the area. 5.Compliance With FCC Regulations; Noninterference Required: All new or existing telecommunications service and equipment shall meet or exceed all federal communications commission (FCC) standards and regulations and shall not interfere with any other communications, computers, laboratory equipment or manufacturing equipment, including television and other home electronics. The applicant shall provide to the city a report from a qualified professional engineer guaranteeing noninterference and a copy of the FCC approval of the antenna in regard to noninterference. Per the 2006 Application and approved CUP submittal, the applicant is licensed through the FCC to operate within the Minneapolis Major Trading Area (MTA), which includes the City of Mendota Heights. As such, the applicant is required to comply with all safety and non-interference requirements by the FCC on all antenna facilities. 6.Environmental Impact Statement: In the event that the FCC or other agency or other governmental body having jurisdiction requires the applicant to submit an environmental impact statement or similar document, a copy of this document shall be submitted to the city. An EIS is not required as part of this application. 7.Nonconformances: Existing nonconforming freestanding antenna towers, antennas, or accessory structures shall be allowed to continue operation unless use of the freestanding antenna tower, antenna, or accessory structure for its intended purpose ceases for a continuous period of six (6) months, in which case, resumption of use shall require a reapplication for a conditional use permit. As per the stated requirement in the original submittal for CUP in 2006, T-Mobile will comply with this requirement. 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 34 8.Area Map: All applications for either a freestanding antenna, a freestanding antenna tower, or a building mounted antenna shall be accompanied by a map of all existing towers and antennas of the same provider within a two (2) mile radius of the proposed site and all future planned antennas of the same provider for the next five (5) years within a two (2) mile radius of the proposed site. As per the original CUP application and submittal package, the two mile radius map has been submitted for this location. 9.Costs To Applicant: All costs of an application, including, but not limited to, those incurred by city staff time and resources, engineering studies by consultants, and other data as may be required by the city staff, the planning commission or the city council shall be borne in full by the applicant. All costs associated with this application shall be the responsibility of T-Mobile. T-Mobile has indicated that they will comply with this requirement. 10.Variances: The council may at its discretion waive any or all of the requirements of this section in order to approve a unique "stealth" or "camouflage" design of freestanding antennas or poles or building mounted antennas if, in the opinion of the council, said apparatus will be sufficiently disguised as trees, light poles, church steeples, or other similar objects. This was not a requirement of the original site build. Antennas will be painted to match current antennas. 11.Prohibitions: Use of mobile cell/PCS sites or COWs (cell sites on wheels), or any other temporary antenna apparatus is strictly prohibited except in the case of emergency equipment used for public safety purposes for a limited time during or in the immediate aftermath of a natural disaster or other emergency. (Ord. 429, 8-3-2010). T-Mobile will comply with this requirement. 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 42 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 43 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 44 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 45 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 46 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 47 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 48 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 49 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 50 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 51 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 52 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 53 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 54 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 55 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 56 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 57 DATE: October 28, 2014 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2014-31 Subdivision Request for Lot Split and Lot Width Variance Request APPLICANT: Boyd Ratchye and Susan Light PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2270 Wagon Wheel Court ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: December 6, 2014 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants are seeking to subdivide the subject parcel located at 2270 Wagon Wheel Court and are also requesting a lot width variancefor thenew parcel containing theexisting dwelling.The subdivision request requires City approval before being recorded with Dakota County. BACKGROUND The subject parcel is 2.89 acres (126,183 square feet), contains an existing single-family residential dwelling abutting Rogers Lake(see Site Map), and is zoned R-1 and guided for low density residential development. In order to facilitate the proposed subdivision in compliance with the City Code, a variance is required from the lot width standardfor the proposed South Parcel (see Site Plan). Wagon Wheel Court was constructed in 2007 and was facilitated by approval of the Kipp Addition Plat in 2001, which did not include the subject parcel. Outlot A includes a drainage and utility easement, but restricts additional access to the subject parcel from Wagon Wheel Court. Therefore, in order to comply with the Code requirements, access for any future development on a newly-created parcel must be from Wagon Wheel Trail. If both requests are approved, a new single-family residential dwelling with lake access would be constructed on the North Parcel (see Site Plan). ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan The subject parcel is guided LR Low Density Residential in the 2030Comprehensive Plan. The applicants’ request to subdivide the subject parcel into two parcels, consisting of 2.21 acres and 0.68acres, isconsistent with the LR maximum density of 2.9 units per acre. R-1 One-Family Zoning District Title 11-3-2 of the Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district. According to the Site Planincluded as part of the application submittal, and shown in the table below, both proposed parcels meet 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 58 the R-1 lot standardswith the exception of the lot width for the South Parcel.The Site Planalsoincludes the required setback lines and a potential building pad for a future single-family residential dwelling on the North Parcel. As noted by the applicants, the future dwelling’s proposed locationis non-binding and would require wetlands permit approval prior to construction. StandardSouth ParcelNorth Parcel Lot Area15,000 sq. ft.29,875 sq. ft.96,308sq. ft. Lot Width100 ft.99.70 ft.248.18 ft. Front Yard Setback30 ft.50ft.65 ft.* 10 ft. (up to 15’ depending on Side Yard Setbacks 40ft./25 ft.172 ft./10 ft.* structure height) 30 ft. or 20% of the average lot Rear Yard70ft. (approx.) 150 ft. (approx.)* depth (whichever is greater) *measurements based onproposed 3,400 sq. ft. buildingpad as shown on the Site Plan – future dwelling could be located anywhere within the proposed areaor in another location Variance Request As described in the applicants’ narrative, the proposed subdivision request requires a variance from the R-1 District’s 100-foot minimum lot width standard for the South Parcel. According to Title 12-1B-2 of the City Code, lot width is defined as the “maximum horizontal distance between the side lot lines of a lot measured within the first thirty feet (30') of the lot depth.” As shown on the Site Plan, the South Parcel has a lot width of 99.70 feet. When considering a variancefromthe lot width standards, the City is required to find that: 1.The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive plan and the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. Title 11-3-2(D) of the Code requires that “every lot must the have the minimum frontage as required in the zoning ordinance on a city-approved street other than an alley.” The proposed South Parcel has a lot width of 99.70 feet, which is approximately three and a half inches short ofthe 100-foot requirement. Despite the shortcoming, the purpose and intent of the Code are met, which areto maintain the appropriatewidth for a dwelling to meet the required side yard setbacks, allow access for emergency service vehicles, and maintain a consistent density of development. In addition, as noted by the applicants, the proposed lot width for the North Parcel would be 155 feet if measured from the front face of the existing dwelling. With the exception of the lot width standardfor the South Parcel, the subdivision request is consistent with all applicable Code requirements. Single-family residential dwellings on both proposed parcels are reasonable uses of the properties and are compliant with the Comprehensive Plan. 2.The applicant establishes thereare practical difficulties with complying with the ordinance due to circumstancesthat are unique to the propertywhich are not created by the applicant or based on economic considerations. According to the applicants, additional property was acquired after they purchased the subject parcel in order to provide ownership of portions of the front yard, driveway, and existing dwelling. As a result of the creation of Outlot A, as part of the Kipp Addition, the required 100-foot frontageat the 30-foot setback line along Wagon Wheel Courtwas not provided. For all intents and purposes, the lot width measured from the front face of the existing dwellingis approximately 155 feet and provides adequate space to meet the setbacks. The location and design of Outlot A is a unique circumstance and creates a practical difficulty in this case not caused by the applicant or based on economic considerations. While it may be unreasonable and/or non-negotiable, a portion of Outlot A could be acquired to increase the proposed South Parcel’s existing lot width and comply with the 100-foot standard. 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 59 3.The request will not alter the essential character of the locality. If the variance request were to be granted, the existing conditions on the South Parcel will remain unchanged. The requests also facilitatethe creation of the North Parcel, which is substantially larger than the surrounding parcels and would only add one additional dwelling to the neighborhood. Neither request will alter the character of the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the subdivision and variance requests, based on the attached findings of fact, with the following conditions: 1.The applicant shall dedicate 10-foot wide drainage and utility easements along the front property lines and 5-foot wide drainage and utility easements along the rear property lines to be denoted on the map submitted to Dakota County. 