Loading...
2012-11-27 Planning Comm Agenda Packet CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Agenda Tuesday, November 27, 2012 - 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of the Agenda 4. Approval of the October 23, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes 5. Hearings a. Case No. 2012-32: Sean Hoffmann, Mendota Heights BP: variance allowing electronic sign display at 2030 Dodd Road. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. b. Case No. 2012-33: Mike Hueg: Variance and Conditional Use Permit to Construct Single Family Home and Attached Garage at Lots 9-12, Block 7, Somerset View. 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 11/27/2012, Page 1 Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 2012 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 23, 2012 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 23, 2012, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Norton, Commissioners Field, Hennes, Magnuson, Noonan, and Viksnins. Those absent: Commissioner Roston. Those present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, Assistant City Engineer Ryan Ruzek, and NAC Planner Stephen Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Heidi Guenther. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of September 24, 2012, Minutes COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2012, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Hearings PLANNING CASE #2012-28 Curt Skallerup of VIRGO, LLC 2250 Pilot Knob Road Conditional Use Permit Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Curt Skallerup for approval of a conditional use permit for an indoor trampoline park. Mr. Grittman noted that the commission considered this request at its September meeting. At that time, questions were raised with regard to shared parking and the appropriateness of this use in the industrial zoning. He explained that a list of questions was forwarded to the applicants and a response was received just prior to this evenings meeting. Mr. Grittman presented staff’s analysis of the request and recommended approval at this time based on the information provided by the applicant. Commissioner Field asked if the applicant was present this evening. Mr. Grittman stated the applicant was from out of state and not in attendance this evening. Commissioner Viksnins questioned if the hours of operation should be a condition for approval. Mr. Grittman indicated this could be added by the Commission as a condition for approval. Commissioner Magnuson asked how the onsite signage would be addressed by staff. Mr. Grittman anticipated working with the applicant on this issue along with the property owner. He recommended this be made a condition for approval as well. MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 2012 2 Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE HOURS OF OPERATION SHALL BE MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY FROM 11:00 A.M. TO 9:00 P.M.; FRIDAY THROUGH SATURDAY FROM 9:00 A.M. TO 12:00 A.M. AND FROM 11:00 A.M. TO 8:00 P.M. ON SUNDAYS. 2. THE APPLICANT SHALL WORK WITH CITY STAFF TO ADD SIGNAGE, PAVEMENT MARKINGS OR OTHER INDICATORS IN THE PARKING LOT AREA THAT WOULD MINIMIZE TRAFFIC CONFUSION FOR THE TRAMPOLINE PARK CUSTOMERS. Commissioner Field questioned if an additional condition should be added to require a minimum number of parking spaces, in case the adjacent use were to change. Mr. Grittman stated this could be added but would be difficult to enforce. He stated the site did have adequate parking at this time. ADDED CONDITION: 3. THERE SHALL BE 60 PARKING SPACES DESIGNATED FOR THE SUGGESTED USE. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 30, 2012, meeting. PLANNING CASE #2012-29 Daniel Fleischhaker 1018 Overlook Road Variance Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Daniel Fleischhaker for approval of a variance for more than three doors on a garage. Mr. Grittman noted that this item was discussed by the Commission at their September 24th meeting. He reviewed the number of garage doors currently allowed by City Code. At the last meeting, the applicant noted there were several homes in Mendota Heights with more than three garage doors. Mr. Grittman noted one of these was approved in error. Mr. Grittman presented staff’s analysis of the request and recommended approval of the conditional use permit to allow an attached accessory structure upon the subject property in a size and location proposed with a condition that the applicant amend the proposal to meet the requirement for garage door width. Staff recommends denial of the variance request to construct the garage with a second double garage door based on the fact requisite findings to support a variance are not present. MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 3 Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 2012 3 Daniel Fleischhaker, 1018 Overlook Road, commented he spoke with 22 of his neighbors regarding this matter and received signatures supporting his proposed garage. He noted three of his neighbors did not sign or were not available to sign the petition. He indicated he had a large lot with room for the oversized garage. He requested the Commission approve the double door as it was more architecturally appealing and symmetrical. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Commissioner Field understood the concerns raised by the applicant this evening, but stated City Ordinance had to be followed. Commissioner Magnuson agreed stating it was unfortunate the property did not have a practical difficulty in this case. Commissioner Viksnins commented the Commission was guided by City Ordinance on this issue and not by the favor of the neighbors. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 30, 2012, meeting. PLANNING CASE #2012-31 David Williams 755 Wentworth Avenue Conditional Use Permit Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of David Williams for approval of a conditional use permit for a garage greater than 1,200 square feet and a variance for more than three doors on a garage. Mr. Grittman noted that David and Kim Williams wished to construct a new home upon the property located at 755 Wentworth Avenue. Included in the home plans are two attached two-stall garages, each having a double garage door. In total, 1,478 square feet of garage space was proposed. This request appeared before the Commission this past July for a wetland permit to construct a single family home upon the subject property. A site map and floor plan was reviewed in detail. Mr. Grittman presented staff’s analysis of the request and recommended approval of the conditional use permit to allow an attached accessory structure upon the subject property in the size and location proposed. Staff believes that while the applicants are proposing to use the property in a manner that is consistent and will have little or no impact on neighboring properties, the applicant can clearly comply with the requirements of the Ordinance and therefore Staff does not support the variance request. David Williams, 18870 Brookwood Road in Prior Lake, thanked the Commission for considering his request this evening. He stated he works in St. Paul, and his children attend St. Thomas Academy and Visitation schools. His MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 4 Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 2012 4 family was pleased to have found a lot to build on in Mendota Heights. He commented a four car garage home was designed given the fact he was building on an eight acre parcel and would not visible from the road. In addition, a four-car garage was not uncommon in the city, and referenced the Hidden Creek development. Mr. Williams explained that he felt four doors were appropriate for a four car garage, and that he was proposing to use an aesthetically pleasing garage door. He requested the Commission take into consideration his situation and approve the requested variance. Commissioner Magnuson asked if work on the home had begun. Mr. Williams stated the site had been cleared and footings for his home had been poured. Commissioner Hennes questioned how Mr. Williams would proceed if the variance was denied. Mr. Williams stated he would have to erect one single car door and one double garage door. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Al Maas, 14551 Judicial Road in Burnsville, explained he was Mr. Williams’ general contractor. He indicated he was not aware of the City Ordinance when the home was designed. He was not made aware of the Ordinance unti l he submitted the building plans. He explained he was not trying to force the issue but had not seen this type of Ordinance throughout his 25 years of building. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT. AYES 6 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Commissioner Field empathized with Mr. Williams and stated that the Commission had to follow City Ordinance. He understood that this garage would not be seen from the roadway. He did not want to see new home construction limited. Commissioner Hennes agreed, but stated both cases should to be treated the same. He suggested the Ordinance be reviewed by the Commission in the near future. Commissioner Magnuson also voiced support for the request, while acknowledging that the Commission was faced with denying this variance. Mr. Williams asked how he could go about proposing a change to the current City Ordinance. Chair Norton suggested Mr. Williams speak with staff regarding this matter after the meeting. He indicated the Commission would be more than willing to consider this request. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 30, 2012, meeting. MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 5 Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 2012 5 Verbal Review Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #2012-27 Mendakota Country Club Wetlands Permit and Variance Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #2012-28 Curt Skallerup Conditional Use Permit Action was tabled by the Planning Commission and discussed this evening. PLANNING CASE #2012-29 Daniel Fleischhaker Conditional Use Permit Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. Variance Action was tabled by the Planning Commission and discussed this evening. PLANNING CASE #2012-30 Robert Whebbe Conditional Use Permit Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. Variance Denied by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:52 P.M. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Respectfully submitted, Heidi Guenther, Recording Secretary MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman/Michelle Barness DATE: November 21, 2012 MEETING DATE: November 27, 2012 SUBJECT: Variance to Allow Electronic Sign Display CASE NO: Case No. 2012-32; NAC Case No. 254.04 – 12.24 APPLICANT(S): Sean Hoffmann, Wieland Inc. (BP Station) LOCATION: 2030 Dodd Road ZONING: B-2, Neighborhood Business GUIDE PLAN: MU-PUD, Mixed Use Planned Unit Development Background and Description of Request: Sean Hoffmann is requesting a sign variance to be able to erect an electronic pylon sign at the BP gas station located at 2030 Dodd Road. The property is zoned B-2, Neighborhood Business. The proposed sign is 14 feet tall by 6 feet 9 inches wide, a total of 94.5 square feet, and is intended to replace an existing 45 foot tall freestanding sign in the same location (at the west edge of the BP station property and adjacent to Dodd Road). It is proposed to include LED fuel price numbers that are stationary (not animated or flashing), which will change approximately once per day. Analysis: Sign Illumination. Signs in the B-2 District are regulated according to Zoning Ordinance 12-1D-15: Signs. Illuminated signs meeting the following descriptions are specifically prohibited in this chapter: MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 7 2 