Loading...
2013-03-26 Planning Comm Agenda Packet CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Agenda Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of the Agenda 4. Approval of the February 26, 2013 Planning Commission Minutes 5. Hearings: a. Case No. 2013-02: Jane McKoskey: Lot Split at 668 1st Avenue. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. b. Case No. 2013-03: Brian Smith: Zoning Amendment to allow beekeeping. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. 6. Discussion: a. Amendment to City Code Pertaining to Garages 7. Verbal Review 8. 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 3/26/2013, Page 1 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2013 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES February 26, 2013 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 26, 2013, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr.; Commissioners Doug Hennes, Robin Hennessy, Mary Magnuson, Michael Noonan, Howard Roston, and Ansis 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. Introduce New Commissioner: Robin Hennessy Chair Field introduced Ms. Robin Hennessy as the newest member of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hennessy gave a brief background and why she was interested in being a part of the Planning Commission. The other commissioners also gave a brief description of themselves for the benefit of Commissioner Hennessy. Election of Chair and Vice Chair Commissioner Magnuson nominated Litton Field as Chair of the 2013 Planning Commission, seconded by Commissioner Noonan. The nomination was accepted by Commissioner Field. There being no other nominations, the vote was called. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Roston nominated Mary Magnuson as Vice-Chair of the 2013 Planning Commission, seconded by Commissioner Viksnins. Commissioner Magnuson expressed her appreciation but respectfully declined and nominated Doug Hennes as Vice-Chair of the 2013 Planning Commission, seconded by Commissioner Noonan. The nomination was accepted by Commissioner Hennes. There being no other nominations, the vote was called. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Approval of January 22, 2013 Minutes COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 22, 2013, AS PRESENTED. MH Planning Commission 3/26/2013, Page 2 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2013 AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Old Business: PLANNING CASE #2012-34 Vince Nonnemacher Conditional Use Permit for an accessory structure to keep pigeons at 1815 Valley Curve Road Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek explained that the City Council did discuss the potential code amendment for allowing pigeons in Mendota Heights. The Council voted not to change the code to allow pigeons. The original application was for a conditional use permit for an accessory structure to house pigeons. Given the Council’s feedback staff recommended denial of that request as was originally outlined in Mr. Grittman’s memo to the Planning Commission dated December 26, 2012. COMMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO DENY THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. Chair Field noted for the record that the applicant was not in attendance. He then asked if the record shows that the public hearing on this application had been closed or was it still open. Assistant Administrator Sedlacek replied that there would be no harm in making the motion again to close the public hearing. Commissioner Roston tabled his motion to deny. Chair Field asked if there were any comments from the public on Planning Case #2012-34. There being no one wishing to comment, COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO DENY THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 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. MH Planning Commission 3/26/2013, Page 3 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2013 5. THE PROPOSED USE DOES NOT FIT WITHIN THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC ANIMALS. The commission discussed the concept of an interim use permit which was a part of the code amendment considered by city council. Staff advised that it could be addressed separately from the current motion. There being no more discussion regarding the motion on the floor, Chair Field called for the vote. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field noted that this motion for denial would be heard by the City Council on March 5, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION REQUESTS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER A CODE AMENDMENT CREATING AN INTERIM USE PERMIT. There being no further discussion, Chair Field called for the vote. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Hearings: PLANNING CASE #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 Planner Grittman explained that this request is in two parts: 1. Proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance that would establish adult day care as a conditional use permit in the industrial district 2. Request for a conditional use permit under that proposed amendment The applicants, the United Cambodian Association of Minnesota(UCA), are seeking this particular amendment and conditional use permit for the property located at 1385 Mendota Heights Road. That property is zoned and guided for industrial uses and is currently occupied by an industrial and office building. This property is located at the corner of Mendota Heights Road and Pilot Knob and the applicant would be tenants in a portion of that building. Staff is proposing an amendment based on the application request and identified a series of conditions that they would propose be part of that amendment. If the commission and the council MH Planning Commission 3/26/2013, Page 4 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2013 adopt the amendment, the applicants are