Loading...
2012-12-26 Planning Comm Agenda Packet CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Agenda Wednesday, December 26, 2012 - 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of the Agenda 4. Approval of the November 27, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes 5. Hearings a. Case No. 2012-34: Vince Nonnemacher, CUP for an accessory structure with 200 square feet of total area at 1815 Valley Curve Road. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. b. Case No. 2012-35: Bruce Coppock: lot line adjustment between two 1694 and 1698 Dodd Road. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. 6. Verbal Review 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 Administration at 651-452-1850 with requests. MH Planning Commission 12-26-2012, Page 1 Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2012 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 27, 2012 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 27, 2012, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Norton, Commissioners Field, Hennes, Magnuson, Noonan, Roston, and Viksnins. Those absent: None. Those present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, Public Works Director/City Engineer Mazzitello, and NAC Planner Stephen Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Heidi Guenther. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of October 23, 2012, Minutes COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 23, 2012, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Hearings PLANNING CASE #2012-32 Sean Hoffmann, Mendota Heights BP 2030 Dodd Road Variance allowing electronic sign display Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Sean Hoffmann, Mendota Heights BP for approval of a variance allowing an electronic sign display at 2030 Dodd Road and the property is zoned B-2 Neighborhood Business. Mr. Grittman noted that the applicant is proposing to replace an existing pylon sign with a monument sign which includes LED fuel price numbers that are stationary (not animated or flashing), which will change approximately once per day. The issue of electronic signs was last addressed in June of 2006 when the City considered a request by Henry Sibley High School to construct a digital sign on their property. In this case, the council affirmed its position that such signs are not allowed, and adopted a resolution with a series of findings that described the City’s concerns related to flashing, animated and blinking electronic signs. Mr. Grittman explained the applicant has proposed that the electronic sign should not result in illumination qualities that would either negatively impact surrounding properties or create a distraction that could pose a safety risk to nearby traffic. The applicant has proposed shutting off the sign at night, so illumination from the sign is not anticipated to be constant. Mr. Grittman discussed the front and side yard setbacks in the B-2 District. He indicated the proposed sign lies within the required setbacks, and would be replacing an existing sign in substantially the same location. The new sign would be lowered in height, which lessens the overall non-conforming condition. The new sign would be modern, compact and will improve the overall appearance of the property, in contrast to the existing 45 foot tall pylon sign. MH Planning Commission 12-26-2012, Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2012 2 Mr. Grittman presented staff’s analysis of the request and does not recommend the variance. While the applicant suggests that operational issues demonstrate the additional safety and convenience of the LED price technology, the ability to make such changes in message electronically is not unique to this property. It is noted that the reduction in height will, in part, meet that same objective, and the safety and convenience argument would be applicable to any property that wishes to display alternative messages over time. If the Commission believes that this technology is appropriate, it should consider an ordinance amendment rather than the variance for this case. Commissioner Magnuson asked if a variance was necessary with this case. She questioned what language prohibits LED signs. Mr. Grittman reviewed the language in detail with the Commission stating the LED portion of the proposed sign would be prohibited, as it was a steady collection of lights. Commissioner Roston inquired if all illuminated signs were prohibited in the City. Mr. Grittman stated only in the case where the public was able to view the light source. If a diffuser was placed over the individual bulbs, the sign would not be in violation with the current ordinance. Commissioner Roston questioned if LED Christmas lights violated the ordinance. Mr. Grittman commented these were not considered signs and the ordinance did include an exception for holiday displays. Commissioner Magnuson inquired if the intent of the current code was to limit gas station pricing signs. Mr. Grittman did not feel the language spoke directly to LED but, as nay request for electronic displays were