2013-01-22 Planning Comm Agenda Packet
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Agenda
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 - 7:00 P.M.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of the Agenda
4. Approval of the December 26, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes
5. Hearings
a. Case No. 2012-34: Vince Nonnemacher, Code Amendment to allow keeping
racing pigeons in the Residential Zone, CUP to keep pigeons at 1815 Valley
Curve Road. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m.
b. Case No. 2012-36: Robert Lindahl: Variance to the front yard setback for a
monument sign at 1440 Northland Drive. 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 Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 1
Planning Commission Minutes
December 26, 2012
1
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
December 26, 2012
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, December 26, 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, Magnuson, Noonan, and
Viksnins. Those absent: Commissioners Roston and Hennes. Those present were Assistant to the City
Administrator Jake Sedlacek, Public Works Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello, and NAC Planner Stephen
Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Heidi Guenther.
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of November 27, 2012, Minutes
COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO APPROVE THE
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 27, 2012, AS PRESENTED.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
Hearings
PLANNING CASE #2012-34
Vince Nonnemacher
1815 Valley Curve Road
Conditional Use Permit
Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Vince Nonnemacher for approval of a Conditional Use Permit for
an accessory structure with 200 square feet of total area at 1815 Valley Curve Road.
Mr. Grittman noted that the applicant is proposing to construct and accessory building with 200 square feet of area,
which would require a conditional use permit in the R-1 zoning designation. The building would be used to house
racing homing pigeons, which are not listed within the City Code definition of a domestic animal, or food animal.
Mr. Grittman presented staff’s analysis of the request and did not recommend approval of the Conditional Use
Permit. While the structure meets conditional use permit requirements, the use of the building appears to raise
issues of compatibility in the single family residential district. Staff recommends that if the keeping of racing
pigeons is to be considered acceptable, the application should be tabled to establish a set of standards be prepared as
an amendment to the zoning ordinance. If the Commission found use to fit within current City Code, staff would
recommend conditions be included for approval regarding maintenance and operation.
Staff responded to questions from the commission, noting that there are existing pigeon lofts in the city, which
predate city code, and are allowed as existing, non-conforming uses. The code does not specify how many pets
(outside of licensed dogs) a property owner may have, and chickens and ducks are currently prohibited by code, as
food animals.
Commissioner Magnuson questioned if the neighbors have provided comment on the proposed use. Mr. Sedlacek
indicated the neighbors were sent a notice regarding the accessory structure, but were not told of its intended use.
MH Planning Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 2
Planning Commission Minutes
December 26, 2012
2
Vince Nonnemacher, 1815 Valley Curve Road, explained his intent to raise homing pigeons as a hobby. Mr.
Nonnemacher commented his pigeons would be kept for pleasure and should be viewed as a pet. These pets are
trained not to sit outside of the loft, the impact upon neighbors would be minimal. Mr. Nonnemacher anticipated he
would house no more than one pigeon per 10 cubic square feet of loft space. He requested the planning commission
recommend approval of the conditional use permit.
Chair Norton asked if Mr. Nonnemacher would be willing to provide staff with the pigeons and building specifics.
Mr. Nonnemacher stated he was willing to work with staff.
Commissioner Magnuson asked if the applicant had spoken to his neighbors regarding the pigeon loft. Mr.
Nonnemacher explained he has discussed the use with his neighbors and all were very encouraging.
Mr. Nonnemacher commented he would not want to have any more than 50 pigeons for the health of the birds.
Commissioner Noonan inquired if the building could be moved in from Hilltop. Mr. Nonnemacher stated he was
willing to move the building slightly, but is limited by existing landscaping which will screen the structure from
neighboring properties. A berm with plantings could be added along Hilltop Road .
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 FIELD, TO CLOSE THE
PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES 5
NAYS 0
COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE
FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
1. THE 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.
2. THE STRUCTURE IS MAINTAINED AND NOT PERMITTED TO DETERIORATE IN ANY
WAY.
3. THE STRUCTURE IS NOT PERMITTED TO MAINTAIN ODORS OR DISCOLORATION THAT
IS VISIBLE FROM ADJOINING PROPERTY OR FROM THE PUBLIC STREET.