also seeking a conditional use permit under these regulations. Staff recommended approval of both the amendment and the conditional use permit under the code as presented. The commission expressed concern that the amendment specifically allows adult daycare and not daycare for children. The applicant, Yorn Yan, UCA explained that the organization was established 1992 to serve Cambodians, but also serves Chinese, Korean, and other refugee people. the building would be used for office as well as adult daycare service. Most clients would utilize group transportation. Most of their clients are 65 years and older with impairments. However, they have some that are 50 years old who qualify for adult daycare services. They are looking to move into this new facility as their current location has become too small. Commissioner Roston asked if an age limitation of 18 years and older would be a problem. Mr. Yan replied that most of the people they serve is 50 years and older. Commissioner Noonan asked where the residents reside that would use this facility. Mr. Yan answered that Dakota County has the second largest Cambodian population in Minnesota, behind Hennepin County. Moving to Mendota Heights would give them the best location to serve both counties. Chair Field asked if there was anyone who wished to testify on the proposed amendments or the conditional use permit. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Assistant to the City Administrator Sedlacek, in response to the concerns raised about the ages of 18 and older, suggested that item F in the proposed amendment be changed to read “The daycare facility is properly licensed by the State of Minnesota under applicable statutory requirements for clients ages 18 and over.” COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON TO APPROVE THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, SUBJECT TO THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE. 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. MH Planning Commission 3/26/2013, Page 5 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2013 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. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER MAGNUSSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT 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. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field noted that these recommendations of approval would be forwarded to the City Council and they will be meeting on March 5, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. Verbal Review Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #2012-36 Robert Lindahl Variance Request • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #2012-34 Vince Nonnemacher Code Amendment • City Council discussed the code amendment and did not approve changes to city code Commissioner Noonan, asked if the city council was studying code in relation to garages and signs. Mr. Sedlacek replied that City Council discussed both of those items at their annual goal setting work session and has directed staff to bring forward amendments. The commission would likely see the proposed change to code regarding garages at the March meeting of the Planning Commission and likely be seeing something on signs at the April meeting. MH Planning Commission 3/26/2013, Page 6 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2013 Adjourn COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:36 P.M. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 MH Planning Commission 3/26/2013, Page 7 MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen W. Grittman DATE: March 20, 2013 MEETING DATE: March 26, 2013 SUBJECT: Subdivision CASE NO: Case No. 2013-02; NAC Case 254.04 - APPLICANT(S): Jane McKoskey LOCATION: 668 1st Avenue ZONING: R-1, Single Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request: The applicant is seeking to subdivide a parcel that consists of 4 combined older platted lots into two building parcels. One of the parcels will contain the existing single family home along with the detached garage, and the other will accommodate a new building site for a future single family structure. The proposed lots will both be approximately 120 feet in width along 1st Avenue, and 125 feet in depth. Analysis: The zoning ordinance requires that single family parcels consist of 15,000 square feet in total area, and no less than 100 feet of width. Based upon the current plat, the proposed subdivision creates two parcels, each with 120 feet in width, and 15,000 square feet of area, meeting the minimum requirements for the district. The existing structures will meet the required setbacks from the new lot line, and appear to meet all other setbacks with the exception of the rear setback from the existing detached MH Planning Commission 3/26/2013, Page 8 garage. This building encroaches onto an alley that is identified on the attached survey as “Proposed Vacated Alley”. The alley and encroachment are existing conditions that are not affected by the proposed subdivision, and otherwise would not interfere with the City’s ability to consider the subdivision proposal. City staff has initiated the process to vacate the alley as shown on the attached survey. Staff supports approving the lot split as described below: Parcel A: Lots 5 and 6 Block 7, T.T. SMITHS’S SUBDIVISION No. 3 according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota. Parcel B: Lots 7 and 8 Block 7, T.T. SMITH’S SUBDIVISION NO. 3 according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota. Action Requested: The Planning Commission may consider one of the following actions: 1. Approval of the subdivision, based on findings attached to this report. 2. Tabling the subdivision application, pending completion of the alley vacation. 