Loading...
2012-06-26 Planning Comm Agenda Packet CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Agenda June 26, 2012 - 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of the Agenda 4. Approval of the May 22, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes 5. Hearings a. Case No. 2012-13: City of Mendota Heights, zoning amendment pertaining to new property maintenance code for commercial/industrial properties. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. b. Case No. 2012-18: Greg Quehl, lot line adjustment and wetlands permit for 953 Wagon Wheel Trail. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. c. Case No. 2012-19: Scott Cottington, wetlands permit and critical area permit for 1151 Orchard Circle. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. d. Case No. 2012-20: Orlando Ponce, critical area permit for 1128 Sibley Memorial Highway. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. 6. New Business a. Evaluate Property Acquisition: 2454 Lemay Lake Road 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 Administration at 651-452-1850 with requests. Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2012 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 22, 2012 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 22, 2012, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Norton, Commissioners Field, Hennes, Magnuson, Noonan, and Roston. Commissioner Viksnins was an excused absence. Those present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, Public Works Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello, and NAC Planner Stephen Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Heidi Guenther. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of April 24, 2012, Minutes COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 24, 2012, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 (CHAIR NORTON) Hearings PLANNING CASE #2012-12 Carol Strojny 917 Chippewa Avenue Conditional Use Permit for a fence within 30 feet of a right of way. Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Carol Strojny for approval of conditional use permit to allow a fence within 30 feet of a right of way along the west and south end of the property. The property is located at 917 Chippewa Avenue and is zoned R-1, One Family Residential. Mr. Grittman noted that fences are allowed to be 36 inches tall unless a conditional use permit was requested, which would allow a fence to then be up to six feet in height. The fence was consistent with the neighborhood and development of the property. The proposed design meets the City’s 30% openness requirement. Mr. Grittman presented staff’s analysis of the request and recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed fence within the interior and rear yard. Carol Strojny, 917 Chippewa Avenue, thanked the Commission for considering her request this evening and for the report presented by staff. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2012 2 AYES 6 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE APPLICANT SHALL RECEIVE A FENCE PERMIT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF THE FENCE; AND 2. THE FENCE SHALL MEET THE REGULATIONS ESTABLISHED IN SECTION 12-1D-6, INCLUDING THE SIX FOOT (6’) HEIGHT MAXIMUM AND THE 30% OPEN DESIGN REQUIREMENT. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 5, 2012, meeting. PLANNING CASE #2012-13 City of Mendota Heights Zoning Amendment pertaining to new property maintenance code for commercial/industrial properties. Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of the City for approval of a zoning code amendment pertaining to new property maintenance code for commercial/industrial properties. Mr. Grittman noted that the Council initiated the amendment to the property maintenance code last summer. He commented the Ordinance was not meant to replace City Code but would assist with general maintenance of properties throughout the City. Mr. Grittman presented staff’s analysis of the request and recommended adoption of the Code as presented. Commissioner Roston questioned if the special tax language had been reviewed by the City Attorney. He requested she review this paragraph in particular. Mr. Grittman indicated the amendment had been reviewed by the City Attorney. Commissioner Roston suggested the storm water and drainage language be further reviewed as it was handled by other City Code and Statutes. Mr. Grittman explained staff would review this further. Chair Norton asked how this code differed from the existing property maintenance code. Mr. Grittman commented the City did not have a property commercial code that handled commercial and industrial properties. The City only had Code to address residential properties. The point would be to add depth to the nuisance code addressing maintenance and aesthetic issues. Commissioner Noonan inquired if the code had been brought to the business community for comments. Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek explained this information was brought up in the winter edition of the Heights Highlights, was posted on the web and sent out through a public hearing notice. Staff intended to get this specific information to business owners, but was surprised to have no feedback to date from the business community. Commissioner Norton questioned if the amendment should be postponed to allow for comments from the local business owners. Mr. Sedlacek indicated that staff agrees with the Planning Commission’s wishes to have feedback from businesses. Commissioner Field stated in his opinion, the nuisance ordinance worked well to address maintenance issues and expressed concern with the fact the new Ordinance would be complaint based. Page 3 Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2012 3 Commissioner Roston expressed concern with the specificity of the proposed language, noting that one provision states there shall be no weeds, which was not feasible for every commercial and industrial property in the City. He had a number of concerns with how this new code would be enforced. He recommended the Commission seek additional feedback from the business community before proceeding with this code amendment. Commissioner Hennes questioned if the item could be delayed for several weeks to allow for comment from the local business owners. Mr. Sedlacek stated there was no pressing issue. Commissioner Field commented the information was posted for a public hearing and no comments were received. He questioned how staff would make contact with the business owners. Mr. Sedlacek stated the Chamber of Commerce could be contacted along with major land owners and major businesses within the community. This would assure that they have received the information. Commissioner Roston asked how much time would be needed to pass along this information. Mr. Sedlacek noted staff would have this information to the industrial/commercial property owners yet this week and the item could be discussed again in June. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to continue the public hearing to the June meeting. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE JUNE MEETING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the Planning Commission would consider this application at its June 26, 2012, meeting. Verbal Review Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #2012-10 Joe Igo Variance to the Side Yard Setback • The City Council approved a one-foot side yard setback for the driveway. PLANNING CASE #2012-11 Convent of the Visitation School Conditional Use Permit/Variances • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #2012-7 Michael Bader Variance to the Right of Way Width • The City Council denied the request for the variance. PLANNING CASE #2012-3 City of Mendota Heights Accessory Structures in R-1 • The City Council tabled this matter and requested further information from staff. Commissioner Hennes questioned the Council’s rationale for approving the variance for Mr. Igo and denying the variance for Mr. Bader. Mr. Sedlacek explained the Council indicated the six foot pad was sufficient for parking a vehicle and the one additional foot was reasonable for proper access in and out of vehicles. For this reason the variance was approved. He commented the Council did not feel there was enough information to approve a variance for Mr. Bader. This was drafted into a finding for denial. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:24 P.M. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Page 4 Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2012 4 Respectfully submitted, Heidi Guenther, Recording Secretary Page 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen W. Grittman DATE: May 17, 2012 MEETING DATE: May 22, 2012 SUBJECT: Commercial/Industrial Property Maintenance CASE NO: 254.08 APPLICANT(S): NA LOCATION: NA ZONING: NA GUIDE PLAN: NA Background: Attached to this memorandum is a updated draft of a potential Commercial/Industrial Property Maintenance Code. The outline utilizes a list of topics that is loosely designed to parallel the City’s Residential Property Maintenance Code. The proposed ordinance groups maintenance requirement topics to follow both that code, and the issues most likely to be raised based on applicable zoning regulations. As we have noted previously, the proposed code language borrows from both Eagan and Chanhassen property maintenance codes for commercial and industrial land, although streamlined to reflect Mendota Heights’ interest in a more compact code, and the City’s relatively few current maintenance issues. A Property Maintenance Code is designed to address current, ongoing maintenance concerns, as well as to provide a means to address future maintenance issues. From an enforcement standpoint, it is usually not possible to differentiate between “pre- existing” maintenance issues and newly created problems. Thus, it would typically be considered to apply to any discovered violation, regardless of when the condition may have been initiated. Essentially, this type of code is designed to deal with ongoing Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-13, Page 1 Page 6 2 conditions that may create a nuisance, but adds specificity to the City’s more general nuisance regulations. If a code such as this is adopted, some cities have provided notice of adoption to the subject properties, but then deferred actual enforcement for some time, up to a year. In this way, businesses have the opportunity to address any concerns and “self-police”, or even seek the opinion of the City as to where potential violations may arise, with time to correct before a violation would be cited. The business community has been notified of the public hearing for this item, and representatives may respond or be present to discuss the details of the code language. At this writing, staff has not received input or feedback except through internal city officials. This code is designed to apply to the condition of existing structures and site improvements, with the expectation that property is continually maintained, or that violations are brought up to the standards (zoning or building code) required at the time of their original construction. It is not designed to require existing properties to upgrade their facilities to meet newly adopted zoning or building regulations. Thus, landscaping that was planted as required screening at the time of its original approval is required to be maintained to that pre-existing standard. If the City has adopted new screening requirements that render the previous plan obsolete, the property does not need to upgrade just for purposes of maintenance – it need only keep in place what was originally approved. Most of these standards address routine maintenance, and establish a requirement that commercial and industrial property must keep their buildings and grounds in reasonably good shape to avoid becoming a depressing influence on neighboring property values. Enforcement would be by notification, and subsequent issuance of a citation when repairs are not made. A few conditions that result in nuisance, or even hazardous, conditions result in the ability of the City to act more aggressively – these more severe conditions are likely to be eligible to be pursued under existing code (such as nuisance ordinances or hazardous building statutes). The City should weigh the impact and administration of this code against the few maintenance concerns currently in commercial or industrial areas. Action Requested: Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following actions: (1) Recommendation of approval of the Commercial/Industrial Property Maintenance Code, as submitted by staff and as may be amended by the Commission. This action should include a finding that the Code will better identify maintenance issues and facilitate improved maintenance of commercial and industrial property. Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-13, Page 2 Page 7 3 (2) Recommendation of denial of the Commercial/Industrial Property Maintenance Code, based on a finding that current regulations have served the City adequately and there is no need for further amendment. (3) Tabling of action on the Commercial/Industrial Property Maintenance Code subject to the submission of additional comment and/or research related to the impacts of the proposed ordinance. Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of the Code as presented. Supplementary Materials: 1. Draft C/I Property Maintenance Code Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-13, Page 3 Page 8 1 Draft 05/14/12 Chapter 8 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE 12-8-1: FINDINGS AND PURPOSE STATEMENT: 12-8-2: DEFINITIONS: 12-8-3: BUILDING AND STRUCTURE APPEARANCE AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS: 12-8-4: MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR VACANT BUILDINGS: 12-8-5: LANDSCAPING AND GROUNDS MAINTENANCE: 12-8-6: ACCESSORY USES, BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES: 12-8-7: ACCUMULATIONS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL: 12-8-8: RUBBISH, GARBAGE AND TRASH: 12-8-9: STORM DRAINAGE: 12-8-10: ABATEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES: 12-8-1: FINDINGS AND PURPOSE STATEMENT: The City Council finds that it is in the best interest of the City to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of its citizens. To this end, the City believes that by adoption of these commercial/industrial property maintenance regulations, it will further the following objectives: A. To preserve the value of commercial and industrial property within the City; B. To protect the character and stability of commercial and industrial areas of the City; C. To provide for minimum standards of maintenance for commercial/industrial properties within the City and ensure compliance; D. Provide a mechanism to conditions upon commercial/industrial property which do not comply with the standards of maintenance