The URL can be used to link to this page

2019-06-25 Planning Comm Agenda Packet CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA JUNE 25, 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 May 28, 2019 regular meeting minutes 4. Public Hearings a. Case No. 2019-17: Preliminary Plat of Sweeney Addition – a proposed subdivision of the property located at 777 Wentworth Avenue (Edward Sweeney – Owner / Applicant) b. Case No. 2019-18: Variance - to City Code Section 12-1E-3.D, to allow new school related buildings and improvements to exceed the maximum height limits of 25-ft. for structures in the R-1/R-1A One Family Residential Zoning District (Independent School District #197 – Henry Sibley High School – Applicant) c. Case No. 2019-14: [TABLED from the May 23, 2019 Meeting] Variance - to allow a reduced setback on a proposed new driveway for the property located at 1562 Wachtler Avenue. (Jim Carlson – Owner / Applicant) d. Case No. 2019-16: [TABLED from the May 23, 2019 Meeting] 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. May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 1 of 26 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 28, 2019 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 28, 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, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: None Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of April 23, 2019 Minutes Commissioner Petschel stated the minutes reflect he was present and absent, and they should reflect only absent. Commissioner Corbett also asked to change Page 5 - seventh paragraph down, from “Commissioner Corbett stated…” to “Commissioner Katz stated....” COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2019 AS AMENDED. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE #2019-10 SOUTHVIEW DESIGN, PROPERTY NEXT TO 2383 PILOT KNOB ROAD INTERIM USE PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Southview Design was seeking an Interim Use Permit to allow for the temporary off-site parking of employees vehicles on the adjacent Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) owned property. The site is generally located south of the intersection of Highway 13 and Pilot Knob Road, officially addressed as 2383 Pilot Knob Road. The public hearing was properly notified with letters being sent out to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. No objections or comments have been received. May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 2 of 26 Mr. Benetti shared images of the subject property as it exists today. It is very typical of a railroad right-of-way; there being no more rails. Mr. Benetti pointed out that although the subject property is located immediately adjacent to Pilot Knob Road there would be no access from Pilot Knob. Southview Design is a landscaping company who hires a lot of seasonal employees who, in the past, have had to park along Enterprise Drive. This has been tolerated but has raised some concerns and issues. Southview Design tried to purchase the land from MnDOT; however, it is under a lease agreement with Dakota County who is considering extending the Big River Regional Trail east to connect to the new Vikings facility development in Eagan. MnDOT is willing to allow Southview to continue to lease the right-of-way space until the county makes a decision on their plans. While MnDOT will not allow the area to be improved with any drainage improvements or any hard surfaces, they have agreed to allow bark mulch to be placed to control weeds and some run- off and provide some form of temporary drive-able surface. Temporary access would be provided down to the lower right-of-way, but no direct access or driveway onto Pilot Knob Road. Mr. Benetti shared that the City Code Section 12-1D-16 does allow for off-site parking facilities with written authority filed with the city and as long as said parking facilities are located no more than 100 feet from the premises at its closest point. Approval of this requested Interim Use Permit would satisfy the written authority provision. He then explained how the eight standards for approval for an Interim Use Permit were met in this application. Commissioner Katz asked for confirmation that Southview Design has a lease with MnDOT. Mr. Benetti confirmed, prompting Commissioner Noonan to state that Dakota County has a lease with MnDOT. Mr. Benetti confirmed that was true as well. Commissioner Toth asked to see the image of the proposed parking area and noted that there was quite a bit of green space – foliage and trees – and asked how they planned to park their cars in this space. Mr. Benetti replied that there was approximately 50 feet before the green space so they would most likely pull their cars up against the boulder wall. Commissioner Toth also asked for confirmation that there would be no access point to the parking area from Pilot Knob Road. Mr. Benetti confirmed. All cars would enter the site from the current access point to the facility and use a temporary access point down to the temporary parking area. Commissioner Toth noted a yellow marker and asked if that was a gas main running parallel with Pilot Knob and does not run down the center of the right-of-way. Mr. Benetti replied that he believed there was a pipeline running down the center; so they would be parking on top of the pipeline. Commissioner Toth asked if there were any other permit needs to ensure safety to and from the pipeline. Mr. Benetti replied that MnDOT would be the permitting agency for that – or allowance. They would be like any other private land owner, if they want to allow people to park there it is up to them. It was asked if MnDOT was aware of this parking arrangement. Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative. May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 3 of 26 Commissioner Katz asked if there was an estimate as to the number of cars to be parked on this site. Mr. Benetti did not have a specific number. Commissioner Noonan stated that a comment had been made that MnDOT would not allow any improvements on the area to accommodate the parking other than some mulch. He asked if the city allowed other properties to have parking areas that are not improved and if the city had standards on how parking areas should be improved. Mr. Benetti answered that most parking surfaces have to be hard surface – either concrete or bituminous. Commissioner Noonan asked for a reason. Mr. Benetti replied that it was a requirement of the city code for stormwater management. However, in this case MnDOT said they would allow the site to be used but it could not be improved – even with Class 5 surface. Commissioner Noonan then cited the two examples of Interim Use Permits provided by Mr. Benetti – the Xcel and the Minnehaha Academy examples – where they met the definition of an Interim Use because they were here today and gone tomorrow. At the end of December 2020 and they move into the height of the season in 2021, the parking problem is not going to disappear. So essentially the city is ‘kicking the can down the road’. Mr. Benetti agreed; however, he believed the intention here was to match up with what MnDOT was allowing for their lease agreement. It is a two-year timeframe. The applicants have indicated that their lease with MnDOT expires in December 2020. If MnDOT were to choose to extend it, they have the ability to return and ask for another 2-year extension. At that time the city can determine if they provided for a satisfactory use in that 1.5- or 2-year period and if the extension was warranted. Commissioner Noonan asked if there were to be a very wet spring, what rights the city would have to go in and say they needed to address the mud and condition of the property. Mr. Benetti replied it would most likely be a code complaint if they were tracking mud all over the roads and not being good stewards of the land. Looking at their facility and their property, he believed them to be very good stewards and have one of the nicest property’s in the industrial park. Chair Magnuson said that she believed putting down mulch would some benefit to keeping that property from being destroyed from tire tracks and heavy vehicles. However, she saw that the mulch was an allowance but not a requirement. She asked if that was something the Commission wanted to consider – that they be required to put a certain amount of mulch on the property so as to protect it from any kind of heavy rain, damage, or erosion. Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative and noted that as he walked the site it was clearly a very heavily compacted base to begin with. Putting that little bit of mulch in there is a double layer of protection. Chair Magnuson suggested that a requirement be added that if they do not put down mulch for weed control, it at least has to be regularly mowed. Commissioner Toth stated that it was fair to say that since this was a previous railroad bed, they probably did not disturb the top or the sub-aggregate, it probably drains very well, it has been compacted, and it is not like they would be driving over green space. That packed material has been put into place. Mr. Benetti agreed and said when he walked the property it was right after a heavy rain and he did not see any standing water and it was very well drained. May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 4 of 26 Commissioner Toth asked if the mulch would be removed and the site returned to its current state after the Interim Use had ended. Mr. Benetti replied that there is a provision that they have to restore the site back to the way it was. The city could also ask MnDOT what they defined as an approved restoration. Chair Magnuson, referring to the Findings of Fact for Approval, stated that number three reads “The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty” and asked if the date of December 31, 2020 shouldn’t be identified there. Mr. Benetti agreed that could be added. Chair Magnuson then referred to number four under the Findings of Fact for Approval refers to restoring the property but it does not require it. It also then talks about the possibility of providing an appropriate financial surety to cover the cost. She suggested there be a condition that requires that the property would be restored. It was noted that Condition three provided that. Commissioner Noonan stated that restoration is important; however, maintenance during the period is important as well. He suggested a condition be added to that affect. Mr. Benetti asked if ‘the property shall be properly maintained during the duration of the Interim Use Permit’ would be sufficient. Commissioner Noonan like that but also suggested that something be added that says if the city deems the site is not being adequately maintained, the applicant shall provide the appropriate maintenance to the satisfaction of the city. Chair Magnuson asked what amount of Mr. Benetti thinking for the ‘financial surety’ noted in Condition three. Mr. Benetti replied that was left up to the City Administrator to determine. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if the surety would be held by the property owner rather than the city. Mr. Benetti replied that in this case it would be held by the city because the city was providing the Interim Use Permit. Mr. Chris Clifton, President and CEO and Ryan Slipka, Operating Officer / Partner of Southview Design, were available for questions. Mr. Clifton stated, in regards to the Flint Hills and the petroleum line servicing MSP, the engineers came out from Flint Hills and they did compaction tests. They had been on board with the Class 5 initially so they are very well aware of what Southview is looking to do. Even just adding mulch they will have to consult with Flint Hills and there would be watch dog meeting – they would come out and watch every improvement done within 20 feet of the gas line. As to the number of vehicles, at this point there are 50 to 60 vehicles parked on Enterprise Drive. This space would allow for these vehicles. It is approximately 60 feet wide and drains from south to north. There is an approx. 5-foot drainage ditch between Southview and the north neighbor. Mr. Slipka said they would expect the lease to be renewed without issue. As long as Dakota County is not planning on using that land for a bike trail, they would expect to be able to keep leasing it indefinitely. Mr. Clifton stated that Dakota County would have to pull out part of Highway 13 and tunnel underneath, the way the land is set up now. There is a crosswalk at Highway 13 for the bike trail. The folks at MnDOT that they have been dealing with said that May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 5 of 26 they do not foresee it coming in the near 20 or 30 years. His goal would be to, in the next two years, during the course of this – and whether there is more direction on the extension of the bike trail – to be able to do a more permanent compacted Class 5 base. At this point, the mulch they are talking about doing and the access from their site should ensure that when they hit their parking lot, let alone Pilot Knob Road, we they do not expect there to be any mess. Commissioner Noonan asked if they would have any objection to putting a maintenance clause or condition obligation in the permit. Mr. Clifton said they would have no objections whatsoever. Commissioner Toth asked for confirmation that they mulch would keep the mud from tracking onto their parking lot, their facility, and onto Pilot Knob Road. Mr. Clifton confirmed and said that the mulch they are talking about is more of a wood chip rather than the fine ground-up mulch typically seen in residential yards. And they are looking at a 5-6 inch depth of that. Commissioner Toth asked for confirmation they were talking about 50-60 vehicles. Mr. Clifton confirmed. He then asked, if the business were to expand and grow, if he saw four or five years from now the need for parking for 50 to 120 vehicles. Mr. Clifton replied that the facility they are in currently is almost maxed out; from trucks, trailers, and their currently facility to the south (3.1 acres). At this time they are looking for space in the Maple Grove area to start to base some operations out of there as well. Commissioner Petschel asked if they were planning to park mostly company vehicles on the site or parking for the employees. Mr. Clifton replied that it would be parking for personal vehicles. Commissioner Mazzitello, referencing the access point off of the parking lot to the right -of-way area, noted that it was not part of the right-of-way so they could surface that any way they wanted. He asked what their intentions were for that area given the concerns for possible creation of mud and muck. Mr. Clifton replied that they would rather not pave that. Most construction sites have a construction entrance and they would be looking at a compacted Class 5 base so there is anything that would catch on that area they could easily blow that off and clean it off. 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 MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-10 INTERIM USE PERMIT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 6 of 26 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 [the following portion of this Findings was added by the Commission] (December 31, 2010). 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. AND 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. [The following portion of this condition was added by the Commission] The applicant shall maintain the Interim Use area in manner acceptable to the city. Should the city deem the area needs maintenance, the applicant shall promptly move to maintain the property. 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. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 4, 2019 meeting. May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 7 of 26 B) PLANNING CASE 2019-12 CHUCK MASTEL - 1341 CHERRY HILL ROAD VARIANCE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Chuck Mastel has requested a Variance to residential fence heights standards for his property located at 1341 Cherry Hill Road. He currently has a rear yard fence at 6-feet in height, which must be relocated due to a county order. He is now seeking a Variance to rebuild with a high fence. This item was presented under a public hearing and notices were published; no letters of objections or notices from the adjacent neighbors were received. The property is located at the end of the Cherry Hill Road cul-de-sac. Mr. Benetti shared an image of the property in relation to surround properties and roads. The property is just over a half-acre in size, contains a 3,468 square foot 2-story home with an in-ground swimming pool. The applicant’s neighbor to the south had requested to re-fence his backyard and tried to match into the fence owned by Mr. Mastel; however, the county official discovered this and said they could not do that because they were well within the county’s right -of-way. They then sent Mr. Mastel a letter indicating that he needed to move his fence to be outside of their right-of-way as soon as possible. Mr. Mastel indicated to staff when they visited the property that moving the 6-foot high fence would have it sitting in a spot that would be three to four feet lower than its current position. Therefore, he is requesting a nine-foot fence to keep the screening he has enjoyed for many years. There are three standards that must be met when considering a Variance request; Mr. Benetti explained how this application met those standards. Mr. Chuck Mastel, 1341 Cherry Hill Road, was available for questions. He stated that the fence had been in its current location for 32 years and he did not have a record of a variance or permit for the installation. Midwest Fence Company were the ones who installed the original fence; however, they only keep records for 20 years. Therefore, they were unable to provide evidence of a variance or permit. He also stated that if the fence were relocated at the 6-foot height, the top would be level with Wachtler Road and he would not have any privacy. More importantly, there is the safety issue. Anyone could put a plank from Wachtler Road to his fence and enter his rear yard; someone could drown in the pool. He has a $1M umbrella policy but would have let his insurance agent know the situation. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if the portion of the fence he is proposing be nine feet was just that portion parallel with the Wachtler Road. Mr. Mastel replied in the affirmative. The side yard fences would remain at six feet. May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 8 of 26 Chair Magnuson asked how he came up with nine feet. Mr. Mastel replied it is a combination of the incline and Midwest Fence not recommending a fence higher than nine feet based on the board-on-board style he has. It would not be as great as it is right now but it would be better than installing a six-foot fence. Commissioner Noonan asked what the difference would be from the current six-foot height to the proposed nine-foot height. Mr. Mastel replied that it would be approximately three feet. Commissioner Noonan stated that essentially he was doing the nine-foot fence to effectively reproduce the status quo condition – the separation of approximately six feet. Mr. Mastel replied that it would not be the same as a six-foot fence from Wachtler, it would be more like a three-foot fence. However, that is better than being level with Wachtler. Commissioner Corbett asked if the whole run along Wachtler was 6 feet. Mr. Mastel answered in the affirmative and noted that it was 150 feet long in the back. This would be the portion of the fence that would be nine feet in height. The sides that come up to his home would remain at six feet. The top of the fence portions – from the side yards (6 feet) to the rear yard (9 feet) would level. Commissioner Toth asked if his fence would be three feet higher than his neighbor’s fence. Mr. Mastel replied in the affirmative. 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 MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-12 VARIANCE 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 by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by th e 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 a residential fence height increase from 6-ft. to 9-ft. along the rear lot line, by the following: May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 9 of 26 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. WITH THE CONDITIONS NOTED THEREIN. May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 10 of 26 Commissioner Noonan, referencing Finding of Fact B-iv, stated that he was compelled by the safety consideration that the applicant mentioned; given the fact that a lower fence would effectively provide the ability to bridge Wachtler in. He proposed a friendly amendment by requesting that they include safety in that section. Also, there had been no discussion on economic considerations so he recommended the removal of that phrase as not being relevant. Commissioner Mazzitello accepted the friendly amendment as stated. Commissioner Katz asked if this essentially was a 16-foot move from the fence’s currently location to the new. Mr. Benetti confirmed that it was approximately 15 feet. Commissioner Katz then stated that, in his mind this would wipe out any safety concerns as he could not see anyone riding across a plank long enough to enter the rear yard. In his opinion, the emphasis on the safety concern should be due to the pool, which was probably why the fence was installed in the first place. This is a safety concern because the county is saying he needs to move the fence; the issue they are really discussing is whether or not the six-foot versus the nine-foot is the acceptable use for this now. In his opinion, because of the grade, etc. – yes, the nine-foot still gives him the privacy he needs, he has to move this fence, and it is still providing the protection for the property and against the pool that is there. Mr. Benetti pointed out for the record that, per city code, anything built over seven feet requires a building permit. So this fence will be inspected and will have to be very well built to withstand certain wind and snow requirements. Chair Magnuson commented for the record that there was conversation with staff and the land owner about the difference in grade being somewhere in the neighborhood of approximately three feet. Her thinking is that, given that difference in grade, effectively he is putting up roughly a six- foot fence because it is coming down to the point it might match or even be less than what it currently there. The fact that the topography of the property exists the way it does makes putting a six-foot fence in useless. She agreed that no one was going to put a board across a 16-foot span, but depending on the grade it might be a lot easier to hope over a six -foot fence from an elevated position than a nine-foot fence from an elevated position. Commissioner Toth commented that 32 years ago, when this fence was put into place, the resident has lived there and has had a level of privacy. Now with the changes required by Dakota County, they would lose that privacy with the six -foot ruling. The privacy needs to be looked at as well when making their decisions. Commissioner Petschel noted that if privacy had been the only issue, he would have voted against this request. They had artificial privacy as a result of having the fence further up the hill than what would normally be allowed although that is clearly not the homeowners fault. Safety is really the only concern here. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 4, 2019 meeting. May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 11 of 26 C) PLANNING CASE #2019-13 MARK & STACY ROSZKOWSKI, 660 HIDDEN CREEK TRAIL WETLANDS PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mark and Stacy Roszkowski were seeking a Wetlands Permit to allow for the installation of a new in-ground swimming pool for their property located at 660 Hidden Creek Trail. This property is located up against an established Type III wetland, which is a Slightly Susceptible Wetland. Any new construction related improvements, grading or removals requires a wetlands permit. This item was heard under a public hearing and notices were sent to all surrounding properties within 350 feet of the subject property. No comments or objections were received. Mr. Benetti shared images of the subject property in relation to surrounding neighbors and streets. The wetland was also indicated in the images. The property is currently zoned R-1 and is guided as LR-Low Density Residential, is 1.25 acres in size with half of it currently encumbered by a drainage and utility easement on the back side; making for a limited amount of buildable area there. The property has a 5,356 square foot single family dwelling. Mr. Benetti then shared a site plan image showing the location of the proposed 14’ x 28’ in - ground swimming pool, which would replace the current back yard patio. They also plan to install a concrete patio deck around the perimeter. The edge of the pool structure would be situated approximately 40 feet from the nearest edge of the creek channel with the decking approximately 36 feet from that same channel. Normally, the city requires no disturbance within 25 feet of an established wetland. Mr. Benetti shared the Local Surface Water Management Plan, which provides certain guides and standards to follow for the city to follow or implement for any new development near natural water features. This plan recommends a 25-foot no-disturbance/natural vegetative buffer zone from the wetland edge; the subject property has a very well established and natural vegetative buffer in place. He then provided statements that met the guides and standards for the Commission to review and consider in their determination. Commissioner Mazzitello, referencing the schematic drawing, noted that the dimension from the creek edge to the pool is 40 feet. He then asked what the dimension was from the creek edge to the silt fence. Mr. Benetti replied that it appeared to be approximately half that distance – say 20 feet. He then asked if it would be amiable to the applicants to move the silt fence to be 25 feet from the creek edge (per city code). Mr. Benetti agreed this could be done. Looking at the elevation numbers, Commissioner Toth asked if there would be additional fill brought in on the back side of the home or would the dirt removed to install the pool be used to fill. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative; most of the area where the patio currently exists is pretty much where the new pool deck and in-ground pool would be located. There would not be much grading or regrading necessary around there. May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 12 of 26 Commissioner Katz asked where the rest of the fencing would be in terms of relativity to the pool. Mr. Benetti indicated the location of the fence of the schematics – approximately 14 feet from the pool itself and approximately 35 feet from the wetland. Chair Magnuson, referencing Condition 3 that reads, in part, “Draining or back-flushing of water from the pool shall be directed onto the owner’s property only, and shall not drain directly into the creek or wetland systems”, asked how that would be enforced, especially with a grade like this because no matter where they put the water it will flow downhill. Mr. Benetti replied that it is usually the responsibility of the property owner to make sure they are not flushing chlorinated water directly into the creek system. The fact remains that if they let chlorinated water drain out onto an open space of their land, the chlorine would dissipate enough that by the time it reached the natural water body it would be harmless. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek explained that most pools are going to burn through any chlorine in them within a couple of days. If any homeowner does not add any chlorine for three to four days, the chlorine levels would be very low in the pool and can be discharged in the yard. Commissioner Katz asked for confirmation that there are no plans for an additional drain to actually put pool discharge water into that then gets treated in some sort of city or storm sewer system. Mr. Benetti replied the he was unaware of anything like that under this plan but he Commission could ask that of the applicant if they wished. Mr. Ruzek noted that the city does not have a lot of heavy restrictions. He did a quick search of neighboring communities; Eagan basically says that it is up to the homeowners to make sure the chlorine is evaporated but they can discharge it anywhere in Eagan. Mendota Heights could let it connect directly to the sanitary sewer; however, most people are not filling their pool in January, February, or March so that is not getting counted for water that is going down the sewage systems. Commissioner Katz continued by explaining that his concern is that this is so close to the wetland and there are other provisions that have to protect it from things like silt. The last thing he would want to see done, because of convenience sake, when they want to dump the water in the fall or whenever, there is this natural wetland and the just hook the hose up; no one is enforcing it so what do they care. To him, that defeated the provisions of protecting wetlands and other things. The Commission needs to look at something to recommend at least. Mr. Nick Holly from Performance Pools came forward to address some concerns raised in terms of drainage. He explained that backwashing is taking a canister of sand (typically), which is filtering the small particles from the water and essentially pumping that out to clean the filter. Performance Pools installs cartridge filter pieces – pleated paper cylinders – and when they get dirty they dismantle the filter and clean out the cartridges so there is no back flushing involved with the general filtration maintenance. Also, there is no need to drain pools to winterize any more. They have duck plugs, one-way valving, there is no water draining every fall. If they needed to drain to the front, they have a 3.5 horsepower pump on that would take care of that. May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 13 of 26 They also install salt systems on all of their pools, which generally maintains 1 to 3 parts per million of chlorine. To the best of his knowledge, EPA allows up to 4 parts per million in their drinking water. They could also reduce the parts per million before any sort of draining. The only time that would have to happen is if there was a liner replacement – 15 years or so after the initial install of the pool. The salt system is taking a sodium chloride blend and associating it so the chlorine can then sanitize the pool; and does it at a very slow consistent rate versus products and other ways to apply. As for the salt, it is 2,700 parts per million, it cannot even be tasted. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if there were a need to drain the pool, whether for maintenance or whatever, it would have to be discharged somewhere. Mr. Holly replied in the affirmative and stated that as long as they are allowed to drain to the street, which would be the easiest and most reasonable way to do that. Chair Magnuson noted that they would be pulling out a significant amount of dirt of the ground and asked what they planned to do with that. Mr. Holly replied that their proposed pool grid, relative to three quarters of that pool, is essentially equal or zero. The one corner is getting closer to two feet out. He would be essentially excavating and hand full loads or dirt and bringing it up on the deeper end corner and blending off. Based on the conversations he heard, it sounds like they are untouchable within 25 feet of the creek, including the way the install the silt fence an d potential grading adjustments. He believes and knows that they will do that. 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 MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-13 WETLANDS PERMIT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 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. May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 14 of 26 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. AND WITH 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. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 4, 2019 meeting. May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 15 of 26 D) PLANNING CASE #2019-14 JIM CARLSON, 1562 WACHTLER AVENUE VARIANCE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Jim Carlson would like to build a new 29’ x 34’ detached garage in the rear yard of his property at 1562 Wachtler Avenue and needs a Variance to required setbacks for a new driveway extension to that garage. This item had originally been noticed as a Variance with a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a larger detached garage. However, it was determined that the Conditional Use Permit was not necessary because he meets all of the requirements for a larger detached garage structure under 1,000 square feet because the lot is large enough. This item was presented under public hearing and notice was published in the Pioneer Press and letters were mailed to all owners within 350 feet of the subject property. One letter was received from the property owner immediately to the north; a copy of which was provided to the Commissioners and is part of the public record. The property is zoned R-1 and is guided LR-Low Density Residential, is 1.77 acres in size, and has a 5,345 square foot single family residential home with a 1,153 square foot 3-car attached garage. All single family properties are allowed to have up to 1,200 sq. ft. attached garage; and for larger lots between 1.5 to 2.5 acres in size, one additional detached garage is allowed up 1,000 sq. ft. in size. The proposed garage by the applicant meets this size limit. Mr. Carlson provided a detailed survey showing the location of the existing driveway where it sits today at 12.5, 13.9, and 19 feet off the north property line. The proposed site plan showed the driveway extension coming off of the side of the garage, the new garage in the back corner meeting the 10-foot setbacks as required by code, and the location of the proposed driveway extension. At the closest point is an 11 foot 3 inch wide driveway, requiring the 2.5 foot variance from the side yard setback. Mr. Benetti shared images of the subject property, noting the possible need for a retaining wall along the side because of the grade differences. The shed shown in the rear yard would be removed as part of this project. He also pointed out the grade differences between the proposed location of the driveway and the other side of the property. In Mr. Carlson’s opinion, it fits better in the proposed location. Mr. Carlson indicated to staff that, as far as any alleviating any screening or potential visual impacts to the neighbor, he would provide for some type of screening measures such as some evergreens or some pampas grasses or something else of that nature. He is also looking at providing for some permeable pavers to ensure that this area will handle some of the stormwater drainage if requested or required. Mr. Benetti shared the standards that need to be met when considering a Variance request and explained how this request met those standards. May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 16 of 26 Commissioner Corbett asked for confirmation that the land the proposed driveway would be on is graded towards the neighbor’s property. Mr. Benetti confirmed and stated that more than likely, he would have to provide for some type of grading and a retaining wall along that side to en sure that the driveway is nice and level. Chair Magnuson asked who owned the fence along that side. Mr. Benetti replied that he believed that Mr. Carlson did. He plans on retaining the fence. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if he was reading the new schematic correctly in that there would be 11’3” between the pavement edge and the property line; and 2.5 feet between the pavement and the property line. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Mazzitello noted in the packet a survey that had been completed in April 2019; however, he was not seeing any drainage or utility easements around the property lines. He asked if they existed. Mr. Benetti replied that this is Lot 32 of the Auditors Subdivision No. 3 but he did not believe there were any utility easements; probably due to the time it was platted. Without any geographical reference, Commissioner Katz asked if it had been evaluated whether or not the driveway could be put down Wachtler, in the opposite corner. Mr. Benetti replied that he possibly could; however, this area has a creek and there is also a considerable grade difference. Mr. Jim Carlson, 1562 Wachtler Avenue, commented that he does not like leaving things outside. He believes in a garage as a way of keeping the neighborhood looking nice and preventing his neighbors from staring at his junk. He would like to store his fishing boat, riding lawn mower with attachments, snowplow, and other items if he decided to obtain them. He also stated that it would mostly be used for cold storage in the winter and that he would probably not even plow that part of the driveway. Commissioner Corbett stated that he was having a conflict in terms of the usage and the needing a concrete driveway for it if was not going to be used in the wintertime. His thinking was that in needing a concrete driveway to go to the shed, why wouldn’t the shed not be part of an expansion of the existing garage, which already has a driveway to it; or building out from that garage if its intended use was for garage storage and not as a traditional shed. Mr. Carlson replied this his existing garage has a stairway going down through the basement in the front of the garage. He would rather have a garage out in back dedicated where he could put his items in it and not have to deal with them being in the garage and the house. As for the concrete driveway, he really did not want to put in a concrete driveway; however, Mr. Benetti had brought it up to him that there were permeable pavers. He went to a supply company and there are nice pavers that are 2’ x 2’ sections with holes. He could put them down, put dirt back in them and plant grass and he believed it would blend into the yard pretty well. He is leaning more towards the permeable pavers now rather than concrete. Commissioner Petschel asked if there was any reason why he did not consider putting the new garage in the opposite corner of his lot. Mr. Carlson replied that the creek area is down there, it is wooded, and can be seen from the street. The proposed location already has a shed, it is screened and it would look good back there and not take away from the beauty of the property. May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 17 of 26 Chair Magnuson asked if it would be possible to simply add a section on the back of the current garage. Mr. Carlson replied that there is a staircase in the garage that starts right in the middle of the garage and goes down to the basement; so they would not get much out of that. Chair Magnuson explained her confusion in that he already stores his work vehicle, his vehicle, and his companions vehicle in the garage; clearly the stairs are not in the way of those items and she wondered why it would cause a problem with expanding the garage. Mr. Carlson pointed out on the survey image the location of the staircase. He also stated that he has a nice tree garden on the rear that would be lost. Commissioner Toth noted that the dimension of the planned garage is 2 9’ x 34’; he then asked what the peak of the roof would be. Mr. Carlson replied that he did not know that yet. Mr. Benetti replied that detached garages could not be more than 15 feet in height. Commissioner Petschel asked if Mr. Carlson used the pavers, would they count as impervious surface. Mr. Benetti replied that the city does not have an impervious surface percentage calculation requirements. He asked for commentary on the transition between pavers and a concrete driveway – one that would necessitate a permit and one that would not. Would the move from a concrete driveway to 2’ x 2’ pavers negate the need for the variance. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative because a driveway is a driveway, whether it’s concrete or some other material. Mr. Carlson needs a driveway to access the garage, the city does not want people driving back and forth across their yards to access their detached garages. Commissioner Petschel then asked if it was part of their functional definition of a garage is that it has to have a driveway. Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative. If it looks like a garage it needs to be permitted as a garage and it has to have a drivable surface to it. He had suggested the permeable pavers just because of the impact of that side yard and looking where the drainage would obviously go. He felt it would be a better solution to maintaining the drainage pond as much as possible. Commissioner Corbett asked how many of the trees along the fence line would be removed; it appears that every tree along that fence line that may be blanketing the garage from the neighbors view would have to be removed. Mr. Carlson replied that he did not believe that many would be removed. He estimated at least two or three of the ten located there. It is a beautiful site an d he has no desire to remove very many trees at all. If he did have to remove any he hoped to plant some back in again afterwards. Commissioner Toth asked what materials the proposed garage would be made of. Mr. Carlson replied that he had no plans at the moment; but he had thought about vinyl siding that would match the house or maybe stucco. He would not want white but possibly a sand color to match the brick on the house. Steel shingles like on the house are pretty expensive and he probably could not do that; however, he would try to make it fit into the motif. When asked, Mr. Benetti replied that the garage has to match architecturally the principal building. The city does allow for color matching if the house is brick or stucco and they want to May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 18 of 26 match it with vinyl, lapboard, or wood siding. The city would like for the roofing material to match as close as possible. When asked if he would consider building off of the front of the current garage, Mr. Carlson replied that it would not look good and would take away from the beauty of the neighborhood and the property. His neighbors would kick him out. Chair Magnuson asked if he had considered a smaller driveway. Mr. Carlson replied that his fishing boat is an 18’ Lund and it requires a truck to back it into the garage. He questioned if he could accomplish that with a narrower driveway. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Mr. John Trojack, 786 Upper Colonial Drive, stated that he did realize until this evening that there was no need for a Conditional Use Permit for the garage building. He assumed the reason it was accepted is because of the size of the lot. The reason that would be the case was that it was not expected that the building would be built right on top or close to a neighbor’s property with that size of a lot. One would think that there could be a building a ways away. He and his wife have been living on his property since 1988; 30 or more years. They moved from McAllister Grove where they had alleys up and down behind the buildings. This driveway is as close to an alley as he has ever experienced. One of the reasons they moved to Mendota Heights was because they liked the open space. The property behind him had a great stand of trees and the previous owner, before he died, took very good care of the place. They would hate to see what they would consider an alley put in right behind their property and then have this large building, which has to be served by the driveway. They do not see why it could not be moved away from their property and the driveway put in a different direction. Mr. Carlson currently has a driveway apron on the other side of his home where two cars are normally parked. If the property was so problematic that he could not have a building on that same side, why would he consider it level enough for a nice concrete apron. Mr. Trojack did not believe it was reasonable, considering the size of the lot, to do what is proposed. He did not believe it serve the neighborhood to have this kind of a precedence set where they could put an alley driveway right behind someone else’s property. This plan is also detrimental to Mr. Trojack’s property values, as indicated in his letter. He spoke to his appraiser and was told that this would definitely decrease the value of his home. Also, there is a good stand of trees behind the fence on Mr. Carlson’s property and Mr. Trojack did believe that most of them would be standing afterwards. In summary, Mr. Trojack stated that this would be very damaging to the neighborhood, there is a good alternative on the other side of the property that should be considered, and he believed they should not have this place next to their property. Mr. Chris Shepard, 792 Upper Colonial Drive, said that initially when Mr. Carlson came by and proposed this his reaction was OK because it was his property. He did not know to what extent May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 19 of 26 this would affect his own property. He was concerned about the drainage and asked that the Commission make recommendations to prevent snow buildup and then runoff and water runoff under any wet weather event. He understands that impervious pavers is probably better than concrete and he was happy to hear that was in play. The other concern were the sight lines; he pointed out the trees on the shared image. If they were to build a driveway there, they were hoping to have some sort of privacy fence be included or something that would account for the shrubs, etc. that are in place now. As to Mr. Trojack’s idea of placing the garage on the other side of the house, he would be in favor of that position. Mr. Carlson returned and stated that as of right now, there they are talking about water runoff. There is a grade right now that when it rains the water is running into Mr. Shepard’s yard. He wants to put a retaining wall in there to raise it up because it is hard to mow and dirt is washing away. Also, what Mr. Trojack pointed out on the south side of the house is not level . There is a steep bank going down into the driveway and then when you hit the yard there is a great big hill on the side. It would be hard to be tearing up all of the landscaping to put a garage in there. A person would have to haul in a lot of dirt and fill to get the grades. It would be pretty tough ; it is not flat like he claimed. Chair Magnuson asked what the plans were for the chain link fence. Mr. Carlson replied that he did not want to take the chain link fence out because of the open sight lines and he likes seeing his neighbors. Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO TABLE PLANNING CASE 2019-14 VARIANCE REQUEST AND DIRECT STAFF TO EXTEND THE APPLICATION REVIEW PERIOD. Commissioner Noonan provided his reasons as follows:  There have been questions asked and answers not given  There has been considerable discussion about the possibility of building on the other side of the house  There is anecdotal information provided without any materials to show what the elevation is, etc.  There are questions with respect to what is the appearance of the garage going to be like; this is important given that one of the tests the Commission has to find is that it would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 20 of 26 o A butt ugly building can be erected and it would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood o Vegetation could be stripped away and it would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood  He did not feel comfortable with the information to be had to make an informed decision Commissioner Toth provided his reasons as well:  He felt he could not make a decision as this time as he wanted to look at the property  There are too many unanswered questions, the same as mentioned by Commissioner Noonan Councilmember Petschel asked under what circumstances the Commission would approve this. What is the pass/fail criteria with which to approve this? Commissioner Katz noted that they do not have enough information to approve this. The other points and the seconded of the motion is that the Commission wants more information before making a decision. Commissioner Noonan stated that one of the findings they need to make is does it fundamentally alter the essential character of the neighborhood. He did not have enough information to make that determination. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised that this matter would be tabled until June 25, 2019. As a point of order, Commissioner Mazzitello reminded the Commission that they were considering a side-yard setback Variance for a driveway. The garage has nothing to do with the question they were being asked to consider. Commissioner Noonan replied that but for the garage, the driveway would not be necessary. Commissioner Mazzitello agreed and stated that the garage could be discussed; however, it could not be considered as part of the Commission’s decision on the driveway. Commissioner Noonan stated that if the garage was not proposed the driveway would not be either, so they are connected. Chair Magnuson agreed. Commissioner Corbett suggested to the owner, since the third bay in the current garage was not blocked by the stairwell to the basement, he could put in a second garage door on the backside and extend a drive through garage from the current garage. Mr. Carlson replied that he had thought about that but he would end up knocking down more trees, ruining the appearance of the nice tree garden out there right now. He pointed out on the photographs why it would not feasible. Further discussion occurred on alternatives and the Commission suggested that they be brought back for due consideration. May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 21 of 26 E) PLANNING CASE #2019-15 NONA MOSVICK, 1133 ORCHARD PLACE LOT SPLIT - SUBDIVISION Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Ms. Nona M. Mosvick was requesting approval to subdivide her property located at 1133 Orchard Place. A subdivision request must obtain city approval before any plat or survey can be accepted and recorded by Dakota County. This item was presented under a public hearing with notice being printed in the Pioneer Press and letters being sent to all property owners within 350 feet of the affected parcels. No objections or indications of support were received. The subject site is a square shaped 1.04 acre parcel of land located in the mid-block between Lexington Avenue and Orchard Circle and has an existing 1.5 story split level single family home with 4,404 square feet of finished floor space. The home has a dual access U-shaped driveway off Orchard Place with a large open space area on the western edge. The proposed split would create a new parcel in this west area, which Ms. Mosvick’s son plans to develop for a new single- family home. Parcel A, the proposed new parcel, would have 100 feet of roadway frontage and 214.5 feet of lot depth, creating a 21,451 square foot (0.49 acre) parcel. Parcel B, containing the current single- family dwelling, would have 111 feet of frontage and the same 214.5 feet of depth, creating a 23,810 square foot (0.55 acre) parcel. Once the 30-foot easement is taken into consideration, Parcel A would be 18,451 square feet or 0.42 acres in size and Parcel B would be 20,480 square feet or 0.47 acres in size. Both parcels would meet the 100-foot frontage requirement, as well as the minimum lot size. Their surveyor is working on adding the new perimeter drainage and utility easements required along the front, sides, and rear lot lines of each parcel. In terms of the average setback rule, the average setback between 1133 and 1139 is approximately 57 feet. Staff has requested that any house built on the new lot has to match or maintain that average setback rule. Chair Magnuson noted that the property slopes down; therefore, a fair amount of work will need to be done to deal with drainage issues, access issues, etc. She asked if anyone knew the plans for that. Mr. Benetti replied that he did not know what those plans were; however, that would typically be handled during the building permit process. Commissioner Toth asked Mr. Benetti if he had walked this lot. Mr. Benetti replied that he walked it from the road. Commissioner Toth then asked for confirmation that the new lot is a buildable lot. Mr. Benetti replied that it would be buildable assuming it was approved with the 100’ x 215’ size. Commissioner Toth then asked if it would impact drainage to the residents to the west. Mr. Benetti replied that all of that would be reviewed and reconciled during the building permit process. May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 22 of 26 Mr. Matt Mosvick, the son of Ms. Nona Mosvick, stated that they were looking to do the lot split and then he would build a house next to her to allow her to stay in her home as long as possible. As far as any of the grading, he has had several builders out there and he knows they are going to have to fill a lot in the front and then come down level to the house to the west. The front would be filled and then they are looking at a walkout to the back. A few trees will have to be removed; however, the majority are black walnuts that the neighbor will be happy to see go. Also, a maple tree in the middle will need to be removed, which will make Xcel Energy happy. 