Loading...
2012-03-27 Planning Comm Agenda PacketMendota Heights Planning Commission, Page CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGIIT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNES07 PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Agenda March 27, 2012 - 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of the Agenda 4. Approval of the February 28, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes 5. Hearings a. Case No. 2012-07: Applicant requested this item be tabled to the April 24, 2012 meeting. b. Case No. 2012-08: Tim Aune, subdivision ordinance amendment pertaining to cul-de-sac length. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. c. Case No. 2012-09: Barry Sommervold, wetlands permit for pool construction, 609 Hampshire Drive. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. 6. Verbal Review 7. Adjourn Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at 651-452-1850 with requests. Planning Commission Minutes Mendota Heights Planning Commission, Page 2 February 28, 2012 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 28, 2012 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 28, 2012, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Norton, Commissioners Field, Hennes, Magnuson, Noonan, and Viksnins. Those absent: Commissioner Roston. Those present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, Public Works Director/City Engineer Mazzitello, and NAC Planner Stephen Grittman / Carie Fuhrman. Minutes were recorded by Heidi Guenther. Approval ofAgenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of January 24 2012, Minutes COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 24, 2012, AS PRESENTED. AYES NAYS Hearings PLANNING CASE #2012-05 Sheila and Ab Hilo 2225 Apache Street Variance to the Front Yard Setback Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Sheila and Ab Hilo for approval of a variance to the front yard setback. Mr. Grittman noted that the applicants were proposing an addition to the front of their R-1 single family home. The proposed addition would extend into the 30 foot front yard setback by four feet. The applicants are seeking a four foot variance to allow for the dining room addition and feel their request would be to use the property in a reasonable manner. Mr. Grittman presented staffs analysis of the request and recommended the Commission approve the variance, as a reasonable accommodation to permit reinvestment in the existing housing stock, and to permit the home to be improved nearer to contemporary single family housing in the community. The proposed addition would not appear to be excessive from a square footage standpoint for the use. Without the variance, reasonable expansion for this type of improvement does not seem feasible. Commissioner Viksnins questioned if the neighboring properties with additions were completed through the variance process due to the small lot size. Mr. Grittman explained he was uncertain if variances were approved but he knew the lot sizes to be an issue in this neighborhood. Sheila Hilo, 2225 Apache Street, thanked the Planning Commission for considering her request. She indicated the dining room addition would add great value to her home as the current eating area was quite small. Planning Commission Minutes Mendota Heights Planning Commission, Page 3 February 28, 2012 Commissioner Magnuson asked if the proposed dining room addition could be reduced in size to fit within the front yard setback. Mrs. Hilo stated the size could be reduced, but that the smaller size would not meet the needs of her family. Commissioner Viksnins questioned if other alternatives have been considered. Ms. Hilo stated if the addition were shifted a kitchen window would be covered and the exterior of the home would look awkward. She explained that she and her husband had reviewed several scenarios before bringing this to the City for a variance. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Commissioner Viksnins requested a slight language change to in the Findings of Fact, Item 4. AYES NAYS Chair Norton advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 6, 2012, meeting. PLANNING CASE 42012-06 Scott Schifftett on behalf of St. Thomas Academy 949 Mendota Heights Road Variances to the Number and Total Area for Signs Chair Norton disclosed that he attended St. Thomas Academy and holds a position on the alumni board; however, this was not found to be a conflict of interest. Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Scott Schifflett on behalf of St. Thomas Academy for approval of a variance to the number of total area for signs. Mr. Grittman noted that St. Thomas Academy is planning for the construction of a new activities facility at 949 Mendota Heights Road. With construction of the new building, the school will be removing the temporary air - supported structure on the west side of the existing buildings. As a part of the project, the school is also requesting approval of a variance for proposed wall signage for the activities building. Mr. Grittman explained the south face of the existing gymnasium displays existing wall signage visible from. Mendota Heights Road. Since this south face of the building will be the location for the addition, the existing signage will need to be removed and replaced. The applicants wishes to affix two signs to the activities building, one 115 square feet in size and the other 132 square feet in size, with an additional sign on the east side of the building that is 127 square feet in size. Mr. Grittman indicated that the R zoning district allows for one nameplate sign for a permitted use by conditional use permit and shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet in area. The applicants have requested a variance to exceed the number and area requirements of wall signs allowed for non-residential uses located in the residential zoning district. The proposed St. Thomas wall signs are comparable in size to those approved at Henry Sibley. Staff 2 Planning Commission Minutes Mendota Heights Planning Commission, Page 4 Februaiy28, 2012 discussed the size differences between the signs requested between the two schools. While there is no doubt that the larger sign is more visible, variances are typically considered to accommodate the least amount necessary to make a reasonable use of the property. Mr. Grittman presented staff's analysis of the request and recommended approval of the variance with the modification that the logo sign is resized to less than 60 square feet, comparable to that granted to Sibley High School. Commissioner Magnuson requested further information regarding the logo sign requested by Sibley High School. Mr. Grittman explained the 52 square foot logo sign was submitted by Sibley High School and was resized in any way by the City. Coimnissioner Viksnins asked if two variance requests were being made. Mr. Grittman stated this was the case as the City was allowing for two lettered signs and one logo sign and each exceeded the zoning districts sign requirements. Commissioner Viksnins questioned if the City should consider amending the zoning code to address signage for non-residential uses in residential zoning districts. Mr. Grittman indicated there were very few non-residential uses in the residential zoning district, beyond the schools, golf courses and churches. Chair Norton indicated the Sibley High School sign was facing north or northeast and would be facing residential properties. Mr. Grittman stated this was the case and that the St. Thomas Academy signs would be facing south to the ice arena and freeway. Commissioner Noonan commented the sign exposure was different between the two schools but staff was recommending the logo signs be similar in size. Mr. Grittman stated this was the case. Commissioner Hennes asked if St. Thomas Academy had come forward with any other options besides the 132 square foot logo sign. Mr. Grittman was not aware of any other proposed logo signs_ Commissioner Magnuson questioned if there was a size difference between the two school parcels. Mr. Grittman indicated the school parcels were similar in size as Sibley High School was located on 80 acres. Scott Schifflett, Opus Group representing St. Thomas Academy thanked the Commission for their time this evening. He presented the Commission with smaller signage for consideration stating the recommending size would be difficult to see from Mendota Heights Road. He indicated the proposed size would fit with the massing of the building and be visible from Mendota Heights Road. Mr. Schifflett presented a site plan with the 60 square foot sign and felt it did not fit with the integrity of the building. He stated St_ Thomas Academy lie would be willing to reduce the logo to a 10 foot by 10 foot sign. Commissioner Hennes questioned the background color of the sign_ Mr. Schifflett discussed the proposed wall and sign colors in detail. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Frank Hicke, 1611 Delaware Avenue, noted he worked in signage for universities and hospitals. He felt the proposed signage from St. Thomas Academy was appropriate in both size and scale. He requested further information on the colors of the signs and asked if each would be illuminated. Mr. Schifflett explained the signs were made of aluminum and would not be lit. Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY 'COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Planning C01?771iSSi071 Minutes Mendota Heights Planning Commission, Page 5 February 28, 2012 AYES 6 NAYS 0 Commissioner Magnuson stated she would be in favor of the sign requests as presented by the applicant. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AS PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Commissioner Noonan did not feel it was necessary to hold St. Thomas Academy to the same sign standards as Sibley High School. He indicated the locations of the schools varied along with their proximity to residential homes and roadways. He supported the recommendation. Commissioner Viksnins expressed concern that the City would be receiving additional sign requests for non- residential properties located in the residential zoning district. He commented that perhaps a standard sign size should be set for these properties. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Chair Norton. advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 6, 2012, meeting. PLANNING CASE #2012-07 Michael and Michelle Bader Variance to Street Right of Way Width for Foxwood Lane Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Michael and Michelle Bader for approval of a variance to street right of way width for Foxwood Lane. Mr. Grittman noted that the applicant is seeking approval of a variance to allow an existing platted street to be used as access to a future subdivision, when the existing street is less than the required 60 feet in right of way width. Foxwood was developed with the expectation that it would terminate in the existing cul-de-sac, serving only the three lots. However, the applicant owns the parcel to the south of the Foxwood plat, extending to Delaware Avenue on the east. The applicant is seeking to subdivide that parcel and would like to extend Foxwood Lane to the south to serve between one to four parcels, depending on the eventual subdivision plan. Mr. Grittman indicated the site could be served by Delaware Avenue, although the grade and tree loss would be much more extensive with that design. The sketch plan submitted as a part of the application shows that as many as four new buildable lots would be proposed with that design. If the variance is not approved, it is expected the applicant will seek the Delaware Avenue access proposal in a plat request later this year. If the variance is approved, the applicant has indicated his preference to submit a plat that extends the Foxwood Lane cul-de-sac to the south boundary of his property. Mr. Grittman presented staff's analysis of the request and indicated the conditions to approve a variance were in place if the Commission chose to proceed. He reviewed the conditions for approval in detail indicating the City Attorney had made several recommendations and language changes. These language changes were reviewed by staff. Commissioner Magnuson questioned if there was evidence from the neighbors on Delaware Avenue that it was less acceptable to access the plat from this location. Mr. Grittman stated this was the contention of the applicant. Commissioner Magnuson asked if the Commission was being asked to approve a variance along with an extension of the roadway. Mr. Grittman explained the request before the Commission was to approve the use of a 50 foot roadway, which was below the City's 60 right-of-way standards. The subdivision was a future request. 4 Planning Commission Minutes Mendota Heights Planning Commission, Page 6 Februmy 28, 2012 Commissioner Magnus inquired if the request should be reviewed once a plat was before the Commission for approval. She felt the request was premature. W. Grittman commented the applicant choose to bring the request before the Commission to see how the issue was dealt with before creating the plat. If the variance was approved, the plat would be accessed from Foxwood and if denied the plat would be redesigned and accessed from Delaware Avenue. Commissioner Hennes commented Foxwood Lane was currently a 25 foot wide roadway and was servicing several homes. He questioned if the roadway could remain 25 feet wide to service the new plat and additional homes, or if the size of the road had to increase due to the increase in homes serviced. Mr. Grittman stated there was no rule within the City stating a street had to be a certain width to serve X number of lots. He indicated the City's right of way requirements were not being met with the current roadway and the Commission was being asked to evaluate if the right of way extension was acceptable through a variance. Public Works Director Mazzitello explained the City's policy in building roadways was to build streets to a nine ton capacity with curb and gutter at a minimum of 28 feet in width. Commissioner Hennes questioned if there was flexibility to reduce the width. Mr. Mazzitello indicated there were circumstances in which roadways have been reduced. Commissioner Magnuson clarified that the current configuration of Foxwood had 50 feet of right of way, versus the required 60 feet of right of way. Mr. Grittman stated this was the case. Commissioner Magnuson asked why the City was requiring a variance to a condition that was preexisting, as the current roadway did not meet the City's right of way standards. Mr. Grittman explained the variance was necessary as the 50 foot right of way was approved specific to the Foxwood plat and adequately met the needs of the homes on the cul-de-sac. The applicant was proposing to extend the right of way to serve additional properties. This was not considered by the Council with the original request. Commissioner Viksnins questioned what legal interest the applicant had in the right of way. Mr. Grittman commented the applicant's property does come in contact with the right of way along with the parcel proposed for subdivision. Commissioner Viksnins inquired if the applicant had the right to seek this request. Mr. Grittman indicated the applicant had the right due to the fact he owned the adjacent parcel. Commissioner Viksnins understood there to be restrictive covenants in place for the Foxwood development. He asked if these had any impact on the request before the Commission this evening. Mr. Grittman explained he spoke with the City Attorney regarding this issue. The City was aware that the covenants were in place and would restrict the subdivision. He indicated it was not the City's place to enforce or interpret private covenants. He encouraged the neighbors to pursue this further with the applicant. Commissioner Viksnins inquired if the reasonable use of this property was an objective standard. Mr. Grittman stated this was the position of staff. Commissioner Noonan questioned if the variance request was getting ahead of the subdivision and asked if the subdivision should come before the City as one request. Mr. Grittman stated this could have been completed through a PUD, which would address the issues in a more simple manner. However, the applicant wanted an answer on this issue first. Mike Bader, 1673 Delaware Avenue, stated he has lived in Mendota Heights in since 1988 and purchased Lot 3 in 1993. He indicated a subdivision application was brought to the City in 1993 and was subsequently denied. After raising four children in the City, his home was too large and they wanted to downsize. Mr. Bader explained that the request before the Commission had been altered from the previous request to address the concerns of the City. He questioned why the variance was needed when the existing roadway did not meet the City's standards. Mr. Bader R Planning