established herein. E. Assist in identification and correction of dangerous or life threatening conditions that may be identified within the City. F. Provide a mechanism to mitigate potential public health issues identified within the City. 12-8-2: DEFINITIONS: All terms not defined herein shall have the meaning assigned to them in Section 12-1B-2 of this Title. If a conflict arises as to the definition of any term between this Chapter and Section 12-1B-2 of this Title, the definition in Section 12-1B-2 of this Title shall control. As used herein, the following words shall have the following meanings: Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-13, Page 4 Page 9 2 ACCESSORY STRUCTURE: Shall have the meaning stated in this Title. Accessory buildings or structures shall include, but are not limited to: decks, porches, detached garages, and sheds. BUILDING: Shall have the meaning stated in this Title. Buildings shall include, but are not limited to: dwellings, offices, warehouses, and stores and shall include all buildings containing commercial or industrial uses, regardless of zoning district, with the exception of legal home occupations on residentially zoned property. FENCE: Any structure, wall, or gate erected as a permanent dividing marker, partition, visual or physical barrier, or enclosure, excluding any permitted temporary fence as regulated in the zoning regulations of this Code, within a parcel of land regardless if the parcel is platted or unplatted. PROPERTY: Developed or undeveloped land, parcel or platted lot, including any building structures, and accessory structures thereon and shall include all land, parcels, or lots containing commercial or industrial uses, regardless of zoning district, with the exception of legal home occupations on residentially zoned property. STRUCTURE: Shall have the meaning stated in this Title. WEEDS: All grasses, annual plants and vegetation, other than trees or shrubs. This term shall not include cultivated flowers and gardens. 12-8-3: BUILDING AND STRUCTURE APPEARANCE AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS: A. Building Material Condition: Any building or structure is a public nuisance if its exterior does not comply with the following requirements: 1. All exterior property shall be maintained in a clean, safe, and sanitary condition. 2. No part of any exterior building surface shall have significant deterioration including, but not limited to, holes, breaks, gaps, or loose or rotting materials. All exterior surfaces of the structure including, but not limited to, doors, door and window frames, cornices, porches and trim, shall be maintained in a good and safe condition. Exterior wood surfaces on the structures, other than decay resistant woods, stucco or other materials that do not normally require protection from the elements shall be protected from the elements and decay by staining, painting or other protective covering or treatment or other appropriate method acceptable to the City. With regard to broken windows, repair shall require replacement of all broken glass, or in the alternative, remodeling of the exterior by removing the window and its frame and replacing such window with exterior siding to match and blend in with the surrounding siding. B. Premise Identification: All buildings shall have approved address numbers placed in a position to be plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-13, Page 5 Page 10 3 Arabic numerals. Numbers shall be a minimum of four (4) inches in height or larger as necessary to ensure visibility. C. Architectural Elements: All architectural elements including, but not limited to, cornices, belt courses, corbels, terra cotta trim, wall facings and similar decorative features shall be maintained in good repair with proper anchorage and in a safe condition. 12-8-4: MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR VACANT BUILDINGS: A. Maintenance: 1. Any vacant building or structure in the City that is found by an authorized employee or agent of the City to be dangerous to public safety or health by reason of the following is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and a hazardous structure or condition: a. Damaged by fire, storm, or vandalism; b. Defective chimneys or stovepipes; c. Dilapidated condition or decay; or d. Any other defect endangering the public safety or health. 2. Any vacant structure which is damaged, decayed, dilapidated, unsanitary, unsafe, vermin or rodent infested, presents environmental health risks or which lacks provisions for safe illumination, ventilation, or sanitary facilities to the extent that the defects create a hazard to the health, safety, or welfare of the occupants or of the public, may be declared unfit for human habitation or unsafe to the public by the City. 3. Whenever any vacant building has been declared unfit for human habitation or unsafe to the public, the City may proceed to declare the building a hazardous building or hazardous property and may seek to correct or remove the hazardous condition as authorized by Minnesota law. B. Security Measures. Vacant buildings shall be secured in accordance with Minnesota State Statutes 463.251 and applicable Building Code requirements. 1. Windows and doors shall be covered to prevent entry within a frame, and with covering materials, that are designed to complement or match those of the existing building. 2. Any part of the building, such as walls or roof, which is damaged in such a way as to allow possible entry, shall be repaired with materials that match the materials used for that part elsewhere on the building, and in a manner which masks the visible impression of vacancy. Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-13, Page 6 Page 11 4 12-8-5: LANDSCAPING AND GROUNDS MAINTENANCE: A. Vegetation, Trimming and Replacement (Trees and Shrubs): The owner and respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the trimming and replacement of all site trees and shrubs in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance which is free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan and which have died shall be replaced as soon as seasonal or weather conditions allow. B. Weeds: All premises and exterior property shall be maintained free from weeds or plant growth in excess of eight (8) inches. All noxious weeds shall be prohibited. C. Grass Mowing and Irrigation: All grass shall be maintained at a height not exceeding six (6) inches. All exterior property areas devoted to grass shall be maintained and irrigated (watered) as necessary to ensure vegetative health. D. Sidewalks and Driveways: All sidewalks, walkways, stairs, driveways, parking spaces and similar areas shall be kept in a proper state of repair, and maintained free from hazardous conditions. E. Parking Lots: Unless otherwise approved by the City, every lot or area used for public or private parking shall be maintained in accordance with the following requirements: 1. Pavement. Off-street parking areas shall be paved and maintained so as to eliminate dust or mud and shall be graded and drained to dispose of surface water. 2. Striping. Designated parking spaces shall be indicated and maintained on the surface of off-street parking areas with paint or other striping material approved by the City. 3. Curbing. Curb barriers (around the perimeter or within off-street parking areas) shall be maintained to so as not to exhibit any significant deterioration. F. Fencing: Any fence is a public nuisance if it does not comply with the following requirements: 1. The fence shall be firmly fastened and anchored in order that it is not leaning or otherwise in any stage of collapse. 