2019-05-28 Planning Comm Agenda Packet
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
May 28, 2019
7:00 PM- Mendota Heights City Hall
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights MN 55118
1. Call to Order / Roll Call
2. Adopt Agenda
3. Approval of the April 23, 2019 regular meeting minutes
4. Public Hearings
a. Case No. 2019-10: Interim Use Permit - to allow an industrial zoned use a temporary
off-site parking facility on adjacent MnDOT owned lands - for the property located next to
2383 Pilot Knob Road. (Southview Design – Applicant)
b. Case No. 2019-12: Variance - to allow a residential rear-yard privacy fence to exceed
the maximum height of 6-ft. to 9-ft. for the property located at 1341 Cherry Hill Road.
(Chuck Mastel – Applicant)
c. Case No. 2019-13: Wetlands Permit - to allow construction of a new in-ground swimming
pool for the property located at 660 Hidden Creek Trail. (Mark & Stacy Roszkowski -
Owner / Applicant))
d. Case No. 2019-14: Variance - to allow a reduced setback on a proposed new driveway
for the property located at 1562 Wachtler Avenue. (Jim Carlson – Owner / Applicant)
e. Case No. 2019-15: Lot Split – Subdivision - to allow the property located at 1133
Orchard Place to be split into two separate parcels (Nona Mosvick – Owner / Applicant)
f. Case No. 2019-16: Zoning Code Amendment - to City Code Title 12-1D-6: FENCES,
by considering changes to certain fence regulations and standards in the residential,
business and industrial districts. (City of Mendota Heights - Applicant
5. Staff Announcements / Updates
6. Adjourn Meeting
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 Hall at 651.452.1850 with requests.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING - WORKSHOP
TUESDAY, MAY 28, 2019
6:15 PM - Mendota Heights City Hall
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights MN 55118
[Please note this meeting will not be a public hearing and will not be televised]
1. Call to Order / Roll Call
2. City Attorney Andy Pratt to discuss variance legislation, process and general
land use matters with Planning Commission
3. Adjourn Workshop Meeting (by 7:00 PM)
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 Hall at 651.452.1850 with requests.
April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 1 of 13
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 23, 2019
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April
23, 2019 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M.
The following Commissioners were present: Chair Mary Magnuson, Commissioners John
Mazzitello, Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent:
Michael Toth and Brian Petschel
Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as submitted.
Approval of March 26, 2019 Regular Meeting Minutes and April 15, 2019 Workshop Meeting
Minutes
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 26, 2019 REGULAR MEETING AND THE
MINUTES OF THE APRIL 15, 2019 WORKSHOP MEETING.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Toth, Petschel)
Hearings
A) PLANNING CASE #2019-08
ISPIRI, LLC ON BEHALF OF BREANNA ZARMBINSKI & PAUL SHREWSBURY,
916 ADELINE COURT
VARIANCE REQUEST
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this request was from Ispiri, LLC
on behalf of Breanna Zarmbinski and Paul Shrewsbury; a request for Variance to encroach 8.8 feet
into the 30-foot front yard setback to build a front-entry/foyer addition. The property is zoned R-
1 Single-Family Residential and is located at 916 Adeline Court. The subject property is a
trapezoidal shaped parcel approximately 0.36 acres in size and contains a 4,628 square foot one-
story walk out rambler home.
This item was heard under public hearing and notice was published in the local newspaper and
letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350 feet of the subject property. Staff
received an email voicing support of this application, which has been made part of the public
record.
April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 2 of 13
Mr. Benetti shared images of the property in its current state and a rendering of what the property
would look like should this application be approved. He also explained the variables the
Commission must consider when deciding on a variance:
1. Practical Difficulties
i.) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance
ii.) The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not
created by the property owner
iii.) The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood
iv.) Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties
2. Impact to the Community
i.) Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community
ii.) Existing and anticipated traffic conditions
iii.) Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety
iv.) Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the
Comprehensive Plan
v.) Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to
alleviate a practical difficulty
The staff report included the applicants’ and staffs’ responses to the above listed variables. Staff
recommended approval of this request.
Commissioner Mazzitello asked for clarification that the 22.2 feet from the front property line
included the front porch. Mr. Benetti replied that it did not include the front porch.
Commissioner Corbett noted that Condition F.v. claims that within one year of approval the
applicant shall obtain a building permit for construction of the proposed garage addition and asked
what proposed garage. Mr. Benetti replied that it should have read front entry/foyer addition.
Commissioner Noonan stated that he was wrestling with the justification and asked Mr. Benetti
his thoughts on what the practical difficulty actually is. Mr. Benetti replied that he believes the
property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. Circumstances unique to the
property is somewhat suggestive; however, the curvature of the front lot line is unusual. Also, the
variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood and there are no economic
considerations.
Ms. Breanna Zarmbinski, 916 Adeline Court and Mr. Adam Bender with Ispiri, LLC were
available for comments and questions. Ms. Zarmbinski explained that this is the home she grew
up in and she and her husband have purchased it from her parents. They are updating the property
and making it their home.
Chair Magnuson asked, if the porch was not part of their plans, how much impact would that have
on the whole concept of their remodel, or if it was something that could be modified or work
around to come into closer compliance with the setback requirements. Mr. Zarmbinski replied that
one of the functionalities is that the home currently has a very large great room with a small closet
April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 3 of 13
area, but not a lot of space for people to sit and remove their shoes or winter gear. They are trying
to create a more functional area and that is the reason for the foyer. The idea of the porch was to
continue the curb appeal of the home similar to the neighboring properties.
Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the
public hearing.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO,
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Toth, Petschel)
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT,
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-08 VARIANCE REQUEST
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the
strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical
difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical
difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a
reasonable manner not otherwise permitted b y the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is
due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the
variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic
considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.”
B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in
order to justify the granting of the Variance for reduced setbacks, by:
i.) the proposed matching and small-scale addition to the existing home is a reasonable
use of the property;
ii.) the curvature of the front property line of the subject property creates a unique
situation for the owners to add on to the home on the front area of the house;
iii.) approving the Variance does not change the essential character of the
neighborhood, as this residential area will not be affected by the approval of the
Variance; and
iv.) the reason for the Variance request is to allow a suitable and reasonable addition to
the front-yard space of the property, and for this reason the request is not solely
based on economic considerations.
C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code,
including but not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare
of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on
the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the
surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will
not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in
general.
April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 4 of 13
D. Approval of this Variance is for 916 Adeline Court only, and does not apply or give
precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants
must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance
requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the
requirements of the City Code.
E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No.
2019-08, dated and presented April 23, 2019 (and on file with the City of Mendota
Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2019-____.
F. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to this
Variance request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the
impact created by the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows:
i.) The proposed encroachment for the addition shall not extend further than 8.8-feet
into the required 30-foot front-yard setback, as illustrated on the survey and site
plan included in the application submittal (per Planning Case File No. 2019-08).
ii.) The new addition, including the roofline, will match the overall architecture and
design of the existing residential dwelling.
iii.) Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during
grading and construction work activities.
iv.) All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal,
state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land
Disturbance Guidance Document.
v.) Within one year of approval by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a
building permit for construction of the proposed garage addition.
Commissioner Noonan stated that he was having a hard time seeing the practical difficulties. The
staff report talks about the reason for the variance was to accommodate an expansion that provides
greater convenience on the inside of the house. The granting of the variance should not be a
convenience to the application. Saying that the nature of the house on the inside provides a
rationale does not rise to meeting the practical difficulty test. He questioned how far the
Commission should go to protect the zoning and the setbacks, which are established for certain
reasons. He believed that this would make the granting of variances rather trite.
Commissioner Mazzitello explained that the reason he chose to move this application for approval,
and he partially agreed with Commissioner Noonan, was that, although the practical difficulty
definition was weak but he could see the rationale behind it. The existing floor plan of the house
really has no foyer space whatsoever. The front door opens into and covers the closet and empties
right into the family room. What they are proposing is to have a foyer space, which is relatively
common throughout the city, in the front entranceway of the home. Because the initial construction
of the building, the shape of the lot, the curvature of the lot line – constructing that foyer space
inside the existing frame of the house is not practical. It is difficult to be practical. Because of what
has already been built and plumbed within that house – stairwell, bathroom – are things that do
not get moved in renovations. He could see where there was a difficulty in obtaining that foyer
space within the existing building footprint and abiding by the setback.
April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 5 of 13
Commissioner Noonan said, with that argument, one could say that an existing floor plan of an
existing house could meet the test of practical difficulty if someone wished to create something
significantly at odds with the original.
Commissioner Mazzitello understood what Commissioner Noonan was saying; however, each
Variance request stands on its own merit. In this particular instance, although he agrees that the
practical difficulty test is weak, he could see where there is a difficulty in updating and renovating
this home to current standards.
Chair Magnuson agreed that if the Commission were to continue granting variances based solely
on reasonableness without a strong showing of practical difficulty they undermine the zoning
ordinance. She commented that she would be interested in seeing if the front porch could be
smaller so the encroachment becomes de minimis.
Commissioner Katz shared his opinion that if one were to make this amount of remodeling to the
house, it makes a lot of sense to change structurally the interior of the house and t hat it, in many
ways, meets the definition of practical difficulty. He would support the motion on the floor.
Chair Magnuson stated that all she has heard is that the shape of the property could possibly
contribute to the practical difficulty, the home is not really susceptible to be creating a foyer
internally given the layout of the current home, and there are older people in the family who need
to sit down to remove their shoes.
Commissioner Mazzitello noted that the property to the east has a very similar front porch;
although it sits back further from the property line because of the curve of the cul-de-sac. So
meeting the character of the neighborhood is met.
Commissioner Corbett stated that the granting of this variance would be in line with what is going
on in the Comprehensive Plan with the encouragement of remodeling of homes so that multiple
generations can use and stay in the home. Making these adaptations of things like this is helpful.
Again, approving the Variance would be in line with that type of effort.
It was noted that the new Comprehensive Plan has not yet been approved.
Chair Magnuson called for the vote.
AYES: 3 (Mazzitello, Corbett, Katz)
NAYS: 2 (Noonan, Magnuson)
ABSENT: 2 (Toth, Petschel)
Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its May 7, 2019
meeting.
April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 6 of 13
B) PLANNING CASE #2019-09
PHILIP & MARGARET JOHNSON, 2458 BRIDGEVIEW COURT
WETLAND PERMIT
Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this request was from Philip and
Margaret Johnson; a request for Wetlands Permit to remove an existing deck and construct a new
685 square foot deck off the back of the home. The property, located at 2458 Bridgeview Court,
is situated next to a fresh water pond.
This item was heard under public hearing and notice was published in the local newspaper and
letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350 feet of the subject property. Staff
received one phone call from a neighboring property owner who had no objections or concerns
and voice their support of the project.
Mr. Benetti shared images of the subject property in its current state and a rendering of the
proposed deck. He then shared the 23 standards and conditions of a Wetlands Permit, as listed in
Title 12-2-7. He noted that all major construction related to the building of the new deck should
have little, if any, effect upon the adjacent wetland and that the existing rear yard buffer would
remain virtually the same.
The Local Surface Water Management Plan (LSWMP) recommends a 25-foot no-
disturbance/natural vegetative buffer zone from the wetland edge, which this property and
neighboring properties appear to have and would not be affected by this work.
Commissioner Mazzitello asked if the new deck surface would be impervious. Mr. Benetti deferred
to the applicant.
Commissioner Noonan asked for the size of the old deck. Mr. Benetti did not measure but he
believed it to be a little bit smaller than the new. Commissioner Noonan noted that the old deck
was on stilts and asked for the relationship of the new deck to the ground. Mr. Benetti replied that
it would be the same elevation with stilts.
Mr. Mark King from Infinite Decks, contractor, came forward on behalf of the owners who could
not be in attendance. In response to the questions asked by the Commission, he noted that the new
deck would be on the same level (approximately 9 feet off the ground) as the old and would be
using the majority of the existing footings. Any new footings installed wo uld be of helical piles,
which will be driven in; no concrete and no soil removal. The surface will be permeable.
Commissioner Noonan asked how much larger the new deck would be from the old. Mr. King
replied that it is approximately 40 square feet larger.
Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the
public hearing.
April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 7 of 13
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Toth, Petschel)
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-09 WETLANDS PERMIT BASED
ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The planned development of the new deck is considered a reasonable request, and is
consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed deck meets the required setbacks and other standards established under the
City Code Title 12 Zoning for the R-1 One Family District and City Code Title 12-2-1
Wetlands Systems.
3. The proposed deck structure will be compliant with the conditions included in the City
Code.
4. The proposed new deck project and any related construction activities will not cause or
create any negative impacts to the ecologically sensitive areas of the adjacent wetlands,
due to the unaltered shoreland area, and the proximity and separation of the structure from
the wetland.
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The new deck structure shall comply with all standards and rules under State Building Code
regulations and Title 12 Zoning of the City Code.
2. The new deck structure work shall comply with or exceed the applicable standards and
conditions noted under Title 12, Chapter 2 Wetlands Systems of City Code.
3. Any new excavating, grading and/or construction activity will be in compliance with
applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the
City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. Full erosion/sedimentation measures shall
be installed prior to commencement of work and maintained throughout the duration of the
construction project
4. A building permit must be approved prior to the commencement of any construction work;
site construction shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm weekdays;
and 9:00 am to 5:00 pm weekends.
5. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established,
protected and permanent ground cover immediately after the deck project is completed.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Toth, Petschel)
Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its May 7, 2019
meeting.
April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 8 of 13
Unfinished Business
A) MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
Chair Magnuson explained that this was a continuation of the public hearing on the 2040
Comprehensive Plan. There have been a number of public hearings over the course of the last year
or more with respect to the Comprehensive Plan.
She expressed her appreciation to staff for all of their hard work on this project and, in particular,
she expressed appreciation to the residents who worked so hard and volunteered so much time and
effort to review the various drafts and bring the Commission such thoughtful and insightful
comments; many of which were incorporated into the final product.
Public Comments
Mr. Bernard Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, stated that he agreed with Commission Noonan and Chair
Magnuson regarding Variances. The legislature eliminated the hardship rule about seven or eight
years ago in favor of practical difficulty. By doing so, they threw the ability to make good decisions
about Variances in the absolute chaos. The Chair expressed an appropriate concern about that this
evening because it is easy to find ‘practical difficulty’.
In regards to the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Friel stated that after watching the video of the March
26th meeting he had further comments and questions to add to the email he sent to the
Commissioners in response to Mr. Benetti’s list of 30 proposals [Draft 04-23-2019, Pages 2-14 to
2-17] in the draft. Although he represented a number of members of the community, he promised
not to use up the 27 minutes used by Mr. Ostrosky and his entourage in addressing a matter not on
the agenda at the last meeting.
Mr. Friel has lived in the city for two-thirds of his nearly 90 years and has watched its careful
development from a township to a village to a city; plan to preserve open spaces and wooded areas;
and to control density and the traffic it produces. The city is a well located community, convenient
to both cities and the airport. The city is virtually fully developed and the quality city has benefited
from a long history of good leadership and careful planning.
He was concerned that many of the 2040 land use proposals have much to do with pleasing the
Metropolitan Council (Met Council) and little to do with serving the people of the community
and maintaining the development philosophy that has made it such a desirable place to live and
raise a family. The development philosophy that has served the city well has been with the land
use categories described in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. He has not heard any good reason to
change any of them. It would be unconscionable to increase the densities of any of the land use
categories and they should remain at their current levels.
Mr. Friel then addressed the following areas under “Land Use Changes from 2030 to 2040
Comprehensive Plans”:
April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 9 of 13
1) 340 – D Street. He questioned the site’s current use [Manufacturing] and asked what was
manufactured there. He then wanted to know if the owners had asked for the designation to be
changed to Industrial. Mr. Benetti replied that staff did not know what was being manufactured
at the site and the owners did not request the change; however, they have been informed and
have made no response to the city. Mr. Friel shared the information he had found on the
ownership and use of the site; that being the owners are deceased, the property is delinquent in
taxes, and appears to be vacant.
Mr. Friel then moved onto a discussion of Figure 2-3 “Lots Sizes for 2030 Planned Single Family
Land Use Map” and noted that this map was not included in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and
questioned where it came from. Mr. Benetti replied that this map was prepared b y Stantec as a
reference to general lot sizes throughout the community as it currently exists. Mr. Friel noted his
understanding that this map showed ‘proposed lot sizes’ rather than actual. Discussion incurred
and Mr. Friel was made to understand that the map indeed showed current actual lot sizes. To
prevent any further or additional confusion, Commissioner Noonan suggested that the title be
changed to “Existing Lot Sizes for 2030 Planned Single Family Land Use Map”.
5) Augusta Shores / Lemay Shores Townhomes. He questioned why these developments, which
were guided Low Density Residential, were proposed to be guided Medium Density Residential.
Commissioner Mazzitello replied that these are a zero lot line development that are not allowed in
the R-1 zone or Low Density Residential guidance. Even though these were approved through a
Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development, the Medium Density Residential designation
is more appropriate for their current use.
In response to his concerns about the properties being re-developed in the future to a higher density
than they are currently, Chair Magnuson pointed out Policy 2.2.7 that reads “Redevelopment of
existing MR-Medium Density Residential and HR-High Density Residential properties are to be
limited to no greater density than currently exists”. Mr. Friel suggested that this Policy Statement
is inconsistent with the primary and controlling provisions of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which
guide medium and high density use, and is also inconsistent with the zoning ordinance which will
implement the 2040 Plan. Policy Statements never trump either the primary land use guides or the
provisions of the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Friel then asked what specifically was meant by the term “current use”. It is difficult to look
at the list of Land Use Changes from 2030 to 2040 without noticing that the basis given for the
change, in 24 of the 30 items, is to reflect the current or existing use. He questioned the need for
professional planning to make that decision if all that is being done is adopting the existing use.
In closing, Mr. Friel expressed his hope that the City Council would reject these recommended
Land Use Changes just as quickly as it rejected this Planning Commission’s recommendations to
sell two parcels of Wentworth Park land worth $40,000 to $50,000 without an appraisal for $1,000.
Mr. Thomas Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive, took a broader perspective on the Land Use section of
the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Since the founding of this city generations of city fathers have
adopted an approach to careful and prudent development that has resulted in a city that holds a
special place in all of the suburbs of the Twin Cities. His first claim is that the provisions of the
April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 10 of 13
Land Use section of the 2040 Plan under consideration jeopardizes that record. He then read a
letter, titled “Density in Minneapolis”, that appeared in today’s Star Tribune that underscored his
point. The author points out that the City of Minneapolis has denied the need for any study of the
2040 Comprehensive Plan and its likely cumulative effects. The Plan will intensify land use in
virtually every square inch of the city. This has relevance to Mendota Heights is that the
comprehensive plans under consideration in Mendota Heights and Minneapolis – and probably
other cities in the area as well – are copies in many major respects to the THRIVE 2040 Plan that
the Met Council is considering.
