2013-04-23 Planning Comm Agenda Packet
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Agenda
Tuesday, April 23, 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. Approval of the March 26, 2013 Planning Commission Minutes
6. Hearings:
a. Case No. 2013-04: Ed Getz: Conditional Use Permit for a Fence at 2453
Haverton Road. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m.
7. Discussion:
a. Amendment to City Code Pertaining to Garages
b. Amendment to City Code Pertaining to Signs
8. Verbal Review
9. 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 Comission April 23, 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 Comission April 23, 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 Comission April 23, 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 Comission April 23, 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 Comission April 23, 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 Comission April 23, 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 Comission April 23, 2013, Page 7
Planning Commission Minutes
March 26, 2013
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES
March 26, 2013
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August
28, 2012, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
The following Commissioners were present: Commissioners Noonan, Hennes, and Hennessey.
Those absent: Chair Field, Commissioners Roston, Magnuson, and Viksnins. Those present
were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, Public Works Director/City Engineer
John Mazzitello, and NAC Planner Bob Kermis.
There not being a quorum attending the meeting, the Commissioners were informed that they
could hold the public hearings, gather input, ask clarifying questions on cases, but would be
unable to take any actions on any items.
Approval of February 26, 2013 Minutes
Held over to the next Planning Commission meeting
Hearings
PLANNING CASE #2013-02
Jane McKoskey
Lot Split at 668 – 1st Avenue
Mr. Bob Kermis, Senior Planner explained that the applicant is proposing to split a property at
668 – 1st Avenue into two individual parcels. The property is currently occupied on the east side
by a single family and a detached accessory structure. This property is zoned R1 – Single Family
Residential. Within the R1 districts, minimum lot width of one hundred feet is required and a
minimum area of fifteen thousand square feet is required.
At the time of the original staff report it was believed that there was an inability of the lots to
meet the minimum area and width requirements. It was noted that the submitted survey differs
from the actual plat drawing. The submitted survey is actually inaccurate in that twenty
additional feet of area actually is provided per the plat. Therefore, the concern over the area
requirement is a non-issue.
The other item of note is that the survey identifies an alley to be vacated. That alley actually was
formally vacated several years but was simply never finalized.
Staff recommended approval of this application subject to the following conditions:
1. The word “proposed” be removed from the shaded area relating to the vacated alley
MH Planning Comission April 23, 2013, Page 8
Planning Commission Minutes
March 26, 2013
2. The applicant includes five-foot drainage and utility easements along interior lot lines.
Mr. Richard Burrows was on behalf of the application. Commissioner Hennes asked if there was
a timing issue on getting this application approved. Mr. Burrows replied that the family would
like to move forward with their father’s estate.
Commissioner Noonan supported approval of the application, should City Council be inclined to
deal with it without the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Commissioner
Hennessey and Hennes echoed that sentiment.
Should Council decide to move forward with this application, they would consider it at their
April 2, 2013 Council Meeting.
PLANNING CASE #2013-03
Brian Smith
Zoning Amendment to allow beekeeping
Mr. Bob Kermis, Senior Planner explained that the Somerset Country Club is requesting an
amendment to the R1 – Single Family Residential Zoning District which would allow the
keeping of bees as an accessory use. Currently, the ordinance prohibits food animals, which
include animals typically raised for the purposes of food production. Currently that does include
bees. Thus the keeping of bees is not currently allowed in the zoning district.
Mr. Kermis noted that there has been a movement related to the keeping of bees in residential
area over the past few years. Many cities have considered this issue; some who have approved
the keeping of bees identify it as a local food source, a means of pollinating area plants, and have
found that the impacts really are not all that significant upon neighboring uses. In those cities, it
is common to regulate the number and size of the hives to minimize the neighborhood concerns.
Most area cities have chosen not to allow the keeping of bees within residential zoning districts.
The primary concerns are about bee stings, etc.
The City of Minneapolis has a zoning process that allows the keeping of bees if neighboring
properties find the activity to be acceptable. That process is not available in most cities,
including Mendota Heights.
Occasionally cities have addressed this issue by allowing this activity only on larger rural type
lots. In this particular case, that would seem to be appropriate if the city is inclined to allow this
activity. The applicant has suggested that the amendment limit the bees to a maximum of ten
hives on properties of fifty acres or more.