2. The fence shall be maintained in sound and good repair and free from deterioration, loose or rotting pieces, or holes, breaks, or gaps not otherwise intended in the original design of the fence. The fence shall be free from any defects or condition which makes the fence hazardous. 3. All exterior wood surfaces of any fence, other than decay resistant woods, shall be protected from the elements by paint or other protective surface covering or treatment, which shall be maintained in good repair to provide the intended protection from the elements. Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-13, Page 7 Page 12 5 4. No fence section shall have peeling, cracked, chipped or otherwise deteriorated surface finish, including but not limited to: paint or other protective covering or treatment, on more than twenty (20) percent of any one linear ten-foot section of the fence. G. Grounds Adjacent to Residential Areas: All grounds adjacent to residential uses shall be maintained in a clean, safe and sanitary condition. Landscaping and screening in adjacent areas shall be maintained such that residential properties are not negatively impacted by lighting, odors, air pollution, noise, dust and other similar features produced by the commercial or industrial use. 12-8-6: ACCESSORY USES, BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES: A. Building Materials Condition: The exterior of all accessory structures, including but not limited to, fences and walls shall be maintained in structurally sound condition and in good repair. B. Architectural Elements: All architectural elements accessory to the principal building shall be maintained in a structurally sound condition and in good repair (as similarly required of the principal building). Architectural elements include, but are not limited to, cornices, belt courses, corbels, terra cotta trim, wall facings and similar decorative features. C. Storage and Screening: Except as specifically allowed within the applicable zoning district or as a listed exception, all materials and equipment shall be stored indoors. When allowed, materials and equipment stored outdoors shall be screened from eye level view of abutting residential zoning districts in accordance with the City’s zoning regulations and maintained as follows: 1. Maintenance of required screening (plantings, berm and/or fence) shall be the joint and several responsibility of the individual property owner, its respective agents, and/or, where applicable, the homeowners' association. 2. All fence repairs shall be consistent with the original fence design in regard to location and appearance. 3. Replacement of landscape materials or plantings shall be consistent with the original screen (buffer yard) design. 4. All repair or plant replacement shall be done within forty-five (45) days of written notification from the Zoning Administrator. D. Signage: All signs shall be maintained in a safe, presentable and good structural condition at all times. Maintenance shall include painting, repainting, cleaning, replacement or repair of defective parts, replacement of missing letters and other necessary acts. Any sign which the City finds is in a dangerous or defective condition shall be removed or repaired by the owner of the sign or the owner of the premises on which the sign is located. Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-13, Page 8 Page 13 6 E. Exterior Lighting: All light fixtures shall be maintained in good repair. Lights for illuminating parking areas, loading areas or yards for safety and security purposes shall be maintained in such a manner that the maximum illumination levels established within the City’s zoning regulations are not exceeded. 12-8-7: ACCUMULATIONS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL: A. Accumulations: Rubbish, garbage, or other hazardous and dangerous materials shall not be stored or allowed to accumulate in stairways, passageways, doors, windows, fire escapes or other means of egress. B. Hazardous Material: Hazardous substances, refuse, pollutants and contaminants, as those terms are defined by Federal, State, and local laws, shall not be accumulated or stored unless storage complies with the applicable requirements of all laws, rules and ordinances pertaining to the activity, including, but not limited to, the City's Building Code and Fire Prevention Code. 12-8-8: RUBBISH, GARBAGE AND TRASH: A. Accumulation of Rubbish and Garbage: All exterior property areas shall be free from any unreasonable accumulation of rubbish and garbage causing a nuisance. B. Disposal of Rubbish: Every occupant of a structure shall reasonably store and dispose of all rubbish and garbage in a clean and sanitary manner in accordance with all laws. C. Screening: Garbage and recycling containers shall be either: a) stored inside a building such that they are not visible from adjacent public streets or adjoining properties; or b) stored outside but fully screened from view of adjacent public streets or adjoining properties by landscaping or fencing materials. D. Collection: Discarded materials and equipment shall not be left outside for collection and disposal for more than seventy two (72) hours. Materials and equipment not awaiting collection and disposal shall not be placed outside. 12-8-9: STORM DRAINAGE: A. Public Nuisance: Stormwater runoff and drainage of roofs and other hard surfaced areas on property shall not be allowed to occur in a manner that creates a public nuisance. B. Site Grading: Except in the case of approved retention areas and reservoirs, all premises shall be graded and maintained to prevent the erosion of soil and to prevent the accumulation of stagnant water thereon, or within any structure located thereon. Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-13, Page 9 Page 14 7 12-8-10: ABATEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES: A. Enforcement Officials: The City Council shall enforce the provisions of this Chapter and may by resolution delegate to various officers or agencies power to enforce particular provisions of this Chapter, including the power to inspect private property. B. Notice to Abate: Whenever, in the judgment of City Council or the officer charged with enforcement of this Chapter, it is determined that a violation hereof is being maintained or exists within the City, such officer shall notify in writing the person committing or maintaining such violation and the owner of the property and require them to remedy such violation and to remove such conditions or remedy such defects. Such written notice shall be delivered to the person committing or maintaining violation and the owner of the property or may be delivered by mail. If the property is not occupied and the address of the owner is unknown, service on the owner may be accomplished in the manner specified for service in Rule 4 in the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, except in the case of an emergency and then in such case, service shall be accomplished after posting such notice for twenty four (24) hours. Such notice shall require the owner or occupant of the property, or both, to take corrective steps within a time as defined by the officer charged with enforcement to remedy such violations, such steps and time to be designated in the notice, but the maximum time to remedy a violation