The last time Mr. Smith appeared before the Planning Commission he pointed out that in
considering the 30 land use changes to individual properties by lumping them all together is
denying due process to the individual owners. At that time, the Chair took umbrage with this
statement and said that the Commission has been transparent in dealing with this issue. Mr. Smith
pointed out two things:
1. The notification to the land owners of these properties did not specify that if they wanted
to change the land use provisions of their property, these changes would have to be
approved by the Met Council.
2. These land owners were not notified that the professional who presented the Draft 2040
Plan to the city is identified on the Met Council website as a Comprehensive Plan
Professional that any city might consider calling upon. He asked the Commission to
consider the question of whether a professional that this city has hired to guide the
comprehensive plan process and who is also identified on the Met Council website
constitutes a conflict of interest.
Mr. Smith continued by saying that the Land Use section of the plan currently under consideration
does not address the interests of the city or its residents. It clearly addresses primarily the agenda
of the Met Council. Consulting Planner Phil Carlson of Stantec clearly, on the record, serves the
interests of the Met Council. In Mr. Smith’s opinion, the Land Use provisions of the plan under
consideration is a discredit to the city and to its residents.
He found it very interesting that the most detailed and critical analysis of the flaws in the Land
Use provision proposals, approximately two-thirds of the properties that are specified in the current
version of the comprehensive plan – the Land Use section – that analysis, which was submitted to
the Commission by email, has come from a private citizen and raises the question of why this body
did not carry out a comparable, critical, and careful analysis of the flaws in those Land Use
provisions.
Mr. Jim Losleben, 815 Hazel Court, has lived in Mendota Heights for almost 50 years. He was
very puzzled in reading the draft comprehensive plans for the city; he has seen a lot of changes
being made from the old plan. He questioned why this was since, from what he has known for a
long time, everyone is pretty happy with how they live in Mendota Heights. He was on the City
Council for almost 12 years and during those years they did a comprehensive plan in 1979. They
struggled hard on this plan, they had a consultant, and they had some tough times with the Met
Council from them wanting to influence the city on how the city has density. The consultant went
to work for the city and they fought hard for the density that is had now. If the Met Council had
won the city would not have minimum 15,000 square foot lots. He raised the concern of how the
April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 11 of 13
city got to where it is. The consultant for this update is Stantec Consultants. Stantec is very close
to the Met Council; to the point they have Stantec writing expert articles for comprehensive plan
practices on the Met Council website. He asked how one expert writing for the Met Council could
also represent Mendota Heights. Mr. Carlson, working for both parties, has a conflict of interest.
He is a good man but he cannot be loyal to two conditions at the same time.
In regards to Chapter 7 NATURAL RESOURCES and Chapter 8 RESILIENCE, Ms. Leslie
Pilgrim, 1704 Vicki Lane, read a letter on behalf of many community members. The letter
expressed their appreciation to the Planning Commission for working with community members
to craft two new chapters for the Comprehensive Plan. Natural Resources and Resilience are
exceptionally important to include in the plan as the city looks to the challenges and opportunities
facing the community over the next 20 years. A copy of the letter will be provided to each of the
Commissioners.
Ms. Cindy Johnson, 1755 Victoria Road South, spoke in reference to Chapter 7 NATURAL
RESOURCES by saying that having participated in this process and having learned much from it,
she thanked the Commission, as well as former Chair Litton Field, for their earnest work, attention
to detail, and their willingness to not only listen to residents but also to address the residents’
concerns. She also thanked the Commission for their carefully and well thought out decisions in
crafting this plan and challenging the work of the consultants and making those changes in this
plan. She appreciated the time, the effort, the work, and the standards to which the entire
Commission followed throughout this process; she believed this has become a much better plan
for it.
Ms. Sue Light, 2270 Wagon Wheel Court, noted that at the Workshop Meeting last week Chair
Magnuson said that she really listened to what the citizens had to say; Ms. Light believed it because
of the changes made and the considerations shown to the residents.
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO,
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Toth, Petschel)
Chair Magnuson asked the Commissioners if they had any additional comments, changes, or
corrections. Commissioner Mazzitello replied that he had eight, seven of which were more
grammatical and punctuation in nature. He was willing to give those seven to Mr. Benetti to be
incorporated into the draft to go to the City Council.
Referring to the edited red-line version of the draft Comprehensive Plan that was on the city’s
website and emailed to the Commissioners, Commissioner Mazzitello suggested the following:
1. Page 2-8: there is a comment under Medium Density Residential that the number of units
would be decided by the Planning Commission upon completion of the public hearing. He
proposed that this number remain at 8 units per acre; he then provided his rationale as to
why.
April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 12 of 13
2. Page 6-3, Goal 6.4: they went through Chapter 10 IMPLEMENTATION and edited the
tables for the verbiage in the Implementation Goals – the same edits need to be made in
Chapter 6 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. Goal 6.4 should read ‘developed and
redeveloped community, commercial areas’.
3. Page 6-4, Goal 6.5: should read ‘Business and Industrial Park areas’
4. Page 7-2, Goal 7-1, Policy 7.1.2: at the workshop the Commission talked about the
difference between a Commission and a Committee for crafting the Natural Resource
Management Plan and establishing the Commission. What is currently written as the
addition from staff is “This Commission may begin as a Committee, and can remain so,
until such time that it is incorporated into the city code with bylaws.” He believed that they
heard in a vast quantity of public testimony as the desire for a Commission. He proposed
that this second sentence read “This Commission may begin as a Task Force, whose charge
would include the establishment of the bylaws and city code necessary to establish the
Commission”.
Items 5, 6, 7, and 8 were all grammatical in nature.
Commissioner Noonan said he would support Commissioner Mazzitello’s recommendation with
respect to the 8 units per acre. In terms of what is reasonable for medium density and what has
been the experience with two medium density developments – he believed that 8 units per acre is
reasonable and could be advanced with good type housing that is compatible with the
neighborhood and provides for that diversity in housing opportunities.
Chair Magnuson raised her concerns about the 8 units per acre as it is a big jump from 4.35 as in
the past. However, in looking at the materials that Mr. Benetti provided with respect to the
comparisons of a number of surrounding communities, 8 tends to fall in the low end. In light of
the conversation about the need to try to make Mendota Heights affordable for people and to have
a diversity of housing, if the Commission was too restrictive the only option then becomes doing
these projects by ignoring the density requirements. That would not be good either. She wanted to
stick to her comment that if the city is going to have standards, then they need to stick to the
standards; and do not make them unrealistic so they cannot be met. She did not like the 8 units per
acre but she understood the reasoning.
COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN,
TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE DRAFT MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2040
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WITH EDITS DISCUSSED THIS EVENING TO BE MADE BY
STAFF BEFORE THE COPIES ARE FORWARDED TO THE COUNCIL, DATED APRIL 23,
2019
Discussion
Commissioner Mazzitello stated that for the last year the Commission has heard comments,
received emails, received letters, been visited in their front yards about how the Commission is
trying to fundamentally change the City of Mendota Heights. He commented that this has already
been done. All the Commission is doing is reflecting what has been done for the past 60 years of
development. There are high density residential developments, none of which meet the old
April 23, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 13 of 13
standards for high density residential development; there are medium densities developed at 8 units
per acre when the standard was just over 4; and there are twin homes being developed in a single
family zone. The Commission is just trying to reflect what the city has on the ground. They are
not trying to fundamentally change the city.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Toth, Petschel)
Chair Magnuson expressed her appreciation to all of the residents who took the time to read this
document, time after time after time, as difficult as it was to follow draft by draft. Please know
that the Commission really appreciated everything they did. The Commission took to heart all of
the comments they received, whether they agreed with them or not; there has been spirited
discussions; and the Commission has tried to be as open and as engaged in the process as possible
with all of the citizens who wanted to participate.
Staff Announcements / Update on Developments
Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided the following verbal updates:
Planning Case 2019-05
Nick and Liz Banovetz, 1751 James Road
Variance to Encroach into the Side-yard Setback
Did not go to Council as the applicant was out-of-town. This has been delayed to the May
7, 2019 City Council meeting.
Planning Case 2019-06
Charlie Co. Design, acting on behalf of John and Theresa Cosgriff, 1875 Hunter Lane
Critical Area Permit and Variance
Approved by the City Council
The application made by Metro Storage on the self-storage uses code amendment went to the City
Council; however, they desired a tour of one of their facilities. The intent is to bring this back to
the May 7, 2019 City Council meeting.
Adjournment
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:31 P.M.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
ABSENT: 2 (Toth, Petschel)
Planning Staff Report
DATE: May 28, 2019
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-10
INTERIM USE PERMIT
APPLICANT: Southview Design
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2383 Pilot Knob Road
ZONING/GUIDED: I-Industrial District / I-Industrial
ACTION DEADLINE: July 2, 2019
INTRODUCTION
Southview Design, a local landscaping and design company, is seeking an Interim Use Permit to allow the
temporary off-site parking of employees vehicles on the adjacent MnDOT owned property to the north of
their facility. This MnDOT property is a section of former CMSP Railroad right-of-way. The site is
generally located south of the intersection of TH 13 and Pilot Knob Road, and is addressed as 2383 Pilot
Knob Road.
A public hearing notice for this planning item was published in the local newspaper and notice letters were
mailed to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property.
BACKGROUND
Southview Design property is zoned I-Industrial, consisting of 3.35 acres, with a two-story, 17,000 sf.
office/warehouse building, and a large storage building in the rear outdoor storage yard (see image – below).
Planning Case 2019-10 (Southview Design – IUP) Page 2 of 8
The current site contains 56 parking spaces for employees and visitors. Due to the nature of Southview’s
business, they employ a number of seasonal employees to handle the added workload and jobs during the
spring/summer/fall months. Since the business site is no longer able to handle some of these added workers,
a number of these employees park along Enterprise Drive, located just south of Southview’s site. This
parking on Enterprise has generated a number of complaints from local businesses and users in this area,
and Southview is seeking to remedy this issue by allowing their seasonal employees to park in the former
railroad right-of-way.
Looking Northwesterly
Looking Westerly – from Pilot Knob Road
Looking Easterly (towards Pilot Knob Rd.)
Looking Westerly
Southview Design attempted to negotiate and purchase the former railroad right of way next to their
landscape business from MnDOT. Southview was seeking to expand their landscape storage, provide
additional parking for their employees, and hard surface the area. T he railroad ROW has been owned by
MnDOT for some years now, and they currently have a lease agreement with Dakota County. According
to MnDOT, Dakota County is considering extending the Big River Regional Trail (Soo Line Trail) east to
connect to the new Vikings facility development in Eagan, and would be using their former rail right-of-
way. For this reason, MnDOT withdrew any offer to convey the site to Southview (at this time); but was
willing to allow Southview to continue to lease the ROW space for a short period of time, and until the
county decided to use or develop the property. At this time, the city does not have a timeline of when the
trail will be built.
MnDOT has stated they will not allow the area to be improved with any drainage improvements
(sedimentation basins); nor any hard surface, including Class-5 aggregate. MnDOT has however, agreed
Planning Case 2019-10 (Southview Design – IUP) Page 3 of 8
to allow bark mulch to be placed to control weeds and some run-off, and provide some form of temporary,
drive-able surface. Southview intends to provide a temporary drive down to the lower ROW surface as
access. NO direct access or driveway will be approved on to Piot Knob Road.
Off-Site Parking Facilities are allowed under City Code Section 12-1D-16 by the following: When required
accessory off street parking facilities are provided elsewhere than on the lot on which the principal use served
is located, written authority for using such property for off street parking shall be filed with the city so as to
maintain the required number of off street parking spaces during the existence of said principal use. No such
parking facilities shall be located more than one hundred feet (100') from the premises at its closest point.
Approval of this Interim Use Permit by the city should satisfy the written authority provision.
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
The subject parcel is guided I-Industrial in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; and is slated to continue to be
guided Industrial under the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan update. Southview’s request to establish
a temporary off-site parking facility this area may be in compliance with the City Code requirements,
subject to meeting certain standards under City Code Title 12-1L-6-1 Interim Uses.
Interim Use Permit
Title 12-1L-6-1 of the City Code includes the following standards for consideration of an interim use (Staff
response or comments are noted after each standard):
A. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the
community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will seriously depreciate
surrounding property value.
Staff Response: Staff does not believe the proposed interim use at this location would be detrimental
to the health, safety and welfare of the community, as this will be a tightly controlled and monitored
area right next to the Applicant’s property. The off-site parking will eliminate the need for seasonal
employee to park on the side streets, reducing the congestion on said roadway systems. The legal non-
conforming residential use to the north of the site is very well screened and buffered, and should not
pose any issues or depreciate any values on this or other surrounding industrial uses.
B. The proposed use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the city code and comprehensive
plan, including all applicable performance standards, so as not to be in conflict on an on-going
basis.
Staff Response: City Code Title 12-1L-6-1 Interim Uses states that an interim use is allowed for a
limited period of time that reasonably utilizes the property where it is not reasonable to utilize it in the
manner otherwise provided in the comprehensive plan or this code; or a use that is seasonal in nature.
The proposed use of the railroad ROW is a reasonable use, especially when considering the nature of
Southview Design’s business of hiring a large pool of seasonal workers every year. One pressing factor
the city must consider or allow in this case, is the fact the off-site parking facility will not be paved or
hard-surfaced (only mulched). All off-street parking areas in business/industrial districts must be hard-
surfaced. The Interim Use Permit may act as a mechanism to allow the space to be used or parked on
without this hard surfaced (instead of a variance); since the IUP is only temporary and may permit
special allowances or standards to be approved under said IUP.
MnDOT has indicated they are willing to allow Southview to lease this space for the next three (3)
years. The city could easily match this IUP with the same time-frame, to ensure this area is only used
not just seasonally, but temporary. Since this Interim Use Permit is only granted for a short and limited
period of time, there will be no long-term impacts or concerns by the City that this activity will be
expanded, or the site will become a long-term parking facility, unless Southview secures the fee-title
rights to this site, then the area would have to be paved to meet City Code.
Planning Case 2019-10 (Southview Design – IUP) Page 4 of 8
Staff believe the proposed interim use at this location conforms to the general purpose and intent of the
city code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, so as not to be in
conflict on an on-going basis.
C. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty.
Staff Response: The Applicant indicated they have a 2 year lease agreement with MnDOT, which
began on November 1, 2018. Assuming this true, staff will ask the IUP approval include a termination
date of December 31, 2020. If the Applicant wishes to have this IUP extended, they will be required
to request an IUP extension, whereby the city could determine if the IUP and off-site parking
arrangement worked well, not only for Southview but the neighboring businesses as well, and determine
if any IUP extension is warranted.
D. Permission of the use will not impose, by agreement, additional costs on the public if it is necessary
for the public to take the property in the future.
Staff Response: Staff does not believe the City would be burdened by any additional costs or expenses
to secure the rights to this property (including Dakota County or MnDOT).
E. The user agrees to any conditions that the city deems appropriate for permission of the use,
including a condition that the owner will provide an appropriate financial surety to cover the cost
of removing an interim use and any structures upon expiration or revocation of the interim use
permit.
Staff Response: This report provides certain conditions that will be imposed upon the Applicant as
part of any interim use permit approval on this subject site. Most of these conditions are very
reasonable; and Staff does not have any reason to believe Southview Design will not comply or follow
these conditions as part of any approval related to this permit.
Staff has not finalized any financial surety at this time, but does plan to negotiate a fair and reasonable
amount to ensure that this IUP does cease and desist at the agreed upon expiration date, and the site is
cleaned, restored and returned to its original condition (if needed).
F. The use will not delay anticipated development or redevelopment of the site.
Staff Response: Staff believes MnDOT has full control over this site, and does not wish to have any
development take place on this railway ROW until such time as Dakota County (or MnDOT) wishes
to use it for trial or other purposes. Because of the temporary nature of this IUP, this will not affect or
cause any delay to any anticipated development, since there is nothing planned at this time.
G. The property on which the use will be located is currently in compliance with all applicable city
code standards.
Staff Response: To the best of our knowledge, Staff believes the vacant (unused) subject property on
which the use will be located is currently in compliance with all applicable city code standards.
H. The use is allowed as an interim use in the applicable zoning district.
Staff Response: As noted previously, the requested rail ROW space will not be paved or improved by
the Applicant, as per the wishes of MnDOT – the landowner; and most commercial/industrial uses must
have paved parking surfaces and have proper stormwater management on the site. The specific interim
use requested by Southview on this site is not specifically identified or a use allowed as an interim use
under the I-Industrial Zone; however, the interim use ordinance provides for limited/seasonal allowance
of certain uses, provided they are reviewed and given full consideration by the Planning Commission
under the standard public hearing process, and approved by the City Council. The use must also meet
certain standards as noted herein; fulfill the conditions as prescribed by the City; and said use or
operations must cease upon the approved deadline date.
Planning Case 2019-10 (Southview Design – IUP) Page 5 of 8
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the Interim Use Permit request to Southview Design, based on the findings
of fact that the proposed project complies with the policies and standards of the City Code and is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, with conditions; or
2. Recommend denial of the interim use permit request, based on the findings of fact that the proposed
use is not compliant with the City Code and is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan; or
3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days,
pursuant to MN State Statute 15.99.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Interim Use Permit request in this case, based on the findings of fact that
the proposed project generally complies with the policies and standards of the City Code and is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan (Alternative #1), with the following conditions:
1. The interim use shall terminate by December 31, 2020. Any extension of this interim use permit
must be submitted to the City of Mendota Heights at least sixty (60) days prior to the expiration
date, and approved by the City Council.
2. The former railway right-of-way shall be used for the parking of seasonal employee vehicles only.
No commercial or business/work trucks, semi -trailers, storage containers, dumpsters, refuse or
landscaping equipment or materials will be allowed to be stored in this area.
3. The Applicant shall provide a financial surety in an amount negotiated between Southview Design
and the City Administrator, to ensure the MnDOT owned property will be vacated, cleaned and
restored to its pre-parking state, upon the expiration or revocation of the interim use permit, either
by the City or MnDOT.
4. Any new or additional lighting (if provided), shall be temporary only, with downcast, shielded light
heads, and all lighting directed away from the adjacent Pilot Knob Roadway.
5. No direct access to this interim parking facility will be allowed on to Pilot Knob Road.
6. The interim use permit is shall comply with the provisions established under 12-1L-6-1: INTERIM
USES and the conditions approved herewith, and shall be periodically reviewed to ensure
compliance with the applicable codes and policies and, if necessary, amended accordingly.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. Site Plan
2. Planning applications, including supporting materials
Planning Case 2019-10 (Southview Design – IUP) Page 6 of 8
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Interim Use Permit to Southview Design
(MnDOT Owned Property)
2383 Pilot Knob Road
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request:
1. The proposed interim use allowing an unpaved off-site parking facility for Southview Design will
not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor will cause serious
traffic congestion nor hazards, nor depreciate surrounding property values.