denied by the Council in the past. Assistant to the City Administrator Sedlacek clarified it was the intent of the City Code was to limit this type of LED signs. Commissioner Roston was in favor of recommending the diffuser be placed over the LED bulbs, as this would eliminate the need for a variance. Commissioner Field asked if the SuperAmerica sign that was denied was similar in design and nature to the BP sign. Mr. Grittman noted this was several years back and he recalled the lights were essentially the same, however he did not recall if the lights were LED or incandescent. Commissioner Viksnins inquired if the City Attorney had provided the commission with advice on the interpretation of an intermittent, steady or rotating beam. He stated a legal opinion could assist with resolving this matter. Mr. Grittman did not recall receiving direct advice from the City Attorney. Commissioner Noonan commented the matter at hand was the fact the bulb source could be viewed from the proposed BP sign. Chair Norton was in favor of the proposed BP sign as it was newer technology and recommended an ordinance amendment. Commissioner Roston agreed, as this would clarify the current language for future sign requests. Mr. Sedlacek repeated the intent of this ordinance was to not allow an LED sign of any sort. The direction provided to the applicant was either to request to change the ordinance as written or request a variance to the rule. The request before Commission was for a variance to the City Code. Commissioner Viksnins commented the concern with LED was the rotating display. He indicated the proposed gas station sign would not be rotating and therefore did not conflict with the LED concerns. Mr. Grittman stated one of the council’s concerns in the past was the flashing of LED lights and video. This would then become a huge enforcement concern for the city. Chair Norton asked if other cities were allowing LED sign displays. Mr. Grittman stated that electronic displays are commonly limited to gas station price displays, with a ban on animation. MH Planning Commission 12-26-2012, Page 3 Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2012 3 Commissioner Hennes questioned if an amendment were discussed in the future how this case would be affected. Mr. Grittman indicated an amendment could be made to address the B-2 zoning district. Another option would be to write the language specifically addressing the conditional use permits for the gas stations. Shawn Hoffmann, 2030 Dodd Road, indicated he was the manager of the BP. He commented the current sign language was written before LED technology was available. It was his opinion the language was outdated and he encouraged the commission to consider reviewing the language. He discussed the proposed LED sign further stating it was a cost effective and energy efficient technology. He noted the current highway sign was at an awkward angle and the new sign would alleviate this concern. He stated the new technology would also be safer. Commissioner Roston questioned the timing of the proposed sign and if the request could be delayed for 30 days. Mr. Hoffman stated he owned the sign already. He expressed concern about the use of a diffuser, as this would greatly affect the visibility of the numbers. Commissioner Magnuson understood the safety concerns with changing the prices given the height of the current sign. She asked if a monument sign closer to the ground was feasible. Mr. Hoffman indicated space was not available for this type of sign. He explained if the current sign were lowered it would be difficult for passing traffic to view the pricing. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 7 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO TABLE ACTION ON THIS ITEM FOR 30 DAYS AND ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO WORK WITH STAFF TO FIND A PRAGMATIC SOLUTION. Commissioner Viksnins asked if a pragmatic solution should be sought or if the ordinance should be amended. Commissioner Field stated he would not support the motion as he was in favor of amending the ordinance to comply with current technology. He did not want the application delayed in hopes of finding a solution. Chair Norton agreed. Commissioner Noonan stated the applicant could work with a vendor to seek a translucent diffuser in the next 30 days, which would not delay the sign request. Commissioner Magnuson questioned how an ordinance amendment was initiated. Mr. Sedlacek stated staff has received direction from both the council and commission in the past to address city code. Commissioner Roston withdrew his motion to table action on the item. Commissioner Viksnins withdrew his second. COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT. AYES 7 NAYS 0 MH Planning Commission 12-26-2012, Page 4 Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2012 4 COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, RECOMENDING THAT CITY STAFF DRAFT AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO PERMIT STATIC LED DISPLAY SIGNS FOR GAS STATIONS. AYES 7 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 