2.Park dedication fee in the amount of $2,700, in lieu of land, is collected after City Council approval and before being recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any additional permits by the City. 3.Street reconstruction assessment fee in the amount of $8,500, as part ofWagonWheel Trail Improvement 2010-02, iscollected after City Council approval and before being recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any additional permits by the City. 4.The applicant, or subsequent property owner, shall submit a wetlands permit application prior to any applicable improvements on the North Parcel. 5.Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit for any activity on the North Parcel. 6.The applicant, or subsequent property owner,shallsubmit grading and utility plans and a dimensioned site planwith associated easements, subject to review and approval by the City Engineering Department as part of any building permit application for the North Parcel. 7.Land disturbance activities must bein compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance document. ACTION REQUESTED Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1.Recommend approval of thesubdivision andlot width variance requests, based onthe attached findings of fact, with conditions. OR 2.Recommend denial of the subdivision and lot width variance requests, based onthe attached findings of fact. OR 3.Table the request. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1.Aerial site map 2.Applications, including supporting materials 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 60 FINDINGS OF FACT FORAPPROVAL Subdivision and Lot Width Variance Request 2270 Wagon Wheel Court The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1.The South Parcel’s proposed lot width is 99.70 feet, which is approximately three and a half inches less than the 100-foot requirement for the R-1 District, and is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Code. 2.With the exception of the lot width standardfor the South Parcel, the subdivision request is consistent with all applicable Code requirements. 3.Single-family residential dwellings on both proposed parcels are reasonable uses of the properties and are compliant with the Comprehensive Plan. 4.The acquisition of additional property to provide ownership of the existing driveway and portions of the front yard and dwelling, as well as the platting of Outlot A as part of the Kipp Addition, did not provide the required lot width for the proposed South Parcel. 5.The South Parcel’s lot width measured from the front face of the existing dwelling is approximately 155 feet and provides adequate space to meet the setbacks. The location and design of Outlot A is a unique circumstance, and creates a practical difficulty in this case not caused by the applicant or based on economic considerations. 6.The existing conditions on the South Parcel will remain unchanged, and the North Parcel is proposed to besubstantially larger than the surrounding parcels and would only add one additional dwelling to the neighborhood. 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 61 FINDINGS OF FACT FORDENIAL Subdivision and Lot Width Variance Request 2270 Wagon Wheel Court The following Findings of Fact are made in support of denial of the proposed request: 1.The subdivision request does not comply with the R-1 District’s minimum lot width requirement for the proposed South Parcel. 2.The additional width required for conformance could be acquired by purchasing a portion of Outlot A. 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 62 Planning Case 2014-31 City of 2270 Wagon Wheel Court Mendota 080 Heights Date: 10/7/2014 SCALE IN FEET WAGON WHEEL TRL 954 954 954 2270 2257 954 2270 2273 954 2270 2275 Aerometrics 2275 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. 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 63 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 64 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 65 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 66 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 67 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 68 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 69 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 70 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 71 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 72 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 73 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 74 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 75 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 76 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 77 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 78 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 79 JT PJM W:\\2001\\01790\\CADD DATA\\SURVEY Plotted: 10 /06 / 2014 11:22 AM JT PJM W:\\2001\\01790\\CADD DATA\\SURVEY Plotted: 10 /06 / 2014 11:23 AM 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 82 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 83 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 84 