2013-02-26 Planning Comm Agenda Packet
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Agenda
Tuesday, February 26, 2013 - 7:00 P.M.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Election of Chair and Vice Chair
4. Introduce New Commissioner: Robin Hennessy
5. Approval of the Agenda
6. Approval of the January 22, 2013 Planning Commission Minutes
7. Old Business:
a. Case No. 2012-34: Vince Nonnemacher, CUP for an accessory structure to keep
pigeons at 1815 Valley Curve Road.
8. Hearings:
a. Case No. 2013-01: Yorn Yan: Code amendment to allow adult day care in the
industrial zone as a conditional use, and a conditional use permit for the same at
1385 Mendota Heights Road. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m.
9. Verbal Review
10. 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 2/26/2012, Page 1
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2013
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES
January 22, 2013
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday,
January 22, 2013, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
The following Commissioners were present: Chair Field, Commissioners Hennes, Magnuson,
Noonan, Roston, and Viksnins. Those absent: None. Those present were Assistant to the City
Administrator Jake Sedlacek, Public Works Director/City Engineer John Mazzitello, and NAC
Planner Stephen Grittman. Chair Field noted that there is one opening on the Planning
Commission that the City Council plans to fill in early February 2013. Applications are being
taken through Thursday, January 24, 2013 at City Hall.
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved with the revision that Case No. 2012-36 would be heard first and Case
No. 2012-34 would be heard second.
Approval of December 26, 2012 Minutes
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON,
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 26, 2012, AS PRESENTED.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Hearings
PLANNING CASE #2012-36
Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Robert Lindahl for approval of a variance for
a monument sign at 1440 Northland Drive.
Mr. Grittman stated that this request is to allow for the construction of a free standing sign at
1440 Northland Drive. The property is zoned and guided for industrial use and is occupied by an
office industrial building. The sign is intended to identify the building and tenants within the
building located at 1444 Northland Drive.
Setback regulations for signs are the same as for the setback requirements for buildings: forty
feet. The applicant is proposing a five foot setback from the right of way for a monument sign;
requiring a thirty-five foot variance. The practical difficulty given for this variance from the
code is that a sign any further back from the street would make it unreadable from both
directions of Northland Drive.
MH Planning Commission 2/26/2012, Page 2
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2013
The staff report indicated that there have been a number of variances granted to signs in the
industrial park, as well as a large portion of the industrial zoned area that was granted a twenty-
foot sign setback by a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Staff believes that a twenty foot
setback would still be readable and agrees that forty feet would put the sign in a location where it
would not be visible to passing traffic and therefore would not serve its purpose.
Commissioner Roston questioned whether a variance could be granted for something that has not
been requested. Mr. Grittman replied that the Commission could approve the request for
something less than what the applicant has asked for.
Commissioners Roston and Magnuson asked if this should be addressed in terms of a text
amendment rather than a variance. Mr. Grittman replied that since this has been a common
practice in the industrial area it would be a reasonable approach. However, past practice has
been to review these applications on a case-by-case basis.
Commissioner Noonan asked Mr. Grittman if other municipalities allow signage within the
required yard area. Mr. Grittman replied that it is common to allow signs with a lesser setback
than the building and that five or ten feet from the right-of-way line is common.
Further discussions took place on possible locations for the sign if a twenty foot setback were
approved as opposed to the five foot setback requested.
David Noland spoke on behalf of the applicant and shared photos of other signs in the area that
appear to be located within the suggested 20’ setback. He also shared a photo of the requested
sign location and the trees that would block the sign should the setback requirement be more than
the requested five feet.
A rendering of the proposed sign was reviewed and the applicant answered questions from the
Commissioners regarding the placement and visibility of the sign. It was noted that a small pine
tree has been removed in a location which would satisfy Mr. Grittman’s suggestion of a twenty
foot setback.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the
public hearing.
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST AS LIMITED BY PLANNER
GRITTMAN REPORT, SPECIFICALLY PERMITTING A SETBACK OF TWENTY FEET
MH Planning Commission 2/26/2012, Page 3
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2013
BASED ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS ON PAGE THIRTY-TWO OF THE PLANNING
REPORT.