after service of such notice shall not exceed one hundred twenty (120) days. In the case of severe financial or physical hardship, the Council may grant an extension to the time limit. Said violation shall be corrected "immediately" in the case of imminent danger to the public health, safety, or welfare. Service of notice may be proven by filing an affidavit of service in the office of the City Clerk setting forth the manner and time thereof. C. Report of Failure to Abate: When notice so given is not complied with, such noncompliance shall be reported forthwith to the city for such action as may be necessary and deemed advisable to abate and enjoin further continuation of such nuisance, including referring the matter to the City's prosecuting attorney to pursue a judicial remedy on behalf of the City. A violation of this Chapter shall be subject to a penalty as provided in section 1-4-1 of this Code. D. Abatement by City: In the event the City chooses to abate said violation, the City shall adopt a resolution setting forth the specific details of the corrective matters to be taken. A copy of the resolution shall be sent to the property owner by certified mail and if the violation is not abated within ten (10) days of the mailing of said resolution, the City shall take all actions necessary to abate said violation, keeping accurate records of the cost of the same. E. Costs to Owner: The Finance Director shall prepare a bill and mail it to the owner of the property for the costs incurred by the City, including, but not limited to, administrative costs, attorney fees and costs and the costs of any outside contractor engaged by the city to correct such violation, and thereupon the amount shall be immediately due and payable to the City (the "bill"). F. Special Tax: If the bill is not paid to the City within twenty (20) days after the mailing of the bill, the City Clerk shall extend the costs of abating the violation as a special tax against Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-13, Page 10 Page 15 8 the property upon which the violation was located, and such special tax shall, at the time of certifying taxes to the County Auditor, be certified for collection as other special taxes are certified and collected. The City Council may specify an additional penalty for such special tax collections. Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-13, Page 11 Page 16 Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-13, Page 12 Page 17 Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-13, Page 13 Page 18 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING A PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE TO ADD REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPERTY MAINTENANCE IN COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS 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 soon as possible thereafter, on Tuesday, May 22, 2012 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from the City of Mendota Heights. The city council has directed staff to draft new code language regarding the maintenance of property zoned for business or industrial within the city. This notice is pursuant to Title 12 (Zoning), Chapter 1 of the Mendota Heights City Code. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to this request will be heard at this meeting. Justin Miller Acting City Clerk Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-13, Page 14 Page 19 MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen W. Grittman DATE: June 22, 2012 MEETING DATE: June 26, 2012 SUBJECT: Subdivision and Wetlands Permit CASE NO: Case No. ; NAC Case 254.04 - APPLICANT(S): Gregory Quehl LOCATION: 953 Wagon Wheel Trail ZONING: R-1, One Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request: The applicant is seeking to re-subdivide two existing parcels along Wagon Wheel Trail to create two buildable parcels. The current two lots both have their frontage on Wagon Wheel Trail. The easterly parcel contains a single family home to be removed if the subdivision is approved. The westerly parcel is covered by wetland and is currently unbuildable, although it is a separate legal parcel. The proposed re-subdivision would combine the two lots, then carve out a new 20,000 square foot lot in the southeast corner of the parcel, with 100 feet of frontage on Wagon Wheel, and 200 feet of depth from north to south. The applicant’s materials refer to this parcel as Lot B1. The remaining lot (labeled “A1”) would have approximately 312 feet of frontage on Wagon Wheel, and extend behind the other parcel to the depth of the original lot. This lot would have more than 4 acres of land, although much of that would Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-18, Page 1 Page 20 be covered by the wetland as noted. About half of that 4 acres would appear to be upland. The applicant proposes then to construct a new home on the northeast portion of Lot A1, and gain access to the new home over a private driveway to be constructed on the unimproved right of way that forms the east boundary of the subject property. This right of way would be shared by the adjoining property owner to the east, who utilizes a portion for his own private driveway. Construction of a new home in the proposed location would require a wetlands permit. Analysis: Subdivision. The proposed subdivision of the two parcels would result in no additional lots overall, however, the currently lot line arrangement precludes development of the westerly parcel due to the wetland. Although the total area of the subdivision is more than 4.7 acres, there is just over 2 acres of upland, and usable frontage on Wagon Wheel Trail is also limited due to the extend of the wetland coverage. The rearrangement as proposed appears to be reasonable, and meets the City’s lot size requirements of at least 100 feet of frontage and 15,000 square feet of lot area. Both lots would meet or exceed these dimensions. The applicant has made two other requests in relation to the subdivision. First, he has noted a request to remove a street easement that exists in the southwest corner of the subject property. The process to consider vacation of an easement is separate from any planning action. As such, staff has directed the applicant to make this request independently of the planning application. The second request relates to the construction of the new home and the provision of public services. The applicant proposes to locate the home to the north along the unimproved right of way. Access to the home would then be via a private drive within that right of way, eventually joining with an existing private drive serving the adjoining property. The City Engineer has expressed a willingness to consider this arrangement. To accomplish this, the applicant must negotiate a maintenance agreement with the current driveway user – this agreement should address shared costs of ongoing maintenance as well as long-term reconstruction. The City Attorney should review the agreement to ensure that it does not bind the City in any way, including the City’s right to improve the right of way to City street standards and assess those costs to the property owners, or to abandon or vacate the right of way in the future. In addition, the agreement should specify that the property owners hold the City harmless for any liability relating to the private improvements The private use of the right of way is accompanied by a request to provide sewer and water service via private service lines