Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout03-10-2015 POSTED IN CITY HALL March 5, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 2015 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL (2052 County Road 24) 1. Call to Order 2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda 3. Update from City Council proceedings 4. Planning Department Report 5. Approval of February 10, 2015 Draft Planning Commission minutes. 6. Public Hearing – Jeff Varney – 3985 County Road 19 – Conditional Use Permit for construction of a 10,080 square foot accessory building in the RR-UR zoning district. 7. Puptown, LLC – 810 Tower Drive – Amended Conditional Use Permit to increase maximum number of dogs permitted at existing dog daycare/boarding facility. 8. Call Special Meeting for March 17, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. to discuss: a) emergency incident responses; and b) open meeting law. 9. Council Meeting Schedule 10. Adjourn 1 CITY OF MEDINA 1 PLANNING COMMISSION 2 DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3 Tuesday February 10, 2015 4 5 1. Call to Order: Acting Chairperson Reid called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 6 7 Present: Planning Commissioners Todd Albers, Randy Foote, Kim Murrin, Victoria Reid, 8 and Kent Williams. 9 10 Absent: Planning Commissioners Charles Nolan and Janet White. 11 12 Also Present: Planning Consultant Nate Sparks and City Planner Dusty Finke. 13 14 2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda 15 16 There were none. 17 18 3. Update from City Council Proceedings 19 20 Councilmember Anderson reported that the Council considered the variance and site plan 21 review for the property owned by John Day, which was previously reviewed by the Planning 22 Commission as well. He advised that the variance was approved with the conditions 23 recommended by the Planning Commission. 24 25 4. Planning Department Report 26 27 Finke provided an update. 28 29 5. Approval of the January 13, 2015 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 30 31 Motion by Williams, seconded by Foote, to approve the January 13, 2015 Planning 32 Commission minutes with the noted corrections. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: 33 Nolan and White) 34 35 6. Public Hearing – Property Resources Development Corporation – PUD 36 Concept Plan for a Conservation Design Subdivision of 42 lots on 170 Gross 37 Acres Located East of Homestead Trail and West of Deerhill Road 38 39 Sparks provided additional information on the process for a Planned Unit Development 40 (PUD) Concept Plan as well as conservation design subdivisions. He identified the subject 41 site, which is approximately 170 acres in size and is primarily farmland and wetlands. He 42 stated that the property is currently zoned rural residential, which would allow one unit per 43 ten acres. He explained that the conservation design district would allow for density bonuses 44 if the criteria can be met. He provided additional information on the septic system proposed 45 for the development by the applicant and advised that the tree preservation plan would be 46 addressed during the Preliminary Plat phase of the review. He stated that the Commission 47 should review the request to determine if it meets the criteria of a conservation design 48 subdivision. 49 50 Williams referenced the conservation easement objectives and questioned which aspect 51 specifically would apply to this parcel that would be protected. 52 2 53 Sparks advised that there are significant wetlands, including one identified as a Tamarack 54 Swamp. 55 56 Williams inquired if the base density allowed under this situation would be 22 homes, prior to 57 density bonuses. He questioned how many homes would be allowed for development if the 58 developer would have just wanted to develop the land outside of this type of request. 59 60 Sparks confirmed that a different calculation would be used to determine the allowable 61 number of homes outside of this type of request. 62 63 Williams reference the multi-flo septic system proposed and asked for additional information 64 regarding the performance of the system. 65 66 Finke stated that there are a number of this type of system installed throughout the City. He 67 advised that the system is on the list of allowable technologies. He did know of any concerns 68 with systems that have been installed in Medina. He explained that the active parts of the 69 treatment plant need to be maintained in order to ensure operations. 70 71 Sparks confirmed that the maintenance is handled by the homeowners but noted that 72 additional information in that aspect would come forward further in the review process. 73 74 Reid referenced tree preservation and confirmed that aspect would not be discussed until the 75 Preliminary Plat review phase of the process. 76 77 Murrin referenced the access points proposed and questioned if Orono has been approached 78 to determine if they would approve of that access. She also questioned if Deerhill Road 79 would need to be expanded. 80 81 Finke advised that this is simply the review of the Concept Plan and those aspects would be 82 discussed further along the process. 83 84 Jennifer Haskamp, SHC, introduced those present to represent the applicant tonight. She 85 stated that they have been working on this plan for the past few months in order to create a 86 plan that would meet the criteria of the conservation design ordinance. She stated that there 87 are approximately 40 acres of buildable area proposed to be located in the conservation 88 easement noting that the plan integrates open spaces with the lots and also provides buffers 89 between the properties to preserve the character of the neighborhood. She also identified a 90 trail corridor included in the plans to coincide with the desires of the City. She stated that 91 they have entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Watershed in order to take a 92 proactive approach to providing the best function of the areas proposed to be protected. She 93 stated that they have really tried to develop a functional plan that respects the land and the 94 concerns that have been voiced by neighboring property owners. 95 96 Williams referenced the map, which identifies the wetlands and asked if there is another map 97 that identifies conservation areas that are not already protected. He questioned which land 98 the City is gaining into a conservation easement that would not already be protected. 99 100 Haskamp referenced that map and identified the color used to highlight that area, noting that 101 is approximately 40 acres of land in addition to the wetland and wetland buffer areas. 102 103 Williams questioned which ecological resources would be protected by this proposal in 104 addition to the Tamarack Swamp. 105 3 106 Haskamp stated that there are different methods to achieve the objectives. She stated that 107 there is an inherit value to the Tamarack Swamp. She stated that there are pocket wetlands 108 and they are proposing to improve the quality of those wetlands to benefit not only this 109 property but also the surrounding region. 110 111 Williams questioned what resources exist within the areas identified with the dark green color 112 that are not wetland but proposed to be conserved. 113 114 Haskamp explained that the areas are currently being farmed and this project would provide 115 an opportunity to protect the wetland boundaries existing and actually improve those 116 wetlands. She stated that although those wetlands exist, the function is not as high as it could 117 be. She referenced an area to the east where there are not only wetlands but also trees that 118 would be preserved. She stated that the City plan identifies this parcel as having high natural 119 resource value and therefore they have identified the corridor and open space area to match 120 the Comprehensive Plan of the City. She advised that the required land stewardship plan 121 would be developed in the next phase of this process. 