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: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2019-15 LOT SPLIT – SUBDIVISION REQUEST BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 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. AND 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. May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 23 of 26 AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Mr. Mosvick asked about the Park Dedication Fee. Mr. Benetti replied that this is a standard fee that the city adopted into the fee schedule for a long period of time. State law allows cities to either require developers, whenever they are platting out multiple lots, to either have to dedicate out a certain percentage of land for parks, open space, drainage area. In Mendota Heights case, whenever they create a new buildable lot or a new potential residential unit, there is a $4,000 cash in lieu of payment for that. Mr. Mosvick stated that he could understand that fee for a developer putting in multiple lots; however, for splitting one lot that is a pretty excessive amount of money. Chair Magnuson replied that there was nothing the Commission could do about that as it is written in the code. Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 4, 2019 meeting. F) PLANNING CASE #2019-16 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ZONING CODE AMENDMENT – FENCE STANDARDS Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that staff had a zoning code amendment for the Commission to consider. Part of the reason for bringing this forward was that a few weeks ago he was approached by a lot of fence companies and residents wanting to put up solid screen fencing. One of them did a lot of phone calling and political reach-out so City Administrator Mark McNeill asked him to bring this to the Commission to s ee what they would have to say. He noted that whenever anyone builds a fence in the city they are required to have a certain percentage of openness; 30% in Mendota Heights. Historically, the city has allowed for the alternating board or shadowbox design. In the city’s definition, this meets the 30% openness requirement. The city also has a lot of individuals or residents who have fenced off their front yards that have said that three feet is not enough to contain a good size Labrador or very energetic two or three year old child who wants to play in the front yard. They are asking for a 42 inch or four foot high fence. Referencing Section 12-1D-6: Subpart C.2 that reads, “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”, expressed his desire to change the wording to ‘and/or’ or just ‘or’. Staff also recommended changes under the Permitted Encroachments onto Public Ways section. Mr. Benetti shared an image of what the city currently permits, a nice fence with a lot of openness but not a lot of privacy. He then shard images of what a lot of residents are asking for – the solid screening fence. May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 24 of 26 He understood the reason for the openness rule, which was to allow for wind and airflow so that plants on the other side would not get burned out. When speaking with fence companies they claimed they never heard of that rule or need. In summary, staff requested:  Section 12-1D-6: A. Fences in All Districts, under Subpart 3. Construction And Repair o Removing the 30% opacity rule and moving the provisions for fences on industrially zoned property (next to residential uses) to another section  Section 12-1D-6: B. Fences in Residential Districts: Height, Style and Location o Allowing for a maximum height of four feet rather than the previous 36 inches for front yard fences o Fences in front yards shall consist only of chain-linked, or a decorative style fence such as picket, wrought iron, alternating board or shadowbox style fence o Rear yard: if the rear lot line is common with the side lot line of an abutting lot . . . may be fenced to a height of four feet (rather than the previous 36 inches)  Section 12-1D-6: C. Fences in Business And Industrial Districts o Fences may be erected along the property line and to a height of six feet o 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 o Fences over six feet (6’) in height [or] [and/or] with a security arm for barbed wire shall require a conditional use permit.  Section 12-1D-6: D. Permitted Encroachments Onto Public Ways o Fences greater than four feet (4’) in height (as opposed to the previous 36 inches) but no greater than six feet (6’) in height – striking the 30% open phrase – may be allowed to encroach . . . through administrative approval by the Public Works Director and Community Development Director (or their assigns) – rather than approval by the engineering department The Commissioners had length discussions around chain-link fencing, the location of certain types of fencing on the property line or set inside the property line for m aintenance, the reason for the 36” height limitation (which no one knew why), the definition of ‘decorative fence’ having an openness factor assigned to it, the requirement that business and industrial zoned properties abutting residentially zoned property must have a fence and that fence shall be erected along the property line and shall be 100% opaque, and what the current ordinance required versus what was being suggested. In regards to residentially zoned properties, consensus of the Commissioners was that 6-foot, 100% opaque fences in the rear and side yards; 4 -foot open-type fencing in the front yard were permissible. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Mr. Matt Mosvick, 1133 Orchard Place, since he was planning on putting in a fence himself was curious and that was why he stayed after his planning case had been heard. He noted the case May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 25 of 26 heard earlier this evening where a nine foot fence was being installed and would meet up with a six foot fence. He commended that if he were the six foot fence owner he would not like that. He suggested they think about making a gradual decline from the nine foot fence to the six foot fence to it would not be so stark; it would be more aesthetically pleasing. He also commented that he has had a fence for 30 years with the staggered board. When looking at it straight on it appears to be a solid fence. However, when looking from the side it can be seen through. He suggested they consider safety with a solid fence due to the wind factor. Even with his staggered fence, he has had a few sections get blown down in the past. Ms. Debbie Smith, 1088 William Court, stated that she and her husband, Dewey, tried to get a solid panel polyethylene privacy fence because they have a tremendous amount of cars going by and it is very noisy. Mr. Smith stated that he is 68 years old and he is tired of maintaining an old fence. He would like to install a fence that is maintainable, looks nice, maintains their privacy, and prevents the car lights from shining into their yard. They are also concerned about safety in that they have had burglars try to scale their fence and if they had a solid fence they would not be able to get a foothold. Luckily the police have scared these burglars before they got inside. Mr. Dan Larson, 1961 Walsh Lane, has worked for Midwest Fence for the last 23 years. He explained that when the code was written many years ago, the standard privacy fence was a stockade style, white cedar, manufactured panel. The pickets were rough and thin and they were fastened with small nails or staples. The rails were 2 x 3, not 2 x 4 as used today. They were sold at retail outlets and design to be a do-it-yourself (DYI) product. These panels typically failed quickly. Panel failure would lead to property damage and/or unsightly residential yards. Today, these panels are not manufactured. Over the last 30 years, the fence industry has evolved to make huge advancements in product performance and longevity. For example, composite and PVC privacy manufacturers make styles that withstand wind loads between 90 and 130 miles per hour. They are windblown tested at Miami Dade County. They do not decay or require staining, painting and come in a variety of styles and colors, from light white, neutral, and dark and wood grain texture. Cedar privacy fences toda y are typically installed with concrete set posts on by six dimension boards, galvanized rain shanks, stainless or similar nail, and 2 x 4 rails. The residents of Mendota Heights, under the current code, have an extremely limited selection of privacy styles to choose from and are usually surprised when they are advised of the city requirements. With the exception of a handful of cities within the metro area, Mendota Heights has an antiquated code, that if amended would allow residents to privatize their back yards with products that are dressier, unique, and long lasting. Commissioner Corbett asked if he could build a shadowbox fence with PVC material. Mr. Larson replied that there is one manufacturer that makes one. It is extremely costly. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO TABLE PLANNING CASE 2019-16 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT – FENCE STANDARDS UNDER THE DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 542 May 28, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 26 of 26 AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised that this matter would be tabled until June 25, 2019. It was also noted that the public hearing was still open as it had not been closed. Staff Announcements / Updates Community Developer Director Tim Benetti informed the Commission that the 2040 Comprehensive Plan would be presented to the City Council on Tuesday, June 4, 2019. He also provided highlights and recommendations that came out of the workshop meeting. The City Council did agree to allow a storage facility through a Conditional Use Permit with a quarter-mile separation factor rather than the 300-foot separation factor recommended by staff. Adjournment COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:47 P.M. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Planning Staff Report DATE: June 25, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2019-17 PRELIMINARY PLAT of SWEENEY ADDITION APPLICANT: Edward M. Sweeney PROPERTY ADDRESS: 777 Wentworth Avenue ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: September 28, 2019 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is seeking preliminary plat approval to replat his personal property into three (3) separate lots. The property is generally located at the northeast corner of Wentworth Avenue and Wachtler Avenue (Dakota Co. Road No. 8) and addressed as 777 Wentworth Avenue. 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. As of the submittal of this report, there have been no comments or objections to this subdivision request. BACKGROUND The applicant’s survey/plat map indicates the total area of the property is shown as 3.22 +/- acres. Of this, approximately 0.68 +/- acres is considered County Road #8 right-of-way. The subject property contains an existing single-family dwelling of 2,108 sq. ft. (finished), with a two-car tuck-under garage, a 20’ x 40 detached garage, an 8’ x 16’ shed, and another 16’ x 30’ accessory shed/structure in the back northeast corner of the parcel (see attached planning base/aerial map). The proposed preliminary plat creates three new lots from the larger subject parcel. Lots 1 and 3 will be platted to create two new single-family lots for future development. Lot 2 is being created to keep and maintain Mr. Sweeney’s residential property for now; as he has decided to remain in place and live at the home for now. In the future, Lot 2 may be sold off, and split into 2 separate lots if so desired by Mr. Sweeney or by others. Planning Report: Case #2019-17 Page 2 ANALYSIS  Comprehensive Plan The subject parcel is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; and is scheduled to remain guided LR-Low Density Residential under the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant’s request to subdivide the subject property into three parcels, consisting of 0.6 acres, 1.33 acres and 0.61 acres (2.54 of total net developed acres) is consistent with the intent of a single-family residential maximum density of 2.9 units per acre: [Calc.: 3 units @ 2.54 ac. = 1.2 u/a – OR – 4 units @ 2.54 ac. = 1.58 u/a]  Preliminary Plat 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 and based on the preliminary plat drawings, all proposed parcels, including the lot with the existing dwelling and potential building pad meet the applicable R-1 District standards: Standard Lot 1 Lot 2: Existing Dwelling Lot 3: New Parcel Lot Area 15,000 sf. 26,236 sf. 57,775-sf. 26,433-sf. Lot Width1 100 ft. 100 ft. 224.1-ft. 124.95-ft. Front Yard2 Minimum: 30 ft. 66+/- ft. 79.4-ft. 75-ft. Side Yard3 10 ft. (min.) 15 ft. (max.) 22.5-ft. & 6.5-ft. 110-ft. (west) 35.1 ft. (east) 67-ft. (west) 12.5 ft. (east) Rear Yard 30 ft. or 20% of the average lot depth, whichever is greater 135+/- ft. 145-ft. 95-ft. 1 The maximum horizontal distance between the side lot lines of a lot measured within the first thirty feet (30') of the lot depth 2 In the case of a building to be erected or extended on a corner lot, the minimum front yard depth shall be increased by an am ount not less than one-half (1/2) the depth in excess of thirty feet (30') of the front yard of the nearest building 3 10' on each side or 1/2 of the height of the structure contiguous to the side yard, whichever is greater, to a maximum of 15' Pursuant to City Code Section 11-2-3, the plat was required to identify any wetland features and any existing slopes greater than 33% in grade. There is an existing creek channel within proposed Lot 3, and the plat map includes a “hatched” layer or area illustrating the slopes of 33% or greater in this part of the lot. This area is being shown so when any new development occurs on Lot 3, this area will not be impacted or allowed to have any structures or surfaces in this area. The plat illustrates drainage and utility easements along the front, back and side lot lines, and includes the “hatched area” in and around the creek channel, noted previously. There is an east-west trail running along the north side of Wentworth Avenue, which makes slight curve northward near the intersection, but dead-ends approximately 100-ft. from the corner. This trail is actually owned and maintained by the City of Mendota Heights (even though located inside county ROW). The trail crosses over to the opposite (west) side of Wachtler Avenue, where it continues northward along this west side until it reaches State Hwy 13 to the north. The trail appears to encroach over the southerly line of Lot 2 on the preliminary plat map (see plat map image – below): Planning Report: Case #2019-17 Page 3 The lot line arrangements on the south sides of this plat appear to be consistent with Dakota County GIS mapping (see Dak. Co. GIS image – below): City staff was initially intending to withhold any conditions or recommendations on this trail encroachment, until Dakota County engineering or DC Surveyor provided comments or made any recommendations. Unless the County requires this ROW line be readjusted, the city will request the Applicant provide a separate trail easement along the southerly borders of Lots 1 and 2, which can be the same 10-foot width as the new drainage and utility easements in this area.  Dakota County Review The plat shows the dedication of right-of-way to Dakota County for both segments of County Road #8 (Wentworth Avenue and Wachtler Avenue). The ROW parcel begins at the extended easterly lot line of Lot 1 and continues westerly along Wentworth Avenue as a 30-ft. wide strip of land, which meets up with the large triangular shaped area in the northeasterly corner of the Wentworth and Wachtler Avenue intersections; and continues northward along Wachtler Avenue by a 33-ft. wide strip of land. On Thursday morning, June 20th, city staff received notice from County Surveyor Todd Tollefson that the Dakota County Plat Commission was set to review this preliminary plat at the next meeting of July 8th. Surveyor Tollefson also added a note: “The right-of-way needs along CR 8 are 50 feet of half right of way, which should be dedicated on the plat. The Plat Commission/Dakota County will be reviewing the proposed driveway access locations along CR 8 .” Planning Report: Case #2019-17 Page 4 Should the county commission require this 50-foot dedication in this plat, it appears all lots will still be compliant for size and area, widths and setbacks in the underlying R-1 zoning district. Staff can either make the final Dakota County findings a part of the conditions of approval, or the planning commission may choose to table the plat request; wait for the final outcome of the Plat Commission findings and recommendations; and have the plat brought back to next month’s planning commission meeting. Please note, since this is only a preliminary plat, the final plat map will likely be presented in the near future to the Planning Commission for follow-up review. The final plat will become the final plan (or map) that shows the approved lot line layouts, easements and ROW dedications.  