Staff feels that the imposition of the conditions proposed in the amendment would minimize any
observable impacts on the neighboring parcels. Staff would support the amendment.
The planning commission had a number of questions on the nature of bees, and the difference
between domestic and feral bees.
MH Planning Comission April 23, 2013, Page 9
Planning Commission Minutes
March 26, 2013
Mr. Alan Spalding, 45 Windy Hill, Sunfish Lake, MN is a member of Somerset Golf Course and
a beekeeper. Spoke in favor of the code amendment, answering several questions about bees.
Mr. Spalding noted that the City of Stillwater recently approved a beekeeping ordinance if
anyone was interested in looking at a comparable case study.
Mr. James Bade, Somerset Golf Course Superintendent noted that the Town and Country Golf
Course in St. Paul started this program last year and the University of Minnesota is involved.
Somerset is a one hundred forty-nine acre plot and is certified by Audubon International, for golf
course management.
Ms. Laurie Tostrud, a member of Somerset Golf Course and a resident at 1490 Somerset Court
also spoke in support of the amendment.
Commissioner Noonan supported the amendment with the proposed conditions. Commissioner
Hennessey felt that the positive attributes outweigh any potential negative consequences, as did
Commissioner Hennes.
Discussion
AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE PERTAINING TO GARAGES
Commissioner Noonan suggested this topic be laid over until the full commission was present to
discuss. Commissioners Hennessey and Hennes agreed.
Verbal Review
Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review:
PLANNING CASE #2013-01 Yorn Yan Code Amendment and
Conditional Use Permit
• Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING CASE #2012-34 Vince Nonnemacher Code Amendment
• Denied by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission.
MH Planning Comission April 23, 2013, Page 10
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen Grittman
DATE: April 16, 2013
MEETING DATE: April 23, 2013
SUBJECT: Fence CUP
CASE NO: Case No. 13-04; NAC Case 254.04 - 13.07
APPLICANT(S): Ed Getz
LOCATION: 2453 Haverton Road
ZONING: R-1, Single Family Residential
GUIDE PLAN: Low Density Residential
Background and Description of Request:
The applicant is seeking approval of a conditional use permit to place a five foot high
fence in a required yard adjacent to a public right-of-way (Mendota Heights Road). The
Zoning Ordinance states that fences in such required yards cannot exceed 36 inches
without the granting of a conditional use permit. The applicant’s property is a “corner
lot” and is accessed from the east via Halverton Road.
The proposed fence is to be an ornamental metal type and would enclose the rear yard
area of the site.
Analysis:
The applicant is proposing to fence the rear yard of his property. Because the fence
segment along the north property line lies within 30 feet of a public right-of-way
(Mendota Heights Road) and exceeds 36 inches in height, the processing of a
conditional use permit is required. At its closest point, a fence setback of 25 feet from
the Mendota Heights Road right-of-way line is proposed.
MH Planning Comission April 23, 2013, Page 11
2
According to the applicant, the fence segment along Mendota Heights Road will sit atop
an existing berm and within an existing tree line. It is the applicant’s hope that the
proposed fence will secure the subject property and discourage pedestrians from “short
cutting” across his corner lot (a pedestrian trail presently exists alongside Mendota
Heights Road).
Gates to the fenced rear yard are proposed from the east, on the north and south sides
of the residence. The gate locations do not obstruct access to the home’s driveway and
are considered acceptable.
According to the Ordinance, no fences, structures, manmade berms, or plantings may
exceed thirty 36 inches in height above the center grade of the intersection within any
front or side yard area on a corner lot which may interfere with the visibility across the
corner. The proposed fence will not impact visibility at the Mendota Heights Road/
Haverton Road intersection. Existing vegetation in the area may be any issue, and the
applicant should work with City staff to optimize visibility in this location.
Action Requested:
Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following
recommendations:
1. Approval of the conditional use permit for fence construction greater than 36
inches in a required yard adjacent to a right-of-way as proposed by the applicant,
based on the findings attached to this report. As a condition of CUP approval,
the applicant should work with staff to address existing vegetation at the corner
of Mendota Heights Road/Haverton Road to ensure that it does not negatively
impact traffic visibility.