122 123 Foote referenced a large wetland that he believed is located on the Orono portion of the 124 property and stated that it appears three lots will go directly over that wetland. 125 126 Haskamp stated that the Concept Plan excludes the Orono site. She stated that they will make 127 every effort possible to provide a primary septic system on each site but stated that there may 128 be an area or two where a community system would be needed. 129 130 Reid questioned how the number of homes was determined. 131 132 Haskamp stated that they used the base calculation for the ordinance and then determined 133 what they felt would be accomplished, in addition to maintaining consistency with the 134 settlement. 135 136 Reid opened the public hearing at 7:56 p.m. 137 138 Finke advised of written items that will become part of the record. 139 140 Stuart Alger, Attorney for resident residing at 2725 Deerhill Road, stated that his comments 141 relate specifically to Deerhill Road. He stated that the residents along Deerhill Road are 142 concerned that this project threatens the unique condition of Deerhill Road, specifically the 143 tree canopy. He stated that the Concept Plan is an improvement from past plans for 144 development. He stated that the Concept Plan does not identify plans for Deerhill Road but 145 noted that the residents are concerned that there would be pressure to widen Deerhill Road, 146 which they are opposed to. He stated that two possible options were included in his written 147 comments including making Deerhill Road a private road, which staff has stated they could 148 possibly support. He advised that the other would be that the main access road would remain 149 public but that the connection to Deerhill Road would be for maintenance or emergency use 150 only, noting that a gate would then be installed in that location. He stated that staff has stated 151 that they would not support the second option but advised that is the option that the residents 152 would prefer. 153 154 Williams asked for input from staff regarding the gate option. 155 156 4 Finke explained that there would be two cul-de-sacs that would need to be maintained and 157 advised of the other burdens the gate option would place on staff. He explained that if the 158 roadway is to be a public street, full access would be needed. 159 160 Reid questioned if there is any possibility that Deerhill Road could remain narrow with this 161 development. 162 163 Finke explained that as part of a development review staff also needs to review the 164 surrounding infrastructure to determine if those aspects can support the development. He 165 stated that on the previous development proposed Deerhill Road had been the primary access 166 point for the development and noted that in this plan the primary access point would be 167 Homestead Trail so that would be a difference. He advised that the impact to existing 168 infrastructure would be reviewed further into this process to determine if improvements 169 would be needed. 170 171 Foote confirmed that the existing Deerhill Road does not meet the minimum road standards. 172 173 Murrin questioned who owns the land that would be needed should the road need to be 174 expanded. 175 176 Finke explained that acquisition of right-of-way would be a part of a public improvement 177 process if that step is needed. 178 179 Steve Pflaum, 2725 Deerhill Road, stated that he believes the Concept Plan proposed is a 180 large improvement over what had originally been proposed. He stated that the density would 181 be mitigated by the large open space areas. He stated that this is a significant proposal for the 182 City. He referenced the presentation of the applicant, which includes preservation of a 183 wooded area and noted one lot that would not preserve that area. He stated that it appears the 184 City would like to widen Deerhill Road as a part of this project and was strongly opposed to 185 that option. He noted that would require a significant amount of trees to be cut down and 186 believed that there are better alternatives. He recognized that is not part of the Concept Plan 187 review tonight but wanted to ensure that the concerns of the homeowners are addressed. 188 189 Nancy Lindlee, 1588 Homestead Trail, commented that it seems that this proposal includes 190 too many homes for a rural residential area. She referenced the septic issue and was 191 concerned that 42 septic tanks could leak into the drinking water area for the City. She did 192 not believe that this was the right type of development for this space. 193 194 Tom Rassieur, 1845 Willow Drive, echoed the concern regarding the septic system. He also 195 has concerns regarding the water table as the homes would be pumping water to irrigate their 196 lawns. He was also concerned with the long-term maintenance of the septic system and what 197 would occur if the homeowner chooses not to maintain the septic system. He questioned if 198 there would be environmental effects that are not recognized at this time. He found it odd 199 that the proposal is completed in corporate names and wanted to know more specific 200 information on the people included in this development and their track record. 201 202 Amy Alworth, 1602 Homestead Trail, asked the Commission to preserve the rural quality of 203 Homestead Trail and asked the Commission to maintain consistency with the Comprehensive 204 Plan. 205 206 Reid closed the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. 207 208 5 Reid commended the members of the public in attendance for their participation and 209 summarized the concerns brought forward by the public. 210 211 Williams confirmed that no decisions would be made tonight and explained that this is simply 212 a format in which to provide comments to the applicant. 213 214 Albers stated that he has concerns with the number of lots proposed for the rural residential 215 area as well as the comments made regarding the forest area. 216 217 Foote appreciated the intent to create open space but did have concern with the number of 218 lots proposed. 219 220 Murrin stated that she would be concerned with Deerhill Road and would want more 221 information on that situation. She referenced the issue of sewer and questioned if there 222 would be an option to connect to City sewer. 223 224 Reid stated that there would not be an option for City sewer. 225 226 Murrin stated that she would like to see additional information on the septic system proposed. 227 228 Foote stated that while most people would utilize Homestead Trail, he believed that Deerhill 229 Road would also need to remain as a connection. 230 231 Williams stated that there are not many conservation easement developments and questioned 232 if there are, or will be, others in the City. He stated that his approach would be to determine 233 what the City is gaining through the proposal that would warrant an increase in density. He 234 stated that the applicant is requesting about 190 percent in density bonuses but did not feel 235 that there were significant ecological resources that would be protected, as the wetlands 236 would already be protected. He stated that the previous resource inventory was done 237 approximately ten years ago and would like to see more information. He stated that he would 238 be viewing the request in terms of what the City is gaining compared to what the City would 239 be giving in bonuses. He stated that while the decision regarding Deerhill Road would not 240 need to be made at this point that issue would need to be considered because the more homes 241 in the area, the more pressure that would be placed on the roadway. He stated that this 242 proposal is an improvement but believed the density proposed is too high as the density bonus 243 should be in line with what is actually being conserved. 