Concept Site Plan The Applicant provided a concept site plan for two new homes on Lot 1 and Lot 3 respectively. Water, sewer and gas are available to the site, and each lot should be able to tie into each of the systems accordingly. Any and all work inside the county right-of-way will need to be permitted and approved by Dakota County. The two new homes on each side of the existing dwelling that is to remain appear to be matching in front setbacks to each other, which is reflective of the average setback or “string -line” rule required for development of new houses in previously developed areas/neighborhoods. The home pad for Lot 1 is shown with an easterly side-yard setback of approximately 6.5-feet. As the above table reflects, Zoning Code requires a minimum 10-ft. setback – or a distance equal to one-half (1/2) the height of the home. Since this dwelling height is unknown or not established yet, any new home plan will need to meet one of these setbacks to be complaint. Title 12-2 of the Code requires a wetlands permit for any construction/grading activities or vegetation removal within 100 feet of a wetland or water resource-related area. Based on the location of the potential building pad on Lot 3, additional permitting would be necessary due to the proximity to this wetland. In this case, since no construction is being proposed on Lot 3 at this time, the future property owner (or builder) will be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits prior to any applicable development activities. According to Title 11-3-8-A of the City Code: Slope Limitations: Subdivision design shall be consistent with limitations presented by steep slopes. Subdivisions shall be designed so that no construction or grading will be conducted on slopes steeper than thirty-three percent (33%) in grade. Slopes over 33% on Lot 3 are shown on the plan. The potential building pad is shown outside of this area and is compliant with the Code. A condition of approval is included that prohibits construction or grading on slopes over 33% on Lot 3 as part of and future (proposed) building plans. The concept plan also shows the new house pad at 32.2-ft. from the creek (wetland) edge. Code requires a 25-ft. buffer from any wetland edge. REQUESTED ACTION Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat of Sweeney Addition, based on the attached findings of fact and conditions of approval as noted herein; OR 2. Recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat of Sweeney Addition based on certain revised or determined findings of fact (by the Planning Commission); OR 3. Table the request, pending additional information from city staff, the Applicant or Dakota County. Planning Report: Case #2019-17 Page 5 RECOMMENDATION In forming a recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Commission is asked to determine if the proposed preliminary plat is reasonable, and fits in with the general character of the existing developments in and around the adjacent neighborhoods. If this is the case, the Planning Commission may forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the Preliminary Plat of Sweeney Addition, with the following conditions: 1. Park dedication fee in the amount of $8,000.00 (for each new lot) and in lieu of land dedication, is collected after City Council approval and before the final plat is recorded by Dakota County or issuance of any additional permits by the City. 2. The Applicant shall dedicate necessary right-of-way along Wentworth Avenue and Wachtler Avenue, per the direction of the Dakota County Plat Commission and/or County Surveyor; and reflect those dedications on the final plat. 3. The concept plans presented under this plat request do not represent or provide approval of building layouts or setbacks. Final layouts and setbacks must meet R-1 Zone standards and shall be approved under separate building permits for each lot. 4. No development, grading or construction activity on Lot 3 will occur on slopes over 33% as shown in the hatched area of the preliminary plat. 5. All new construction and grading activities on Lots 1 and 3 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. 6. The existing (and non-conforming) 16’ x 30’ accessory shed/structure on the back corner of Lot 1 must be removed within 6-months after final plat approval and prior to the city allowing any new single-family dwelling building permit to occur on said lot. 7. A wetlands permit must be obtained prior to any proposed development activities or new home permit activities on Lot 3. Attachments 1. Site Photos 2. Site map 3. Preliminary Plat Map – Sweeney Addition 4. Site/Concept Plans Planning Report: Case #2019-17 Page 6 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Preliminary Plat of Sweeney Addition 777 Wentworth Avenue The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed plat meets the purpose and intent of the Subdivision Code. 2. The proposed plat request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposed lots will meet the minimum standards required under the R-1 One Family Residential District. 4. A wetlands permit for future construction on Lot 3 will require compliance with applicable land disturbance and drainage standards to ensure there are no negative impacts to the surrounding water body and natural environment. Planning Report: Case #2019-17 Page 7 EXISTING DWELLING – 777 WENTWORTH AVENUE (Mr. Sweeney’s Residence) LOOKING NORTHWARD – TOWARDS RESIDENCE Planning Report: Case #2019-17 Page 8 LOOKING NORTHWESTERLY –FRONT AREA OF LOT 1 LOOKING NORTHERLY - BACK SIDE OF LOT 1 (SHED IN BACKGROUND) Planning Report: Case #2019-17 Page 9 LOOKING WESTERLY – REAR YARD AREA OF RESIDENCE LOOKING WESTERLY Planning Report: Case #2019-17 Page 10 LOOKING NORTHERLY - REAR AREA OF NEW LOT 3 LOOKING WESTERLY – TOWARD CREEK (AREA OF LOT 3) Planning Report: Case #2019-17 Page 11 LOOKING NORTHERLY – CORNER OF WENTWORTH AND WACHTLER AVE’S (NOTE THE TRAIL) LOOKING NORTHERLY – FRONT EDGE OF LOT 3 755 777 1562 790 1595 768774780 760 861 800 766798792786776780770 1570 1564 1566 760 1632 861 1595 1627 1562 1623 855 815 1560 Dakota County GIS City ofMendotaHeights0130 SCALE IN FEETDate: 6/17/2019 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. Edward M. Sweeney 777 Wentworth Ave. (Planning Case No. 2019-17) 479.00 S89°43'15"W292.56N00°41'46"E479.00 N89°43'15"E 292.56S00°41'46"WG:\01-Charles Cudd Co. L.L.C\04-Designs_Preliminary Plans (No Job Number)\98XX-Edward Sweeney\Civil\two new units-98XX-Edward Sweeney property lot layout-061019.dwg, 6/10/2019 4:05:27 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 479.00 S89°43'15"W292.56N00°41'46"E479.00 N89°43'15"E 292.56S00°41'46"WG:\01-Charles Cudd Co. L.L.C\04-Designs_Preliminary Plans (No Job Number)\98XX-Edward Sweeney\Civil\9901-Edward Sweeney property lot layout-061019.dwg, 6/10/2019 4:04:52 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 Planning Report: Case #2019-18 – Henry Sibley HS-Aquatics-Adddns. Page 1 DATE: June 25, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2019-18 Variances to Exceed Maximum Height of Structures in the R-1 One Family Residence District APPLICANT: ISD #197 – Henry Sibley High School PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1897 Delaware Avenue ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential & R-1A One Family Residential / S-School (Institutional) ACTION DEADLINE: July 28, 2019 INTRODUCTION ISD #197 is requesting variances in order to construct a new aquatics (pool) center, gymnasium addition, and entry addition to the Henry Sibley High School (HSHS) facilities, located at 1897 Delaware Avenue. In May of 2018, the voters in ISD #197 approved (with a 62% favorable vote) a $117 million building bond for structural and mechanical maintenance upgrades at all the district’s school buildings, which included modernizing outdated classroom and education spaces, improving fine arts and athletics spaces and addressing school parking lot safety and handicapped accessibility. This public hearing was duly noticed by a legal publication in the Pioneer Press, the city’s official newspaper, and notice letters of this request and public hearing were mailed to all properties within 700 feet (twice the standard 350-ft. distance), including property owners in nearby West St. Paul and Sunfish Lake. The city received one letter of objection on this project, which is appended to this report. BACKGROUND The school campus property consists of eight separate parcels, totaling 73.61 acres (according to Dakota County/GIS records). The applicant’s survey however, indicates the gross area of 67.6 acres and net area of 66.2 acres. The high school contains up 60 classrooms, with enrollment of approx. 1,450 students. Records show the original 3-story high school building was approved and constructed in 1970-1971. The main school facility is centrally located on the campus, with three main access points off Delaware Avenue to the east, and a secondary access off Warrior Drive to the west. The campus contains 573 parking spaces most of which are located on the north side of the school building, with added parking along the east and far southeast corner of the campus. Planning Report: Case #2019-18 – Henry Sibley HS-Aquatics-Adddns. Page 2 The campus contains a number of different outdoor athletic fields, including 12 asphalt tennis courts; and a variety of baseball, softball and soccer fields (4) on the north side, which included an older 8-lane running track and football field with limited seating stands. On October 4, 2018, ISD 197 presented plans to reconstruct the football/track field area, along with other athletic fields in this north campus area, which was requested under a similar variances to certain height standards, including the lights, stadium booth, and number of accessory structures. These variances were eventually reviewed, accepted and approved on October 16, 2018 when the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2018-78. This work is now in progress and will continue throughout the summer. During these earlier variance presentations, it was mentioned publicly that HSHS was intending to return next year to request similar approvals of a proposed aquatics center and gymnasium addition, but those plans were not ready yet – and are now being considered under this separate variance application request. Planning Report: Case #2019-18 – Henry Sibley HS-Aquatics-Adddns. Page 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The school is seeking to build a 110’ x 190’ aquatics center along the east side of the main school building (see Google Street image-below). The facility will house a new Olympic sized swimming pool with locker/changing rooms and visitor viewing stands to watch swimming events. The new 135’ x 180’ gymnasium addition will take place on the south side of where the existing gymnasium is located (see Google Street image-below). The overall projected height of this new gym is 50-ft. -5” measured at the east and south elevations. A space for loading/storage is still planned underneath the gym addition, with the loading doors facing out towards Delaware Avenue (east). The project also includes a small extension and addition to the front (main) school entryway, which will have an overall height of 31-ft. – 2-inches. Planning Report: Case #2019-18 – Henry Sibley HS-Aquatics-Adddns. Page 4 Finally, the project also includes a new Administration Addition to the west side of the school facility. This addition is only a one-story, 16-ft.-4-inches in height, and is not part of the structure height variances requested under this application. The plans for these improvements are illustrated and presented for review on the attached site and elevation plans, prepared by the school’s design team LSE Architects. ANALYSIS  Zoning / Land Use The high school property is currently zoned a combination of R-1 and R-1A One Family Residential District. Public and parochial schools are considered permitted uses under the R-1 zoning. The school site however, is guided “S-School” under the general Institutional land use category of the current 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan includes a new P/S- Public/Semi-Public land used category, which will reflect a very similar “school” or “institutional” category for this and other school properties; with a desire by staff in creating a new and separate zoning district for such uses. For all intents and purposes, schools as a use– along with all associated facilities and improvements such as classroom buildings, gymnasium, auditorium, cafeteria, vehicle/bus parking areas, athletic fields, etc., tend to make them a very unique and specialized use within an established and dedicated “single-family” zoning district. Most schools do not resemble or function anywhere near to typical single-family dwellings or uses. However, the fact remains that if a use is located or situated inside a specific zoning district, then those district standards must be applied to all uses, unless the City Code provides for different standards or specific rules related to such special uses. At this time, the current R-1 and R-1A zoning remains the applicable standards to apply and review under this variance review process.  Structure Heights (Requested Variances) Aquatic Center Pursuant to Code Section 12-1E-3.D, any structure or building in the R-1 District must not exceed two (2) stories in height or twenty-five feet (25’) in height. Flat-roofed structures such as these are measured at the upper-most edge of the building. As noted previously, the new aquatics center addition is proposed with a maximum height of 35-ft.-8-inches (measured on the south elevation – see image below): Planning Report: Case #2019-18 – Henry Sibley HS-Aquatics-Adddns. Page 5 On the north side of the facility. the height is shown with a 25’-4” height, due to part of the facility at the north end will be built into the existing berm- seen in the first Google Street image phots on page 3 (above). The aquatic center will be connected to the main school building by the “New Connection Link”, which will provide a covered/enclosed walkway for students and visitors walking to and from the main building. The upper panels on the roof are solar panels, and are not subject to the height limitations, as city code provides certain exemptions to certain roof-top structures, such as mechanicals, chimneys, or elevator penthouses. Gymnasium Addition The new gym addition will be built on the south side of the current gym facilities, and is intended to be built with a maximum height of 50-ft.-5-inches. The new gym will exceed the current gym building height by just over 5-feet. Planning Report: Case #2019-18 – Henry Sibley HS-Aquatics-Adddns. Page 6 Entry Addition The school plans to provide a new and larger fully enclosed entryway, with full glass curtain wall along the north front main entry into the school. This addition will be 31-ft.-2-inches when completed.  Traffic & Parking As was noted in the previous October 2018 Planning Report, a “high school” use is required to provide at least 1 space for each student; plus 1 space for each 3 classrooms. According to ISD-197 officials, student enrollment is approximately 1,450 students, with 60 classroom. Parking calculates as follows: [Students: 1450 @ 7= 208 spaces] + [60 rooms @ 3 = 20 spaces] or 228 spaces needed. When the city reviewed the athletic field improvements last October, it was noted that the entire campus had approx. 573 spaces, and included a provision that “…97 new spaces will be added under the new aquatics center addition….”which bumped the total number to 670 parking spaces. City Code also requires “Athletic Fields” to have at least 1 space for each 3 seats of design capacity. The October report indicated the new football field would have a seating capacity of 2,000 seats, so 667 spaces were needed. City Code Section 12-1D-17 gives the city the ability to ask a developer/applicant to submit a traffic study “…for any proposed development or redevelopment project that results in the change or intensification of the existing or planned land use.” As part of the previous athletic field improvement requests last fall, ISD 197 submitted a traffic (and parking demand) report from Spack Consulting, which essentially found that the “proposed multi-use stadium, and associated football game traffic, does not represent a significant transportation impact to the surrounding roadway system and will not significantly alter traffic flow or parking operations in the surrounding community.” In order to avoid any possible over-parking the campus, school representatives indicated they would not double-book or schedule same day/night extra-curricular and athletic events, such as a football/basketball games, wrestling/volleyball matches, concerts-theater productions, student/teacher conferences – or swim meets, when the new aquatic center opened. One of the conditions made part of Res. 2018-78 was “The Applicant shall not hold another event on the site at the same time as a varsity football home game.” The Planning Commission and City Council eventually found the existing and projected (new) parking would be sufficiently handled and maintained on the school property; and that traffic would not be an issue as part of these overall athletic field improvements; and approved the variances accordingly. As part of this new aquatic /gym addition project, the school is still planning to install the 97 new stalls to the south of the aquatic center as originally noted last October 2018; and reconfigure/restripe the central Planning Report: Case #2019-18 – Henry Sibley HS-Aquatics-Adddns. Page 7 parking area between school and aquatic center, from 50 spaces to 36 spaces. The combined parking for this area will be 133 spaces. According to the architects, the new aquatic center is scheduled to have a seating capacity for 416 spectators. Utilizing the same standards of 1 space per 3, the aquatic center alone would need to have 139 spaces. The 97 + 36 spaces equals 133 spaces around or near this pool facility. The Planning Commission should decide if these 133 spaces, plus the “regular school” parking spaces will be adequate and sufficient to handle the parking needs for this aquatic use if full capacity is ever reached.  