The URL can be used to link to this page

2010-04-27 Planning Comm Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA April 27, 2010 - 7:00 P.M. 1) Call to Order 2) Roll Call 3) Approval of the Agenda 4) Approval of the March 23, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes 5) Review Planning Commission Rules of Order 6) Hearings a) Case No. 10-07: Aaron and Sarah Macke, 744 Woodridge Drive — Critical Area Permit to build a single family home. Public Hearing 7:00 P.M. b) Case No. 10-08: Hayley Heidelberg and Roy Bester — 752 Mohican Lane — Conditional Use Permit for a fence. Public Hearing 7:00 P.M. c) Case No. 10-09: Karen Pimentel, 687 2"d Avenue — Conditional Use Permit for a fence. Public Hearing 7:00 P.M. d) Case No. 10-10: Maureen Haggerty, 790 Ridge Place — Wetlands Permit for an Invisible Fence. Public Hearing 7:00 P.M. e) Case No. 10-11: Julie Rosga, 1745 Lansford Lane — Conditional Use Permit for a fence. Public Hearing 7:00 P.M. f) Case No. 10-12: Jake Sedlacck for City of Mendota Heights for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Update Title 12 of the City Zoning Code, 12-5 Floodplain Management. Public Hearing 7:00 P.M. 7) Verbal Review 8) 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 March 23, 2010 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 23, 2010 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, March 23, 2010, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Lally, Commissioners Field, McManus, Norton, and Povolny. Those absent: Commissioners Hennes and Viksnins. Those present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, Acting Public Works Director/City Engineer Ryan Ruzek, and NAC Planner Steve Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Carla Wirth. Approval of Februart) 23, 2010, Minutes COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER POVOLNY, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 23, 2010, AS PRESENTED. AYES: NAYS: Revieiv Planning Commission Rules of Order Chair Lally referenced the Planning Commission's Rules of Order, noting a few items are not consistent with the City's ordinances. Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek advised that the Planning Commission is not required to adopt Rules of Order; however, this document existed and is being presented in case the Commission would like to adopt such rules. Chair Lally noted the document contains several typographical errors and Section 2, Organization, contains no indication that applications are sought. He referenced paragraph 2.2, Absenteeism, and what the City's ordinance indicates with regard to absences. He noted that the Commission meets only 11 times a year and if absent 25% of the time, it may indicate the member is too busy. Commissioner Field referenced Subsection 3.2, Hearing Procedure, and suggested adding reference to the public hearing being opened and closed. Commissioner McManus asked whether the Planning Commission had formally adopted Rules of Order. Mr. Sedlacek explained these Rules of Order are the current Rules, adopted in 1986. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NORTON, TO TABLE CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RULES OF ORDER TO THE APRIL MEETING TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL TIME FOR REVIEW, AYES: NAYS: Hearin PLANNING CASE #10-04 Mark Hemstreet on behalf of Verizon Wireless 2431 Lexington Avenue Conditional Use Permit for expansion of ground equipment Planning Commission A47in res March 23, 2010 Planner Steve Grittman explained that Mark Hemstreet of Insite, Inc., on behalf of Verizon Wireless, is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to install wireless accessory equipment on the existing water tower site located at 2431 Lexington Avenue. The parcel is zoned 1, Industrial, and the project will include the installation of a back-up generator at the Verizon Wireless facility to ensure that Verizon's equipment will receive adequate power when its main power is interrupted. According to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 12 -1J -6.C.3, if both the applicant and the City consent to mounting the antennas on the City's water tower or other municipal building, a developer's agreement may be necessary at the discretion of the City in addition to a Conditional Use Pen -nit. Mr. Grittman displayed a picture of the proposed equipment and explained Verizon Wireless is proposing the placement of a 50KW Katolight Diesel Generator with Crystal Quiet Sound Enclosure and Spill Containment. The generator is proposed to be located to the southwest of the water tower and directly northwest of the existing 16 -foot by 52 -foot concrete equipment building. In order to install the generator, an additional lease area of approximately 12 -feet by 15 -feet (180 square feet) is needed. The generator will be enclosed by a chain link fence that will connect to and match the existing chain link fence on the north side of the Verizon equipment shelter. Screening will consist of vertical privacy slats that match the screening in the fence surrounding the AT&T equipment located to the east of the water tower. Mr. Grittman noted the City has approved similar requests for the placement of accessory equipment and the lease would control the use of the property. Based on the review of the applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements, staff recommends approval of the CUP to locate accessory wireless equipment on an existing telecommunications tower site as illustrated on the submitted site plans and subject to the conditions detailed in the staff report. Commissioner Povolny asked if the City will require screening. Mr. Grittman answered in the affirmative and advised the site complies with that requirement. Mark Hemstreet, Insite, Inc., on behalf of Verizon Wireless, stated he met with Mr. Sedlacek who indicated the fence should be screened to match the existing screened fence, which they assurne will be a condition of the CUP. Commissioner McManus stated the generator is proposed to be located well out of sight and well shielded. He asked about the noise standards of a Crystal Quiet Sound Enclosure, noting there is residential across the street. Mr. Hemstreet stated that is the manufacturer's term and the enclosure will reduce the noise to a level similar to a household air conditioner, even with a diesel engine. Commissioner McManus stated he thinks the distance and proposed location will address his concern. Commissioner Norton stated the generator will not be running 24 hours a day. Mr. Hemstreet stated that is correct, the generator will be used in times of power outages. In addition, the generator will be test run for 20 minutes once a week as a maintenance issue. He explained that the generator test run can be scheduled at a specific time, such as the middle of the day when there is a higher street noise level. Commissioner Povolny asked if the generator is for use only by Verizon Wireless. Mr. Hemstreet answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Povolny asked how many cell tower providers are located on the water tower. Acting Public Works Director/City Engineer Ryan Ruzek stated the City has five leases on the water tower. Commissioner Povolny asked if the City will receive four more similar requests. Mr. Ruzek indicated that may occur and noted staff can refer such requests to Verizon Wireless for co -utilization. Mr. Hemstreet explained that some carriers use batteries instead of a power generator. Commissioner Povolny asked if they need a generator as a back up. Mr. Hemstreet explained that the need for a generator was determined by their engineers. Commissioner Field noted the City encourages collocation of antennas and asked if it should also encourage co - utilization of backup generators. Mr. Grittman stated it is the City's property so the City has the ability to make those requirements but should get input from the engineer to assure the generator is capable of providing backup power for more than one carrier. 0) Planning Commission Minutes Uarda 23, 20/0 Chair Lally asked if another carrier would then pay Verizon Wireless to co -utilize its generator. Commissioner Field stated he is unsure what the terms would be but raised it as an option. The Planning Commission discussed the size of the generator and limited need for Verizon's equipment. Mr. Hemstreet stated he is unable to answer technical questions about the generator and would have to refer the question to their engineers. Chair Lally opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Lally asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NORTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 5 NAYS 0 Mr, Ruzek explained the City is undertaking a water tower rehabilitation project so staff will have to coordinate that project with installation of this equipment. In addition, staff needs additional information on some existing facilities and conduits since they do not comply with OSHA standards. Mr. Hemstreet indicated no objection to the two additional conditions. COMMISSIONER MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NORTON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. LEASE SHALL BE AMENDED TO REFERENCE THE ADDITIONAL GROUND EQUIPMENT. 2. A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION. 3. THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE AN ABANDONMENT BOND TO THE CITY AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 12-IJ-6.H.I.b OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. 