244 245 Reid echoed the comments from Williams in regard to the excess bonus being requested by 246 the applicant. She referenced the issue of the septic system and believed the Home Owners 247 Association (HOA) would need to be involved with the ongoing maintenance. She stated that 248 she would like to see Deerhill Road preserved in its current state. She thanked everyone for 249 their participation. 250 251 Reid briefly recessed the meeting at 8:30 p.m. 252 253 Reid reconvened the meeting at 8:37 p.m. 254 255 7. Public Hearing – Wealshire of Bloomington, LLC – Rezoning from Rural Residential-256 Urban Reserve to Business Park, Interim Use Permit for Continued Agricultural Use on 257 a Portion of the Site, and Site Plan Review for an 150 Unit Memory Care Facility at the 258 NW Corner of Mohawk Drive and Chippewa Road 259 260 6 Finke stated that there are a number of land use requests tonight related to a memory care 261 facility at the northwest corner of Mohawk Drive and Chippewa Road. He stated that the 262 plan within the report includes both phase one and phase two. He stated that although the 263 applicant is requesting to move forward with phase one this year, staff is proposing to allow 264 the approval process to stand for both phases, as long as the plans do not change and both 265 phases occur within a specific time. He reviewed the three requests, which are before the 266 Commission including a rezoning, Site Plan Review and Interim Use Permit for the southern 267 portion of the site. He explained that the City did submit an amendment request to the 268 Metropolitan Council to change the land use of the parcel and advised that approval has been 269 granted but a formal approval from the City Council would still be needed. He reviewed the 270 existing land use designations and future guiding for the adjacent properties. He displayed an 271 aerial photograph of the site. He provided additional information regarding the rezoning of 272 the property, noting that business park would be a less intensive option. He stated that staff 273 believes that the rezoning is consistent with the recent changes to the Comprehensive Plan. 274 He moved on to the Site Plan review, noting that a memory care facility would be an 275 acceptable use within the zoning district. He briefly highlighted the aspects of the Site Plan 276 including building materials and modulation, landscaping, and possible public improvements 277 associated with Chippewa Road and Mohawk Drive. He referenced the Interim Use Permit 278 (IUP) requested for the southern portion of the parcel, which would allow agricultural 279 activities to continue. He stated that staff does not oppose the IUP for the agricultural use of 280 the southern portion of the property. He stated that staff does recommend approval of the 281 three requests subject to the conditions included in the staff report. 282 283 Williams questioned if a time limit would be put on the IUP. 284 285 Finke stated that option was discussed but noted that staff did not see a reason to do so. 286 287 The applicant had nothing further to add. 288 289 Reid opened the public hearing at 8:50 p.m. 290 291 Finke stated that he had one written correspondence that will be added into the record. 292 293 Reid closed the public hearing at 8:50 p.m. 294 295 Finke provided additional information on the calculations used to determine the necessary 296 amount of parking. 297 298 Williams questioned if the Commission should place a length of time for the IUP to continue. 299 300 Reid stated that the property is next to other agricultural land and did not see a problem with 301 that activity continuing. 302 303 Finke stated that if the property were to be subdivided, agricultural activity would be allowed 304 within the zoning district for the remaining property. 305 306 The applicant referenced the parking calculations. He explained that the same calculations 307 cannot be used for a memory care facility as is used for a hospital. He explained that 308 dementia patients are not driving vehicles and therefore do not require parking stalls. He 309 stated that he would like to see a different ratio used other than one stall to two tenants. He 310 provided comparison information for their site in Bloomington, which has 175 tenants and 75 311 parking stalls. He believed a ratio of one to three for parking stalls would be more 312 appropriate. 313 7 314 Motion by Williams, seconded by Foote, to recommend approval of the request from 315 Wealshire of Bloomington, LLC, to rezone property from Rural Residential-Urban Reserve to 316 Business Park; Site Plan review; and Interim Use Permit for continued agricultural use on a 317 portion of the site for the property located at the northwest corner of Mohawk Drive and 318 Chippewa Drive subject to the recommendations of staff. Motion approved unanimously. 319 (Absent: Nolan and White) 320 321 8. Continued Public Hearing – Ordinance Related to Solar Equipment 322 323 Finke stated that this is a continuation of the discussion the Commission had the previous 324 month regarding solar equipment and regulations. He reviewed the currently allowance for 325 solar equipment and the direction of the Council to investigate ground mounted equipment. 326 He stated that the Commission did discuss and generally supported ground mounted 327 equipment within the business district. He stated that staff also recommends allowing that 328 use within the industrial district. He summarized the comments and discussion of the 329 Commission at the previous meeting and stated that staff used those comments to draft the 330 ordinance as proposed. 331 332 Foote believed that the Commission had also discussed the industrial zoning district. He 333 confirmed that staff is recommending to allow the equipment in that district as well. 334 335 Reid continued the public hearing at 9:12 p.m. 336 337 Chris Pederson, Bloomington resident, stated that he has grown up in this area and has an 338 interest in renewable energy. He commended the Commission for considering allowing 339 ground mounted solar equipment but asked that the equipment be allowed in residential 340 districts as well. He stated that there are homeowners that would like solar equipment but are 341 unable to utilize roof-mounted equipment because of the direction their roof faces. He 342 believed that homeowners should be given the opportunity to include renewable energy 343 equipment on their property. He believed that solar panels are beautiful and add to a 344 community but stated that perhaps additional conditions could be placed on residential 345 districts. He stated that solar gardens are a great amenity but noted that it is more efficient for 346 homeowners to place equipment near their home. He stated that he believes that renewable 347 energy is too valuable to limit the use in residential districts. He asked that the Commission 348 allow residents to benefit in the same manner than businesses will be able to do. 349 350 Williams questioned the amount of loss that occurs in a solar garden compared to equipment 351 located on a resident’s property. 352 353 Pederson stated that is hard to determine the actual amount of loss that occurs. He explained 354 that the more distance that is traveled from the source, the more efficiency that is lost. He 355 advised that the investment in equipment would be faster for a homeowner than it would be a 356 solar garden. 357 358 Reid questioned how many panels a resident would need to have on their property to supply 359 their home with energy. 360 361 Pederson stated that it would be hard to determine but estimated 15 to 20 solar panels to 362 power a home. He stated that allowing one to two solar panels would be a vanity project and 363 would not accomplish the goal of renewable energy. 