Commission Afinules Mendota Heights Planning Commission, Page 7 Februmy28, 2012 requested the Commission consider the request based on the historical use of properties and subdivisions in Mendota Heights. Paul McGinley, Lowks & Associates, indicated he has been working in the region for the past 40 years. He presented the Commission with a handout and discussed the material in detail. Mr. McGinley discussed his work history stating he has been working in the area since the 1970's. Most recently, lie worked with the Hidden Creek division in the Mendota Heights. Mr. McGinley indicated when the Foxwood addition was platted no access was planned to the 10 acres to the south. He indicated there was a demand in this application to gain access to this property. The applicant has not drafted plans for this property to date as the plans would be determined greatly by the form of access. He reiterated that the Foxwood Addition was platted with a 50 foot right of way without a variance. He explained the applicant was simply requesting to continue this 50 foot right of way into the proposed subdivision. Mr. McGinley reviewed the requirements for a variance noting the applicant was proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner. He commented the applicant was willing to increase the size of the roadway to 26, 28 or 30 feet in width if necessary. Due to the fact the City platted the Foxwood Lane right of way at 50 feet created unique circumstances for the property and were not caused by the applicant. He noted the approval of the variance request would not alter the character of the neighborhood in which the property is located. Mr. McGinley discussed several developments within the City and their current roadway right of ways. He indicated the Somerset View Development had 117 lots with 50 foot right of way and 26 foot wide roadways. Friendly Hills has 64 lots with 50 foot right of way and 34 foot wide roadways. He concluded that a 30 foot roadway could be completed in a 50 foot right of way with adequate utilities to serve the new lots. Mr. McGinley commented on the location of the existing utilities within the roadway noting water, sewer, cable and telephone lines were present in the current cul-de-sac and could be easily extended into the proposed subdivision. He felt it was reasonable to assume a roadway less than 30 feet in width would serve the proposed lots while reducing water runoff and impervious surface. He indicated this was the tendency of cities and watersheds at this time. Mr. McGinley explained Foxwood Lane was 25 feet in width. The Bader's have agreed to upgrade the roadway to meet the City's safety requirements to allow for the proposed extension. He noted access from Delaware Avenue would be detrimental to the neighborhood due to the loss of trees and needed grade change. Mr. McGinley discussed a potential alignment for the roadway stating a 30 foot buffer would be provided for the Gray property. He reviewed the considerations that were made to the developer of the Foxwood Addition and requested the Commission snake the same consideration for the Bader's with their variance request. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Chair Norton stated the Commission received a brief statement from neighbor Alna Duroth at 600 Wentworth Avenue who did not agree with any of Mr. Bader's proposed plans. Lisa Gray, 540 Wentworth Avenue, presented the Commission with several picture boards. She appreciated the Commission's time and then discussed her concerns with the proposed variance. She noted she purchased her home in the summer of 2011 and loved the natural setting. Ms. Gray did not feel it was necessary for the Bader's to downsize their lot in order to create this subdivision. She felt Foxwood Lane should not be turned into a City street at the expense of the neighborhood. The addition of four small lots could also create a risk to the adjacent wetlands. For this reason, she did not support the application. Ms. Gray commented the Bader's were asking for a variance on land that they did not fully own or control. A portion of this land directly affected her property. Second, if the variance were granted it would conflict with the Council's prior approval of the Foxwood Addition with a 20 foot roadway and two and one-half acre lots. She felt the variance request would override the original Council approval of the Foxwood subdivision. Planning Commission Minutes Mendota Heights Planning Commission, Page 8 February 28, 2012 Ms. Gray then questioned if the subdivision was consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. She discussed the issue in further detail reviewing the 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan development policies. It was noted the new development would not meet all zoning and subdivision regulations. The proposed roadway extension would also reduce property width and would remove trees, which unduly burdens her property along with the Lutz's. Ms. Gray reviewed the Bader's have the reasonable use of their property at this time_ She reiterated that a previous request was denied in 2003 to subdivide this property. Several meeting minute comments were presented to the Commission from both staff and the City Attorney. She explained that economic matters are not considered to be practical difficulties. She indicated the subdivision could be accessed from Delaware Avenue by the applicant and perhaps should be considered. Ms. Gray commented the Bader's purchased the Foxwood property to gain access to their Delaware property knowing full well that Foxwood Lane was a private roadway servicing the three lots within the addition. The property has restrictive covenants against any type of development, which he was now seeking to do. She understood it was not the City's place to enforce covenant documents, however, she felt they were relevant as it directly discussed the roadway extension. Ms. Gray stated the essential character of the neighborhood would be altered by extending Foxwood Lane and by subdividing the property. This was not what the neighbors want or what the Council had in mind with the original Foxwood Addition. She provided the Planning Commission with her formal written comments. Ms. Gray respectfully submitted that the request has not been found to meet the variance request elements and should therefore be denied. Jennifer Lutz, 548 Foxwood Lane, noted she submitted a letter to the Commission with her concerns. She indicated she was confused by the request and felt it was premature given the fact a plat was not completed. The history of the Foxwood Addition was then discussed. At the time the area was developed, it was consistent with the City's requirements. She indicated the 100 foot right of way to the wetlands was agreed upon by the developer. In addition, the roadway was originally planned to be private serving only the three lots, which made the 50 foot width reasonable. Ms. Lutz did not want to see her front yard setback changed due to roadway changes, as it would significantly affect the value of her property. She requested the Commission allow the roadway to remain at 25 feet as this was the original intention of the subdivision. The property owners were relying on the covenants to maintain the character of the neighborhood. If the variance request were approved, the integrity of the neighborhood would be lost. Ms_ Lutz felt the addition of four lots was greatly inconsistent with the original intent of -the Foxwood Addition and the private roadway. She bought into the subdivision relying on the covenants and conditions set by the City Council and developer. She also felt the proposed subdivision by the Bader's violated the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as several properties would be unduly burdened. She did not object to the vacant property being developed, but felt the burden should be bared by the Bader's on Delaware Avenue and not the property owners on Foxwood Lane. Ms. Lutz requested the Commission deny the variance request. Commissioner Magnuson questioned if the orange cones on her property were depicting the red line on the map. Ms. Lutz stated this was the case. Commissioner Noonan clarified that the front yard setback would not be changed however the distance of the pavement from the house could be decreased. Mr. Sedlacek stated the home has a 30 foot variance from the 40 foot front yard setback. He indicated the home was built 15 feet from the right of way. Commissioner Hennes asked when the home was built. Ms. Lutz explained her husband built the home in 1995 and that she has lived at the property since 2002. Commissioner Hennes questioned if the roadway were to remain 20 feet in width if Ms. Lutz would still object to the potential subdivision. Ms. Lutz stated this was the case as she and her husband objected to additional traffic on the private roadway. 