4. THE APPLICANT SHALL ABIDE BY ALL OTHER REGULATIONS IN SECTION 12-146 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. 5. COORDINATION WITH THE CITY ENGINEER DURING THE CITY'S WATER TOWER REHABILITATION PROJECT. 6. THE PROVIDER SHALL BRING EXISTING VERIZON WIRELESS EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES UP TO OSHA STANDARDS. Commissioner Field stated he would like to explore the option of sharing generator capacity; however, there is not enough information or engineering available to do so tonight. Commissioner Norton suggested this be presented as a suggestion for staff and the Council to consider. Commissioner Povolny advised that the average power outage is about 90 minutes, unless there is a natural disaster, and most backup battery systems will cover that duration. AYES 5 NAYS 0 Chair Lally advised the City Council would consider this application at its April 6, 2010, meeting. PLANNING CASE #10 -OS William Stein 2465 Westview Terrace Wetlands Permit for ground source heat pump Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2010 Planner Steven Grittman explained that William Stein is requesting approval of a Wetlands Permit to install a ground source heat pump at 2465 Westview Terrace. He noted the property is zoned R-1, One Family Residential. He displayed a site plan to identify the edge of the wetland, building pad, and proposed "v -shaped" excavation in the rear yard. The applicants have indicated they will maintain and add to existing natural vegetation to create a more naturalized buffer between the finished portion of the property and edge of the wetland. Mr. Grittman advised that Section 12-2-6 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a Wetlands Permit for any work conducted within 100 feet of a wetland. The trench is within that 100 -foot buffer zone with the closest point being about 28 feet from the wetland. The area to the west and north of the trench will remain in its natural state and be enhanced with native vegetation plantings. Mr. Grittman stated the construction of the facility should not create a negative impact on the wetland and the landscaping improvements will enhance the wetland. Staff finds the project meets the intent of the Wetlands Ordinance and will not degrade or threaten the water quality of the wetland subject to the conditions detailed in the staff report. Commissioner Field asked if the geothermal equipment is put into the trench or placed closer to the wetland. Mr, Grittman stated the equipment will be placed in the trench. Commissioner Field stated geothermal is most efficient closer to the wetland where the soils are wet so he is curious the trench is located that far back. Acting Public Works Director/City Engineer Ryan Ruzek stated the applicant wanted to install the system in the wetland but a 6-8 foot depth is required for a more efficient system and the pond does not have that depth so the application was changed to this proposal. Commissioner Field asked if the applicant was expected to attend tonight. Mr. Grittman advised the applicant called to indicate he was unable to attend tonight but would attend the Council meeting. Commissioner Povolny asked if the project involves open trench, directional boring, and how many loops would be installed. Mr. Grittman advised it will be open trench work, back filling, and covered with turf but he does not know other details of the installation. Chair Lally noted the trench will be within 28 feet of the wetland and the grading will match the existing terrain. Mr. Grittman stated that is correct. Chair Lally stated this system utilizes heat fi-om the ground but he is not familiar with the technical working of this type of system. Commissioner McManus stated he viewed the site today and questions whether it is actually 28 feet from the wetland, estimating it may be as close as 15 feet from the wetland. Mr. Grittman stated the applicant used the City's GIS map to identify the edge of the wetland. He displayed a site plan to describe the location of the trench and measurement of 28 feet to the wetland. Commissioner McManus stated the applicant has a large attractive fence that meets the City's requirements and asked if the excavation is inside or outside of that fence. Mr. Grittman stated it is outside of the fence. Commissioner McManus stated there were no stakes in the ground but he doubts it would measure 28 feet from the wetland. The Planning Commission discussed the measurements and setback of the house and trench from the wetland. Connrnissioner McManus stated the Council expects the Planning Commission to ask questions but the applicant is not available tonight to answer those questions. Commissioner Povolny stated the diagram presented tonight is not easy to understand and does not contain enough information about the project. N Planning C01771WSSi011 Minutes Marcia 23, 20/0 Chair Lally asked if the depth of the trench is a concern as long as the original contours are restored. Commissioner Povolny noted this trench is close to the wetland. Commissioner Field stated it is not the Commission's purview to engineer this project; it is to consider the appropriateness of a Wetlands Permit. Commissioner Norton concurred, noting it will be restored to the current contours. He asked if there was concern that the installation of this equipment would adversely affect the wetland during the trenching. Commissioner McManus stated it would be helpful to have the applicant in attendance to answer the questions of the Commission. Commissioner Povolny stated he does not object to the project but does not think the submitted plan contains enough detail. Chair Lally noted the staff recommendation is to approve and asked if staff was concerned about a potential impact to the wetland. Mr. Grittman stated that staff did not believe there would be an adverse impact to the wetland, noting silt fence is required to be in place and the project is to be restored and graded to the original contours. Chair Lally asked the City Engineer if he had concerns about an adverse impact to the wetland. Mr. Ruzek stated he is not concerned with the project. However, silt fence is stated to be installed between the trench and the wetland and the northern side of the trench should also have silt fence since it is a lower elevation. Commissioner Field asked if this is a two to three day project. Mr. Ruzek stated the applicant indicated the project will take one week. Chair Lally asked if the contractor representing the applicant was in attendance. Mr. Sedlacel< explained the contractor had a work conflict and was not able to attend but intends to be present at the Council meeting to answer questions raised by the Planning Commission. Chair Lally opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Lally asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NORTON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 5 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER NORTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WETLANDS PERMIT AS REQUESTED FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A GROUND SOURCE HEAT PUMP SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. ALL CONSTRUCTION/EXCAVATION WORK MUST BE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE PLATTED EASEMENT AREA; AND 2. ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES MUST FOLLOW THE LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. AYES 4 NAYS I(POVOLNY) Chair Lally advised the City Council would consider this application at its April 6, 2010, meeting. 5 Planning Connniss on Minutes March 23, 2010 Commissioner Field stated his preference to not hold a public hearing if the applicant is not able to attend the meeting to answer the Commission's questions. Commissioner McManus concurred. Commissioner Povolny stated he would like additional information submitted with applications. Commissioner Norton asked whether the Planning Commission can require the applicant to be in attendance. Mr. Sedlacelc explained that once the public hearing is advertised, the Commission is required to hold the public hearing but is not required to take action on the application if it feels there is not enough information. Commissioner McManus stated he voted in support of the application but does not recall the Planning Commission ever making a recommendation on such scant information. Commissioner Povolny stated that even though he supported the project, he voted against the motion because of the lack of information included in the application. PLANNING CASE #10-06 Torn Robey on behalf of Bert McKasy 1294 Aspen Way Critical Area Permit for an addition to the home Chair Lally advised that the applicant had asked if he needed to be present at the meting tonight and he indicated it was not necessary if the application was non -controversial and as long as a representative was in attendance. Planner Steve Grittman explained that Tom Robey, Ispiri LLC, on behalf of the property owners, Bert and Carolyn McKasy, is requesting approval of a Critical Area Permit for the construction of a four -season porch and deck on to their existing home. The property is located at 1294 Aspen Way, is zoned MR -PUD, and located within the Mississippi River corridor. He displayed a copy of the plat for the Summit Townhouse area, points of access, and subject site. Mr. Grittman explained the property owners wish to construct a four -season porch with an attached deck on to their existing home. The porch is proposed to be located over an existing deck structure and will