4, 2012, meeting. Commissioner Roston left the meeting at 8:00 p.m. PLANNING CASE #2012-33 Mike Hueg Lots 9-12, Block 7, Somerset View Variance and Conditional Use Permit to Construct Single Family Home and Attached Garage Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Mike Hueg for approval of a variance and conditional use permit to construct a single family home and attached garage. Mr. Grittman noted that the applicants are proposing to construct a single family home on a parcel in the Somerset View subdivision. The parcel sits at the southwest corner of Somerset Road and Burr Oak Aven ue. The city’s zoning ordinance requires single family lots to have at least 100 feet of frontage on improved public streets. While this parcel has much more than 100 feet of frontage, neither of the streets are improved, and therefore require approval of a variance to permit the construction. Mr. Grittman explained as part of the request, the applicants also propose to construct an attached garage of approximately 1,480 square feet. The zoning ordinance specifies that attached garages of more than 1,200 square feet and up to 1,500 square feet be allowed only with the approval of a conditional use permit. Lastly, the applicants are seeking approval of a license to construct private improvements within an unimproved public right of way. The applicants’ proposal would extend a driveway along the unimproved Burr Oak Avenue to its intersection with Dorset Road. While this request is not technically a zoning application, it is relevant to the consideration of the variance request. Mr. Grittman presented staff’s analysis of the request and recommended approval of the variance and conditional use permit with conditions. The conditions have been proposed to recognize that one single family lot exists in the area as a lot of record, and the improvements necessary to provide public street access to the property can be reasonably seen to be out of scale with the construction of a home on the existing parcel. Further development of the property should only be considered with street access due to the need for better public service vehicles, avoiding a profusion of private use of the public rights of way, and managing traffic generation in the area. Staff had no objections to the CUP as there were no apparent issues with the proposed garage, and it complies with the terms of the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Magnuson questioned where the utilities would be located. Public Works Director Mazzitello explained the preliminary location was described to run within the Burr Oaks Avenue right-of-way. He commented there was adequate space for the lines. Mike Hueg, 17590 Hemlock Avenue in Lakeville, stated he was proposing to build a single family home, which would allow him to live closer to family. He thanked staff for their assistance in preparing his application. He encouraged the neighbors to be open minded to the fact there was right-of-way available that would allow him access his lot. He explained a shared driveway was discussed with city staff but was not favorable to the city. MH Planning Commission 12-26-2012, Page 5 Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2012 5 Commissioner Magnuson asked if access could be gained from Somerset Road. Mr. Hueg stated this was an option, but that a great deal more green space would be disturbed if this route were chosen. Commissioner Viksnins requested further information on the topography of the parcel and questioned if the site would be further subdivided. Mr. Hueg indicated he had no plans to subdivide the property. He then reviewed the topography of the parcel stating the property would drain properly after construction. Mr. Sedlacek clarified the request before the commission this evening was for a conditional use permit and variance. He noted the license would be discussed by the city council. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Mary Kirby, 3 Dorset Road, commented she has lived at this address since 1993. She explained the request for a license would remove and replace her existing driveway. Ms. Kirby had not issue with the Hueg’s building a home on their property, however, she did object to the request for a license to utilize the Burr Oaks Avenue right of way. She recommended the license for access be gained from another direction. She indicated her own driveway has been in place for the past 40 years and has requested a license to formally recognize her use of the right of way. Ms. Kirby expressed concern that the license could result in storm water runoff from city right of way into her property. The city installed a rain garden in the right of way in 2005 to address runoff issues. Ms. Kirby felt that the existing use of the right of way at Dorset Road would pose a challenges to adding an additional driveway. She requested additional conditions to the approval, assuring that she would be notified in advance if anyone were to access her property and that the city be lenient with parking regulations during the construction period. Second, that