7 Planning Commission Minutes Mendota Heights Planning Commission, Page 9 Februmy 28, 2012 Tim Owning, 554 Foxwood Lane, recommended the Commission deny the variance application submitted by the Bader's. He thanked her neighbors for bringing about their concerns. He encouraged the Commission to review the minutes and original documents for the platting of the Foxwood Addition due to the contentious nature of the development. Mr. Owning stated the minutes provided context as to why the narrow roadway was made. He bought into the compromise understanding there were three lots in the subdivision with limited traffic on the roadway with no future subdivision. Mr. Owning explained Bader's purchased Lot 3 understanding Foxwood Lane was created to service the three homes and would not service the adjacent land. He stated Foxwood Lane has become a quaint neighborhood and did not appreciate the proposed subdivision as it would alter the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Hennes questioned if the original addition called for three lots. Mr. Owning stated the original documents called for two lots with an outlot in the wetlands. This idea was pushed aside for the final plat of three lots. He understood it was the City's desire was to conform to City requirements with all new approved plats. Commissioner Hennes asked if the roadway remained 20 feet in width if he would be in favor of the potential subdivision. Mr. Owning stated he would still object as this put an undue burden on himself and the Lutz's property with the additional traffic on the private roadway. Ms. Lutz read for the record minutes from October 27, 1992 noting that three lots were planned for the Foxwood Addition. Ms. Gray indicated the development could not be more than three lots based on the two and one-half acre lot minimum. Mr. Mazzitello stated this lot size was the minimum for septic systems. Jim Kohler, 1695 Delaware Avenue, indicated he has lived in Mendota Heights for a number of years. He commented he did not have a deep history_of the Foxwood Addition but noted he had spoken to the Bader's regarding the proposed subdivision. He pointed out the location of his home on a plat map for the Commission. He explained this was an emotional issue and stated the Foxwood Addition did have several exceptions already in place. He encouraged City staff and the Commission to decide what the Bader parcel should look like when developed. He felt the character of the homes along Delaware Avenue would be greatly affected if access were granted from Delaware Avenue versus Foxwood Lane. He requested that the proposed subdivision not adversely affect his property and the future use of his property. Commissioner Noonan commented the options provided by the Bader's do allow for future access of Mr. Kohler's property. He questioned if Mr. Kohler supported any of these options. Mr. Kohler did not support the 30 foot access off of Delaware Avenue. He stated it was his intention to keep his property as is. However, he did need.to protect his future rights. He understood that his neighbors to the south were also looking to keep their properties as is, but did not want to rule anything out in the future. Commissioner Field asked if the 20 foot roadway from Foxwood Lane would properly service his property if subdivided in the future. Mr. Kohler stated if the Planning Commission was considering the 20 foot roadway was sufficient to only service the Bader property this was not accommodate any further development of his property or the property to the south. Commissioner Field questioned if the utility easement for the roadway off of Delaware Avenue was on his line. Mr. Mazzitello commented he was not privy to any design plans for a roadway. However, he understood that a 60 foot right of way easement would be necessary. Mr. Sedlacek indicated this would be a private matter between property owners and not a matter of the City. Frank Hicke, 1611 Delaware Avenue, stated the Bader's sent a concept plan to all of the neighbors. He expressed concern with homes being developed too closely to Delaware Avenue and how this would change the character of the roadway. Planting Commission Minutes Mendota Heights Planning Commission, Page 10 Februaiy 28, 2012 Mr. McGinley offered several clear responses to concerns raised by neighboring property owners. He commented the variance request was being made by the Bader's as a property owner with land that abutted Foxwood Lane. He indicated the variance request would not affect Ms. Gray's side yard setback as the roadway would be located away from the 30 foot setback and buffered near her property. Mr. McGinley understood the concerns of the neighbors and how the increased density would affect the traffic to the Foxwood Addition. He reiterated that the Bader's request was a reasonable use of their property to allow for ingress and egress to their lot. He felt there was a difficulty in accessing or servicing the properties at the back of the Super Block. The future extension of Ridgewood was not obtained through easements to service the internal properties. Mr. Bader referred to Minnesota State Statute 462.361 regarding variance denials. He reiterated the fact that he had a personal interest in the Foxwood Lane lot and he paid to have the roadway paved and snow removed. He indicated he has spoken with several other politicians regarding his potential subdivision and did not feel a condition was in place to not allow for the roadway to be extended. Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Commissioner Field expressed concern with the timeliness of the variance request. He felt the "horse was before the cart" in this manner and would like to see the entire concept plan before approving anything. Commission Noonan agreed stating a planned unit development (PUD) would eliminate the need for a variance. He stated the PUD would then address the entire concept while providing the necessary conditions for approval. Commissioner Hennes was confused due to the fact the variance was necessary to allow for proper access into the potential development. Without the variance there would be no sense moving forward with the plan. Commissioner Viksnins indicated the Commission was requesting an advisory opinion_ He agreed this was a complex application and proposal. He thanked those present this evening for providing arguments on both sides of the issue. He stated he was not prepared to vote on the issue this evening. He suggested a more complete picture of the situation be created through a PUD. Mr. Sedlacek explained staff encouraged the full package to be provided to the Planning Commission.. However, the applicant was not interested in spending the funds to create a platted subdivision if the variance was not approved by the City. He stated it was uncommon for the City to have a variance for one small portion of a plat. Commissioner Magnuson appreciated the Bader's not wanting to commit funds to the subdivision design process when the variance was not approved. However, she still questioned if a variance was even necessary for this request. She was not convinced the variance was necessary. She did not feel the Commission could make a decision this evening without further infonnation from the applicant. Commissioner Hennes asked if the Commission had to make a decision this evening. Mr. Grittman indicated the City had time to hold this item over. Mr. Sedlacek explained the City had 60 days to review a case and this could be held over for an additional 60 days. The application date was February 6`11 . Mr. Grittman indicated if the Commission decided to table action on the variance that the Commissioners provide comment on the additional information needed to make a decision at the next meeting. I Planning Commission Minutes Mendota Heights Planning Commission, Page 11 February 28, 2012 Commissioner Noonan suggested the City Attorney be asked if a subdivision could be brought forward on the Bader property as a PUD without requiring a variance. Mr. Grittman stated the City's Attorney validates the process the City