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 85 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 86 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 87 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 88 DATE: November 25, 2014 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2014-35 Code Amendment Application APPLICANT: Matthew and Mary Paquette PROPERTY ADDRESS: N/A ZONED/GUIDED: N/A ACTION DEADLINE: January 11, 2014 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants arerequesting an amendment to Title 12, Chapter 1 of the City Code(Zoning) to allow chickens in residential zoning districts. BACKGROUND Staff was made aware of the presence of chickens,including a chicken coop/run,at the applicants’ residence located at 1119 Dodd Road and informed them of the applicable regulations. The applicants responded by appealing the City’s interpretation of the Code and requesteda varianceto allow the chickens and the associated structures to remain in their present location on the property. Staff responded by providing additional information onthe City’s policies and informed them of the inability to grant a variance for such a request. Furthermore, it was suggested that a code amendment could be pursued and considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. As part of Planning Case 2012-34, the City Council ultimately denied a similar request to allow pigeons in residential zoning districts.Staff receives regular inquiries regarding the keeping of chickens, and other non-domestic animals, in residential areas. This request presentsan opportunity for the Planning Commission and City Council to consider addressing the current prohibition. ANALYSIS Existing Code Regulations The Code contains the following definitions of animals: 12-1B-2: DEFINITIONS: ANIMALS, DOMESTIC: Dogs, cats, birds and other common domestic household pets. 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 89 ANIMALS, FOOD: Fish, fowl, cattle, swine, sheep and others typically raised for purposes of food consumption, with the exception of bees where specifically allowed by the zoning districts. In addition, domestic animals are permitted in all residential zoning districts as follows: 12-1E-3: R-1 ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: C. Permitted Accessory Uses: Within the R-1 one-family residential district, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: Domestic animals, as defined herein, keeping for noncommercial purposes, including horses for the use of the occupants of the premises; provided, that any accessory building used for housing such animals shall be located not less than one hundred feet (100') from the nearest residence. Based on staff’s interpretation of the existing regulations, chickens are not considered a “domestic animal” and are therefore not permitted as an accessory use in the residential zoning districts. While the “domestic” animal definitiondoes include “birds,” it has been interpreted that chickens are more appropriatelydefined as a “food” animal since they are not a common household petin urban residential areasand are typically raised for purposes of food consumption. Proposed Code Amendment According to the applicants,the proposed code amendment is intended to permit chickens on residential properties and would be subject to the following standards, similar to thosefound in example ordinances (as includedin the attached application materials): 1.Chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus)may be allowed on residential properties. 2.Only hens (noroosters)are allowed. 3.A maximumoffourhensperlotareallowed. 4.Thechickencoopandrunshallbesetbackat least10 feetfromtherearlotlineand atleast 5 feetfromthesidelotlines.Theymustbeatleast25feetfromthenearesthabitablestructure. 5.Ifthechickensarenotcontainedatalltimestothecoopandrunand allowedtofreelyroam withintheyard,thepropertyshallbeenclosedby a fence. Poultry and FowlOrdinance Survey As part of a code amendment process in consideration of poultry and fowl regulations, the City of Cottage Grove conducted an extensive survey of ordinances in Minnesota. The survey was completed in 2012 and is attached for your review.In summary: 52 communities surveyed 17 communities (33%) allowedpoultry/fowl on urban residential lots 35 communities (67%) prohibited poultry/fowl on urban residential lots Numerous communities are still in the process of evaluating ordinances on the issue. Of those, staff is aware that the cities of Farmington, Shakopee, and Savage now allow chickens on residential lots. 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 90 Additional Issues for Consideration The application materials include the applicants’ rationale and potential benefits of keeping chickens on residential properties in the City. As shown in the ordinance survey, regulations regarding chickens vary for each city. Prior to consideration of the request, staff raises the following issues for additional discussion: 1.Use Category and Definition As part of Planning Case 2012-34, the Planning Commission considered amendments creating an interim use permit and to the domestic animal definition to allow pigeons; neither of which were approved. As in Title 12-1E-3(C) of the Code, bees areallowed as an accessory use in residential zoning districts, subject to conditions. The proposed amendment does not contain a definition nor any reference to a specific Code section regarding the use category. 