the applicant will indemnify her from any liability related to the construction and use of her driveway. In addition, the applicant will indemnify her from any liability to water runoff and changes to the right of way. Lastly, she requested the conditions for approval clearly state the party responsible for covering the expenses of the reconstruction of her driveway. Larry Koll, 2 Dorset Road, opposed the request before the commission this evening. He questioned if the variance and conditional use permit could be considered by the commission without a proper license for access in place. Mr. Koll expressed concern with the safety of adding another home to this right of way. Art Miller, 1 Dorset Road, opposed the variance request stating the additional home would change the character of the neighborhood. He questioned if a fire truck or other emergency vehicle could even access the site. Mr. Miller stated the property at 3 Dorset would be negatively affected by the request for a license. He recommended another alternative be sought by Mr. Hueg. He suggested for safety reasons, that the commission deny the request. Pat Henry, 4 Beebe Avenue, opposed the request for the license as the area already had drainage issues. He commented the home and additional impervious surface would compound these concerns. Mr. Henry requested Somerset Road be used to access this single family lot. Commissioner Hennes questioned if a shared driveway was agreeable to the applicant. Mr. Hueg stated have been discouraged by the City in the past. He explained that a shared driveway would be difficult as the Kirby’s park in their driveway. He understood that he would be responsible for replacing the Kirb y’s driveway through the construction process. Commissioner Viksnins asked what other points of access were considered. Mr. Hueg that the site was bound by two undeveloped rights of way. The reason for using Dorset Road was that emergency vehicles would only have to pull line 180 feet. He did not see the benefit of putting in a 1,000 foot road from Somerset Road. He commented he has not seen a water concern on this property. He noted the proposed building pad would be at a lower elevation than the Kirby’s. Commissioner Viksnins questioned if the parcel could access Dodd Road. Mr. Hueg stated this was not feasible as emergency vehicles could not reach his parcel and utilities would be difficult. MH Planning Commission 12-26-2012, Page 6 Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2012 6 Mr. Sedlacek informed the commission that staff’s first preference to access this site is a full public street in the platted right of way. The second preference would be to grant a license to utilize the right of way. A distant third option would be to approve a shared driveway. Gary St. John, 7 Meers Avenue, supported the Hueg’s decision to build on their property. He requested the city consider shared access from Dodd Road. Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 7 6 NAYS 0 CHAIR NORTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. FUTURE SUBDIVISION OR CONSTRUCTION OF ANY MORE THAN THE ONE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT CONSTRUCTION OF FULL PUBLIC STREET FRONTAGE AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY’S ORDINANCES. 2. EXECUTION OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRIVEWAY IN THE CITY’S UNIMPROVED RIGHT OF WAY, ALONG WITH AN INDEMNIFICATION OF THE CITY FOR LIABILITY RELATED TO THOSE IMPROVEMENTS. 3. CONSTRUCTION, AND RELATED RECONSTRUCTION, OF DRIVEWAYS WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY TO PROVIDE SIDE-BY-SIDE PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS MAINTAINING ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY AT 3 DORSET ROAD, AND A TOTAL DRIVEWAY CURB CUT WIDTH AT DORSET ROAD OF NO MORE THAN 25 FEET. 4. PROVISION OF A GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN, WITH EXISTING AND PROPOSED STORM WATER MODELS, SIGNED BY A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER (PE) REGISTERED IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, AND ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ENGINEER. 5. PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS SO AS TO REPLACE ALL EXISTING STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FEATURES FOR PURPOSE AND FUNCTION, AND TO ENSURE NO ADDITIONAL STORM WATER RUNOFF IMPACTS OTHER PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE AREA. 6. NO BUILDING PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED UNLESS THE APPLICANT PROVIDES EVIDENCE THAT A COPY OF THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VARIANCE, AND NOTING THE RESTRICTION ON FUTURE SUBDIVISION, HAS BEEN RECORDED WITH THE DAKOTA COUNTY PROPERTY RECORDS. Commissioner Magnuson asked if it was proper for the Commission to take action on the item without having the license approved by the City Council. She stated she did not have enough information on this case to make a proper decision. Mr. Sedlacek indicated staff debated this issue and how to bring the application forward. The