from Wagon Wheel Trail, rather than extend any new City trunk or main lines. The City Engineer has likewise indicated the acceptability Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-18, Page 2 Page 21 of this service arrangement, so long as the private utilities are not located in any right of way. Wetlands Permit. For any construction or land alteration within 100 feet of a wetland, the City requires a wetlands permit to ensure that the activity is completed in a manner that has no negative impact on the water body. In this case, the applicant would construct a new home within about 35 feet of the wetland edge, indicating also that the 25 feet along the wetland would be retained and treated as buffer to minimize direct runoff. Along with the construction, the applicant indicates that he would alter the existing grade with a substantial amount of fill to create a walk-out basement above what is a relatively shallow water table. Because details of the grading, construction, and subsequent landscape cover are not available, it would appear that the wetland permit should be withheld until those plans can be prepared and reviewed by City staff, and a recommendation can be made to the Planning Commission. Based on the staff’s preliminary discussions with the applicant, it is presumed that an acceptable plan can be worked out, however, a more complete application package would be necessary to make any formal comments. Action Requested: Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following recommendations: Subdivision. A. Recommendation for approval, based on findings of fact attached to this report, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant enter into a maintenance agreement for use of the public right of way with the City and adjoining property owner, to be approved by the City Attorney. 2. The need for drainage and utility easements is reviewed and addressed by the City Engineer. 3. The applicant obtain a certificate of survey with final legal descriptions for recording with Dakota County. B. Recommendation for denial, based on a finding that the proposed subdivision would be premature without more detailed development plans for the two parcels. Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-18, Page 3 Page 22 Wetlands Permit. A. Recommendation for approval, with the condition that the applicant submit fina l design and construction drawings for City Staff review and approval. B. Recommendation for denial, based on a finding that the applicant has not submitted adequate information for review ensuring protection of the wetland. C. Recommendation to table the Wetlands Permit, providing time for the applicant to submit design and construction drawings for staff review, and Planning Commission consideration. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the subdivision, with the conditions noted. The subdivision meets the technical dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance and will provide two parcels with appropriate buildable areas. Access and utility service can be accommodated, provided the applicant address the maintenance issues noted in this report. With regard to the Wetlands Permit, staff recommends tabling action until the appropriate plan detail can be completed and submitted for review. It appears that there will be appropriate opportunities for construction and land alteration as describe d by the applicant in his materials, however, detailed plans need to be submitted to verify the conditions of any permit to be issued, particularly in this case where a new home, combined with significant amounts of fill and grading are expected. Supplementary Materials: 1. Application materials dated 5-23-12 Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-18, Page 4 Page 23 Draft Findings of Fact for Approval Subdivision 953 Wagon Wheel Trail 1. The subdivision results in a net increase of no new parcels. 2. The subdivision provides lots that meet and/or exceed all of the applicable zoning criteria for lots in the R-1 zoning district. 3. The subdivision can be accommodated with existing public services. 4. The access and services to the parcels are acceptable, provided the required agreements are executed governing construction and maintenance as noted in the staff report. Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-18, Page 5 Page 24 Aerial Photo with Existing Lot Lines and Dimensions Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-18, Page 6 Page 25 Lot Layout – Proposed Lot Lines Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-18, Page 7 Page 26 Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-18, Page 8 Page 27 Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-18, Page 9 Page 28 Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-18, Page 10 Page 29 Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-18, Page 11 Page 30 Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-18, Page 12 Page 31 Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-18, Page 13 Page 32 Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-18, Page 14 Page 33 Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-18, Page 15 Page 34 MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: June 22, 2012 MEETING DATE: June 26, 2012 SUBJECT: Wetlands Permit and Critical Area Permit for Screened Porch CASE NO: Case No. 2012-19; NAC Case 254.04 – 12.11 APPLICANT(S): Jean and Scott Cottington LOCATION: 1151 Orchard Circle ZONING: R-1, One Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: LR – Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request: The applicant is seeking to construct a 16’ x 20’ screened porch on the northwest side of their garage. The subject site is located at 1151 Orchard Circle and is zoned R-1, One Family Residential. The site currently contains a single family home and attached garage. Section 12-2-6 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a Wetlands Permit for any work conducted within 100 feet of a wetland. The property is located within the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area and requires a Critical Area Permit. Analysis: Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-19, Page 1 Page 35 The existing home at 1151 Orchard Circle is bordered by a small wetland to the northeast. It stands approximately 55 feet from the standing wetland, including a short extent of lawn nearest the home, and an existing buffer of mixed trees (approximately 40 feet in length) adjacent to the wetland. The proposed 320 square foot screened porch will be placed over an existing at-grade paved porch, and will require no additional site grading or change to vegetation. As a result the wetland should not be impacted by any dredge or fill activities, and runoff from the property should not significantly increase in quantity or decrease in quality. The minimal excavation required to position post anchors for the screened porch structure should include careful management of any resulting loose soil, sediment or debris, and construction materials and substances should be carefully managed as well to otherwise protect water quality of the nearby wetland (as required by Ordinance Section 12-2-7, #8-10, 19, 21). As noted, an existing tree buffer exists at the edge of the wetland. The City’s practice has been to ensure that at least 25 feet of natural planting buffer is in place around the wetland to filter runoff from lawns and hard surfaces. That natural planting buffer often consists of shrub and perennial