3. Denial of the subdivision, based on a finding that the subdivision may result in lots that are of insufficient size according to the zoning district lot area requirements. Staff Recommendation: Planning staff would recommend tabling of the subdivision until the Council has acted on the alley vacation in order to provide adequate lot area for the proposed parcels. A vacation is discretionary on the part of the City Council. Also, it is necessary to verify that any vacation that occurred would accrue to the subject property as the survey shows. If desired, the Planning Commission could consider a recommendation of approval for the subdivision, based upon the current plat. Supplementary Materials: 1. Application materials dated 3-4-13 MH Planning Commission 3/26/2013, Page 9 Draft Findings of Fact for Approval 668 1st Avenue Subdivision 1. The proposed subdivision results in lots that meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance with regard to lot width and area. 2. The existing single family home and detached garage will meet setbacks from the new lot line. 3. Other setbacks for the existing structures are existing conditions that are not affected by the subdivision. 4. The encroachment of the detached garage into the rear setback is an existing condition that is not affected by the subdivision, and which encroachment into the alley would be cured by the vacation. MH Planning Commission 3/26/2013, Page 10 MH Planning Commission 3/26/2013, Page 11 MH Planning Commission 3/26/2013, Page 12 MH Planning Commission 3/26/2013, Page 13 MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen W. Grittman DATE: March 20, 2013 MEETING DATE: March 26, 2013 SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Bees in Residential District CASE NO: Case No. 2013-03; NAC Case 254.04 – 13.05 APPLICANT(S): Somerset Country Club LOCATION: NA ZONING: Residential GUIDE PLAN: Residential Background and Description of Request: Somerset Country Club has proposed an amendment to the zoning ordinance which would allow the keeping of bees on residential property – the golf club is zoned residential under the City’s zoning ordinance. Currently, the ordinance permits the keeping of “Domestic Animals”, defined as “common domestic household pets”. The ordinance further prohibits the keeping of “Food Animals”, which are defined as animals “typically raised for purposes of food production”. Bees would be included in the “Food Animals” class, and not currently allowed in residential areas of the city. Analysis: A movement to permit the keeping of bees in residential areas has been common over the past few years, and many communities have considered the matter. Those favoring bees cite benefits of local food sources, pollination of area plants, and claim few concerns with problems related to beekeeping. Where such ordinances have permitted MH Planning Commission 3/26/2013, Page 14 2 bees, it is common to limit the number and size of hives and colonies to minimize neighborhood concerns. Most suburban communities have chosen not to allow bees in significant quantities, although some have. Concerns most often raised with keeping bees in suburban areas related to the potential concentration of bees in areas where residents may fear allergic reactions to stings. Bee supporters often cite the City of Minneapolis as an urban area in which bees are allowed. In Minneapolis, bees may be allowed under a zoning process in which the neighbors of the applicant must agree to the activity. This is zoning authority that suburban communities such as Mendota Heights do not have. Instead, if it is to be considered, the keeping of bees must be allowed under the same conditions throughout the zoning district in which it is listed. Occasionally, cities have dealt with the issue by allowing bees only on large lots, where extensive setbacks can be maintained. This is one option if the City wishes to consider approval of an amendment for the golf club. It should be noted that the additional land and setbacks do not eliminate the issues raised by bees, but they can mitigate the impacts of those issues to surrounding neighbors. The applicant has suggested an amendment that would limit bees to a maximum of ten hives, and on properties only of 50 acres or more. To accomplish the amendment, two changes would need to be made to the zoning ordinance. The first would be a change to the definition section which currently would prohibit bees as a member of the class of “Food Animals”. The second would be an addition to the Residential zoning districts which adds “Keeping of Bees” as an allowed accessory use, subject to the conditions necessary to mitigate concerns over potential impacts. Such language would be similar to the following: ANIMALS, FOOD: Fish, fowl, cattle, swine, sheep and others typically raised for purposes of food consumption, with the exception of bees where specifically allowed by the zoning districts. R-1 District 12-1-E-4.C. Accessory Uses Keeping of Bees on parcels of fifty (50) acres or more in area, provided any accessory structures conform to the City’s requirements for accessory buildings no more than ten (10) hives may be maintained, and all buildings, hives, apiaries, or other areas for colonies of bees are located no closer than one hundred (100) feet from any property line. As the Commission is aware, the City Council recently denied a proposed amendment that would have created an exception to the animals ordinance for homing pigeons. The issues with that application were somewhat distinct from the keeping of bees, however, pigeons do not fit clearly into any of the ordinance categories of animals, while bees are clearly prohibited under the current language. MH Planning Commission 3/26/2013, Page 15 3 The restriction here to 50 acre parcels should allay concerns over the concentration of bees in too small an area. Obviously, bees are naturally occurring animals and may create a hive in natural conditions without human intervention. This clause should permit the beekeeping process to occur without impacts on neighboring areas. Action Requested: Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: 1. Approval of an amendment to the zoning ordinance adding bees as an allowed accessory use in the residential zoning district or districts, as specific in this report and Planning Commission action, incorporating findings as attached to this report. 