processing of the variance and conditional use permit was known and therefore staff was comfortable with bringing the request forward. He explained the license request would be determined by the council and that approval of the planning case was not an implicit approval of a license. Following the variance request, the applicant needs to procure a license, a building permit and grading permit for the driveway. Each of these decisions will be independently evaluated. Commissioner Viksnins questioned if the applicant had considered and exhausted all options. Mr. Grittman commented the current State law has removed the hardship language and replaced it with practical difficulty. For this reason, the case was easier to review. MH Planning Commission 12-26-2012, Page 7 Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2012 7 AYES 6 5 NAYS 1 (MAGNUSON) CHAIR NORTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE OF APPROXIMATELY 1,480 SQUARE FEET, AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT. AYES 6 5 NAYS 1 (MAGNUSON) Chair Norton advised the City Council would consider this application at its December 4, 2012, meeting. December Meeting Date Mr. Sedlacek explained the commission would need to reschedule the December planning commission meeting. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RESCHEDULE THE DECEMBER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO DECEMBER 26, 2012 AT 7:00 P.M. AYES 7 6 NAYS 0 Verbal Review Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #2012-28 Curt Skallerup Conditional Use Permit Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #2012-29 Daniel Fleischhaker Variance Approved by the City Council in opposition to the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #2012-31 David Williams Conditional Use Permit Approved by the City Council in opposition to the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, RECOMENDING THAT STAFF REVIEW AND AMEND THE CITY CODE LANGUAGE REGARDING THE NUMBER OF GARAGE DOORS ALLOWED ON A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. AYES 7 6 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:58 P.M. AYES 7 6 NAYS 0 Respectfully submitted, Heidi Guenther, Recording Secretary MH Planning Commission 12-26-2012, Page 8 MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: December 20, 2012 MEETING DATE: December 26, 2012 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit for a Pigeon Loft in the R-1 District CASE NO: Case No. 2012-34; NAC Case 254.04 – 12.26 APPLICANT(S): Vincent Nonnemacher LOCATION: 1815 Valley Curve Road ZONING: R-1, One Family Residential District GUIDE PLAN: Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request: The applicant is proposing to construct an accessory building for the raising of racing homing pigeons at his home located at 1815 Valley Curve Road, within the R-1 One Family Residential District. Mr. Nonnemacher plans on raising the racing homing pigeons as a hobby upon retirement, and would like to construct a 200 square foot pigeon loft in the rear yard of his property to house the pigeons. The Zoning Ordinance allows the keeping of common domestic household pets (including horses) in the R-1 District for noncommercial purposes, provided that any accessory building used to house such animals is located not less than one hundred feet (100') from the nearest residence. As a threshold question, whether homing pigeons are included within the definition of a domestic household pet is at issue. The City does not directly define pigeons as a domestic animal, but rather includes the term “birds” within its definition. Further, pigeons are not included in the City’s definition of “food animal” (a definition of “farm animal” is not currently provided). While pigeons are birds, within the potential realm of the ordinance definition, they are kept MH Planning Commission 12-26-2012, Page 9 2 outdoors in a separate building rather than within the household, and are routinely free to leave the premises of the owner. The City may decide that a more detailed categorization of pigeons is necessary within City Code, in which case an amendment to Ordinance would be necessary. An ordinance amendment could do one of two things: 1) specifically include pigeons within the definition of a domestic animal, or 2) create language to specifically allow the raising of pigeons as an accessory or conditional use within the R-1 District. For the purpose of this report and subsequent discussion, planning staff will consider the existing definition of “domestic household pet” as comprehensive enough to include homing pigeons as a domestic “bird,” so that the raising of pigeons would be considered an allowed accessory use within the R-1 District. If the Planning Commission and/or City Council determine otherwise, the application should be tabled or denied until an amendment is processed which would include an allowance for the raising and keeping of pigeons. The subject property is both a corner and a through lot. The zoning ordinance requires that all accessory buildings greater than one hundred forty four (144) square feet receive a conditional use permit. As indicated, the applicant would like to build a 200 square foot pigeon loft. Analysis: Conditional Use Permit. In considering an application for a conditional use permit the council will consider 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. Specifically, the ordinance sets up the following requirements for consideration of Conditional Use Permits: Conditional Use Permit Standards. According to Section 12-1L-6, in considering an application for a conditional use permit, the Planning Commission and City Council shall consider the following factors: Effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants , surrounding lands, or community; Staff Comment: The proposed accessory structure is to be used for housing racing homing pigeons. As noted above, this use may be seen as not allowed under the current ordinance language. Some communities have had issues with homing pigeons, with respect to roosting on neighboring buildings, soiling house and garden improvements in neighboring areas, and similar concerns. The applicant should identify how they will address these types of concerns as they may relate to the proposed use of the building. MH Planning Commission 12-26-2012, Page 10 3 Existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets; Staff Comment: The accessory structure shall not influence traffic conditions or parking facilities on adjacent streets. Effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan; Staff Comment: The Comprehensive Plan has designated this parcel as Low Density Residential. A detached accessory structure for storage is a compatible use with this designation. It must be determined that the proposed use will not seriously depreciate the surrounding property value; Staff Comment: The proposed building will be 8 feet wide by 25 feet in length, with an overall height of approximately 10 feet, constructed on a concrete slab. The building will be covered in “drivit” sheathing and asphalt shingles, designed to be compatible with the principal building. The proposed building location would be 30 feet from the east property line, one of the parcel’s frontages on Hilltop Road. The building is proposed to be 18 feet from the south property line, an adjoining single family parcel. Both the applicant’s house and the neighboring house to the south have setbacks from Hilltop Road of 45 feet or more. As such, the proposed location of the structure would extend at least 15 feet closer to the street than either principal residence. If the structure is to be approved, it should be no closer to the street than the homes on either of these parcels. Proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter. Staff Comment: The proposed structure meets all other Ordinance requirements, including setback requirements MH Planning Commission 12-26-2012, Page 11 4 Action Requested: Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may make one of the following recommendations on the proposed Conditional Use Permit: (1) Recommendation of approval for the Conditional Use Permit for an accessory building of 200 square feet, more than the permitted 144 square feet allowed by the zoning ordinance. This recommendation should be accompanied by findings for approval as attached to this report, and the following conditions: a. The proposed building is relocated to be no closer to the street than either of the adjoining principal houses, including the applicant’s house at 1815 Valley Curve, or the property to the south at 828 Hilltop Road. b. The structure is maintained and not permitted to deteriorate in any way. c. The structure is not permitted to maintain odors or discoloration that is visible from adjoining property or from the public street. d. Landscaping is added to the south side of the building to enhance the screening of the building from the adjoin parcel. (2) Recommendation of denial for the Conditional Use Permit, based on findings for denial attached to this report. (3) Tabling of the Conditional Use Permit, pending further consideration of the proposed use of the building (keeping and raising of racing homing pigeons), contingent on the applicant’s agreement to extend the timeline for consideration of the CUP. Staff Recommendation: Planning staff does not recommend the CUP. The use of the building appears to raise issues of compatibility in a single family residential neighborhood. Staff would recommend that if the keeping of racing pigeons is to be considered acceptable, a set of standards should be prepared as a part of the zoning ordinance in order to minimize potential problems with the use. If the Planning Commission believes that the use is acceptable, staff would recommend that the conditions listed above are included in any approval to give the City the ability to manage concerns over compatibility, maintenance, and operation. Supplementary Materials: 1. Application materials dated 11/21/12 2. Site Location Map MH Planning Commission 12-26-2012, Page 12 5 Draft Findings of Fact for Approval Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Building of more than 144 square feet 1815 Valley Curve Road 1. The proposed accessory building, with the applied conditions, will meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. 