Planning Staff Report

Transcription

1 MEETING DATE: February 27, 2018 TO: FROM: Planning Staff Report Planning Commission Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT & VARIANCE APPLICANT: PROPERTY ADDRESS: ZONING/GUIDED: ACTION DEADLINE: Patterson Dental Company and St. Thomas Academy 1031 and 949 Mendota Heights Road B-1A Business Park/LB-Limited Business (Patterson) and R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential (STA) April 14, 2018 (Variance) June 13, 2018 (Lot Line Adjustment) DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Patterson Dental Company (Patterson) is seeking to adjust a shared property boundary line between their main company campus property and Saint Thomas Academy s (STA) property to the east. This adjustment will resolve an existing encroachment of the nearby STA ballfield structures and fences. The request requires City Council approval before being recorded by Dakota County. In addition, the proposed request requires a variance from the minimum parking lot setback standards. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcel. No comments have been received by the city. BACKGROUND The Patterson property is platted as Lot 1, Block 1, Patterson Companies Addition, while the neighboring STA property is unplatted lands in the NE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Sect From review of the Description Sketch plan and Survey of the property in question, there appears to be a five-foot high ballfield enclosure fence, a small section of bleacher seats, and a concrete pad situated across the joined property boundary line. In order to resolve these physical encroachments, Patterson has agreed to subdivide a 6-foot wide strip of land from their original office parcel, and deed this over to STA. This strip is illustrated on the attached survey. The resulting lot line adjustment does not create any new buildable parcel; therefor the lot line adjustments appropriate application in this case. The resulting line adjustment does however, require a variance for Patterson due to the resulting decreased setback area for their company parking lot.

2 IMAGE LOOKING NORTH (Patterson Dental Left and STA Ballfield Right) ANALYSIS Lot Line Adjustment Title of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district. The minimum lot standards for any R-1 One Family Residential uses are as follows: R-1 Zoning District Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Setback: Side Yard Setback: Rear Yard Setback: Standard 15,000 SF 100-ft. 30-ft. 10-ft. 30-ft. The minimum lot standards for any B-1A Business Park are as follows: B-1A Zoning District Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Setback: Side Yard Setback: Rear Yard Setback: Standard 3 acres 300-ft. 100-ft. 50-ft. 60-ft. Based on the attached survey, the proposed lot line adjustment does not create any non-conformities with the applicable lot standards under the B-1A District (for Patterson) or the R-1 District (for STA). Pursuant to City Code Section 12-1D-16 Off Street Parking and Loading, Subpart (3): In all B and I districts where such district is not across the street from an R district or abutting an R district, the parking spaces shall be located at least twenty feet (20') from a front lot line and ten feet (10') from a side and rear lot line. Planning Report-Case # Page 2

3 The shared lot line between Patterson and STA is considered a side lot line; therefore, the existing parking lot area owned by Patterson needs to maintain a minimum 10-ft. separation, unless a variance is approved to the reduced setback standard. The Patterson parking/drive-aisle is currently situated approx. 14 +/- feet from the side lot line (see image below red circled area). The 6-foot acquisition strip will essentially shift the east boundary line of Patterson s closer towards their own drive aisle/parking lot area, resulting in an approximate 8-foot separation. Because of this reduction, a variance is in order for this case. Variance When considering a variance for the proposed lot line adjustment request, the City is required to find that: 1. The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive plan and the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. The applicant has provided the following response to this variance standard: The proposed lot split mitigates an encroachment condition historically accepted by the parties. It facilitates the continuation of an existing use of a six foot strip of land adjoining a parcel utilized by St. Thomas Academy as a baseball field. The proposed lot split does not increase impervious coverage, and only affects the parking lot setback from the lot line with the adjoining parcel. The request to adjust an interior property boundary line to address an existing encroachment is reasonable and meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. The proposed lot line adjustment resolves the historical encroachment issue that has apparently existed between both properties for quite some time; and there are no negative impacts in allowing this lot line adjustment or even the variance- to be considered under this case. The space that exists between the Patterson parking lot and the STA ballfield area should remain unaffected by the split. 2. The applicant establishes there are practical difficulties with complying with the ordinance due to circumstances that are unique to the property which are not created by the applicant or based on economic considerations. Planning Report-Case # Page 3

4 The applicant has provided the following response to this variance standard: It would not be practical to relocate the existing improvements on the St. Thomas Academy property that encroach upon the six foot strip in question, nor would it be practical or beneficial to occupants and guests of the property to reduce the size of the existing parking lot serving the property. This is a unique situation because the adjoining St. Thomas Academy property is utilized as a baseball field. City staff would tend to agree and accept his statement as a matter of support for this variance. 3. The request will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The applicant has provided the following response to this variance standard: It helps facilitate the continuance of an existing use on the adjoining St. Thomas Academy property without impacting the existing use of the property. Practically speaking, approval of the requests would result in the adjustment of lines on a map. Therefore, no changes will be visible to either property and no negative impacts are anticipated to the character of the neighborhood. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the lot line adjustment and variance requests, based on the attached findings of fact, with conditions. OR 2. Recommend denial of the lot line adjustment and variance requests, based on the findings of fact that the proposed adjustment is not consistent with the City Code or Comprehensive Plan and will have a negative impact on surrounding properties. 3. Table the requests. STAFF RECOMMENDATION OR Staff recommends approval of the lot line adjustment and variance requests based on the attached findings of fact (Alternative 1), with the condition that the appropriate documents are recorded with Dakota County. Attachments 1. Sketch Map 2. Survey 3. Planning applications, including supporting materials Planning Report-Case # Page 4