2. Denial of the conditional use permit based on a finding that the proposed fence
will have a negative impact on traffic visibility and on the neighboring properties.
Staff Recommendation:
Planning staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit.
Supplementary Materials:
1. Site Location Map
2. Application Materials Dated 4/1/13
3. Draft Findings of Fact for Approval
MH Planning Comission April 23, 2013, Page 12
3
Draft Findings of Fact for Approval
Getz Conditional Use Permit
2453 Haverton Road
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the above Permit:
1. The proposed project will not further impact traffic visibility at the Mendota
Heights Road/Haverton Road intersection.
2. The proposed fence type and height are consistent with Ordinance requirements.
3. The fence is compatible with the established character in the area and will not
negatively impact any neighboring properties.
MH Planning Comission April 23, 2013, Page 13
MH Planning Comission April 23, 2013, Page 14
MH Planning Comission April 23, 2013, Page 15
MH Planning Comission April 23, 2013, Page 16
MH Planning Comission April 23, 2013, Page 17
MH Planning Comission April 23, 2013, Page 18
MH Planning Comission April 23, 2013, Page 19
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 Comission April 23, 2013, Page 20
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 Comission April 23, 2013, Page 21
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 Comission April 23, 2013, Page 22
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 Comission April 23, 2013, Page 23
(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 Comission April 23, 2013, Page 24
DATE: April 23, 2013
TO: Planning Commissioners
FROM: Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrator
SUBJECT: Discussion on Sign Code Modernization
BACKGROUND
The city considered two planning cases in late 2012 pertaining to City Code regarding signs. Discussion
of the applications at both the planning commission and city council included the concern that our code
may not reflect current best practices for sign regulation. The topic of modernizing sign code was
included on the 2013 City Council Goal Setting Work Session agenda, where staff was directed to bring
the item forward for further discussion.
Staff has attached a strike-through version of our current sign code, to be used as a starting point for
discussion of potential changes to code. This is an opportunity to review the entire code regarding signs.
The attached draft is not exhaustive, and addresses the following issues:
Reducing the required setback for pylon and monument signs
Reducing the required setback for real estate signs
Eliminating language on maintenance, which is addressed in the residential and commercial
property maintenance codes
Updating language pertaining to election signs
Creating an allowance for electronic displays at motor fuel stations
The commission is encouraged to provide feedback on the draft, and express new concerns/ideas.
BUDGET IMPACT
N/A
RECOMMENDATION
There is no required action on this item. Staff recommends that the planning commission discuss the
attached draft and provide feedback on the sign code.
MH Planning Comission April 23, 2013, Page 25
**DRAFT** Sign Code Modernization, Page 1 of 4
12-1D-15: SIGNS:
Signs are a permitted accessory use in all use districts subject to the following regulations:
A. Interpretation: A sign is a structure or a part of a structure for the purpose of applying yard and
height regulations.
B. Permit Requirements:
1. Permit Required: Except as herein exempted, no person, firm or corporation shall install, erect,
relocate, modify, alter, or change the color or change the copy on any sign in the city without
first obtaining a permit.
2. Application For Permit; Fees: Application for permits shall be made in writing upon printed
forms furnished by the city, and shall be accompanied by a complete description of the sign, its
proposed location, the manner of construction and materials used in the sign, a sketch of the
sign and such other information as the code enforcement department deems necessary. Fees
shall be established by resolution of the city council. A triple fee shall be charged if a sign is
erected without first obtaining a permit for such sign.
3. Exemptions: No permit shall be required for the following signs; provided, however, that all
signs herein exempted from the permit requirements shall conform with all other requirements
of this chapter:
a. Signs erected by a governmental unit.
b. Signs which are entirely within a building and not visible from outside such building.
c. Address, nameplate and/or identification signs having an area of two (2) square feet or less.
d. Garage sale, rummage sale and other similar signs in conjunction with the sale of household
goods and materials from private residences.
e. Real estate signs as regulated in subsection D of this section.
f. Election signs as regulated in subsection I of this section.
C. Location Generally: Signs and parts of the superstructure shall not extend into the required yards.
D. Real Estate Signs:
1. For purposes of selling or leasing property, a sign not in excess of fifteen (15) square feet per
surface may be placed within the front yard of such property to be sold or leased. Such signs
shall not be less than fifteen feet (15') from the right of way line unless flat against the structure.