is going through and has not been asked this question. Commissioner Field stated potential plans for the Bader property would have to be considered in conjunction with access to the properties to the south. He requested the City Attorney advise the Commission on this in greater detail as to how the City could be affected in the future. Mr. Mazzitello offered comment on the need for a variance speaking to City Code Subdivision Standards Title 11, Chapter 3, Paragraph 3, B2 outlines the right of way width requirements. He explained that all public right of ways shall have a minimum right of way width, for any subdivision, of not be less than 60 feet. :Due to the fact Foxwood Lane had an existing 50 foot right of way, the applicant needed to apply for a variance from the City's Zoning Code. Commissioner Magnuson stated Foxwood Lane was developed to be 20 feet in width with a 50 foot right of way. She questioned why the City would allow for a 50 foot right of way in the first place and now how the 60 foot right of way would affect the roadway. Mr. Mazzitello stated the current roadway was an existing non -conformity and because it would need to be unproved, it would need to be brought up to the City's current zoning standards or a variance would need to be granted. Mr. Grittman stated it was staff's position that the development would intensify the use of the right of way. A future extension was not previously contemplated and the roadway does not meet the current standards. For that reason, the applicant required a variance from the current zoning standards. Commissioner Noonan asked if a PUD would better allow for this item to be considered. Mr. Grittman commented a PUD would be one approach to consider the proposed plat. He indicated this would need to be further discussed with the City Attorney. Commissioner Field stated a PUD was not before the Commission this evening. He indicated the Commission was being asked to consider a variance request and he felt he did not have enough information to take action this evening. Commissioner Field questioned if the Commission could approve a variance based on a concept with conditions. Commissioner Magnuson stated eventually a plat will come before the Commission_ She stated the fact remains many years ago a roadway was not extended properly to provide access to these properties. She recommended the City look at these properties more broadly. Mr. Grittman stated this would be an option if this was the information the Commission needed to proceed with the request. Commissioner Magnus suggested staff speak further with the Bader's to have the application withdrawn and brought back for further consideration as a PUD or plat. Commissioner Viksnins indicated the Commission could also deny the request based on the fact it lacked the necessary information for approval. Commissioner Field was not in favor of this option as it would place time restrictions and limitations on the applicant. He suggested the public hearing be reopened to allow the applicant to respond to the Commission's discussion. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS 10 Planning Commission Minutes Mendota Heights Planning Commission, Page 12 Februmy 28, 2012 Mr. McGinley stated he understood the Commission's concern. He stated a plan related to this property was not going to be completed until the variance issue was resolved. He commented that he and Mr. Bader agreed to table the issue to allow for additional discussions with staff and the City Attorney. Cormnissioner Field indicated he would like further information as to what the variance would service. Commissioner Magnuson agreed and understood the applicant did not want to complete a full plan. She felt this was a complicated plan and without the proper information a reasonable decision could not be made. Mr. Bader stated his preference was Option B, which required a variance. However, if the site were accessed from Delaware Avenue, he would not require a variance. He indicated he could not control when his neighbors decided to subdivide, but this should be considered by the Cormnission. He noted he would continue to work with the neighbors to bring about a resolution to this situation. Commissioner Field appreciated these comments as it did provide a more clear picture of how the extended roadway would be used. Ms. Lutz commented her home was only 15 feet from the private road, which was approved with the understanding that Foxwood Lane would remain a private 20 foot roadway. She questioned if there were any other homes in the City with this reduced setback. Ms. Gray indicated there was confusion with the variance request. She stated there was no need for a variance request without a subdivision request. She recommended a more concrete plan be submitted to the City prior to approving the variance. This would greatly assist the neighbors, City staff and the Planning Commission. before a final decision was made. Commissioner Field was in favor of continuing the discussion on this item to the March 27`h Planning Commission meeting. He suggested the City Attorney be present or provide comment on the necessity of the variance. Chair Norton suggested the applicant provide further infonnation as to the plans for the subdivision to assist the Commission in making an informed decision. Commissioner Field indicated he was unclear if Foxwood Lane was a public street or a private road. Mr. Mazzitello stated Foxwood Lane was a private road constructed in a public right of way. The residents are responsible for maintaining the roadway. Commissioner Field questioned if the roadway could even be extended given the fact it was private. He asked if the variance were to proceed to the Council if the road extension would be a public street. Mr. Mazzitello stated the roadway would have to be built to City standards to be considered a public roadway. Staff recommends that the road be built to City standards and maintained by the public works department. Commissioner Field requested further information from the City Attorney on the private covenants that exist among the Foxwood Lane residents. Commissioner Magnuson questioned if the variance were granted if it would violate any City Code or the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan. She suggested staff provide comment on this issue as well. Chair Norton questioned if the applicant and his representative were clear of the expectations of the Commission. Mr. McGinley addressed the Commission stating he would speak with staff and be ready to provide additional information at the March 27`h meeting. Chair Norton encouraged Mr. Bader and Mr. McGinley to also speak with the neighboring property owners prior to the March 27[11 meeting. 11 Planning Commission Minutes Mendota Heights Planning Commission, Page 13 February 28, 2012 COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO TABLE ACTION ON PLANNING CASE NO. 2012-07 HOLDING THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN TO THE MARCH 27, 2012, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Verbal Review Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #2012-04 Henry Sibley High School Variance Request • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #2012-01 City of Mendota Heights Wetland Zoning Amendment • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE 92012-02 City of Mendota Heights Critical Area Permitting Process • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE 92012-03 City of Mendota Heights Accessory Structures • This item has not yet been heard by the City Council_ Election of Chair and Vice Chair COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO APPOINT STEVE NORTON AS THE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AYES 5 NAYS 0 ABSTAIN 1 (NORTON) COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO APPOINT LITTON FIELD AS THE VICE -CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AYES 5 NAYS 0 ABSTAIN 1 (FIELD) Adjourn COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:39 P.M. AYES NAYS Respectfully submitted, Heidi Guenther, Recording Secretary 12 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Heights Planning Commission, Page 14 651.452.1850 phone 1 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.com CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS March 2'), 2012 Michael Bader I67'Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 I)ear Mr. Bader: It is my understanding that you wish to table discussion of your planning case, 42012-07 one additional month, to the April 24, 2012 planning commission meeting. Per your request. staff will not include this item on the March 27, 2012 planning commission meeting. 