4. LANDSCAPING IS ADDED TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING TO ENHANCE THE
SCREENING OF THE BUILDING FROM THE ADJOIN PARCEL.
The Planning Commission discussed the intended use, with general consensus that pigeons do not fit within existing
code language. The Commission discussed potential conditions they would need to see for any approval of housing
pigeons.
Commissioner Field requested comment from the applicant on the potential for amending code regarding this
matter.
Chair Norton reopened the public hearing.
MH Planning Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 3
Planning Commission Minutes
December 26, 2012
3
Mr. Nonnemacher recommended the city establish an ordinance to address racing pigeons as the request may come
before the city again in the future. He stated he was willing to work with city staff to create language to address
future requests.
COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE
PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES 5
NAYS 0
Commissioner Field suggested this item be tabled to the January meeting to allow staff to work with Mr.
Nonnemacher on an ordinance amendment or further conditions for approval.
Commissioner Field withdrew his motion. Commissioner Magnuson withdrew her second.
COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO TABLE THIS
ITEM TO THE JANUARY MEETING DIRECTING STAFF TO WORK WITH MR. NONNEMACHER
TO AMEND CITY CODE AND DRAFT THE NECESSARY CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL.
AYES 5
NAYS 0
PLANNING CASE #2012-35
Bruce Coppock
1694 and 1698 Dodd Road
Lot Line Adjustment
Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Bruce Coppock for approval of a lot line adjustment between two
lots at 1694 and 1698 Dodd Road.
Mr. Grittman noted that 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.
Mr. Grittman presented staff’s analysis of the request and recommends approval of the requested lot line adjustment
based on the finding that it will not negatively impact either of 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 condition as noted.
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 VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE
PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES 5
NAYS 0
MH Planning Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 4
Planning Commission Minutes
December 26, 2012
4
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF
FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
1. THE APPLICANT RECORD THE APPROVED CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY, INCLUDING THE
PROPOSED LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, WITH DAKOTA COUNTY.
AYES 5
NAYS 0
Chair Norton advised the City Council would consider this application at its January 8, 2013 meeting.
Verbal Review
Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review:
PLANNING CASE #2012-32 Mendota Heights BP Variance
Approved by the City Council with findings, which was recommended for denial by the Planning
Commission.
PLANNING CASE #2012-33 Mike Hueg Variance and Conditional Use Permit
Variance denied by the City Council, which was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission.
Conditional use permit approved by the City Council, as approved by the Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO ADJOURN THE
MEETING AT 7:59 P.M.
AYES 5
NAYS 0
Respectfully submitted,
Heidi Guenther, Recording Secretary
MH Planning Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 5
Page 1 of 1
DATE: January 22, 2012
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator
SUBJECT: Summary of Actions for Planning Case 2012-36
BACKGROUND
There are two planning reports attached regarding planning case 2012-36. This memo is
intended to clarify the action requested of the planning commission. Vince Nonnemacher
requested a conditional use permit for an accessory structure to be used as a pigeon loft. At
regular meeting December 26, 2012, the planning commission came to a consensus that pigeons
are not currently allowed by code, and directed Mr. Nonnemacher to work with staff to develop
an amendment to code to allow pigeons.
As a result, City Planner Steve Grittman has produced a report which outlines amendments to
city code which would allow keeping pigeons under certain conditions. The planning
commission has three actions to consider this evening:
1. If the commission would like to amend City Code to allow keeping pigeons in the
residential zoning district, pass a motion recommending the code amendments as
described in Planner Grittman’s memo:
New language defining conditions for keeping pigeons in Title 5, Chapter 3 of City
Code
Update the definition of a domestic animal in Title 12, Chapter 1B-2,
New language allowing pigeons as an interim use permit in Title 12, Chapter 1E-3-E
New language for administration of interim use permits in Title 12, Chapter 1L-6-G
Staff will provide a handout with specific language proposed available prior to the
commission meeting.
2. If the commission would like to approve Mr. Nonnemacher’s request to keep homing
pigeons, pass a motion recommending the approval of an Interim Use Permit, with the
condition that the interim use permit terminate at the earlier of the following:
Revocation of the permit for failure to correct code violations
Non-use of the loft for housing pigeons for more than one year
The owner of the license vacating the property subject to the Interim Use Permit.