Illuminated flashing signs within the R, B-1 or B-2 District. In all districts, illuminated signs or devices giving off an intermittent, steady or rotating beam consisting of a collection or concentration of rays or lights. Animated signs, lighter than air inflatable devices, string lights, strip lighting outlining structures, and signs attached or mounted on a vehicle parked primarily for use as a sign. The proposed electronic sign is neither animated nor flashing, but will employ LED lights to provide a steady beam of illumination behind gasoline price numbering. The issue of electronic signs was addressed in June of 2006 in the course of considering a request by Henry Sibley High School to construct a digital sign on their property. In the Henry Sibley case the City 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. The Henry Sibley sign differed from the proposed sign in that it would have changed messages on a regular basis (every few seconds) due to the need to disseminate information to students. As noted, the applicant has proposed that the electronic sign will change only when the price of fuel changes, usually not more than once a day, and which the applicant believes 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. In addition, the applicant has indicated that the proposed electronic sign can be turned off at night, so illumination from the sign is not anticipated to be constant. Sign Location and Design. Sign ordinance also regulates the design of freestanding signs in the B-2 District, under the following provisions: One pylon type sign is allowed per single lot. No pylon or freestanding sign shall be located in a required yard area. A pylon or freestanding sign shall not be higher than twenty five feet (25') above the average grade level at the base of the sign. No part of the pylon or freestanding sign shall be less than twenty feet (20') from a side lot line nor less than five feet (5') from any driveway or parking area. No part or projection from a pylon or freestanding sign shall be less than fourteen feet (14') vertical distance above the grade level at the base of the sign. The gross area of any surface of a pylon or freestanding sign shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet. The front yard setback in the B-2 District is 30 feet, and the interior side yard setback is 15 feet. Although the proposed sign lies within those required setbacks, it is replaced an existing sign in substantially the same location. Nonconformity regulations provide that a property owner may improve, replace, or maintain a non-conformity, provided it is not expanded. Since this sign lowers the height, and lessens the overall non- conforming condition, it can be constructed in the proposed location without variance. MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 8 3 Variance. The proposed pylon sign will be illuminated, which has led to the applicant’s request for a variance from the standard prohibiting illuminated signs giving off either intermittent or steady beams of light. When considering a variance, the Zoning Ordinance provides the following requirements: Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall do not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Current variance code states that the City “may” grant a variance if it finds “practical difficulties” in using the property in a reasonable manner that is not allowed under the ordinance – this refers to varying from performance standards in the ordinance. In summary, the City must find the following: • The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. • The ordinance prohibits this manner of use. • The proposed manner of use is consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance and with the Comprehensive Plan. • The ordinance creates “practical difficulties” in achieving the manner of use. • The difficulties are unique to the property and not created by the owner. • The variance will not alter the essential character of the “locality”. The applicant provided his reasons for believing that a variance is appropriate in this situation in a variance checklist and project narrative letter dated September 28, 2012. In these documents the applicant indicates that there are conditions which make it difficult to use the property in a reasonable manner when carrying out the strict provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. In winter conditions numbers displaying fuel prices on the existing freestanding sign freeze to the sign, which requires the use of a ladder to change the fuel price. The applicant notes that manual changes are difficult and dangerous in snow and ice conditions, and exacerbated by a personal disability. He argues that an electronic sign would allow him the opportunity to change the fuel prices remotely, avoiding the need to use a ladder for this purpose. While the proposed sign will be out of character with the neighborhood to the extent that it will be an isolated illuminated sign in the area. The sign itself is of a modern, compact design and will arguably improve the overall appearance of the property in contrast to the existing 45 foot tall pylon sign in the same location. As the applicant has indicated, the existing 45 foot sign is a standard BP “highway“ sign, though the subject property is MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 9 4 not located adjacent to a highway. Installing a sign more appropriately scaled to its neighborhood surroundings should not change the essential character of the locality. Action Requested: Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following alternative recommendations: (1) Recommendation for approval of the proposed variance to allow LED-illuminated price information as a part of a new sign. This alternative should be supported by the draft findings for approval attached to this report. If recommended for approval, the City should consider conditions limiting the display to specific hours, prohibit changes more than once per day (or other time period), and limit the intensity of display to lower illumination levels at night, when overly bright LED displays can be distracting. (2) Recommendation for denial of the proposed variance to allow LED-illuminated price information as a part of a new sign. This alternative should be supported by the draft findings for denial attached to this report. Staff Recommendation: Planning staff does not recommend the variance. As noted in this report, variances require a finding that there is unique condition on the property that interferes with using the property in what would otherwise be a reasonable manner. 