'rhe city received a complete application from you on February 6, 2012, starting the 60- day review period for this application which is set to expire on April 6, 2012. The city is extending the review period an additional 60 days from the original expiration date. The review period will now expire on .lune 5, 2012. extension heyond .June 5, 2012 would require you to submit a written request for extcnslon. The next hearing on this matter will be April 24, 2012. If you have additional materials I'm the planning commission to consider, please have those submitted by Wednesday, :April l I, 2012 at the latest. Sincerely, Jake Sedlacek Assistant to the City Administrator Cc: Planning Case File 92012-07 � ' Mix \/-� Pns er from FSC "" ibfo souroas 9 FSC' C009042 Mendota Heights Planning Commission, Page 15 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS,, NC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen W. Grittman DATE: March 22, 2012 MEETING DATE: March 27, 2012 SUBJECT: Subdivision Ordinance Amendment CASE NO: Case No. 2012-08; NAC Case 254.04 — 12. APPLICANT(S): Timothy Aune LOCATION: NA ZONING: NA GUIDE PLAN: NA Background and Description of Request: The applicant is proposing that the City amend its Subdivision Ordinance regulations relating to the length of cul-de-sac streets. The current code section (Section 11-3-3) reads as follows: D. Dead End And Cul -De -Sac Streets: Dead end streets are prohibited, but cul-de- sacs will be permitted only where topography or other conditions justify their use. Cul-de-sacs shall normally not be longer than five hundred feet (500'), including a terminal turnaround which shall be provided at the closed end, with an outside curb radius of at least forty nine feet (49') and a right of way radius of not less than sixty feet (60'). Mendota Heights Planning Commission, Page 16 The applicant's proposed language would delete the reference to "normally", and then add insert additional language which would emphasize the 500 foot maximum length, and also require separate Fire Department review for any cul-de-sac street between 300 feet and 500 feet in length. The applicant's proposed language would read as follows: D. Dead End And Cul -De -Sac Streets: Dead end streets are prohibited, but cul-de- sacs will be permitted only where topography or other conditions justify their use. Cul-de-sacs shall neirally shall under no circumstances net be longer than five hundred feet (500'), including a terminal turnaround which shall be provided at the closed end, with an outside curb radius of at least forty nine feet (49') and a right of way radius of not less than sixty feet (60'). The five hundred feet shall be an absolute maximum and any cul-de-sac in excess of three hundred feet (300') shall require a written opinion from the current Fire Chief to address unique circumstances that would impact public safety personnel. Analysis: The applicant supports his proposal with two primary arguments. First relates to the language of the existing code itself, which because of the use of the term "normally" makes it primarily an advisory phrase rather than an enforceable limitation. The second argument relates to concerns that overly -long cul-de-sac streets raise and issues of public safety (due both to emergency vehicle access and traffic volumes past those properties nearest the intersection of the cul -se -sac street with its access road_ With regard to enforceability, the applicant's observation is correct — the 500 foot limitation in the current code cannot be enforced as it has been written. To establish a firm limit, deletion of "normally" from the text should be approved. With regard to public safety, and the cul-de-sac street length generally, most communities have regulations that limit the length of such streets. The majority of those limit cul-de-sac street length to 500 feet, although some standards are found at 600 or 750 feet, and range up to 1,000 feet. The primary rationale for the limitation on cul-de-sac length is, as suggested by the applicant, related to traffic volumes in residential areas. Most transportation studies rely on a maximum daily trip volume of 200 to 250 vehicle "trip ends" per day as being the maximum level for safe residential traffic. At approximately 10 trips per day per single family home, cul-de-sac streets are commonly designed to limit the number of units to around 20 or so — the typical number of suburban single family lots that could be platted around a 500 foot long cul-de-sac. For most of these districts, typical lot widths are in the range of 75 feet. Mendota Heights Planning Commission, Page 17 For Mendota Heights, single family lot widths range from 100 feet in the'R-1 zoning district to 150 feet in the R -1A. For a subdivision around a cul-de-sac street with lot widths in this range, it would be typical to expect only about 7 — 11 lots, with traffic volumes in the range of 70 to 110 trips per day. While a firm limitation on cul-de-sac length serves an important purpose for public safety, the City should consider whether 500 feet is the proper length. Moreover, the current "soft" limitation serves a different purpose that would need to be addressed as a part of an amendment. For many subdivisions, street and utility improvements are required to be extended to the property boundaries to ensure that future extensions can be provided to neighboring parcels and promote orderly development of the area. As such, many cul-de-sac streets are "temporary" in the sense that there is an expectation of future extension when an adjacent parcel seeks access and subdivision. To address this issue, most communities with hard caps on cul-de-sac street length also have an ordinance clause that both requires extension to other subdividable lands, and exempts such extensions from the cul-de-sac length requirement. If the ordinance is to be amended, planning staff would recommend that this additional language is included to avoid cutting off options for future development. Example language would be something similar to the following: When subdividing property in areas where adjoining parcels have the potential of future subdivision, the subdivider shall plat rights of way and/or public easement to the boundaries of the property so public improvements, including streets and/or utilities, can be extended to said adjoining property. The City may or may not require actual construction of such public improvements by the subdivider, at the discretion of the City Council. In such cases, the City Council may exempt the subdivider from cul-de-sac street length limitations, and may further require that a temporary cul-de-sac be constructed, or other facility acceptable to the City Engineer, until such street is extended to other parcels. Without this provision, the interior of very large tracts may not be accessible at all, or would be accessed only by a series of shorter cul-de-sac streets from the perimeter roadways - this would complicate city street maintenance and decrease efficiency. Staff would note that the existing ordinance has not appeared to result in problems for the City or its development pattern. Although the applicant is seeking to create a cul- de-sac limitation, it is not clear — based on this experience — that the current "soft" limit has raised issues. Making it clear that cul-de-sac streets are to used only under certain conditions would be appropriate. Mendota Heights Planning Commission, Page 18 In this regard, an amendment that deletes reference to length, and adds language specifying that such streets are to be used only in rare circumstances would refine the existing code, but retain its flexibility. Such a change would amend the existing clause as follows: D. Dead End And Cul -De -Sac Streets: Dead end streets are prohibited, but cul-de- sacs will be permitted enly on a case-by-case basis where topography or other conditions justify their use. Cul-de-sacs shall noFmally Rat be longer- than fi" hundred f t (500% includei*g a terminal turnaround which shall be provided at the closed end, with an outside curb radius of at least forty nine feet (49') and a right of way radius of not less than sixty feet (60'). Action Requested: Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: (1) Approval of the subdivision