2.Licensingand Inspection Requirements Manycities that allow chickens in residential zones require a license to ensure the applicable standards are met and maintained, subject to inspection. Licenses areeitherissued administratively or through a conditional/interim use permit following a formal public hearing. In some cases, licenses approved administratively require notice and approval from the contiguous property owners. A formal conditional/interim use permit requires notice of a much larger area, but would most likely be difficult to deny if the conditions were met and the surrounding properties were in opposition to the request. It is assumed that cities without licensingrequirements deal with any issues on a complaint basis. Either option requires additional staff time to review,process, and enforce. The proposed code amendment does not contain any licensing or inspection requirements. 3.Chicken Coop and Run Requirements Most cities require an accessory chicken coop and run (see attached images) and do not allow any chickens tobe located in any part of the dwelling and/or garagenor in the front yard. Inaddition, the structures aresubject tosize, setback, and screening standards. The table below compares the existing accessory structure standards and those in the proposed code amendment: StandardExistingProposed 144 sq. ft. (4 acres or less) SizeNone 425 sq. ft. (more than 4 acres) 5 ft. (under 144 sq. ft.) Side Yard Setback5 ft. 10 ft. (over 144 sq. ft.) 5 ft. (under 144 sq. ft.) Rear Yard Setback10 ft. 10 ft. (over 144sq. ft.) Nearest Residence Setback100 ft. (housing domestic animals)25 ft. Screening NoneNone The proposed code amendment does not contain size or screening standards for chicken coops/runs. 4.Minimum Lot Size Based on the ordinance survey, 13 out of 52 cities hadminimum lot size standards for the keeping of chickens. However, none of those cities allowed chickens on urban residential lots, similar to the R-1 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 91 Zoning District. The existing regulations regarding beekeeping include a 50-acre minimum lot size, in addition to other conditions. The proposed code amendment does not contain a minimum lot size requirement. 5.Other Issues Maximum number of chickens –is the proposed limit (4 hens) adequate? Other animals(goats, ducks, geese, pot-belly pigs, pigeons) –pet vs. means of food production? Waste management/disposal – are additional standards necessary? Disease/Pests –are avian influenza and salmonellosis a concern? Noise – are additional standards beyond prohibiting roosters necessary? Odor – are the proposed setbacks and best management practices adequate? Predators – are hawks, eagles, owls, raccoons, coyotes, fox, dogs, etc. an increased threat? Slaughtering and sale of eggs –should they be expressly prohibited? Neighborhood involvement – should approval from the neighbors be required? Maintenance/design of chicken coops – are additional standards necessary? Feed storage –are additional standards necessary? STAFF RECOMMENDATION The proposed code amendment application raises two questions for consideration: 1.Should the City consider amending the Code to allow chickens in residential zoning districts? 2.If so, under what conditions should chickens be allowed? Whether or not chickens should be allowed in residential zoning districts is a policy decisionthat should be considered by the City Council, based on a recommendationfrom the Planning Commission. Staff does not have a recommendation on this issue, but, if necessary, is willing to work with the applicants and/or other stakeholders to provide any additional information to the Planning Commission or City Councilon the issue for discussion. Regardless of the Planning Commission’s recommendation on the use being requested, staff recommends denial of the proposed code amendment provided by the applicants. As noted, there are many issues that are not addressedin the proposed language that should be researched and discussed further if the City wants to consider allowing chickens in residential zoning districts. If the City Council decides the use should be considered, with specific conditions,then staff could be directed to draft potential code amendments for further review and recommendation by the Planning Commission. 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 92 ACTION REQUESTED Staff recommends action be taken on the application before the Planning Commission, which is the specific code amendment language included in the request. A separate motion could be madeand discussed regarding further direction to the City Council in consideration of the proposed use. Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1.Recommend denial of the proposed code amendment, based on the attached findings of fact. OR 2.Recommend approval of the proposed code amendment, based on the attached findings of fact. OR 3.Table the request. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1.Poultry and Fowl Ordinance Survey – completed by the City of Cottage Grove (2012) 2.Chicken Coop/Run images 3.Newspaper articles (01.14.14 Pioneer Press, 07.12.14 and 03.23.13 Star Tribune) 4.Planning Application, including supporting materials 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 93 FINDINGS OF FACT FORDENIAL Proposed City Code Amendment Chickens in Residential Zoning Districts The following Findings of Fact are made in support of denial of the proposed request: 1.Keeping of chickens is not appropriate on residential properties in the City. 2.The proposed code amendment does not address all of the necessary regulations to prevent nuisances and mitigate potential negative impacts to the surrounding properties. 