2. The proposed interim parking use conforms [partially] to the general purpose and intent of the
zoning code and comprehensive plan, including some performance standards. The City however,
supports the efforts of Southview Design to provide off-site parking for their seasonal employees
next to their business site; and will be required to keep and maintain this site in a neat and orderly
fashion, and that they shall meet all conditions during the term of construction.
3. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty.
4. Applicant has agreed to any conditions that the city deems appropriate for permission of the use,
including a condition that the owner will provide an appropriate financial surety to cover the cost of
restoring the temporary parking site upon expiration or revocation of the interim use permit.
Planning Case 2019-10 (Southview Design – IUP) Page 7 of 8
12-1L-6-1: INTERIM USES:
A. Purpose: The purposes for allowing interim uses are to:
1. Allow a use for a limited period of time until a permanent location is obtained or while the permanent
location is under construction.
2. Allow a use for a limited period of time that reasonably utilizes the property where it is not reasonable
to utilize it in the manner otherwise provided in the comprehensive plan or this code.
3. Allow a use that is presently acceptable but that, with anticipated development or redevelopment, will
not be acceptable in the future or will be replaced in the future by a permitted or conditional use
allowed within the respective zoning district.
4. Allow a use that is seasonal in nature.
B. Application For Permit: All applications for an interim use permit are subject to the requirements in
subsection 12-1L-6B of this chapter.
C. Referral To Planning Commission: All applications for an interim use permit are subject to the
requirements in subsection 12-1L-6C of this chapter.
D. Planning Commission Hearing And Recommendations: All applications for an interim use permit are
subject to the requirements in subsection 12-1L-6D of this chapter.
E. Action By City Council:
1. Grant Of Permit: In considering an application for an interim use permit under this chapter, the
council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the planning commission and the effect of
the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants or surrounding lands, existing
and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets, and the effect of the
proposed use on the comprehensive plan. The council may, by an affirmative vote of the majority of
all members thereof, grant such interim use permit imposing conditions and safeguards therein if:
a. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community,
nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will serious ly depreciate surrounding
property value.
b. The proposed use conforms to the general purpose and intent of this code and comprehensive
plan, including all applicable performance standards, so as not to be in conflict on an ongoing
basis.
c. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty.
d. Permission of the use will not impose, by agreement, additional costs on the public if it is
necessary for the public to take the property in the future.
e. The user agrees to any conditions that the city deems appropriate for permission of the use,
including a condition that the owner will provide an appropriate financial surety to cover the cost of
removing an interim use and any structures upon expiration or revocation of the interim use permit.
f. The use will not delay anticipated development or redevelopment of the site.
g. The property on which the use will be located is currently in compliance with all applicable city
code standards.
h. The use is allowed as an interim use in the applicable zoning district.
Planning Case 2019-10 (Southview Design – IUP) Page 8 of 8
2. Denial Of Permit: Interim uses may be denied by resolution of the city council, and such resolution
shall include a finding and determination that the conditions required for approval do not exist. No
application for an interim use which has been denied wholly or in part shall be resubmitted for a
period of six (6) months from the date of said order of denial, except on grounds of new evidence or
proof of change of conditions found to be valid upon recommendation of the planning commission to
the city council.
F. Revocation Of Permit: An interim use permit may be revoked by any of the following; whichever occurs
first:
1. A violation of any condition set forth in an interim use permit, which shall also be considered a
violation of this code.
2. A violation of laws of the United States or the state of Minnesota, or this code.
3. If after approval it is discovered the permit was issued based on false, misleading, or fraudulent
information.
4. An amendment to this code which prohibits the use.
5. The use becomes in conflict with the comprehensive plan.
6. The expiration date or occurrence of any event(s) stated in the permit for termination of the use.
7. The use has ceased for a continuous period of at least six (6) months.
8. The use has not commenced or a building permit for a structure to support the use has not been
issued within one year after approval.
G. Notice Of Revocation: Upon occurrence of the date or event for termination of the interim use permit,
the city shall notify the permittee in writing that the interim use permit shall terminate not later than six
(6) months after the date of such notice.
H. Effect Of Permit: An interim use permit is effective only for the location specified in the application. The
issuance of an interim use permit does not confer on the property any vested right.
I. Permit Review: An interim use permit may be reviewed at any time if the city council is of the opinion
that the terms and conditions of the permit have been violated or if one of the criteria for termination
has been met or any other unintended consequences.
J. Permit Extension: The city council shall have the right to extend the termination date for such additional
periods as are consistent with the terms and conditions of the original permit. (Ord. 479, 7-7-2015)
2360
1500
2425
1460
2401
2359
1480
2430
2411
1460
1455 2411
2418 2422
1400
2351
2359
2440
1495
2311
2351
H W Y 13PILOT KNOB RDSIBLEY MEMORIALENTERPRISE DR
H W Y 13City ofMendotaHeights0310
SCALE IN FEETDate: 5/23/2019
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
Southview Design 2383 Pilot Knob Road (Planning Case No. 2019-10)
2383 Pilot Knob Rd
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
Phone: 651-203-3000
Fax: 651-455-1734
SouthviewDesign.com
Date
Date
Issue Notes
Revision Notes
Scale:
X" = X'
Designer:
Design Associate:
Project Name:
Job #:
This drawing contains
proprietary information which
belongs to Southview Design
Inc. Any unauthorized
duplication or use is strictly
prohibited.
Released By:______________
Date Released:__/__/____
SOuthview Design Overflow Parking
NO.
NO.
Sheet
1 of 1
Ryan Slipka
Chris BarberSouthviewDesignSouthview Design Overflow Parking2383 Pilot Knob RdMendota Heights, Mn 55120Print Date:
File Name:19_02_06_SVD North Parking Expantion 2.vwxPILOT KNOB ROAD840
841
84184284284184
2
843842
84
5
85
0
841
84
2
84
3
84
4
84
6
847
8
4
8
84
9
851
852
853
845
841
842
843
844
846
840
84
5
836
837
838
839
841 84
2 84
3 84
4
84
6
84
0
845
83
8
83
9
841
84
2
84
3
84
4
846
840
845
837
838
839
841
842
843
844
840
839
841
842
843
844
8
4
2845846847
848
845844846847848849
843
840
837
838
839
841
SOUTHVIEW DESIGN
2383 PILOT KNOB RD
EXISTING BUILDING
EXISTING PARKING
NEW RAMP TO
AJOINING PROPERTY
MULCH ALREADY LEVEL
AREA
REBUILD WALLS TO
ACCOMMODATE NEW
RAMP
Planning Staff Report
DATE: May 28, 2019
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-12
VARIANCE
APPLICANT: Charles J. Mastel
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1341 Cherry Hill Road
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: June 29, 2019
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Mr. Chuck Mastel is requesting a Variance to residential fence height standards for his property located at
1341 Cherry Hill Road. Mr. Mastel’s existing rear yard fence is 6-feet in height, and he is relocating the
fence farther back into the rear-yard, and seeks to rebuild the fence to a height of 9-feet.
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 parcels.
BACKGROUND
The subject site is located at the end of the Cherry Hill Road cul-de-sac. The property consists of 0.54 acres
of land, and contains a 3,468-sf. tow-story dwelling, with an in-ground swimming pool in the rear yard.
Planning Report: Case #2019-12 Page 2
According to Title 12-1D-6.B Fences in Residential Districts, “fences up to and including six feet (6') in
height may be erected on interior lot lines behind the front yard setback line and on rear lot lines.”
Mr. Mastel’s rear yard abuts up to the westerly right-of-way line of Wachtler Avenue (a/k/a Dakota Co.
Road 8). This rear–yard is currently fenced-off with a 6-ft. high shadow-box (alternating board) style fence,
installed a number of years ago by Mr. Mastel’s fence contractor. The fence was originally placed on the
property lines along the side-yards, and was installed up against the back-edge of the north/south trail
running along Wachtler Avenue. Mastel’s property line however, sits approximately 12-15 feet off the
back edge of this trail, so when this fence was installed, it was placed inside the county right-of-way. Mr.
Mastel indicates in his narrative that the fence has been in place for 32 years (note: early aerial photo
interpretation appears to support this claim).
Mr. Mastel’s neighbor to the south recently completed fencing off his rear property, and was seeking to
match his corner of the fence with Mr. Mastel’s southeasterly fence corner. However, Dakota County
officials determined the fence the neighbor was installing would be up next to the trail and inside the county
road ROW area, so they denied his request to have the fence encroach up to the trail, and required his fence
be placed on his own private property line. At this same time, the County noticed Mr. Mastel’s fence
encroachment, and sent him a notice that the fence had to be removed or relocated within a certain time-
frame.
Planning Report: Case #2019-12 Page 3
According to Mr. Mastel, he recalls receiving “some kind of approval” from a Dakota County official to
put the fence up near the trail edge, but has no written evidence or proof of such agreement.
Mr. Mastel’s rear yard is relatively flat and even throughout most of the area, however, it does incline
somewhat steeply from the back property line up to the trail edge (where the fence sites today). Based on
Dakota Co. GIS, it appears this grade rises about 3.5 to 4-ft. above the flat rear yard.
Due to the elevated grade next to the trail and location of the existing fence up near this trail, it provides
Mr. Mastel’s property with an extra level of screening and buffering from the traffic and pedestri ans
traveling along Wachtler Avenue. Mr. Mastel is now concerned that with the fence being relocated 15-feet
or so back into the rear yard (in the flat level area), a 6-ft. high fence will not provide the same screening,
buffering or security that he had with the current fence, and is now seeking approval of this variance for the
added fence height.
ANALYSIS
Variance Process
City Code Section 12-1L-5 governs variance requests. The Planning Commission must consider a number
of variables when recommending or deciding on a variance, which generally fall into two categories: (i)
practical difficulties; and (ii) impact to the community.
The “practical difficulties” test contains three parts: (i) the property owner proposes to use the property in
a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance; (ii) the plight of the property owner
is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner; and (iii) the variance will
not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Also, economic considerations alone do not constitute
practical difficulties.
Section 12-1L-5(E)(1) further references other variables the City can consider when granting or denying a
variance, noted as follows:
Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community.
Existing and anticipated traffic conditions.
Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety.
Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan.
Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate a practical
difficulty.
When considering a variance request, the Planning Commission must determine if these standards have
been met in granting a variance, either partially or whole, and provide findings of facts to support such a
recommendation to the City Council. If the Planning Commission determines the Applicant has failed to
meet these standards, or has not fully demonstrated a reasonableness in the granting of such variance, then
findings of fact supporting a recommendation of denial must be determined.
As part of any variance request, Applicants are required to prepare and submit their own responses and
findings, which for this case, are noted below (in italic text):
1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted
by the zoning ordinance.
Applicant’s Response: The very back part of my yard runs along Wachtler Rd. [Avenue] with a steep
6-ft. incline. The County is making me move the fence into my property line approx. 25-ft. at the
bottom of [the] incline. I need a 9-ft. fence because of the incline. A 6-ft. fence at top would be level
with Wachtler Rd. I would not have any privacy and is a safety issue.
Staff’s Response: A question that must be considered in this case is whether or not the proposed 3-
feet of additional fencing (from 6-ft. to 9-ft.) is reasonable. With or without the 3-foot added fence
Planning Report: Case #2019-12 Page 4
height, the overall use (and enjoyment) of the home and property probably will not change. Because
of the swimming pool, the Applicant must provide at least a 5-foot high fence for security and safety
reasons. The location of the existing fence along the trail edge definitely provides a much b etter
screening and buffering of vehicle traffic on Wachtler Avenue and pedestrians using the trail; however,
Zoning Code only allows higher fences of up to 10-ft. (chain-link only) for outdoor tennis courts; and
business and industrial districts are allowed fences greater than 6-feet in height with a conditional use
permit. In order to maintain the level of screening, privacy and security the Applicant is seeking under
this variance, the city will need to determine if this request is indeed reasonable or justifiable, even if
the Owner is being forced to relocate the fence off county ROW.
2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by
the property owner.
Applicant’s Response: The 6-ft. incline on the back of my yard.
Staff’s Response: The city must determine and substantiate if this grade change [incline] in the rear
yard is unique enough to support the granting of this variance. As was noted, the fence was originally
placed up on the elevated section of land next to the trail, either inadvertently or on purpose (with or
without county permission). Nevertheless, this fence was installed in Dakota County ROW, and the
county has the right to request its removal from their property. Based on the age and duration of the
fence at its current location; the fact the fence does provide a much more effective scree n at the top of
this slope; and now the homeowners are being forced to remove and relocate this fence after so many
years, may lend to some uniqueness in this case, and some reasonable justification in granting this fence
height variance. The City will need to determine if this pre-installation of the fence and the County
orders to move said fence, gives enough unique circumstances to warrant the granting of the fence
height variance.
3. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and economic
considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
Applicant’s Response: Because of the incline, 9-ft. fence will blend in with the rest of the fences at 6-
feet. Have had the fence for 32 years. .
Staff’s Response: The existing neighborhood is residential in character; and there are a few
neighboring houses that have similar style fences of 6-feet in height. Staff is unaware if there are any
residential fences greater than 6-feet in this neighborhood – or even in the city. It would seem that by
relocating and installing a 9-ft. high fence at the toe of the slope, it can give the illusion that a 9-ft. high
fence may appear smaller or less intrusive when viewing from the adjacent roadway or trail system.
However, when viewed from the adjacent properties to the north or south, the appearance of the higher
fence may seem a bit out of place, especially compared to the neighbor’s 6-foot high fence, and the
homeowners existing 6-ft. side yard (connecting) fence sections. The city will need to determine if the
higher fence would alter the essential character of this neighborhood.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the variance request, based on the following findings of fact that support
the granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows:
A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict
application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying
out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three -part
test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted
by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of
the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.”
Planning Report: Case #2019-12 Page 5
B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to
justify the granting of a Variance to allow a residential fence height increase from 6-ft. to 9-ft. along
the rear lot line, by the following:
i.) the proposed increased fence height is a reasonable request on the subject property, due to
the need to relocated the fence from an elevated area to a lower level of the property;
ii.) Dakota County has ordered the removal of the fence from its current location next to the
county trail system (and even after 32 years), and thus created a unique situation for the
homeowner to keep and maintain a certain level of privacy and screening measures from the
abutting county roadway and trail system;
iii.) due to the grade differences from the current fence location to new, approving the Variance
for an increased fence height does not change the essential character of the neighborhood, as
the subject property abuts residential properties on both sides, and the residential uses on the
opposite side of Wachtler Avenue are situated far enough away that they will not be impacted
by the higher fence; and
iv.) the reason for the Variance request is to permit a reasonable request to extend the privacy
fence higher than the 6-ft. height standard in order to retain privacy and screening from the
county roadway, and for this reason the request is not solely based on economic
considerations.
C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code, including but
not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community,
existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the
risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the
Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will not affect or pose any negative impacts
upon the neighborhood or the community in general.
D. Approval of this Variance is for 1341 Cherry Hill Road only, and does not apply or give
precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply
for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be
reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code.
E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2019-
12, dated and presented May 28, 2019 (on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully
incorporated into Resolution No. 2019-____.
F. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to his Variance
request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by
the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows:
i.) The proposed higher fence shall require a building permit (instead of zoning permit) as per
Minnesota State Building Codes.
ii.) The proposed fence shall not extend more than 9-ft. above the level grade of the rear yard at
the property line parallel with Wachtler Avenue; and must match the current shadow-box
style or design of the existing residential fence on the subject property.
iii.) Within one year of approval by the City Council, the Applicant shall obtain a building permit
for construction of the proposed porch/foyer addition.
Planning Report: Case #2019-12 Page 6
2. Recommend denial of the Variance request, based on the findings of fact that confirm the
Applicant failed to meet the burden(s) of proof or standards in granting of the variance requested
herein, noted as follows:
A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the City may only grant variances from the strict
application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying
out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three -part
test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted
by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the es sential character of
the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.”
B. The City hereby determines the Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite
“practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a variance for increased fence height. The
proposed higher fence is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property;
and the fact the addition requires a variance for normal fence height standards is not warranted
under this case; and is therefore not considered a reasonable use of the property.
C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three -part test (reasonable use of the property) is
not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique
circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood).
3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days,
in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration of this Variance request, and either
make a motion to recommend Alternative No. 1, the approval of the Variance with findings of facts to
support said approval with the conditions noted therein; or make a motion on Alternative No. 2, a
recommendation of denial on the Variance with findings of facts supporting such decision.
If the Planning Commission wishes to table or delay making a recommendation on this item for any
plausible reason, then the commission should make a motion consistent with Alternative No. 3 noted above.
Attachments
1. Planning Application – with Variance Response (Narrative)
2. Aerial/Site Location Map
3. Site Pictures
Planning Report: Case #2019-12 Page 7
SITE PHOTOS – 1341 Cherry Hill Road
1341 Cherry Hill Road04/28/2018
66666666666666666666!!2
!!2 151140
71102949512020163 100140
1341
1411
1338
1347
1407
WACHTLER AVE289.5'291.6'Elevation
1341 Cherry Hill RoadChuck Mastel Res.Planning Case. No. 2019-12
City ofMendotaHeights030
SCALE IN FEETDate: 5/20/2019
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
Planning Staff Report
DATE: May 28, 2019
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-13
WETLANDS PERMIT
APPLICANT: Mark & Stacy Roszkowski
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 660 Hidden Creek Trail
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: June 29, 2019
INTRODUCTION
The applicants are seeking a Wetlands Permit to allow the installation of a new in-ground swimming pool.
The subject property is located at 660 Hidden Creek Trail, and is situated adjacent to an established Type
III wetland (i.e. Slightly Susceptible Wetland).
A public hearing notice for this planning item was published in the local newspaper and notice letters were
mailed to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is 1.25 acres in size, and contains a 5,356 sq. ft. (finished) sq. ft. single family dwelling.
The property is zoned R-1 and guided LR-Low Density Residential development. The rear area of the lot
contains a small, meandering creek channel, and an open pond or wetland area (see aerial image - below):
Planning Case 2019-13 Page 2 of 6
The subject property is subject to a drainage and utility easement along the back one-half area of the lot,
which encompasses the creek and wetlands areas (see Hidden Creek Estates plat image - below).
The homeowners have hired Performance Pool and Spas to install a new 14’ x 28’ in-ground swimming
pool, along with a new concrete patio deck around the perimeter of the pool (see site plan image – below).
The edge of the pool structure will be situated 40-feet from the nearest point (edge) of the creek channel.
The decking will be approximately 36-feet from the same channel.
Pursuant to City Code Section 12-2-3, the Wetland Systems ordinance applies to wetlands and water
resource related areas, and to adjacent land within one hundred feet (100') of normal high water markers of
wetlands and water resource related areas as delineated on the official city wetlands systems map.