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 City believes that this technology is appropriate, it should consider an amendment, rather than the variance process in this case. As noted in the past, the City has had the opportunity to consider this change on a number of occasions, but has declined to do so. Supplementary Materials: 1. Application materials dated September 28, 2012 2. Site Location Map MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 10 5 Draft Findings of Fact for Approval Variance to Allow an LED Electronic Sign Display 2030 Dodd Road 1. The applicant is taking steps to bring the sign closer to conformity with the City’s sign regulations. 2. The electronic sign display will be limited to the subject property if approved by variance. 3. The property is not in proximity to residential property. 4. The sign will not be illuminated during overnight hours. 5. The property in question is unique in that its business relies on a common practice of changeable messages. 6. The applicant’s operational requirements show that the LED technology is necessary to make reasonable use of the property. MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 11 6 Draft Findings of Fact for Denial Variance to Allow an LED Electronic Sign Display 2030 Dodd Road 1. The property is not unique in that numerous properties rely on changeable copy messages 2. The practical difficulties noted by the applicant relate to the operational factors of the business, rather than the property. 3. The alternative sign technology is not necessary to make reasonable use of the property. 4. The zoning ordinance permits changeable copy signs, but not the proposed technology, and as such, changeable copy signs are not prohibited. 5. Although the sign would be to the proposed site under this application, approval could lead to a precedent in considering similar applications in the area. MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 12 Hillto p R d Azte c L a Fo x P l S Plaza Dr Ridge Pl Mendakota Dr Creek Ave Wa c h t l e r A v e Freeway Rd S Freeway Rd N Freeway Rd Hi g h w a y 1 1 0 F r o n t a g e R d 2030 Dodd Road Site Location Map Water/Wetlands Major Roads City Roads Municipal Boundaries Dod d R o a d Highway 110 MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 13 MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 14 MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 15 MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 16 MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 17 MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 18 MH Pl a n n i n g Co m m i s s i o n 11 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 2 , Pa g e 19 MH Pl a n n i n g Co m m i s s i o n 11 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 2 , Pa g e 20 MH Pl a n n i n g Co m m i s s i o n 11 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 2 , Pa g e 21 MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 22 MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: November 21, 2012 MEETING DATE: November 27, 2012 SUBJECT: Variance and Conditional Use Permit to Construct Single Family Home and Attached Garage CASE NO: Case No. 2012-33; NAC Case 254.04 – 12.23 APPLICANT(S): Michael and Theresea Hueg LOCATION: 1170 Dodd Road ZONING: R-1, Single Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request: The applicants are proposing to construct a single family home on a parcel in the Somerset View subdivision between Dodd Road and Dorset Road. The parcel sits at the southwest corner of Somerset Road and Burr Oak Avenue – both of which are platted but unbuilt streets. 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, neither of the streets is improved, requiring the approval of a variance to permit the construction. As a 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 up to 1,500 square feet may be allowed only with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Finally, the applicants are seeking approval of a license to construct private improvements (a private driveway) within an unimproved public right of way. The applicants’ proposal would extend a driveway along the unimproved Burr Oak Avenue MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 23 2 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. Analysis: Variance. When considering a variance, the zoning ordinance provides the following requirements: Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall do not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Current variance code states that the City “may” grant a variance if it finds “practica l difficulties” in using the property in a reasonable manner that is not allowed under the ordinance – this refers to varying from performance standards in the ordinance. In summary, the City must find the following: The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. The ordinance prohibits this manner of use. The proposed manner of use is consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance and with the Comprehensive Plan. The ordinance creates “practical difficulties” in achieving the manner of use. The difficulties are unique to the property and not created by the owner. The variance will not alter the essential character of the “locality”. The use of the property