2. Denial of an amendment to the zoning ordinance that would add bees as an allowed use in residentially zoned areas, based on findings attached to this report. Staff Recommendation: Planning staff recommends approval of the amendment. While some communities have incorporated the keeping of bees in residential areas, the issue raises a number of issues with the compatibility of this activity with normal residential use of property. However, the limitations of this amendment to 50 acre parcels or greater should have the effect of minimizing any observable impacts to neighboring parcels. Supplementary Materials: 1. Application materials. MH Planning Commission 3/26/2013, Page 16 4 Draft Findings of Fact for Approval Zoning Ordinance Amendment Bees in Residential District 1. Bees provide valuable food sources for local use and consumption. 2. Bees raise no issues related to noise or other impacts for surrounding properties when located on multiple acreage parcels. 3. Bees provide valuable natural pollination for local flowering plants. 4. The zoning amendment includes adequate standards for mitigating potential negative impacts. MH Planning Commission 3/26/2013, Page 17 5 Draft Findings of Fact for Denial Zoning Ordinance Amendment Bees in Residential District 1. Bees are a food animal, and are appropriate for agricultural areas only. 2. Bees raise issues of over-concentration and potential stinging behavior, as well as other concerns that are incompatible with residential land uses. 3. Residential areas have densities that make the mitigation of negative impacts of bees difficult, and which are likely to detract from the livability of residential neighborhoods in which bees are kept. 4. While setback and lot size can minimize over-concentration in specific areas, the nature of bee colonies continue to raise concerns for area residents beyond the subject property, even when located on large acreage parcel. MH Planning Commission 3/26/2013, Page 18 MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen W. Grittman DATE: March 20, 2013 MEETING DATE: March 26, 2013 SUBJECT: Garage Size and Construction CASE NO: NAC Case 254.04 – 13.06 APPLICANT(S): NA LOCATION: NA ZONING: NA GUIDE PLAN: NA Background and Description of Request: Over the past several months, the City has dealt with a number of requests and applications related to private garage construction in residential areas. These requests have related to overall garage size, the processing requirements for detached garages, the number of garage doors that can be constructed, and how garages and other accessory buildings should be addressed. Over time, the City’s regulations related to garage construction have evolved, while at the same time, the trend in residential land use has seen an increase in typical garage construction and demand. This has reflected an increase in the typical number of private passenger vehicles on residential property, as well as the increase in recreational vehicles and garden equipment commonly kept by homeowners. The historical limitation on garage size has usually been related to two general concerns. First, large garages have sometimes been related to commercial uses occurring surreptitiously in residential areas. While some home occupations are MH Planning Commission 3/26/2013, Page 19 2 assumed, large accessory buildings that can accommodate larger-scale commercial activities have traditionally been discouraged in an attempt to maintain residential character. The second factor often limiting garage size is an aesthetic issue, and a concern that large garages are rarely built with the architectural character or detailing common to single family homes, such as windows, architectural trim, or similar elements. Large garage doors tend to look more commercial or industrial in nature, and detract from residential character. Related to architectural character is the building massing and potential concerns that large garages will not be in character with residential uses and open spaces due to overall size, whether as a stand-alone issue, or in relation to the principal home. The architectural issue is also related to the garage door issue which has been discussed recently. The current restriction to one single and one double garage door was initially instituted when the maximum garage size was expanded to accommodate larger attached garages. The concern relates to the industrial impression that can be given by a line of several garage doors facing a street or residential property. These concerns have been countered by the opposite issue that as homeowners have accumulated more vehicles and equipment, the response to limited garage storage has been outdoor storage, often as unsightly – or more so – on residential lots. The discussion for the Planning Commission would be to explore options to permit increased garage area, while avoiding negative impacts that can result. As a starting point for discussion on this item, planning staff has prepared a draft of possible text changes, using the current code language as background. The attached draft includes the following elements: C.1. a. Allow for the possibility that a single family parcel may have more than one garage structure, utilizing the Conditional Use Permit process. Current code permits an accessory building of up to 1,000 square feet by CUP, but it may not be a garage if there is another garage on the property. b. (1) Change maximum attached garage floor area by CUP from the current 1,500 square foot cap to floor area equal to the size of the principal residential building. This would permit larger attached garages for larger homes, relating the size to the “massing” size of the residence, but ensuring that there is not more garage space than house space. (2) Change the permitted size of a detached garage from the current 440 square feet to 650 square feet. MH Planning Commission 3/26/2013, Page 20 3 (3) Change the detached garage allowance from the current 750 square feet to the lesser of: (i) The foundation size of the house, or (ii) 10% of the rear yard with a maximum area of 1,500 square feet. This clause would again ensure that the garage is no greater in size that the house, but would also ensure that detached garages in the rear yard are limited to continue to preserve rear yard open space. c. Change the garage door standard to a total of 36 lineal feet of garage door, rather than a number of doors of any particular size. Thus, a property owner may have four single 9-foot wide doors, or three 12-foot wide doors, or whatever combination would work for their needs. Secondly, this clause provides an allowance for more garage door exposure by CUP, when the doors do not face the street or neighboring residential property. C. 2. a. Clarifies current language, and provides that certain smaller accessory buildings are allowed as permitted buildings, and further clarifies the non-garage detached accessory building provision. Action Requested: No action is required at this time. The Planning Commission is asked to be prepared to discuss these options, as well as other ideas relating to garage size. Following this discussion, staff will summarize the material and prepare for a potential amendment process, pending additional direction from the City Council. Supplementary Materials: 1. Draft ordinance amendment language MH Planning Commission 3/26/2013, Page 21 C. Accessory Structures In All Residential Districts: accessory structures shall be constructed in a manner to match or complement the principal structure. 1. Private garages in all residential districts: a. Number: Only one private garage, either attached or detached, is allowed for each principal residential structure, except by Conditional Use Permit. b. Size: (1) Attached private garage: (A) Up to one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet is permitted. (B) One thousand two hundred (1,200) to one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet is allowed More than 1,200 square feet, up to a total floor area no greater than the foundation footprint of the principal residential building, via a conditional use permit. (2) Detached private garage: (A) Up to four hundred forty (440) six hundred fifty (650) square feet is permitted. (B) Four hundred forty (440) to seven hundred fifty (750) square feet is allowed via a conditional use. More than 650 square feet, up to a total floor area no greater than the foundation footprint of the principal residential building; nor more than ten percent (10%) of the rear yard, whichever is less. via a conditional use permit. A detached private garage may not exceed 1,500 square feet of area. PRIVATE GARAGE SIZE STANDARDS IN ALL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Attached (Square Feet) Detached (Square Feet) Permitted 1,200 maximum 440 maximum Conditional use 1,200 to 1,500 440 to 750 Prohibited Over 1,500 Over 750 c. Standards For Private Garages In All Residential Districts: (1) Floor Of A Garage: In all R districts, the floor of a garage shall be at least one and one-half feet (11/2') above the street grade at the curb unless a deviation is granted by the public works director upon determination that a lower elevation is appropriate. MH Planning Commission 3/26/2013, Page 22 (2) Garage Doors: No more than thirty six (36) lineal feet of garage door per structure, measured horizontally, may be installed to provide access to any private garage or other accessory building space on a single or two-family residential property a double wide and a single wide garage door, or three (3) single wide garage doors shall be permitted. More than thirty six (36) lineal feet of garage door may be provided by Conditional Use Permit when such additional garage door exposure is not visible from a public street or from surrounding residential property. (3) Height: No garage doors over nine feet (9') in height shall be permitted. (4) Use: No use of the garage shall be permitted other than private residential noncommercial use. 2. Accessory structures (other than detached, private garages) in all residential districts: a. Number And Size - No detached accessory building shall exceed the following size allowances: (1) Accessory buildings (other than detached, private garages) shall not exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet. (1) Property is four (4) acres or less*: One accessory structure with the area not to exceed one hundred forty four (144) square feet is permitted. (2) Property is more than four (4) acres*: Total area of accessory structures cannot exceed four hundred twenty five (425 440) square feet as a permitted structure, provided: (A) No more than three (3) two (2) accessory structures may be erected. *In computing the area of the property on which an accessory structure is to be located, any part which is a lake or a wetland, as defined in any city ordinance or by state or federal law, any part which is subject to an easement for a street, alley or private roadway, and any part which is in the critical area and below the "bluff line", as defined in chapter 3, "Critical Area Overlay District", of this title shall be excluded. (3) A detached accessory building which is not a private garage may be constructed larger than the allowances in this section by Conditional Use Permit, provided that in no case shall such building be larger than one thousand (1,000) square feet of total floor area. b. Through Lots: All accessory buildings greater than one hundred forty four (144) square feet on through lots located in R districts shall require a conditional use permit. MH Planning Commission 3/26/2013, Page 23