ordinance amendment as requested, adopting the language recommended by the applicant, based on findings that the amendment improves public safety, and the current language in the code is not enforceable. (2) Approval of the subdivision ordinance amendment, with modifications offered by staff relating to an exemption for future street extensions, based on findings that the amendment improves public safety, would better accommodate development planning, and that the current language in the code is not enforceable. . (3) Consideration of amendment language which removes reference to limitation on cul-de-sac length and permits the use of such streets only when conditions are found to warrant it, case by case. (4) Denial of the subdivision ordinance amendment, based on findings that the existing code provides adequate guidance to developers without compromising safety, as well as greater flexibility in subdivision design. Staff Recommendation: Over the years, the City has approved cul-de-sac streets of varying lengths, including many that exceed 500 feet where the conditions appeared to be appropriate to the City. Staff is unaware of any particular problems resulting from the current language and the resulting development pattern relating to cul-de-sac length. In this regard, Options 3 or 4 would be supported by staff, based on historical experience. Mendota Heights Planning Commission, Page 19 If the ordinance is to be amended to create a firmer limit, planning staff recommends option (2). As noted, the application of a fixed cul-de-sac length limit is more enforceable than the current language. However, in the case of development of areas where future development is possible or likely, extension of public streets and utilities beyond the adopted limit may be necessary. Although residential property owners typically seek lower traffic levels in almost all cases, safety concerns are usually not an issue given the large lot sizes required by the Mendota Heights zoning ordinance. Supplementary Materials: 1. Application dated 2-23-12 Mendota Heights Planning Commission, Page 20 RECEIVED MAR 2 1 2012 Timothy J. Aune 554 Foxwood Lane Mendota Heights, MN. 55118 March 21, 2012 Mr. Jake Sedlacek 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Mr Sedlacek. I am writing to provide comments on the proposed change to the request for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment which I submitted on February 22, 2012, #1012-08. After discussions with the city staff regarding how best to establish city code such that it be clear, reflect best practices in terms of safety and use of city resources, but still provide flexibility to city staff to accomplish the aforementioned goals, I would like to ask that the new code be amended to read as follows: D. Dead End And Cut -De -Sac Streets: Dead end streets are prohibited, but cul-de-sacs will be permitted only where topography or other conditions justify their use. Cul-de-sac length shall be limited to four hundred hundred feet (400'), including a terminal turnaround which shall be provided at the closed end, with an outside curb radius of at least forty nine feet (49') and a right of way radius of not less than sixty feet (60'). The four hundred foot (400') limit may be reduced or increased if it is determined, based solely upon a review and recommendation by the City Engineer, and the Chiefs of the Police and Fire Departments, that a reduction or increase from the four hundred foot (400') limit is warranted by safety, topography, or other soil and water concerns. Please contact me at 651-295-2607 or tim.oune@comcast.net if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely Timothy J. Aune ,OP.% 4 Mendota Heights Planning Commission, Page 21 ulty of MT-Cmdota APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Applicant Name: i'�ttnE' 1 i M o �� �1: PH: 6 S j' �' ��' " C� Z (Last) (First) (M) E -Mail Address: Address: I'i �vr(rn1,*� y� La,.r- Me���� �� � 5-, M AJ SS i t (Number & Street) (City) (State) (zip) Owner Name: Address: 5" oa.Xv-e c � a &--r- (Last) (First) ��wte ee-L S <��'-sj- (Number & Street) Street Location of Property in Question: (M) (City) (State) (zip) Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) Type of Request: Rezoning Variance Conditional Use Permit Subdivision Approval Conditional User Permit for P.U.D. Wetlands Permit Preliminary/Final Plat Approval Critical Area Permit Comprehensive Plan Amendment >, Other (attach explanation) . orJ . I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above propeduring daylight hours. Date Received 2-23 12 (Signature of Appli (Signature of Owner) 1101 Victoria Carve a Mendota Heights, MIS 55118 • (651) X452-1850 • FAX(651)452-8940 www.mexndota-heights.eom Mendota Heights Planning Commission, Page 22 Timothy J. Aune 554 Foxwood Lane Mendota Heights, MN. 55118 February 22, 2012 Mr. Jake Sedlacek 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Mr Sedlacek. I am writing to apply for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Specifically I am requesting that Part D., of Section 11-3-3 of the. Zoning Code which states, D. Dead End And Cul -De -Sac Streets: Dead end streets are prohibited, but cul-de-sacs will be permitted only where topography or other conditions justify their use. Cul-de-sacs shall normally not be longer than five hundred feet (500'), including a terminal turnaround which shall be provided at the closed end, with an outside curb radius of at least forty nine feet (49') and a right of way radius of not less than sixty feet (60'). be amended to read as follows: D. Dead End And Cul -De -Sac Streets: Dead end streets are prohibited, but cul-de-sacs will be permitted only where topography or other conditions justify their use. Cul-de-sacs shall under no circumstances be longer than five hundred feet (500'), including a terminal turnaround which shall be provided at the closed end, with an outside curb radius of at least forty nine feet (49') and a right of way radius of not less than sixty feet (60'). The five hundred feet (500') limit shall be an absolute maximum, and any Cul -De -Sac in excess of three hundred feet (300') shall require a written opinion from the current Fire Chief to address unique circumstances that would impact public safety personnel. There are two very clear reasons why consideration should be given to adopting the amended language. First, the current language is too ambiguous to be meaningful in terms of enforcement. If the city wants a limit on Cul -De -Sac length, they need zoning language that is succinct and not subject to interpretation. Secondly, ensuring the safety of both its citizens and those assigned the task of providing that safety is a primary role of government. Amending this portion of the Zoning Ordinance will better reflect the initial intent to limit the use of Cul -De -Sacs by limiting their maximum length. It mitigates the risks faced by emergency personnel, and preserves the safety of residents, especially those residents nearest the Cul -De -Sac's egress onto an arterial street, by limiting the total amount of traffic that utilize the road. Please contact me at 651-295-2607 or tim.aune@comcast.net if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Timothy J. Aune Mendota Heights Planning Commission, Page 23 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING A PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 11 CHAPTER 3 OF THE CITY CODE TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission of Mendota Heights will meet at 7:00 P.M„ or assoon as possible thereafter, on Tuesday, March 27, 2012 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Tim Aune to amend City Code Title 11, Chapter 3 as it pertains to cul-de-sac length. The applicant is seeking to limit the maximum length of a cul-de-sac as defined in the.subdivision ordinance. This notice is pursuant to Title 12 (Zoning), Chapter 1 of the Mendota Heights City Code. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to this request will be heard at this meeting. Sandie Thone City Clerk Mendota Heights Planning Commission, Page 24 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSIULTANTS,. INC. 5775 Wayzata. Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: March 23, 2012 MEETING DATE: March 27, 2012 SUBJECT: Wetlands Permit for Swimming Pool CASE NO: Case No. 12-09; NAC Case 254.04 — 12.06 APPLICANT(S): Barry Sommervold LOCATION: 609 Hampshire Drive ZONING: R-1, One Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: LR — Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request._ The applicant is seeking a wetlands permit to construct a swimming pool and related improvements in the rear yard of 609 Hampshire Drive. The project would cover much of the existing lawn area behind the house. The area is current.fenced from the wetland at a distance of about 30 feet, with the area between the fence and wetland edge left natural. The applicant proposes to replace the fence with a new one in the same location, construct the pool in the enclosed area, and the leave the natural area as it is. The property is zoned R-1, One Family Residential. Section 12-2-6 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a Wetlands Permit for any work conducted within 100 feet of a wetland. Analysis: The subject property includes the existing lawn area about 80 feet deep from the rear of the house. As noted above, the lawn is separated from the wetland by a fence, and more than 30 feet of natural vegetation at the wetland itself. Mendota Heights Planning Commission, Page 25 The pool construction would extend about 60 feet from the rear of the house, surrounding by decking, and then lawn area_ The applicant states that there will be about two feet of mulch between the lawn and the fence. Otherwise, there is expected to be no impact on the property or on the wetland. Due to the distance and the extensive natural vegetation buffer, the proposed project should not impact the wetland itself. The Wetlands Ordinance requires that any land alteration or construction within 100 feet of any designated wetland requires approval of a Wetlands Permit. The purpose of the Wetlands Ordinance is to ensure that alterations within the buffer area adjacent to wetlands do not degrade or threaten the water quality of the wetland area. With the plan as proposed, little impact is foreseen. Engineer Review. The City's engineering staff should review the permit application to verify that all construction activities will follow the City's Land Disturbance Guidance document. Action Requested: Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: 1) Approval of the wetlands permit to construct a fenced area for a new swimming pool, associated pool decking and regarded lawn area within the fenced enclosure, based on the attached findings of fact, and subject to a requirement that the fence meets the City's fencing requirements for materials, openness, height, and other requirements for swimming pool enclosures, and that all construction activities follow the Land Disturbance Guidance document. ME 1) Denial of the wetlands permit, based on a finding that the projected work will have negative impacts on the existing wetland and is inconsistent with the intent of the Wetlands Ordinance. Staff Recommendation: Planning staff recommends approval of the wetlands permit. The proposed project should not have a negative impact on the wetland, especially with the native vegetation plantings which serve to filter the runoff into the wetland. The project appears to meet the intent of the Wetlands Ordinance and will not degrade or threaten the water quality of the wetland. Supplementary Materials: 1. Application Materials Dated June 3, 2010 2. Site Location Map I Mendota Heights Planning Commission, Page 26 Draft Findings of Fact for Approval Wetlands Permit 609 Hampshire Drive The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the above Wetlands Permit: The project meets the intent of the Wetlands Ordinance. 2. The project results in only nominal increases in impervious surface with an extensive existing vegetative buffer adjacent to the wetland edge. 3. The wetland itself will be untouched. 4. No other soil or vegetation will be disturbed as a result of this work. Mendota Heights Planning Commission, Page 27 i ty of offits e d i, APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Applicant Name: ,i PH: (Last) (First (M) E -Mail Address: k6cir, r, Address: ln7 b (Number & Street) s.s-, (City) (State) (zip) Owner Name: S::�wvn4-Rvo),,� J&0MV _ Sac - j -(Last) (First) (NI) Address: l v9/&,Y,dj4 '1,e- br f4e.1j,& /jugs;/s In.41 ..� s/a C> (Number & Street) (City) T (State) (zip) Street Location of Property in Question: r'.tYO i Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) Type of Request: Rezoning Variance Conditional Use Permit Subdivision Approval Conditional User Permit for P.U.D. Wetlands Permit Preliminary/Final Plat Approval Critical Area Permit _Comprehensive Plan Amendment Other (attach explanation) a, ppltcable City Ordmartce Number , �-� Section 3 'Present zorl�ngRof,Property{ , �- � Present Use � `��' ,. - _s Pioposec�,zonrng of Propertys' 2 Proposed Use �� I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above properity during daylight hours. (Signatui of Applicant) Date Received 3(� (Signatof Owner) 1181 Victoria Curve • Mendota Heights, MN 55118 • (651) 452-1850 ^ FAX (651) 452-8940 www.mendota-heights.com Mendota Heights Planning Commission, Page 28 March 4, 2012 City of Mendota Heights Planning Commission 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 RE: Wetlands Permit for 609 Hampshire Dr Dear Planning Commission: My name is Barry Sommervold and 1 reside with my wife and two children at 609 Hampshire Dr Mendota Heights. We are currently researching the possibilities of building a swimming pool in our backyard. Based on the fact that our property is in close proximity to a wetlands area we understand that we are in need of a wetlands permit in order to continue with this project. The purpose of this letter is to give you an understanding of the construction plan, including location, time frame and impact to the wetland. Included with this letter is the Application for the wetlands permit which includes a check for the $135.00 fee, the wetland permit checklist and a topographic map of the area in question. My proposed plan is to not go any further than 60 feet from the back of the house. This will still leave between 50 to 65 feet of space for proper drainage, grading and landscaping for every minimal impact to the wetland area. There is currently a 4 foot high wood fence that surrounds the back yard, this fence is approximate 30 feet from the wetland area and would be the proposed spot for the new fence that would surround the backyard and pool area. The area from the pool to within two feet of the fence would be evenly graded with grass and the last two feet up to the fence would be landscaped with mulch. Currently from the fence to the wetland area is unmaintained and contains trees and wild bushes. This piece of the property would remain the same with no changes to the current vegetation or landscape. This again will help to have a minimal impact to the overall wetland area. We are in the process of having individual companies complete an evaluation of the property and giving us an estimate of the cost and time frame on the construction period. Early estimates from all the companies have indicated that the construction start time would be the beginning to middle of May with a completion date of the beginning or middle of June. Each company has indicated that they will be able to provide a more detailed site plan showing the exact location of the pool as well as the proposed drainage, grading and landscaping. Hopefully I have included all the information needed and I want to thank you for your time and consideration regarding this wetland permit. I would be happy to discuss any questions or concerns regarding this project that the planning commission has. Thank you. Sincerely, Barry Sommervold & Family Mendota Heights 609 Hampshire Drive February 28, 2012 ommissio Page 29 N D 40 SCALE IN FEET City of Mendota Heights Mendota Heights Planning Commission, Page 30 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING A PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST FOR A WETLANDS PERMIT AT 609 HAMPSHIRE DRIVE TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission of Mendota Heights will meet at 7:00 P.M., or as soon as possible thereafter, on Tuesday, March 27, 2012 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Barry Sommervold for a wetlands permit. The applicant is seeking a wetlands permit to construct a pool within 100 feet of a wetland area. This notice is pursuant to Title 12 (Zoning), Chapter 1 of the Mendota Heights City Code. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to this request will be heard at this meeting. Sandie Thone City Clerk