City Code Section 12-2-6 further states that any work or development upon or which would otherwise alter
a wetland or potentially impact a water related resource area, must obtain a written permit from the city;
with the list of activities noted as follows:
Planning Case 2019-13 Page 3 of 6
1. The deposit or removal of any debris, fill or other material over 100 cubic yards.
2. Any excavation over 100 cubic yards.
3. The digging, dredging, filling, or in any other way altering or removing any material from water
bodies, watercourses, wetlands, floodplain, or natural drainage system.
4. The construction, alteration, or removal of any structure.
5. The removal of vegetation.
6. The altering of any embankment, ponding, or changing of the flow of water or ponding capacity.
7. Permanently storing materials.
8. Disposing of waste materials (including sewage, garbage, rubbish, and other discarded materials).
9. Installation and maintenance of essential services.
ANALYSIS
The purpose of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the City Code Title 12-2-1 is to:
Provide for protection, preservation, maintenance, and use wetlands and water resource-related
areas;
Maintain the natural drainage system;
Minimize disturbance which may result from alteration by earthwork, loss of vegetation, loss of
wildlife and aquatic organisms as a result of the disturbance of the natural environment or from
excessive sedimentation;
Provide for protection of potable fresh water supplies; and
Ensure safety from floods.
It appears all major construction activities related to the building of the new pool and deck are far enough
away from the creek and wetland area, that this work will have little, if any effect upon these adjacent water
features. No part of the pool structure, including the deck and required fencing, will encroach or impact
the dedicated drainage easement in the rear yard as well.
Due to the proximity of the new pool to these wetland features, the ease of draining a pool into these nearby
water features is a concern of the city. The owners need to be aware that per Section 9-2-1 Swimming
Pools, the drainage or back-flushing of water from pool shall be directed onto the owner's property or into
approved public drainage ways and shall not drain onto adjacent private lands. Drainage onto public streets
or other public drainage ways shall require permission of the appropriate local city officials.
The Local Surface Water Management Plan (LSWMP) provides certain guides and suggested standards for
the city to follow or implement when dealing with new development near natural water features. The
LSWMP recommends a 25-foot no-disturbance/natural vegetative buffer zone from the wetland edge, to
provide an extra level or measure of erosion and silt protection, and any fertilizer/chemical runoff from the
lawn areas. The subject property has a very well established and natural vegetative buffer in place.
The scope and scale of this proposed new home project fits in nicely with the overall size of the property;
and due to the proximity of the wetland and adjacent lake, most of the new work is being contained or
limited to the area in and around where the old patio exists today. Due to this relatively minor scale of the
project on this large parcel, the following statements are being presented for the Planning Commission to
review and consider in your determination of this wetland permit:
a) the work should have very little, if any impacts to the adjacent wetland feature;
b) the Applicant/Owners will provide for the protection and preservation of the adjacent
wetland/water resource feature by installing silt fence and stormwater run-off protection measures
as per city staff direction;
Planning Case 2019-13 Page 4 of 6
c) all natural drainage way systems will be maintained during and after the project is completed; and
d) the Applicant/Owners will make every attempt to minimize disturbance of the area in order to
protect and preserve the natural surroundings, avoid excess loss of vegetation, and avoid any
impacts to wildlife and aquatic organisms.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the Wetlands Permit based on certain findings of fact, along with specific conditions of
approval as noted herein; or
2. Deny the requested Wetlands Permit based on revised finding(s) of facts as determined by the Planning
Commission; or
3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, pursuant
to MN State Statute 15.99.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of a Wetlands Permit to Mark and Stacy Roszkowski, and for the property
located at 660 Hidden Creek Trail, which would allow the construction of a new in-ground swimming pool,
deck and fence enclosure, based on the attached findings of fact and subject to the following conditions:
1. The new pool structure shall comply with all standards and rules under Title 9 Building Regulations
Section 9-2-1: Swimming Pools, and Title 12 Zoning of the City Code, and the Minnesota State
Building Code regulations.
2. The new swimming pool and related structure work shall comply with all applicable standards and
conditions noted under Title 12, Chapter 2 Wetlands Systems of City Code.
3. Draining or back-flushing of water from pool shall be directed onto the owner's property only, and
shall not drainage directly into the creek or wetland systems. Any drainage onto public streets or
other public drainage ways shall require permission of the appropriate local city officials.
4. The Owners shall provide and maintain a 25-foot wide no-disturbance/natural vegetative buffer
zone from the creek edge in order to provide an extra level or measure of erosion and silt protection
from said wetland feature.
5. Any new excavating, grading and/or construction activity will be in compliance with applicable
federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land
Disturbance Guidance Document. Full erosion/sedimentation measures shall be installed prior to
commencement of work and maintained throughout the duration of the construction project
6. A building permit must be approved prior to the commencement of any construction work; site
construction shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm weekdays; and 9:00 am
to 5:00 pm weekends.
7. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established, protected
and permanent ground cover immediately after the deck project is completed.
Planning Case 2019-13 Page 5 of 6
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Wetlands Permit for New Swimming Pool and Improvements
660 Hidden Creek Trail
Planning Case No. 2019-13
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1. The proposed construction activities related to the new pool project and allowed under this
Wetlands Permit meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. The dedication of the new Marie Creek buffer easement and property drainage and utility easements
will provide adequate work space, means of suitable access, and safeguards to the city and property
owners for any restoration or erosion control work in this are, if needed.
3. No grading or vegetation removal within the 25-foot non-disturbance buffer area will take place or
is anticipated under this project, which will ensure no negative impacts to the adjacent wetlands
feature should occur.
4. Adequate erosion control measures will be maintained and observed during construction.
5. Any disturbed areas or vegetation removed as part of this pool project will be planted in the
disturbed areas after construction is completed.
Planning Case 2019-13 Page 6 of 6
SITE PHOTOS – 660 HIDDEN CREEK TRAIL
1698
679
630
700
683
673
625
680
1770
665
685
1694
660
690
635
703
645
630
670
697 691
1680 610
1768
645
640
679 675 663 653 649 647 625
650
637
1695
1780
646648
615
688
688
1706
1760 1762
640
1758
620652656660666672638636632
1756
699
698
620
696700
700
710
701
1818 623
614
631
702
635641645647651653
MARIE AVE WDODD RDH I D D E N C R E E K T R L
NATURE WAYCALLAHAN PLCity ofMendotaHeights0250
SCALE IN FEETDate: 5/23/2019
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
660 Hidden Creek Trail Roszkowski Res. (Planning Case No. 2019-13)
Planning Staff Report
MEETING DATE: May 28, 2019
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-14
VARIANCE
APPLICANT: Jim Carlson
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1562 Wachtler Avenue
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One-Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: June 29, 2019
INTRODUCTION
The applicant is building a new 29’ x 34’ detached garage in the rear yard area, and is seeking a variance to
required setbacks for a new driveway extension to said garage.
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; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-
feet of the subject property.
This item was originally noticed (both published and mailed letters) as a variance with a conditional use
permit (CUP) to allow for a larger detached garage structure. However, staff later determined this CUP
was not necessary, because the lot is large enough to allow a new detached garage as a permitted use instead
of with a CUP approval. Explanation will follow in this report.
BACKGROUND
The subject parcel is 1.77 acres in size, and contains 5,345 sq. ft. single-family residential dwelling. The
parcel is zoned R-1 and is guided LR-Low Density Residential development.
Planning Case 2019-14 (J. Carlson) Page 2 of 9
Mr. Carlson currently has a 1,153 sf. 3 car attached garage to the home, and is wishing to build a new 29’
x 34’ (928-sq. ft.) detached garage in the back rear corner . In order to provide durable access to this garage,
Mr. Carlson intends to extend an additional hard-surfaced driveway out along the side yard area of the
current attached garage to the new detached garage structure. The driveway extension is approximately
130-ft. in length.
Per Section 12-1D-3, all single family residential dwellings are allowed an attached garage up to 1,200 sq.
ft. Larger residential lots are allowed to have an additional (one) detached private garage by permitted use
or conditional use permit, according to the following table:
Lot Size Permitted
Conditional
Use Permit
0.75 acre or less Not allowed Not allowed
>0.75 acre - 1.5 acres 750 sq. ft. 1,000 sq. ft.
>1.5 acres - 2.5 acres 1,000 sq. ft. 1,200 sq. ft.
>2.5 acres 1,500 sq. ft. 1,800 sq. ft.
Mr. Carlson’s survey indicates the unplatted subject parcel is “1.99 acres, more or less, including road right
of way”. ” Factoring out the road ROW leaves the parcel with a net area of 1.77 acres (same as Dakota
County Assessor records). When this application and site plan for new garage was submitted to the city,
staff may have misread or misinterpreted the lot size on the survey, and originally directed Mr. Carlson to
submit a CUP application to allow for the larger detached garage. Because the subject lot is 1.77 acres, Mr.
Carlson is permitted to have one detached garage not to exceed 1,000-sf. Therefore, the proposed 29’ x 34’
(928 sf.) garage on the plan meets this standard, and the CUP is no longer needed in this review.
Mr. Carlson intends to slightly widen and extend a new driveway off to the side of the existing [concrete]
driveway surface, wrap it around the side area of the attached garage, and extend it back to the new detached
garage structure in the rear yard. The existing attached garage sits 13.9-ft. from the side-yard lot line (see
survey image – below). .
Mr. Carlson wishes to install an approximate 12-ft. wide driveway along this side-yard. The driveway
tapers down to 11’-3” near this closest corner of the attached garage, leaving a setback of 2.5 feet. The
variance would allow or grant this reduced setback for the driveway (see site plan image – below).
Planning Case 2019-14 (J. Carlson) Page 3 of 9
In order to alleviate or prevent any drainage issues that may occur due to the added hard surfaced driveway
between the existing garage and rear yard property of 792 Wachtler Avenue, Mr. Carlson has offered to
look into installing permeable pavers or some other features along this area to help reduce or prevent any
impacts. Mr. Carlson is also offering to provide vegetative screening, such as upright junipers, pampas
grass plants, or similar along the 2.5-foot area for added screening if necessary or requested.
ANALYSIS
Variance Process:
City Code Section 12-1L-5 governs variance requests. The Planning Commission must consider a number
of variables when recommending or deciding on a variance, which generally fall into two categories: (i)
practical difficulties; and (ii) impact to the community.
The “practical difficulties” test contains three parts: (i) the property owner proposes to use the property in
a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance; (ii) the plight of the property owner
is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner; and (iii) the variance will
not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Also, economic considerations alone do not constitute
practical difficulties.
Section 12-1L-5(E)(1) further references other variables the City can consider when granting or denying a
variance, noted as follows:
Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community.
Existing and anticipated traffic conditions.
Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety.
Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan.
Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate a practical
difficulty.
When considering a variance request, the Planning Commission must determine if these standards have
been met in granting a variance, either partially or whole, and provide findings of facts to support such a
recommendation to the City Council. If the Planning Commission determines the Applicant has failed to
meet these standards, or has not fully demonstrated a reasonableness in the granting of such variance, then
findings of fact supporting a recommendation of denial must be determined.
As part of any variance request, Applicants are required to prepare and submit their own responses and
findings, which for this case, are noted below (in italic text):
Planning Case 2019-14 (J. Carlson) Page 4 of 9
1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted
by the zoning ordinance.
Applicant’s Response: Without a variance for the driveway, access to the new garage would require putting
a driveway in on the opposite side of the house which would run across the entire length of the backyard.
Without a variance for the garage size, I would not have enough room to store my yard equipment (riding
lawnmower and attachments) and fishing boat, it would have to be parked outside and would be an eye sore.
Staff’s Response: Mr. Carlson noted to city staff that this location of a new driveway along this north
side of his home is the only logical and reasonable place to put in the driveway. Wrapping the driveway
around the south side and around the back area of the home would take up a lot of open/green space,
(with 3-4 times more concrete/hard surface).
A question that must be considered in this case is whether or not the proposed 3.5-ft. encroachment into
the 5-foot setback for the driveway is reasonable. One important reason for keeping a 5-foot setback
for driveways and parking spaces in residential zones is to provide or maintain adequate drainage
between properties, and ensure access for certain utilities. When residential lot subdivisions are
approved, drainage and utility easements are typically shown and platted along the lot lines. Since this
lot is unplatted, there are no drainage/utility easements present. The adjacent residential lots to the
north (798, 792 and 786 Upper Colonial Drive) have a 6-ft. D & U easement along their back lot lines.
City Code Section 12-1D-4: C: Allowed Encroachments; Sub.1.c allows for “Uncovered and/or open
terraces, steps, porches or decks, accessibility ramps, stoops or similar structures, which do not extend above the
height of the ground floor level of the principal building and do not extend closer than two feet (2') from any lot
line.” The new driveway could “technically” meet this rule, and the Commission may wish to determine
if the owners can be afforded a reduced setback allowance up to 2.5 feet, similar to this “allowable
encroachment” section provided in City Code.
While it may seem “reasonable” to have this driveway along the side area of a home, the standards of
the Zoning Code are clear for requiring a 5-foot setback, and the Planning Commission will need to
determine if this requested variance is reasonable, and is in harmony with the general purpose and spirit
of the Code.
2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by
the property owner.
Applicant’s Response: I need a larger garage, my existing garage is not big enough. I park my work vehicle,
car, and companion’s vehicle in the attached garage. That does not leave any room for my yard equipment
and storage. I don't like clutter (eye sores) out in my yard.
Staff’s Response: The city must determine if the requested variance to allow a reduced setback of a
new driveway is “unique” enough to support such approval. It appears (once again) that had the house
been originally built or located more centrally in the lot, or moved slightly down towards the center,
this side-yard lot line issue would not exist. This is a large parcel, and there is plenty of room to
maneuver and develop within the lot. Even though the homeowner/applicant could easily extend or
wrap the driveway around on the south side of the home, the grades from the front to the rear yard areas
are severe; and coupled with much more pavement, grading and design on this wrap-around driveway,
it would appear to be too much just for this small garage project.
3. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and economic
considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
Applicant’s Response: The variance would not alter the existing character of the neighborhood. The
driveway will not be visible from the street. The garage will match the existing style of the house.
Planning Case 2019-14 (J. Carlson) Page 5 of 9
Staff’s Response: The existing neighborhood is all residential in character. Even though this property,
and the properties to the south and east are larger than most normal single family residential lots, the
character should not change due to the addition of the garage or driveway. However, the city can
determine if the encroaching driveway would alter the essential character of this neighborhood.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the variance request, based on the following findings of fact that support
the granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows:
A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict
application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying
out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three -part
test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted
by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of
the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.”
B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to
justify the granting of a Variance to allow the driveway to encroach up to 3.5 feet into the side yard,
leaving a 2.5 foot setback from the side lot line, by the following:
i.) the proposed driveway encroachment is a reasonable request on the subject property, due to
the need to provide a suitable and less intrusive driveway for the proposed (and permitted)
detached garage structure in the rear-yard;
ii.) the location of the home as it sits today was developed and built by others, thus making a
somewhat unique situation for the homeowner he did not create. This situation therefore
provides a unique circumstance for supporting or allowing the granting of variance on the
reduced driveway setbacks; and
iii.) approving the proposed driveway, with a reduced setback under this variance request, does
not change or alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code, including but
not limited to the effect of the Variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community,
existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the
risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the
Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variance will not affect or pose any negative impacts
upon the neighborhood or the community in general.
D. Approval of this Variance is for 1562 Wachtler Avenue only, and does not apply or give
precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply
for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be
reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code.
E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2019-
14, dated and presented May 28, 2019 (on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully
incorporated into Resolution No. 2019-____.
F. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to his Variance
request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by
the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows:
1. A driveway permit shall be obtained prior to any installation or construction of the new
driveway or parking pad area.
Planning Case 2019-14 (J. Carlson) Page 6 of 9
2. The proposed encroachment for the driveway shall not extend closer than 2.5-feet from the side
lot line.
3. The Applicant shall provide permeable pavers (or similar features) for the driveway surface
area located along the existing attached garage structure.
4. The Applicant shall provide additional vegetative screening along the reduced setback area to
screen the driveway from neighboring properties.
5. Any new grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state,
and local regulations; as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance
Document.
2. Recommend denial of the Variance request, based on the findings of fact that confirm the
Applicant failed to meet the burden(s) of proof or standards in granting of the variance requested
herein, noted as follows:
A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the City may only grant variances from the strict
application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying
out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three -part
test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted
by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of
the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.”
B. The City hereby determines the Applicant has not met the burden of demonstrating the requisite
“practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a variance for a reduced driveway setback.
The proposed driveway is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property;
and there are other alternatives or locations for placing the driveway on the property due to its large
size; and is therefore not considered a reasonable use of the property.
C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three -part test (reasonable use of the property) is
not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique
circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood).
3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days,
in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration of this Variance request, and either
make a motion to recommend Alternative No. 1, the approval of the Variance with findings of facts to
support said approval with the conditions noted therein; or make a motion on Alternative No. 2, a
recommendation of denial on the Variance with findings of facts supporting such decision.
If the Planning Commission wishes to table or delay making a recommendation on this item for any
plausible reason, then the commission should make a motion consistent with Alternative No. 3 noted above.
Attachments
1. Planning Application – with Variance Response (Narrative)
2. Aerial/Site Location Map
3. Site Pictures
Planning Case 2019-14 (J. Carlson) Page 7 of 9
SITE PHOTOS – 1562 WACHTLER AVENUE
Planning Case 2019-14 (J. Carlson) Page 8 of 9
Planning Case 2019-14 (J. Carlson) Page 9 of 9
1562 WACHTLER LANE (J. CARLSON RES.)
Property Information
September 18, 2017 0 225 450112.5 ft
0 60 12030 m
1:2,400
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.
D Written consent and waiver of public hearing , in a form prescribed by the city , by the
owners of property within one hundred feet (100') of the boundaries of the property for
which the variance is requested , accompanied by a map -indicating the location of the
property in question and the location of the property owners who have given consent; or,
lacking such consent, a list of names and addresses of the owners of property within one
hundred feet (100') of the boundaries of the property for which the variance is requested.
D If topography or extreme grade is the basis on which the request is made, all topographic
contours shall be submitted .
D If the application involves a cutting of a curb for a driveway or grading a driveway, the
applicant shall have his plan approved by the city public works director prior to
construction .
Please complete the attached questions regarding your request.
Responses will be presented to the Planning Commission & City Council.
Please answer the following three questions as they relate to the variance request.
(Note : you may fill-in this form or create your own)
1. Are there any practical difficulties that help support the granting of this variance?
(Note : "practical difficulties" as used in connection with the granting of a variance , means that the
owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by City Code. Economic
considerations along do not constitute a practical difficulty).
~ YES 0 NO
Please describe or identify any practical difficulties and/or how you plan to · use the property
in a reasonable manner below:
Without a variance for the driveway, access to the new garage would require putting a driveway in on
the opposite side of the house which would run across the entire length of the backyard .
Without a variance for the garage size , I would not have enough room to store my yard equ i pment
(riding lawnmower and attachments) and fishing boat, it would have to be parked outs ide and would be
an eye sore .