utilize the existing footings already in place. The new deck will extend from the side of the porch to the edge of the home and be aligned with the edge of the home. Mr. Grittman noted this property is located within the Mississippi Rivet- corridor and any work conducted within this corridor requires a Critical Area Permit as special guidelines have been adopted to protect and improve the River's natural, cultural, historic, and recreational resources in this area. He explained it relates to views to and from the River and protection of the bluff areas that face the River. This particular project is not subject to views to or from the River or in close location to the bluff, however, it is within the corridor and will expand the built area of the parcel. Mr. Grittman advised that this project is consistent with other homes in this area and there appears to be very little impact to the corridor. Staff recommends approval of the Critical Area Permit for construction of a porch and deck as no paving, significant soil loss, changing in grades, or altering of slopes will occur during the project. Therefore, it appears that the project will not have a negative impact on the aesthetic integrity and natural environment of the Mississippi Critical Area. Tom Robey, Ispiri LLC on behalf of the applicants, stated they are going to great lengths to assure all finishes will match the existing unit and the other half of this twin home already has a porch. Chair Lally noted that other townhomes have requested a similar construction and Critical Area Permits were approved for those projects. Mr. Sedlacek advised that on March 8, 2010, staff sent a letter to the applicant to advise that a completed application form had not yet been received. He stated the public hearing was already advertised so staff recommends it be held Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2010 and that the Planning Commission consider an added condition to require the property owner's signature on the application form so it can be filed with the County. Mr. Robey apologized for the lack of signature, explaining it was his understanding the signature was needed for the Council meeting, not the Planning Commission. He advised it will not be a problem to obtain their signature by the end of the week. Chair Lally opened the public hearing. Greg Quail, Summit homeowner and Homeowner's Board Member, stated lie has no objection to the application but tool, measurements based on the measurements given by Ispiri LLC and determined they are off by about 2.5 feet. He used the site plan to identify the incorrect measurement and asked for the dimensions to be corrected prior to consideration by the City Council. He stated he had served on the Planning Commission in the past and complimented its members for the questions raised on applications tonight. Mr. Sedlacek recommended an added condition to require updated and corrected plans. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Lally asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NORTON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AYES 5 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER NORTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR - SEASON PORCH AND DECK SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. SUBMISSION OF CORRECTED PLANS PRIOR TO CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION. 2. PROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE ON THE APPLICATION BY CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON FRIDAY, MARCH 26, 2010. AYES NAYS Chair Lally advised the City Council would consider this application at its April 6, 2010, meeting. PLANNING CASE #10-03 City of Mendota Heights Update to Title 12, Chapter 1, of the City Code Planner Steve Grittman stated the Planning Commission has received updated copies of the Zoning Ordinance as well as a summary memorandum that highlights those changes. He noted the most substantive changes were made in the general provisions section to update the material and move sections for better organization. The format changes include combining the two PUD sections into one section. Mr. Grittman noted the change to the string rule, consolidated accessory building requirements, and updated material in various districts. Revisions also bring language into compliance with State Statutes and correct grammatical errors. Commissioner McManus stated the Ordinance is in good shape. Commissioner Norton stated the Commission has had a number of opportunities to review the document. He noted a typographical error on Page 13, Massage Therapy Businesses, and recommended to capitalize the word "Statutes." Commissioner Field stated staff has done a good job to incorporate all of the details. 7 Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 2010 Chair Lally concurred and noted as people plan to make changes to their businesses or homes it is helpful to have an updated Zoning Ordinance. Chair Lally opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coining forward wishing to speak, Chair Lally asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER POVOLNY MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NORTON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 5 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER NORTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE AS DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT. AYES 5 NAYS 0 Chair Lally advised the City Council would consider this application at its April 6, 2010, meeting. Verbal Review Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review; PLANNING CASE #10-02 Jane Landreville Wetlands Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission, Commissioner Field requested an update on Mendota Plaza. Mr. Sedlacek advised they will be closing on the construction loan this weelc and staff has been working with them on documentation. He also advised that the Council discussed a request for proposal to move a sanitary sewer line in conjunction with the project, which was included in the final plat, and is now looking at options and potential of not funding the project. COMMISSIONER NORTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER POVOLNY, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:00 P.M. AYES 5 NAYS 0 Respectfully submitted, Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED, ; 4.800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners(4)nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Carie Fuhrman/Stephen W. Grittman DATE: April 22, 2010 MEETING DATE: April 27, 2010 SUBJECT: Critical Area Permit CASE NO: Case No. 10-07; NAC Case 254.04 — 10.11 APPLICANT(S): Aaron and Sarah Macke LOCATION: 744 Woodridge Drive ZONING: R-1 — One Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: LR — Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request: The applicants are seeking a Critical Area Permit in order to construct a new single family home. The property is known as Lot 2, Block 1, Ivy Ridge Addition; located at 744 Woodridge Drive; zoned R-1, One Family Residential; and located within the Mississippi River corridor. According to Section 12-3-17 of the Zoning Ordinance, a Critical Area Permit is required because the property is located within the Mississippi River corridor. Analysis: The City approved the "Ivy Ridge Addition" plat in the summer of 2008. This plat created two lots: Lot 1 contains an existing home, and Lot 2 is proposed to contain the new home. Both lots meet the zoning requirements in terms of lot width and size requirements. Lot 2 forms a u -shape, with frontage on Sibley Memorial Highway to the northwest and on Woodridge Drive to the northeast. Lot 2 contains the required 100 feet of lot width/frontage on Sibley Memorial Highway; however, because of the existing topography and bluff land, the driveway access must be off of Woodridge Drive. Therefore, Lot 2 is unusual in shape in that there is a 20 foot strip along the east property line that extends north to Woodridge Drive to provide for the driveway access. Zoning Regulations. During the plat approval process, a proposed house pad was illustrated on the Preliminary Plat — its lot size and setbacks are shown in the table below, labeled as "originally proposed." The house location has changed slightly from the plat approval process, labeled as "current proposal" in the table. The proposed house is higher up in elevation and closer to the east property line (away from the bluff) than what was originally proposed in the preliminary plat. The required and proposed setbacks and lot size regulations are illustrated in the table below: As the table illustrates, most of the required regulations are met by the proposed house, except for the building height and rear yard setback. Building Height: The R-1 Zoning District requires that no structure shall exceed two stories or 25 feet in height, whichever is the lesser in height. The proposed house is 27 feet in height, as measured from the average grade of the front building line to the average distance of the highest gable on the roof. This exceeds the 25 foot requirement. The current building height would require a variance from the building height requirement. As a condition upon approval, the height of the home shall be decreased to meet the required standard of 25 feet. Rear Yard Setback: The original house pad was proposed 82 feet from the rear/east property line, but the house has been shifted to be 40 feet from the rear property line. The original home was to be 150 feet from the existing home at 711 Maple Park Court (home directly to the east), but is now proposed to be setback 108 feet. The Zoning Ordinance requires the rear yard setback to be at least 30 feet, or 20% of the average lot depth (whichever is greater). The unusual layout and topography of the lot greatly decreases the buildable area of the lot: the lot is over 500 feet IN Required Originally Proposed Current Proposal LOT SIZE 15,000 SF 76,187 SF 76,187 SF (1.75 acre) LOT WIDTH 100 feet 100 feet 100 feet BLDG HEIGHT 25 feet N/A 27 feet SETBACKS Front (Sibley Hwy) 30 feet +/- 375 feet + 400 feet Side (north) '/2 height of structure (Max 15 feet)... 