5 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Lot Line Adjustment and Variance Planning Case No Patterson Dental Company and St. Thomas Academy 1031 and 949 Mendota Heights Road The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed lot line adjustment and variance requests meet the purpose and intent of the City Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The purpose of the requests are to resolve an existing encroachment over the shared property boundary line between two separate property owners. 3. The existing conditions were not created by Patterson Dental Company owners, and this encroachment issue may create some practical difficulties for the owners in future title work or sale of properties, and the effective remedy of this requested lot line adjustment and variance are both appropriate in this case. 4. Other alternatives to attain compliance would require removal or relocation of existing and longterm features (fence, bleachers, concrete pads, etc.), which is not practical or necessary in this case. 5. Approval of the lot line adjustment and variance will have no visible impact on either property and will not negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. Planning Report-Case # Page 5

6 ( ( February 1, 2018 VIA (timb@mendota-heights.com) & U.S. MAIL Tim Berretti Community Development Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN RE: Variance/Lot Line Adjustment Dear Tim: Enclosed please find the applications for the lot line adjustment and variance along with a check in the amount of $1,500 to cover each application and the escrow. The purpose of the lot line adjustment and variance request is to mitigate an encroachment condition historically accepted by the Patterson Dental Company and St. Thomas Academy. It facilitates the continuation of an existing use of a six foot strip of land currently owned by Patterson Dental Company adjoining a parcel utilized by St. Thomas Academy as a baseball field. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or comments. Sincerely, <;l/11/. ==::s-= Jeffrey J. Serum Direct Dial: jserum@fredlaw.com JJS:djk Enclosure Attorneys & Adv i sors main fax fred law.com Fredr ikson & Byron, P.A. 200 South S i xth Street, Su ite 4000 Minneapol i s, Minnesota MEMBER OF THE WORLD SERV ICES GROUP A Worldwide Network of Professional Service Providers OFF ICES Minneapo li s I Bismarck I Des Moi nes I Fargo I St. Pau l I Monterrey, Mexico I Shangha i, China

7 ( (, n::1 ~,;,;:,'DDT A HEIGHTS 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN phone I tax heighls.com PLANNING APPLICATION Office Use Only: Case#: 2 ~18-0 j: Fee Paid :-IL~~_.c~~..!...L::..:==----~..L!o...l~ 1 ) Application Date: () i,zii(/~ Staff Initials: Applicable Ordinance #: Section: Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Existing Use: Proposed Use: Property Address/Street Location: 1031 Mendota Heights Road, Mendota Heights, MN Applicant Name:_H_o_w_a_rd_Ro_s_to_n Phone: (612) Applicant Address:_h_ro_~_o_n~_fr_ed_la_w_.c_o_m Applicant Mailing Address: 200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000, Minneapolis, MN Property Owner Name: Patterson Dental Company Phone: Property Owner Mailing Address: 1031 Mendota Heights Road, Mendota Heights, MN Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) See enclosed O&E reports. Type of Request D Rezoning I./ I Variance l./i Lot SpliUAdjustment D Code Amendment D Conditional Use Permit D Wetlands Perm.it D Critical Area Permit 0Appeal D Interim Use Permit D Preliminary/Final Plat Approval D Comprehensive Plan Amendment D Other I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above property during daylight hours. (.I ). ft~ra"l,u C ((_ /y,;f;? 1 /.,,ijj J. /or h g Signature of Applicant 4 bate 1 / l 7 ' (] 1 f,,yd Gl-(L _!+. IL:--~ I J :J.;{J.. d-c>/-jci Signature of Owner >cd f.c rsc, ;\ Co 1 1~pC1111() Date Signature of Owner (if more than one) Date Planning Application (modified ) Doc # Page 1of1

8 Please answer the following questions as they relate to the variance request. You may fill-in this form or create your own. 1. In your opinion, does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? ii YES D NO Why or why not? The proposed lot split mitigates an encroachment condition historically accepted by the parties. It facilitates the continuation of an existing use of a six foot strip of land adjoining a parcel utilized by St. Thomas Academy as a baseball field. The proposed lot split does not increase impervious coverage, and only affects the parking lot setback from the lot line with the adjoining parcel. 2. Please describe the circumstances unique to the property (not created by you). It would not be practical to relocate the existing improvements on the St. Thomas Academy property that encroach upon the six foot strip in question, nor would it be practical or beneficial to occupants and guests of the property to reduce the size of the existing parking lot serving the property. This is a unique situation because the adjoining St. Thomas Academy property is utilized as a baseball field. 3. In your opinion, will the variance, if granted, fit with the character of the neighborhood? ii YES D NO Why or why not? It helps facilitate the continuance of an existing use on the adjoining St. Thomas Academy property without impacting the existing use of the property. The City Council must make an affirmative finding on all of the criteria listed above in order to grant a variance. The applicant for a variance has the burden of proof to show that all of the criteria listed above have been satisfied. Variance Application (modified ) Doc. # Page 3of3

9 Patterson Dental / STA (Lot Line Adjustment) January 8, :2, ft Property Information m Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification.

10

11