Planner Grittman asked that the motion include a condition that the sign would not be located in
a way that would interfere with the sewer or sewer easement in the proposed sign area. The
commission asked if this addition to the motion would necessitate more flexibility than twenty
feet. Assistant City Administrator Jake Sedlacek stated that the proposed location appears to be
outside of the easement area.
Commissioners Viksnins and Hennes agreed to the condition.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its February 5, 2013
meeting.
PLANNING CASE #2012-34
Planner Grittman reminded the Commission that they considered a Conditional Use Permit by
Vincent Nonnemacher to allow for the construction of an accessory building of greater than one
hundred forty-four square feet on a at 1815 Valley Curve Road at a previous meeting. That
request was wrapped into the use of the building, which was to be a pigeon loft. The discussion
had centered on whether or not pigeons were allowed under the current code. Given the
language of the code, it was staff’s position that it would not be allowed under the definition of
domestic animals or otherwise. At the December meeting, the planning commission directed the
applicant to work with staff to develop a code amendment to allow pigeons. The application for
the conditional use permit was tabled.
Mr. Grittman presented draft language which could be used to allow the keeping of pigeons.
Should the Commission and the Council pass this request, the City would allow the activity by
Interim Use Permit.
The Commission discussed the form of the amendment – and whether conditions should be
included in Title 5 of code, or under Interim Use Permit language in the Zoning Code. Planner
Grittman reiterated his recommendation from the staff memo.
Chair Field asked for verification that public notice had been given. Assistant Administrator
Sedlacek replied that public notice was given for a code amendment to allow keeping pigeons
was provided following the discussion at the previous Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioners had questions if the proposed language would impact the current interpretation
of code. Planner Grittman replied that this would maintain current standards, and create a new
allowance for keeping pigeons.
MH Planning Commission 2/26/2012, Page 4
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2013
The Commission asked what other surrounding cities are doing in regards to pigeons. Planner
Grittman replied that there is no common approach to regulating pigeon keeping. Mr. Grittman
noted that the bulk of the language was provided from industry language and reviewed by staff.
Staff feels that the proposed language is enforceable and feasible to apply and measure.
Planner Grittman asked that the first proposed zoning ordinance amendment be changed to read:
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 permitee either discontinues
the activity, loses or forfeits the license violates the terms of the relevant regulations, or
vacates the property. This amendment would be inserted in the R-1 zoning district as
Section 12-1E-3-E.
Assistant Administrator Sedlacek clarified that the Planning Commission does not act on
language in Title 5 of City Code; which was provided to the Commission as background. If the
Commission approves the zoning amendments, the proposed changes to Title 5 would be
considered by Council.
Additional procedural discussions occurred.
Chair Field opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the
public hearing.
COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER N OONAN, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Commissioner Roston commented that the phrase ‘other common domestic household pets’ is
too broad of a definition. Planner Grittman noted that this is the reason for specifying pigeons as
they are not typically considered a common domestic household pet.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS,
DENIAL OF AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1B-2, CHAPTER 1E-3-E, AND
CHAPTER 1L-6-G
Commissioner Noonan explained that the reason he moved for denial is when he applied the
common sense test of what a domestic pet is he did not see pigeons rising to that same level. He
believes pigeons are different, are kept differently, the intensity of use is far different, and it is
not an appropriate definition nor is it an appropriate modification to the term.
Commissioner Viksnins also stated that he has an issue with viewing a pigeon as a common
household pet. He is also bothered with the wording of the proposed amendment.
MH Planning Commission 2/26/2012, Page 5
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2013
Commissioner Roston agreed with Commissioners Noonan and Viksnins.
Chair Field stated his support for the amendment, that it solves a problem and gives the City
adequate controls over the requested use.
Commissioner Magnuson commented that she does not have a problem with pigeons and she
likes the use of an Interim Use Permit.
Commissioner Roston requested a friendly amendment limiting the standing motion to deny
amendments to Title 12, Chapter 1B-2 and Chapter 1E-3-E.
Commissioner Noonan and Viksnins accepted the amendment to the motion.