364 365 8 Mouli Vaidyanathan, Solar Pod, provided additional information regarding the size of solar 366 panels and the payback timeframe for residential equipment. 367 368 Reid closed the public hearing at 9:27 p.m. 369 370 Murrin questioned if residents are requesting to install solar equipment and being denied at 371 this time. 372 373 Finke was not aware of any requests from residents. 374 375 Williams stated that he would be open to allowing ground-mounted equipment within a rural 376 residential parcel as well. 377 378 Foote stated that he would not be opposed to residential but believed that the equipment 379 should be limited to powering one’s house and not creating surplus energy. 380 381 Murrin stated that no one has asked for this in the residential district at this point and believed 382 that perhaps that aspect should be discussed separately when residents could voice their 383 opinion. She stated that it sounds like a great idea but believed that the residents should be 384 given a chance to provide input. 385 386 Albers questioned the number of lots within the rural residential district that would qualify 387 under these standards. 388 389 Reid noted that there would not be any lots that would qualify with the 500-foot setback. 390 391 Finke stated that he can use every avenue available to continue this discussion with residents. 392 393 Williams stated that perhaps the item could be included in the newsletter. 394 395 Finke confirmed that the idea of residential equipment could be discussed at a future meeting. 396 397 Reid confirmed that the Commission would allow ground mounted units in the business and 398 industrial zoning districts and the other conditions decided upon by the Commission and 399 staff. 400 401 Williams stated that he would be open to allowing the units in the rural residential district but 402 noted that the item could be advertised in the newsletter to gauge interest. 403 404 Motion by Williams, seconded by Albers, to recommend approval of the amended 405 ordinance regarding solar equipment as proposed with the addition of the industrial park 406 zoning district. Motion approved unanimously. (Absent: Nolan and White) 407 408 9. Council Meeting Schedule 409 410 Albers introduced and provided additional information about himself. 411 412 Finke advised that the Council will be meeting Tuesday, February 17th. 413 414 Reid volunteered to represent the Commission at the meeting. 415 416 10. Adjourn 417 418 9 Motion by Foote, seconded by Murrin, to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 p.m. Motion carried 419 unanimously. 420 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Debra Peterson, Planning Assistant through Dusty Finke, City Planner DATE: March 6, 2015 MEETING: March 10, 2015 Planning Commission SUBJ: Varney – 3985 County Road 19 Conditional Use Permit for construction of a Storage Building Application Deadline Complete Application Received: February 17, 2015 120 - Day Review Deadline: June 16, 2015 Overview of Request Jeffrey and Shirley Varney have requested a conditional use permit (CUP) to construct a storage building approximately 10,080 sq. ft. on their property at 3985 County Road 19. Section 825.19 states that parcels 5 acres or greater may have up to two accessory structures for an aggregate total of 5,000 sq. ft. in size with a building permit. Additional accessory buildings and square footage is permitted on parcels over 5 acres in size via a CUP. The purpose of a CUP is to allow the City Council to impose conditions on the use which it considers necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. The subject property is located at the southwest corner of County Roads 11 and 19. Currently, the applicants reside at 4625 County Road 11 which is located next to 3985 County Road 19, the subject property. The Varney’s operate a farming operation on the subject property and do not have an existing conditional use permit for the square footage or number of buildings on-site. The subject property is zoned RR-UR, Rural Residential-Urban Reserve and is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as Developing-Post 2030. The applicant has stated that the proposed building will be used for storage of farm equipment, protecting loads of hay from the weather, and storing the hay/harvest. Staff requested a narrative from the applicant which is attached to this staff report. Site Description/Setbacks/Hardcover The subject property is approximately 113 acres in size and currently has six existing accessory structures with approximately 22,456+- sq. ft. (this does not include silos). Most of the remaining property consists of silos, driveways, and the principal house. The RR-UR district limits hardcover to 20% (Section 826.25.5 Subd4.) and the property is estimated to have less than 2%. Staff did not feel it was necessary to ask the applicant to have it calculated. The placement of the proposed pole building runs North/South along County Road 19. The survey shows a 40’-2” x 40’-3” building partially within the proposed location of the new pole building. The 40’-2” x 40’-3” building is proposed to be relocated south of the proposed new pole building as shown on the survey. The setbacks for the front, side and rear yards is 50 feet. The new building and building to be relocated meet the setback requirements. The subject property currently has six accessory buildings, which includes the detached garage for the house. This number does not include the silos. Agenda Item: 6 2 Below is a location map of the site. Building Details The proposed exterior building materials for the 60’ x 168’ building will mirror the existing pole buildings on site currently which is white steel siding. Pictures of the exterior are attached. The building will have cupolas on the roof to break up the length of the building. The zoning code requires the building have two exterior colors (Section 826.98. Subd.2. (m). The applicants are proposing the building to be one color. They have expressed concern that they already have existing buildings that are all white steel and that adding a new two tone building would not aesthetically improve the overall appearance of the property, or view from County Road 19 for that matter. They feel the building would stand out from all the other buildings and it wouldn’t blend in with what is there today. Staff agrees with the applicants that keeping consistency with what is there currently would be of benefit aesthetically. However, staff did suggest that the applicant plant six foot in height coniferous trees every 20 feet along the east side of the building along County Road 19 as shown on the plan. The applicant agreed that the trees would be much more appealing from a driver’s eye than a two tone building at this point. The zoning ordinance does not require the applicant to plant landscaping or trees but the applicant has no problem with doing so. Staff has placed this as a condition of approval even though they are shown on the survey. 