Variance Application (2019) Page 2of4
2. Are there any circumstances unique to the property (not created by the owner) that
support the granting of this variance?
DYES D NO
Please describe or identif
2)
I need a larger garage, my existing garage is not big enough . I park my work vehicle, car, and
companions vehicle in the attached garage . That does not leave any room for my yard equipment and
storage . I don't like clutter (eye sores) out in my yard .
3. If the variance was granted, would it alter the essential character of the
neighborhood?
DYES ONO
Not? Please ex lain how the re uest fits with the character of the nei hborhood.
3)
The variance would not alter the existing character of the neighborhood. The driveway will not be visible
from the street. The garage will match the existing style of the house .
The City Council must make affirmative findings 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 demonstrated or satisfied.
Variance Application (2019) Page 3 of 4
Planning Staff Report
DATE: May 28, 2019
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-15
LOT SPLIT –SUBDIVISION REQUEST
APPLICANT: Nona M. Mosvick
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1133 Orchard Place
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: August 29, 2019
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Mrs. Nona Mosvick is requesting approval to subdivide her residential property located at 1133 Orchard
Place. This subdivision request requires city approval before any plat or survey can be accepted and
recorded by Dakota County.
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 parcels.
BACKGROUND
The subject site is square shaped parcel, located generally in the mid-block between Lexington Avenue and
Orchard Circle. The property has an existing 1-1/2 story, split level single family dwelling built in 1983,
with 4,404 sq. ft. of finished floor space. The subject property is an unplatted parcel containing 45,260-sf.
(1.04 acres) of land area, with 211-ft. of frontage along Orchard Place (see images below).
Planning Report: Case #2019-15 Page 2
The home has a dual access, u-shaped driveway off Orchard Place, with a large open space area on the
westerly edge of the home. The proposed lot split would effectively create a new parcel in this west area,
which is planned to be developed by Mrs. Mosvick’s son Matt Mosvick for a new single-family home next
to his mother’s own home.
ANALYSIS
Project Description
The applicant proposes to keep the existing single family home and subdivide the lot into two single-family
lots, as illustrated on the survey drawing dated 04/30/2019 from Johnson & Scofield Inc.
Parcel A: the proposed new parcel is located on the west side of the existing parcel. The new
parcel will have 100-ft. of roadway frontage and 214.5-ft. of lot depth, creating a 21,451-sf. (0.49
acres) sized parcel.
Parcel B: the east side of the subject property will be subdivided and retains the existing 1983
single-family dwelling occupied by Mrs. Mosvick. This proposed parcel will have 111-ft. of
frontage and the same 214.5-ft. of depth, for a new lot size of 23,810-sf. (0.55 acres).
As illustrated on the survey, the subject property is unplatted and extends to the right-of-way
centerline of Orchard Place. The survey notes that the parcels to be created under this lot split are
“subject to an easement for road purposes over and across the South 30.00 feet” of both parcels
(recorded document No. 612790). Removing the 30-foot easement from each new parcel will leave
18,451 sf. (0.42 ac.) of area for Parcel A and 20,480 sf. (0.47 ac.) for Parcel B.
All new lots to be created under this subdivision will have new perimeter drainage and utility
easements dedicated along the front, sides and rear lot lines of each parcel.
Planning Report: Case #2019-15 Page 3
Comprehensive Plan
The subject parcel is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant’s
request to subdivide the subject parcel into two parcels, consisting of approximately 0.42 acres and 0.47
acres respectively, makes each new lot consistent with and well below the LR density level of 2.9 units per
acre.
According to the Comprehensive Plan, “Infill sites” are meant to be any property in Mendota Heights
that has the opportunity to develop, or redevelop, beyond its current level. The City’s policies for
consideration of development in these areas are noted as follows:
o Require that any new development or redevelopment meets all zoning and subdivision
regulations.
o Avoid access and traffic which unduly burdens just a few properties.
o Ensure that development of infill sites will not result in any negative impact on existing
environmental conditions, such as soils, wetlands, drainage, or similar factors.
o Require that all development of infill sites provide access to a public street, new or existing.
o Ensure that land uses are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and do not reflect a
“spot-zoning” pattern.
o Avoid infill development that relies on private street or “flag-lot” design.
Zoning Requirements
Title 11-3-2 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.
As shown in the table below based on the attached survey, the proposed parcels are compliant with the
R-1 District’s lot area and width standards:
Standard Subject Parcel New Parcel A New Parcel B
Lot Area 15,000 SF 45,260-sf.
(1.04 acres)
18,451 sf.
0.42 acres
20,480 sf.
(0.47 ac.)
Lot Width 100 ft. 211-ft. 100-ft. 111-ft.
Title 12-1D-4-D-2 of the Code requires the following:
Whenever buildings have been built on one side of the street between two (2) intersections, no building
shall hereafter be erected to extend closer toward the street than the average of the required district
setback and average setback of the adjoining principal structures.
The existing house will remain on Parcel B, which is shown with a 51-ft. setback off the roadway easement
line. New Parcel A does not depict a new/future house pad location. Front-yard setbacks of 30-ft. are
normally required for R-1 lots; but according to the zoning rule Sect. 12-1D-4-D-2 described above, any
new home built on Parcel B needs to meet an average setback between the existing 1133 Orchard Place
dwelling and 1139 Orchard Place to the west. This setback is estimated at 57-feet (see image below).
Planning Report: Case #2019-15 Page 4
REQUESTED ACTION
Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions:
1. Recommend approval of the lot split based on the attached findings of fact and conditions of
approval as noted herein; OR
2. Recommend denial of the lot split based on revised or determined findings of fact; OR
3. Table the request, pending additional information from staff or the Applicant.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission is asked to determine the effect of the proposed lot split on the character and
development of the neighborhood in forming its recommendation to the City Council. Staff recommends
the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the lot split as submitted, with the
following conditions:
1) As part of any new building permit application on Parcel A, the Applicant/Contractor shall submit
full grading and utility plans subject to review and approval by the City; all work and land
disturbance activities must comply with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance document; and all
erosion control measures shall be installed prior to any construction, and maintained throughout
the duration of any construction activities on each parcel site until each have been properly restored.
2) Front-yard setback for any new dwelling structure from Stratford Road shall be a min. of 57-feet.
3) The applicant shall dedicate new drainage and utility easements as denoted on the certificate of
survey prepared by Johnson & Scofield Inc., dated 04/30/2019; or by recordable document
approved by the city and filed with Dakota County.
4) Park dedication fee of $4,000 (in lieu of land - per current City policy) will be paid before the
subdivision is recorded with Dakota County.
Planning Report: Case #2019-15 Page 5
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Lot Split – Subdivision Request
for
1133 Orchard Place
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests:
1. The proposed lot split request meet the overall spirit, purpose and intent of the City Code and is
consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed subdivision and any new (future) residential dwelling will not create any negative
impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood; and the increased front yard setbacks will ensure
the new homes are in alignment with other residential uses along Orchard Place.
3. The two lots resulting from the lot split meet City Code minimum standards and are comparable in
size and frontage to other lots in the neighborhood.
666666666666666666666 6 6 666666666666666666666"
"³
"
³
*
**
"
³³³³³³
"""6 6 6666666666666
66!!2 !!2 !!2
!!2!!2
!!2
223
221211
218
200
186185175 170
146
96
95
141 137135132
130971251
1
9
118
83116120 110
76
75
727 8
7168
100 11365 16364666360
58
54105
504932544
3 4 1
36
35114523130282725108
37171
20
25765
10130108100
171 135301851851351353028100
30186
185120
100
100
58
14130 13513060
120
120 185141 30251140
1133 1127
1851
1149
1849
1122
1140
1145 1139
1136
11281134
1787
1124
1795
1850
1143 1135 1129
1151
1133
1117
1127
1853
11391145
1154
1117
1854
ORCHARD PL
ORCHARD CIR 389'
299'301'250'141'1
7
3
'
1133 ORCHARD PLACENona M osvick ResidencePlanning Case No. 2019-15
City ofMendotaHeights090
SCALE IN FEETDate: 5/20/2019
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
Planning Staff Report
MEETING DATE: May 28, 2019
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-16
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT –FENCE STANDARDS
APPLICANT: City of Mendota Heights
PROPERTY ADDRESS: N/A
ZONING/GUIDED: N/A
ACTION DEADLINE: N/A
INTRODUCTION
The City of Mendota Heights is considering a number of amendments to City Code Title 12-1D-6 Fences.
In the past few months, city staff have been approached or requested by a number of fence company
installers and residents to consider changes to the city’s current fence standards, specifically the “opacity
rule” and front- yard fence heights.
This item is being presented under a public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published
in the local Pioneer Press newspaper.
ANALYSIS
Title 12-1D-6 Fences in its entirety is included as Attachment–A. Staff is requesting review and
consideration of the following zoning code sections (yellow highlighted text for emphasis) pertaining to
residential and commercial fences:
Section 12-1D-6: Subpart A.3.b states: “all fences, except those constructed on an industrially zoned
property abutting a residentially zoned property, shall be constructed in such a manner that no less
than thirty percent (30%) of the plane between the ground and the top of the fence is open.”
Section 12-1D-6: Subpart B.1 states: ”Fences may be installed to a height not exceeding thirty six
inches (36") extending across front yards or along that portion of the side lot line equal to the required
front yard setback.”
Section 12-1D-6: Subpart C.2 states: “Conditional Use Permit Required For Certain Fences:
Fences over six feet (6') in height and with a security arm for barbed wire shall require a conditional
use permit.”
Planning Case 2019-16 Zoning Code Amendment –Fences Page 2 of 6
Section 12-1D-6: Subpart D. Permitted Encroachments Onto Public Ways states: “Notwithstanding
the other requirements of subsection A or B of this section to the contrary, fences greater than thirty
six inches (36") in height but no greater than six feet (6') in height and no less than thirty percent
(30%) open may be allowed to encroach into rear yards of corner and through lots or side yards of
corner lots through administrative approval by the engineering department when said yard abuts a
public street; provided, however, that in no event sh all such fence be allowed to be constructed on
a public easement for street, utility, or drainage purposes.”
Typically every spring and throughout the summer months, the city responds to numerous inquiries and
helps process a number of fence permits, primarily those submitted by professional fence installers, or in
some case private homeowners. The State of Minnesota Building Code exempts fences under 7-feet in
height from building permitting requirements. By this rule, any fence over 7-feet in height must be
approved by a building permit. Cities however, have the right or choice to limit fences to any height, and
are allowed to issue permits we deem necessary. The City of Mendota Heights issues a Zoning Permit,
which is different from a building permit, and charges a standard $25.00 review and processing fee.
Section 12-1D-6: Subpart A.3.b states all residential (privacy style) fences must have at least 30% of the
wall panel open. Anecdotally, this “openness” or opacity rule may have come into being due to cities
wanting to make sure fences along a shared property line allowed some form or minimal amount of light,
air or wind movement through such structures. Chain-liked style fences more than meet this 30% open
rule. As for privacy fences that homeowners desire, the City has historically allowed fence companies and
residents to install an alternating board or shadow-box style fence (see images – below), which staff felt
met the 30% openness rule.
Residents and fence companies have now asked if the City would be willing to revise or eliminate this 30%
open rule, so they can provide or install a 100% opaque fence style, shown in the example images below:
Planning Case 2019-16 Zoning Code Amendment –Fences Page 3 of 6
Fence companies and residents have also expressed some reservations and complaints on the City’s front -
yard fence height limits of 36-inches (3-ft.). Residents have stated that when they have requested to fence
off their front yards, the 3-ft. high fence is not adequate enough to contain certain sized dogs or active
children/toddlers playing or using the front yard space. Many residents have requested at least a 4 -foot
high fence, and a large majority of these fence requests usually involve a chain-linked style.
From a planning and zoning standpoint, staff does not believe allowing a fence from 3-ft. to 4-ft. will make
much of a difference, and would support such change, and would ask the Planning Commission to decide
if you wish the city to keep or apply an openness rule standard for front yard fences only.
The following comparison matrix table provides a quick reference to certain fence standards (with respect
to heights and styles) in other communities:
METRO-NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES - COMPARISON MATRIX
CITY FENCE HEIGHTS FENCE STANDARD
(Solid vs. Open Rules)
Apple Valley 3.5’ FY / 6’ to 8’ in RY Solid screen allowed
Arden Hills 3’ FY / 6’ FY & SY Solid screen allowed
Brooklyn Center 4’ FY / 7’ RY Solid screen allowed
Brooklyn Park 3.5’ FY / 7’ SY & RY Solid screen allowed
Burnsville 3.5’ FY / 6’ SY & RY 75% open in FY area; solid allowed in
other areas
Chaska 4’ FY (Decorative only) / 6’ RY
8’ PRIVACY in SY & RY (buildable area only)
Solid screen allowed (except for front
decorative style)
Cottage Grove 2.5’ FY / 6’ SY & FY 50% transparent in Front Yard
Fences; solid in Rear Yards
Crystal 4.5’ FY / 6.5’ SY & FY Solid screen allowed
Eagan 3.5’ FY / 6’ SY & FY Solid screen allowed
Edina 4’ FY / 6’ SY & RY Solid screen allowed
Farmington 4’ FY / 6’ SY & FY Solid screen allowed
Hopkins 4’ FY / 6’ SY & RY -Wood & Chain Linked- 25% open;
-Fences next to state/county roads
100% opaque
Hudson 4’ FY and SY along streets / 6’ SY and RY Solid screen allowed
Inver Grove
Heights
3.5’ FY / 7’ SY & RY - Front Yard fences at 75% open
- Solid screen in Side and Rear Yards
Mahtomedi 4’ FY / 6’ SY & RY Solid screen allowed
Maplewood 6’ in all YARDS 80% opaque in FY and along streets
Oakdale 4’ FY / 6’ - 8’ RY Solid screen allowed
Richfield 7’ in all yards Solid screen allowed
Rosemount 3.5’ FY / 6’ SY & RY Solid screen allowed
South St. Paul 3.5’ FY / 6’ SY & RY Solid screen allowed
Vadnais Heights 4’ FY / 6’ SY & FY - 25% Open allowed on line
- more than 25% must meet setbacks
White Bear Lake 4’ FY / 6’ SY & RY 30% Open
West St. Paul 4’ FY / 6’ SY & RY - 25% Open for fences in front yards
- Solid screen in other yards.
Woodbury 4’ FY / 6’ SY & RY Solid screen allowed
Planning Case 2019-16 Zoning Code Amendment –Fences Page 4 of 6
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS
Staff is offering the following amendment:
1) Regarding Section 12-1D-6: A. Fences in All Districts, under Subpart 3. Construction And Repair,
staff is suggesting striking (deleting) this entire sub-provision b. Construct Of Fences:
b. Construction Of Fences: All fences, except those constructed on an industrially zoned property
abutting a residentially zoned property, shall be constructed in such a manner that no less than
thirty percent (30%) of the plane between the ground and the top of the fence is open. Fences on
industrially zoned property abutting residentially zoned property shall be erected along the
property line and are allowed to be one hundred percent (100%) opaque and six feet (6') in height.
This deletion will remove the 30% opacity rule; and moves the provisions for fences on industrially
zoned property (next to residential uses) to another section.
2) Staff is suggesting changes to front yard fence standards as follows:
Section Title 12-1D-6:
B Fences in Residential Districts: Height, Style And Location:
a. Front Yard: Fences may be installed to a height not exceeding thirty six inches (36") four feet
(4’) extending across front yards or along that portion of the side lot line equal to the required
front yard setback.
b. Construction of Fences: Fences in front yards shall consist only of chain-linked, or a
decorative style fence such as picket, wrought iron, alternating board or shadow-box style
fence.
c. Rear Yard: Should the rear lot line be common with the side lot line of an abutting lot, that
portion of the rear lot line equal to the required front yard setback of the abutting lot may be
fenced to a height of not more than thirty six inches (36") four feet (4’).
3) Staff is suggesting changes to fences in the business and industrial districts as follows:
Section Title 12-1D-6:
C. Fences In Business And Industrial Districts:
1. Height: Fences may be located on a lot line erected along the property line and to a height of six
feet (6').
2. Fences on business and industrially zoned properties abutting residentially zoned property shall
be erected along the property line and shall be one hundred percent (100%) opaque and at least
six feet (6') in height.
3. Conditional Use Permit Required For Certain Fences: Fences over six feet (6') in height [or]
[and/or] with a security arm for barbed wire shall require a conditional use permit.
Planning Case 2019-16 Zoning Code Amendment –Fences Page 5 of 6
4) Regarding Section 12-1D-6: Subpart D. Permitted Encroachments Onto Public Ways, this provision
does not get used very often, but in certain cases, it does greatly help those residents on corner or through
lots where a busy traveled public street exists. One particular case was the new residence built at 688
Evergreen Knolls (SW corner of Dodd Road and Evergreen Knolls – see aerial image – below).
The homeowner would have had to set his fence back considerably inside their corner side yard, which
would have left a much smaller, useable rear yard for their family. Under this provision, the public works
director approved the fence permit with the permitted encroachment shown.
Staff is suggesting the following changes:
D. Permitted Encroachments Onto Public Ways: Notwithstanding the other requirements of
subsection A or B of this section to the contrary, fences greater than thirty six inches (36") four
feet (4’) in height but no greater than six feet (6') in height and no less than thirty percent (30%)
open may be allowed to encroach into rear yards of corner and through lots or side yards of
corner lots through administrative approval by the engineering department Public Works Director
and Community Development Director (or their assigns) when said yard abuts a public street;
provided, however, that in no event shall such fence be allowed to be constructed on a public
easement for street, utility, or drainage purposes.
ALTERNATIVES for ACTION
The Planning Commission may consider the following actions:
1. Recommend approval (either partially or whole) the requested Zoning Code Amendments as noted
in the attached Draft Ordinance No. 542; or
2. Recommend denial (either partially or whole) of the requested Zoning Code Amendments noted in
in the attached Draft Ordinance No. 542; based on certain findings; or
3. Table the request, and direct city staff to seek and provide additional information for further
consideration by the Planning Commission, and present such information at the next scheduled
Planning Commission meeting.
Planning Case 2019-16 Zoning Code Amendment –Fences Page 6 of 6
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Open the public hearing; allow for public comments; and discuss with city staff these suggested changes.
Following the public hearing, it is recommended the Planning Commission consider recommending
approval of the requested Zoning Code Amendments as presented under the Draft Ordinance No. 542.
Attachments
1) Draft Ordinance No. 542
2) City Code Section 12-1D-6 FENCES (ordinance in its current form)
3) Example of Other Cities Fence Regulations/Ordinances
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 542
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE D.
GENERAL ZONING PROVISIONS REGARDING
CERTAIN FENCE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain:
Section 1.