2. The proposed accessory building will be consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. 3. The use and maintenance of the proposed accessory building will, with the applied conditions, blend in with other neighborhood accessory activities. 4. The proposed accessory building, with the applied conditions, will constitute a use of residential property that is commonly found in residential areas of the community. 5. The proposed use, that of housing racing pigeons, is an acceptable accessory use in the residential area, and within the meaning of the zoning ordinance definition for domestic animals. MH Planning Commission 12-26-2012, Page 13 6 Draft Findings of Fact for Denial Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Building of more than 144 square feet 1815 Valley Curve Road 1. The proposed accessory building is proposed to house a use that is not permitted in the zoning district. 2. The proposed accessory building will be inconsistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. 3. The use and maintenance of the proposed accessory building will conflict with other neighborhood principal and accessory activities. 4. The proposed accessory building, with the applied conditions, will constitute a use of residential property that is not commonly found in residential areas of the community. 5. The proposed use does not fit within the City zoning ordinance definition of domestic animals. MH Planning Commission 12-26-2012, Page 14 Marie Ave Hillto p R d Tr a i l R d Ridge Pl V a l l e y C u r v e R d Wa c h t l e r A v e Hilltop Ct Crown Point D r Ar v i n D r Crown Cir Ri d g e P l 1815 Valley Curve Rd. Site Location Map Water/Wetlands Major Roads City Roads Municipal Boundaries Int e r s t a t e 3 5 E MH Planning Commission 12-26-2012, Page 15 MH Planning Commission 12-26-2012, Page 16 MH Planning Commission 12-26-2012, Page 17 MH Planning Commission 12-26-2012, Page 18 MH Planning Commission 12-26-2012, Page 19 MH Planning Commission 12-26-2012, Page 20 MH Planning Commission 12-26-2012, Page 21 MH Planning Commission 12-26-2012, Page 22 MH Planning Commission 12-26-2012, Page 23 MH Planning Commission 12-26-2012, Page 24 MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: December 20, 2012 MEETING DATE: December 26, 2012 SUBJECT: Lot Line Adjustment CASE NO: Case No. 2012-35; NAC Case 254.04 – 12.25 APPLICANT(S): Bruce Coppock and Lucia May LOCATION: 1698 Dodd Road ZONING: R-1A, One Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: Rural Residential Background and Description of Request: The applicants Bruce Coppock and Lucia May are proposing a lot line adjustment between their property located at 1698 Dodd Road, within the R-1A District, and Christine and Bob Salmen’s property at 1694 Dodd Road, to the west of the subject property. Currently the applicant’s westerly lot line runs through a swing set and tennis court on the neighboring property. Both neighbors have signed the application for a lot line adjustment to move the 1698 Dodd Road property line approximately 38 feet to the east, and out of the range of uses associated with the home at 1694 Dodd Road. Subdivision Ordinance states that in cases where an applicant would like to divide a lot which is a part of a recorded plat, where the division is to permit the adding of a parcel of land to an abutting lot and the newly created property line will not cause the other remaining portion of the lot to be in violation with Subdivision or Zoning Ordinance, that a plat need not be prepared. Planning staff has reviewed the provided survey against the requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances as described, and will make a recommendation based on the provided survey. MH Planning Commission 12-26-2012, Page 25 MH Planning Commission 12-26-2012, Page 26 2 Analysis: Subdivision Ordinance. The requested lot line adjustment is not anticipated to impact streets, easements, erosion and sediment control, surface water drainage, wet soils or steep slopes at either 1698 Dodd Road or 1694 Dodd Road. Both lots of record will be changed as a result of the lot line adjustment between the neighbors, so subdivision standards for lots should be considered. Lot area and building setbacks need to meet the requirements of the applicable zoning district, which will be reviewed under the purview of the Zoning Ordinance analysis. Zoning Ordinance. As both lot area and setbacks within the applicant’s property at 1698 Dodd Road and the neighboring property at 1694 Dodd Road will be affected by the requested lot line adjustment, each lot should be reviewed according to the area and setback requirements of the applicable zoning district. The applicant’s property at 1698 Dodd Road falls within the R-1A Zoning District. Table 1. illustrates lot area and setback standards within the R-1A District, the existing lot area and setbacks maintained by the 1698 Dodd Road property