Chair Field clarified the motion to be DENIAL OF AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 12, CHAPTER
1B-2 AND CHAPTER 1E-3-E
Ayes: 3 (Roston, Noonan, Viksnins)
Nays: 3 (Hennes, Field, Magnuson)
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its February 5, 2013
meeting with no recommendation by the Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON,
TO APPROVE AMENDMENT TO TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1L-6-G
Commissioner Noonan asked for clarification that the Commission is approving the concept of
an Interim Use Permit but at this point in time there is not anything that is being approved by
way of an interim use. This was confirmed.
Ayes: 6
Nays: 0
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its February 5, 2013
meeting with a recommendation for approval.
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO
TABLE ALL PENDING APPLICATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH PLANNING CASE
#2012-34 UNTIL THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Ayes: 6
Nays: 0
Chair Field advised that staff would administratively notify the applicant of the layover to the
February 26, 2013 Planning Commission meeting.
MH Planning Commission 2/26/2012, Page 6
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2013
Verbal Review
Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review:
PLANNING CASE #2012-35 Bruce Coppock Lot Line Adjustment
• Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:21 P.M.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
MH Planning Commission 2/26/2012, Page 7
Page 1 of 1
DATE: February 26, 2012
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2012-34
BACKGROUND
The Mendota Heights Planning Commission discussed planning application 2012-34 at their
regular meetings, held December 26, 2012 and January 22, 2013. Discussion at these meetings
focused on whether or not to amend city code to allow for the keeping of pigeons in residential
zoning districts. At the January 22, 2013 meeting, a motion recommending denying any change
to city code failed on a 3-3 vote. The commission unanimously voted to table further discussion
on the conditional use permit requested in planning application 2012-34.
The Mendota Heights City Council discussed the code amendment at their regular meeting
February 5, 2013, and voted 3:2 not to change code to allow pigeons. This decision impacts the
request for conditional use permit, clearly articulating that keeping pigeons anywhere in the city
is not allowed by code.
RECOMMENDATION
In keeping with the decision by city council, staff recommends denial of the conditional use
permit. Findings for denial can be found attached to Stephen Grittman’s memo to the planning
commission dated December 20, 2012 which has been attached.
MH Planning Commission 2/26/2012, 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 2/26/2012, 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 2/26/2012, 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 2/26/2012, 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 2/26/2012, 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 2/26/2012, 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 2/26/2012, 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 2/26/2012, Page 15
MH Planning Commission 2/26/2012, Page 16
MH Planning Commission 2/26/2012, Page 17
MH Planning Commission 2/26/2012, Page 18
MH Planning Commission 2/26/2012, Page 19
MH Planning Commission 2/26/2012, Page 20
MH Planning Commission 2/26/2012, Page 21
MH Planning Commission 2/26/2012, Page 22
MH Planning Commission 2/26/2012, Page 23
MH Planning Commission 2/26/2012, Page 24
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen W. Grittman
DATE: February 21, 2013
MEETING DATE: February 26, 2013
SUBJECT: Adult Day Care in Industrial District
(Zoning Amendment and CUP)
CASE NO: NAC Case 254.04 -13.03
APPLICANT(S): Yorn Yan; United Cambodian Association of Minnesota
LOCATION: 1385 Mendota Heights Road
ZONING: I, Industrial
GUIDE PLAN: Industrial
Background and Description of Request:
The applicants are seeking to consolidate their offices and services to a single location
within the Mendota Heights Industrial Park, at 1385 Mendota Heights Road. They
would occupy about 4,000 square feet of a 32,000 square foot building. Office and
administrative uses are permitted in the Industrial zoning district, however, the proposed
adult day care activity is not currently listed in the district. As such, the applicants are
seeking an amendment to the Industrial District uses to add Adult Day Care as a
Conditional Use Permit, and then also seeking a CUP for this facility under the
proposed revision to the code.
Analysis:
Zoning Amendment. Daycare, as noted above, is not currently listed as an allowable
use in the Industrial District. Daycare is allowed as a permitted use in four of the five
Business Districts (B-1A through B-4), with the exception of B-1. Daycare is also
allowed in the Residential Districts by Conditional Use Permit. The current listing in
MH Planning Commission 2/26/2012, Page 25
2
those districts does not distinguish between Adult or Child daycare, although the
residential item uses use term “Private Nursery or Daycare School”.