3. If the commission would like to approve Mr. Nonnemacher’s request to construct an
accessory structure as originally proposed, pass a motion recommending approval of the
conditional use permit with the findings of fact and conditions outlined in the planner’s
report dated December 26, 2012.
MH Planning Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen W. Grittman
DATE: January 18, 2013
MEETING DATE: January 22, 2013
SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Keeping of Pigeons
CASE NO: NAC Case 254.04 – 13.02
APPLICANT(S): Vincent Nonnemacher
LOCATION: NA
ZONING: NA
GUIDE PLAN: NA
Background and Description of Request:
At its previous meeting, the Planning considered a request to allow the establishment of
an accessory building that was to be designed to accommodate the keeping of pigeons.
As noted in that case, the building could be made to meet requirements of the zoning
ordinance as those relate to accessory buildings generally, However, the keeping of
pigeons is not currently permitted in the zoning ordinance, and as such, the use of the
proposed building became an issue for its approval.
The applicant has provided additional information on the keeping of pigeons, including
methods intended to ensure that the activity would not become a concern for
neighboring property or the public.
There are a number of approaches to accommodate this use, if the City is inclined to
make ordinance changes. The approach provided in this report alters the zoning
definition of domestic animals, establishes the keeping of pigeons as an allowable
activity by Interim Use Permit, and then creates a section of the City Code in which
pigeons would be specifically addressed.
MH Planning Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 7
With this approach, pigeons would be permitted domestic animals, subject to an Interim
Use Permit. If a person were to construct a loft structure of 144 square feet or less,
they would be able to do so without further zoning approval – requiring only the
administrative license for pigeons. A CUP would still be required for pigeon loft
buildings greater than 144 square feet.
Analysis:
Currently, the zoning ordinance definition for domestic animals reads as follows:
ANIMALS, DOMESTIC: Dogs, cats, birds and other common domestic
household pets.
Staff would propose a change which would result in the following:
ANIMALS, DOMESTIC: Dogs, cats, birds and other common domestic
household pets which are usually kept indoors, including pigeons, provided that
the keeping of any domestic animal is in compliance with any administrative
codes required by the City, and provided that such animals do not create or
constitute a nuisance to neighboring property or the public. The keeping of
certain domestic animals may require zoning approval, as identified within each
zoning district.
Accompanying this zoning change would be general City Code changes including the
following:
5-3-12 PIGEONS
A. Pigeon means a member of the family Columbidae, and shall include Racing
Pigeons, Fancy Pigeons, and Sporting Pigeons as defined herein.
B. Racing Pigeon means a pigeon which, through selective past breeding, has
developed the distinctive physical and mental characteristics as to enable it to
return to its home after having been released a considerable distance therefrom,
and which is accepted as such by the American Racing Pigeon Union, Inc. or the
international Federation of Racing Pigeon Fanciers. Also commonly known as
Racing Homer, Homing Pigeon, or Carrier Pigeon.
C. Fancy Pigeon means a pigeon which, through past breeding, has developed
certain distinctive physical and performing characteristics as to be clearly
identified and accepted as such by the National Pigeon Association, the
American Pigeon Club, or the Rare Breeds Pigeon Club.
D. Sporting Pigeon means a pigeon which, through selective past breeding, has
developed the ability to fly in a distinctive manner, such as aerial acrobatics or
endurance flying.
E. Loft means the structures for the keeping or housing of pigeons permitted by this
ordinance.
MH Planning Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 8
F. Mature Pigeon means a pigeon aged six months or older.
G. Owner means the owner of pigeons subject to this ordinance.
H. Conditions: The keeping, breeding, maintenance and flying of pigeons shall be
permitted under the following conditions:
a. The loft shall be of such sufficient size and design, and constructed of
such material that it can be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition.
b. The loft shall be constructed of materials that are similar in color and
materials to that of the principal building on the property.
c. The loft shall not be permitted to deteriorate in a way such that the
structure permits the entry of water or creates odors that are perceptible
beyond the property line of the parcel on which it is located.