materials that catch storm water prior to entering the water body. The applicants should verify the plantings in the existing buffer to show compliance with this practice. The Wetlands Ordinance requires that any land alteration or construction within 100 feet of any designated wetland requires approval of a Wetlands Permit. The purpose of the Wetlands Ordinance is to ensure that alterations within the buffer area adjacent to wetlands do not degrade or threaten the water quality of the wetland area. With the plan as proposed, little impact is foreseen. The property does not have a view of, and cannot be viewed from the Mississippi River. The proposed building materials are consistent with the requirements of Title 12, Chapter 3 of city code, and are in keeping with the finish of the existing home. Engineer Review. The City’s engineering staff should review the permit application to verify that all construction activities will follow the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance document. Action Requested: Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: 1) Approval of the wetlands permit and critical area permit to construct a screened porch, based on the attached findings of fact, and subject to a requirement that all construction activities follow the Land Disturbance Guidance document. -OR- 1) Denial of the wetlands permit and critical area permit, based on a finding that the projected work will have negative impacts on the existing wetland and is inconsistent with the intent of the Wetlands Ordinance and/or the Critical Area Ordinance. Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-19, Page 2 Page 36 Staff Recommendation: Planning staff recommends approval of the wetlands permit and critical area permit. The proposed project should not have a negative impact on the wetland, and will have no impact on the aesthetics or natural resources of the Mississippi River. The project appears to meet the intent of the Wetlands Ordinance and will not degrade or threaten the water quality of the wetland. Supplementary Materials: 1. Application Materials Dated May 30, 2012 2. Site Location Map Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-19, Page 3 Page 37 Draft Findings of Fact for Approval Wetlands Permit 1151 Orchard Circle The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the above Wetlands Permit and Critical Area Permit: 1. The project meets the intent of the Wetlands Ordinance. 2. The project results in only nominal increases in impervious surface, with an existing vegetative buffer adjacent to the wetland edge. 3. The wetland itself will be untouched. 4. No other soil or vegetation will be disturbed as a result of this work. 5. The proposed project creates no new visual impact on the river. Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-19, Page 4 Page 38 Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-19, Page 5 Page 39 Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-19, Page 6 Page 40 Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-19, Page 7 Page 41 Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-19, Page 8 Page 42 Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-19, Page 9 Page 43 Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-19, Page 10 Page 44 Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-19, Page 11 Page 45 MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: June 21, 2012 MEETING DATE: June 26, 2011 SUBJECT: Critical Area Permit for Driveway Construction CASE NO: Case No. 12-20; NAC Case 254.04 -12.12 APPLICANT(S): Orlando Ponce LOCATION: 1128 Highway 13 (Sibley Memorial Highway) ZONING: R-1, One Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: LR, Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request: The applicant is seeking approval to construct and pave a new driveway parking pad on his property at 1128 Sibley Highway. The property is unique, in that the slopes severely limit access to the site, and parking is difficult to accommodate. Complicating the parking issue is the existence of an easement granted to the neighbor to the west at 1132 Sibley Highway who utilizes the Ponce driveway for access to Sibley Highway. The parking pad area would be located to the east of the existing driveway, in front of the home. The project has been started, including grading and installation of retaining walls at this time. Proposed concrete pavement has not yet been installed. The subject site is zoned R-1, One Family Residential, and is located within the Mississippi River corridor. According to Section 12-3-17 of the Zoning Ordinance, any work conducted within the Mississippi River Corridor requires a Critical Area Permit. Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-20, Page 1 Page 46 2 Analysis: Comprehensive Plan. The subject parcel is guided as LR, Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The request to construct a parking pad for single family use is not inconsistent with this land use category, which provides for single family development, including accessory structures and uses. Critical Area Permit. This subject property is located within the Mississippi River corridor. Any work conducted within this corridor requires a Critical Area Permit. According to the applicant, the lack of parking on the property is caused by steep grades and complicated by the neighbor’s driveway easement, as well as by the difficulty of parking along Sibley Highway where the shoulder is not of adequate width. The applicant notes in the application that parking in the side yard area would block the neighbor’s driveway easement. Setbacks. The parking area is shown on the applicant’s submission to be approximately 22 feet in width. The front (north) edge of the parking area must be no closer than 5 feet from the right of way. The east edge of the parking area must be no closer than 5 feet from the property line. Landscaping is allowed up to the property line. The plans do not dimension these setbacks, and the retaining wall supporting the parking area is in place. The applicant should verify that the parking area is set back at least 5 feet from all lot lines prior to continuing the project. Vegetation. Grading has already been done as a part of the initial construction of the project. Below the front retaining wall of modular concrete retaining wall block is a graded slope that is not currently landscaped. The Critical Area Ordinance encourages the use of natural materials in those areas facing the river, such as wood or natural stone. The applicant should provide a landscaping plan that will cover this slope, prevent erosion, and buffer the view of the driveway and retaining wall from the roadway. Other erosion control measures may be required by the City Engineer. Impervious Surface Coverage. As a result of the driveway/parking pad construction, an additional 575 square feet of impervious area will exist upon the site. Because of the location of the parking area, and the subsequent loss of landscaped area in the front yard, runoff from this site toward the street, and subsequently the river, is more than would commonly be expected from a single family home. The applicant has provided a simple storm water plan, showing that runoff from new impervious surface would be directed into drain tile, which outlets into the existing storm water catch basin in the Highway 13 right of way. One alternative to minimize this impact would be to require permeable pavers for the new driveway surface, rather than the