Adult Daycare, as proposed by the applicants in this case, consists of group social
activities for seniors who are otherwise home-bound. The applicants operate small
vans or buses and pick up seniors at their homes and bring them to the site for
activities, returning them home again by van or small bus. The applicants propose to
operate the daycare for three days per week (Tuesday – Thursday), from 9:00 a.m. to
1:00 p.m.
Daycare operations are common in commercial and industrial areas in many
communities. Although they raise some issues for traffic control and use compatibility
that would not be typical to industrial districts, proximity to work environments often
results in zoning allowance of daycare uses in those areas.
The application in this case anticipates Adult Daycare in the Industrial District by
Conditional Use Permit. There are a number of reasons to consider this amendment in
steps. These include the following:
(1) Adult Daycare is often provided just as the applicants propose – via van or bus
delivery at specific times (often peak), rather than individual drivers. This helps
to limit traffic conflicts and parking concerns in the industrial area. This contrasts
with Child Daycare which is dominated by children who are driven individually to
the site, commonly during peak traffic periods.
(2) Adult Daycare is almost always dominated by indoor activity, resulting in fewer
concerns over land use compatibility due to noise, on-site or adjacent street truck
traffic, or other conditions common to industrial areas. This is in contrast to Child
Daycare, in which outdoor activity is a condition of most licensing requirements.
(3) The Conditional Use Permit requirement permits the City to examine each
application to ensure that the particular site in question will have adequate
facilities to avoid land use or operational conflicts with the site or neighborhood.
This is important to ensure that the long-range land use of the properties in the
district are not compromised by non-industrial uses.
As such, the proposed amendment would be made to the Industrial District Conditional
Uses, Section 12-1G-2, as follows:
Adult Daycare, provided that the proposed facility meets the following
conditions:
A. Clients are brought to the site primarily through the use of group
transportation, such as vans or buses.
B. A separate exterior entrance is available to the facility for clients and staff.
C. The facility will require parking space at a rate no greater than that of an
office tenant for staff, clients, and visitors.
MH Planning Commission 2/26/2012, Page 26
3
D. If located in a multi-tenant building, the daycare facility is found to be
compatible with the other uses that are allowed on the property under the
applicable zoning regulations.
E. Outdoor activities on or around the property in question, if part of the
program, are accessible via adequate pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks
or trails.
F. The Daycare facility is properly licensed by the State of Minnesota under
applicable statutory requirements.
Conditional Use Permit. The proposed site, noted, is at 1385 Mendota Heights Road,
the northeast corner of Mendota Heights Road and Pilot Knob. The applicants would
occupy the northeast corner of the building, where there is a direct exterior entrance to
the east-side parking lot, along with other exits to common space in the building.
As noted above, clients would be brought to the facility via van or small bus from their
homes at about 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of each week,
leaving the site about 1:00 p.m. to return home. They have indicated to staff that they
would not likely have outdoor activity. It is noted that a trail exists on the west side of
the property along Pilot Knob Road, and Mendota Heights Road has a trail along the
south side of the roadway. No on-site sidewalk currently provides access from the
applicant’s entrance to these trails.
The applicants will also utilize the facility for their offices from which they coordinate
other social services to members of their client community.
The applicants currently hold a license from the State for a different location – their
interest in this site would be to move both their daycare and office uses to a single
combined location.
Action Requested:
Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following
Actions:
Zoning Ordinance Amendment.
(1) Motion to recommend approval of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance,
specifically the I, Industrial District, to add Adult Daycare by Conditional Use
Permit.
(2) Motion to recommend denial of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance related
to Adult Daycare in the Industrial District.
Conditional Use Permit for 1385 Mendota Heights Road.
(1) Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for an Adult
Daycare facility at 1385 Mendota Heights Road as a tenant in a multiple tenant
MH Planning Commission 2/26/2012, Page 27
4
building, occupying approximately 4,000 square feet, based on a finding that the
proposed Adult Daycare would meet the requirements of the proposed zoning
amendment being considered concurrently with this application.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff believes that the inclusion of Adult Daycare in the Industrial District is compatible
with the uses and activities commonly found in such areas, and recommends approval
of both the zoning amendment and Conditional Use Permit as requested.
