Loading...
2018-07-24 Planning Comm Agenda Packet CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 24, 2018 7:00 PM - Mendota Heights City Hall AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Adopt Agenda 4. Approval of June 26, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 5. Public Hearings: a. Case No. 2018-18: Lot Split/Lot Combination of properties in the R-1 One Family Residence District, located at 1629 Dodd Road and 694 Wentworth Avenue. - Robbie and Courtney Bluhm – Applicants/Owners b. Case No. 2018-19: Variances to certain structure setbacks and allowance of a detached garage in the R-1 One Family Residence District, located at 650 Brookside Lane. - Gerald Ziebol – Applicant/Owner c. Case No. 2018-13: Zoning Code Amendment to City Code Title 12-1G-1, consideration of Ordinance No. 529, which would allow “Dog Training Facility” as a new conditional use in the I-Industrial District. - Kristin Elmquist – Applicant [Note: this item was tabled at the June 26, 2018 regular meeting] d. Case No. 2018-20: Conditional Use Permit to allow a new “Dog Training Facility” use in the I-Industrial Distrcit, located at 1415 Mendota Heights Road. - Kristin Elmquist – Applicant 6. Staff Announcements / Update on Developments 7. Adjourn Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Hall at 651.452.1850 with requests. June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 1 of 21 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 26, 2018 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 26, 2018 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners John Mazzitello, Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, Mary Magnuson, and Michael Toth. Those absent: Commissioner Brian Petschel Approval of Agenda Commissioner Magnuson requested that item 5b be moved to the bottom of the agenda. The Commission agreed. The revised agenda was approved. Approval of May 22, 2018 Minutes COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2018. Commissioner Magnuson asked for some editing of language or clarification be added to the second bullet point under Mr. Dave Kemp’s comments on page 3 of 5 in the minutes. Also, the sentence immediately before the bullet points should be past tense. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE #2018-12 ERICK SCHMIDT, 1133 DELAWARE AVENUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (LARGE GARAGE IN THE R-1 ZONE) Working from materials provided to the commission prior to the meeting, Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Erick Schmidt was requesting to build a new 26’ x 40’ detached garage. City Code Title 12-1D-3 Accessory Structures, Subpart C.2 allows for one detached structure up to 1,000 square feet with an approved conditional use permit. A notice of hearing on this item was posted and published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters were mailed to all property owners within 350-feet of the subject property. No objections or other comments were received as a result of those notices. June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 2 of 21 Mr. Benetti shared an image of the property location in relation to surrounding homes and streets. The lot is 100’ x 150’, or 0.34 acres in size. The site currently contains a 1,922 square foot, 1.25 story single-family home and a 400 square foot detached garage with a 8’ x 18’ covered/storage space. Mr. Benetti then shared images of the current garage and covered space. The current driveway access off of Delaware Avenue will remain as is, as will the remainder of the driveway and turn-around area. The new garage will be 26 feet by approximately 40 feet, but due to an off-set of the 3rd stall building line, the overall footprint area of the new garage will be set at 992 square feet; under the 1,000 square foot limitation. Mr. Benetti reviewed the standards for reviewing a conditional use permit and explained how this request meets those standards. Staff recommended approval of this Conditional Use Permit request with conditions. Mr. Erick Schmidt, 1133 Delaware Avenue, came forward to address any questions from the Commission, of which there were none. He also had nothing to add to Mr. Benetti’s presentation as it felt it was complete and accurate. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LARGER DETACHED GARAGE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The existing use of the subject parcel as a single-family residential dwelling is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. 2. The planned development and use of the 992-sq. ft. detached garage is considered a reasonable request, and is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposed garage use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan. 4. The proposed garage and structure will be compliant with the conditions included in the City Code that allow it by conditional use permit. 5. The new garage represents reinvestment in a residential neighborhood that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals for residential land uses. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 3 of 21 1. The proposed detached garage shall be constructed in compliance with all applicable City Code standards noted in Section 12-1D-3 Accessory Structures. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to any demolition, excavation or construction of the new garage addition. 3. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 2, 2018 meeting. C) PLANNING CASE #2018-14 MIKE AND MICHELLE BADER, 1673 DELAWARE AVENUE LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION (LOT COMBINATION) Working from materials provided to the commission prior to the meeting, Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mike and Michelle Bader were requesting approval to subdivide their homestead parcel located at 1673 Delaware Avenue into two separate parcels. One parcel would retain the existing dwelling and be sold while the remaining vacant parcel would be retained by the Baders. A notice of hearing on this item was posted and published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters were mailed to all property owners within 350-feet of the subject property. Staff received two phone calls from concerned neighbors on what was happening. The subject property is located east of Delaware Avenue, between Wentworth Avenue to the north and Marie Avenue to the south. The property is located in the R-1A One Family Residential district and is currently guided RR-Rural Residential. There are no plan to changes to this area. The lot is just over 10 acres in size, 330’ x 700’. There is currently a 3,265 square foot, two story home on the property. The subject property is located inside a geographical area identified as the “Super-Block” or large lot neighborhood. Mr. Benetti shared an image of the super-block area, bordered by Delaware Avenue, Wentworth Avenue, part of Dodd and Marie Avenue. Under the R-1A, all single family lots have to be a minimum of 125’ width and 30,000 square feet. The report indicated that the parcel would be split between an east parcel and a west parcel. The east parcel would equate to 4.23 gross acres with 0.23 of that acreage would be assigned to Delaware Avenue for the right-of-way, resulting in a net acreage of 4.00. The current residence would remain on the east parcel. The west parcel is to be split off and would create a net parcel of 5.82 acres. June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 4 of 21 City code requires that all lots have a minimum street frontage of 125 feet. With this split, there would be no frontage on the west parcel. As part of this request, the applicants are proposing to attach this to Lot 3, which does contain the frontage off of Foxwood Lane; therefore, the 5.82 acres being combined with Lot 3 would result in a 8.32 acre parcel. As part of this lot split, the city is requiring that the applicant combine these parcels; which is allowed by Dakota County. Staff determined that this lot split could be approved as once the west parcel is combined with the third lot, it would no longer be a non-conforming lot. Staff recommended approval of this lot split with conditions. Commissioner Noonan requested clarification in that in the beginning of his report, Mr. Benetti used the term ‘later adjoined to an adjacent lot’; however, he subsequently said that the lot split and the lot combination would be advanced together and recorded appropriately at Dakota County. So that there would be a combination and recording if the lot split is approved. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Noonan then noted that there was mention of a dedication coming off of the east parcel for Delaware Avenue. He asked if this was a condition of approval. Mr. Benetti replied that it is part of the easement dedications that they are providing in the documentations. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek could answer more accurately. Mr. Ruzek replied that the County is already showing an easement line back at that point – the 30-foot mark. The city is requesting an additional 10-foot easement over and above that. However, the County would be able to take prescriptive rights on that land due to their county road being through the property. The reason the city is requiring this additional 10 feet is because that is their standard drainage and utility easement per subdivision requirements. Commissioner Noonan, in relation to the west parcel, asked for confirmation that this would be a new lot. Mr. Benetti replied that it would be a new parcel until it gets combined with the other lot. Commissioner Noonan then noted that in previous lot splits there was a condition of payment in lieu of park land. He asked for confirmation that, in this case, they would not be required because of the addition the west parcel to an existing lot on record. Mr. Benetti confirmed that there would be no park dedication allowed since this is not a buildable lot. If this was a lot being created with frontage as a buildable lot, it would require a park dedication and access fees. Commissioner Mazzitello noted that this ‘super block’ does not have municipal sanitary sewer so all of the homes are on septic systems. He asked if it was known if there was enough room on the east parcel to accommodate the existing system and the installation of a new one should it need to be upgraded. Mr. Benetti deferred to the applicant as the septic system was not indicated on the survey. Commissioner Magnuson asked if there were utilities currently running to Lot 3, Foxwood. Mr. Benetti replied that there is only water at this time; no sewer. She then asked what would happen with sanitary sewer if a home wants to be built on that particular lot. Mr. Benetti replied that they would have to provide their own septic. Staff did inform them that, per city policy, if they or someone else decided to build on that 8.32 acre parcel that they would responsible to bring in sewer and water services. June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 5 of 21 Commissioner Magnuson asked for clarification; if they were to build a single family residence the city would not require utilities – only a septic system. However, if they were to build multiple homes then the city would require full expansion of the utilities. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Mr. Paul McGinley, principle surveyor and vice-president of Loucks Associates, came forward to address any questions from the Commission. He noted that, per Mr. and Mrs. Bader, the septic is just off of the pool area in the rear yard and that there was plenty of room for additional system to the north, if necessary and to the southwest as well. Commissioner Magnuson asked if there was any intent to build on the property at the present time. Mr. McGinley replied that the Baders have not expressed to him any interest in building on it at this time. They have a buyer for the current residence and they have put money down on another home elsewhere. Mr. Mike Bader, 1673 Delaware Avenue, stated that the reason for the application is because they have an offer on the current residence. All three offers received for this property had no desire to purchase the entire 10 acres, they wanted something smaller. This is something that all of the neighboring property owners would like to see done. As far as building on the new parcel, they have no intention of doing so. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Ms. Jennifer Lutz, 548 Foxwood Lane, noted that there are three lots as part of the Foxwood Plat. She is on Lot 1, the lot that borders Wentworth Avenue. As mentioned earlier, they have been down this road before about developing. It is worth noticing that there are restrictive covenants on the lots, which have physical descriptions of each one of the lots. Changing the plat of Lot 3 would change an existing contract that is on file with the County. If the Baders are wanting to append that parcel to Lot 3 and agree that it will remain a single family residence, it would not change the nature. If they find that having a bare lot makes it more desirable for selling and building, etc. then the other residents would have no objections as long as it stays a single family lot. They would also ask for an opportunity to come have an agreement to set change to the plat with the covenants being amended to allow for that parcel but keep it a single family home with no changes to Foxwood Lane. She also noted that she lives within 350 feet of Lot 3, Foxwood; however, she was not provided with a mailed notice of this hearing. She requested that if any hearings on this property were to occur in the future, that all of the residents on Foxwood Lane to be notified. For clarity, Chair Field summarized Ms. Lutz comments as wanting an acknowledgment of a private agreement, which the city, county, and state are not a party to, relating to the third lot in Foxwood. He then informed Ms. Lutz that the city is not a party to this private agreement and was in no position to acknowledge or indicate support of said agreement. Ms. Lutz stated that she understood this but wanted it to be understood that changing the legal description of said lot would be essentially changing a signed contract. The Commission noted that if the property were to be June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 6 of 21 developed in a way inconsistent with the signed agreement, then the covenant holders would have other recourses they could follow to get satisfaction. Commissioner Magnuson suggested that someone check with the County to ensure that, if there is a restrictive covenant that runs with the land that does not pose an impediment to the combination of Lot 3 with the west parcel. It the city were to impose that as a condition of this subdivision and it cannot happen, then the subdivision would have to fail. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that the new legal description would still have Lot 3 of the Foxwood Plat as part of the legal description. It would only add the means and bounds from this adjacent un-platted property. If they are comfortable with it as far as amending their existing covenants, it sounds like everything would proceed easily. Mr. Benetti replied that he would check into this. Mr. Tim Aune, 554 Foxwood Lane, stated that he was unopposed to the proposed lot split and annexation of the west parcel of Lot 3, Foxwood provided the following occurs: • Current and any future owners of Lot 3 would be prohibited from claiming any kind of hardship on any variance application going forward from the date of approval • The plat of Foxwood, as well as any records or documents on file with Dakota County, be updated and amended to reflect the new legal description • He was not inferring in any way, shape, or form enforcement, he was only inferring propagation of the information – the County is notified that Foxwood has been replatted and this is now Lot 3. Any materials in their possession should reflect that new plat Commissioner Noonan and Commission Mazzitello both noted that this lot is not being ‘replatted’. What is happening is a lot split and a lot addition, which is a lot less than re-platting. Mr. Benetti replied that typically when there is a lot combination like this, the County will simply discard the old PID on Lot 3 and create a new one because it has a new legal description. A new PID will be assigned to this new parcel. The description would not put Lot 3 in the un-platted area; it will be a combined legal description with a new PID typically. Mr. Aune asked if he was correct in assuming that when that happens, the city would communicate with the County. Mr. Benetti replied that the applicant would bring the surveys to the County and they would record them as part of the recordable documents that go with it, including the lot split combination forms. Also, they bring over the city’s resolution – if the Council approves – to confirm that the city reviewed and approved. The city would then a copy back from the county. The city gives the required materials to the applicant and it is their responsibility to have it recorded. The city does not do that. In an attempt to further clarify the answer to Mr. Aune, Commissioner Noonan stated that once the lot split, if approved, and the combination takes place and the materials are presented to Dakota County for recording, there will be a new title certificate prepared. The new title certificate will bring forward anything that is currently recorded against any of the pieces of property that are then combined into the one lot. Mr. Aune stated that he believes this answered his question. Mr. Aune then stated that it was his wish that, exclusive of the commission as private parties, they could get unanimous agreement to amend the document themselves to provide clarify and June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 7 of 21 ambiguity. He understood that the city has no responsibility, let alone interest, in documents between private parties. Ms. Lisa Gray, 540 Wentworth Avenue, stated that her property borders both the west portion of the Baders property and Foxwood Lot 3. In the past, the Baders have always been looking to develop the property into three or more lots, which she has objected to. She believes that it would go against the essential nature of the neighborhood, which is really important to them who live there. To the extent that they intend to split the lot and append it to Lot 3; to the extent that the intent to do that is to just have a single family dwelling with respect to Lot 3 – she has no objection. However, they will continue to object to any development that is past a single family home. They would request that the record reflect the recommendations of the staff as they are very important to maintaining the viability of that single family neighborhood. They also asked that it be specifically noted that the Baders have stated that they have no plans to develop the property at this point and that the record reflect that they would have no hardship or practical difficulties as an argument if somebody in the future wanted to develop that. Mr. Paul McGinley returned and noted that Lot 3 would remain Lot 3, all of the covenants that relate to Lot 3 will pass down. If someone were to purchase the now 8.3 acre parcel, they would receive all of the title information and all of the covenants that go with Lot 3 – that would carry through with the property so there is no risk of any of those covenants being lost in this process. Lot 3 and the south parcel would just be combined into one tax parcel, which cannot be subdivided in the future without full approval. Lot 3 still exists as it is not being re-platted. Commissioner Noonan asked for clarification that the intent at this point is simply to split the lots that fronts onto Delaware Avenue in two, and then to combine the west parcel with Lot 3, Foxwood to create one PID and one parcel. Mr. McGinley confirmed. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-14 LOT SPLIT (SUBDIVISION) AND LOT COMBINATION REQUEST BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed lot split and combination meet the purpose and intent of the City Code under Title 11 - Subdivision Regulations and can be considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed lot split and lot combination will not create any negative impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood. June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 8 of 21 3. The requirement to have the Applicant legally combine the two parcels, identified herein as Lot 3, Block 1, Foxwood and the West/South Parcel, will eliminate any nonconforming issue or status of the newly created parcel. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The newly created parcel, identified and described as the “West Parcel” on the attached survey drawings (prepared by Loucks - dated 05/24/2018) shall be combined with the existing Lot 3, Block 1, Foxwood. 2. The applicant shall dedicate a new 300-ft. wide (approximate) drainage and utility easement over the westerly part of the “West Parcel”; and dedicate drainage and utility easements over the north 5.00 feet, the south 5.00 feet, the east 40.00 feet (including 30- feet of Delaware Avenue) and the westerly 10.00 feet of the “East Parcel”, and all must be denoted on the certificate of survey or recordable document approved by the city and filed with Dakota County. 3. The new 8.32 acre parcel to be created after the combination process can only be used for one (1) single-family residential dwelling development; unless the Owner receives full consideration and approval by the city of a new subdivision under separate application(s), per City Code Title 11 – Subdivision Regulations. 4. Since this application is entirely initiated by the Applicant and due to their own action and preference, any approval of this lot split and lot combination does not in any way provide a future hardship or automatic allowance to the Applicant or any future owners of the 8.32 acre parcel (or adjacent lands), to have this area subdivided in the future with a reduced roadway design equal to the existing Foxwood Lane right-of-way. Commissioner Magnuson asked that the motion be changed from ‘the four recommendations’ to ‘the four conditions’. Commissioner Noonan agreed. Commissioner Noonan requested the applicant to pay particular attention to Condition #3 and Condition #4. These clearly states that there is no future consideration or entitlements by virtue of this application. Commissioner Noonan was very clear in asking the question of the surveyor to make sure that it was clearly understood for all of those in attendance, that strictly what the Commission was doing was to split and combine; not providing any further entitlements or rights. Commissioner Mazzitello noted that, if not for the proposed combination of the west parcel and Lot 3, Foxwood, the lot split would require variances for not having proper frontage and right-of- way access. Therefore, the west parcel on its own could not be developed. There could not be a building on the west parcel at all if not for the lot combination. He offered a friendly amendment to Condition #1 by adding a second sentence stating “No development of the west parcel will be allowed until the aforementioned lot combination is recorded with Dakota County”. Commissioner Noonan accepted the amendment, as did Commissioner Magnuson. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 2, 2018 meeting. June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 9 of 21 D) PLANNING CASE #2018-15 JACKIE AND MIKE CHASE, 1680 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS ROAD CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR NEW SWIMMING POOL AND PATIO/DECK Working from materials provided to the commission prior to the meeting, Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Jackie and Mike Chase were requesting a Critical Area Permit to construct a new swimming pool and patio/deck. The property is located in the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area and requires a Critical Area Permit. A notice of hearing on this item was posted and published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters were mailed to all property owners within 350-feet of the subject property. No comments or objections have been received. The property is located at the tail end of Mayfield Heights Road, which T’s off of Sibley Memorial Highway, is a 1.42 acres in size, zoned R-1 One Family Residential, and guided for low density residential development. In March 2015 the city adopted Resolution 2015-16 approving a critical area permit, conditional use permit, wetlands permit, and variance requests in order to demolish an old dwelling and construct a new single-family dwelling. The site now contains a 3,400 square foot single family home. The proposed location of the pool is a very flat surface area and no part of the boundary or bluff line would be affected by the construction of said pool. The pool would sit a considerable distance away from that and would not affect any of that landscaping or tree area; there is also no loss of trees or vegetation with this construction. Mr. Benetti shared an image of the layout of the existing home, garage, and proposed pool and patio/deck areas. They wish to install a new 16’ x 38’ in-ground swimming pool, with a concrete patio-deck around the perimeter and have a new fence around the outer areas. There would be some new retaining walls along the outer perimeter and a new retention wall to provide for positive drainage. The city also invited the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources representatives to review this application and they had no comments or objections. Mr. Benetti reviewed the standards for reviewing a critical area permit and explained how this request meets those standards. Staff recommended approval of this Critical Area Permit request with conditions. Ms. Jackie Chase, 1680 Mayfield Heights Road, came forward to answer questions from the Commission, which there were none. She had nothing to add to the staff report. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 10 of 21 COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-15 CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR NEW SWIMMING POOL AND PATIO/DECK BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed new swimming pool, patio/deck and retaining wall structures are reasonable and generally acceptable accessory uses of the subject property; and meets the general purpose and intent of the Code, including the location (setbacks) of the pool and retaining wall materials, and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed construction activities will not remove any additional vegetation and the proposed design will not damage or cause any negative or long-term negative effects upon the critical area; nor will the character of the neighborhood be affected or altered. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The Owners/Applicant must obtain an approved building permit prior to any work commencing on the swimming pools or wall structures. 2. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 3. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. Commissioner Magnuson noted that under STAFF RECOMMENDATION the first line reads “Staff recommends approval of the critical area permit and variance requests for the proposed retaining wall structure . . .” Mr. Benetti replied that his cut/paste skills are not very good and this was from a previous notation. There is NOT a variance and it is not a proposed retaining wall. It should read “. . . critical area permit for a proposed swimming pool and patio/deck and fence and retaining walls.” There are no variances. The conditions are accurate and reflective. Commissioner Mazzitello accepted the amendment, as did Commissioner Noonan. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 2, 2018 meeting. June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 11 of 21 E) PLANNING CASE #2018-16 SARAH & JASON BARRETT / JOHN & DEANNE BENNETT, 754 AND 760 UPPER COLONIAL DRIVE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, LOT SPLIT/COMBINATION AND VARIANCES Working from materials provided to the commission prior to the meeting, Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Sarah & Jason Barrett and John & Deanne Bennett were requesting a lot line adjustment, lot split-combination and variances for their properties located at 754 and 760 Upper Colonial Drive. A notice of hearing on this item was posted and published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters were mailed to all property owners within 350-feet of the subject property. No comments or objections have been received. Mr. Benetti shared an image of the two properties in relation to the location along Upper Colonial Drive and Wentworth Park. He noted that when the Cherry Hill Addition was approved back in 1960, they created these Outlot A and B. In 1963 the Village of Mendota Heights was granted two separate certificates of title for Outlot A and B; which were eventually incorporated into what is now referred to as Wentworth Park. In 2008 a neighboring parcel asked for a very similar parcel lot line adjustment and received that approval. In 2015 the Council also approved a similar lot line adjustment between 750 and 754 Upper Colonial Drive. To make this lot conform to requirements, the owners requested that the city sell off or deed off a part of Wentworth Park. This almost 4,000 square foot parcel was deeded off to accommodate and ensure this parcel met the area requirements and, more importantly, met the setback requirement. The last four houses along Upper Colonial Drive’s foundations were laid in, they were not laid in properly – probably due to a surveying error in the 1960’s. All of these houses had this lot line requirement. This request would move the lot line between the two properties (754 and 760 Upper Colonial Drive) over by 8.25 feet to eliminate the encroachment on the existing building. Even with the adjustment, the Bennett lot becomes a little bit bigger but it still does not meet site area setbacks of 10 feet, would still remain a non-conforming situation; therefore, a variance is required. To solve the encroachment and to meet the purpose and intent of the city code, even though it is not fully meeting, it still provides a big relief for homeowners. Under the variance process, if the Commission were to accept that it still provides a general relief for the current owners and any future owners. In September 2017, planning staff was notified by a neighboring resident that a new shed was being built in the rear yard area of 754 Upper Colonial Drive; owned by the Barrett’s, and appeared to be located on city-owned park lands. Upon investigation it was determined that this was true and a “stop-work” order was issued. During this inspection, staff also discovered that the property June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 12 of 21 at 760 Upper Colonial Drive (the Bennett’s) may have had a fence and garden installed outside their legal property boundary. The applicants stated that they believed that park land area to be part of their rear yards and were unaware of the ownership by the city. Since these areas were essentially being unused by the city, they asked that the city consider deeding over these two wedge-shaped parcels to them. That way, the garden, fence, and shed encroachments could remain in place, subject to city council approval. The parcel to be created behind 760 Upper Colonial Drive consists of 5,792 square feet, or 0.133 acres. The parcel behind 754 Upper Colonial Drive is 7,242 square feet, or 0.166 acres. If this part of the application were approved, staff would make the necessary changes to the upcoming 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Staff has no objections to this request and noted that no portion of these properties being separated from the park would be buildable on its own or separated. It has to be combined or joined in the two subject parcels as part of this approval. Staff did not have the park land appraised nor any land value determined. The Barrett’s and Bennett’s submitted a letter of intent, whereby each homeowner offered to pay $500.00 (total of $1,000) to the city’s general park fund as payment of these parcels. Previously, the owners of 750 Upper Colonial purchased the small parcel of city land for $100.00 plus legal fees. Staff acknowledges the two owners as having contributed a considerable amount of time, energy, and expense in preparing the survey documents of these properties and that they have also agreed to pay for any legal and title fees to complete the transactions. Also, they have maintained that area of the park land on their own, having believed it to be a portion of their yard. Very little maintenance, if any, has been provided by the public works department. The Parks & Recreation Commission reviewed this application at their meeting on June 12, 2018, listened to staff explanations and reasoning for this lot split and possible transfer of park land to private property owners, the value of which had not been determined. Two primary concerns were raised by the Parks and Recreation Commission: • Are the properties valued properly • Would this action set a precedence and open the city to other requests to sell park land In the end, the Parks & Recreation Commission elected to recommend approval and let the City Council resolve the precedent setting issue and determine value of the land, by a vote of 3-2. Staff recommended approval of this request with conditions. Commissioner Mazzitello asked for clarification that there was no way to place the lot line between the two structures that would allow for two compliant setbacks. Mr. Benetti confirmed. The proposed adjustment would be the minimum needed to get the current lot line off of the structure. June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 13 of 21 Commissioner Corbett asked what had been investigated with respect to privately handling the rear lot line issues versus involving the city. Mr. Benetti replied that the private property owner could fix the encroachments onto the city-owned property. The other alternative would be for the city to impose upon them a code enforcement action to remove the fencing, garden, and partially built shed, and then the city would take it over again. However, for all intents and purposes, the city has not been maintaining or taking care of it. Commissioner Noonan asked if staff considered the city’s need for the park land parcels; do they serve any city need. Mr. Benetti replied that at this point, the answer is no. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that park staff is highly supportive of this application being approved and this land being transferred over to the private land owners. It is a wet area so park staff rarely maintains it. It is not large enough for any recreational uses. Commissioner Toth asked if the property owner, who installed the fencing, had come to the city for a permit. Mr. Benetti replied that he has no record of any permit request. Commissioner Magnuson recollected that in 2015, when they did the Nordin property, they discussed much on how that problem occurred and what likely happened; fully recognizing that it would not be the only lot that would be nonconforming. Upon being asked by Commissioner Noonan, Mr. Benetti replied that the reason for the variance request in this situation, rather than a new PID request as in the Bader application, was for consistency. Since a variance was issued on the neighboring lot in 2015, then a variance was requested here for setback requirements. The variance could be eliminated as the conditions still cover the attachment of the Outlots to the parcels. Commissioner Toth asked if $500 each from the property owners is a fair price because the addition of these parcels increases their lot size and potentially raise their resell value. Mr. Benetti replied that he did not know where the $100 value came from in 2015. According to the Council that $100 value was fair. These property owners are offering five times as much, will pay the legal fees associated with the transfer of ownership, and have maintained the land as part of their rear yards. However, it would be better for the Council to determine fair value because they are ones who did accept the $100 value previously. Mr. Jason Barrett, 754 Upper Colonial, apologized for not doing his homework to determine if he was able to build his shed in the location that it is in. Since has no defense, he would be willing to pay double the fee to obtain a building permit for his shed. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Ms. Carol Lang, 779 Upper Colonial Drive, came forward to address the issue of the unused park land. She stated that Wentworth Park has existed since she moved into Mendota Heights in 1977. Both of the parcels in question have structures already located on them – the fence being built approximately 12 years ago. There is a stand of older beautiful trees in the area and the neighbors do use that area to walk their dogs and the kids play in the woods. It may be unused by the city but it is used by the neighborhood. The park adds to the serene quiet atmosphere that everyone in June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 14 of 21 Mendota Heights enjoys. The city does maintain the property adjacent to these two parcels and she does not understand why they don’t maintain these areas as well. When she walks through there it does not appear to be a ‘wetland’. Her concern is that deeding these parcels to the private property owners would be setting a bad precedence within Mendota Heights. She and her neighbors compiled some recommendations, which she shared with the Commission: • The neighbors support the Bennett’s and the Barrett’s in their mission to get everything resolved; however, they should only purchase the park land that is necessary to maintain their fence, garden, and shed. Leave the rest as open space for the neighborhood to use. • They would like to ensure that the purchase price is of fair market value • She had signatures from 10 people who live on Upper Colonial Drive and Wentworth that support coming up with some compromise agreement Chair Field requested that the signed petition be left with staff for the public record. Commissioner Toth asked if public works was taking care of the property around that area and included mowing the trail, why were these parcels located on the backside of these homes not maintained as well. Mr. Ruzek replied that he spoke with the parks lead staff person and he felt that this part of the property was not usable park land. It could be used as open space; however, the city would not be maintaining this area. Staff has been looking at, as part of the pollinator friendly initiative, looking at not maintaining certain areas. Commissioner Toth expressed his appreciation to the property owners for taking the initiative upon themselves for taking care of these two parcels. Ms. Susan Anzion, 766 Upper Colonial Drive, echoed the suggestion made earlier about the desire to let the property owners keep the pieces they have already been maintaining, just leave the wooded areas behind as park land. She also recommended that the Commissioners come out and take a look at the land. Mr. Stan Lang, 779 Upper Colonial Drive, noted that there is a stream very close to the property under consideration. The stream runs all of the way through the wetlands, through the neighborhood, over the hill, and all of the way down to the river. It is nice to have a barrier property around this that is not being treated by chemicals, there is a lot of wildlife there and he has used it himself lots of times to walk his dogs. It is a delightful little space. Mr. Jason Barrett returned and expressed his appreciation for the feedback from the neighbors and stated that he too value the strip of trees and has no wish to touch them at all. He has no wish to stop the neighbors from walking their dogs back there. He did not that the little stream did not appear to be a part of the land under consideration. It is close; however, it is not on the properties. He has a lot of respect, commitment, and love for the nature and wildlife, which is why they like this property so much. He would not want to prevent anyone from using the land as it exists now. June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 15 of 21 There is a path behind the Bennett’s fence and what he mows as his yard, however, it is not a trail or anything. He has only seen the Anzion’s using it. He has seen some deer back there as well. It seems to him that keeping the access to the park would be a good thing. Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-16 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, VARIANCE, AND LOT SPLIT/COMBINATION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, SUBJECT TO THE DELETION OF ANY REFERENCE TO THE VARIANCE: The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed Lot Line Adjustment and Variance requests: 1. The proposed lot line adjustment and variance requests meet the purpose and intent of the City Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The purpose of the requests are to resolve an existing encroachment over the interior property boundary line. 3. The existing conditions were not created by the current property owners and provides a reasonably relief from these standards; and creates a practical difficulty in adjusting the interior property boundary line in compliance with the lot width standard in order to address the non-conformities created by the encroachment. 4. Other alternatives to attain compliance that would require removal of portions of the dwelling or acquisition of additional property not owned by the applicants, which is deemed impractical. 5. Approval of the requests will have no visible impact on either property and will not negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed Lot Split/Lot Combination and related Variance requests: 1. The proposed subdivision request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The purpose of the requests are to formalize the existing conditions and address the nonconformities created by the encroachments onto city-owned property. 3. The temporary non-conformities created as a result of the requests will be eliminated once the property in-question is combined and dissolved by the private property owners. 4. Approval of the requests will not negatively impact the park or the character of the neighborhood. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CONDITION #1, AND THE INSERTION OF THE LANGUAGE STATING THAT THE COMMISSION June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 16 of 21 WOULD DEFER TO CITY COUNCIL THE DETERMINE THE VALUE OF THE LAND TO BE ACQUIRED BY THE APPLICANTS: 1. The Applicants agree to pay $500.00 to the city’s Park Reserve Fund as payment for each parcel to be transferred to them as part of the lot split approval on the city-owned park land. 2. The Applicants shall combine or attach the new parcels created under the lot split to their own respective homestead parcels. 3. All transfer or deed documents which convey the portion of lands under the lot line adjustment and lot split process shall be recorded with Dakota County. 4. The Applicants agree to pay for any legal fees by the city attorney should any work be done by them in the preparation of a purchase agreement or any other legal documents, title work, and/or recording documents. Commissioner Noonan stated that he listened very carefully to the recommendation and the notion of bifurcating that park land, the surplus land and the back of the Bennett’s to the fence line, just narrows it even more and makes less usable. He also wanted to defer to the Parks & Recreation Commission because they are the stewards of park land within the city. If they have made the decision that it’s not needed for city purposes and it could be declared surplus, and a conveyance to the adjoining owners can be made, he would defer to that decision. However, ultimately Council will have to weigh the recommendations of both the Park & Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission. AYES: 5 NAYS: 1 (CORBETT) ABSENT: 1 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 2, 2018 meeting. B) PLANNING CASE #2018-13 KRISTIN ELMQUIST (OWNER – FOR THE LOVE OF DOGS) ZONING CODE AMENDMENT – DOG TRAINING IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL ZONE Working from materials provided to the commission prior to the meeting, Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the Commission was being asked to consider a request from Ms. Kristin Elmquist, owner of For the Love of Dogs located in Hudson, WI, for an amendment to City Code Title 12-1G-1 which would allow dog training or similar uses as a permitted or conditional use in the I-Industrial Zone. A notice of hearing on this item was posted and published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters were mailed to all property owners within 350-feet of the subject property. No comments or objections have been received. Mr. Benetti stated that since has been working for the city, he has received a number of calls from various groups, individuals, and businesses wanting to provide a ‘doggie daycare’ service or business. Almost 90% of them have been looking at the old Laser-Tech building on Lexington Avenue. Ms. Elmquist also looked at this particular site; however, the deal fell through. She has tentatively secured a tenant-lease space at 1415 Mendota Heights Road. June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 17 of 21 Mr. Benetti also noted that he has spoken with his colleagues in other communities and attended a planning seminar; he discovered that doggie daycare type facilities have become very popular with many trying to incorporate them into their ordinances. Ms. Elmquist provides for very professional, on-site dog training only, which would include manners, obedience, tracking and hunting training, along with canine massage therapy services. Also, the facility would contain an indoor pool for dock-diving training and competition. Mr. Benetti noted that the city code is somewhat silent on what could be allowed for animal care or animals per se. There are currently two definitions in the city code: Animal Kennel and Veterinary. Currently, the B-1 Limited Business District allows for a cat clinic as a Conditional Use. The B-w Neighborhood Business and B-3 General Business districts allow Animal Hospital (Veterinary Clinic) as Conditional Use. Even though the city identifies animal kennels under the Title 12 Zoning, there are no allowances for them. Mr. Benetti researched this as far back as 1991 and discovered that it has always been defined, but it was never listed as a permitted or conditional use under any part of the city’s updated zoning ordinances. The City of West St. Paul probably has one of the best description of what a dog training facility is. Mr. Benetti spoke with their city planner and the use or activity over there is very successful and it has generated zero complaints. If the city were to accept this zoning ordinance, they could simply amend Animal Kennels definition as, “A place where three (3) or more of any single type of domestic animal are owned, boarded, bred, cared-for, trained, or offered for sale”. The intent would be that if anyone wanted to have a doggie daycare use in the Industrial Zoning or a training facility, it could come under as a dog kennel and this would cover it. If the city decided to amend the definition to allow for training activities, then they would need to decide or determine which zoning district it would be placed in and if it would be a permitted use or a conditional use. He reminded the commission that by placing this stand-alone use inside a district, there would be no standards affixed to said use, unless the commission recommended otherwise. Mr. Benetti took the West St. Paul standards, and incorporated some of the same standards associated with Vet Clinics, and presented his suggestion for the Animal Kennel ordinance language. Staff recommended the Commission discuss Animal Kennels or Animal/Dog Training Facility; or simply amend Animal Kennel or provide Animal Training Facility as a new use, and where that use should be allowed. June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 18 of 21 Commissioner Noonan noted that if the city were to keep it as a conditional use it provide the city with additional flexibility to be more responsive to specific applications. He would be inclined to go with the conditional use. Chair Field agreed that this should be a conditional use. Commissioner Magnuson suggested that the Commission answer the three major questions: 1. Should the proposed use or activities be a conditional use or a permitted use? 2. Should the city limit use to the I-Industrial District or allow into one or more of the Business Districts? 3. Should the city limit it to a dog training facility and just add one more narrow use in the code? (If so - the city needs to take this opportunity to clean-up the current Code language, follow Bloomington’s lead and change the name to “Pet Care or Pet Service Facility” - as opposed to a kennel; and incorporate veterinary clinic and animal hospital under these new defined uses). Commissioner Magnuson also agreed that it should be a conditional use but she would be agreeable to having it in the Industrial District or the Business District, or both. Commissioner Noonan commented that having it in the Industrial District would allow for much larger facilities than would be permitted in the Business Districts. Chair Field agreed. Chair Field opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward. Ms. Kristin Elmquist, owner of For the Love of Dogs based out of Hudson, WI, stated that she is trying to open an additional facility in the Twin Cities Metro area to try and expand her business. Commissioner Magnuson stated that she has no problem with what is being planned; however, this gives the commission an opportunity to clean up their code a little bit. If this were to take a month or more, would that have any negative effect upon their application or schedule? Ms. Elmquist replied that it would kill the deal they have on a potential location. If she is not able to move on the lease quickly, then the landlord will look elsewhere and they would have to withdraw their application. Commissioner Noonan reiterated the comments and ideas made by the commission; however, they do not have an ordinance in front of them to consider. Ms. Elmquist understood but again, explained her dilemma of needing to move quickly to obtain the space. Commissioner Magnuson stated that she is not ready to vote on this document at this time; it is not ready. The commission would probably be looking at reviewing the ordinance at next month’s meeting at the soonest. Ms. Elmquist stated that the landlord would like to see them open their doors by September 1, 2018. Much after that then the landlord would pull the plug on the deal. She asked if the June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 19 of 21 review/adoption of the ordinance and her application for a conditional use permit could happen simultaneously. Commissioner Toth noted that tracking and hunting training typically requires overnight stays for the dogs; however, Ms. Elmquist states that this particular facility would not be kenneling any dogs. Ms. Elmquist responded that any type of overnight training would take place at the Hudson facility and not at this facility. This facility would only be for classes where the owner would also attend and when finished, they would all leave and go home with their owner. Commissioner Noonan stated that if the city were to consider this amendment, then they would want to provide broad definitions and not only tailor it to her specific request. He also agreed that the commission was not in any position to pass an ordinance at this time because they do not have an ordinance to act upon. The best they could do would be to make a strong recommendation to staff, have them bring it back with the necessary homework having been done, and act upon it at that time. In response to Ms. Elmquist’s question about submitting her conditional use permit application at the same time the ordinance was under consideration, Chair Field responded that her application could be submitted but it would have to be contingent upon the ordinance being passed and her application being in compliance with that ordinance. Mr. Benetti agreed and stated that in order to apply standards to a conditional use permit, he would need to have an ordinance to provide those standards. In the interest of brainstorming, Commissioner Mazzitello suggested that the commission have staff craft an ordinance for the July meeting that had a very specific list of permitted uses, and then they could have the insularly uses as conditional. There would be no secondary process for the applicants, but the commission could still have a number the varying uses that have been deliberated under the CUP process. Commissioner Magnuson asked, that since the commission only makes recommendations, if there was any reason why the commission could not entertain a conditional use permit application at the same meeting that they are entertaining an ordinance. In other words, hear and decide on the ordinance and then hear and decide on the conditional use permit. One of the conditions of the CUP would be that the ordinance be adopted by the City Council. Commissioner Mazzitello noted that the risk of that suggestion would be that the ordinance may change, making the CUP application void. However, if the applicant were willing help craft the ordinance, the risk would be less. Commissioner Corbett stated that he believed either of those options was a good idea, he was just unsure which one to pursue. Additional discussions took place regarding an outdoor fenced relief area, kenneling, owners being present with their dogs at all times, length of time for the classes, and sanitation measures. June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 20 of 21 Chair Field brought all back to the task at hand, which was to consider an amendment to the City Code and after listening to everything it appears that the Commission would be in favor. The issue is on what basis and how and how fast can they make it in respect to Ms. Elmquist’s needs and balance the city’s needs. Commissioner Magnuson suggested a recommendation and guidance. It appeared that the commission had settled on three of the big items; however, they do not know if the City Council would agree to that. If the Commissioner were to put forth a recommendation saying this is what they want the ordinance to look like, then they would not have to waste their time crafting an ordinance that the city council would not ultimately agree with. Commissioner Noonan, in an attempt to clarify, said the Commission would: 1) Recommend a refined definition of Pet Service or Pet Care Facility [as discussed]; 2) Recommend a distinction between uses that are permitted as a right versus uses that would require a conditional use permit; and 3) Recommend any use be allowed in the I-Industrial zone only. The Commission requested feedback and direction from the City Council. Chair Field left the public hearing open. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO MAKE THE ABOVE MENTIONED RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 Staff Update on Approved or Pending Developments Community Development Director provided the following updates: Planning Case 2018-11, Wetlands Permit to Sherburne Construction & Hugh Cullen for property located 1179 Centre Point Circle as passed as Resolution 2018-38. No decision has been received on the Michael Development case. The At Home Apartments hosted a tour of their facility with the City Council and other staff members, along with former Mayor Krebsbach and former Councilmember Norton, which everyone enjoyed and were impressed with the facility. It is a very nice, well designed project. There are two items already planned for next month’s Planning Commission meeting. Adjournment June 26, 2018 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 21 of 21 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:40 P.M. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 Planning Report DATE: June 24, 2018 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-18 Lot Split Subdivision (Lot Combination) APPLICANT: Robbie Bluhm PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1629 Dodd Road / 694 Wentworth Avenue ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR-Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: October 20, 2018 (120-days per MN State Statute § 462.358) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Mr. Robbie Bluhm are requesting approval to subdivide his single-family residential property located at 1629 Dodd Road into two (2) separate parcels. The split will provide a smaller sized parcel for the existing residential dwelling at 1629 Dodd Road; while the resulting parcel to the rear will be combined with the adjacent property located at 694 Wentworth Avenue, also owned by Robbie and Courtney Bluhm. This type of request requires City Council approval before any plat or survey can be accepted and recorded with Dakota County. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcels. BACKGROUND The 1629 Dodd Road property is generally located on the west side of Dodd Road, and south of the Wentworth Avenue and Dodd Road intersection. The “flag-shaped” parcel consists of 1.26 acres of area, and measures approx. 350-ft. in depth, with 101.27-ft. in width (along Dodd Road frontage) and expands to approx. 188-ft. of width in the back lot area. The property contains a 1,453 sq. ft. one-story residential dwelling with an attached 3-car garage (refer to the attached Location/Aerial Map). The Bluhm’s also own the adjacent 0.42 acre (18,150-sf.) parcel located addressed as 694 Wentworth Avenue. This vacant lot abuts the back one-half of the main 1629 Dodd Road property. Both properties are situated in the R-1 One Family Residential district. Single family homes are permitted uses on lots with a minimum width of 100-ft. and lot size of 15,000 sq. ft. in area. Also, setback standards are noted as follows: Planning Report: Case #2018-18 (Bluhm) Page 2 Height Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 1 and 2 stories 15,000 sq. ft. 100' 30' 10' on each side or 1/2 of the height of the structure contiguous to the side yard, whichever is greater, to a maximum of 15' 30' or 20% of the average lot depth, whichever is greater ANALYSIS  Lot Split Title 11-3-2 of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district. The Applicants propose to split the existing 1.26 acre property into two separate legal parcels. The easterly parcel will consist of 16,839 (0.39 acres) in lot area, and will retain the existing dwelling and address off Dodd Road. The remaining 38,045 sq. ft. of land area will be joined or legally combined with the current 694 Wentworth Avenue parcel, thus creating a new 56,191 sq. ft. or 1.29 acre parcel (refer to attached survey). The existing dwelling will maintain a 74.8-ft. setback from Dodd Road; 47.4-ft. from the south line; 39.7- ft. from the newly established rear or west line; and 4.2-ft. from the north line. The new rear yard setback for the dwelling is determined by the average lot depth (197.53’ + 160.73’ = 358.26 / 2) of 179.13-ft. @ 20%, which means a minimum of 35.83-ft. is needed. As evident by the survey, the existing dwelling’s 4.2-ft. setback from the north line does not meet the minimum 10-ft. setback requirement. The existing driveway does not appear to meet the required 5-ft. property line setback as well. Since these “encroachments” are pre-existing and there are no plans to remove or alter this structure, the dwelling will remain as a legal, nonconforming use in the R-1 zone. The Planning Commission will note the westerly parcel will not or does not have any direct access on to Dodd Road as a result of this lot split. Normally, a lot split of this type (and on its own) would not be allowed, as City Code Sect. 11-3-2.D requires all lots to have a minimum 100-ft. frontage as required by the underlying R-1 zoning district standards. By approving this lot split, the new parcel would technically be considered a non-conforming parcel due to the lack of frontage on a “city approved street”. The division of such parcels raises only the concern that property owners understand that no new building rights are granted as a result of the subdivision, unless the parcel has some form of legal street frontage for access. To help ensure that this is made clear, it will be a requirement and condition of approval that the new parcel created by this subdivision action is immediately combined with other adjoining property at 694 Wentworth Avenue. This newly created 1.29 acre lot will remain in the ownership of the Bluhm’s. At this time, the owners have not indicated to staff what their future plans are for the lot; or if they plan to develop it themselves or by others. In any event, only one single-family residential dwelling will be allowed or permitted to be developed on the lot once the parcel combination is filed.  Combination Process The Subdivision Ordinance permits the approval of such subdivisions by metes and bounds descriptions as proposed, rather than full plat. Where no new building site is being specifically created, the minor subdivision can be considered provided it is consistent with the requirements of the City’s subdivision and development regulations. Planning Report: Case #2018-18 (Bluhm) Page 3 Dakota County Recorder’s office has provided to the city lot combination forms, which need to be completed by the Applicants and filed with the survey and city resolution of approval.  Easements The Owner has agreed to provide new 10-foot wide drainage and utility easements along the front and rear yard areas of both parcels; plus 5-foot wide easements along the interior/side parcel boundaries. The exception will be a 4-foot wide easement along the north line of the easterly (homestead) parcel. The city also requested the Owners to dedicate a 20-foot wide “Trail Easement” along the front edge of Dodd Road, which is also shown on the attached survey. The Public Works Director has found these easements to be dedicated (and shown on the survey) as acceptable.  Additional Background & Future Development Opportunities As was presented in the previous month’s lot split/lot combination request by Mike Bader under Planning Case No. 2018-14, the City of Mendota Heights is noting that since this application is entirely initiated by the Applicant and due to their own action and preference, that any approval of this lot split (and lot combination) does not in any way provide a future hardship or automatic allowance to the Applicant, or any future owners of the 1.29 acre parcel, to allow this area to be subdivided in the future with a reduced roadway design or any other variations to city code standards. By combining these properties, the Applicants will be restricted from subdividing the combined properties in the future without full consideration and approval by City of Mendota Heights. Furthermore, in conjunction with City Code Section 12-1D-12, Sanitary Sewer and Water Systems, it is the general policy of the city that there be no future development in the city that is not served by the municipal sanitary sewer and water distribution systems. In this case, future development of this enlarged parcel requires full utilities be extended or served from Wentworth Avenue to the north. ALTERNATIVES for ACTION Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend APPROVAL of the lot split (and lot combination) based on the attached findings of fact and conditions of approval as noted herein; or 2. Recommend DENIAL of the lot split based on revised or determined findings of fact; or 3. TABLE the request, pending additional information from staff or the Applicant. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the lot split as submitted by Robbie and Courtney Bluhm of 1629 Dodd Road and 694 Wentworth Avenue, with the following conditions: 1. The westerly parcel to be created by the split of the 1629 Dodd Road parcel ((PID No. 27-03800- 37-113) shall be combined with the existing 694 Wentworth Avenue Parcel (PID No. 27-03800- 37-020. 2. The applicant shall dedicate all new drainage and utility easements as denoted on the certificate of survey prepared by Bohlen Surveying & Associates, dated March 11, 2018 or a recordable document approved by the city and filed with Dakota County. Planning Report: Case #2018-18 (Bluhm) Page 4 3. The new 1.29 acre parcel to be created after the lot split and lot combination process can only be used for one (1) single-family residential dwelling development; unless the Owner receives full consideration and approval by the city of a new subdivision under separate application(s), per City Code Title 11 – Subdivision Regulations. 4. Since this application is entirely initiated by the Applicant and made by their own action and preference, any approval of this lot split and lot combination does not in any way provide a future hardship or allowances for reduced standards related to platting, street/right-of-way designs, or any other subdivision or zoning standards adopted at that time, should the owners elect to further subdivide this parcel in the future. Attachments 1) Location/Aerial GIS Map 2) Survey 3) Site Photos Planning Report: Case #2018-18 (Bluhm) Page 5 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Lot Split (Subdivision) and Lot Combination Request for 1629 Dodd Road & 694 Wentworth Avenue (Planning Case No. 2018-18) The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed lot split and combination meet the purpose and intent of the City Code under Title 11 - Subdivision Regulations and can be considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed lot split and lot combination will not create any negative impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood. 3. The requirement to have the Applicant legally combine the two parcels eliminates any nonconforming issue or status of the westerly parcel created by the original split. REAR of RESIDENTIAL DWELLING/GARAGE LOOKING EASTERLY - TOWARDS DODD ROAD/DRIVEWAY LOOKING NORTHWARD – TOWARDS REAR LOT LINE LOOKING WESTERLY- TOWARDS REAR OF LOT ? ? G!.G!.6666* *66666666666666!!2 !!2!!2!!2!!2 1629 1635 1603 702 688694 1623 1638 1630 1620 709 670 DODD RDWENTWORTH AV E W 357'321.4'206.6'115'173.6'175.2' 8''16''0''0''Dakota County GIS City ofMendotaHeights080 SCALE IN FEETDate: 7/9/2018 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 containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor 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. 1629 Dodd Rd. & 694 Wentworth Ave.(Robbie & Courtney Bluhm) Planning Report: Case #2018-19 (Ziebol) Page 1 Planning Report MEETING DATE: July 24, 2018 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-19 VARIANCE APPLICANT: Gerald Ziebol PROPERTY ADDRESS: 650 Brookside Lane ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: August 24, 2018 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant is seeking variances from the front-yard (corner side-yard) area setback standards to construct a new one-story residential addition and two-car attached garage addition to an existing non-conforming, single-family dwelling; plus an allowance to keep an existing two-car detached garage on the residential lot. The subject property is located at 650 Brookside Lane. A public hearing notice for this item was published in the local newspaper and notice letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. The applicant provided a list of adjacent homeowners who support his variance request, which are appended to this report. There have been no other comments or objections received from neighboring residents. BACKGROUND The subject parcel is generally located at the southeast corner of Brookside Lane and Laura Street, just south of Somerset Elementary School. The site is 125-ft. deep by 120-ft. wide, or 15,000 sq. ft. in area. The property contains an existing 706-sq. ft. (foundation) sized dwelling, with 994 sf. of finished floor area. Planning Report: Case #2018-19 (Ziebol) Page 2 According to the applicant’s survey (attached hereto), the existing house sits 23.1 to 23.6 feet off Laura Street to the west; 17.0 – 17.3 feet off Brookside Lane to the north; approx. 77-ft. from the east line; and approx. 60-ft. from the south line. The minimum lot and setback standards are noted in the table below: Height Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 1 and 2 stories 15,000 sq. ft. 100' 30' 10' on each side or 1/2 of the height of the structure contiguous to the side yard, whichever is greater, to a maximum of 15' 30' or 20% of the average lot depth, whichever is greater • Side yards abutting a street shall not be less than 30-feet in width. The site also contains an existing 20’ x 30’ two-car detached garage, which is accessed off Laura Street to the west (see image below). The survey appears to show the garage with a 5.9-ft. setback off Laura Street and 2.2-ft. setback off the south line. Looking Northward along Laura Street Google Map – Street View (Applicant’s Garage / Vegetation Screen [Note: this property was also subject to a separate variance request under Planning Case No. 01-28, August 2001 by former owners. The owners were seeking variances for similar home and attached garage addition, but included removal of the detached garage. The variance was denied – per Res. No. 2001-48.] ANALYSIS The applicant wishes to construct a 1,008 sq. ft. addition of living space to the east side of the dwelling, along with a full-extension deck along the south side of said addition, plus a new 22’ x 24’ (528-sf.) two car attached garage addition. The home addition along Brookside Lane is shown with 25.8-ft. setback, while the new 2-car garage addition along the south side of the house is shown with only a 10-ft. setback off Laura Street. The proposed [garage] addition encroaches at least 20-feet into the required 30-ft. corner side yard/street frontage setback area along Laura Street; and approx. 15-ft. into the 30-ft. front yard setback off Brookside Lane. The applicant also requests an allowance of keeping the current 2-car detached garage, whereas pursuant to City Code Sect. 12-1D-3 Accessory Structures, any residential parcel under 0.75 acres in size is not allowed to have a second detached garage if an attached (or detached) garage is present. Planning Report: Case #2018-19 (Ziebol) Page 3 When considering a variance in any case, the City is required to find or determine if certain elements or findings have been met or warranted to grant such approval. These standards are noted below, along with follow-up comments by city staff. 