13.5 feet 30 feet 28 feet Side (south) 1/2 height of structure (Max 15 feet)... 14 feet 30 feet 35 feet Rear (east) 30 feet or 20% of ave lot depth (whichever greater)... 62 feet 82 feet 40 feet Bluff 40 feet 50 feet 85 feet As the table illustrates, most of the required regulations are met by the proposed house, except for the building height and rear yard setback. Building Height: The R-1 Zoning District requires that no structure shall exceed two stories or 25 feet in height, whichever is the lesser in height. The proposed house is 27 feet in height, as measured from the average grade of the front building line to the average distance of the highest gable on the roof. This exceeds the 25 foot requirement. The current building height would require a variance from the building height requirement. As a condition upon approval, the height of the home shall be decreased to meet the required standard of 25 feet. Rear Yard Setback: The original house pad was proposed 82 feet from the rear/east property line, but the house has been shifted to be 40 feet from the rear property line. The original home was to be 150 feet from the existing home at 711 Maple Park Court (home directly to the east), but is now proposed to be setback 108 feet. The Zoning Ordinance requires the rear yard setback to be at least 30 feet, or 20% of the average lot depth (whichever is greater). The unusual layout and topography of the lot greatly decreases the buildable area of the lot: the lot is over 500 feet IN deep, which would require at least 100 foot setback from the rear/east property line, and a large portion of Lot 2 is covered by bluffland (18% slope or higher). This rear yard setback would be unreasonable to enforce as it would virtually eliminate the buildable area on this lot in order to meet both the rear property line setback and the bluffline setback. Staff is proposing to utilize the depth of the portion of the lot above the bluff in order to calculate the rear yard setback required. The portion of the lot above the bluff line is approximately 310 feet. This would require a rear yard setback of 62 feet (310 feet x .20 = 62 feet). The current proposed location of the new home would require a variance from the required rear yard setback, which has not been applied for and therefore was not publicly noticed. As a condition upon approval, the location of the house shall be shifted 22 feet to the west. This location would place the house approximately 70 feet from the bluffline, exceeding the required bluff setback of 40 feet, still maintain the required rear yard setback and not require the need for a variance, and also help to maximize the view from the adjacent properties as the house will be at a slightly lower elevation. Critical Area Permit. This property is located within the Mississippi River corridor. Any work conducted within this corridor requires a Critical Area Permit. According to Section 12-3-2, the purpose of the Critical Area Overlay District is to prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional, and national resource to preserve and enhance its values to the public and protect and preserve the system as an essential element in the city's transportation, sewer and water, and recreational systems. Section 12-3-6.F outlines standards by which the City shall approve a Critical Area Permit: 1. No development shall be permitted on slopes between 12% and 40% or below the bluff line to the Mississippi River unless the applicant shall prove that the following conditions are met... Comment: The Grading Plan illustrates the bluff area where an 18% or greater slope exists. It is not clear if development is going to take place between 12 and 18% slope as this is not indicated on the plan. An updated site plan, illustrating the 12% slope areas, shall be required in order for staff to determine if this condition is met. If development is being proposed on slopes between 12 and 40%, the applicant shall be required to meet the conditions of Section 12-3-65.1. 2. Adequate development practices will be maintained to ensure that gross soil losses shall not exceed five tons per acre per year during construction, or two tons per acre per year during construction when the site is adjacent to a water body or watercourse; and one-half ton per acre per year after the construction activities are completed as calculated in accordance with the given soil loss equation. Comment: This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 3 3. Wetlands and other water bodies shall not be used as primary sediment traps during or after construction. Comment: NA 4. The proposed development will treat and/or otherwise control the quality and rate of runoff to avoid any serious deleterious effect. The drainage and storm water retention plans will be subject to the approval of the city engineer. In no case shall the development increase the rate of runoff. Comment: This shall be added as a condition of approval. 5. The development is consistent with the reasonable preservation of the view of the river corridor from other properties and by the public and the walling off of views of the river corridor from other properties and public rights of way has been minimized. Comment: Although the homes at 734 Woodridge Drive and 711 Maple Park Court should still maintain a view of the river corridor, staff feels it is important that any steps be taken to minimize the obstruction of the views from the adjacent properties. The home is proposed to be 27 feet in height, which exceeds the zoning requirement of 25 feet. As such, staff is recommending that the height of the home be reduced to meet the zoning requirement. Staff feels that reducing the proposed building height and shifting the location of the home further west so that it is at a lower elevation will help to maximize the view of the river from other properties. 6. Erosion protection measures shall make maximum use of natural in place vegetation rather than the placing of new vegetation on site as erosion control facilities. The use of natural erosion control devices shall be preferred to the. maximum extent over the construction of artificial drainage devices, including culverts, holding ponds, and ditches. Comment: The applicants are proposing to remove four trees and plant two trees and additional plants as a part of the Landscape Plan. The Grading Plan also proposes the installation of silt fence surrounding the construction zone. In addition, the plans indicate that bio rolls will be substituted for silt fencing where significant tree roots are present. City engineering staff should comment on erosion control efforts of the project. 7. The development shall be located in such a manner as to minimize the removal of vegetation and alteration of the natural topography. In no case shall the following standards be exceeded: a. No building or structure shall be located within 40 feet of the bluff line. Comment: If the home is shifted to the west, it will still be approximately 70 feet from the bluff line. b. No finished grades shall exceed a slope of 40%. Comment: The plan does not show any finished grades greater than 30%. 8. The grades of any street shall not exceed 10%. Comment: N/A M 9. The height limitation for residential development shall be two stories. Comment: The zoning regulations in the R-1 District place a more restrictive provision, enforcing the 25 foot height limit. 10. Any and all erosion control storm water runoff, utility access, and similar structures shall be designed to be maintained, cleaned out, and otherwise operated without requiring the crossing of undeveloped lands in excess of 8% slopes with motorized heavy maintenance vehicles and equipment such as bulldozers, trucks, and backhoes. Comment: This shall be added as a condition upon approval. 11. Any cutting of trees and vegetation on lands within 40 feet landward of the bluff line shall meet the following standards... Comment: The four trees being removed are not within 40 feet landward of the bluff line, as shown on the Grading Plan. 12. The applicant shall demonstrate that the types and densities of land use proposed shall be suited to the site and soil conditions and shall not present a threat to the maintenance of the ground water quality, a potential increase in maintenance costs of utilities, parking areas, or roads, and shall not be subject to problems due to soil limitation, including, but not limited to, soil bearing strength, shrink/swell potential, and excessive frost movement. Comment: This does not appear that it will be an issue. 13. Quality of water runoff and water infiltrated to the water table or aquifer shall be as high after development as it was before development of the site. Comment: This shall be added as a condition upon approval. 