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 94 FINDINGS OF FACT FORAPPROVAL Proposed City Code Amendment Chickens in Residential ZoningDistricts The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1.Keeping of chickens on residential properties provides environmental, economic, and cultural benefits to residents of the City. 2.The proposed conditions allow the use and enable the safe and successful pursuit ofthe benefits of keeping chickens without negatively impacting surrounding properties. 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 95 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 96 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 97 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 98 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 99 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 100 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 101 Figure 1: Applicants’ Coop Figure 2: ExampleCoop/Run Source: Google images Source: MHPD (10.13.14) Figure 3: Example Coop/Run Figure 4: Example Coop/Run Source: Google images Source: Google images Figure 5: Example Coop/Run Figure 6: Example Coop/Run Source: Google images Source: Google images 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 102 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 103 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 104 StarTribune -Print PagePage 1of 1 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 105 Back yard chicken proposal doesn't fly in Lakeville Article by: Susan Feyder Star Tribune July 12, 2014 - 8:56 PM Lakeville wonÓt be joining the flock. For the second time in three years, the city has rejected a proposed ordinance that would have allowed it to join the growing number of Twin Cities communities permitting back yard chickens. At a City Council meeting last week, Mayor Matt Little appeared to A growing number of Twin Cities communities Ï including be the only supporter of allowing chickens in residential areas. His Minneapolis Ï allow chickens on residential property. Lakeville is not one of them. motion proposing the rule change didnÓt draw a second. KYNDELL HARKNESS ¤ Star Tribune file, The council followed the lead of the planning commission, which last month unanimously recommended the council deny a request for an ordinance change. In 2011 the commission had reviewed and rejected the need for a similar ordinance. The proposal would have allowed no more than two hens, unlike most communities, which typically set the limit at four or five. The rules also would have required coops far larger than those in most communities and required people with chickens to pay $100 a year for a permit. The commission and council members against the idea cited concerns over noise and odors and said chickens should be kept on land zoned for agricultural use. They reasoned that there is no need to allow chickens in residential areas because about 12 percent of the city is still zoned for agriculture. ÐI donÓt think the time is right,Ñ said Council Member Kerrin Swecker. She and others said the need may change in the future as more agricultural land is taken up for development. Planning Director Daryl Morey told the council that city staff also opposed allowing chickens. Calls and e-mails from residents also were against the measure by a narrow margin, Morey added. Little said his feedback Ï including an online poll on his Facebook page Ï suggests widespread support. He also said that the ordinance would simply provide a mechanism for the city to enforce standards for an activity that already is taking place throughout Lakeville. ÐPeople are going to have them anyway,Ñ he said. ÐThere are people not too far from me Ï IÓm not going to say who they are Ï who have them in their front yard. ÐThereÓs a guy with a goose! HeÓs legendary,Ñ Little added. It wasnÓt clear whether the mayor was referring to the owner or the animal. No residents spoke at the council meeting. But several people who were at last monthÓs commission meeting voiced support of the ordinance. In addition to having a source of fresh eggs, some supporters said they wanted to keep chickens so they could teach their children about agriculture. LakevilleÓs rejection of back-yard chickens comes on the heels of ShakopeeÓs recent adoption of an ordinance permitting residents to have up to five hens in their back yards. Like most communities that allow chickens, ShakopeeÓs new ordinance outlines several conditions, including rules on fencing and the size and location of coops and chicken runs. The ordinance prohibits roosters, and chicken owners are not allowed to sell eggs commercially. A growing number of Twin Cities communities Ï including Minneapolis, St. Paul and numerous suburbs Ï allow chickens on residential property. Burnsville, Eagan, Farmington, Rosemount and West St. Paul are among the communities in Dakota County that permit them. ShakopeeÓs neighbor, Savage, doesnÓt allow back-yard chickens. But its City Council recently discussed the topic, according to City Administrator Barry Stock. He said itÓs likely the council will approve an ordinance in August. Susan Feyder ¤ 952-746-3282 © 2014 Star Tribune http://www.startribune.com/printarticle/?id=266897951117201 //4 StarTribune -Print PagePage 1of 1 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 106 Farmington