d. There shall be at least two (2) square feet of floor area for each mature
pigeon being kept therein.
e. The construction and location of the loft shall comply with all applicable
building and zoning regulations, and any other applicable code, such as
Property Maintenance Codes.
f. All feed for pigeons shall be stored in such containers as to protect and
intrusion by rodents and other animals or vermin.
g. The loft shall be maintained in a sanitary condition and in compliance with
all applicable health regulations of the city, county, or other jurisdiction.
h. All pigeons shall be confined to the loft, except during limited periods
necessary for exercise, training, and competition; and at no time shall
pigeons be allowed to perch or linger on the buildings or property of
others.
i. All pigeons shall be fed within the confines of the loft.
j. No one shall release pigeons to fly for exercise, training, competition, or
any other purpose except in compliance with the following rules:
i. The owner of the pigeons must provide care and operate the loft
consistent with the rules and regulations of a widely recognized
pigeon club, including those mentioned in this ordinance.
ii. Pigeons are not to be released for flying which have been fed within
the previous 4 hours.
k. Pigeons shall be banded and registered with one of the national pigeon
associations/registries.
I. Right of Entry for Inspection: The Animal Control Officer, Police Officer, and/or
Code Enforcement Officer may enter and inspect any property or lot at any
reasonable time for the purpose of investigating either an actual or suspected
violation or to ascertain compliance or non-compliance with this ordinance.
J. Violation and Penalties: When the Officer finds a violation to have occurred, the
city shall give written notice thereof to the owner. If said violation is not remedied
within ten (10) days, the city may issue a citation in accordance with Section 5-3-
11 of the City Code. In addition to this remedy, failure to correct the violation
may result in revocation of the permit.
If the planning commission and city council are inclined to support the keeping of
pigeons, staff would recommend that the City allows the activity by Interim Use Permit –
MH Planning Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 9
a zoning permit that is similar to a Conditional Use Permit. Under normal
circumstances, a Conditional Use Permit would run with the land, allowing the current
and future occupants of property to use the property consistent with the terms of the
permit without an end.
Interim Use Permits function essentially the same as Conditional Uses, but with a
written agreement as to the termination of the activity. The termination can be tied to a
specific date, or to a specific event. In the case of keeping of pigeons, staff would
propose that the termination event be the earlier of (1) revocation of the permit for
failure to correct code violations (2) non-use of the loft for housing pigeons for more
than one year, or (3) the owner of the license vacating the property subject to the
Interim Use Permit.
To accomplish this process, the following amendments need to be considered as a part
of the zoning ordinance:
1. Add the keeping of pigeons, in accordance with City Code Section 5-3-12, by
Interim Use Permit, with said IUP to terminate at such time as the permittee
either discontinues the activity, loses or forfeits the license, or vacates the
property. This amendment would be inserted in the R-1 zoning district as
Section 12-1E-3-E.
2. Add a section in the Administrative portion of the zoning ordinance, specifying
that Interim Use Permits shall be processed and considered just as are
Conditional Use Permits, with the additional requirement that IUPs shall require a
written agreement as to the termination date or event. This amendment would
be inserted in 12-1L-6 G. The title of the Chapter would be changed to
Conditional Use Permits and Interim Use Permits. The language would be as
follows:
G. Interim Use Permits. An Interim Use Permit may be granted by the City
where a proposed use is identified within a zoning district as an Interim Use.
Such Permits shall be considered and processed utilizing the same requirements
as Conditional Use Permits in Section 12-1L-6. No Interim Use Permit shall be
valid until the applicant has entered into an agreement with the City specifying
the termination date or event of the Interim Use, upon which date or event the
Interim Use Permit shall expire and the use of the property for the purpose
specified in the Interim Use Permit shall cease.
Action Requested:
Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following
recommendations:
1. Approval of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and City Code providing for
the establishment of the keeping of pigeons on single family residential property,
MH Planning Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 10
adopting regulations for the licensing of such use, and establishing an Interim
Use Permit within the R-1 district. Included in this recommendation would be a
recommendation of approval of such an Interim Use Permit for Vincent
Nonnemacher at 1815 Valley Curve Road, along with the Conditional Use Permit
for an accessory building of 200 square feet, all in compliance with the terms and
conditions of the proposed ordinances.