14. All development, drainage, and grading plans shall be reviewed by the city engineer and other advisors as the planning commission or city council may direct prior to action by that body. The city council may require additional conditions to be met and/or revisions in the plans to conform to the standards and intent of this chapter. Comment: The City Engineer shall review and approve the development, drainage, and grading pians. 15. The conduct of all grading, landscaping, structure placement, and street routing shall be consistent with and to the maximum extent in furtherance of the goals and policies for the development of the river corridor as adopted by the city council. Comment: Subject to the recommendations made by staff, this appears to have been met. Comprehensive Plan. The subject parcel is guided as LR, Low Density Residential in the City's Land Use Plan. The request is consistent with this land use category, which provides for single family development. Letter of Intent. The applicants have submitted a letter of intent, describing their proposed project. They have stated that they intend to situate the home to have the 5 least impact to the bluff line to protect the bluff as best possible and to minimize the viewing of the home from the river. The applicants have also stated that they intend to situate the home to have the least obstruction of views from the neighbors to the north, south, and northeast, which are the homes with current residents at the time of the lot split approval in June 2008. Placing the home in its proposed location allows the home to the south to still have clear views of the bluff to the northwest, and the house to the north to still have clear views of the bluff to the southwest. Situating the home 28 feet from the north property line allows a clear line of view between the houses for the residents of 734 Woodridge Drive. The applicant's letter further states that they propose to bury their gutters and run the water into drain tiles underground in order to minimize the impact of the house on the land erosion due to water runoff. The applicants also state that the entire construction zone of the proposed house would not encroach on the 40 foot bluff line setback. House placement also minimizes the excavated dirt that would require storage and/or exporting. Any dirt required to be stored on-site during construction will be stored to the east away from the bluff. Any soil not used for backfill will be removed at the earliest opportunity. The applicants propose a two -phased landscape plan. They plan to utilize mulch, plants, shrubs, and trees to finish the yards to the north and northeast sides of the home. The second phase will be at a later date so they may gain a better understanding of sun and shade, slopes, sight lines, etc. No portion of the lot will be left as dirt — all non -landscaped areas will have grass. Action Requested: After a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: 1. Approval of the Critical Area Permit to construct a single family home, based on the attached draft findings of fact, and subject to the following conditions: a. The height of the home be decreased to meet requiring zoning standards of 25 feet. An updated site plan shall be submitted. b. The location of the home be shifted 22 feet to the west. An updated site plan shall be submitted. c. Areas of 12% slope or greater shall be indicated on an updated site plan. If development is being proposed on slopes between 12 and 40%, the applicant shall be required to meet the conditions of Section 12-3-61.1. d. Adequate development practices will be maintained to ensure that gross soil losses shall not exceed the given requirements in 12-3- 61.2. This shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. e. In no case shall development increase the rate of runoff. f. The drainage and storm water retention plans shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 6 g. Any and all erosion control storm water runoff, utility access, and similar structures shall be designed to be maintained, cleaned out, and otherwise operated without requiring the crossing of undeveloped lands in excess of 8% slopes with motorized heavy maintenance vehicles and equipment, such as bulldozers, trucks, and backhoes. h. The quality of water runoff and water infiltrated to the water table or aquifer shall be as high after development as it was before development of the site. i. All development, drainage, and grading plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. j. Applicants shall obtain a building permit prior to commencing construction. 1. Denial of the Critical Area Permit to construct a single family home, based on the finding that the single family home construction does not meet the standards of the Critical Area Overlay District, as stated in Section 12-3-6.F, or it appears to jeopardize the aesthetic integrity and natural environment of the Mississippi River corridor critical area Staff Recommendation: Planning staff recommends approval of the Critical Area Permit to construct a single family home on the subject parcel as appropriate steps are being taken to minimize the visual impact on the Critical Area and surrounding property; grading and erosion control measures are being put in place; the construction will not jeopardize the aesthetic integrity and natural environment of the Mississippi Critical Area, and the approval standards for the Critical Area Overlay District, as outlined in Section 12-3-61, are being met. Supplementary Materials: 1. Drafting Findings of Fact 2. Application materials dated March 29, 2010 3. Site Location map 7 Draft Findings of Fact for Approval Critical Area Permit 744 Woodridge Drive The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the above Critical Area Permit: 1. Appropriate steps are being taken to minimize the visual impact on the Critical Area and surrounding property. 2. Grading and erosion control measures are being put in place, including: • the installation of silt fencing and bio rolls; • burying gutters and installing drain tiles underground; and • any required dirt storage shall be stored at the furthest location from the bluff line. 3. The construction will not jeopardize the aesthetic integrity and natural environment of the Mississippi Critical Area. 4. The approval standards for the Critical Area Overlay District, as outlined in Section 12-3-61, are being met. 754 734 o 711 744 Woodridge Drive -Ti 716 Site Location Map Water/Wetlands City Roads Major Roads parcels Municipal Boundaries -sem _f Mendota Heights APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. - D % Date of Application .3 -Z.?- l Fee Paid # 77_ 6j o Applicant Name: Mfon -v,5Q Y-o_h _PH: (�o51- I Dq0 - q L0_1 q (Last) (First) (M) E -Mail Address: So SS mozyc-dcomCDstne Address: Ifl WOOd6ke,)_)t1Ve I-W&W I�i645 PIN 55 (Number & Street) (City) J (State) (Zip) Owner Name: Mmy_& N,!(Oi'1 + Sara-, h - (Last) (First) (NI) Address:1yl-il1 Wooav`i (Number & Str( 55112 (City) U (State) (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question:1YSVG . v Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) L_0+ 2, LIcA) T I , I � V -12,1 p G E R� l i ib (y ��t:�5 CouA4V . I �1.nnesoir� 9�IN : 2_1 - 5_1-7 —opo- OI Type of Request Rezoning Conditional Use Permit Conditional User Permit for P.U.D P r elimina'iy/F inal PiaL f—A val Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number 12-9 _Variance Subdivision Approval Wetlands Permit \i r_:i:. a! O ea Permit /N 'v{ {i{'v{ r�.G Other (attach explanation) Section 3 Present Zoning of Property —_ -L Present Use Proposed Zoning of Property (�_-_1 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 property dieing daylight hours. re'of Applicant) Date Received 1101 Victoria Curve ® Mendota Heights, MN ��1<fl� ©�(�5�� 14 8-&�� m PAX (651) 452-6940 wwens.mendota-heights-co a Application for Critical Area Permit, Letter of Intent March 26, 2010 Sarah and Aaron Macke 744 Woodridge Drive It is with great excitement we write this letter of intent to build a single family home on the property of 744 Woodridge Drive, Mendota Heights, MN. In June 2008, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission approved a lot split to create a new vacant lot of 76,187 square feet. The proposal was for a single family home to be built on the lot and to have a 20 foot strip of land to be used for a driveway to Woodridge Drive. In November 2008, we purchased this lot with the intent of building our dream home upon the sale of our existing home. On March 25, 2010, the sale of our existing home was final and we are now excited to work with the city to see our dream come true. The proposed house in the lot split proposal, dated June 2008, included but was not limited to the following: the removal of three trees (White Pine, Oak, Sugar Maple); setbacks from the bluff of 50 ft, from the property line to the north (754 Woodridge Dr.) of 30 ft, from the property line to the south (716 Maple Park Ct.) of 30 ft, and from the property line to the east (711 Maple Park Ct.) of 82 ft; and a proposed house pad of approximately 2640 square feet. Accompanying this letter of intent you will find our proposed home and landscaping plans. Our intent is the following: ® Build a custom, classic shingle style home, two stories with walk -out, and a foundation size of 2112 sq It with 3581sq It initially finished. Our roof has an average height of 25 feet. The exterior will have a combination of shakes, lateral and vertical siding, and stone finishes. The driveway will be asphalt. We think our home will compliment the established, upper bracket, traditional neighborhood well. ® Remove four trees (White Pine, Oak, 2 Sugar Maples) o Add/Plant two trees (Crimson King Maple, Red Jewel Crabapple) ® Set the house back 95 ft from the bluff line — over two times the 40 ft setback requirement from the bluff line; 40 ft from the east property line (we propose this to be our front yard setback); 35 ft from the south property line (side yard setback); and 28 ft from the north property line (side yard setback). 