relents, will finally allow backyard chickens Article by: Erin Adler Star Tribune March 23, 2013 - 1:54 PM Thanks to a group of plucky teens, the city of Farmington has decided to put a little bit of the ÐfarmÑ back in its name by allowing residents to raise chickens Ï but the city is still proceeding cautiously. Among the changes to the proposal was a review after a year. All four City Council members who were present voted in favor of joel koyama ¤ jkoyama@startribune.com , the ordinance last week, bringing the cityÓs two-year battle over backyard chickens to a close. Still, there was some disappointment. The original ordinance was amended at the meeting, reducing the number of chickens allowed from six to three and calling for a check-in on how things are going in about a year. ÐWe were hoping for six, because itÓs easier to go with an even number,Ñ said Annabelle Randow, 15, one of the youth involved in 4-H who gave a presentation about backyard chickens to the council in February. The changes were suggested by Council Member Christy Jo Fogarty, who said she had received many negative e-mails from residents who were concerned about allowing chickens in Farmington. ÐThe comment I got a lot was that chickens belong on a farm, not in a neighborÓs back yard,Ñ Fogarty said. In response, Randow said she was Ða little disappointed that so many people called about them being farm animals, because they can be pets, too.Ñ Council Member Douglas Bonar was a part of the Planning Commission that originally considered the chickens in 2011 and has been in favor of it ever since. Though the commission gave a positive recommendation in 2011, the City Council voted against it that summer. Bonar said the concept has been Ðpretty safely vetted over the past two years.Ñ Farmington will join more than a dozen Twin Cities suburbs that already allow chickens on residential property, including Burnsville, Eagan and Rosemount in Dakota County. Tony Wippler, assistant city planner, wrote the updated ordinance, which included several changes from the 2011 version. Most notable was a zoning change that limits chickens to lots larger than 10,000 square feet, in lots zoned Ðlow density residential,Ñ he said. The change was Mayor Todd LarsonÓs suggestion, Wippler said, because he Ðwanted to take baby stepsÑ with the idea. The zoning specifications mean that about 62 percent of FarmingtonÓs residential properties qualify. Most of the smaller lots that donÓt are near downtown, he said. In addition, the ordinance specifies that a public hearing will take place after any resident applies for a permit to keep chickens. Wippler said that the teensÓ presentation to the council in January was really Ðthe only reasonÑ the council was considering the chickens proposal again. Their presentation took an educational approach, touting chickens as part of a move toward a sustainable lifestyle. The students also addressed what they called common myths about keeping chickens. Lerew Kaas, 14, said that these myths include chickens attracting rodents and predators or smelling bad. ÐBut if you clean their cages, they wonÓt be \[smelly\],Ñ Kaas said. Fogarty said that though she wasnÓt generally in favor of the idea, she recognized that Farmington has a large number of agricultural classes at the high school and that Farmington is on the edge of a rural area. She acknowledged residentsÓ persistence with the chickens ordinance after the vote. ÐI know itÓs been a long road and weÓve not made it easy,Ñ she said. Kaas said that although he was pleased the ordinance passed, having three animals isnÓt really conducive to showing chickens at the Dakota County or State Fair, where they must be shown in lots of two. ÐSo now IÓll only be able to show one lot of chickens and one will be left out,Ñ he said. His mother, Nell Kaas, who grew up on a chicken farm, noted that three chickens will produce only about three eggs a day, Ðwhich isnÓt really worth it.Ñ But, ÐWeÓll be patient. WeÓll hope theyÓll up \[the number of chickens allowed\] next year,Ñ she said. Though it remains to be seen how many Farmington residents will actually be interested in raising chickens and apply for permits Ï the city of Eagan approved backyard chickens last October but has issued only one permit so far Ï the handful of teens at the meeting all said they canÓt wait to get started. ÐIÓm going to start building my coop tonight!Ñ said Lerew Kaas. Erin Adler ¤ 952-746-3283 © 2014 Star Tribune http://www.startribune.com/printarticle/?id=199693291117201 //4 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 107 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 108 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 109 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 110 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 111 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 112 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 113 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 114 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 115 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 116 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 117 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 118 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 119 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 120 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 121 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 122 11/25/14 Planning Commission Packet - Page 123