2. Denial of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and City Code relating to the
keeping of pigeons. A denial should be supported by a finding that the
amendments would not be consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance for
residential property in the City.
Staff Recommendation:
With the proposed regulations, the keeping of pigeons would require an interim use
permit for the proposed owner of a parcel in the R-1 zoning district. The use of the
Interim Use Permit process helps to ensure that the activity (considering that it will
require a specially-built structure) would not run with the land, although the structure
would remain on the property.
The licensing language is based largely on material supplied by Mr. Nonnemacher from
the American Racing Pigeon Union.
Supplementary Materials:
1. Application materials.
MH Planning Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 11
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 Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 12
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 Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 13
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 Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 14
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 Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 15
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 Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 16
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 Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 17
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 Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 18
MH Planning Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 19
MH Planning Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 20
MH Planning Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 21
MH Planning Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 22
MH Planning Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 23
MH Planning Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 24
MH Planning Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 25
MH Planning Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 26
MH Planning Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 27
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen W. Grittman/Michelle Barness
DATE: January 18, 2013
MEETING DATE: January 22, 2013
SUBJECT: Variance to Setback for Freestanding Signs
CASE NO: Case No. 12-36; NAC Case 254.04 – 13.01
APPLICANT(S): Robert Lindahl on behalf of Crosswind, LLC
LOCATION: 1444 Northland Drive
ZONING: I - Industrial
GUIDE PLAN: Industrial
Background and Description of Request:
The applicants are seeking a variance to permit the location of a freestanding directory
and address sign within the required setback from Northland Drive. The sign is
proposed to be located adjacent to the entrance driveway to the commercial site, and
will be situated 25 feet back from the existing curb, and five feet back from the property
line.
The general zoning ordinance requirement for freestanding sign setbacks along roads is
that no sign is to be located within the building setback, which for the Industrial District
is 40 feet. When a part of the City’s Industrial area was developed, the City had granted
a PUD approval cutting this setback requirement in half, to twenty feet for the property
within the PUD. Since that time, the City has also approved a number of variances to
properties not affected by the PUD to place signs at the same 20 foot setback location.
This setback is measured from the property line, rather than the curb li ne. At five feet
MH Planning Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 28
back from the property line, the proposed sign will meet neither the 40 foot Industrial
District requirement nor the 20 foot PUD allowance.
Analysis:
When considering variances, the revised standards in state law require the following
analysis:
The City must find that an application for variance is proposing to use the property in a
reasonable manner, not inconsistent with the manner in which other property in the
neighborhood may be used, and where there are unique conditions on the property, not
created by the applicant, that constitute “practical difficulties” in using the property in
such a way.
To approve the variance as requested, the City must find that the five foot setback for
sign constitutes a reasonable manner of use, and that the conditions leading to the
variance are unique to the property in question, not created by the applicant, and would
be consistent with the character of the neighborhood in which the property is located.
The subject property consists of three separate buildings that were historically used by
a single user and identified by a single address. The site’s buildings are now catering to
multiple tenants, and the current property owner has worked with the City to provide a
unique address for the SW building, the newly addressed 1444 Northland building.
The purpose of signage is to provide information to travelers about the location of a
particular land use. Visibility of signs would be necessary to achieve this purpose, and
should be considered necessary in promoting reasonable use of the property. The
applicant has indicated that 1444 Northland is currently lacking signage which can
identify the location of the building and parking lot, or identify tenants within. He would
like to construct a ground sign at the site’s access point where it will be visible to
passing traffic, to the benefit of tenants, customers, and visitors to the building. The
proposed location of the sign near Northland Drive will serve the purpose of basic
commerce associated with the building.
Practical difficulties in constructing the proposed sign at the required 40 foot setback
arise due to minimal available lawn area between Northland Drive and the site’s parking
lot, in the vicinity of the entry drive. Given a 40 foot setback from the front property line,
a new sign would either be located in a small lawn area immediately adjacent to the
entry drive or within the parking lot. The applicant is proposing an eight foot ground
sign, which would be difficult to see located in a parking lot given the presence of any
large vehicles. Approval of some degree of reduced sign setback will increase the signs
visibility, and enable it to better serve its function for the property.