2. For the purpose of selling or promoting a residential project of six (6) or more dwelling units, a
commercial area of three (3) acres or more or an industrial area of ten (10) acres or more, one
sign not to exceed one hundred (100) square feet of advertising surface may be erected upon
the project site. Such sign shall not remain after ninety percent (90%) of the project is
developed.
E. Temporary Signs: There shall be no more than one temporary (3 months or less) sign on any lot. The
total area of such sign shall not exceed twenty five (25) square feet.
F. Maintenance Requirements:
1. The owner, lessee, or occupant of the land on which a ground sign is located shall keep the
property on which the sign is located free of long grass, weeds or other rank growth, rubbish or
debris.
MH Planning Comission April 23, 2013, Page 26
**DRAFT** Sign Code Modernization, Page 2 of 4
2. All signs shall be maintained in a safe, presentable and structurally sound condition. No person
shall maintain or permit to be maintained on any premises owned or controlled by him any sign
which is in a dangerous or defective condition.
G. Prohibited Signs: Unless a sign is specifically permitted under this chapter, the sign is prohibited. By
way of example and not by way of limitation, the following signs are specifically prohibited:
1. Signs within the public right of way or easement; except, that the city council may grant a
conditional use permit to locate signs and decorations on or within the city right of way for a
specified time not to exceed sixty (60) days.
2. Illuminated flashing signs within the R, B-1 or B-2 district.
3. In all districts, illuminated signs or devices giving off an intermittent, steady or rotating beam
consisting of a collection or concentration of rays or lights. (exemption for LED?)
4. Any sign that, by reason of position, shape or color would interfere in any way with the proper
functioning or purpose of a traffic sign or signal.
5. Signs painted directly on the outside wall of buildings.
6. Signs painted on fences, rocks, or similar structures or features in any district.
7. Paper and similar signs attached directly to a building wall by an adhesive or similar means.
8. Animated signs, lighter than air inflatable devices, string lights, strip lighting outlining structures,
and signs attached or mounted on a vehicle parked primarily for use as a sign.
9. Roof signs.
H. Nonconforming Signs: Signs existing on the effective date of this chapter which do not conform to
the regulations set forth in this chapter or any previous ordinance are nonconforming uses.
I. Election Signs:
1. Election signs are permitted on private property in any district, provided such signs are removed
within ten (10) days following the state general election or within ten (10) days following the
election the sign relates to in a year during which no state general election is held.
2. No election sign shall be permitted in any R district before August 1 46 days before the state
primary in a state general election year, or more than one month preceding the election the sign
relates to in a year during which no state general election is held.
3. No election sign shall be permitted on election day within one hundred feet (100') of a building
in which a polling place is situated or anywhere on public property on which a polling place is
situated. This restriction does not apply to adjacent private property.
J. Signs In R Districts: Within the R districts, the following signs are permitted:
1. One nameplate sign for each dwelling, and such sign shall not exceed two (2) square feet in area
per surface, and no sign shall be so constructed as to have more than two (2) surfaces.
2. One nameplate sign for each dwelling group of six (6) or more units, and such sign shall not
exceed six (6) square feet in area per surface, and no sign shall be so constructed as to have
more than two (2) surfaces. (Ord. 429, 8-3-2010)
3. One nameplate sign for each permitted use or use by conditional use permit other than
residential, and such sign shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet in area per surface.
a. By conditional use permit, a use in a residential zoning district which is allowed either as a
permitted or conditional use may qualify for a second nameplate sign, provided that each of
the following requirements are met:
(1) The parcel on which such a sign is proposed may be no less than forty (40) acres in size.
MH Planning Comission April 23, 2013, Page 27
**DRAFT** Sign Code Modernization, Page 3 of 4
(2) The parcel on which such a sign is to be located must have frontage on at least two (2)
public roadways.
(3) No more than one sign may be allowed to be oriented toward any one public roadway.
(4) The sign shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet in area per surface.
(5) The sign shall not exceed nine feet (9') in height from the average natural grade at the
base of the sign.