proposed concrete. These pavers are designed Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-20, Page 2 Page 47 3 to permit storm water to be absorbed into the ground, minimizing surface runoff. However, they require special installation and sub-grade preparation. Planning staff would encourage this material, but this issue should be subject to additional comment by the City Engineer. Action Requested: After a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: 1. Approval of the Critical Area Permit to allow the parking pad construction. This recommendation should be based on findings such as those attached to this report, and accompanied by the following conditions: a) The applicant verifies that the parking area will be constructed no closer than 5 feet to the front lot and side lot lines. b) A landscaping plan showing cover for all exposed areas of the site in order to control erosion and buffer the view of the parking area and concrete retaining wall from the street. c) The applicant paves the additional parking area with permeable pavers designed to minimize surface runoff from the site. d) The applicant complies with all requirements of the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance document, and any other requirements of the City Engineer. - OR - 2. Denial of the Critical Area Permit to construct a parking area, based on the draft findings attached to this report. Staff Recommendation: Construction of the driveway and parking pad have had a significant impact on the site and on the impervious surface coverage of the improvements on the river side of the property. Although the improvements are substantially in place, there are additional improvements that should be incorporated into the project to comply with the Critical Area Ordinance. As a result, Planning Staff recommends approval of the Critical Area Permit to construct the proposed patio subject to the conditions identified above. Supplementary Materials: 1. Draft Findings for Approval 2. Draft Findings for Denial 3. Application materials Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-20, Page 3 Page 48 4 Draft Findings for Approval Driveway Construction in the Critical Area 1028 Highway 13 1. The driveway can be constructed so as to minimize storm water through the use of management techniques including permeable paver systems. 2. Landscaping can be added to the project that both screens construction and controls erosion issues on the site. 3. With proper construction, the proposed driveway will have little or no visual impact on the critical area or surrounding property. 4. The driveway will create no issues for grading or erosion, based on review and any comments from the City’s engineering department and proper landscaping as noted in the staff report. Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-20, Page 4 Page 49 5 Draft Findings for Denial Driveway Construction in the Critical Area 1028 Highway 13 1. The proposed driveway will have a negative visual impact on the critical area and neighboring property due to materials inconsistent with the Critical Area Ordinance. 2. The addition of a large paved surface in the front yard facing the direction of the river is inconsistent with the intent of the Critical Area regulations. 3. Construction of the driveway has the potential to create grading and erosion issues due to the existing slopes. 4. Construction of the driveway eliminates the bulk of the green space in the front yard, and is inconsistent with both the Critical Area Ordinance and the general zoning regulations. 5. Construction of the driveway has the potential to have a substantial impact on the land as it may cause grade changes, soil loss, or the altering of slopes. Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-20, Page 5 Page 50 Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-20, Page 6 Page 51 Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-20, Page 7 Page 52 Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-20, Page 8 Page 53 Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-20, Page 9 Page 54 Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-20, Page 10 Page 55 Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-20, Page 11 Page 56 Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-20, Page 12 Page 57 Planning Commission 6-26-2012, PC 2012-20, Page 13 Page 58 DATE: June 26, 2012 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator SUBJECT: Property Acquisition: 2425 Bourne Lane Background Staff was contacted by the family of Doris Bohlig regarding the residential property located at 2454 Lemay Lake Road earlier this year. The family was aware that the city has been acquiring land in the area and expressed interest in receiving a purchase offer from the city on the parcel. This property is one of many wedged in between Highway 55 and our industrial park, just north of Mendota Heights Road. The Bohlig property is one of two privately held properties remaining in the area. The city has been acquiring residential properties on Bourne Lane from willing sellers with the intent to consolidate the parcels for redevelopment as business use. The city council discussed the acquisition of this parcel and voted to extend a purchase offer to the Bohlig family, which has been accepted. In accordance with MN Statute, any time a city acquires or disposes of property, the planning authority of that city must find that the action is consistent with the comprehensive plan for the community: Subd. 2.Compliance with plan. After a comprehensive municipal plan or section thereof has been recommended by the planning agency and a copy filed with the governing body, no publicly owned interest in real property within the municipality shall be acquired or disposed of, nor shall any capital improvement be authorized by the municipality or special district or agency thereof or any other political subdivision having jurisdiction within the municipality until after the planning agency has reviewed the proposed acquisition, disposal, or capital improvement and reported in writing to the governing body or other special district or agency or political subdivision concerned, its findings as to compliance of the proposed acquisition, disposal or improvement with the comprehensive municipal plan. The property is guided B-Business; the present residential use is existing non-conforming. Attached you will find a 2007 report from planner Steve Grittman which finds the best use of the area to be business. Staff believes the analysis is still valid. Recommendation Staff recommends acquiring the property located at 2425 Bourne Lane, with the following findings: Planning Commission 6-26-2012, Item 6a, Page 1 Page 59 Acquisition of the property at 2425 Bourne Lane will eliminate the existing non- conforming use of the property as residential. Acquisition of the property at 2425 Bourne Lane is consistent with the city’s long-term vision for the area to develop the property for business use. Action Required If the planning commission wishes to implement the recommendation, pass a motion recommending the property acquisition and authorizing the planning commission chair and staff to document the recommendation as directed by counsel. Planning Commission 6-26-2012, Item 6a, Page 2 Page 60 Planning Commission 6-26-2012, Item 6a, Page 3 Page 61 Planning Commission 6-26-2012, Item 6a, Page 4 Page 62 Planning Commission 6-26-2012, Item 6a, Page 5 Page 63 Planning Commission 6-26-2012, Item 6a, Page 6 Page 64