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 pr operty 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 thes e 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 height of the existing Henry Sibley High School is 65’-0” to the top of the existing penthouse. The height of the new gym addition is 50’-5”. The heights of the new front entry addition is 31’-2”. The heights of the new Admin. Addition is 16’-4”, and the Aquatics Addition is 34’-8” in height. (See attached building elevations for context). Staff’s response: The use of the property as a public school is a permitted use in the R-1 District, and its continued use as a high school, even with the additional aquatics center and gym addition remains consistent with the City Code of Ordinances and Comprehensive Plan. The district made it clear that the 2018 building bods would be used to fund and support the development of these new additions and improvements, and provide up-to-date and state of the art athletic facilities for their students, staff and the communities that support this school. These new building additions will be nice improvements to the existing high school facilities, and the fact these additions are still within height limits already established by the school facility today, makes the requested variance for heights justifiable and even reasonable in this case. Planning Report: Case #2019-18 – Henry Sibley HS-Aquatics-Adddns. Page 8 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 granting of this variance is consistent with the current circumstances unique to this existing property. Those current circumstances are that the new additions proposed either match the existing building heights at the entry addition, and the ISD Administration addition, are slightly tallest as is the case of the new gymnasium addition. . Staff’s response: One of the primary reasons for the recent school bond approval, was to provide upgrades and additional space for the students that utilize this high school, and provide an added level of athletic and extra-curricular space for students and visitors. The plight of the landowner and restrictions on building heights is due to circumstances unique to the property, as this school use is not a typical single-family use in the underlying R-1 One Family Residential District. Therefore, granting a variance is warranted. 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 heights of the proposed HSHS additions area all less than the current height of the existing high school. New addition buildings finishes and colors are similar to those of the existing HSHS. . Staff’s response: The variances, if granted, should not alter the essential character of the neighborhoods, as this high school has been in place and operation for a number of years in the community, and there is a general expectation that any addition of this nature can be considered a reasonable improvement to the overall functionality, benefit and enjoyment of the school, including its students, faculty, and the community. ALTERNATIVES for ACTION 1. Recommend approval of the variance requests, 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 essentia l 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 proposed aquatics building to exceed the 25-ft. height limits in the R-1/R-1A One Family Residential District to 35-ft.-8-in., the proposed gymnasium addition to 50-ft.-5-in., and the entryway addition to 31-ft.-2-in. by the following: i.) the proposed structure height increases are considered a reasonable request, based on the overall scope, scale and use of the subject property as a high school campus facility, and fits with the current design and layout of the existing school building on the property; and are considered consistent with the spirit and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan; ii.) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, as this school use is not a typical single-family use in the underlying R-1 One Family Residential District, and therefore warrants the approval or granting of such variances in this particular case; Planning Report: Case #2019-18 – Henry Sibley HS-Aquatics-Adddns. Page 9 iii.) the excess heights of the new aquatics center, gymnasium addition and entryway addition are all under or equal to what exists today; so there impacts will not be noticeable when compared to other (pre-existing) structures on the campus site; and iv.) The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhoods; since the school is and has been in place and operation for a number of years in the community, and there is a general accepted expectation that school facility improvements, such as this aquatics center, gym addition and entryway addition, can be considered a reasonable improvement for the overall benefit and enjoyment of the school, its students, faculty, and the community. 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 Variances 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 Variances will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. D. Approval of these Variances are for ISD-#197 (Henry Sibley High School) 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- 18, dated and presented June 25, 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 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) The Applicant shall obtain a building permit for all proposed improvements and structures identified herein. 2) The Applicant shall not deviate or increase the heights of structures as approved or presented under this application. Any changes must be reconsidered under a new application before the planning commission and approved by the city council. 3) 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. 4) “The Applicant shall not schedule or conduct a swim meet or any other spectator event inside the aquatic center at the same time as a varsity football home game.” Planning Report: Case #2019-18 – Henry Sibley HS-Aquatics-Adddns. Page 10 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 fully met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of these variances for increased height of structures in the R-1/R-1A District. The City finds the proposed additions are not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and there are other alternatives 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. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration of the Variances to be considered for this new aquatics center, gymnasium addition and entryway addition - as requested by the Applicant, and if the Commission wishes to approve the Variances as presented herein and add or modify the conditions as noted herein you may choose Alternative No. 1 noted above. If the Commission wishes to deny the variances as presented, or request more information, you may choose to select either Alternative No. 2 or 3 - noted above as well. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Aerial site map 2. Planning Application, including Narrative 3. Aquatics Center / Gym Addition Site Plan 4. Elevation Plans (Aquatics Center / Gym Addition / Entryway / Admin. Addition) 5. Floor Plans 2019-18300.00500.0005/28/201907/28/2019 2019-18ISD #197Henry Sibley High School John and Adrienne Meyers 491 Deer Run Trail West Saint Paul, MN 55118 June 19, 2019 Mr. Tim Benetti Community Development Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Mr. Benetti: As concerned neighbors of Henry Sibley High School, we write to oppose the variance to exceed the maximum allowable height of 25’ for the new aquatics center requested by Independent School District No. 197, which will be heard by the Planning Commission on June 25, 2019 (Planning Case No. 2019- 18). We respectfully ask that the variance be denied because the District has not established there are practical difficulties in complying with the 25’ height restriction. • The variance, if granted, will fundamentally alter the essential character of the area. Delaware Avenue is a residential street. A 35’ tall structure will be out of scale and inconsistent with the locality. The proposed height of the aquatics center must be considered in the context of its proposed length (more than 150’ long) and setback (only 30’ from Delaware Avenue). This context distinguishes the aquatics center from the existing Sibley buildings that exceed the height restriction to which the District refers in its application. Those buildings are located on the interior of the Sibley campus, hundreds of feet from the property line, thereby diminishing the effect of the height of those buildings on the locality. • The variance is not reasonable. The District has not explained why a structure intended to house an underground pool must exceed 25’ in height, why—if the structure must exceed that restriction—it could not be located farther from the setback, or why the structure cannot be partially built below ground level or elsewhere with a lower topographical elevation. • There is no circumstance unique to the property that would prohibit the District from lowering the height of the aquatics center to 25’ or locating the structure elsewhere on the property. In fact, the proposed location of the structure on the relatively high elevation of the Delaware site is a unique circumstance that weighs against the requested variance. The “unique circumstance” identified by the District in its application (the height of existing buildings) was a circumstance created entirely by the District and therefore may not be considered. In addition, the variance will result in a structure that is not consistent with Mendota Heights’ 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which describes Mendota Heights as “natural,” “open,” “spacious,” and “green.” The intent of the Plan is to “protect the quiet, secluded feel” of the City’s neighborhoods. A wall measuring 35’ high by at least 150’ feet long, set back only 30’ from Delaware Avenue, is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for your consideration and the opportunity to be heard. Yours truly, s/John Meyers s/Adrienne Meyers John Meyers Adrienne Meyers FIELD (185' x 335') 12 18 8 259 12 24 101026 34 17 1 2 3 PC 30.0' SETBACK 364.8' SETBACK 365.1' SETBACK 1044.8' SETBACK1076.3' SETBACK704.3' SETBACK674.0' SETBACKDELAWARE AVENUEFUTURE AQUATICS PARKING EXPANSION EXISTING HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL FUTURE AQUATICS ADDITION MULTI- PURPOSE ATHLETIC FACILITY WARRIOR DRIVECALLAHAN PLACEADDITION NEW LEVEL 2 ADDITIONS NEW ENTRY ADDITION ISD ADDITION ALT. - 01 140'-0" NEW PLAZA ENTRY Level 1 100' -0" Level 2 114' -0" Level 3 128' -0" Penthouse 142' -0" 1234568910111419202122232425262728293031323334353637 T.O. Slab 158' -0" 8'18'23' Roof -Existing 165' -4" 36.6 13 730.6 ANOD. ALUM. WDW. FRAMES W/ 1" INSUL. GLAZING 12 INFILL DEMOLISHED OPENING TO MATCH EXIST. ADJACENT CONSTRUCTION ANOD. ALUM. WDW. FRAMES W/ 1" INSUL. GLAZING 15161718 ANOD. ALUM. ENTRY DOOR & SIDELITE W/ 1" INSUL. GLAZING INSULATED H.M. FRAME AND FRP DOOR PREFINISHED MTL. COPING, TYP. 23.826.3 TRANSLUCENT PANEL SKYLIGHTS. E.25 31' - 2"31'-2" NEW ENTRY ADDITION EXISTING PENTHOUSE EXISTING PENTHOUSE Level 1 100' -0" Level 2 114' -0" Level 3 128' -0" Penthouse 142' -0" 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 T.O. Slab 158' -0" 8'18'23' Roof -Existing 165' -4" 36.6137 PREFINISHED MTL. COPING, TYP. TRANSLUCENT PANEL @ CLERESTORY 30.6 ANOD. ALUM. CURTAIN WALL SYSTEM W/ 1" INSUL. GLAZING MP-1 NEW SIGNAGE NEW MODULAR VENEER MAS. 12 PREFINISHED MTL. COPING, TYP. 15 16 17 18 NEW MODULAR VENEER MAS. EXIST. MAS. VENEER INSUL. SPANDREL PANEL MTL-1 PREFINISHED MTL. MECH. LOUVER 23.8 26.3E.25 50' - 5"EXISTING GYMNASIUMNEW GYMNASIUM ADDITIONEXISTING CLASSROOM WING EXISTING PENTHOUSE Level 1 100' -0" Level 2 114' -0" Level 3 128' -0" Penthouse 142' -0" K M N P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA BB CC DD EEJHGF T.O. Slab 158' -0" X'A'G' Roof -Existing 165' -4" L M' MP-1 ANOD. ALUM. WDW. FRAMES W/ 1" INSUL. GLAZING NEW MODULAR VENEER MAS. ANOD. ALUM. WDW. FRAMES W/ 1" INSUL. GLAZING AND PRECAST CONC. SILL BLOCKS NEW ANOD. ALUM. WDW. FRAMES W/ 1" INSUL. GLAZING AND PRECAST CONC. SILL BLOCKS (ALTERNATE -01) ANOD. ALUM. WDW. FRAMES W/ 1" INSUL. GLAZING AND PRECAST CONC. SILL BLOCKS BEYOND EDCBAB'C'D'E' NEW ANOD. ALUM. WDW. FRAMES W/ 1" INSUL. GLAZING AND PRECAST CONC. SILL BLOCKS PREFINISHED MTL. COPING A'' PREFINISHED MTL. COPING INSUL. H.M. FRAME AND FRP DOOR E.8E.4D'.8 LAMBS TOUNGE WALL SCUPPER LAMBS TOUNGE WALL SCUPPER E.18 PREFINISHED MTL. MECH. LOUVER E.26 50' - 5"NEW GYMNASIUM ADDITION EXISTING PENTHOUSE EXISTING CLASSROOM WING POOL 1 100' -0" POOL 2 113' -0" T.O. POOL FTG 96' -0" POOL ROOF 127' -8" LOWER LEVEL 90' -8" Level 1 100' -0" Level 2 114' -0" Level 3 128' -0" Tunnels 95' -0" Basement 88' -0" Penthouse 142' -0" KMNPQRSTUVWXYZAABBCCDDEE J H G F T.O. Slab 158' -0" X'A'G' Roof -Existing 165' -4" LM' NEW MODULAR VENEER MAS. MP-1 INSUL. HOLLOW METAL FRAME AND FRP DOOR E D C B AB'C'D'E' PREFINISHED MTL. COPING ANOD. ALUM. CURTAIN WALL W/ 1" INSULATED GLAZING A'' PREFINISHED MTL. COPING PREFINISHED METAL MECH. LOUVER E.8 E.4 D'.8 E.18E.26 50' - 5"NEW GYMNASIUM ADDITION EXISTING GYMNASIUMS EXISTING PENTHOUSE NEW ENTRY ADDITION 31' - 1"Level 1 100' -0" Level 2 114' -0" Level 3 128' -0" Tunnels 95' -0" Basement 88' -0" Penthouse 142' -0" H G FG'E D C BC'D'E' ANOD. ALUM. WDW. FRAMES W/ 1" INSUL. GLAZING SALVAGED VENEER MAS. AT ISD ADDITION PRECAST CONC. SILL BLOCK TO MATCH EXIST. PREFINISHED MTL. COPING TO MATCH EXIST. E.8 E.4 D'.8 E.18 INDICATES EXISTING BEYOND 16' - 4"NEW ADMINISTRATION ADDITION EXISTING Level 1 100' -0" Level 2 114' -0" Level 3 128' -0" Penthouse 142' -0" 2223242526272823' PREFINISHED MECHANICAL LOUVER MP-1 PREFINISHED MTL. COPING NEW MODULAR VENEER MAS. INSUL. HOLLOW METAL FRAME AND FRP DOOR 23.826.3 Level 3 128' -0" Penthouse 142' -0" WXYX' POOL ROOF 127' -8" Level 1 100' -0" Level 2 114' -0" Level 3 128' -0" EE Level 1 100' -0" Level 2 114' -0" Level 3 128' -0" EE NEW MODULAR VENEER MAS. PREFINISHED MTL. COPING INSUL. HOLLOW METAL FRAME AND FRP DOOR 34567 SALVAGED BRICK MAS. AT ISD ADDITION ANOD. ALUM. WDW. FRAMES W/ 1" INSUL. GLAZING PREFINISHED MTL. COPING, TYP. PRECAST. CONC, SILL BLOCK TO MATCH EXIST. CONC. RETAINING WALL INDICATES EXISTING BEYOND 16' - 4"EXISTING PENTHOUSE NEW ADMINISTRATION ADDITION Project Date Drawn by Checked by Drawing Number No.Date Revision Description Key Plan LAWAL SCOTT ERICKSON ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.3382280 fax www.lse-architects.com I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Printed Name: Signature: Date:License #: Copyright © 2018 by LSE Architects, Inc. These drawings including all design, details, specifications and information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects, Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall not be used on any other work without agreement and written permission of LSE Architects, Inc. © 05/24/2019 100% CONST. DOC'S. 24228 5/24/2019 4:27:51 PM C:\Users\tmacleod\Documents\LSE Revit Local Files\HS_Henry Sibley_AR-18_Central_tmacleod_lse.rvt18.1008.01 May 24, 2019 Author Checker A400 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL MOHAMMED LAWAL 05/24/2019 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 1897 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 A400 1" = 20'-0" 1 NORTH - OVERALL A400 1" = 20'-0" 4 SOUTH - OVERALL A400 1" = 20'-0" 6 WEST - OVERALL A400 1" = 20'-0" 10 EAST - OVERALL N A B C D E F A400 1" = 20'-0" 5 EAST - ALTERNATE - 01 A400 1" = 20'-0" 8 NORTH - PENTHOUSE NORTH A400 1" = 20'-0" 3 NORTH - PENTHOUSE WEST A400 1" = 20'-0" 9 WEST STAIR A400 1" = 20'-0" 7 EAST STAIR A400 1" = 20'-0" 2 PARTIAL NORTH - ALTERNATE - 01 Level 1 100' -0" Level 2 114' -0" Level 3 128' -0" Penthouse 142' -0" 242526272829303132333435363738 T.O. Slab 158' -0" 23' Roof -Existing 165' -4" 36.6 30.6 26.3 POOL 1 100' -0" POOL 2 113' -0" POOL ROOF 127' -8"31' - 2"31'-2" NEW ENTRY ADDITION EXISTING PENTHOUSE 11' - 10"20' - 0"NEW AQUATICS ADDITION BEYOND NEW CONNECTING LINK BEYOND Level 1 100' -0" Level 2 114' -0" Level 3 128' -0" Tunnels 95' -0" Basement 88' -0" Penthouse 142' -0" KMNPQRSTUVWXYZAABBCCDDEE J H G F T.O. Slab 158' -0" X'A'G' Roof -Existing 165' -4" LM'E D C B AB'C'D'E'A'' E.8 E.4 D'.8 E.18E.26 POOL 1 100' -0" POOL 2 113' -0" POOL ROOF 127' -8"50' - 5"NEW GYMNASIUM ADDITION BEYOND EXISTING GYMNASIUMS BEYOND EXISTING PENTHOUSE BEYOND NEW ENTRY ADDITION BEYOND 31' - 1"31' - 8"25' - 4"NEW CONNECTING LINK Level 1 100' -0" Level 2 114' -0" Level 3 128' -0" Penthouse 142' -0" 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 T.O. Slab 158' -0" Roof -Existing 165' -4" 36.6 POOL 1 100' -0" POOL 2 113' -0" T.O. POOL FTG 96' -0" POOL ROOF 127' -8" LOWER LEVEL 90' -8" EXISTING GYMNASIUM NEW GYMNASIUM ADDITION NEW AQUATICS ADDITION 35' - 8"50' - 5"45' - 2"NEW CONNECTING LINK Project Date Drawn by Checked by Drawing Number No.Date Revision Description Key Plan LAWAL SCOTT ERICKSON ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.3382280 fax www.lse-architects.com I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Printed Name: Signature: Date: License #: Copyright © 2018 by LSE Architects, Inc. These drawings including all design, details, specifications and information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects, Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall not be used on any other work without agreement and written permission of LSE Architects, Inc. © 05/24/2019 100% CONST. DOC'S. 24228 5/24/2019 4:28:00 PM C:\Users\tmacleod\Documents\LSE Revit Local Files\HS_Henry Sibley_AR-18_Central_tmacleod_lse.rvt18.1008.01 May 24, 2019 Author Checker A402 AQUATICS OVERALL ELEVATIONS HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL MOHAMMED LAWAL 05/24/2019 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 1897 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 A402 1" = 20'-0" 1 NORTH - OVERALL AQUATICS A402 1" = 20'-0" 2 EAST - OVERALL AQUATICS A402 1" = 20'-0" 3 SOUTH - OVERALL AQUATICS 985 9 8 0 980 975 970965 987 986 984983982 981 981 982 9 7 9 9 7 7 972968968 967 966 964 UP UP UP ALIGN PROPERTY LINEDELAWARE AVENUEEXIST. LOADING SLOPED WALK AND CIP CONC RETAINING WALL DROP OFF 97 6 36 BUS DROP OFFHENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL 100'-0" = 968.7' D C A 2 E F 71 B PAINT LINES, TYP CURB AND GUTTER W/ CONCRETE WALK, TYPICAL RECEIVEPLANTING AREA CIP CONCRETE RETAINING WALL HC HC HC HC HC HC COVERED CONNECTION TO HIGH SCHOOL AT POOL'S UPPER LEVEL 112' - 8"152' - 8"33' - 8"BITUMINOUS WALK30' - 0" NEW PARKING LOT Project Date Drawn by Checked by Drawing Number No.Date Revision Description Key Plan LSE ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.3382280 fax www.lse-architects.com I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Printed Name: Signature: Date:License #: Copyright © 2018 