(6) The sign may be illuminated, provided the direct source of light is not visible from the
public right of way or adjacent residential district.
(7) The sign may not be constructed as an internally lit cabinet.
(8) The sign shall be constructed in a monument style fashion, including a base of natural
stone, brick or other masonry material.
(9) The sign area shall be landscaped with materials subject to a plan submitted with the
CUP application and approved by the city council.
(10) Lighting shall be limited from dusk to twelve o'clock (12:00) midnight. (Ord. 434, 4-5-
2011)
4. Symbols, statues, sculptures and integrated architectural features on nonresidential buildings
may be illuminated by floodlights, provided the direct source of light is not visible from the
public right of way or adjacent residential district.
5. Any sign over one square foot shall be set back at least ten feet (10') from any property line. No
sign shall exceed ten feet (10') in height above the average grade level. Signs may be
illuminated, but such lighting shall be diffused or indirect and not illuminated beyond any lot
line.
K. Signs In B And I Districts:
1. Nameplates And Business Signs: Nameplate signs and business signs are permitted subject to
the following regulations:
a. B-1 And B-1A Districts: Within the B-1 and B-1A districts, the aggregate square footage of
sign space per lot shall not exceed the sum of one square foot per front foot of building plus
one square foot for each front foot of lot not occupied by a building. No individual sign shall
exceed fifty (50) square feet in a B-1 area.
b. B-2, B-3, B-4 And I Districts:
(1) Within the B-2, B-3, B-4 and I districts, the aggregate square footage of such space per
lot shall not exceed the sum of two (2) square feet per front foot of building, plus one
square foot for each front foot of lot not occupied by such building which fronts on a
public right of way fifty feet (50') or more in width. The least width of a lot for purposes
of this chapter shall be the front. No individual sign surface shall exceed one hundred
(100) square feet in area, nor shall two (2) or more signs be so arranged and integrated
as to cause an advertising surface over one hundred (100) square feet.
(2) Where a B-4 district includes a theater, additional sign surface area may be permitted
for the exclusive use of the theater. The total aggregate surface area permitted for
theaters including any pylon, marquee or other signage shall not exceed two hundred
(200) square feet.
2. Pylon Or Freestanding Sign: The erection of one pylon type sign for any single lot in the B-2, B-3,
B-4 and I districts is permitted under the following provisions:
a. No pylon or freestanding sign shall be located in a required yard area. In the case of a corner
lot, both sides fronting on a public right of way shall be deemed the front.
b. A pylon or freestanding sign shall not be higher than twenty five feet (25') above the
average grade level at the base of the sign.
MH Planning Comission April 23, 2013, Page 28
**DRAFT** Sign Code Modernization, Page 4 of 4
c. No part of the pylon or freestanding sign shall be less than twenty feet (2010') from a side
lot lines nor less than five feet (5') from any driveway or parking area.
d. No part or projection from a pylon or freestanding sign shall be less than fourteen feet (14')
vertical distance above the grade level at the base of the sign.
e. The gross area of any surface of a pylon or freestanding sign shall not exceed one hundred
(100) square feet.
3. Electronic displays, including Light-Emitting-Diodes (LED), or similar technologies may be
permitted at motor fuel stations under the following conditions:
a. The characters in an electronic display must be a uniform color.
b. Any electronic display is limited to a maximum of four (4) characters.
c. The total area for an electronic display is not to exceed six (6) square feet in area.
d. The text of the sign may not change more than three (times) in a day (24 hours).
e. The electronic display shall be allowed only during the hours of operation approved in the
conditional use permit for the motor fuel station.
f. Any existing motor fuel station seeking permit for electronic display of fuel prices shall
submit a request to amend their conditional use permit.
4. Comprehensive Sign Plan: A comprehensive sign plan shall be provided for industrial
developments. Such plan, which shall include the location, size, height, lighting and orientation
of all signs shall be submitted to the planning commission for preliminary plan approval
regulations. Provided such a comprehensive plan is presented, exceptions to the sign
performance standards of this chapter may be permitted if sign areas and densities for the plan
as a whole are in conformity with the intent of this chapter and if such exception results in an
improved relationship between the various parts of the plan. (Ord. 429, 8-3-2010)
MH Planning Comission April 23, 2013, Page 29