Title 12-1D-6: Fences is amended as follows:
A. Fence in All Districts:
3. Construction And Repair:
b. Construction Of Fences: All fences, except those constructed on an industrially zoned
property abutting a residentially zoned property, shall be constructed in such a manner
that no less than thirty percent (30%) of the plane between the ground and the top of the
fence is open. Fences on industrially zoned property abutting residentially zoned
property shall be erected along the property line and are allowed to be one hundred
percent (100%) opaque and six feet (6') in height.
Section 2.
Title 12-1D-6: Fences is amended as follows:
B. Fences in Residential Districts: (See figure 1D-6.1 of this section.)
1. Height, Style And Location:
a. Front Yard: Fences may be installed to a height not exceeding thirty six inches (36")
four feet (4’) extending across front yards or along that portion of the side lot line
equal to the required front yard setback.
b. Construction of Fences: Fences in front yards shall consist only of chain-linked, or a
decorative style fence such as picket, wrought iron, alternating board or shadow-box
style fence.
c. Rear Yard: Should the rear lot line be common with the side lot line of an abutting
lot, that portion of the rear lot line equal to the required front yard setback of the
abutting lot may be fenced to a height of not more than thirty six inches (36") four
feet (4’).
Section 3.
Title 12-1D-6: Fences is amended as follows:
C. Fences In Business And Industrial Districts:
1. Height: Fences may be located on a lot line erected along the property line and to a height
of six feet (6').
2. Fences on business and industrially zoned properties abutting residentially zoned
property shall be erected along the property line and shall be one hundred percent (100%)
opaque and at least six feet (6') in height.
3. Conditional Use Permit Required For Certain Fences: Fences over six feet (6') in height
[or] [and/or] with a security arm for barbed wire shall require a conditional use permit.
(Ord. 429, 8-3-2010)
Section 4.
Title 12-1D-6: Fences is amended as follows:
D. Permitted Encroachments Onto Public Ways: Notwithstanding the other requirements of
subsection A or B of this section to the contrary, fences greater than thirty six inches (36")
four feet (4’) in height but no greater than six feet (6') in height and no less than thirty
percent (30%) open may be allowed to encroach into rear yards of corner and through lots or
side yards of corner lots through administrative approval by the engineering department
Public Works Director and Community Development Director (or their assigns) when said
yard abuts a public street; provided, however, that in no event shall such fence be allowed to
be constructed on a public easement for street, utility, or drainage purposes.
Section 5.
This ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication.
Adopted and ordained into an ordinance this ______ day of ______________, 2019.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Neil Garlock, Mayor
ATTEST
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
(Strikeout text indicates matter to be deleted, while underlined text indicates new matter)
Drafted by: City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Fences, Walls, and Hedges Page 1 City of Arden Hills * 1245 West Highway 96 * (651) 792-7800
Fences, Walls, and Hedges
The Arden Hills Zoning Ordinance has general provision about
fences, walls, and hedges:
Fences and solid walls in side or rear yards may not
exceed six (6) feet in height in all residential districts.
Fences and solid walls may not exceed three (3) feet in
height in the front yard of any City district.
Fences, walls and hedges on corner lots are subject to traffic visibility requirements,
which states, on all lots, “nothing shall be placed in the clear vision area, and nothing shall
be allowed to grow in such a manner as to materially impede vision now or in the future
between a height of two and one-half (2-1/2) and ten (10) feet in the clear vision area.”
The clear vision area is defined as “an area within a triangle that is measured along the
edge of the driving surface of the road at the intersection of two roads (public or private)
and extending thirty (30) feet in each direction from the intersection with a line
connecting the two end points.”
No above grade fence shall have barbs or spikes or be of metal construction, which is
charged or connected with electrical current within any district of the City. These fencing
types shall only be permitted through a Conditional Use Permit.
Fences may be placed up to the lot line provided no damage results to the abutting
property. The City recommends setting back fences at least two (2) feet from the lot line
so homeowners may maintain the outside of their fence without having to traverse
adjacent properties.
That side of the fence considered to be the front (facing as applied to fence posts) shall
face toward adjoining properties.
No fence, wall or hedge may be placed in a public right-of-way.
A Zoning Permit is required for fences.
A Building Permit is required for all walls greater than four (4) feet.
This handout is written as a guide to common questions and problems.
It is not intended, nor shall it be considered, a complete set of requirements.
CALL BEFORE
YOU DIG!
Gopher State One Call
Twin Cities Metro Area: 612.454.0002
Minnesota Toll Free: 800.252.1166
Residential Fences,
Hedges, Retaining Walls
Locate Property Lines. Be certain of
where your property lines are before you
install any fence or dig fence-post holes.
Power poles, trees, existing fences and
other physical objects do not always
indicate or mark true property corners or
boundaries. Locate where your front yard
ends and the public right-of-way/
boulevard begins, as lots seldom border
the street. It is worth the investment to
have a registered surveyor or engineer
assist with locating property lines. The
City does not provide this service.
Neighborhood Considerations. The City
recommends you discuss with adjoining
neighbors your intent of installing a fence
along any shared property line, and
indicate where you intend to install the
fence. The City will not arbitrate neighbor
property line disputes, as this is a civil
matter between neighbors. If you find
yourself involved in a property line dispute
or concern on the location of a fence, you
may contact Community Mediation
Services at (763) 561-0033 to help resolve
any disputes or differences. Community
Mediation Services is a non-profit
organization that provides low and no-
cost mediation services to Northern and
Western Hennepin County residents.
BE SAFE! Before you dig, please contact
Gopher State One-Call at (800) 252-1166
or [www.gopherstateonecall.org.] to help
locate and mark underground utility lines.
This is a FREE service to all residents
provided by the local utility companies.
City Contact Information
Fence Regulations & Enforcement
Community Development Dept.
(763) 569-3330
Zoning Regulations
Community Development Dept.
(763) 569-3330
Building Permit Requirements
Community Development Dept.
(763) 569-3330
After-Hours or Weekend Reporting of an
Immediate Safety Hazard
Police Department
911 (Officer Assistance &
Emergencies)
This brochure contains general
information about fence
requirements and is intended as a guide
only. Other regulations and
requirements may apply.
City codes are available on the
city website at
www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199
Phone: (763) 569-3300
TTY/Voice: 711
Fax: (763) 569-3360
www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org
Revised 3-6-19
Proper placement and construction of
your fence will assure your fence meets
community standards.
Permits. No permit is required for any
fence 7-ft. in height or less. However, a
building permit is required for:
all fences over 7-ft. in height;
retaining walls that exceed 4-ft. in height
measured from the bottom of the footing;
retaining walls less than 4-ft. in height
holding back retained soil or other
materials.
It is recommended that a fence be located
6 to 12-inches inside the property line in
order to provide lawn and maintenance
service on both sides of the fence.
No fence or wall shall be placed in the
public right-of-way or street boulevard.
This is for safety and for utility/street
maintenance.
The City of Brooklyn Center recommends
that the finished side of the fence be
placed on the outside.
Fences or retaining walls should be
constructed of durable materials such as
rust-resistant metal, masonry, poly-vinyl,
pressure treated wood, or wood naturally
resistant to decay such as cedar and
redwood. The use of barbed wire, hog/pen
wire, or electric fences is not permitted.
No fence, hedge, wall, or other safety
hazard shall be allowed which creates an
unsafe sight obstruction for pedestrian or
vehicles. (City Code 35-400.8.a). Refer to
the following “Clear-View Triangle”
information in this brochure.
Height Limitations. Opaque fences,
hedges, or walls along front yard property
lines bordering streets shall not exceed 4-ft.
in height, except when located along an
interior property line.
Fences, hedges, or walls may exceed 4-ft. A
building permit is required when the height
of the fence exceeds 7-ft.
Clear-View Triangle. On corner lots,
fences are not allowed in the clear view or
sight triangle, defined as an area bounded
by the corner property lines and a straight
line joining points along said corner lot lines
25-ft. from their intersection - OR - 55-ft.
along the intersecting street curb lines. The
above diagram includes a typical corner
sight triangle.
Nothing shall be erected, placed, planted,
maintained, or allowed to grow which will
impede vision between 2.5 ft. to 10 ft. above
the center line of the street in the sight
triangle. This includes 4-ft. fences or shrubs.
(City Code 35-560.)
BROOKLYN PARK
"Listen Respectfully, Think
Ahead, Act Responsibly"
TRAFFIC VISABILITY
No fences, shall be permitted to exceed
thirty inches (30”) in height within any front
or side yard areas on a corner lot which
may interfere with the visibility across the
corner. A minimum sight triangle shall be
established on each corner lot at every
street intersection through which motorists
shall have reasonable unobstructed view.
The adjacent sides shall be located along
the curb line or along the gutter line of
streets without curb and gutter, and shall be
fifty feet (50’) in length. The third side shall
be a straight line joining the end points of
the adjacent sides. The City may order re-
moval of vision obstructions located within
the minimum sight triangle.
RESIDENTIAL FENCE REQUIREMENTS
PERMIT NOT REQUIRED: Building permits are
not required for the construction of fences which
are seven feet (7’) in height or less.
LOCATIONS
Fences shall be located entirely upon
the private property of the persons con-
structing the fence unless the owner of
the property adjoining agrees, in writing,
that such fence may be erected on the
division line of the respective properties.
The City may require the owner of prop-
erty with an existing fence to establish
the boundary lines of his property by a
survey. The owner of the property is re-
sponsible for verifying their property
lines.
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
Fences shall be constructed in a workmanlike
manner and of substantial material reasonably
suited for its intended purpose. Every fence
shall be maintained on both sides in a condition
of good repair and shall not be allowed to be-
come or remain in a condition of disrepair or dan-
ger, or constitute a nuisance, public or private.
Any such fence which is, or has become, dan-
gerous to the City health or welfare, or is a public
nuisance, the City may commence proper pro-
ceedings for the abatement thereof. Electrical
fences shall not be permitted. Barbed wire fenc-
es shall only be permitted on farms or for special
security requirements by Conditional Use Permit.
Residential
Fences
DIAGRAM OF FENCE HEIGHTS AND BUILDABLE AREAS
Property Line
6’ Max. Fence Hgt.
Nothing exceeding
30” in height
allowed in this area.
Buildable area line
8’ Max. Fence Hgt.
50’
50’
Curb Street House Fence Line
Property Line
Street
Front Yard
42” Max. Fence Hgt.
HEIGHT LIMITATIONS
Except as provided herein, fences outside
the buildable area of a lot may not exceed six
feet (6’) in height.
Except as provided herein, fences within
the buildable area of a lot or in the case of the
rear lot line at least ten feet (10’) from the rear
lot line, may not exceed eight feet (8’) in
height. Fences over 7’ in height require a
building permit.
Fences extending across front yards shall
not exceed three and one-half feet (3½’) in
height and shall be at least seventy five per-
cent (75%) open space for passage of air and
light.
"Listen Respectfully, Think
Ahead, Act Responsibly"
Minnesota State law requires that
anyone digging in the vicinity of buried
underground utilities call Gopher State
One Call to have them located. You
must call at least 48 hours before you
plan to dig. (651) 454-0002 You are
responsible for locating all private, un-
derground utilities. A private locating
service list is available at
www.Gopherstateonecall.org
CALL BEFORE YOU DIG;
IT’S THE LAW!!
RESIDENTIAL FENCE REQUIREMENTS
100 Civic Center Parkway
Burnsville, MN 55337-3817
Phone: (952) 895-4444
Fax: (952) 895-4512
permits@burnsvillemn.gov
Fences for special purpose
and fences differing in con-
struction, height or length may
be permitted in any district by
Conditional Use Permit. Find-
ings shall be made that the fence is necessary to
protect, better or improve the premises.
SPECIAL PURPOSE FENCES
Residents of Burns-
ville who wish to in-
stall a fence are
urged to relay their
intentions to their
abutting neighbors
and agree on exact
property line loca-
tions. With wood fences, it is suggested that
they be located so that both sides of the fence
can be maintained without leaving your prop-
erty. Also, fences with one finished side
should be located towards your neighbors.
GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY
All swimming pools for which a permit
is required and granted shall be provid-
ed with safeguards to prevent children
from gaining uncontrolled access. This
can be accomplished with fencing,
screening or other enclosure, or any
combination thereof, of sufficient density as to be
impenetrable.
If fences are employed, they shall be at least
four feet (4‘) in height. The bottoms of the fences
shall not be more than four inches from the
ground. Fences shall be of a noncorrosive mate-
rial and shall be constructed so as to be not easi-
ly climbable. All fence openings or points of entry
into the pool enclosure shall be equipped with
gates or doors. All gates or doors to swimming
pools shall be equipped with self-closing and self-
latching devices placed at a sufficient height so
as to be inaccessible to small children.
SWIMMING POOL PROTECTION
CITY OF CHASKA FENCE PERMIT APPLICATION
.:
Site Address: __________________________________________ Permit No _________________
Installer: __________________________________________ Date: _________________
__________________________________________ __(______)_________________
Installer’s Address Installer’s Phone
______________________ __________________
City State Zip
Signed: _________________________________________
REQUIRED SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS:
Site plan showing fence location Description of fence
ZONING:
All ‘R’ (Residential) Classifications: Sec. 9.20.3
Rear Boundary Fence: Shall not exceed six (6) feet in height within the limits of the rear yard, except where
rear yard access from the principal building is achieved from an entrance/exit to a
side yard. In such instances, a six (6) foot boundary fence is permitted in the side
yard to a distance not greater than three (3) feet beyond the entrance/exit in the
direction of the front yard. [Sec. 9.20.3.2 (b)]
Decorative Fence: Shall not exceed four (4) feet in height within the limits of the front and side yards.
Shall have an opacity of no greater than 50 percent. (This is the only type of fence
allowed within the limits of the front and side yards.) A decorative fence erected on a
corner lot shall be subject to additional traffic visibility requirements in Sec. 9.20.3.3.
Privacy Fence: Shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height. Located only within the buildable area
of the rear yard. (Shall meet rear and side yard setbacks.)
Commercial, Industrial, and Public: See City Planner and Sec. 9.20.4.
General Information:
•The side of the fence considered to be the face shall face abutting property. The face shall be defined
as the finished side of the fence rather than the side with structural supports. [Sec. 9.20.2 (a)]
•There is a 10 feet fence setback from all public trails.
CITY OF CHASKA ONE CITY HALL PLAZA CHASKA, MN 55318
ph: (952) 448-9200 fax: (952) 448-9300 website: www.chaskamn.com
Approved for Issuance by: Fee: $10.00
__________________________
Initials
__________________________
Date
[Sec. 9.20.3.2]
[Sec. 9.20.3.3]
[Sec. 9.20.3.4]
It is the homeowner’s responsibility to locate property corners to show that the fence is located on their
property.
For City of Chaska Use Only
Paid by: Check Accepted by:_______________
Cash Dated: _______________
BLDGDEPT\NEWFORMS\PERMITAPPLICATIONS REVISED APRIL 2011
RESIDENTIAL FENCES
Installation Criteria
Fence, as defined by ordinance, is any partition, structure, wall, or gate erected as a dividing
marker, barrier, or enclosure and located within a boundary or within the required yard.
Fences are allowed in any required yard or along any property line. The entire fence structure
and supporting footings must be within the property boundaries. The owner of a fence is
responsible for verifying the location of their property lines.
Fence height is limited to a maximum of six feet along rear or side property boundary lines and
four feet in the front yard. If the fence is within 15 feet from the front property line, then the
fence must be less than 30 inches in height and not less than 50 percent transparent . Fences
for agricultural uses must not be greater than six feet above grade level and may be located
along all property boundary lines.
A fence cannot obstruct the safe view from any driveway or street. On corner lots, no structure
or planting in excess of 30 inches above the curb line or less than ten feet above the curb line is
permitted within the clear view triangle. A clear view triangle is described as that area that
begins at the intersection of the front or rear property line and corner side property line and is
measured back 10 feet along both property lines. Those points are then connected with a
straight line.
Clear View Triangle
Fences are allowed in drainage and utility easements, but repair or replacement is the
responsibility of the homeowner should construction activity be required with in the easement.
Fences must be setback a minimum of one foot from a public walkway.
Community Development Department Telephone: 651-458-2827
12800 Ravine Parkway South Fax: 651-458-2897
Cottage Grove, MN 55016
www.cottagegrovemn.gov
E-mail: building@cottagegrovemn.gov
planning@cottagegrovemn.gov
Fencing construction material types are not currently regulated by the City, but it is required that
all fencing be kept structurally sound and maintained in good condition.
The finished side of a fence must face abutting property or public right-of-way. No fence can
have boards, planks, or panels larger than one foot in width.
All chain link fences must have a top rail, barbed ends must be placed at the bottom of the
fence, and vertical posts must be spaced at intervals not to exceed ten feet.
Barbed wire and electrical fences are allowed for parcels that are five or more acres in area and
used to fence livestock. Razor wire fences are prohibited in all districts .
Fences are required around swimming pools having a depth greater than 18 inches. The
minimum required height is 4 feet. Any gates must be self -closing/latching and capable of being
locked.
A building permit is not required for the installation of fences. However, you must call Gopher
State One Call at 651-454-0002 before you dig to identify any underground utility locations.
The above information is excerpted from Cottage Grove City Code Titles 11-3-4, 11-3-5, 11-6-7,
and 9-11-4. Other criteria may apply where development restrictions and private covenants
prevail.
3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD | EAGAN, MN 55122-1810
(651) 675-5675 TDD: (651) 454-8535 FAX: (651) 675-5694 buildinginspections@cityofeagan.com
FENCES
This handout is written only as a guide; it is not intended nor shall it be considered a complete set of requirements.
Information sheets are available at the City's Building Inspections Division or on www.cityofeagan.com.
CALL BEFORE YOU DIG. Call Gopher State One Call at (651) 454-0002 for protection against underground utility damage.
Call 48 hours before you intend to dig to receive locates of underground utilities. www.gopherstateonecall.org
Required Permits
A Zoning Permit is required for residential fences.
A Building Permit is required for commercial fences greater than seven (7) feet in
height.
Height
The City requires a maximum height of six feet (6’) for residential property and a
maximum of eight feet (8’) for commercial property. Fences that extend into front or
side yards must not impair traffic visibility or exceed forty two inches (42”) in height.
Installation The finished side of all fences shall face away from the fence owner’s lot.
Property Lines & Setbacks
It is the responsibility of the homeowner to determine property lines prior to installing
a fence. All portions of a fence, including the footings, must be installed inside the
property line.
Easements
A fence may be allowed in an easement. Please contact the Engineering
Department at (651) 675-5646 regarding easements before the installation of your
fence.
Boulevard Contact the City of Eagan’s Engineering Department at (651) 675-5646 regarding
boulevard widths (see diagram below).
Maintenance See reverse side.
Covenants
The City of Eagan does not enforce covenants; however, you should contact the
Dakota County Government Center at (651) 437-3191 to find out if there are
covenants regulating fencing in your subdivision.