0 Situate the home to have the least impact to the bluff line (95 ft back) to protect the bluff as best possible and to minimize the viewing of the home from the river. Situate the home to have the least obstruction of views from our neighbors to the north, south and northeast (the homes with current residents at the time of the lot split approval in June 2008). Placing the home back 95 ft allows the home to the south to still have clear views of the bluff to the northwest, and the house to the north to still have clear views of the bluff to the southwest. Situating the home 28 ft from the property to the north (754 Woodridge Dr.) allows a clear line of view between the houses for the residents of 734 Woodridge Dr. Page 1 of 2 Application for Critical Area Permit, Letter of Intent March 26, 2010 To minimize the impact of this house on the erosion of land due to water run off, we are proposing to bury our gutters and run the water into drain tiles underground. We have also explored the utilization of rain barrels, but think the more expensive option of drain tiles is worth it. Due to house placement the entire construction zone does not encroach on the 40 ft setback of the bluff line. House placement also minimizes excavated dirt requiring storage and/or exporting. Any dirt required to store on site during construction will be stored to the east away from the bluff. Any soil not used for backfill will be removed at the earliest opportunity. Finally, our proposed landscaping plan is divided into two phases. The first phase includes the utilization of mulch, plants, shrubs and trees to finish the front (east and northeast side of the house) immediately following completion of the home. The second phase will involve us coming back to the Planning Commission for approval of a plan to finish the other sides of the house. We are waiting on phase two in order to gain a better understanding of sun and shade, slopes, sight lines, etc. In-between phases, no part of the lot will be left dirt — all non -landscaped areas will have grass. Thank you for your consideration of our letter of intent and application for the critical area permit. This is our proposed dream home and we are excited to work with the city to make it a reality. Sincerely, Sarah and Aaron Macke Page 2 of 2 840 ol i4l, ��,r� Y -r• I h. •gym � , �L \ �.. { �'� / f, �Y I � y� /' /��r ':a 5 ��. rte"" . +�ry^ -' ,ra ✓.\ . � ��r-: �ia wi \ �. \. I AK saaz- ----------- _ __-_M--I __-- ___ J \ / ia' �(5➢ sou .�, �i £ __ f- a l �� .\� �I ➢ '//`3 ' �, � I `� n. F; t: 'I' � �'CII. > m oe00El e R ae3B 2 E S Ya" hhu y c_ gyp- m $��> kgs 6 g° � �� •' � m a Om 8'0� a Tjg a [[ Xj a j'Se in V�f ¢i S 2 6 O LD p n k'cs ➢ "➢ Z m _ ? } ) /}I \ MORE Nis (§§§ ® 119E ` $ ƒ - ■ 2 ! |/; � � § � | § o- � � E �\ c � / CO-) 12 - j� ; _ & � � II !§®|§| |_ ` $ ƒ - ■ 2 ! |/; � � § � | § o- � � E �\ c � / CO-) 12 - j� u.uamev.�.oua.ny, mcrzom c+cac n.r °• O� b b� � B� b= £s-� P 1e E G y � N FF r4 �mi m m � � � e � � `�3 kP y�y iP RP• £ g £ g d cNri//viv///li�i/%� P V 144 WOODRIC-4s DRIVE ('/new^u .N, ZEROa^ £s-� 9€ 6 o RESIDENCE OR MACKE, AARON d SARAb 1_»��.�,�,Gw''��; /q 'ii�/7(t n�%a ��i%%� ADORESS: $E^ r u�.f6wtl•,. •. x cNri//viv///li�i/%� P V 144 WOODRIC-4s DRIVE ('/new^u .N, m. MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN bra"..., w,.•.,.",r�,.e "'°r pw. �..vic°y Pamrue. LIBERTY ON THE LAKE, VII.LWATER, MINNESOTA a i 661-351-0996 FA#: 661-439-.5411 Eor: eEocK: NEmneoanooD: X &m 9' x i g gQ9m` 6 Fjm Fjp FI fo flESIDENCE OF: MACKE, AARON 4 SARAH �%��, •� `��";.,"�_ 1Me..du.�xyl �pl.n.� uu lvm w1n,4lmn'C/,pu b npe� „aa w�ww�:. wPw��...,�,...,.b,�,.n,..o, �o /%� �%� l•J�iJ o ADDRESS: 144 WOODRIDGE DRIVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN LIBERTY ON THE LAKE, BTILLWATER, MINNE60TA 661-361-0995 FAX: 651-439-3411 10T: DLOCK: NEIGHBORNOOD: ' O � o N -0 O ZZ O Ln (D .� 0 0 (D rD G rD n 0 v z v, Y Ln N 00 m c D { r 3 _ O T x CCo CD m 0 = 0 m n 3 a J 3 d w N > m ° m m m oJ Jo _ rt ° .n d o m n p J o r c n° 3 m to _-caW 0,_a m o o a a m D N Dd W o m 3 rm w x y m m d �o c 3 ao Ci° 3a m o o ° 3 :gym om mti � �3. m Ja magi �w �°' shm n�ico a .0 n' < 0 CD- ' O � o N -0 O ZZ O Ln (D .� 0 0 (D rD G rD n 0 v z v, Y Ln N 00 T CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING April 5, 2010 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, April 27, 2010 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Aaron & Sarah Macke to request a Critical Area Permit for the construction of a single family home at the following described property. Lot 2, Block 1, Ivy Ridge Addition (27-37780-020-01) More particularly this property is located at 744 Woodridge Drive This notice is pursuant to Title 12 (Zoning), Chapter 3 of the Mendota Heights City Code. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to this Critical Area Permit will be heard at this meeting. Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk Auxiliary aids for disabled persons 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 Administrator at 452-1850. 754 Woodridge Drive Dakota County, MN Disclaimer. Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not Map Scale guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search, 1 inch = 178 feet appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. 711°i rr �I! Yy. _ 71 d ; a � 711 I 7tit J8 774 762 __-_ 711 .;. 1� Disclaimer. Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not Map Scale guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search, 1 inch = 178 feet appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. :. NORTHWEST -so0 olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MCMI 55422 Telephone: 763.231 .2555 Facsimile: 753.231 .2561 planners( a nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Bob Kirmis / Stephen Grittman DATE: April 22, 2010 MEETING DATE: April 27, 2010 SUBJECT: Fence CUP CASE NO: Case No. 10-08; NAC Case 254.04 - 10.08 APPLICANT(S): Roy Bester and Hayley Heidelberg LOCATION: 752 Mohican Lane ZONING: R-1, Single Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request: The applicants are seeking approval of a conditional use permit to allow the placement of a 6 foot high fence within a required yard adjacent to a public right-of-way. The Zoning Ordinance states that fences in such required yards (the applicable 30 foot setback area) cannot exceed 36 inches in height without the granting of a conditional use permit. The applicants intend to fence their entire rear yard area as a means to contain their household dogs. The proposed fence is to be cedar with in an "alternating board" configuration. The subject property is accessed from the north via Mohican Lane. Analysis: The applicants are proposing to enclose the rear yard of the subject property via a new, 6 foot high cedar fence. The proposed fence would be set back 2 feet from the Pueblo Lane right-of-way line, well beyond the applicable 30 foot setback requirement. Because a portion of the fence is proposed to lie within the required yard of a public right-of-way (Pueblo Lane), the processing of a conditional use permit is required. The applicant's request appears to be generally consistent with the intent of the zoning regulations allowing such fences by conditional use permit. As a "dead-end street", very little traffic presently exists along the segment of Pueblo Lane which borders the subject site. Considering this as well as the fact that the fence is to be erected in the rear yard, traffic visibility at the intersection of Mohican Lane and Pueblo Lane will not be negatively impacted. According to the zoning ordinance, the "face" side of fences must be positioned toward abutting property. The "alternating board", cedar fence proposed by the applicants will technically have two face sides as posts will not be fully visible from either side of the fence. In this regard, this ordinance requirement is considered to be met. As a condition of CUP approval however, the City Engineer should provide comment and recommendation in regard to easement encroachment issues. Action Requested: Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: A. Approve the conditional use permit to allow fence construction greater than 36" in height within a required yard adjacent to a right-of-way as proposed, based on a finding that the fence will not have negative impact on traffic visibility from at the Mohican Lane / Pueblo Lane intersection or on neighboring properties. B. Deny the conditional use permit, based on a finding that the proposed fence will have a negative impacts on traffic visibility and on neighboring properties. Staff Recommendation: Planning staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the construction of the fence with the conditions specified above. Supplementary Materials: 1. Site Location Map 2. Application Materials Dated 4/1/10 2 Findings of Fact Bester / Heidelberg Conditional Use Permit 752 Mohican Lane The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the above Permit: The proposed project will not impact traffic visibility at the Mohican Lane / Pueblo Lane intersection. 2. The fence will not negatively impact any neighboring properties. 