for single family purposes is consistent with the ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, and the surrounding neighborhood. The lack of improved street frontage is a vestige of the pattern of development and construction over time, leaving this parcel surrounded by developed parcels. In this case, the applicant could avoid the need for a variance by petitioning for construction of the street. The significant issue with that option is that street construction would not appear to benefit any other property. Moreover, as much as 350 feet of street would need to be constructed to provide the proper access for this one lot, and at least another 400 feet of construction to avoid ending that street in a dead-end. Thus, it would appear that the practical difficulties faced by this parcel are unique, and would qualify the parcel for variance consideration under the requirements of the ordinance. MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 24 3 Complicating this analysis, however, is that the subject property is about 1.5 acres in size, raising the possibility that a future owner would seek to request further subdivision. The permission to develop a lot without full street frontage is not a preferred option, but could be considered appropriate for a single home. Multiplying this pattern could erase the “reasonable use” aspect of the variance requirement. To resolve this concern, staff would recommend that a restrictive covenant be added as a condition of any variance approval which prohibits further subdivision and/or development of the property for more than the one single family home without full street construction, eliminating the prospect for further variances. Finally, with regard to the variance request, the issue of development impacts must be considered. As a companion request to the variance, the applicant would need permission of the City Council to construct a privately maintained driveway within the right of way of Burr Oak Avenue. This request is complicated by the existence of a similar driveway that provides access to 3 Dorset Road within the Burr Oak right of way. To provide the access requested by the applicant, a new driveway that joins the current driveway would need to be constructed (creating a shared driveway condition) or the applicant’s driveway would need to be constructed alongside the current driveway. Historically, the City has tried to avoid new shared driveway arrangements due to problems with cooperative use and maintenance. As a result, the side-by-side private driveways could be constructed, keeping the maximum width of the curb cut at Dorset to the City’s standard for driveways of 25 feet. This would entail the reconstruction of a portion of the existing driveway. The applicant would need to enter into a license agreement that provides for private maintenance and indemnifies the City from liability for issues related to the construction of use of those improvements. In addition to driveway construction, drainage can be a concern with new pavement and grading. The applicant should provide a grading and drainage plan to the City for review and approval by the City Engineer, with the additional requirement that no new run-off be directed onto adjoining private property. Conditional Use Permit. The City requires that attached garages of more than 1,200 square feet (up to a maximum floor area of 1,500 square feet) be processed with a Conditional Use Permit. The purpose of the CUP provision is to ensure that the proposed garage is compatible with the proposed use of the property and with the surrounding neighborhood. In this case, the parcel (as noted) is well over an acre in size, and the garage size would appear to have little or no impact on any of the surrounding properties. The applicants have indicated on their plan and in their application narrative that they will meet the City’s garage door standard of one single door and one double door. The size of the garage is proposed to be approximately 1,480 square feet, consistent with the requirements of the CUP provision. MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 25 4 Action Requested: Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider from among the following alternative recommendations: Variance: (1) Recommendation for approval of the variance to construct a single family home on a parcel without improved public street frontage, based on the draft findings attached to this report, and with the following conditions: a. 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. b. Execution of a license agreement providing for construction an d 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. c. 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. d. Provision of a grading and drainage plan, with existing and proposed stormwater models, signed by a Professional Engineer (PE) registered in the State of Minnesota, and acceptable to the City Engineer. e. Planning and construction of improvements so as to replace all existing storm water management features for purpose and function, and to ensure no additional stormwater runoff impacts other private property in the area. f. 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. (2) Recommendation of denial of the variance, based on the draft findings for denial attached to this report. Conditional Use Permit: (1) Recommendation of approval of the CUP for an attached garage of approximately 1,480 square feet, based on findings that the proposed garage will be consistent with the development of the subject property, compatible with the surrounding area, and will not negatively impact other property in the neighborhood. MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 26 5 (2) Recommendation of denial of the CUP for an attached garage of more than 1,200 square feet, based on findings that the over-sized garage would not be compatible with the character of the area. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Variance and CUP, with the conditions as noted. The conditions have been proposed (along with the draft findings) 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. However, 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. With regard to the CUP, there are no apparent issues with the proposed garage, and as it complies with the terms of the zoning ordinance, staff recommends approval as submitted. Supplementary Materials: 1. Application materials dated 11/8/12 2. Site Location Map MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 27 6 Draft Findings of Fact for Approval Variance for Single Family Home on Parcel Without Improved Street Frontage 1170 Dodd Road 1. The proposed single family home is to be constructed 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 property has platted right of way on two sides, but no constructed public street improvements nearby. 4. The parcel is more than 1.5 acres in area, and can accommodate the construction without creating negative impacts on the area. 5. The lack of improved street frontage is unique to this parcel, in that all other divided parcels in nearby proximity to the subject property have such access. 6. The lack of improved street frontage creates practical difficulties in establishing the proposed reasonable of this property. 7. The Burr Oak right of way can accommodate an additional driveway without creating a need for shared driveway use or maintenance (although the neighbors may choose to do so without requiring it). 8. While a single family home may be constructed on the existing lot of record with only nominal impacts, further subdivision and/or home construction would be inconsistent with these findings. 9. With the conditions imposed on future development, as well as driveway construction and grading and drainage control, the proposed home will be otherwise consistent with zoning and land use plan directives for the parcel an d the neighborhood. MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 28 7 Draft Findings of Fact for Denial Variance for Single Family Home on Parcel Without Improved Street Frontage 1170 Dodd Road 1. The proposed single family home would be more than 300 feet from the nearest public street, raising issues of public safety and emergency vehicle access. 2. The use of the public right of way for private driveway improvements necessitates either side-by-side private driveways at Dorset Road, or shared driveway access, neither of which are the City’s preferred design. 3. Without direct public safety access, the proposed residential use of the property is not reasonable. 4. The establishment of a single family home on a large parcel without street access can be seen as setting the stage for future requests for similar substandard development. 5. The practical difficulty is not unique to this parcel in that the City commonly requires fully developed public street access for all parcels, and such street access can be provided within existing right of way. 6. The practical difficulty can be seen as an economic condition rather than a physical attribute of the land, and economic conditions alone may not be used as the rationale for approval of a variance. 7. The undeveloped rights-of-way for Bur Oak Avenue and Somerset Avenue were specifically platted to service future infill development in the area, With the expectation that upon infill development construction, full street improvements would be installed. MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 29 Dorset R d Emerson Ave Staples Ave Mear s A v e Butler Ave Iv y H i l l D r Som e r s e t R d Coleshire La Chipp e w a A v e Vie w L a Be e b e A v e Spring S t H i n g h a m C i r As h l e y L a Ivy Falls Ave Sunset La John St Esth e r L a Kirchner Ave Maple Park Dr Valley La Norma La L o n d o n R d Hi w a s s e e T e r Ellen St 1170 Dodd Road Site Location Map Water/Wetlands Major Roads City Roads Municipal Boundaries Subject ParcelDodd R o a d MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 30 MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 31 MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 32 MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 33 MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 34 MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 35 MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 36 MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 37 MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 38 MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 39 MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 40 MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 41 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING A PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO DEVELOP A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GARAGE GREATER THAN 1200 SQUARE FEET AT LOTS NINE THROUGH TWELVE, BLOCK SEVEN, SOMERSET VIEW TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission of Mendota Heights will meet at 7:00 P.M., or as soon as possible thereafter, on Tuesday, November 27, 2012 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Michael and Theresea Hueg to construct a single family home on Lots 9 through 12, Block 7, Somerset View. The parcel is bounded on the north by the undeveloped Burr Oak Avenue right of way and on the west by the undeveloped Somerset Road right of way. A variance is requested to develop a home without 100 feet of frontage on an improved right of way. The applicant is also seeking a conditional use permit to construct a garage greater than 1200 square feet. This application has been assigned planning case number 2012-33. This notice is pursuant to Title 12 (Zoning), Chapter 1 of the Mendota Heights City Code. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to this request will be heard at this meeting. Lorri Smith City Clerk MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 42 MH Planning Commission 11/27/2012, Page 43