3 Building Height The RR-UR zoning district restricts building height to a maximum of 30 feet measured from the average grade to mid roof. Farm buildings may exceed 30 feet. The new pole building is proposed to have 16 foot side walls and height of 21’-2” from the lowest grade to mid roof. The cupolas are not included in this measurement but are an additional 30 inches. Stormwater Agricultural properties are exempt from stormwater management; however the applicants propose to install two vegetative swales running north/south along the east side of the building which will capture the rain from the roof of the building. The captured runoff would then flow south into the existing ditch along County Road 19. On the west side of the building the applicants propose to install two vegetative swales with a new culvert under the proposed driveway which would lead to an existing culvert on-site. A seed mix has not yet been selected for the vegetative swales however staff has placed this as a condition of approval that it be pre-approved by City staff prior to planting. Staff believes the proposed stormwater improvements are satisfactory in meeting the requirements of the CUP. Conditional Use Permit Standards for Agricultural Preservation and Residential Districts In addition to the general standards specified in Section 825.39 of the ordinance, no conditional use permit shall be granted unless the city council determines that all of the specific standards contained in the subdivision below will be met under Section 826.98. Subd. 2 (m): (m) Accessory building standards for residential properties greater than five acres in area: (i) The accessory building’s design shall include architectural interest through the appropriate use of the following elements: cupolas, dormers, windows, porches, overhangs, varied building foundation, or other design treatments which the city council determines create a quality architectural design that enhances the appearance of the accessory building and complements the principal dwelling and the rural residential character or residential neighborhood in which the building is to be constructed. The applicants are proposing to install cupolas on the roof of the building. (ii) At least two colors or textures shall be used in the accessory building’s exterior design, including contrasting trim or fascia. Staff has further requested that the applicant plant trees along the east side of the building to break up the long mass wall rather than constructing a building with two colors. The ordinance further says under Section 825.19. Subd.8 that “All accessory buildings in residential and agricultural districts shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with other buildings on the property. Accessory buildings should be designed to reflect the rural design and character of the city. The visual impact of the accessory building upon neighboring properties shall be minimized by the building design and siting and by providing screening or additional landscaping, which shall be approved by the zoning administrator.” Staff feels that since the 4 existing accessory structures were not regulated under a CUP that consistency is key and requiring the building to have two colors wouldn’t be architecturally compatible with what exists there today. (iii) Any metal exterior materials on the accessory building shall be warranted to resist fading for a period of at least 15 years; and The proposed metal exterior has a paint warranty of 45 years. (iv) The accessory building shall have an infiltration basin, rain garden, rain barrel or other similar best management practice used to capture storm water runoff from the building and to improve water quality. Said best management practice must be reviewed and approved by the city council. The project includes the installation of four vegetative swales along the east and west sides of the building. The two vegetative swales on the east side will capture the rain from the roof of the building and it would then flow to the existing ditch along County Road 19. The two vegetative swales to the west would capture rain from the roof and then make its way to the existing culvert and proposed culvert under the driveway. Staff feels the proposed stormwater improvements are satisfactory in meeting the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Ordinance Compliance Section 825.39 states that when considering a CUP, the City shall consider the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of occupants or surrounding lands. Among other things, the City shall consider the following: 1. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity. The construction of the additional pole building onto the applicant’s large acreage parcel will be a continuation of what currently exists there today and will allow for the applicant’s to reduce outside storage. Staff has not received complaints from nearby residents related to the existing buildings do not believe the request would have an impact on neighboring properties. 2. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area. Staff does not believe the proposed pole building will impede normal and orderly development. The additional building will be utilized to function similar as other buildings on-site. 3. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. The subject property is on existing septic and well and the new building will not have plumbing so it will not have an impact to city or private utilities. The additional building will be accessed via the existing driveway and will not have additional impacts related to ingress or egress to site. The applicant has proposed to improve the drainage on-site by adding swales and additional culverts to improve the drainage of water coming off the pole building. Staff does not believe this property will have drainage issues related to the improvement. The overall hardcover on the site is minimal and falls well below the maximum of 20 percent. 5 4. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street parking and loading space to serve the proposed use. Staff believes the proposed internal drives and access to the new and relocated building are sufficient for parking and on-site circulation. 5. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration, so that none of these will constitute a nuisance, and to control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result. Staff does not believe odors, fumes, dust, noise or vibration will be increased by the pole building above what already may be present as part of the existing farm. 6. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. Staff believes the accessory building is reasonably related to the existing farm use. 7. The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. Staff believes the proposed pole building is directly related to the farming use and is consistent with the zoning code and the purposes of the rural residential-urban reserve zoning district. 8. The use is not in conflict with the policies plan of the City. Staff does not believe the construction of an additional pole building for purposes of farming would be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan policies for the Developing-Post 2030 since agricultural uses are allowed uses. 9. The use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion. Staff does not believe the proposed pole building will increase traffic hazard or congestion above what is already present through farming activities. The building will help keep equipment and crop inside the building rather than outside. 10. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected by intrusion of noise, glare or general unsightliness. Staff does not believe the pole building will significantly increase noise or glare to nearby properties. 11. The developer shall submit a time schedule for completion of the project. The applicant wishes to start and complete construction of the new building and relocation of the existing building this spring subject to weather. 12. The developer shall provide proof of ownership of the property to the Zoning Officer. The applicant has also signed the application as the property owner, and is listed as the owner with Hennepin County. City Discretion The City has relatively limited discretion to deny a Conditional Use Permit. If the application meets City ordinances, the CUP should be approved. However, the City has discretion to impose 6 conditions on the approval that protect the best interests of the surrounding community and the city as a whole. Section 825.41 states that these conditions could include, but are not limited to:  Increasing the required lot size or yard dimensions.  Limiting the height, size or location of buildings.  Controlling the location and number of vehicle access points.  