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. The Applicant responded in their variance application narrative with the following: “Updates to existing home would better align it with adjacent and neighboring homes located in the area. The proposed addition of an attached two car garage and expansion of the living space (est. 2000 fsf) would provide a more uniform presence in the neighborhood and add aesthetic value to the home and neighborhood.” An expansion of any existing single-family dwelling, especially where it creates additional living/usable space and value to the existing home, along with a new (and highly desirable) attached garage, is a reasonable use of the property and could be considered generally compliant with the Comprehensive Plan. Even the statement that the existing detached garage at its current location and proximity to the current home makes it somewhat less convenient to the owner (and possibly even less desirable for future owners) is somewhat plausible. However, front yard setbacks along any street frontage are intended to ensure that adequate green space exists between the structures and the roadways; that adequate drainage and utility easements along property boundary lines are unimpeded; and help provide adequate buffering between structures. For all intents and purposes, the expansion along the north boundary line with Brookside Lane, should have very little, if any impact to the neighboring properties to the north, since this is a heavily wooded and undeveloped area of Somerset Elementary property. The property owners to the east along Brookside may also be unaffected by any encroachment in this area due in part to the large separation distance between houses. The setback along Laura Street however, presents a large concern. Reducing the current (non-conforming) setback from 23-feet down to 10-feet is quite considerable; and should not be supported. Although it may appear neighboring homes across the street (660 Brookside and 657 – 1st Ave. and 651 – 1st Ave to the south) may also have some very reduced setbacks for their own homes (see GIS image – above), this does not provide an argument or precedent for the Applicant to increase his own non-conforming encroachment to accommodate a preferred expansion plan. In addition, front yard setbacks for structures are intended to promote a uniform frontage along the street and allow adequate space between the right-of-way and property boundary lines for utilities or future improvements. The proposed expansion would encroach approximately 20-feet into the required front yard, leaving just under 10-feet in “open-space” areas between the structure and right-of-way. This encroachment does not seem reasonable under this request. The Applicant also seeks an allowance – thus a variance to City Code Sect. 12-1D-3 (Accessory Structures) to keep the existing detached garage with the new two-car attached garage, provided the city approves his setback variances. The ordinance is very clear, in that residential properties under 0.75 acres in size are not entitled to have a detached garage as a second garage if the home already has an attached (or another detached) garage. The allowance of having two garages on this small residential lot does not seem reasonable, and is not supported. Even if the applicant moved the proposed garage back and lined it up with the westerly edge of the dwelling (keeping a 23.1-ft. setback), the existing detached garage would still be too much to consider allowing to stay under this request. If a variance is approved for a new attached garage in this case, a recommendation or condition of approval should be the detached garage must be removed. Planning Report: Case #2018-19 (Ziebol) Page 4 2. The applicant establishes there are practical difficulties with complying with the ordinance due to circumstances that are unique to the property which are not created by the applicant or based on economic considerations; The Applicant responded in their variance application narrative with the following: “There is a detached garage located on the southwest corner that is located approximately 50-ft. from the home, walking to and from the garage space creates a hardship, which will only increase as they age.” The city acknowledges there are somewhat unique circumstances that exist on this property, due in large part to the location or placement of the home on the parcel, which was not created by the applicant. This property consists of two platted lots, which were likely combined a number of years ago to form one single parcel. Staff assumes the original house was built on one lot and the second interior lot contained a home at one time, which has since been removed. However, the location of the dwelling on the subject parcel only creates a practical difficulty in expanding the structure in the manner as proposed by the applicants. It appears that an expansion of the home and attached garage could be accomplished by expanding towards the back yard area and away from the street frontages, especially the front-side yard off Laura Street; thus eliminating or adding to the already non- conforming setbacks affecting the existing dwelling. Zoning Code allows for limited encroachments of covered/enclosed entryways, porches, decks, stoops, or similar structures into required yard setbacks under certain conditions. Based on the proposed attached garage improvement within the front yard encroachment, this addition is not eligible under this Code provision. Nevertheless, the applicants could pursue other “reasonable” options of developing or fitting the additions to this property, as they appear to have adequate space in the rear (east) area of the lot. If the home addition and attached garage were to be approved or modified by the applicant, with or without a variance, there does not appear to be any practical difficulty or strong economic reasons for keeping the detached garage under this request. 3. The request will not alter the essential character of the locality. The Applicant responded in their variance application narrative with the following: “Updates to existing home would better align it with adjacent and neighboring homes located in the area. Almost all newer homes in the neighborhood have attached garages. Additionally, in its current state, the home footprint and livable square footage is much smaller than immediate homes in the area, square footage is estimated to be less than 1000 finished square feet. The proposed plan is a reflection of careful consideration in regards to: the current layout of the home, the needs/desires of its residents and the existing homes located in the neighborhood.” Staff does acknowledge the neighborhood does contain a number of homes with two-car or three-car attached garages; however, some of these homes appear to not be meeting certain setbacks, especially along street frontages, such as 660 Brookside Lane (west of subject); 657 – 1st Ave (southwest of subject); and the home and detached garage at 671 – 1st Ave (south of subject). According to the applicants, they intend to make the addition (“updates”) align with and fit in with the existing neighborhood homes. However, the proposed addition (with attached garage) will substantially increase the footprint of the structure towards the street and greatly increase the property’s non-conforming encroachment. Any time an existing structure is not meeting current setbacks, the homeowner should make every attempt to reduce or not add to any encroachment, or increase the non-conformity status of the property. For that reason, Staff’s believes the proposed addition does not necessarily align with or fit in with the neighborhood, and therefore may alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Planning Report: Case #2018-19 (Ziebol) Page 5 ALTERNATIVES for ACTION Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend DENIAL of the variance requests for construction of an addition within the required front and side yard setbacks, based on the attached findings of fact for denial; or 2. Recommend APPROVAL of the variance requests for construction of an addition within the required front and side yard setbacks, based on attached findings of facts for approval, with conditions; or 3. TABLE the request, and extend the application review period an additional 60-days in compliance with Minnesota State Statute. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration of the variances needed for the home/garage addition, along with the allowance of keeping the detached garage should these variances be approved. The setback variances can be considered separately from the detached garage allowance if necessary. If the Planning Commission desires to approve the variances presented herein, the following conditions should be considered: 1. A building permit be obtained prior to construction of the addition or any related improvements. 2. The proposed encroachment for the addition shall not extend further than 10-feet from the Laura Street ROW line; and no closer than 25.5-feet from the Brookside Lane ROW line (per Site Plan). 3. The Applicant shall remove the detached garage once the new attached garage structure and addition is complete. (Note: this condition may be removed or modified per the wishes of the Planning Commission) 4. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations; as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 5. Within one (1) year from approval by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed home and garage addition. Attachments 1. Location/Aerial site map 2. Survey/Elevation Plans 3. Application with Petition of Support from Neighbors 4. Subject Site Photos Planning Report: Case #2018-19 (Ziebol) Page 6 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DENIAL Variance Requests for Dwelling and Garage Addition 650 Brookside Lane (Planning Case No. 2018-19) The following Findings of Fact are made in support of denial of the proposed request: 1. The proposed dwelling and garage addition’s encroachment into the required front and corner side yard setbacks is inconsistent with the intent of the Code to promote green space, preserve adequate drainage and utility easement corridors, and allow for adequate buffering between structures. 2. An addition to accommodate the attached garage structure may be accomplished without the need for a setback variance. 3. While inconvenient or less desirable, an addition to expand the existing dwelling could be accomplished by expanding other portions of the dwelling without the need for a variance. 4. The proposed encroachments into the required setback areas constitute an unreasonable use of the setback area and will substantially increase the footprint of the structure towards the street, both of which are out of character for the neighborhood. Planning Report: Case #2018-19 (Ziebol) Page 7 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Variance Requests for Dwelling and Garage Addition 650 Brookside Lane (Planning Case No. 2018-19) The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1. The request for the variances are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinances; and the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. 2. The existing conditions of the property and placement of the home, both of which were not created by the current homeowner, present a practical difficulties for the homeowner to provide a reasonable sized addition to the home and preferable attached garage improvement that will be more convenient to the homeowner and future owners of the property. 3. The requested variances are considered a reasonable request and the impacts caused by the increased encroachment will not negatively affect the neighboring properties or locality. Planning Report: Case #2018-19 (Ziebol) Page 8 LOOKING NORTHWARD – TOWARDS HOME LOOKING EASTERLY – TOWARDS BACK YARD WEST ELEVATION – FROM LAURA STREET LOOKING NORTHWARD – TOWARDS HOME NORTH ELEVATION – FROM BROOKSIDE LANE DETACHED GARAGE ((? ? ? G!.66666666! "666666666666666 6 666666!!2 !!2 650 646660 645649651657 655 LAURA STBROOKSIDE LN 279.7'240.8'248.3' 6''8''0''2''6''8'' Dakota County GIS City ofMendotaHeights040 SCALE IN FEETDate: 7/10/2018 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 containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor 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. 650 BROOKSIDELANE(Gerald Zeibol residence) Letter of Intent In Support of Request for Variance 650 Brookside Lane, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 This Letter of Intent is in support of a request for a variance to the City setback requirements and Accessory Structure requirements, by Jerry and Yelena Ziebol (residents/owners). The intention is to remodel and add to the existing single-family residence, with the addition of an attached 2-car garage and additional living space. In doing so, as indicated on the attached conceptual plans, it would be necessary to gain approval for: 1.) a variance to build past the standard city residential setbacks of 30 feet 2.) a variance to build an attached garage on a property with an already existing detached garage with a lot size below 0.75 acres. Our underlining purposes for requesting the variances are to: 1.) avoid the hardship of walking from our existing detached garage located ~50 feet from the primary structure, 2.) provide the best possible upgrade to the existing home and lot, factoring in both the homes in the neighborhood and our desire to maintain a reasonable play area for our family. It is our opinion that the granting of the variances will be a positive for the neighborhood and would not be an impediment to our neighbors, as we have received signatures indicating support from our closest neighbors within 100 feet of our home. Thank You for considering our request. Sincerely, Jerry and Yelena Ziebol Please answer the following questions as they relate to the variance request. You may fill-in this form or create your own. 1. In your opinion, does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? ii YES D NO Updates to existing home would better align it with adjacent and neighboring homes located in the area. The proposed addition of an attached two car garage and expansion of the living space (est. 2000 fsf) would provide a more uniform presence in the neighborhood and add aesthetic value to the home and neighborhood. There is a detached garage located on the far Southwest corner that is located approximately 50 feet from the home, walking to and from the garage space creates a hardship, which will only increase as they age. 3. In your opinion, will the variance, if granted, fit with the character of the neighborhood? ii YES D NO Why or why not? Updates to existing home would better align it with adjacent and neighboring homes located in the area. Almost all newer homes in the neighborhood have attached garages. Additionally, in its current state, the home footprint and livable square footage is much smaller than immediate homes in the area, square footage is estimated to be less than 1000 finished square feet. The proposed plan is a reflection of careful consideration in regards to: the current layout of the home, the needs/desires of it's residents and the existing homes located in the neighborhood. The City Council must make an affirmative finding on all of the criteria listed above in order to grant a variance. The applicant for a variance has the burden of proof to show that all of the criteria listed above have been satisfied. Variance Application (modified 41512016) Page 3of3 Planning Report MEETING DATE: July 24, 2018 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-13 Zoning Code Amendment – Dog Training in the I-Industrial Zone APPLICANT: Kristin Elmquist (Owner - For the Love of Dogs) PROPERTY ADDRESS: N/A ZONING/GUIDED: N/A ACTION DEADLINE: N/A INTRODUCTION The City of Mendota Heights is asked to consider an amendment to City Code Title 12-1G-1, which would allow “dog training facility” uses as a conditional use in the I-Industrial district. The applicant is Ms. Kristin Elmquist, owner/operator of For the Love of Dogs, a dog training facility currently located in Hudson, WI. This item was originally presented for initial review and consideration before the Planning Commission at the regular June 26th meeting; whereby a planning report with related information was provided for review; and after fruitful discussion and feedback from the commission and the Applicant, a motion was made with the following suggestions for City Council consideration: 1. Recommend a refined definition of Pet Service or Pet Care Facility [as discussed]; 2. Recommend a distinction between uses that are permitted as a right versus uses that would require a conditional use permit; and 3. Recommend any use be allowed in the I-Industrial zone only. The Commission further requested follow-up feedback and direction from the City Council; and the Chair deemed the item tabled, but left the hearing open for the later planning commission meeting date. City Council Consideration: At the July 2, 2018 regular City Council meeting, staff presented the June 26th planning report and information related to the proposed new use related to dog training and animal/pet service uses. The initial recommendation and request for direction from the Planning Commission was also presented to the council for their consideration. Discussions revolved around the specific dog-training use; and the possible expansion or additional allowances of activities under this or similar animal related uses, such as day-care service, overnight/extended kenneling services, breeding or selling of dogs and animals, clinic care, etc. Planning Case 2018-13 Code Amend-Dog Training (Elmquist) Page 2 of 2 After continued discussion with city staff and Ms. Elmquist, it was determined to focus solely on the needs of Ms. Elmquist for the dog training facility as a conditional use permit in the Industrial Zone. The council felt that if other businesses or interested parties wanted to allow other “animal related” activities, the city should consider them under separate application review process. The council was also supportive of allowing Ms. Elmquist the opportunity to pursue a “tentative” conditional use permit under the guise of a proposed ordinance; provided however she accepts the fact that since no ordinance is officially adopted at this time, the CUP would be at risk of being tabled, withdrawn or must be denied if said ordinance is not adopted by the city. Excerpt minutes from this July 2nd meeting are appended to this report. Planning Commission Follow-up Consideration: Following the consideration of this item, the Planning Commission will be asked to review and give consideration of a separate planning application (Planning Case No. 2018-20) of the proposed conditional use permit for dog training facility, based on the new standards or regulations being offered under the proposed Ordinance No. 529, presented herein. The Applicant (Kristin Elmquist) fully understands and accepts the risk of applying for this CUP, which may entail the item being tabled, denied or withdrawn from further consideration should this draft ordinance be delayed or denied for any reason. For the commission’s continued review and information, the initial planning report from the June 26th regular meeting (related to this item) is also appended to this report. ALTERNATIVES for ACTION Following the re-opening of the public hearing and further discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following alternatives for action: 1. Recommend APPROVAL of the draft Ordinance No. 529 as presented (or amended as needed); 2. Recommend DENIAL of the draft Ordinance No. 529 with certain findings for denial; or 3. TABLE the request, pending additional information as requested by the Planning Commission and direction to city staff to make certain added revisions as needed before final consideration is given on this zoning code amendment item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the Planning Commission consider recommending approval of the request for “Dog Training Facility” use as a new conditional use in the I-Industrial Distrcit, as presented under the draft Ordinance No. 529 as presented herein (Alternative No. 1). Attachments 1) Draft Ordinance No. 529 2) 07/02/18 City Council Meeting minutes (excerpts) 3) 07/26/18 Planning Report 1 2 3 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 4 DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA 5 6 ORDINANCE NO. 529 7 8 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE G. 9 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO ALLOW DOG TRAINING FACILITY 10 AS A CONDITIONAL USE 11 12 The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: 13 14 Section 1. 