House
#
Curb
#
Property Line
(Fence Line)
30 feet30 Feet#
Nothing exceeding 30" high
allowed in this area StreetStreet6' maximum
fence height
42" maximum
fence height
2 of 2
Construction and Maintenance
Every fence shall be maintained in accordance with the building and structure safety and appearance regulations
noted below.
No temporary fence, such as a snow fence or an erosion control fence, shall be permitted on any property for a
period in excess of thirty (30) days unless otherwise approved by the City for good cause.
Above ground electric boundary fences shall be permitted only in the Agriculture (A) district when the property
is an active farm.
The finished side of all fences shall face away from the fence owner’s lot.
Residential District Fences
In parts of the City that are zoned residential, boundary fences shall be subject to the following requirements:
Fences on all corner lots erected within thirty feet (30’) of the intersecting curb line shall be subject to traffic
visibility requirements noted below.
In side or rear yards, fences shall not exceed a maximum height of six feet (6’).
In front yards, fences shall not exceed forty-two inches (42”) in height.
Barbed wire fences shall be permitted only in non-residential zoning districts.
Commercial District Fences
In parts of the City that are zoned commercial, boundary fences shall be subject to the following requirements:
Property line fences within all business and industrial districts shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height, except by
Conditional Use Permit.
Traffic Visibility
On all corner lots in all districts, no structure or planting in excess of thirty (30) inches above the abutting curb line
shall be permitted within a triangular area defined as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the project curb
lines of two intersecting streets, thence thirty (30) feet along one curb diagonally to a point 30 feet from the point
of beginning of the other curb line, thence to the point of beginning.
Building and Structure Appearance and Maintenance Requirements
For purpose of this section, “fence” means a ny structure, wall, or gate erected as a permanent dividing marker, partition,
visual or physical barrier, or enclosure, excluding any permitted temporary fence , within a parcel of land regardless if the
parcel is platted or unplatted.
Any fence is a public nuisance if it does not comply with the following requirements:
The fence shall be firmly fastened and anchored in order that it is not leaning or otherwise in the stage of
collapse.
The fence shall be maintained in sound and good repair and free from d eterioration, loose or rotting pieces, or
holes, breaks, or gaps not otherwise intended in the original design of the fence. The fence shall be free from any
defects or condition which makes the fence hazardous.
All exterior wood surfaces of any fence, ot her than decay resistant woods, shall be protected from the elements
by paint or other protective surface covering or treatment, which shall be maintained in good repair to provide the
intended protection from the elements.
No fence section shall have peeling, cracked, chipped or otherwise deteriorated surface finish, including but not
limited to: paint or other protective covering or treatment, on more than twenty percent (20%) of any one linear
ten-foot (10’) section of the fence.
EDINA FENCE REGS.
2.What regulations apply to fences?
Residential Fencing Regulations?
In the City of Edina Fences cannot exceed four (4) feet in height in the front yard and side
street setback areas.
In the City of Edina maximum fence height in the side and rear yard is six (6) feet.
Finished side of fence is to face neighboring properties.
If a corner lot, or lot with special circumstances (i.e. abutting commercial, industrial or busy
street) please contact the Planning Division at 952-826-0369.
The City of Edina requires pools to be entirely fenced with a non-climbable fence with a
minimum height of four (4) feet. The fence gate is to be self-closing and self-latching.
City of Farmington Fences
430 Third Street Information Sheet
Farmington, MN 55024 Questions? Please call 651-280-6822
City Code Section 10-6-12: Fences
Fences shall be permitted in all yards subject to the following:
(A)Residential Fence Heights: In residential districts four foot (4') fences may be located on any lot line
except that fences on interior lots may be six feet (6') in height on the side and rear lot lines beginning at
the nearest front corner of the principal building.
(B)Corner Lots: Fences up to six feet (6') in height may be constructed on the side and rear lot lines behind
the nearest front corner of the principal building subject to the following:
1.The front corner of the principal building is defined as beginning at the widest point of the structure's
front street facing foundation as determined by its street address.
2.No fence over four feet (4') in height shall be located within the triangle of visibility which is that
area within a triangle created by measuring from a point on the curb or edge of the street closest to the
center of the intersection, down the front curb lines or edge of the intersecting streets thirty feet (30'),
and then connecting these end points with a straight line.
3.When a fence is adjacent to a driveway of a neighboring lot, a 5 feet triangle of visibility or a 5 feet
setback along the street side shall be provided at the intersecting lot lines.
(C)Varying Setbacks: Should the fence be located between principal buildings with varying setbacks on
adjacent lots, a fence up to six feet (6') in height may not extend beyond the average setback of the two
(2)buildings.
(D)Variance: A variance is required for fences over six feet (6') and up to eight feet (8') in height when
constructed within the buildable areas of lots in residential districts.
(E)Commercial And Industrial Districts: Fences located within commercial and industrial districts may be
located on any lot line up to a height of eight feet (8') except in the required front yard.
(F)Site Plan; Building Permit: A site plan or legal survey with the location of the proposed fence shall be
submitted to the Building Inspection Division for approval for all fences over four feet (4') in height. An
application for a building permit is required for all fences exceeding seven feet (7') in height.
(G)Materials: Fences in all districts, except agricultural, shall be constructed of materials widely accepted
in the fencing industry. No plywood boards, canvas, plastic sheeting, metal sheeting or similar material
shall be used for any fence construction.
(H)Maintenance: All fences shall be maintained in good condition and vertical position, and any missing or
deteriorated wood slats, pickets, other fencing material, or structural elements shall be replaced in a
timely manner with the same quality of material and workmanship.
The City of Farmington does not provide surveying services to locate property corners; it is the
homeowner’s responsibility to identify property lines. A survey of your property may be on file at City
Hall. Placement of fences must be totally within the property boundary. Fences may tie into adjoining
properties with the written permission and understanding of both property owners; current and future
property owners should be made aware of any agreement(s).
Homeowners with corner lots may place their fence along the property line when an adjacent homeowner’s
driveway is not adjacent to the fence. In the case that a driveway is adjacent to a proposed fence one of the
following two options must be used.
5' f rom
co rne r of P L
Allows Angle of Visibility to Street6' f enc e
Hou se
Hou se
Drive w ay
Driv e wayStreet
Street
PL (p ro per ty lin e)curbcu rbboulevardbouleva rd
wi dest po int of ho us e
Option 1: With Adjacent Driveway
Fence Angled at Property Corner 5 feet
Allows Angle of Visibility to Street6' f enc e
Hou se
Hou se
Drive w ay
Driv e wayStreet
Street
PL (p ro per ty lin e)curbcu rbboulevardbouleva rd
wi dest po int of ho us e5' from property lineOption 2: With Adjacent Driveway
Fence set 5 feet from Property Line
Hou s e
Drive wa y
Street
Hou s e
6' F en ce
W id es t Po rtion o f H o use
Interior Lot
HOPKINS - FENCES
Residential Fences
Before building a fence in Hopkins, you must have a fence permit. Complete the Fence Permit
Application (PDF) and return with $10 permit fee to Hopkins City Hall.
Requirements
The following is a summary of zoning code requirements for residential fences in Hopkins. For
complete information, see Hopkins City Code 520.13 (PDF).
Location
Boundary line fences must be located entirely on your private property unless the owner of the
adjoining property agrees, in writing, that a fence may be built on the division line of both
properties. The City may require any applicant for a fence permit to establish the boundary lines
of his/her property by a survey to be made by any registered land surveyor.
Fence Height
In a residential district, no boundary line fence can be more than 4 feet in height except in the
following cases:
Side Property Lines
A fence on a side property line can be as tall as 6 feet for the distance starting from the rear lot
line and going to a point where it meets the rear wall line of the house on either side of the
fence. If there is more than one rear wall line, this point is determined by the one closest to the
rear property line (See illustration, line B).
If a house on an adjacent lot is located within 50 feet of the fence line and its rear wall line is
closer to the rear property line of the fence, that determines the point from which the fence can
no longer exceed 4 feet in height. See illustration, lines A and B).
Rear Property Line Abutting Rear Property Line
Fences along any rear property line which is also the rear property line of an abutting lot can be
as tall as 6 feet.
Rear Property Line Abutting Side Lot Line
Fences along a rear property line which is the side lot line of an abutting lot can be as tall as 6
feet for a distance calculated as in "Side Property Lines" above. Otherwise they can not exceed
4 feet in height.
Side Street Lot Lines
Fences on side street lot lines can be as tall as 6 feet for the distance starting from the rear lot
line and proceeding to a point 40 feet distant from the front lot line. In no case can the fence
extend forward of the front line of the house. (See illustration, line C.)
Corner Lots
Fences on any corner lot erected within 30 feet of the intersecting curb line are subject
to Hopkins City Code 520.11 (PDF) (Traffic Visibility).
Enclosing Swimming Pools
Fences enclosing swimming pools must be at least 4 feet in height and not more than 6 feet,
subject to the other provisions listed here.
Construction
A fence must be constructed in a substantial, workmanlike manner and of material suitable for
the fence's purpose.
Link Fences: Link fences, wherever permitted, will be constructed so that the barbed end is at the
bottom of the fence and the knuckle end is at the top.
Fence support: The side of the fence facing the public right-of-way cannot contain the structure and/or
support of the fence.
Barbed Wire: Barbed wire fences are permitted only in areas zoned as industrial districts. (See zoning
maps on the Hopkins Zoning page.)
Open Space on Fence Plane
Residential fences must be constructed so that at least 25% of the plane between the ground
and the top of the fence is open. In calculating the percentage, distances of 50 feet may be
averaged beginning at the permitted point opposite the house.
Wood fence and chain link fence - 25% open.
The side(s) of residential properties next to a state or county road may have an opaque fence.
Maintenance
Your fence must be kept in good condition. Poorly kept fences will not be allowed. Any fence
which becomes dangerous to public safety, health or welfare will be considered a public
nuisance and the City may start proper proceedings for an abatement.
10/16/2017
CITY OF HUDSON
505 3RD STREET
HUDSON WI 54016-1694
FAX (715)386-3385
www.ci.hudson.wi.us
FENCE PERMIT
APPLICATION
DAVID GRAY
BUILDING INSPECTOR
(715)386-4775, ext. 132
dgray@ci.hudson.wi.us
RHETT BORNER
ASST BUILDING INSPECTOR
(715)386-4775, ext. 147
rborner@ci.hudson.wi.us
Owner's Name
Telephone (Daytime) Email or Fax
Mailing Address
Applicant's Name (if different than owner)
Telephone (Daytime) Email or Fax
Mailing Address
Building/Site Address for Fence Location
Type of Fence (Material):
Height (specify inches/feet)
New Replacement
State any special circumstances which should be considered:
ANTICIPATED START DATE:
In area below (or as an attachment), provide a site plan showing the shape of your lot with dash lines; house, garage and/or other
buildings in approximate location, and proposed fence location with a solid line. The city may have a site plan for your property
on file to assist you in developing your plan.
NOTE: It is the responsibility of the applicant and/or owner for location of the fence so that it is placed on the
owner's property. The Public Works Department shall review fence applications located near alleyways.
Diggers Hotline (800-242-8511) shall be called prior to digging any holes.
The owner/applicant agrees to comply with Chapter 106-16 and all other applicable Municipal Code requirements; understands
that the issuance of the permit creates no legal liability on the City and certifies that all of the submitted information is accurate.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT__________________________________________DATE___________________
Nonrefundable Application Fee of $30.00 (CASH OR CHECK ONLY) is due with application.
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
Planning Department
1902 County Road B East
Maplewood, Minnesota 55109
Phone (651) 249-2300 Fax (651) 249-2319
www.MaplewoodMN.gov
FENCING
GUIDELINES
Building permits are not
required for fences 6 feet
tall or under.
Barbed wire is prohibited
except in farm zones where
livestock is raised.
You may adjoin your fence to your
neighbor’s fence with written
consent of your neighbor.
A fence in the front yard or
along a public street that is at
least 80% opaque (solid) must
be approved by the city.
There are no regulations on
most types of fence
materials.
The fence and all
supports must be
built on your own
property (not on
your neighbor’s).
Fences over 2.5 feet tall in the
front yard on corner lots cannot
be located within the triangular
area bounded by the property
lines located 25 feet from a point
of intersection of the property
lines on 2 intersecting streets.
Property Line
No fence setback
is required from
any property line.
Supports
must be on
the inside of
the fence.
Front Property Line
Street
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
1584 Hadley Avenue N
Oakdale, MN 55128
Phone: 651-739-5150
Fax: 651-730-2820
www.ci.oakdale.mn.us
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
PAYMENT RECEIVED IN FORM OF
CHECK (# ) CASH
CC (# )
Visa MC Disc.
PERMIT NUMBER:
FENCE INSTALLATION APPLICATION
JOB INFORMATION
Job Address:
Type of Fence: Corner Lot: Yes No
A. Submit a site plan for the whole property and indicate the location of the proposed fence.
B. Fences greater than six (6) feet in height require a certificate of survey and the permit holder must locate the
survey stakes and identify the boundary line. OR have a registered land surveyor locate the property stakes.
APPLICANT INFORMATION
Applicant:
Day Phone: Cell Phone:
Address:
City: State: Zip:
Check One: Property Owner Contractor
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF OWNER
I hereby acknowledge the following:
A. I have reviewed and understand the requirements of Oakdale Ordinance Chapter 25, Article 18, Section 25-
159 regarding the construction and maintenance of fences.
B. I will build my permitted fence entirely on my property and in accordance with the ordinance. The fence will
not encroach onto adjacent properties.
C. When installing any part of this permitted fence into an easement, the City of Oakdale or any entity permitted
to use the easement, shall be held harmless for any breakage or disrepair to the fence that might occur when
work is performed in the easement. In addition, the City of Oakdale is not responsible or liable for the
reinstallation of any fence removed.
Applicant Signature (if not owner): Date:
Owner Signature: Date:
FOR CITY USE ONLY
6 ft. or less $40.00 permit fee $
Over 6 ft. $50.00 permit fee $
Fire Surcharge $6.00 fire surcharge $ 6.00
TOTAL FEES DUE $
APPROVALS
Bldg Dept. Date
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
1584 Hadley Avenue N
Oakdale, MN 55128
Phone: 651-739-5150
Fax: 651-730-2820
www.ci.oakdale.mn.us
RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A FENCE
(Owner’s Copy)
All Fences
1. Fence permits are required for all property line fence installations.
2. Fence height: Maximum 4 feet in front yards; Maximum 8 feet in rear yards
3. The more attractive side of the fence faces the neighbor and the most exposed area of the fence
post faces the permitted resident.
4. Fences on corner lots shall be given special consideration for traffic sight lines. The inspection is to
be performed before the permit is issued. Owners must stake the location of the fence on their
property, then call 651-739-5150 for an inspection.
Fences over six (6) feet
1. Fences greater than six (6) feet in height require a certificate of survey and the permit holder must
locate the survey stakes and identify the boundary line. OR have a registered land surveyor locate
the property stakes.
2. A footing inspection is required after all postholes are dug and before posts are installed. All survey
pins are to be shown and visible to the inspector at the time of the footing inspection.
3. A minimum 42” frost footings are required.
BEFORE YOU DIG – CALL
GOPHER ONE: 811
This handout is written as a guide to common questions and problems.
It is not intended nor shall it be considered a complete set of requirements.
City of Richfield ● 6700 Portland Avenue South
Inspections Division (612) 861-9860 ● Planning & Zoning Division (612) 861-9760
Revised 2017
Fences, Walls,
and Hedges
Building Inspections
The Minnesota State Building Code and Richfield City Code provide minimum standards for creating an
environment of health and safety for all Richfield residents.
The Richfield City Code has general provisions about fences, walls and hedges in residential areas:
Definitions:
“Hedge” – A row of shrubbery which forms or is intended to form a barrier.
“Wall” – This term includes retaining walls, freestanding walls, and decorative or privacy walls.
Where can I place a fence on my lot?
Your property line is typically 12 – 14 feet behind the curb. Fences may be constructed on
private property up to, but not on, the property line. (Your side of the property line). If, however,
the fence will be located along a public right of way containing a street, alley, or sidewalk, it may be
placed on private property at a location at least three feet from the nearest edge of the street, alley or
sidewalk.
Fences are not encouraged on City property and may not be placed in the right-of-way without first
obtaining a permit from the City of Richfield Engineering Division (612-861-9793).
Height:
Fence height is measured to include the body of the fence, plus allowing a maximum of six inches (on
average between posts) above the natural grade (i.e. for drainage purposes). Fence posts are
permitted to extend a maximum of six inches above the body of the fence.
No fence, wall, or hedge more than four feet in height shall be constructed or permitted to grow forward
of the front line of the principal building extended to the side lot lines;
No fence or wall more than six feet in height shall be constructed elsewhere on the lot except that in “C-
2” and “I” Zoning Districts, the maximum height shall be eight feet. A building permit is required for
fences and walls over seven feet in height; and
Whenever a fence or wall is used in combination, or placed upon a berm, the combined height shall not
exceed the permitted heights outlined in the above paragraphs.
Prohibitions:
Barbed wire and electric wire fences are prohibited in all districts. Fences shall not be constructed from
chicken wire, welded wire, branches, or materials originally intended for other purposes, unless a
showing of a high degree of architectural quality is achieved through the use of such, and prior
approvals granted by the Director.
This handout is written as a guide to common questions and problems.
It is not intended nor shall it be considered a complete set of requirements.
City of Richfield ● 6700 Portland Avenue South
Inspections Division (612) 861-9860 ● Planning & Zoning Division (612) 861-9760
Revised 2017
Chain link:
Chain link fences shall have a top rail and the barbed ends shall be toward the ground. Inserts or
slats, which are woven through such fences, shall be kept in a good state of repair.
Posts:
Posts and stringers on any fence located on or near the lot line shall be on the inside of the fenced
area unless designed as an integral part of the fence. Posts for wooden fences shall be spaced at
intervals not to exceed eight feet. Posts for chain link fences shall be spaced at intervals not to
exceed ten feet.
Corner lots:
Fences, walls and hedges located on any corner lot are subject to traffic visibility regulations. No fence,
wall, or hedge greater than 30 inches in height (above the abutting curb line of the intersecting streets)
shall be placed in the “sight triangle” area, as shown on the diagram below.
Construction and maintenance:
All fences and walls shall be constructed of durable, weather resistant materials which are properly
anchored. All fences and walls shall be maintained in a condition of reasonable repair and shall
not be allowed to become and remain in a condition of disrepair, danger, or constitut e a nuisance.
A permit is not required for fences, walls, or hedges less than 7 feet in height, but they must meet
all of these guidelines.
Call Gopher State One Call prior to digging postholes – call 811 or (651) 454-0002.
Updated May 10, 2016
Rosemount City Hall
2875 145th Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Fence Information
Permits Permits are required for all fences installed in Rosemount. Fence permit fees are
$75.00
Plan Submittals Include permit application and a drawing of your property indicating
where your fence is to be placed.