by LSE Architects, Inc. These drawings including all design, details, specifications and information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects, Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall not be used on any other work without agreement and written permission of LSE Architects, Inc. © N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N 6/19/2019 3:10:11 PM C:\Users\tmacleod\Documents\LSE Revit Local Files\HS_Henry Sibley_POOL_AR-18_tmacleod_lse.rvt18.1008.09 June 28, 2019 Author Checker A010 SITE PLAN HENRY SIBLEY AQUATICS MOHAMMED LAWAL 06/28/2019 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 1897 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 A010 1" = 20'-0" 1 LEVEL 1 EXTERIOR NORTH 0'40'20' UP UP 1 A410 126 ELEC 123 POOL A4001 A400 2 A400 4 A400 3 2 A410 D C A 3 3 2 4 6 E F 71 5 B DRINKING FOUNTAINS 112' - 8"ADA POOL ACCESS116 SWIM OFFICE 102 COMM. ED.101 LOBBY 114 GIRLS TEAM 119 BOYS 106 HALLWAY 129 HALLWAY 3 A410 4 A410 104 CONF.202' - 4"103 OFFICE 117 SHOWERS 121 SHOWERS 118 RESTROOM 120 RESTROOM 113 HALL 3.4 E.9 E.7 E.6 E4 E.3 E.2 33' - 8"8' - 0"8' - 0"112' - 8" 5 A201 100 VESTIBULE 105 JAN 128 STORAGE 122 POOL DECK 206 HALL 130 FAMILY 131 FAM 132 OFFICE 133 OFFICE 134 REST. 135 REST. 139 BOYS HALLWAY 140 GIRLS HALLWAY 4 A201 194' - 4"152' - 8"41' - 8"8' - 4"STADIA29' - 6"STADIA29' - 6"STADIA26' - 8"STADIA24' - 4"9' - 6"24' - 10"100' - 0" A710 12 A711 1 2 A4051 A405 2 A405 3 A405 4 TEAM SEATINGTEAM SEATING120 RESTROOM 143 GIRLS 1 A410 2 A410 D C A 32 201 MEZZ. ROOF ACCESS 216 MEZZ. 217 SEATING 4 E E F 715 B OPEN TO BELOW GLASS GUARD RAIL, TYP. 4" CMU CHASE TBD ADA SEATING, TYP SCORE BOARD 3 A410 4 A410 204 CONCESSIONS 218 VESTIBULE WALL MOUNTED POOL COVER ROLLS 112' - 8" 2' - 4" 23' - 4" 34' - 8"25' - 0" 27' - 4"202' - 4"152' - 8"16' - 4"17' - 4"8' - 0"8' - 0"RTU SCREENING 3.4 E.9 E.7 E.6 E4 E.3 E.2 RTU SEE MECH 86' - 0" 5 A201 SPECTATORS BENCHES 404 ADA + COMPANIONS 12 416(7) @ 10 = 7015' - 0"(5) @ 22 + (2) @ 11 = 13233' - 0"(5) @ 22 + (2) @ 11 = 13233' - 0"(7) @ 10 = 7015' - 0"17' - 0"4 A201 194' - 4"152' - 8"41' - 8"8' - 4"STADIA29' - 6"STADIA29' - 6"STADIA26' - 8"STADIA24' - 4"9' - 6"24' - 10"POOL 1 100' -0" POOL 2 113' -0" T.O. POOL FTG 96' -0" POOL ROOF 127' -8" 3 7 LOWER LEVEL 91' -0"4' - 0"27' - 8"123 POOL 217 SEATING 134 REST. 63' - 0 1/4"9' - 0" 122 POOL DECK 2 A410321 E.7 E.6 POOL EQUIP 91' - 0" 4 A201 SURGE TANK POOL 1 100' -0" POOL 2 113' -0" T.O. POOL FTG 96' -0" POOL ROOF 127' -8" 32 71 LOWER LEVEL 91' -0" 123 POOL 122 POOL DECK 217 SEATING 126 ELEC 216 MEZZ. 141 POOL EQUIP SOLAR THERMAL PANELS Project Date Drawn by Checked by Drawing Number No.Date Revision Description Key Plan LSE ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.3382280 fax www.lse-architects.com I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Printed Name: Signature: Date: License #: Copyright © 2018 by LSE Architects, Inc. These drawings including all design, details, specifications and information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects, Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall not be used on any other work without agreement and written permission of LSE Architects, Inc. © N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N 6/19/2019 3:10:25 PMC:\Users\tmacleod\Documents\LSE Revit Local Files\HS_Henry Sibley_POOL_AR-18_tmacleod_lse.rvt18.1008.09 June 28, 2019 Author Checker A201 OVERALL PLANS HENRY SIBLEY AQUATICS MOHAMMED LAWAL 06/28/2019 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 1897 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 A201 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 LEVEL 1 OVERALL A201 3/32" = 1'-0" 2 LEVEL 2 OVERALL NORTH 0'16'32' A201 3/32" = 1'-0" 5 NATATORIUM - E/W SECTION LOOKING NORTH. A201 3/32" = 1'-0" 3 LOWER LEVEL OVERALL A201 3/32" = 1'-0" 4 NATATORIUM - E/W SECTION LOOKING NORTH @ EQUIP 1 9/21/2018 Schematic update UP UP UP UP K M N P Q R S J H G F 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 G' 36.6 L M' 3 A410 F200 VESTIBULE F201 SECURITY VEST ? ? D211 GYMNASTICS C230 CIRCULATION C231 SRO D203 BOYS D205 GYMNASIUM D206 GYMNASIUM D210 STORAGE D217 VESTIBULE D210S STAIR C231A ELEC. F202 SECURITY 1/A226 1/A223 1/A2231/A2241/A224 1/A225 30.6 1/A2261/A224E E'72' - 4 3/4"40' - 0"D211A D212 D213 D209 STAIR D214 STORAGE D213 STORAGE D215 TOILET D216 CUST. S T H8 1 A412 D212HM-23T M12 91' - 0" D219 SPECTATOR 1 A750 .C233A7165 17' - 3 5/8"14' - 8"8' - 0"D221 STORAGED221 S T H8 S T A8 BLEACHERS, N.I.C. - BY OWNER BLEACHERS, N.I.C. - BY OWNER7' - 0"3' - 0"7' - 0"42' - 0"5' - 10"2' - 3" 4' - 0" 4' - 0"42' - 0"4' - 7" 13' - 11" BEAM TEAM MAT VAULT4' - 0"17' - 6"4' - 0"8' - 0"PARALLEL BARS PARALLEL BARS 5' - 6" 17' - 6" 2' - 0" 17' - 6" 4' - 0" 11' - 0" 15' - 0" 11' - 0" 4' - 0" BEAM D2178' - 5"74' - 2"8' - 5"5 1/2"6' - 0"E.8 E.4 CW -1 CW-3CW -2 CW-26CW-24CW-25 S T M8 S T B6 S T G4 S T H8 S T WALL PADS W1 W2 W2 3' - 0"F201BF202F201AF1WALL MOUNT SHELVING N.I.C. RAIN LEADER - SEE MECH. A850 3 . 22 A423 21 A423 1/A223 1/A225 1/A226 1/A223 16 A424 1 1 Project Date Drawn by Checked by Drawing Number No. Date Revision Description Key Plan LAWAL SCOTT ERICKSON ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.3382280 fax www.lse-architects.com I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Printed Name: Signature: Date: License #: Copyright © 2018 by LSE Architects, Inc. These drawings including all design, details, specifications and information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects, Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall not be used on any other work without agreement and written permission of LSE Architects, Inc. © 3/29/2019 10:33:18 AM C:\Users\bgronberg\Documents\Revit Local files\HS_Henry Sibley_AR-18_Central_bgronberg@lse-architects.com.rvt18.1008.01 February 25, 2019 Author Checker A224 LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN - AREA D HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL LSE ARCHITECTS 02/25/2019 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 1897 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 A224 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN - AREA D N A B C D E F 1 03/05/19 ADDENDUM #1 03/27/19 ISSUED FOR PERMIT UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UPUP UP UP UP FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FDFD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FDFD FD FD FDFD FDFD K M N P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA BB CC DD EE J H G F 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 X' 8'18' A' G'G' 23' 2 A411 36.6 L 13 M' 7 5 A410 3 A410 2 A410 A40010 A400 4 A400 6 A400 1 1/A2111/A2121/A2111/A2131/A214 1/A215 1/A213 1/A215 E104 FACS CHILD SEW E101A CULINARY ARTS E102B PANTRY E141 KILN E142A STORAGE E108 3D ART E144 DESIGN CENTER E129 MANUFACTURING E126 STORAGE E127 STORAGE E128 STORAGE E130 STORAGE E134 STORAGE E125 POWER MECHANICS E115 CONFERENCE E116A STORAGE E117A BUILDING/GROUNDS E118 OFFICE E119 OFFICE E120 STORAGE E116B STORAGE E124 RECEIVING E124 OFFICE E121 BREAK E101 COMMONS E133 STORAGE E131 STORAGE E132 MANUF. STORAGE E134 LAB C123 CAFETERIA A136 CLASSROOM A137 CLASSROOM A138 CLASSROOM A139 CLASSROOM A172 CLASSROOM A173 CLASSROOM A174 CLASSROOM A175 COMP. LAB A176 DASH ROOM A163 CLASSROOM A164 CLASSROOMA133 CLASSROOM A134 CLASSROOM A155 DIST PROD A153 DIST TECH C105 DISTRICT STORAGE C110 DRY STORAGE C117 KITCHEN D149 MOTOR D146 CLASSROOM A110 SUPT A111 S.A. A120 STAFF A118 OFFICE A117 OFFICE A116 OFFICE A142 OFFICE A141 OFFICE A140 OFFICE C101 ELECTRICAL C123A SNACK BAR A129 FLEX SPACE A119 OFFICE A125 OFFICE A165 SPEC ED A147 ISS A150 HALLWAY A151 OFFICE A152 OFFICE A154 WORK ROOM A156 SERVER A157 WORK ROOM A159 SPEC ED A160 SPEC ED A155A RESOURCE A155B RESOURCE C103 ELEC/TRASH ROOM C113 COOLER C111 TRASH C106 STORAGE C112 FREEZER C114 DISH ROOM C115 PREP C116 OFFICE C108 CIRCULATION D123 LAUNDRY C118 SERVING C131A DIST. FOOD D100 LAUNDRY C124 GIRLS C125 BOYS D145 ASD C102 CIRCULATION C109 CIRCULATION A130S STAIR A120S STAIR B44 STOR.C132E FREIGHT ELEV. D133 CIRCULATION A106B CIRCULATION A121 STAFF TOILET A170S VESTIBULE A110S STAIR A126 OFFICE A127 OFFICE A128 OFFICE A156B STOR. A158 EL. EQUIP. C122 COFFEE SHOP A177 TOILET A140S STAIR C159A CIRCULATION C130S STAIR D110S STAIR C120 STORAGE C100 ELECTRICAL JUNCTION C014 STORAGE A149 OFFICE A148 STOR. A148B OFFICE C119 CIRCULATION C104A TOILET C104 STAFF LOCKER B154 AUDITORIUM B154A CONTROL ROOM B154B TICKETS B150S STAIR B151A STORAGE C129A STOR. B120 BLACK BOX B104 BAND B106 WORK RM/LIB B107 ORCHESTRA ? ? B134 EXISTING SCENE SHOP B130 DRESS 1 B132 DRESS 2 B115 CHOIR C130 CIRCULATION E100 CIRCULATION A162 COMMONS A123A CIRCULATION B108 INSTRUMENT STOR. B112 WORK RM/LIB A132 PRINTER A131 SMALL GROUP A161 PRINTER A166 SMALL GROUP 1/A212 1 A420 3 A420 30.6 A115 OFFICE A114 STORAGE A104 RECEPTION A113 CLASROOM A105 CONFERENCE A100S STAIR A103 VESTIBULE A146 OFFICE A145 OFFICE A144 OFFICE A143 OFFICE 14 A750 1 A421 DN A4005 B159 STORAGE 2 A420 C132 COMMONS C126 CLASSROOM C127 ELEC/STORAGEC128 S. G. C129 CLASSROOM C120 CLASSROOM C131 SMALL GROUP D141 P.E. LOCKERS E122 CIRCULATION B150 CIRCULATION 12 E109 TEAM ROOM E D C B A 15 16 17 18 B'B' C'C' D'D' E'E' B140 STAFF OFFICE B155 HAND WASH B114 WORK RM/LIB B168 PRACTICE B169 PRACTICE B131 TOILET 1 B133 TOILET 2 2 A412 E127S STAIR B110 VESTIBULE E108S STAIR 2' - 0"A100 MECH. B156 ELECTRICAL B146 SMALL GROUP B146 SMALL GROUP D107 CAGE STORAGE D127 COACH OFFICE D129 CAGE STORAGE D136 DRY STORAGE E140 2D ART E143 STORAGE D143 JANITOR D142 JANITOR B147 BOOK STORAGE B155A JANITOR C125S STAIR D137 BOYS TEAM D150 CALM D147 DAPE D151 ASD A400 8 A401 8 A135 COMMONS E102A COOLERS C121 CIRCULATION B103S STAIR D100S STAIR D140S STAIR E101A CULINARY ARTS A'' D152 COACH OFFICE A100A STORAGE B160 PRACTICE B161 PRACTICE B162 PRACTICE B165 PRACTICE 4 A730 A400 9 A4007 7 A731 5 A731 E.8 D104 IDF D105 ELEV EQUIP. A106C CIRCULATION A106A CIRCULATION A107 OFFICE A109 OFFICE E137 STAFF E152 IDF E153 ELEC D126 GIRLS TEAM D128 P.E. LOCKERS E.4 D'.8 1 A411 1 A410 6 A410 23.8 26.3 E142B STORAGE B105 DRAMA/STORAGE B148 COMMONS B157 CIRCULATION A108 OFFICE E.18 1/A2131/A2141/A2121. PROVIDE WALL BLOCKING FOR ALL WALL SUPPORTED ITEMS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WALL CABINETS, TRIMS, WINDOWS TREATMENTS FASTENINGS, DOOR STOPS, TOILET ACCESSORIES, VISUAL DISPLAY BOARDS ETC. 2. SEE STRUCTURAL FOR ALL CONCRETE FLOOR RECESSES. PROVIDE POSITIVE SLOPE TO ALL FLOOR AND TRENCH DRAINS. 3. ALL CONCRETE BLOCK OUTSIDE CORNERS SHALL BE BULLNOSED UNITS UNLESS DETAILED OR NOTED OTHERWISE. CONTRACTOR TO ROUND OUTSIDE CORNERS OF ROCK FACE BANDS TO ALIGN WITH BURNISHED BLOCK BULLNOSE. 4. REFER TO CODE SHEETS FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL FIRE RATED BUILDING WALLS. PROVIDE FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY FOR ALL PENETRATIONS AND OPENINGS TO MEET THE REQUIRED FIRE RATINGS. 5. ALL CASEWORK IS NOTED ON INTERIOR ELEVATIONS. 6. REFER TO WALL TYPES AND STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR THICKENED FLOOR SLABS. 7. CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR TO VERIFY AND COORDINATE THE INSTALLATION OF ALL EQUIPMENT AND OWNER SUPPLIED ITEMS. BACKINGS, ROUGH-INS AND FINAL HOOK-UPS ARE TO BE COORDINATED BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR. 8. CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE BACKING AS REQUIRED FOR MOUNTING OF ALL WALL, CEILING AND PARTITION MOUNTED ITEMS SUCH AS SHELVING, SPECIAL LIGHTING, TABLE BRACKETS, EQUIPMENT AND TELEVISIONS. LOCATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS ARE TO BE COORDINATED WITH PLUMBING, MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, FOOD SERVICE SUB-CONTRACTOR AND OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 9. CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS OF ALL FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT AND COORDINATE LOCATIONS OF FLOOR SINKS, FLOOR DRAINS, TROUGH DRAINS, SLAB DEPRESSIONS, RAISED CURBS, ELECTRICAL/PLUMBING STUBOUTS AND ALL OTHER WORK UNDER THE SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO THIS EQUIPMENT. REFER TO DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CLARIFICATION. 10. GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY WITH MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS ALL MECHANICAL DUCT SHAFTS, BOILER STACK, TOILET EXHAUST DUCTS, WATER CLOSET TRAPS, FLOOR DRAINS, ETC. BEFORE SETTING ANY FLOORS. 11. FIRE RATED WALLS AND ENCLOSURES BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR. VERIFY ALL PENETRATIONS BY OTHER TRADES. ALL CONTRACTORS/SUBCONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR FIRE STOPPING AS REQUIRED. 12. EXTENT OF WORK (THIS PACKAGE). 13. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, ALL INTERIOR PARTITIONS ARE DIMENSIONED TO FACE OF GYPSUM BOARD. 14. ALL WORK IS NEW UNLESS NOTED "EXISTING". GENERAL NOTES Project Date Drawn by Checked by Drawing Number No. Date Revision Description Key Plan LAWAL SCOTT ERICKSON ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.3382280 fax www.lse-architects.com I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Printed Name: Signature: Date: License #: Copyright © 2018 by LSE Architects, Inc. These drawings including all design, details, specifications and information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects, Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall not be used on any other work without agreement and written permission of LSE Architects, Inc. © 3/29/2019 10:31:28 AM C:\Users\bgronberg\Documents\Revit Local files\HS_Henry Sibley_AR-18_Central_bgronberg@lse-architects.com.rvt18.1008.01 February 25, 2019 Author Checker A210 LEVEL 1 REFERENCE FLOOR PLAN HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL LSE ARCHITECTS 02/25/2019 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 1897 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 A210 1" = 20'-0" 1 LEVEL 1 - OVERALL A B C D E F N 03/27/19 ISSUED FOR PERMIT UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FDFDFDFDFD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FDFD UP FD FD K M N P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA BB CC DD EE J H G F 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 X' 8'18' A' G' 23' 2 A411 36.6 L 13 M' 7 5 A410 3 A410 2 A410 A40010 A400 4 A400 6 A400 1 1/A2211/A2221/A2221/A2261/A2211/A2231/A224 1/A225 1/A223 1/A225 1/A2261/A2241/A226 1/A223 E205 FITNESS E214 CIRCULATION E212 MULTI-PURPOSE D212 WRESTLING D211 GYMNASTICS E201 FITNESS B233 PHYSICS 1 B234 BIOLOGY 1 B236 BIOLOGY 2 B242 PHYSICAL 9TH 1 B244 PHYSICAL 9TH 2 B245 PHYSICAL 9TH 3 B230 SCIENCE COMMONS A236 CLASSROOM A235 CLASSROOM A245 EDIT A239 AV STORAGE A229 CLASSROOM A231 SPEC ED A232 CLASSROOM A237 CONFERENCE A247 CONF. A248 CONF. A234 COMMONS A228 CLASSROOM A246 MEDIA A243 MEDIA CENTER A244 AV WORK A240 S.R.O. A219 COMMONS F227 LOBBY F200 VESTIBULE C200 CAREER C201 FILE C202 OFFICE C203 OFFICE C204 OFFICE C205 OFFICE C206 A.P. C207 PRINCIPAL C208 CONFERENCE C209 OFFICE C210 STORAGE C211 ACT C212 WOMEN C213 MEN C214 WOMENC215 MEN C216 NURSE C217 TREATMENT C218 OFFICE C219 GENERAL OFFICE C220 WORKROOM C221 SEC. STOR. C222 CONF. ROOM C223 OFFICE C224 OFFICE C225 OFFICE C226 OFFICE C230 CIRCULATION C231 SRO C233A CIRCULATION D203 BOYS D204 GIRLS D205 GYMNASIUM D206 GYMNASIUM D207 GYMNASIUM D208 STORAGE D209 STAIR D210 STORAGE D217 VESTIBULE D210S STAIR C233B MECHANICAL C231A ELEC. B232 ENTRY COMMONS B240S STAIR B227 BALCONY B228S STAIR B229 IDF/STORAGE B230A CIRCULATION B230B CIRCULATION C200S STAIR C210S STAIR A200 CUST. A201 MEN A202 WOMEN A203 CIRC. A200S STAIR A205 STORAGE A206 O.T. A207 SPEC ED OFFICE A208 SPECIAL ED. A209 SPECIAL ED. A211 SPEC ED A213 SPECIAL ED. A214 STAFF A216 WOMEN A220 SPEC ED A222 SPEC ED A222A SPEC ED A222B STAFF KITCH A223 SPEECH/O.T. A220S STAIR A226 CLASSROOM A227 CLASSROOM A230S STAIR A251 AV SPEC A250 LECTURE ROOM A249A CIRCULATION A210S STAIR B16 CIRC. A250A IDF/STOR. A250B STOR. A215 MEN A221 SPEC ED A242 AV MECHANICAL MECHANICAL C249 CIRC. F201 SECURITY VEST F225S STAIR B243 PREP B240 PHYSICS 2 F202 SECURITY E206 STORAGE E202 CONCESSIONS A233 PRINT A230 SMALL GROUP A218 PRINT A212 SMALL GROUP 1 A420 3 A420 4 A420 B235 PREP 30.6 1 A421 PAINT NEW BLEACHERS AT EXISTING GYMS SAND AND REFINISH EXISTING FLOORS NEW DISTRICT ADD'N STRUCTURE TO ACCOMODATE FUTURE 2ND LEVEL E227S STAIR OPEN TO BELOW A4005 2 A420 12 D213 STORAGE D214 STORAGE D215 TOILET D216 CUST. E D C B A 15 16 17 18 B' C' D' E' B217 CIRCULATION B248 INNOVATION LAB A238 FLEX 2 A412 146 SF B226 ELECTRICAL 96 SF B225E FAMILY 54 SF B225D HANDICAP 54 SF B225C HANDICAP E213 BASKETBALLE211 BASKETBALL 1 A412 7' - 1 3/4"B232 SMALL GROUP B231 STAFF PREP B224 JANITOR B237 CHEMISTRY 1 B238 PREP B239A CHEMISTRY 2 C233 CIRCULATION A400 8 CANOPY ABOVE A401 8 E217 ELEC B239B CHEM. LAB 2 E251S SHIPS LADDER B242C I.D.F. D241 CIRCULATION E209 STORAGE E207 OFFICE/EXAM A'' E210 HYDRO B225 HAND WASH 4 A730 A400 9 A4007 7 A731 E.8 E.4 D'.8 1 A411 1 A410 6 A410 23.8 26.3 E.18 1/A2231/A2241. PROVIDE WALL BLOCKING FOR ALL WALL SUPPORTED ITEMS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WALL CABINETS, TRIMS, WINDOWS TREATMENTS FASTENINGS, DOOR STOPS, TOILET ACCESSORIES, VISUAL DISPLAY BOARDS ETC. 2. SEE STRUCTURAL FOR ALL CONCRETE FLOOR RECESSES. PROVIDE POSITIVE SLOPE TO ALL FLOOR AND TRENCH DRAINS. 3. ALL CONCRETE BLOCK OUTSIDE CORNERS SHALL BE BULLNOSED UNITS UNLESS DETAILED OR NOTED OTHERWISE. CONTRACTOR TO ROUND OUTSIDE CORNERS OF ROCK FACE BANDS TO ALIGN WITH BURNISHED BLOCK BULLNOSE. 4. REFER TO CODE SHEETS FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL FIRE RATED BUILDING WALLS. PROVIDE FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY FOR ALL PENETRATIONS AND OPENINGS TO MEET THE REQUIRED FIRE RATINGS. 5. ALL CASEWORK IS NOTED ON INTERIOR ELEVATIONS. 6. REFER TO WALL TYPES AND STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR THICKENED FLOOR SLABS. 7. CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR TO VERIFY AND COORDINATE THE INSTALLATION OF ALL EQUIPMENT AND OWNER SUPPLIED ITEMS. BACKINGS, ROUGH-INS AND FINAL HOOK-UPS ARE TO BE COORDINATED BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR. 8. CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE BACKING AS REQUIRED FOR MOUNTING OF ALL WALL, CEILING AND PARTITION MOUNTED ITEMS SUCH AS SHELVING, SPECIAL LIGHTING, TABLE BRACKETS, EQUIPMENT AND TELEVISIONS. LOCATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS ARE TO BE COORDINATED WITH PLUMBING, MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, FOOD SERVICE SUB-CONTRACTOR AND OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 9. CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS OF ALL FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT AND COORDINATE LOCATIONS OF FLOOR SINKS, FLOOR DRAINS, TROUGH DRAINS, SLAB DEPRESSIONS, RAISED CURBS, ELECTRICAL/PLUMBING STUBOUTS AND ALL OTHER WORK UNDER THE SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO THIS EQUIPMENT. REFER TO DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CLARIFICATION. 10. GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY WITH MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS ALL MECHANICAL DUCT SHAFTS, BOILER STACK, TOILET EXHAUST DUCTS, WATER CLOSET TRAPS, FLOOR DRAINS, ETC. BEFORE SETTING ANY FLOORS. 11. FIRE RATED WALLS AND ENCLOSURES BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR. VERIFY ALL PENETRATIONS BY OTHER TRADES. ALL CONTRACTORS/SUBCONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR FIRE STOPPING AS REQUIRED. 12. EXTENT OF WORK (THIS PACKAGE). 13. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, ALL INTERIOR PARTITIONS ARE DIMENSIONED TO FACE OF GYPSUM BOARD. 14. ALL WORK IS NEW UNLESS NOTED "EXISTING". GENERAL NOTES Project Date Drawn by Checked by Drawing Number No. Date Revision Description Key Plan LAWAL SCOTT ERICKSON ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.3382280 fax www.lse-architects.com I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Printed Name: Signature: Date: License #: Copyright © 2018 by LSE Architects, Inc. These drawings including all design, details, specifications and information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects, Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall not be used on any other work without agreement and written permission of LSE Architects, Inc. © 3/29/2019 10:32:43 AM C:\Users\bgronberg\Documents\Revit Local files\HS_Henry Sibley_AR-18_Central_bgronberg@lse-architects.com.rvt18.1008.01 February 25, 2019 Author Checker A220 LEVEL 2 REFERENCE FLOOR PLAN HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL LSE ARCHITECTS 02/25/2019 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 1897 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 A220 1" = 20'-0" 1 LEVEL 2 - OVERALL A B C D E F N 03/27/19 ISSUED FOR PERMIT UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP FD UP K M N P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA BB CC DD EE J H G F 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 X' 8'18' A' G' 23' 2 A411 36.6 L 13 M' 7 7 A732 5 A410 3 A410 2 A410 A40010 A400 4 A400 6 A400 1 1/A2311/A2321/A2321/A2261/A2311/A2331/A234 1/A235 1/A233 1/A235 1/A2261/A234A305 E.S.L. A300 CUST. A301 MEN A302 WOMEN A306 E.S.L. A307 E.S.L. A310 OFFICE A321 SPECIAL ED. A320 CLASSROOM A319 CLASSROOM A325 CLASSROOM A326 CLASSROOM A327 CLASSROOM A328 CLASSROOM A330 CLASSROOM A331 CLASSROOM A334 CLASSROOM A335 CLASSROOM A339C E.B.O. A309 SERVER A313 STAFF A311 PSYCH. A312 STAIR A314 TOILET A315 TOILET A322 SPEC ED C301 MEN C302 WOMEN C305 MEN C308A FLEX C303 CUST. C304 WOMEN C319 OFFICE A346 LECTURE A336 SPEC ED A330S STAIR C310 ELECTRIC A320S STAIR A310S STAIR C330S STAIR C309 CIRCULATION C310S STAIR A341 CONF. A343 CONF. A308 CIRCULATION A300S STAIR A344 CAREER A342 CONF. D300 PENTHOUSE C311 CLASSROOM C312 CLASSROOM C315 CLASSROOM C314 CLASSROOM A332 PRINTER A316 CIRCULATION A337 SMALL GROUP A317 PRINTER A329 SMALL GROUP A318 COMMONS A333 COMMONS 1/A233 1 A420 3 A420 4 A420 30.6 OPEN TO BELOW OPEN TO BELOW EXIST ROOF A339A CALM 1 A421 NEW ROOF BELOW NEW SKYLIGHTS NEW ROOF NEW ROOF AND VESTIBULE LID BELOW EXIST ROOF OPEN TO BELOW OPEN TO BELOW OPEN TO BELOW NEW ROOF OPEN TO BELOW A4005 2 A420 12 E D C B A 15 16 17 18 B' C' D' E' A345 IDF/STORAGE 2 A412 1 A412 NEW ROOF EXIST ROOF C322 PERC 1 A450 RD. OD. 13 A450 @ LOW ROOF 1 A450RD.OD.13 A450 @ LOW ROOF A303 OFFICE A400 8 A401 8 A339B STAIR CANOPY ABOVE C320 CONFERENCE C308B SITTING A'' 1 A450 OFS A339B IDF A400 9 A4007 E.8 E.4 D'.8 1 A411 1 A410 6 A410 23.8 26.3 E.18 1/A226 1/A233 1. PROVIDE WALL BLOCKING FOR ALL WALL SUPPORTED ITEMS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WALL CABINETS, TRIMS, WINDOWS TREATMENTS FASTENINGS, DOOR STOPS, TOILET ACCESSORIES, VISUAL DISPLAY BOARDS ETC. 2. SEE STRUCTURAL FOR ALL CONCRETE FLOOR RECESSES. PROVIDE POSITIVE SLOPE TO ALL FLOOR AND TRENCH DRAINS. 3. ALL CONCRETE BLOCK OUTSIDE CORNERS SHALL BE BULLNOSED UNITS UNLESS DETAILED OR NOTED OTHERWISE. CONTRACTOR TO ROUND OUTSIDE CORNERS OF ROCK FACE BANDS TO ALIGN WITH BURNISHED BLOCK BULLNOSE. 4. REFER TO CODE SHEETS FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL FIRE RATED BUILDING WALLS. PROVIDE FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY FOR ALL PENETRATIONS AND OPENINGS TO MEET THE REQUIRED FIRE RATINGS. 5. ALL CASEWORK IS NOTED ON INTERIOR ELEVATIONS. 6. REFER TO WALL TYPES AND STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR THICKENED FLOOR SLABS. 7. CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR TO VERIFY AND COORDINATE THE INSTALLATION OF ALL EQUIPMENT AND OWNER SUPPLIED ITEMS. BACKINGS, ROUGH-INS AND FINAL HOOK-UPS ARE TO BE COORDINATED BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR. 8. CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE BACKING AS REQUIRED FOR MOUNTING OF ALL WALL, CEILING AND PARTITION MOUNTED ITEMS SUCH AS SHELVING, SPECIAL LIGHTING, TABLE BRACKETS, EQUIPMENT AND TELEVISIONS. LOCATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS ARE TO BE COORDINATED WITH PLUMBING, MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, FOOD SERVICE SUB-CONTRACTOR AND OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 9. CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS OF ALL FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT AND COORDINATE LOCATIONS OF FLOOR SINKS, FLOOR DRAINS, TROUGH DRAINS, SLAB DEPRESSIONS, RAISED CURBS, ELECTRICAL/PLUMBING STUBOUTS AND ALL OTHER WORK UNDER THE SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO THIS EQUIPMENT. REFER TO DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CLARIFICATION. 10. GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY WITH MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS ALL MECHANICAL DUCT SHAFTS, BOILER STACK, TOILET EXHAUST DUCTS, WATER CLOSET TRAPS, FLOOR DRAINS, ETC. BEFORE SETTING ANY FLOORS. 11. FIRE RATED WALLS AND ENCLOSURES BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR. VERIFY ALL PENETRATIONS BY OTHER TRADES. ALL CONTRACTORS/SUBCONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR FIRE STOPPING AS REQUIRED. 12. EXTENT OF WORK (THIS PACKAGE). 13. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, ALL INTERIOR PARTITIONS ARE DIMENSIONED TO FACE OF GYPSUM BOARD. 14. ALL WORK IS NEW UNLESS NOTED "EXISTING". GENERAL NOTES Project Date Drawn by Checked by Drawing Number No. Date Revision Description Key Plan LAWAL SCOTT ERICKSON ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.3382280 fax www.lse-architects.com I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Printed Name: Signature: Date: License #: Copyright © 2018 by LSE Architects, Inc. These drawings including all design, details, specifications and information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects, Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall not be used on any other work without agreement and written permission of LSE Architects, Inc. © 3/29/2019 10:33:49 AMC:\Users\bgronberg\Documents\Revit Local files\HS_Henry Sibley_AR-18_Central_bgronberg@lse-architects.com.rvt18.1008.01 February 25, 2019 Author Checker A230 LEVEL 3 REFERENCE FLOOR PLAN HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL LSE ARCHITECTS 02/25/2019 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 1897 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 A230 1" = 20'-0" 1 LEVEL 3 - OVERALL N A B C D E F 03/27/19 ISSUED FOR PERMIT Planning Staff Report (Supplemental) MEETING DATE: June 25, 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 (extended to August 29, 2019) INTRODUCTION This variance application item appeared before the Planning Commission at the May 28, 2019 regular meeting. The Applicant is seeking a variance to setbacks for a driveway along his side-yard, which would eventually lead back to a new 29’ x 34’ detached garage in the rear yard. The original May 28th Planning Staff Report is attached again for reference. This item was presented under a fully noticed public hearing at the May 28th meeting, and after comments from the Applicant and neighboring owners, the Commission tabled the matter to this June 25th meeting. The Commissioners stated the reasons for tabling included the following:  There have been questions asked and answers not given;  Discuss the possibility of building on the other side of the house;  There is anecdotal information provided without any materials to show what the elevation is, etc.;  There are questions with respect to what is the appearance of the garage going to be like; this is important given that one of the tests the Commission has to find is that it would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood: o An ugly building would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood; and o Vegetation could be stripped away and it would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood. INFORMATION City staff (public works director and community development director) visited the site after the last meeting, and later met with the applicant to discuss options. 1) Staff has determined that a small, block retaining wall – built up to or near the side property line along the length of the attached garage, is feasible and possible. By providing this new wall, the applicant has stated he will keep the concrete “walkway” surface intact, and provide permeable pavers with crushed rock layers between, in order to maintain or provide positive drainage between the properties. (see photo below): Planning Case 2019-14 (J. Carlson) Supplemental Report Page 2 of 4 Once the driveway clears the back side of the garage, the applicant will continue with permeable pavers or hard surfaced driveway to the new garage structure in the back corner. 2) Staff agreed the grades on the opposite side of the house (west and south side of home) are too severe and would require a lot of fill material to be brought in to provide a suitable, buildable structure, and would definitely alter the look and feel of the natural grades in these areas. Wrapping a driveway from the front of the home and all the way around the back of the home (traversing steep slopes along the way) would be excessive and would again likely alter the natural character and environment of the back yard space. 3) Mr. Carlson was also asked if he could make an opening in the rear of his 3rd stall garage (as indicated in the image-below), which would lead to a drive-through garage and access to the back detached garage. This idea was rejected by Mr. Carlson as he feels this would drastically alter the architecture and character of the existing home; and is too prohibitive (in costs and design) – as the driveway leading out from the back of the garage would destroy the stand of mature trees and gardens he has located directly behind the attached garage area. 4) There were a number of comments related to the design or aesthetics of the proposed detached garage. In fact, it was stated: “There are questions with respect to what is the appearance of the garage going to be like; this is important given that one of the tests the Commission has to find is that it would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.” As was pointed out in the May 28th report, the new 928 sq. ft. detached garage proposed by Mr. Carlson is a permitted use by right, Planning Case 2019-14 (J. Carlson) Supplemental Report Page 3 of 4 since his property is more than 1.5 and less than 2.5 acres; and City Code allows owners an additional detached garage up to 1,000 sq. ft.in size. Per City Code Sect. 12-1D-3 C.1.(5): Detached private garages must be architecturally compatible with the principal structure, including exterior design, materials and colors. Most of Mr. Carlson’s home is constructed of very nice earth-tone bricks and a small rear addition with earth tone stucco. Mr. Carlson has stated he will construct the new garage with matching colors (and tones) as the existing home, but in materials more suited for a garage, such as double-lap vinyl siding and matching shingles. As long as the new garage meets the spirit and intent of this Ordinance provision, there should be no reason to believe this structure would “alter the essential character of the neighborhood.” STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff concedes that if not for the new garage, the driveway would not be needed, and therefore no variance to consider. The fact remains however, the driveway and its reduced setbacks are the only issues that should be given attention in this variance review. The commission must determine if the reduced setback of the driveway is reasonable; the need for the variance is due to circumstances unique to the property; and if the driveway does or does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. If the Commission feels that one or more of these variance test parameters have been met, including economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulty, then the Commission may elect to recommend approval of the variance as presented, based on the following findings of facts (with conditions of approval noted therein): 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. Planning Case 2019-14 (J. Carlson) Supplemental Report Page 4 of 4 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. 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 drainable 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. If the Commission feels this variance has not met the practical difficulties tests, then the commission may elect to 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 grant ed, 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). 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 (Supplemental) MEETING DATE: June 25, 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 ACTION DEADLINE: N/A INTRODUCTION The City of Mendota Heights is considering a number of amendments to certain fence regulations and standards found under City Code Title 12-1D-6: Fences. This item was originally presented under a public hearing process at the May 28th regular meeting, where it was tabled and asked to be brought back to this month’s meeting. ANALYSIS Staff is presenting for this follow-up review the following added changes from the May 28th Draft Ordinance No. 542 (added changes noted in yellow highlighted text):  Added the term “open” to the “…decorative style fence, such as picket, wrought iron…” provision in Sect. 12-1D-6 B  Revised Section 12-1D-6: C. Fences in Business and Industrial Districts: Subpart 2 as follows: 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. to 2. Fences on business and industrially zoned properties abutting residentially zoned property shall be erected along the property line and are allowed to be one hundred percent (100%) opaque and not to exceed six feet (6') in height, except for those provided in section 12-1D-6.C.3 of this chapter. Planning Case 2019-16 Zoning Code Amendment –Fences Page 2 of 2 3. Conditional Use Permit Required For Certain Fences: Fences over six feet (6') in height and or fences with a security arm for barbed wire shall require a conditional use permit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff requested the city’s public safety personnel (police chief and fire chief) review and provide any comments or concerns to these proposed fence standard changes – particularly the 30% open rule standard, which would allow 100% opaque/solid screened fences in residential zones. Both individuals expressed no concerns or objections to the proposed fence standard changes at this time. At the May 28th meeting, the matter was tabled and the public hearing was also tabled (not officially closed). The Commission will need to make a motion to re-open the public hearing; allow for any added public comments; close the hearing; deliberate the proposed amendments, and make a recommendation accordingly. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission consider recommending approval of the requested Zoning Code Amendments as presented under the updated Draft Ordinance No. 542 (presented herein). . Attachments 1) Draft Ordinance No. 542 (Updated) 2) Copy of May 28th Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2019-16 3) City Code Section 12-1D-6 FENCES (ordinance in its current form) 4) Example of Other Cities Fence Regulations/Ordinances Vers. #2 (06/25/19) 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 an open 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 are allowed to be one hundred percent (100%) opaque and not to exceed six feet (6') in height, except for those provided in section 12-1D-6.C.3 of this chapter. 3. Conditional Use Permit Required For Certain Fences: Fences over six feet (6') in height and or fences with a security arm for barbed wire shall require a conditional use permit. 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 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. 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 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. \\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 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