3. The proposed fence is consistent with the intent and requirements for such conditional use permits according to the City's zoning regulations. 3 L---Ke'okuk La. - 1 .-...-.[752 Mohican Lane ..-I,ke. 'LakeD, 0 La -T -Paveni- )�n-dh Site Location Map Water/Wetlands City Roads Major Roads parcels MunicipalBoundaries 11 ua CRY Of �.= Mendota -eights .cj. -. r -- APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. Date of Applicationi) -�G��1��>�r �(�eF ee�Paid Applicant Name: �� 6� ��C'�U !<1 PH: (First (M) E -Mail Address: Address: (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Owner Name: So Me (Last) (First) (M) Address: s a m (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question: m6r� \ c'p&-' AM, 7"U ET 6L(:> N Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) I W �6 co A i U, 'A � � �S �/!' e Type of Request-. Rezoning __Conditional Use Permit _Conditional User Permit for P.U.D Preliminary/Final Plat Approval Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number Present Zoning of Property Y Proposed Zoning of Property `R, 6C - Variance Subdivision Approval Wetlands Permit _ Critical Area Permit Other (attach explanation) Section Present Use�i�c Jc,"- Proposed Use � hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above property during daylight hours. r- X�i - -aC ( � " of A licnt) f (Signature _pp � I Date Received '?7' -( / 0 1]101 victoraa Curve o Mendota Heughts, MN www Baneund®ta--helghts.COM ff`'A ,gJ651) 452-8940 4® Letter of Intent To whom it may concern: This letter of intent is regarding the property at 752 Mohican Lane. We are applying for a normal, conditional use permit. Our intentions for this permit are to build a six foot high, alternating board, cedar fence. The reason we would like this fence is so we can contain our dogs and continue to keep the landscape that has already been completed. Thank you for considering our request. Roy D. Bester Hayley D. Heidelberg 752 Mohican Lane 40 20 0 40 Feet N w ® E S City of 03/25/10 Mendota Heights CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING April 5, 2010 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, April 27, 2010 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Hayley D. Heidelberg and Roy David Bester to request a Conditional Use Permit to install a fence at the following described property. Lot 1, Block 20, Friendly Hills Rearrangement (27-27800-011-20) More particularly this property is located at 752 Mohican Lane This notice is pursuant to Title 12 (Zoning), Chapter 2 of the Mendota Heights City Code. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to this Conditional Use Permit will be heard at this meeting. Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk Auxiliary aids for disabled persons 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 Administrator at 452-1850. 752 Mohican Lane Dakota Countv. MN Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not Map Scale guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search, 1 inch = 131 feet appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. Bernard P. Friel 750 Mohican Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55120 (651) 454-3655 Email: wampy@att.net Mendota Heights Planning Commission 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 April 19, 2010 Re: Fence, Conditional Use, Permit. for 752 Mohican Lane Gentlemen: My wife and I NIUIII be out of town on April 270', the date of the hearing on the above matter, and are therefore submitting these comments in writing. We own the adjacent property at 751OF Mohican Lane which consists of 19 lots and the vacated streets abutting those lots. While we have reviewed the information submitted by the applicants, we refrain uncertain about the location of the proposed fence. However, it appears the proposal is to erect the described fence to enclose applicants' entire rear yard with the described fence to be located ON applicant's southeasterly and southwesterly property lines. We were the original owners (in 1957) of applicant's property, and when we sold 752 Mohican Lane in 1987, because there was then some discussion about vacating Pueblo Lane and because Pueblo Lane provided the access to our new home at 750 Mohican Lane, we specifically retained title to that part of Pueblo Lane which would have aged to 752 Mohican Lane in the event that Pueblo Lane teas vacated in order to protect access to our new home. That part of Pueblo Lane to which we own the underlying title extends northwesterly from the centerline of Pueblo Lane a distance of 31 feet to the southeasterly property line of 752 Mohican Lane, which is arppi--oximately whe.re the fieldstone wall is locatedthat you See in photographs #2 and 0. Therefore, our property at 750 Mohican Lane abuts 752 Mohican Lane on both the southwest and southeast property lines of 752 Mohican Lane_ We understand that the zoning ordinance provides that all fences are to be located ON the property of the person constructing the fence unless the abutting owners have consented in writing to have it placed on the property line. We have not and would net consent to placement ON the property line. While we are familiar with the surveyed location of the southwesterly property line of 752 Mohican lane, which sits directly under the power lines and in general is located on a line drawn directly from utility pole to utility pole, that is not a very accurate description of a property line for purposes of locating a fence, and no survey appears to have been made to accurately determine the precise property limes and tnerefore the proper placement of any fence. While use have no concerns about the construction of a fence, we are concerned about its proper location, and the application appears deficient in this respect. If the foregoing concerns are addressed so that the fence van be accurately located, built to a proper height and opacity, and located entirely on the property of the applicant, we would have no objection. For your assistance and information we have included three current photographs, one (numbered 91) looUng southweesterly along the southeast side of 752 Pueblo Lane from the intersection of Mohican and Pueblo Lanes, one (numbered 42) from Pueblo Lane looting northwesterly along the rear yard and sootheest property line, and the third (numbered 443.) also from Pueblo Lane shoving the fieldstone retaining wall near the southeasterly property line of 752 Mohican Lane and applicants' rear yard. Thank you for considering our concerns. Very Truly Yours, Bernard P. Friel Da3naris H. Friel BPFIbpf 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55-1-22 Telephone: 753.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 plan nersta,nacplanning. com MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Bob Kirmis / Stephen Grittman DATE: April 22, 2010 MEETING DATE: April 27, 2010 SUBJECT: Fence CUP CASE NO: Case No. 10-09; NAC Case 254.04 - 10.07 APPLICANT(S): Karyn Pimentel LOCATION: 6872 d Avenue ZONING: R-1, Single Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request: Representing her grandmother who owns the subject property, the applicant is seeking approval of a conditional use permit to allow the placement of a 5 foot high fence in a required yard adjacent to a public right-of-way. The Zoning Ordinance states that fences in such required yards (the applicable 30 foot setback area) cannot exceed 36" in height without the granting of a conditional use permit. Presently, a 5 foot high, chain link fence exists along the subject site's west property line. It is the applicant's intent to enclose the entire rear yard area of the property with a similar, 5 foot high, chain link fence, a portion of which would be located along Vandal Street. A significant amount of vegetation exists upon the subject property. Recognizing the existence of mature lilacs along the sites northern boundary, the applicant is proposing that the segment of the fence on the north side of the Lilacs be three feet in height. The subject property is accessed from the south via 2r,d Street. Analysis: The applicant is proposing to enclose the rear yard of the subject property via a new, 5 foot high fence. Because a portion of the fence is proposed to lie within the required yard of a public right-of-way (Vandal[ Street), the processing of a conditional use permit is required. The applicant's request appears to be generally consistent with the intent of the zoning regulations allowing such fences by conditional use permit. Typically, the City requires chain link fences such as that proposed to be clad in black vinyl. Considering however, that the existing fence segment along the west property line is silver in color, the imposition of such requirement would result in a noticeable inconsistency. In this regard, the proposed "continuation" of the silver chain link is considered acceptable. Because the fence is to be erected in the rear yard, traffic visibility at the intersection of 2"d Avenue and Vandall Street will not be impacted. The actual fence setback from Vandall Street has not been indicated on the submitted site plan. The fence appears however, to be located approximately 5 feet from the right-of-way line, well beyond the applicable 30 foot setback requirement. As a condition of CUP approval, the proposed setback should be specified. Additionally, easement encroachment issue should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. Action Requested: Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: A. Approve the conditional use permit to allow fence construction greater than 36" in height within a required yard adjacent to a right-of-way based on a finding that with conditions, the addition will not jeopardize the health safety and general welfare of the area. Conditions may include: The fence setback from the Vandal! Street right-of-way be verified. B. Deny the conditional use permit, based on a finding that the proposed fence will have a negative impacts on traffic visibility and on neighboring properties. Staff Recommendation: Planning staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the construction of the fence with the conditions specified above. Supplementary Materials: 1. Site Location Map 2. Application Materials Dated 4/5/10 2 Findings of Fact Pimentel Conditional Use Permit 687 2nd Avenue The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the above Permit: The proposed project will not impact traffic visibility at the 2nd Avenue/ Vandal) Street intersection. 