15 16 Title 12-1G-2: Conditional Uses is hereby amended as follows: 17 18 Dog Training Facility, provided that: 19 20 A. Screening and Landscaping: When abutting a residential district, an approved 21 screening and landscaping plan shall be filed and developed along the property 22 boundary lines. 23 B. Noise: No noise from the operation of the facility shall be discernible beyond the 24 boundaries of the lot on which the use is conducted. 25 C. Odors: Odor control shall consist of a ventilation system designed so that no odors or 26 organisms will spread between tenant spaces, wards or to the outside air. 27 D. Hours of Operation: Hours during which the facility will be open shall be approved by 28 the city council to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. 29 E. Restrooms. Any such facility shall include an enclosed building with restrooms. 30 F. Outdoor areas. No permanent outdoor pens are allowed with the exception of a separate 31 outdoor relief area. Any outdoor areas to be used for the animal training facility, 32 including any relief areas, shall be completely enclosed with a fence that is at least four 33 feet in height. No animals shall remain unattended in outdoor areas. 34 G. Waste removal. Outdoor areas shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition at 35 all times. Solid waste material shall be removed daily and disposed of in dedicated 36 waste containers and in a sanitary manner. 37 H. Parking. Adequate off-street parking shall be provided, as determined by the Zoning 38 Administrator. 39 40 Ord. 529 Page 2 of 2 41 Section 2. 42 43 This ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication. 44 45 Adopted and ordained into an ordinance this 7th day of August, 2018. 46 47 CITY COUNCIL 48 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 49 50 51 52 Neil Garlock, Mayor 53 ATTEST 54 55 56 ___________________________ 57 Lorri Smith, City Clerk 58 59 60 61 (Strikeout text indicates matter to be deleted, while underlined text indicates new matter) 62 63 64 65 Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights 66 1101 Victoria Curve 67 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 68 July 2, 2018 – City Council Meeting Minutes (Excerpts) A) CONSIDERATION AND DIRECTION IN PREPARING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12 – ZONING TO ALLOW DOG TRAINING AND/OR PET CARE FACILITIES IN THE I-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Kristin Elmquist, owner of For the Love of Dogs, was looking at providing some type of specialized dog training facility within the city. Dog and pet uses are becoming more popular. A lot of cities are allowing some types of activities. Most of them are on the doggie daycare type uses. Ms. Elmquist is looking to open a dog training use, which would include an indoor pool for dock diving competitions. The city’s code is silent on identifying types of animal training. However, the city does have a definition for animal kennels and veterinary offices. They also have, under the B-1 Limited Business District, an allowance for cat clinics as a conditional use. The B-2 and B-3 districts also allow for animal hospitals and veterinary clinics. Even though animal kennels are defined, there are no allowances or provisions. Ms. Elmquist provided a list of other communities that allow for dog training uses. Staff discovered that the City of West St. Paul has a definition of a dog training facility and some new standards. The center they have is very popular and has been very well received with zero complaints. Councilor Petschel noted that the City of Eagan had conditions in their ordinance. She liked West St. Paul’s definition but she liked the provisos that were in the Eagan document as they were very thorough. Councilor Duggan asked if the city already had an ordinance that permitted kennels in homes. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative and stated that there is a definition for animal kennels; however, there are no allowances or provisions. Councilor Duggan disagreed and stated that the Council worked on an ordinance to house dogs and cats in homes in Mendota Heights. If there is no record of this; that is very interesting and disappointing. He recommended the Council go out and view some of these facilities. Councilor Petschel stated that she is concerned about breeding being included. She does not believe that the city wants to have a dog breeding business. That is fraught with policing and oversight challenges. Councilor Duggan also stated that the city should not get involved with the selling of animals. Mr. Benetti stated that the ordinance could limit the conditions of approval to not include breeding or selling of pets but could possibly allow for the Doggie Day Care type of use. Discussions continued on the possible uses that could be allowed under this ordinance and the conditions for it – no overnight stays, owner must be present at all times, limited to the I- Industrial District only, etc. It was determined to focus on the needs of Ms. Elmquist for the dog training facility as a conditional use permit in the Industrial Zone. July 2, 2018 – City Council Meeting Minutes (Excerpts) Mr. Benetti explained that Ms. Elmquist is under a very tight timeframe and asked if the Council would be supportive of providing her with a tentative conditional use permit under the guise of a proposed ordinance. City Attorney Andrew Pratt noted that this option had been discussed with him and he is very comfortable with it given that in this conditional use permit application, there would be a statement saying that the city recognizes there is no ordinance right now but there will be one proposed. There is risk, as the city may decide to not adopt the ordinance. Planning Report MEETING DATE: June 26, 2018 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-13 Zoning Code Amendment – Dog Training in the I-Industrial Zone APPLICANT: Kristin Elmquist (Owner - For the Love of Dogs) PROPERTY ADDRESS: N/A ZONING/GUIDED: N/A ACTION DEADLINE: N/A DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The City of Mendota Heights is asked to consider an amendment to City Code Title 12-1G-1, which would allow “dog training” or similar uses as either a permitted use or conditional use in the I-Industrial district. The applicant is Ms. Kristin Elmquist, owner/operator of For the Love of Dogs, a dog training facility currently located in Hudson, WI. This item is being presented under a public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the local Pioneer Press newspaper. BACKGROUND Ms. Elmquist originally approached city planning staff a number of months ago, seeking to provide dog training services in the old Laser-Tech building, located at 2500 Lexington Avenue. Negotiations for that site fell through, and they have tentatively secured a tenant-lease space for the property located at 1415 Mendota Heights Road. Prior to (and after) Ms. Elmquist’s inquiries, staff received a number of similar requests or met with various interested parties requesting to provide doggie-day-care or pet boarding uses within the city, particularly within the industrial and commercial zoned areas of the city. Ms. Elmquist is seeking the ability to provide personalized and professional on-site training for dogs only; which will include manners, obedience, tracking and hunting training, along with canine massage therapy services. The facility will also contain an indoor pool for dock-diving training and competition events. The site Ms. Elmquist has chosen is located at 1415 Mendota Heights Road, which is a multi-tenant industrial use building located within the Industrial zone district. The Applicant provided a list of businesses and cities that allow or permit such uses similar to her own request; and city staff found a list of other similar businesses in other cities as well (attached Exhibit –A). Planning Case 2018-13 (Elmquist) Page 2 of 6 ANALYSIS According to the American Pet Products Association (APPA), a National Pet Survey conducted from 2017- 2018 found that over 68% of U.S. households, or about 85 million families, own a pet. This is up from 56% of U.S. households in 1988, the first year the survey was conducted (source: Insurance Information Institute). Of the approximate 145 million households that own pets (i.e. dogs, cats, fish, birds, horses and reptiles), almost 61 million or 42% are dogs, followed by 47 million (or 32.5%) with cats. Another statistic depicts that the number of dogs in the United States from 2000 to 2017 jumped from 68 million to almost 90 million in 2017, a 32% increase (source: Statista). The total pet industry expenditures has increased from $41.2 billion in 2007 to almost $70 billion in 2017, nearly a 70% increase in 10 years. As a testament to these increased numbers/percentages of pets or dog ownership statistics, city staff will acknowledge and attest to the numerous calls or personal inquiries from residents, realtors, property managers and business owners seeking to provide some form of animal use activity, such as doggie-day- care, kennels, or in this case, a dog training use within the City of Mendota Heights. City Code however, is somewhat silent on identifying or providing specific standards related to dog [animal] training, boarding or similar activities. City Code Title 12-1B-2 [Definitions] provides the following definitions related to animals: KENNEL, ANIMAL: A place where three (3) or more of any single type of domestic animal, over four (4) months of age, are owned, boarded, bred or offered for sale. VETERINARY: Those uses concerned with the diagnosis, treatment, medical care of animals, as well as storage and disposal of dead animals, including animal or pet hospitals. The B-1 Limited Business District also provides the following as a conditional use: CAT CLINIC: 1. As used hereunder, the term "cat clinic" shall be deemed to mean a facility for the diagnosis, treatment and medical care of domestic cats only, in which all professional services are conducted within an enclosed building and which includes the temporary boarding of such animals while they are under treatment. 2. Any conditional use permit for a cat clinic shall be subject to the following conditions: a. Noise: No noise from the operation of the facility shall be discernible beyond the boundaries of the lot on which the use is conducted. b. Odors: Odor control shall consist of a ventilation system designed so that no odors or organisms will spread between wards or to the outside air. An air conditioning system may be required, with windows double glazed with fixed sash. c. Dead Animal Storage And Disposal: An approved system shall be provided for the storage and disposal of dead animals in accordance with professional standards. d. Screening And Landscaping: When abutting a residential district, an approved screening and landscaping plan shall be filed and developed along the property boundary lines that abut the R district. e. Hours Of Operation: Hours during which the facility will be open to the public for the receiving and pick up of animals shall be approved by the city council to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. f. Off Street Parking: Off street parking facilities shall be provided, of at least the ratio required for professional offices under subsection 12-1D-16F of this chapter, entry reading: "Office Planning Case 2018-13 (Elmquist) Page 3 of 6 building and professional office having 6,000 square feet or more...", of one space for each two hundred (200) square feet of net usable floor area in the building. The B-2 Neighborhood Business and B-3 General Business districts allow the following as conditional use: ANIMAL HOSPITAL (VETERINARY CLINIC). 1. A s used hereunder, the term "animal hospital or veterinary clinic" shall be deemed to mean a facility for the diagnosis, treatment and medical care of small animals, in which all professional services are conducted within an enclosed building and which includes the kenneling of such animals. 2. Any conditional use permit for an animal hospital (veterinary clinic) shall be subject to the following conditions: a. Noise: No noise from the operation of the facility shall be discernible beyond the boundaries of the lot on which the use is conducted. To achieve noise control, the facility shall be of masonry construction with outside walls at least eight inches (8") thick, and with a precast concrete roof. b. Odors: Odor control shall consist of a ventilation system designed so that no odors or organisms will spread between wards or to the outside air. An air conditioning system may be required, with windows double glazed with fixed sash. c. Dead Animal Storage And Disposal: An approved system shall be provided for the storage and disposal of dead animals off the premises. d. Large Dog Facilities: Large dog facilities for indoor exercise of such animals shall be provided. No outside pens shall be permitted. e. Screening And Landscaping: When abutting a residential district, an approved screening and landscaping plan shall be filed and developed along the property boundary lines that abut the R district. f. Hours Of Operation: Hours during which the facility will be open to the public for the receiving and pick up of animals shall be approved by the city council to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. g. Off Street Parking: Off street parking facilities shall be provided, of at least the ratio required for professional offices under subsection 12-1D-16F of this chapter, entry reading "Office building and professional office having 6,000 square feet or more...", of one space for each two hundred (200) square feet of net usable floor area in the building. h. Live In Facility: An animal hospital may include a live in facility to permit a staff member to be on the premises twenty four (24) hours per day. Such facility shall be limited to six hundred twenty (620) square feet of floor space and shall not be designed to serve as a single-family residence as hereinbefore defined in this chapter. At this time, there is only one animal [care] type use in the city, the Mendakota Animal Hospital located in The Village at 1938 Dodd Road. There is also the Parkview Cat Clinic located at 837 Sibley Memorial Hwy. (River Bluffs Center) in Lilydale (which we assume will be closing as part of the expected redevelopment of this commercial site). Interestingly, even though the city defines “Animal Kennels” under the Title 12 – Zoning, there are no allowances or provisions for such use in any of the various zoning districts. In fact, going back to the 1991 Zoning Code and other updates since that time, the use was identified/defined as well, but not allowed or provided for in any zoning distrcit. Staff was unable to find if “kennels” were ever allowed in certain zoning districts; or when or why they were removed from Zoning Code. Planning Case 2018-13 (Elmquist) Page 4 of 6 The term “kennel” does appear in a few places under Title 5 – Police Regulations, Ch. 3 Domestic Animals section of City Code. However, most of these terms are related to impoundment of animals due to specific instances or conditions. In researching other metro community ordinances, there appears to be a number of cities that allow for various animal use activities, such as kennels, vet clinics, pet care (boarding) centers, and some training facilities. In some cases, cities that allow or permit “kennel” type uses also include the term “training” as part of an allowed activity under such uses (refer to attached Exhibit – B) The Applicant stated they are only interested in offering training services for dogs (with massage therapy), and are not interested in providing boarding, grooming, vet clinic care or other services. The City of West Saint Paul provides the most descriptive definition and standards for a “Dog Training Facility”, along with a related “Pet Care Facility” for their community. The definition and standards are noted below: DOG TRAINING FACILITY. An indoor or outdoor facility utilized for the organized training of domestic dogs. Standards: Dog training facility, provided all of the following conditions are met. (1) Any such facility shall be set back at least 500 feet from residentially zoned property, as measured in a straight line from the nearest edge of the outdoor training area to the property line of residentially zoned property. (2) Outdoor training facilities shall include an enclosed building with restrooms. (3) The outdoor area to be used for the dog training facility shall be completely enclosed with a fence that is at least four feet in height. (4) Adequate off-street parking shall be provided, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. (5) Outdoor areas shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition at all times. Solid waste material shall be removed at least daily and disposed of in a sanitary manner. (6) Lighting shall not exceed zero foot-candles at the abutting property line. (7) The facility shall not be operated between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. (8) No dogs shall remain unattended in outdoor areas. (9) No permanent outdoor pens are allowed with the exception of a separate outdoor relief area. (10) A maximum ratio of one person to four dogs is allowed in the outdoor areas at any given time. If the city were to accept the Applicant’s request to provide only a new dog training use, then this definition and standards of West St. Paul are clearly the ones to use or apply in this zoning code amendment case. When cities view or consider any new use within the community (or zoning districts), there is nothing that prohibits the allowance of other uses or activities as part of the overall review of a single-use. In this case, the Planning Commission may wish to consider allowing “Animal Kennels” as either a permitted or conditional use in the city; and consider “[dog] training” as an identified or allowable activity under the general kennel use definition/description; or provide a new definition and allowance specifically for “Dog- Training Facility” similar to West St. Paul’s ordinance. In other words, since the City already has Animal Kennel defined under Sect. 12-1B-2, a suggestion would be to simply modify this definition: KENNEL, ANIMAL: A place where three (3) or more of any single type of domestic animal, over four (4) months of age, are owned, boarded, bred, cared-for, trained or offered for sale. Planning Case 2018-13 (Elmquist) Page 5 of 6 In this case, the amended (definition) use would provide or allow for training activities, but the city still must decide or determine which zoning district(s) to place the “Animal Kennel” use; and whether or not the use should be a permitted use or conditional use under said district. The commission should note that by placing this stand-alone use inside a district, say the I-Industrial district, there would be no standards affixed to said use, unless the commission recommended otherwise. For example, the Animal Hospital (veterinary clinic) use as noted above are listed as a conditional use in the B-2 Neighborhood Business and B-3 General Business district, with certain standards noted underneath the use heading. If the city applied the same concept to Animal Kennel, or allowed Animal/Dog Training Facilities, the amended text could be presented as follows: 12-1F-3: B-2 Neighborhood Business District 12-1F-4: B-3 General Business District B. Conditional Uses: Within any B-2 neighborhood business district/ B-3 general business district, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: Animal Kennel / Animal-Dog Training Facility. 