Increasing the street width.  Increasing the number of required off-street parking spaces.  Limiting the number, size, location or lighting of signs.  Required diking, fencing, screening, landscaping or other facilities to protect adjacent or nearby property.  Designating sites for open space. Staff has recommended the applicant’s plant six foot in height coniferous trees along the east side of the proposed pole building. The applicant’s said they’ve had a hard time growing pine trees on his property, so staff suggested we not select the specific type at this time and we place it as a condition of approval that a hardy coniferous tree be planted. Staff will consult with our City Arborist. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions: 1) The applicants shall warrant that the pole building proposed is for private farming use only, and that no commercial and/or fee-based activities shall occur. 2) The applicants shall install the best management practices approved by the city engineer in order to capture stormwater runoff as shown on the survey dated 3/3/15. 3) The applicants shall have the seed mix type approved by City staff prior to planting. 4) The applicants shall plant six foot in height coniferous trees spaced 20 feet apart along the east side of the wall of the proposed pole building as shown on the survey. 5) The applicants shall abide by permitting requirements and follow the conditions of the Building Official and Fire Marshal. 6) The applicants shall pay to the City a fee in the amount sufficient to pay for all costs associated with the review of the Conditional Use Permit application. Attachments 1. Applicant letter 2. Exterior Building Elevations 3. Floor Plan/Cross Section 4. Survey dated 3/3/15 Puptown Page 1 of 5 March 10, 2015 Amended CUP Planning Commission Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner DATE: March 5, 2015 MEETING: March 10, 2015 Planning Commission SUBJ: Puptown – CUP Amendment – 810 Tower Dr. – Public Hearing Review Deadline Complete Application Received: February 11, 2015 120-day Review Deadline: June 11, 2015 Overview of Request Puptown, LLC has requested an amendment to their existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) at 810 Tower Drive. The applicant has operated a dog boarding/daycare facility at the subject site since 2011. At the time the CUP was granted in 2011, the City Council included a condition that no more than 60 dogs be located at the property at any given time. The applicant has requested that this condition be amended so that 90 dogs be permitted for daycare services and 70 for overnight boarding. An aerial of the subject site can be found at the top of the following page. The applicant has provided a sketch of the site and building layouts, which are attached. A copy of the resolution adopted in 2011 is also attached for reference. The subject site is 2.32 acre in size. The principal structure is approximately 5,200 square feet and there is a fenced area approximately 13,000 square feet in area behind the principal structure for the animals. There is also a 2,000 square foot storage building on the property. Analysis “Retail and service uses which include the keeping of animals on-site such as pet stores, veterinarian clinics, animal day cares, animal boarding, commercial kennels and similar uses” are allowed conditional uses in the Commercial General (CG) zoning district. The use is subject to a series of standards specific to the use, which is summarized on the attached document. One of the standards states “Sufficient space shall be required within the principal structure to accommodate all boarding and exercise activities, if applicable. The size and design of this space shall be appropriate for the planned use according to responsible animal care standards. The space shall be well maintained and animal waste shall be promptly collected, discarded, and the location disinfected.” In order to meet this standard, the following condition was included in the resolution of approval: “Maximum daycare and boarding occupancy of the facility shall be limited to 60 dogs at a time, excluding animals exclusively on-site for grooming services.” Puptown Page 2 of 5 March 10, 2015 Amended CUP Planning Commission Meeting At the time the CUP was first considered, staff found that the City of New Hope required a minimum of 75 square feet per dog. This was used as a baseline against the inside space to arrive at 60 dogs. At the time, the applicant agreed to the limitation. Having operated over the past 4+ years, the applicant has found that they do not utilize all of the spaces with 60 dogs. The applicant has also noted that the outside area is utilized almost every day, which was not used in the calculation. Another resource, the ASPCA (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), recommends 75 square feet of play space per dog (or 100 square feet for each large dog and 50- 60 square feet for each small-medium dog). The applicant requests up to 90 dogs for daycare. This would be equivalent to 48 square feet of inside space per dog and 192 square feet per dog of inside/outside space. For the sake of reference, if additional capacity were granted for the outside space at 25%, it would be equivalent to 43 additional dogs using the 75 square feet/dog calculation. Staff believes it is appropriate to provide some consideration for the very large outside space. Puptown Page 3 of 5 March 10, 2015 Amended CUP Planning Commission Meeting Remaining Conditions Staff is not aware of any complaints or failures related to the conditions which were adopted in 2011. The maximum number of dogs is the only requested change by the applicant. Staff believes it would be appropriate to discuss any of the remaining conditions if the Planning Commission saw that it was appropriate. Review Criteria Section 825.39 of the City Code establishes the general criteria that the City considers when reviewing a conditional use permit request. These criteria are copied below, with a potential finding provided by staff for each. In addition to these general criteria, the specific standards described in the attached document are required to be met. Subd. 1. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity. The City found that this criterion was met during the initial review of the CUP. Staff does not believe, subject to continued compliance with the conditions and standards, that the increase in the number of dogs causes additional concern. Subd. 2. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area. The City found that this criterion was met during the initial review of the CUP. Staff does not believe, subject to continued compliance with the conditions and standards, that the increase in the number of dogs causes additional concern. Subd. 3. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. The increased number of dogs does not have an impact on this factor, and the City found that this criterion was met during the initial review of the CUP. Subd. 4. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street parking and loading space to serve the proposed use. The existing site includes 20 parking spaces. During the initial review, staff calculated the “peak demand” for parking between 9 and 13 spaces. Increasing capacity by 50% (from 60 to 90) would increase this to 14 to 19 spaces, which the site can accommodate. There is also substantial space for proof of parking if the parking need is not calculated correctly. Subd. 5. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration, so that none of these will constitute a nuisance, and to control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result. The City found that this criterion was met during the initial review of the CUP. Staff does not believe, subject to continued compliance with the conditions and standards, that the increase in the number of dogs causes additional concern. Puptown Page 4 of 5 March 10, 2015 Amended CUP Planning Commission Meeting Subd. 6. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. The proposed use is permitted in the district and staff believes the applicant has shown general compliance with relevant regulations and policies. Subd. 7. The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. The proposed use is permitted in the district and staff believes the applicant has shown general compliance with relevant regulations and policies. Subd. 8. The use is not in conflict with the policies plan of the City. The proposed use is permitted in the district and staff believes the applicant has shown general compliance with relevant regulations and policies. Subd. 9. The use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion. Staff does not believe the increase in the number of dogs on site within this commercial area causes any concerns. Subd. 10. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected by intrusion of noise, glare or general unsightliness. The City found that this criterion was met during the initial review of the CUP. Staff does not believe, subject to continued compliance with the conditions and standards, that the increase in the number of dogs causes additional concern. Subd. 11. The developer shall submit a time schedule for completion of the project. The applicant intends to allow more dogs immediately following approval. Subd. 12. The developer shall provide proof of ownership of the property to the Zoning Officer. Hennepin County records state that Tademan Enterprises, LLC owns the property. The applicant has confirmed that they control this business entity. Review of a conditional use permit is a quasi-judicial process with a relatively low level of discretion for the City (as opposed to PUDs, variances, rezonings, etc.). The City can, however, apply conditions to a conditional use in order to protect the health safety and welfare. Staff recommends approval of the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions. These conditions were included upon the initial CUP approval, except for the change related to the number of dogs. Staff removed a couple of the conditions which dealt with landscaping of the site and had been satisfied. 1) Maximum occupancy of the facility shall be limited to 90 dogs at a time, and overnight boarding shall be limited to 70 dogs at a time. These maximums shall exclude animals exclusively on-site for grooming services. 2) All dogs over six months of age staying at the facility shall be spayed or neutered. Puptown Page 5 of 5 March 10, 2015 Amended CUP Planning Commission Meeting 3) The unpaved driveway area adjacent to the accessory garage shall not be used for parking. Should Applicants wish to use this area for parking, it will need to be paved with either asphalt or concrete. 4) Impervious, washable materials shall be required for floor finishes and wall finishes below a height of 24” in all areas where animals will commonly be located. 5) The outdoor play area shall not be used between the hours of 8 p.m. and 9 a.m. daily, with the exception of allowing the animals out in small groups (no more than six) for bathroom breaks between the hours of 6:30 - 9 a.m. and 8 - 10 p.m. 6) Applicants agree to limit noise impacts from the outdoor play area to comply with standards for noise pollution as adopted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and authorized by Minnesota Statute 116.07. 7) Animals within the outdoor play area shall be under direct staff supervision at all times, at a ratio of no more than 25 dogs per employee, and dogs which bark frequently shall be kept indoors. 8) The Applicants acknowledge that City regulations are intended to control noise and reduce negative impacts of the use on surrounding properties. The limitations agreed to under this conditional use permit are the minimum deemed necessary to accomplish the above based on the Applicants’ plans and application. The parties agree, however, that the City retains the right to place additional or amended restrictions on the outdoor play area, including limiting the number of dogs outside at a time, requiring a minimum ratio of employees to dogs and other factors the City may deem necessary in the interest of reducing noise impacts from the outdoor play area. 9) Waste in the indoor and outdoor areas shall be promptly picked up and placed in lined and sealed containers. Veterinary waste such as medications or syringes shall be disposed of in accordance with MPCA and OSHA regulations. 10) In the event grass coverage is not maintained in the play area and dirt is exposed, the Applicants shall install wood chips or another pervious ground cover approved by the City. 11) Outdoor waste storage containers will be sealed, lined, stored within an enclosed area, and not visible from any street or right-of-way. Potential Motion If the Commission concurs with staff’s findings, the following motion would be in order: Move to recommend approval of the amended Conditional Use Permit based upon the findings noted in the staff report and subject to conditions recommended by staff. Attachments 1. Summary of CUP Standards for the Use 2. Resolution 2011-39 (existing CUP) 3. Applicant Narrative 4. Sketch of building and outdoor play space Specific Standards for “Retail and Service Uses Related to Animals” : (a) Shall not be located on a property within 200 feet of a residential zoning district. Distance to nearest residential property is 425 feet. (b) Sufficient space shall be required within the principal structure to accommodate all boarding and exercise activities, if applicable. The size and design of this space shall be appropriate for the planned use according to responsible animal care standards. The space shall be well maintained and animal waste shall be promptly collected, discarded, and the location disinfected. This is the most relevant standard related to the proposed amendment, and it discussed in the staff report. (c) Impervious, washable materials shall be required for floor finishes and wall finishes below a height of 24 inches in all areas where animals will commonly be located. Materials may include sealed concrete or masonry, ceramic tile, or others approved by the City. Vinyl flooring was installed when they began operation. (d) The City may permit an outdoor area to be utilized by the animals for exercise and play subject to the following limitations: (i) The outdoor area shall be located a minimum of 500 feet from any residential zoning district. Outdoor area is 625 feet from residential. (ii) Sufficient space shall exist within the principal structure to fully accommodate the animals, including exercise activities, regardless of the potential for an outdoor area to be utilized by the animals. This is the most relevant standard related to the proposed amendment, and it discussed in the staff report. (iii) The outdoor area shall be enclosed within an opaque, sturdy fence of a height and design sufficient to keep the animals confined. The fence shall be designed to complement the principal structure and the City may require additional landscaping or other elements in order to avoid the appearance of a long, monotonous wall. The fenced area shall abide by the minimum yard setbacks required for structures. Existing area is fenced, landscaping was installed within constructed. (iv) The City shall adopt limitations on the hours of use of the outdoor area based on the following, as well as other relevant, factors: potential impacts to neighboring properties; proposed use of the space; location and characteristics of the outdoor area. The existing CUP includes limitations on hours, maximum dogs per employee, etc. (v) The outdoor area shall be well maintained and animal waste shall be promptly collected and discarded. This condition was included on the original CUP. (vi) A noise mitigation plan shall be required