as is, and the proposed lot area and setbacks which will result from the requested lot line adjustment. Table 1. (1698 Dodd Road) R-1A District Standards Existing Lot Area and Setbacks Proposed Lot Area and Setbacks Compliant Upon Lot Line Adjustment Lot Area 30,000 SF 205,168 SF Est. 199,012 SF Yes Lot Width 125 feet Est. 380 feet Est. 390 feet Yes Front Setback 40 feet Est. 115 feet Est. 85 feet Yes Side Setback 15 feet (or ½ height of structure) Est. 70-200 feet No change Yes Rear Setback 30 feet (or 20% of average lot depth @ estimated 92 feet ) Est. 290 feet No change Yes As indicated, all Ordinance lot area and setback standards will be maintained in the property at 1698 Dodd Road as a result of the requested lot line adjustment. The neighboring property at 1694 Dodd Road falls within the R-1 Zoning District. Table 2. illustrates lot area and setback standards within the R-1 District, the existing lot area and setbacks maintained by the 1694 Dodd Road property as is, and the proposed lot area and setbacks which will result from the requested lot line adjustment. MH Planning Commission 12-26-2012, Page 27 3 Table 2. (1694 Dodd Road) R-1 District Standards Existing Lot Area and Setbacks Proposed Lot Area and Setbacks Compliant Upon Lot Line Adjustment Lot Area 15,000 SF 103,673 SF 109,829 SF Yes Lot Width 100 feet Est. 324 feet No change Yes Front Setback 30 feet Est. 150 feet No change Yes Side Setback 15 feet Est. 100-170 feet No change Yes Rear Setback 30 feet (or 20% of average lot depth @ estimated 64 feet) Est. 80 feet Est. 110 feet Yes As indicated, all district area and setback standards will be maintained for the property at 1694 Dodd Road as a result of the requested lot line adjustment. Further, the lot line adjustment will provide a rear yard setback for the detached garage located at 1694 Dodd Road, where none currently exists. In addition, the lot line adjustment will create a lot line setback from uses integral to the 1694 Dodd Road residence (tennis court, swing set). In this sense, the lot line adjustment will provide a more workable east lot line for 1694 Dodd Road, the adjustment for which is acceptable to the applicant at 1698 Dodd Road. Action Requested: Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider from among the following alternative recommendations: Lot Line Adjustment: (1) Recommendation for approval of the lot line adjustment to move the applicant’s west lot line approximately 38 feet to the east according to the Certificate of Survey dated September 2012, based on the draft findings attached to this report, and with the following conditions: a. The applicant record the approved Certificate of Survey, including the proposed lot line adjustment, with Dakota County. (2) Recommendation of denial of the lot line adjustment to move the applicant’s west lot line approximately 38 feet to the east according to the Certificate of Survey dated September 2012, based on findings for denial developed from information at the hearing. MH Planning Commission 12-26-2012, Page 28 4 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested lot line adjustment based on the finding that it will not negatively impact either the neighboring properties involved or surrounding properties, that the lot line adjustment will not cause either neighboring property to become non-compliant with the requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance, and with the conditions as noted. Supplementary Materials: 1. Application materials dated 12/3/12 2. Certificate of Survey 3. Site location map MH Planning Commission 12-26-2012, Page 29 5 Draft Findings of Fact for Approval Lot Line Adjustment 1698 Dodd Road 1. The proposed lot line adjustment will occur on an existing lot of record within an established single family neighborhood, a reasonable use of the subject parcel. 2. The property is zoned and guided for single family residential use, consistent with the proposal. 3. The proposed lot line adjustment will not impact streets, easements, erosion and sediment control, surface water drainage, wet soils or steep slopes at either the subject property (1698 Dodd Road) or the neighboring property (1694 Dodd Road). 4. The proposed lot line adjustment will not cause either the subject property or the neighboring property to become non-compliant with either Subdivision or Zoning Ordinance standards. 5. The proposed lot line adjustment will create an accessory building rear yard setback (where none currently exists) for the detached garage on the eastern edge of the neighboring property at 1694 Dodd Road, in addition to providing a lot line setback from other uses (tennis courts, swing set) integral to the 1694 Dodd Road residence. MH Planning Commission 12-26-2012, Page 30 Dod d R d Marie Ave Evergreen Kn Bachelor Ave Stanwich La Round Hill Rd 1698 Dodd Road Site Location Map Water/Wetlands Major Roads City Roads Municipal Boundaries 1694 Dodd Road MH Planning Commission 12-26-2012, Page 31 MH Planning Commission 12-26-2012, Page 32 MH Planning Commission 12-26-2012, Page 33 MH Planning Commission 12-26-2012, Page 34