1. Any conditional use permit for an animal kennel / animal training facility shall be subject to the following conditions: A. Screening and Landscaping: When abutting a residential district, an approved screening and landscaping plan shall be filed and developed along the property boundary lines that abut the R district. B. Noise: No noise from the operation of the facility shall be discernible beyond the boundaries of the lot on which the use is conducted. To achieve noise control, the facility shall be of masonry construction with outside walls at least eight inches (8") thick, and with a precast concrete roof. C. Odors: Odor control shall consist of a ventilation system designed so that no odors or organisms will spread between tenant spaces, wards or to the outside air. An air conditioning or specialized ventilation system may be required. D. Hours of Operation: Hours during which the facility will be open to the public for the receiving and pick-up of animals shall be approved by the city council to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. E. Restrooms. Any such facility shall include an enclosed building with restrooms. F. Outdoor areas. No permanent outdoor pens are allowed with the exception of a separate outdoor relief area. Any outdoor areas to be used for the animal training facility, including any relief areas, shall be completely enclosed with a fence that is at least four feet in height. No animals shall remain unattended in outdoor areas. G. Waste removal. Outdoor areas shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition at all times. Solid waste material shall be removed daily and disposed of in dedicated waste containers and in a sanitary manner. H. Lighting. Any outdoor lighting shall not exceed zero foot-candles at the abutting property line. I. Parking. Adequate off-street parking shall be provided, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. As the Commission can see, Staff slightly modified the West St. Paul standards, and incorporated some of the same standards associated with Vet Clinics from our own Code. The Planning Commission should Planning Case 2018-13 (Elmquist) Page 6 of 6 review, discuss and determine if these standards are appropriate, amendable and acceptable for this Zoning Code Amendment request; determine the appropriate zoning district for such uses; and discern if the use should be listed as a either a Permitted Use or Conditional Use. Please note if the city wanted to make one or both of these activities a straight-on permitted use, there is nothing that would prohibit the addition of standards below the use, similar to those noted above. ALTERNATIVES Following the public hearing and further discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of only amending “Animal Kennel” uses under City Code Section 12-1B-2 (Definitions) and allow such use as either a permitted use or conditional use in the one or more of the commercial-business and/or industrial district(s); or 2. Recommend approval of only adding a new definition for “Animal Training Facility” with specific standards, and allow such use as either a permitted use or conditional use in one or more of the commercial-business and/or industrial district(s); or 3. Recommend approval of amending “Animal Kennel” uses under City Code Section 12-1B-2 (Definitions) and adding a new definition for “Animal Training Facility” with specific standards, and allow such uses as either a permitted use or conditional use in the commercial-business and/or industrial district(s); or 4. Recommend denial of the Applicant’s request to amend the City Zoning Code with “Dog Training” or any similar/related uses, with certain findings; or 5. Table the request, and direct city staff to seek and provide additional information for further consideration by the Planning Commission, and present such information at the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff suggest the Commission discuss and determine if this type of use, either the “Animal Kennel” or “Animal/Dog Training Facility” (or both) would fit better in the industrial, commercial or both zoning districts. In examining other communities, it appears the industrial zones are where kennels or dog training facilities are primarily located. To be consistent with other metro cities ordinances, staff suggests the Planning Commission consider allowing “Animal Kennel”- [amended] and/or “Animal Training Facility” - [new] uses as either a permitted use or conditional use in the I-Industrial Zone only. The Commission should also discuss on whether or not one or both of these uses should be allowed in the commercial B-2 Neighborhood Business and/or B-3 General Business districts as well. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Planning application, including supporting materials 2. Exhibit – A List of Animal Kennel/Animal Training Businesses throughout Metro Area 3. Exhibit – B List of Metro Cities Definitions/Standards/Allowed Zones related to Animal Uses EXHIBIT -A LIST OF DOG/PET TRAINING or BOARDING BUSINESSES LIST PROVIDED by APPLICANT LIST COMPILED by CITY STAFF Think Pawsitive 2485 S Commerce Dr New Berlin, WI 53151 SwimDog Wellness Center 5530 Neubert Rd Appleton, Wisconsin 54913 The Paw 1741 Premier Dr Mankato, MN 56001 Twin Cities Obedience Training Club 2101 Broadway St. NE Minneapolis, MN 55413 St Paul Dog Training 219 13th Avenue South South St. Paul, Minnesota, 55075 On The Run Dog Training 13835 Aberdeen St NE Ham Lake, MN 55304 Fusion Pet Retreat 14901 Minnetonka Industrial Rd Minnetonka, MN 55345 Animal Inn Training 8633 34th St N Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Canine Coach (multiple Locations) 6500 W Lake St St Louis Park, MN 55426 and 1700 Marthaler Ln West St Paul, MN 55118 Woof Dah! Inc. 12250 Portland Ave. Burnsville, MN 55337 Tails Up Dog Training 680 Travelers Trail East Burnsville, MN American Boarding Kennels 1102 Highway 13 East Burnsville, MN 55337 Four Paws Pet Resort 4020 Old Sibley Memorial Hwy. Eagan, Dakota, Minnesota 55122 Wagging Tails Pet Resort 3275 Sun Drive Eagan, MN 55121 Lucky Dog Pet Lodge 1067 American Boulevard East Bloomington, MN 55420 Bloomington Obedience Training Club 8127 Pleasant Avenue South Bloomington, Minnesota 55420 Crystal Clear Canine Training 209 N Main Street River Falls WI 54022 A New Leash Dog Training Ctr. 7393 Bush Lake Rd, Edina, MN 55439 EXHIBIT - B The following includes a list of metro-wide community definitions related to various levels or types of animal care uses; and identifies certain zoning districts that allow said uses (either as permitted or conditional use), along with some specific standards associated with said uses: MANKATO Def. Kennel. An establishment licensed to operate a facility housing dogs, cats or other household pets and where grooming, breeding, boarding, training, or selling of animals is conducted as a business or commercial use. • B-1 Community Business and B-2 General Business – (Permitted Use) MINNEAPOLIS Use: Animal Boarding and Vet Clinics • All Commercial Districts and I-2 Medium Industrial District – (Permitted Use) HAM LAKE Def. Public Dog Kennels: A “public dog kennel” means a kennel where dogs owned by others are boarded for a fee. • CD-2 Commercial Development 2 District –(Permitted Use) • R-A Residential-Agriculture - (CUP) Standard of Operation a. Health and Safety Standards All public dog kennels must conform to the statutes and regulations of any State or County agency having jurisdiction over such matters as fire control, cleanliness, temperature control, waste disposal, diet and animal treatment. Waste shall not be permitted to accumulate so as to create any odor detectable by adjoining property owners. b. Noise Control all public dog kennels shall be housed in masonry buildings, constructed in such a manner that animal noise cannot be heard from adjoining properties. c. Lot Size and Setback No public dog kennel shall be permitted on any lot containing less than 10 acres. All buildings and runways comprising the public dog kennel shall be constructed at a distance of at least 300 feet from adjoining property owners’ dwellings or occupied business structures. d. Outside Runways Outside runways must be completely screened by an attractive solid fence at least six feet in height. The kennel operator shall not permit noise to be emitted from outside runways which can be heard by adjoining property owners. EXHIBIT - B WEST ST. PAUL Def. PET CARE FACILITY. Any premises where four or more domestic animals over four months of age are owned, boarded, bred or offered for sale. • I-1 Light Industrial District – (CUP) Def. DOG TRAINING FACILITY. An indoor or outdoor facility utilized for the organized training of domestic dogs. • I-1 Light Industrial & I-2 General Industrial – (CUP) Standards: Dog training facility, provided all of the following conditions are met. (1) Any such facility shall be set back at least 500 feet from residentially zoned property, as measured in a straight line from the nearest edge of the outdoor training area to the property line of residentially zoned property. (2) Outdoor training facilities shall include an enclosed building with restrooms. (3) The outdoor area to be used for the dog training facility shall be completely enclosed with a fence that is at least four feet in height. (4) Adequate off-street parking shall be provided, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. (5) Outdoor areas shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition at all times. Solid waste material shall be removed at least daily and disposed of in a sanitary manner. (6) Lighting shall not exceed zero foot-candles at the abutting property line. (7) The facility shall not be operated between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. (8) No dogs shall remain unattended in outdoor areas. (9) No permanent outdoor pens are allowed with the exception of a separate outdoor relief area. (10) A maximum ratio of one person to four dogs is allowed in the outdoor areas at any given time. ST. LOUIS PARK Def. Animal handling. The conditions are as follows: a. No animals shall be kept outside the building, or be otherwise located, which cause offensive odor discernible at the property line of the lot on which the activity is conducted. b. Where animals are boarded, the facility shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. • C-2 General Commercial - (CUP) • I-G General Industrial (Permitted with Conditions – Not CUP) EXHIBIT - B Def. Animal handling. The conditions are as follows: a. Where animals are boarded, the facility shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers. BURNSVILLE Def. KENNEL, COMMERCIAL: Any place where six (6) or more dogs over four (4) months of age, or more than ten (10) cats over four (4) months of age, or more than ten (10) ferrets over four (4) months of age, or any combination thereof, not including offspring under seven (7) months of age, are commercially kept, boarded, trained or offered for sale except when located in a pet shop or veterinary clinic/hospital. A kennel may include secured outdoor runs and/or play areas. Standards: Commercial kennels are subject to the following standards: 1. Related ancillary services including training, grooming and food and accessory sales may be conducted or provided at the facility. When located in an industrial district, these services are subject to section 10-23-2 of this code. 2. An enclosed exercise area shall be provided to accommodate the periodic exercising of animals boarded at the facility. Any outdoor exercise area must be fenced to a minimum height of four feet (4'), must have a three foot (3') vegetative buffer, must be cleaned regularly, and animal waste shall not be allowed to enter a stormwater pond or storm sewer. 3. In a multi-tenant building, the kennel facility must have a ventilation system that prohibits the transmission of odors or organisms between tenant bays. The ventilation system must be capable of completely exchanging internal air at a rate of 1.00 cfm/square foot of floor space per area dedicated for the keeping of animals exclusive of offices pursuant to chapter 1346 of the Minnesota state building code, as may be amended, these requirements can be met by the submission of an air exchange analysis, acceptable to the city from a Minnesota licensed contractor or engineer confirming compliance with said standards, otherwise, the facility ventilation system must be completely separate and independent of other tenant space within the building. Facility air temperature must be maintained between sixty degrees (60°) and eighty degrees Fahrenheit (80°F). 4. A sufficiently sized room/cage separate from the facility areas shall be provided to adequately separate sick or injured animals from healthy animals. 5. Wall finish materials below forty eight inches (48") in height shall be impervious, washable materials such as sealed masonry, ceramic tile, glass board, or marlite. Floor finish shall be sealed concrete or other approved impervious surface. Liquid tight curbing, at least six inches (6") high, shall be installed along shared walls for sanitary confinement and water wash down cleaning. 6. Animal wastes shall be immediately cleaned up with solid wastes being enclosed in a container of sufficient construction to eliminate odors and organisms. • B-3 General Business District - CUP • B-4 Highway Commercial Dist. - (Permitted Use) • I-1 Industrial Park District - CUP EXHIBIT - B EAGAN Def. Kennel: means any place, building, tract of land, abode or vehicle, wherein or whereon a total of four or more dogs or cats or combination, over six months of age, are kept, kept for sale, or boarded. Standards: Kennel premises and facilities. All licensed kennels must meet the following requirements: A. All animal housing facilities must be structurally sound and maintained in good repair. B. All animals must be housed in an indoor facility maintained at a temperature of not less than 50 degrees Fahrenheit. Animals may be provided temporary access to outdoor runs and exercise areas when appropriate for the species, breed, and weather conditions. C. All housing facilities must have at least eight hours of illumination, either natural or artificial, sufficient to permit routine inspection and cleaning. D. All housing facilities must be adequately ventilated. Drafts, odors, and moisture condensation must be minimized. Auxiliary ventilation, such as exhaust fans, vents, and air conditioning, must be used when the ambient temperature exceeds 85 degrees Fahrenheit at the floor level. E. Carcass and garbage disposal facilities must be provided and managed to minimize vermin infestation, odors, and disease hazards. F. Adequate storage and refrigeration must be provided and managed to protect food supplies against contamination and deterioration. Open bags of food must be stored in vermin-proof containers. G. The premises, housing facilities, exercise areas, and confinement areas must be cleaned and disinfected as often as necessary to maintain a clean and sanitary condition. Animal confinement areas must be cleaned at least once daily. Measures must be taken to protect animals from being splattered with water or feces and from exposure to harmful chemicals during cleaning. Bedding, if used, must be kept clean and dry. Outdoor runs and exercise areas must be kept clean and soiled base material must be replaced as necessary. H. Confinement areas must be of sufficient size to allow each dog or cat to turn about fully and to stand, sit, and lie in a comfortable, normal position. The confinement area must be constructed so as to prevent injury to the dog or cat. Interior surfaces of indoor confinement areas must be constructed and maintained so that they are substantially impervious to moisture, provide for rapid drainage, and may be readily cleaned. • GB-General Business District – (CUP for Kennels) • I-1 Limited Industrial Dist. – (CUP – Kennels with outside runs and subject to regulations in chapter 6. EXHIBIT - B BLOOMINGTON PET SERVICES FACILITY. A business establishment that provides any of the following services or retail activity either individually or in combination, for pets and domestic animals as defined in § 12.91: sales, animal sales, veterinary care, animal hospital, short-term daily care, training classes, boarding and grooming. • B-2 Gen Business, B-4 Neighborhood Commercial; C-2 Freeway Comm; and C-3 Freeway Comm Center; I-3 General Industry CUP in the HUDSON, WI Animals, Commercial Training Kennels, Commercial • AR Ag-Residential Zone –(CUP) • B-4 Central Business Zone – (CUP) • PS Plan Study Zone – (CUP) Planning Report MEETING DATE: July 24, 2018 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-20 Conditional Use Permit – Dog Training Facility APPLICANT: Kristin Elmquist (Owner - For the Love of Dogs) PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1415 Mendota Heights Road ZONING/GUIDED: I-Industrial / I Industrial ACTION DEADLINE: September 11, 2018 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Ms. Kristin Elmquist, the applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to provide a new “dog training facility” use in a vacant space within an existing multi-tenant building, located at 1415 Mendota Heights Road. The property is generally located at the northwest corner of Mendota Heights Road and Pilot Knob Road (see GIS image – below); and is in the I-Industrial district. This property is owned by Lamar, LLC. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350- feet of the subject property. Planning Report - 2018-20 (Elmquist-CUP –Dog Training) Page 2 of 7 BACKGROUND As was reported at last month’s Planning Commission meeting of June 26th, staff indicated that Ms. Elmquist approached city staff a number of months ago seeking to provide dog training services in the city; and she has now secured a tenant-space on the subject property. The subject property consists of 5.85 acres in size, and has a 66,242 sq. ft. multi-tenant office/industrial building - listed as the “Airport Industrial Center”. The site contains three access drives coming off Mendota Hts. Road to the south and one access point off Pilot Knob Road to the east. The site contains 65 parking spaces located on the west and northwesterly (rear) areas of the building, and 13 spaces located on the east edge of the building with 6 additional spaces located in the front yard. There are a number of over-head door loading bays to the rear (north) portion of the building. The site also contains a small, unstriped parking lot area near the northeast corner of the site, which is used for temporary parking of truck trailers. Ms. Elmquist is seeking the CUP in order to provide personalized and professional on-site training for dogs only; which will include manners, obedience, tracking and hunting training, along with canine massage therapy services. The facility will also contain an indoor pool for dock-diving training and competition events. The dog training use will occupy the far-east end of the building, which consists of 10,706 sq. ft. of floor space (see blue shaded image – below). Planning Report - 2018-20 (Elmquist-CUP –Dog Training) Page 3 of 7 The mix office/warehouse building is currently occupied by Lancer Hospitality on the west end; while “For the Love of Dogs will occupy the east end. The middle section is currently vacant. SCOPE of ACTIVITIES The new use will take place entirely indoors, at the end-tenant space of 1415 Mendota Heights Road. The Applicant has provide a diagram (below) that shows the areas of parking, overflow and event parking (when or if needed); and the dog relief or “potty” area in the front yard space of the building. Ms. Elmquist has presented the following information or services they provide as part of the proposed professional dog training facility:  Training / Discipline classes • 18-20, one-hour classes per week, with 6-10 students per class • Types: AKC Scent Work, Barn Hunt, Dog Ball, K9 Nose Work, Manners, Rally Obedience, Tracking, Tricks, Agility, AKC Tricks, WAGS Dog Sports, and Dock Diving • Open ring time  Pool • 2-3 1 hr classes per week, 4-6 students per class • Open pool time  No dogs left in building without owner present  No dogs left over night  No boarding or day care  All classes held indoors  Events • 1-2 weekends per month for full day competitions and workshops; weekends only. o 30-50 participants and volunteers o 75-80% live in MN but will drive 1+ hrs. to attend; 20%-25% live out of state • 2-4 days per month for short events o Weekdays/nights or weekends o Typically 2-4 hours o 20-40 participants and volunteers Planning Report - 2018-20 (Elmquist-CUP –Dog Training) Page 4 of 7 o 80-85% live in metro area o 15-20% non-metro or out of state  Site Info • 15 parking spots out front can accommodate class parking • Overflow parking to the north provide additional spaces on event weekends. • Dog relief/potty area on grass to the south of the building. o Dogs will be required to be on leash at all times outside. o We will supply a doggie poop station for owner pick up. o Grounds will be patrolled daily. o Poop station will be emptied daily. o Lime will be regularly spread to maintain good curb appeal. The proposed use will have hours limited to 8:00 am to 9:30 pm Monday – Friday; and 7:00 am to 10 pm weekends or special events. Based on 18-20, one hour classes with 6-10 students per class and the proposed hours of operation, ample parking should exist to satisfy the proposed business use’s demands. Directly related to this conditional use permit, but under separate review and consideration, is a draft Ordinance No. 529, which includes a proposal to allow “dog-training facility” as a new conditional use under the I-Industrial zone. This draft ordinance is being presented and considered prior to this item, in order for the Planning Commission to consider, recommend and approve new standards or regulations specifically related to this dog training use. These new regulations and standards are noted in the following analysis section of this report. ANALYSIS of CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT As is noted under the planning report for Planning Case No. 2018-13, the draft Ord. No. 529 includes new language allowing “Dog Training Facility” as a new conditional use under the I-Industrial distrcit (Title 12- 1G-2). The ordinance [tentatively] provides for the following standards related to this use: Dog Training Facility, provided that: A. Screening and Landscaping: When abutting a residential district, an approved screening and landscaping plan shall be filed and developed along the property boundary lines. B. Noise: No noise from the operation of the facility shall be discernible beyond the boundaries of the lot on which the use is conducted. C. Odors: Odor control shall consist of a ventilation system designed so that no odors or organisms will spread between tenant spaces, wards or to the outside air. D. Hours of Operation: Hours during which the facility will be open shall be approved by the city council to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. E. Restrooms. Any such facility shall include an enclosed building with restrooms. F. Outdoor areas. No permanent outdoor pens are allowed with the exception of a separate outdoor relief area. Any outdoor areas to be used for the animal training facility, including any relief areas, shall be completely enclosed with a fence that is at least four feet in height. No animals shall remain unattended in outdoor areas. G. Waste removal. Outdoor areas shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition at all times. Solid waste material shall be removed daily and disposed of in dedicated waste containers and in a sanitary manner. H. Parking. Adequate off-street parking shall be provided, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. Planning Report - 2018-20 (Elmquist-CUP –Dog Training) Page 5 of 7 Staff interprets the use as qualifying for a conditional use permit under the proposed new “Dog Training Facility” use being considered under Ordinance No. 529; and that all proposed standards or regulations to be considered under this new use are attainable or can be met by the Applicant at the subject property. There are no abutting residential zones or uses, so no screening or additional landscaping is needed. The building is made of concrete block and tip-up panels, and staff assumes all tenant separated spaces are adequately constructed or will provide noise attenuation if needed. The Applicants will be making some interior tenant improvements to the site, and staff (including the Building Official and Fire Marshal) will ensure that adequate ventilation, air circulation, and restroom facilities will be in place before a certificate of occupancy is granted. Waste removal bags and receptacles will be located inside and outside the facility, and the owner will be responsible for the daily removal and clean-up as needed. The only outdoor area has been identified on the plan as the “potty area”, which is located in the front yard area along Mendota Heights Road. The new standards requires this area to be fenced off with a minimum 4-ft. high fence. The Applicant has requested that this area not be fenced off, as they will have strict rules and requirements that any dog that is led outside must be leashed and attended to at all time by the owners. No animals will be allowed to run freely in or around the property site. The Planning Commission may wish to discuss if this standard can be waived under this request. Title 12-1L-6-E-1 of the City Code contains specific standards for reviewing a conditional use permit request; and the following are to be taken into consideration: • The effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants or surrounding lands; • existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets; and • the effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan. In addition, the following standards must be met: • The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; • will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards; • will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and • the proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan. Staff believes the proposed dog training use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, including the neighboring businesses near the subject location, provided that all standards or regulations as contained in the Ord. No. 529 are met or exceeded under this CUP request. The Applicant intends to limit the class sizes; and any special or competition events will take place on weekends, so any potential impacts to traffic or parking should be limited or minimal on the site or in this area. Staff does not believe the proposed use would or will seriously depreciate surrounding property values, provided the operators of the business and animal owners safely care-for and maintain all dogs on the site, and there are no noise or odor complaints generated by the business. Staff also believes the proposed use can be considered to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and comprehensive plan; and that there is no reason to believe that the proposed use will be contrary to the standard of review for conditional use permits listed above; and should be compatible with the spirit and intent of the Industrial Zoning District. ALTERNATIVES for ACTION Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: Planning Report - 2018-20 (Elmquist-CUP –Dog Training) Page 6 of 7 1. Recommend APPROVAL of the Conditional Use Permit, based on the findings of fact that the proposed use will be and must be compliant with the standards and regulations of the newly proposed “Dog Training Facility Use”, proposed under Ordinance No. 529, with conditions; or 2. Recommend DENIAL of the Conditional Use Permit request, based on the findings of fact(s) determined by the Planning Commission, that the Conditional Use Permit requested herein does not meet certain regulations or standards under the proposed Ord. No. 529; or 3. TABLE the request, pending additional information as requested by the Planning Commission and direct city staff to make certain revisions before final consideration is given on this planning item; with direction to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with Minnesota State Statute. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Commission must be aware that should the proposed Ordinance No. 529 be tabled, then this item too must be tabled; or similarly if the ordinance is recommended for denial or amended, then this CUP must be recommended for denial or amended with any new standards or regulations deemed necessary. Ms. Elmquist fully understands and accepts the risks of applying for this CUP while the ordinance is subject to separate consideration and approvals; and that this conditional use permit cannot be approved without an approved or adopted ordinance that establishes the foundation or allowance for this specific use. Nevertheless, city staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed “Dog Training Facility” use in the I-Industrial District, based on the findings of fact that the proposed use will be compliant with the proposed City Zoning Code Amendment to be considered under Ordinance No. 529, with the following conditions: 1. All standards and regulations adopted or amended under proposed Ordinance No. 529 shall be complied with during the operations of this dog training facility on the subject property. 2. All training activities and events shall be conducted entirely within the enclosed building. 3. Outdoor storage and display of materials is prohibited. 4. A sign permit shall be required prior to installation of any additional tenant signage on the subject parcel/building. No banner or temporary signs will be allowed. 5. A building permit shall be required prior to any applicable demolition or tenant space improvements. 6. Hours of operation shall be from 8:00 am to 9:30 pm Monday through Friday; and 7:00 am to 10 pm weekends or special events. 7. The Owner of the training facility shall notify all other building space tenants at least 14-days in advance of any planned weekend events; and must ensure that all parking for clients and guests for said events are accommodated on the subject site. No on-street parking or blocking of loading areas is allowed. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Aerial/Location Site Map 2. Letter of Intent- with Site Plan 3. Subject Site Photos LOOKING N’ WESTERLY – TOWARDS TENANT SPACE/PARKING LOOKING NORTHWARD – ENTRANCE OFF MENDOTA HTS. RD. LOOING WESTERLY – REAR LOADING AREA OF BUILDING LOOKING NORTHWARD – OVERFLOW/TRUCK PARKING AREA LOOKING SOUTHWARD – TOWARDS TENANT SPACE LOOKING WESTERLY – TOWARDS FRONT PARKING AREA (((??? ? ? ? G!. G!.G!.G!.66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 666666 66 66666 6 66666666666666! ! !! ! " " * ³! ³ ³ ! ³ * " ³"" "" " " "" "" * " * * * * *6666666666 666666 666666 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2!!2!!2!!2 !!2 !!2 1415 2515 2411 2411 1415 2515 1385 1455 2506 PILOT KNOB RDMENDOTA HEIGHTS RD 323'274'268'324'162'238'12''8''0'' 8''0''12''0''Dakota County GIS City ofMendotaHeights0100 SCALE IN FEETDate: 7/20/2018 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 containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor 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. 1415 Mendota Hts. Rd.(Elmquist - For The Love of Dogs) Company Overview: For the Love of Dogs is based out of Hudson, WI and is doing business as an LLC, owned by Kristin Elmquist since 2005. Kristin has 32 years of dog training and showing experience. She is a mentor trainer for the Animal Behavioral Collage, a Canine Sports Message Therapist (CSMT), a Certified K9 Nose Work Instructor (CNWI) a Canine Good Citizen Evaluator and a member of the Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT) and the International Association of Animal Message & Bodywork (IAAMA). This company has a partnership with The Dog Tank, LLC to provide dog dock diving in the Twin Cities area. Target Market: Our core market is the family dog owner/ dog enthusiast looking for fun activates to do with their dog in a positive training environment. Our programs specializes in training for owners that are struggling with their dog training due to time constraints and other outside commitments. Services: For the Love of Dogs offers weekday and weekend classes in dog training and weekend trials. At no time are dogs left at our facility. We do not provide boarding or day care service. Dog training discipline includes the following class roster. • Manners class • K9 Nose Work • AKC Scent Work • Agility • AKC Tricks • WAGS Dog Sports • ABC Nose work games • Rally Obedience • Barn Hunt • Tracking • Dog Ball • Dock Diving Canine Sports massage is an ancillary offering, currently conducted at various locations in the metro area. This service would be moved to the new location in Mendota Heights. This location would allow us to host weekend trials that bring in competitors from around the country. This in turn supports the other local business since they utilize gas stations, hotels and restaurants. We feel that a new building in Mendota Heights would give us a permanent access facility. This location offers great access to the freeway and the twin cities airport and the industrial zoning is perfect for a dog training business. The Market: The ASPCA estimates that 48% of all households in the US have a dog and more and more of these households treat their dogs like a family member. American pet spending has continued to rise every single year since 1994 – even during the 2007-2009 recession – reaching an estimated $69.36 billion in 2017. Specifically, the pet services arena, dog training and pet care expenditures have been increasing with double-digit year-over-year growth. https://vimeo.com/orangetreeps/review/214716969/38f274fe6d Competitive Advantages: There are several dog training schools in the Twin Cities Metro area, with three competitive schools in the east metro offering some but not all of the same services. Many of our instructors are certified in their area of specialty, which is not commonly found in most dog training schools. We currently offer more, and different types, of K9 Nosework classes than any other schools in the arena. For the Love of Dogs is the only school in the east and south metro area to offer doggie boot camp, AKC tricks class, WAGS dog sports, Barn Hunt, tracking, Dog ball and ABC Nose work games. For the Love of Dogs has exclusive rights to hold NADD dock diving trials and K9 ABC games within 100 miles’ radius.