and approved by the City which describes the specific measures which will be implemented to minimize the impact of the outdoor area on neighboring properties. The City may apply necessary conditions including but not limited to: size and location of outdoor area, number of animals permitted outdoors at one time, limitations on hours of use, and other factors. The existing CUP includes limitations on hours, maximum dogs per employee, etc. (vii) No outdoor area shall be allowed within the Commercial-Neighborhood (CN) zoning district. Subject property is not zoned CN. (e) The site and building plans shall be designed in a way to reduce noise. This shall include floor plan layout, ventilation plans, and window and door locations. The City may require improvements to be installed to reduce the impact on neighboring properties or tenant spaces. Staff is not aware of any noise concern or need for improvements. (f) The site plan shall identify provisions for proper storage and disposal of hazardous materials, medical waste, and animal waste. This condition was included on the original CUP. Member Pederson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 2011-39 rRESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THOMAS AND JILLENE KINGSTEDT TO OPERATE A DOG DAYCARE, BOARDING AND GROOMING FACILITY AT 810 TOWER DRIVE IWHEREAS, the city of Medina (the "City") is a municipal corporation, organized and I existing under the laws of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Thomas Kingstedt and Jillene Kingstedt (the "Applicants") have requested approval of a conditional use permit to own and operate a dog daycare, boarding and grooming facility known as PupTown at 810 Tower Drive; and WHEREAS, the conditional use permit was reviewed by the Planning Commission on April 12, 2011 and following a public hearing thereon as required by law, the Planning Commission recommended approval, subject to certain terms and conditions; and WHEREAS, the City Council on May 3, 2011 reviewed the request for conformance with city ordinances, considered the recommendations of the Planning Commission and heard comments from the Applicants and other interested parties; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds the Applicants have successfully demonstrated they meet the criteria necessary to grant a conditional use permit as described in Section 825.39 of the City Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Medina, Minnesota, that it should and hereby does approve the request by Thomas Kingstedt and Jillene Kingstedt, for a conditional use permit subject to the following terms and conditions: 1) Proposed construction shall be reviewed for compliance with relevant regulations of the City Code prior to issuance of any building permits. 2) Proposed signage shall be reviewed for compliance with relevant regulations of the City Code prior to issuance of any sign permits. 3) Maximum daycare and boarding occupancy of the facility shall be limited to 60 dogs at a time, excluding animals exclusively on-site for grooming services. 4) All dogs over six months of age staying at the facility shall be spayed or neutered. 5) The unpaved driveway area adjacent to the accessory garage shall not be used for III Resolution No. 2011-39 May 17,2011 ul parking. Should Applicants wish to use this area for parking, it will need to be paved with either asphalt or concrete. 6) In order to comply with district landscaping requirements and to mitigate visual impacts from the large vinyl privacy fence, Applicants shall plant 12 overstory and 2 ornamental trees, half of which will be at least 8 feet in height. All trees must be of an approved native species as outlined in Medina City Code section 828.41 Subd. 10. 7) At least two of the overstory trees required by condition number 4 above shall be placed to the southeast corner ofthe privacy fence area to minimize potential noise impacts on surrounding residential properties. 8) Impervious,washable materials shall be required for floor finishes and wall finishes below a height of 24"in all areas where animals will commonly be located. 9) The outdoor play area shall not be used between the hours of 8 p.m. and 9 a.m. daily, with the exception of allowing the animals out in small groups(no more than six) for bathroom breaks between the hours of 6:30 - 9 a.m. and 8 - 10 p.m. 10) Applicants agree to limit noise impacts from the outdoor play area to comply with standards for noise pollution as adopted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and authorized by Minnesota Statute 116.07. 11) Animals within the outdoor play area shall be under direct staff supervision at all times, at a ratio ofno more than 25 dogs per employee, and dogs which bark frequently shall be kept indoors. J 12) The Applicants acknowledge that City regulations are intended to control noise and reduce negative impacts ofthe use on surrounding properties. The limitations agreed to under this conditional use permit are the minimum deemed necessary to accomplish the above based on the Applicants' plans and application. The parties agree,however, that the City retains the right to place additional or amended restrictions on the outdoor play area, including limiting the number of dogs outside at a time, requiring a minimum ratio of employees to dogs and other factors the City may deem necessary in the interest of reducing noise impacts from the outdoor play area.j 13) Waste in the indoor and outdoor areas shall be promptly picked up and placed in lined and sealed containers. Veterinary waste such as medications or syringes shall be disposed of in accordance with MPCA and OSHA regulations. 14) In the event grass coverage is not maintained in the play area and dirt is exposed,the Applicants shall install wood chips or another pervious ground cover approved by the City. 15) Outdoor waste storage containers will be sealed, lined, stored within an enclosed area, and not visible from any street or right-of-way. Resolution No.2011-39 May 17,2011 2 i Dated May 17, 2011. it By: T. M. Crosby, Jr ayor Attest: By: Chad M. Adams, City Administrator-Clerk i i The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Siitari and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Crosby, Martinson, Pederson, Siitari And the following voted against same: (Absent: Weir) Illi Whereupon said resolution was declared dulypassed and adopted.p p i I i i Resolution No.2011-39 May 17,2011 3 February 09, 2015 Tom and Jill Kingstedt PupTown, LLC 810 Tower Drive Medina, MN 55340 City of Medina Planning & Zoning Department and City Council 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 Dear Mr Dusty Finke and Mr Bob Mitchell, Planning Commission and City Council Members, We would like to request a modification of the 810 Tower Drive Conditional Use Permit increasing the current maximum daycare and boarding occupancy of 60 dogs, excluding animals exclusively on-site for grooming services, to a daily maximum of 90 dogs for day care with an overnight boarding maximum of 70 dogs, excluding animals exclusively on-site for grooming services. The original Conditional Use Permit maximum of 60 dogs was based on indoor space use only. One major benefit of the 810 Tower Drive site is the outdoor play area. The enclosed outdoor play area provides over 13,000 square feet of additional play space. This area has proven very popular for year round play and was not included in the initial capacity calculations. With the current maximum, we find we are not fully utilizing our indoor or outdoor areas. We would like this additional space, the outdoor play area, considered as area available for the dogs to allow an increase in the maximum capacity. We are confident that we will be able to continue to provide quality care in a safe and clean environment with the increased capacity. Respectfully, Tom and Jill Kingstedt info@puptownmn.com 763-478-0203