It is noted that the proposed CUP would meet the conditions identified in the draft
amendment, and would be unlikely to raise any compatibility issues with other uses on
the site or in the area.
Supplementary Materials:
1. Application Materials Date 2-2013
MH Planning Commission 2/26/2012, Page 28
5
Draft Findings of Fact for Approval
Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Adult Daycare
by Conditional Use Permit in the I, Industrial Zoning District
1. Adult Daycare is primarily an indoor use that raises no compatibility issues with
office/industrial uses.
2. Adult Daycare clients are commonly brought to the site via group transportation,
and should not conflict with industrial traffic on site or in the area.
3. Providing Adult Daycare via Conditional Use Permit allows the City to ensure that
such facilities will compatibly coexist with the uses on specific properties.
MH Planning Commission 2/26/2012, Page 29
6
Draft Findings of Fact for Approval
Conditional Use Permit for Adult Daycare
1385 Mendota Heights Road
1. Adult Daycare at the proposed location, at up to 4,000 square of the existing
building, is primarily an indoor use that raises no compatibility issues with other
office/industrial uses on the site or in the area.
2. Adult Daycare clients are generally proposed to be brought to the site via group
transportation, and should not conflict with industrial traffic on site or in the area.
3. The proposed Adult Daycare complies with the standards of the proposed zoning
amendment authorizing this use in the Industrial zoning district.
4. The proposed Adult Daycare is a limited use of a permitted office tenancy, and is
not expected to alter the purpose or intent of the zoning district or land uses in
the area.
MH Planning Commission 2/26/2012, Page 30
MH Planning Commission 2/26/2012, Page 31
MH Planning Commission 2/26/2012, Page 32
MH Planning Commission 2/26/2012, Page 33
MH Planning Commission 2/26/2012, Page 34
MH Planning Commission 2/26/2012, Page 35
MH Planning Commission 2/26/2012, Page 36
Pi4ers:
Proviefedeferswitfi
opportunitiesforimproving
fiea[tfi,socialinteraction,
anaaevdopingindependent
hvingsliJfls
£ega{Jf.ssi.st4nce:
Jlssistindiuidualsana 'families
witfi(ega{needs
CommunityP;ngagement:
Inuoioe communitymem6ers
inaddressinqissuesaffecting
indiuiduals,families ana
communities
Pami{y:
Promotefiea{tfiy families,
gooa health,self-sufficiency,
financiaista6ifity,andjob
adoancement
JCeaftliaruf%6acco:
Educatecommunityto
understand moreabout the
impact of tobaccoana
chemicals ongooafiea{tfi
Cliififren aruf<Youtli:
'Ensuretfiatyoutfi achieve
successin schooi,pursue
nigfier education,ana6ecome
productive citizens.
UnitedWay
FundedAgency
UNITEDCAMBODIANASSOCIATIONOF MINNESOTA~INC.
6415CarmenAvenue,InverGroveHeights,MN55076.TEL:(651)222-3299.FAX:(651)222-3599
MailingAddress:P.O.Box2397,InverGrove Heights,MN 55076
February14,2013
JakeA.Sedlacek,AssistanttotheCityAdministrator
CityofMendotaHeights
1101VictoriaCurve
MendotaHeights,MN55118
Re:PlanningCaseFile#2013-01
DearMr.Sedlacek:
Peryourrequest,Iamwritingthislettertoprovideyouwithadditional
informationyouneedtoprocessourapplication.
1)Wehavefourstaffmembersworkingonouradultdayprogram:1)TonKeo,
2)ChanSophy,3)VanRoeun,and4)WinnerSaw.
2)Weestimatetoserve20-25eligibleclientsadaythreedaysaweekon
Tuesday,WednesdayandThursday.
3)Weestimatethreeofvehicletripstobeoperatedadayforouradultday
program.
Youcanreachmeat651-428-7104oratyornyan@comcast.netwithany
questionsregardingthisletter.
Sincerely,
YnYan
ExecutiveDirector
ANon-Profit.501(c)(3).Mutual AssistanceAssociation
MH Planning Commission 2/26/2012, Page 37
MH Planning Commission 2/26/2012, Page 38