Maximum Height The maximum height of any fence installed within the City of
Rosemount is 6 feet. Fences installed around swimming pools from
ground up must be a minimum of 4 feet high and non-climbable with a
self-closing/self latching gate.
Setbacks All fences may be installed up to but not on the property line. For
setback information on properties that have wetlands or ponding areas
call Engineering at 651-322-2055.
Establish property lines The City of Rosemount does not provide surveying services. It is up to
the homeowner to establish the location of the lines and make these
available upon request of the inspector.
Special consideration Fences that extend into front yards of corner lots MUST NOT impair
traffic visibility. See figure #1. Fences that extend into rear yards must
consider abutting properties. If your rear yard abuts adjacent properties
front yard then the fence in the front yard setback area must not exceed
42 inches.
Covenants The City of Rosemount does not enforce the private covenants of
subdivisions. Homeowners should always check the covenants in their
areas for additional fence requirements.
Inspections A final inspection is required upon completion for all fences. The city
reviewed plans must be onsite during the final inspection.
Example Plot Plan
City of South St. Paul
City of South St. Paul
Permit & Inspections Department
125 3rd Avenue North
South St. Paul, MN 55075
Phone: 651-554-3220
Fax: 651-554-3211
www.southstpaul.org
FENCE CHECKLIST
A permit is required when installing a
fence on your property.Listed below
are the requirements that need to be
met in order to obtain a permit.
Requirements:
Permit Application:Along with the
permit application you must submit
a plot plan that shows the following
information:
A.Location of fence
B.Height of fence
C.Type of fence material
Permit Review:The City Planner
must review all fence permits for
approval.
Permit Fee:The fee for a fence
permit is $30.00,payable to the
City of South St. Paul.
Height (Residential):Fences along
side and rear property lines shall
be a maximum height of 6 feet
(measured from the existing
grade).
Fences along front and side
property lines within the front
setback area shall be a maximum
height of 42 inches.
*If your property is on a corner lot
further restrictions may apply.
Fence Material:The following
materials are approved for fence
construction:
- Wrought iron
- Aluminum (wrought iron design)
- Wood
- Vinyl
-Chain link with approved posts
and cap
The following materials are not
approved for fence construction:
- Farm fence of any kind
- T-posts and pipes
Property Lines:The property
owner is responsible for verification
of the property lines.
Water Meter:If the water meter
reader is inside the fence area,the
City will move it at no charge to
outside of the fence area.Please
call the City at (651)554-3225 to
have it moved.
Additional Information
An inspection of the fence is
required when the installation is
complete.
All fences shall be kept in good
repair,painted,and well
maintained.
The side of the fence considered to
be the face (finished side as
opposed to structural supports)
shall face abutting property.
No fences shall be permitted on
public right-of-ways.
Fences may be placed along
property lines provided no physical
damage of any kind results to the
abutting property.
Please Note:Items listed in this
brochure are intended for informational
purposes,further building and/or
zoning code guidelines or restrictions
may be applicable.
WHERE DO I OBTAIN A
PERMIT?
Building Inspections
City of South St. Paul
125 3rd Avenue North
South St. Paul, MN 55075
QUESTIONS?
Please contact our office between the
hours of 8:00 a.m.and 4:30 p.m.at
651-554-3220.
CALL BEFORE YOU DIG
Verify underground utility locations at
least 2 days before you dig.Call
Gopher State One at (651) 454-0002.
CITY OF SOUTH ST. PAUL
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 1269
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING REGULATIONS FOR FENCES AS
REGULATED IN THE SOUTH ST. PAUL CITY CODE
The City Council of the City of South St. Paul does ordain:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. South St. Paul City Code Section 118-199 Fences, is hereby
amended as follows:
Sec. 118-199. – Fences and Walls.
Fences may be allowed in any district and are subject to the following:
(1)All fences shall be kept in good repair, painted, and well maintained. In the event a front yard
fence is adjacent to and parallel with the front lot line (or side lot line on the street side of a
corner lot), such fence shall be set back at least one foot from the street right-of-way line.
(2)Solid walls in excess of four feet above adjacent ground grades are prohibited.
(3)The side of the fence considered to be the face (finished side as opposed to structural
supports) shall face abutting property.
(4)No fences shall be permitted on public rights-of-way, except through an encroachment
agreement.
(5) Fences in easement areas shall not impede the flow of water. If the city needs to utilize the
easement, the fence will be removed and relocated at the expense of the property owner.
(6)Fences may be permitted along property lines subject to the following:
a.Fences may be placed along property lines provided no physical damage of any kind
results to abutting property. Property owners shall be responsible for verifying their
property lines by locating their property irons. If the irons cannot be located, the property
owners shall provide with City with either a notarized consent form provided by the City
and signed by the adjacent property owner(s) agreeing to the location of the common
property line(s) or a survey showing the location of the property line.
b.Fences in industrial districts may be erected to a maximum height of eight feet above
finished grade.
c.Fences in residential districts may be located on any side or rear lot line to a height of six
feet above finished grade.
d.Fences alongside and rear interior lot lines beginning at the rear behind the front building
line of the principal structure may be a maximum height of six feet in residential districts.
e.Should the rear lot line of a lot be common with the side lot line of an abutting lot, that
portion of the rear lot line equal to the required front yard setback of the abutting lot shall
not be fenced to a height of more than 42 inches.
(7)Fences may be permitted within required yards subject to the following:
a.Fences located within the side and rear yard non-buildable setback area beginning at the
rear behind the front building line shall not exceed six feet in height from the finished
grade in residential districts.
b.In residential districts, fences along or within the front non-buildable setback area may be
no more than 42 inches in height. On corner lots where the “front” of the house faces a
side yard, fences in the side yard on that “front” side of the house may be no more than
42 inches in height.
c.Fences located within the buildable area of a lot may be up to six feet in height.
d.Fences in industrial districts located within non-buildable setback areas shall not exceed
eight feet in height from finished grade.
e. Fences used for backstops for ballfields at public parks and playgrounds shall be exempt
from the fence height regulations mentioned above. Fences for tennis courts shall be in
accordance with Section 118-260.
f. Fences required for enclosures around swimming pools shall be in accordance with
Section 118-255.
g. Fences around community gardens for wildlife management that meet the following
criteria:
1. The garden is larger than 5,000 square feet;
2. The garden is used by more than 6 users;
3. The garden is not located on the same property as a single-family residence;
4. The fence is no higher than 8 feet;
5. The fence is not electrified;
6. The fence is made of material that complies with this section, except that plastic deer
fencing and welded/woven wire are considered permitted materials around a community
garden.
h. Fences as required around an airport for security or wildlife control shall be in accordance
with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations.
(8)Plans for the fence must be submitted to the city engineer for approval at the time of permit
application prior to the beginning of construction. The plans shall include the location of the
fence, type of material, method of anchoring, attaching and/or securing the fence and fencing
material.
(9)Fences on corner lots located in the traffic visibility triangle area shall be in accordance with
Section 118-246(c).
(10 8)The following materials are approved for fence construction:
a.Wrought iron;
b.Aluminum (wrought iron design);
c.Wood;
d.Vinyl/PVC, and Composite fencing (i.e. Trex); and
e.Chain-link with approved posts and cap.
(11)The following materials are not approved for fence construction:
a.Farm fence of any kind, which includes, but is not limited to woven or welded wire,
chicken wire, plastic deer fence, snow fence, steel bar fence, and similar type fencing,
except as allowed for community gardens.
b.T-posts and pipes
c.Barbed wire (except for security fences around power substations and airports).
SECTION 3.SUMMARY PUBLICATION. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. §412.191, in the case of a
lengthy ordinance, a summary may be published. While a copy of the entire ordinance is
available without cost at the office of the City Clerk, the following summary is approved by the
City Council and shall be published in lieu of publishing the entire ordinance:
The purpose of this ordinance is to establish that requests for fences shall include a
survey of the property or shall include written consent for the location of the property line from
the adjacent property owner, establish that fences in a side yard corner lot may not exceed 42
inches, and would allow composite fencing as a permitted material.
SECTION 4.EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and
after its passage and publication according to law.
Approved: May 6, 2013
Published: May 19, 2013
________________________
City Clerk
\\HEIGHTS\administration\Website\Forms & Applications\Building\docs\fencecover.doc
FENCING INFORMATION SHEET
Department of Building Safety
The City of Vadnais Heights
800 East County Road E • Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
Phone: 651.204.6015 • Fax: 651.204.6100
www.cityvadnaisheights.com
INFORMATION SHEET
Permits
Permits are required for the construction, addition, or alteration of any fence.
Building permit required for fences over 6 feet.
Zoning permit required for fences 6 feet or under.
Construction & Maintenance
• Fences shall be constructed in a workmanship like manner.
• Fences shall be maintained in a condition of reasonable repair.
• Fences shall have no barbed ends on the top except in industrial areas.
• The face or finished side of the fence must face abutting property.
• Electrical and barbed fences are prohibited except in functioning agricultural uses.
• Fences restricting access from a front yard to a back yard shall have a minimum 3-foot wide gate.
Heights
Fences in residential districts shall be a maximum of 6-feet high. Fences in front yards shall be a
maximum of 4-feet high.
Setbacks
Fences that are 25% or more open (opacity) may be constructed anywhere inside the boundary of the
subject property. Fences that are less than 25% open (opacity) are required to meet setbacks as required
for accessory structures.
Corner Lots
No fence or planting 30-inches or more in heights is permitted within the triangular vision area forty feet
from an intersection.
Rear/Side Lot Lines
Fences along a rear lot line, that is also a side lot line of an abutting property, shall be a maximum height
of 4 feet in the front setback area of the abutting property.
Tennis Courts
Chain link fences enclosing tennis courts may be a maximum of 10-feet high. A design must be
submitted for the construction details of any fence more than 6-feet high.
1
White Bear Lake Community Development Department
White Bear Area Department of Inspections
4701 Highway 61, White Bear Lake, MN 55110
Zoning 651-429-8561/Inspections 651-429-8518/Fax 651-429-8503
www.whitebearlake.org
Fences
January 2017
This handout is a summary of the permit & inspection process as well as standard requirements based on City Regulations
and State Building Code regarding Fences. Plans are subject to review and approval by the City Zoning Administrator and
Building Inspector for compliance with Code Requirements. Information contained herein does not contain all of the
specific codes for construction, and shall only be used as a guide.
NOTE: A fence permit is required for any fence four (4) feet and over in height. Fences under 48” in height, do not require
a permit but are required to follow the same guidelines listed below.
Permit Submission Requirements:
• Completed zoning permit application.
• Two copies of a Site Plan (which includes lot lines and dimensions, the location and dimensions of the principle
structure and any other relevant structure(s), location and dimensions of proposed fence, fence detail (height, style
and material of fence) and any additional information that may be required). See Site Plan Example.
• During busy times, permit approval may take approximately 7 to 10 business days. Please plan accordingly.
Fence Permit Fee: The permit fee is $50.00
Inspection Requirements: The inspection card and approved plans must be on site upon the start of work until the final
inspection has been performed and passed. All construction work shall remain accessible and exposed for inspection until
approved by the Building Inspection Department.
All required inspections will be listed on the permit card. A final inspection is required upon completion of project and
approvals for all other inspections have been complete; please call 651-429-8518 to schedule an inspection. A minimum of
24 hour notice is required for all inspections (time frame may lengthen during busy times).
*A fence footing & property pin exposure inspection is required prior to pouring concrete.
Information and Guidelines:
a) Solid walls in excess of four (4) feet above adjacent ground grades shall be prohibited. The term “solid wall” refers
to retaining walls or above grade walls constructed of stone, boulders, concrete, modular block or other similar
materials.
b) Fences shall be at least thirty (30) percent open through the structure to allow for passage of light, air, and wind or
have an approved foundation. Fences that are less than 30% open require a substantial footing to support the
fence during windy conditions. A substantial footing shall be a footing with a depth below grade equal to or
greater than 50% of the fence height.
c) Fences located within the buildable area of a lot may be up to eight (8) feet in height. (Principal structure setbacks,
not accessory structure setbacks.) No fences shall be permitted on public right-of-ways.
2
d) Fences may be permitted along property lines & within required non-buildable setback areas, subject to the
following:
e) Fences may be placed along (not on, but just inside of) property lines, provided no construction, grading, or
drainage damage results to abutting property.
f) Fences in commercial and industrial districts may be erected along the side and rear lot lines to a height of eight (8)
feet with or without a security arm for barbed wire. In no case shall a fence or security arm extension encroach
over the property line.
g) In residential districts, no fences or wall more than forty-eight (48) inches in height shall be constructed within any
required front yard. Near street intersections, visibility triangles may limit fence height to 36 inches (see Municiapl
Code Section 904.010).
h) On corner lots, in residential districts, a fence up to six (6) feet in height may be allowed within a front yard which
qualifies as an equivalent side yard abutting a public right-of-way, provided that it is set back at least 12 feet from
the property line and does not impede safety by obstructing vision for pedestrians or motor vehicle operators.
i) Chain link is not allowed in the front yards of residential property – it is allowed in rear and side yards only.
j) The property owner is responsible for providing proof of property line location. Existing survey stakes exposed at
grade level with a string pulled between the stakes to define the line is considered acceptable proof of property
line. Where property lines are not clearly defined, a certificate of survey may be required by the Zoning
Administrator to establish location of the property line. See “How to Find Your Property Pins” handout.
k) In those instances where a boundary line fence exists as an enclosure that restricts access from the front yard, a
gate, identifiable, collapsible section, or other such means of recognizable ingress shall be provided for emergency
vehicles. Such ingress points shall be unobstructed and a minimum of ten (10) feet in width. The location of such
ingress points shall be positioned at any point paralleling the front lot line, between the side lot property line and
the principle structure.
l) Chain link fences (without slat screens) used for the enclosure of tennis courts or other such recreational purposes
shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height and shall be located in a rear yard only.
m) Pool safety fencing for in-ground or above-ground pools shall meet the pool safety barrier requirements. See pool
handout.
n) Every fence shall be constructed in a substantial workmanlike manner and of substantial material reasonably
suited for the purpose for which the fence is proposed to be used. For example, temporary fences, such as wire
mesh, are not appropriate as permanent boundary line fences. Every fence shall be maintained in a condition of
reasonable repair and shall not, by reason of age, decay, accident or otherwise, be allowed to become and remain
in a state of disrepair to be or tend to be a nuisance to the injury of the public or any abutting property. Any fence
that is dangerous due to of its construction or state of disrepair or is otherwise injurious to the public safety,
health, or welfare is a nuisance, and any such fence that has become or tends to be a nuisance shall upon order of
a competent court be repaired or removed as necessary to abate the nuisance caused.
This document is for informational purposes only and is not intended to address every situation for the permitting and plan review process.
3
INTERIOR LOT
CORNER LOTS
• On a corner lot, the shorter of two sides abutting a street is considered the front.
• Fences may be located on any side or rear lot line to a height of six (6) feet above finished grade, beginning at the
front building line of principle structure
• Chain link allowed in rear and side yards only.
• Electric and barbed wire fences are prohibited in residential districts.
• Fence supports must be placed on owner’s property – a 6” setback is recommended.
• Supports to be installed on inside of fence – finished side of fence must face abutting property.
• Maximum fence height of fence in side and rear yard is 6 ft.
• Maximum fence height of fence in front yard is 4 ft.
• Fences erected within yards that abut any navigable lake, channel or stream shall not exceed forty-eight (48)
inches in height.
• Fences less than 48” do not require a fence permit, but must still meet all the requirements of the code.
(6-FOOT TALL)
Residential Fence Summary
Permit
A building permit is required for the construction of all fences. Along with the permit
application submit the following:
Plat, Survey or County Arial view plan showing the location of the proposed structure
building plans showing cross section and construction materials
Location
Fences must be placed inside the property lines. It is the owner’s responsibility to verify the
location of the property lines.
It is suggested to have a surveyor locate property lines before installing fences. The city does
not have surveyors on staff to perform this service.
If the property has been previously surveyed, metal pins may be buried at the corners of the
property. The metal pins can typically be located with the use of a metal detector.
Height
A fence up to 6 feet in height may be erected on the rear lot line, the side lot lines and return
to the nearest front corner of the principal building.
Fences along the side yard property line shall be located at least five feet from any principal
structure located on either side of the property line. If a fence is located closer than five feet
from a principal structure located on either side of the property line, the fence shall not
exceed four feet in height.
A fence up to 4 feet in height may be erected in the Front Yard.
On a corner lot, Fences along the Side Yard abutting the Street shall not exceed 4 feet in
height. Fences along the Rear Yard shall not exceed four feet in height from the front
Building Line of the abutting Lot to the front Lot Line or parcel line of the abutting Lot.
Privacy Fences
Privacy Fences are only allowed in the Side and Rear Yard. All Fences in the Front Yard are
required to be at least 25 percent open.
Appearance
Fence construction shall be of good workmanship, with material reasonably suited for its
intended purpose.
Fences shall be maintained on both sides in a condition of good repair and shall not be in or
remain in the condition of disrepair, including, but not limited to, leaning or sagging
The side of the fence considered to be the face (the finished side) shall face adjoining
property.
Barbed wire fences are not permitted
All fences shall be properly maintained with respect to appearance and safety.
City Hall
1616 Humboldt Avenue
West St. Paul, MN
55118-3972
651-552-4100
FAX 651 -552 -4190
TDD 651 -322 -2323
www.wspmn.gov
Swimming Pools
Inground swimming pools shall be surrounded with an enclosure screened Structure, or
fencing at least five feet in height and of sufficient density to control access, having openings
not in excess of six inches.
Gates shall be self-closing, with a latching device to secure closing, and hardware for
permanent locking device which shall be located at least 48 inches in height from the ground.
8301 Valley Creek Road • Woodbury, MN 55125-3300 • www.ci.woodbury.mn.us
(651) 714-3500 • TDD (651) 3568 • building@ci.woodbury.mn.us
Fence Ordinance Summary
1. A fence up to six feet in height may be erected on the rear and side lot lines, and
return to the nearest front corner of the principal building.
2. A fence not exceeding four feet in height may be erected on the side lot lines,
forward of the front corner of the principal building.
3. Fences in excess of 30 inches in height extending across front yards are not
permitted in residential platted areas.
4. No fence shall be constructed in a manner that would block the view of vehicular
traffic, or restrict snow plowing of streets.
5. Fences may be placed up to property lines. It is the owner’s responsibility to
verify the location of the property lines.
6. The side of the fence considered to be the face, the finished side, shall face
adjoining property.
7. Barbed wire fences are not permitted in platted areas.
8. All fences shall be properly maintained with respect to appearance and safety.
9. Swimming pools shall be protected by a fence at least four feet high, with a self-
closing, self-latching, lockable gate. It shall be built so that a four inch sphere
cannot pass through.
10. It is suggested to have a surveyor locate property lines before installing fences.
The city does not have surveyors on staff to perform this service.
J:\Data\WP\Building\Web\Fence Ordinance Summary