The City has previously approved several signs at a 20 foot in the area, and the
properties in the area have been constructed to that standard with only a few
exceptions. In this sense, a reduced sign setback is not inconsistent with the manner in
MH Planning Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 29
which other commercial and industrial properties in the neighborhood have been
allowed to develop.
In 2006 the City granted a sign setback variance permitting the Mendota Heights
Business Center to place a sign 20 feet back from the property line. In 2011, Brown
College requested a sign variance to place signs at the zero lot line. The City did not
approve the requested sign setback, but approved a variance for the proposed signs to
be positioned 20 feet back from the lot line. So, while a reduced sign setback has
traditionally been considered appropriate in allowing properties to be used in a
reasonable manner, the setback has regularly been limited to 20 feet from the nearest
property line.
The question arises as to whether a reduced five foot setback is justified. The applicant
suggests that a five foot setback allows the proposed sign to remain visible to traffic
coming from both directions on Northland Drive. This may be due to the fact that the
entry drive at which the sign will be positioned is at a sharp curve along Northland Drive.
In this situation, the closer the sign is to the road, the more visible it will be.
In viewing the site, it appears that a sign placed at the 20 foot setback could be visible
from both directions of Northland Drive. During summer conditions, it may be possible
that minor tree trimming would benefit visibility, but this would be within the ability of the
property owner to control. The current real estate sign identifying the property appears
to be about 5 feet from the property line – a permanent sign 15 feet farther back should
still be readable.
Action Requested:
Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following
recommendations:
A. Approval of the variance for a sign setback for Crosswind, LLC to a five foot
setback from Northland Drive, based on findings attached to this report.
B. Approval of a variance for a sign setback of less than the required 40 feet, but
more than the requested 5 feet – staff would recommend that 20 feet would be
consistent with other signs in the area, and provide reasonable visibility of the
property.
C. Denial of the variance to the sign setback, based on findings attached to this
report.
Staff Recommendation:
Planning staff does not support the variance as proposed. As noted, the proposed sign
is necessary for identification of 1444 Northland Drive, and will be most visible closer to
MH Planning Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 30
Northland Drive given the roads arrangement and the need to avoid locating the sign
within the site’s parking lot. However, a five foot setback may place the sign in the way
of drainage and utility easements, and is not entirely consistent with how the City has
dealt with reduced sign setbacks in the past. As such, staff recommends that the
applicant adjust their sign plan to place the proposed sign consistent with the 20 foot
setback that has traditionally been applied to other properties in the district.
Supplementary Materials:
1. Application Materials dated 12-28-12
MH Planning Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 31
Draft Findings for Approval
Variance for Sign Setback
1444 Northland Drive
1. Sign visibility is diminished by natural curves in the adjacent roadway, and
increased in closer proximity to the roadway.
2. Sign visibility is diminished should it be located at the required 40 foot setback
within the site’s parking lot or back along the entry drive.
3. Location of the sign at a setback less than the standard forty feet is necessary to
resolve traffic safety concerns due to lack of visibility, and to better serve the
needs of building tenants, customers and visitors.
4. The City has traditionally approved some degree of reduced sign setback for
similar properties in the area, in order to improve the function of signage for
properties.
5. A sign setback of 20 feet would be consistent with many previous approvals in
the industrial zoning district.
MH Planning Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 32
Draft Findings for Denial
Variance for Sign Setback
1444 Northland Drive
1. The City’s ordinance requires that signs be no closer than 40 feet from the
property line on industrial property.
2. The location of the subject property on the inside of a curved street permits
visibility from both directions.
3. At a five foot setback the proposed sign may interfere with drainage and utility
easements adjacent to the front property line.
4. The proposed sign will be visible when situated somewhere within the lawn area
adjacent to Northland Drive, as opposed to the site’s parking lot or back along
the entry drive, but does not require a reduced five foot setback to maintain that
visibility.
5. Granting of this variance would be establishing a privilege for this property which
has been denied to others in the district.
MH Planning Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 33
MH Planning Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 34
MH Planning Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 35
MH Planning Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 36
MH Planning Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 37
MH Planning Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 38
MH Planning Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 39
MH Planning Commision, 1/22/2013, Page 40