2. The proposed fence type and height constitutes a continuance of a fence segment which presently exists along the west property line of the subject site. 3. The fence will not negatively impact any neighboring properties. 3 E emoon- - . .. ...... ------ ----- CO --trocksid -La .A 687 2nd Ave - s FAv. ce 1 Id -P J 5 L---1- ------ 1/Mr 0 10 ! 14Z - IJ/ , Somerset Country Club rg Site Location Map Water/Wetlands City Roads Major Roads j parcels Municipal Boundaries F7 APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. /,0 Yr d Date of App ication Fee Paid ' p , # 7 L74 2- PHJ061 Oil 102 Applicant Name:__!7'1(''�� Ij't� (Last) (First` ( ) E -Mail Address:�,4u�'��tl, Address'. (Number & Street) (City) J (State) (Zip) Owner Name- L�_JIC' I t C "" I - (Last) (First) (M) Address: (State) (Zip) (Number & Street) (city) Street Location of Property in Question: 1�71� cG�'D %' Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) L1 Type of Request: Variance Subdivision Approval Rezoning -'— Conditional Use Permit �/�/etlands Permit Conditional User Permit for P.U.D. Critical Area Permit Preliminary/Final Plat Approval Other attach explanation) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number Section Present Zoning of Property Present Use Proposed Zoning of Property 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/}property during daylight hours. (Signatur of Applicant) �f Received �,� out Ito Date Re L (Signature of Owner) 1101,tIaet®ffRa Curve ° Mendota Heaghts, MN 55118 a (651) 452-1650 ° PAX (651) 452-8940 City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 04/06/10 To Whom it May Concern: 687 2nd Avenue in Mendota Heights, MN is requesting a permit, along with a variance, to put up a chain-link fence in our backyard. This chain-link fence will be in the backyard of the property. It will be 5 feet high and have a total of approximately 150 feet in total length. We are planning to justify our fence along with neighbor on the north, west, and south of this lot. New evergreens may be planted between the existing evergreens to start re -growth. Current trees are trimmed up approximately 10'. The Legal Description: Lot 8, Block 1, Kallin Rearrangement. PIN: 27-41200-080-01 1 am doing this on the behalf of my 91 year old grandmother, Hazel Wallace, who is the owner of the property. If here are any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Karyn Pimentel at the number listed below. Sincerely, Karyn entel 687 2nd Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Karyn's Cell: (651) 271-0621 � 1 Hazel Wallace 3' fence behind 25' 25 ° Lilacs ........................................... 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I H 20' All trees stated are evergreens. Evergreens and lilacs planted app. 35 years ago. Younger evergreen trees may be planted between older trees. 52' 6" 25' 4� 687 Second Avenue 41 20 0 40 Feet i i— 400.2' __ ® 2ND AVE 10 ---------------- 690 Blue line + Neighbors pre-ezisling fence Red Llne- fence appllying for permit Purple line+3" fence behind 20" lilacs Aft 1 1 N 678 �i CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING April 5, 2010 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, April 27, 2010 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Karyn Pimentel for Hazel Wallace to request a Conditional Use Permit to install a fence at the following described property. Lot 8, Block 1, Kallin Rearrangement (27-41200-080-01) More particularly this property is located at 687 2nd Avenue This notice is pursuant to Title 12 (Zoning), Chapter 2 of the Mendota Heights City Code. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to this Conditional Use Permit will be heard at this meeting. Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk Auxiliary aids for disabled persons 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 Administrator at 452-1850. 6872 nd Avenue nairnfa /minty. MN Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not Map Scale guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search, 1 inch = 123 feet appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4-000 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, Mld 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM.- Carie Fuhrman/Stephen Grittman DATE: April 22, 2010 MEETING DATE: April 27, 2010 SUBJECT: Wetlands Permit for Installation of an Underground Fence; Two Plank Bridges; and Native Plantings CASE NO: Case No. 10-10; NAC Case 254.04 — 10.09 APPLICANT(S): Maureen Haggerty LOCATION: 790 Ridge Place ZONING: R-1, One Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request: The applicant is seeking a Wetlands Permit for the installation of an invisible fence wire, two plank bridges, and native plantings within 100 feet of a designated wetland. The site is located at 790 Ridge Place and is zoned R-1, One Family Residential. The site currently contains a single family home and attached garage. The Wetlands Ordinance requires a Wetlands Permit for any land alteration or construction within 100 feet of any designated wetland. The applicant received approval for a conditional use and wetlands permit for a fence in October of 2005. A large portion of the fence was constructed; however, much of it was placed within the right of way of the surrounding unbuilt streets, violating both CUP approvals and Ordinance standards. As a result, the property owner was required to reapply for both the CUP and Wetlands Permit in July of 2009. Now, the applicant is applying to place an invisible fence around the perimeter of the property, two plank bridges across the creek for access to both sides of the creek, and native plantings. It should be noted that the current application is silent as to the intentions for the previous fence and its requirements. Nothing in this application is viewed as supplanting any requirements that were imposed under the previous CUP, including the requirement to move existing fencing to conforming and approved locations. Analysis: The subject property is 1.24 acres in size and is unique in its configuration and its frontage on three rights-of-way: Ridge Place to the north; Wachtler Avenue to the west; and an unnamed and unimproved right-of-way to the east and south. A single family home is located directly to the west of the subject parcel. According to the original plat, Somerset Hills, dated 1947, the subject parcel and this adjacent northwest parcel were originally joined as one parcel, Lot 25. The unimproved and unnamed right-of-way was originally platted as Somerset Boulevard. The house is located on the north side of the property, fronting on Ridge Place. The property begins to slope downward behind the south (rear) side of the home and continues sloping to a stream, which separates the bulk of the parcel from the southwest corner of the property. The proposal includes the installation of an invisible fence, a plank bridge, and native plantings.- Invisible lantings: Invisible Fence. The invisible fence wire is proposed inside the entire perimeter of the property. The fence would cross the creek in two locations, on the south and west property line. According to the applicant, the wire would be placed at the bottom of the creek bed, underneath the sand and rocks that are located in the creek. Outside of the creek and within the wetlands buffer zone, the wire is proposed to lay on top of the ground. The applicant would like the invisible fence to be installed by the end of May. Bridges. The applicant is proposing to lay two, 12 foot planks across the creek in order to serve as bridges. One plank is 12 inches wide, and the other plank is up to 3 feet wide. These plank bridges would be set on top of the soil at two separate locations across the creek (see site plan for proposed locations). The applicant plans to install the plank brides by the end of September. Plantings. The applicant is proposing to plant native plant species along the banks and within 25 feet of the creek. This will be an on-going process throughout the planting seasons. Specifics of the native plantings have not been given by the applicant. Wetlands Permit. A stream runs through the southwest corner of the property, diagonally from the rear/south property line northwest to Wachtler Avenue. 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. I Easements. The submitted Certificate of Survey, dated January 1981, indicates that a 30 -foot easement and 60 -foot easement are located in the southwest corners of the property, beginning from the west property line adjacent to Wachtler Avenue and continuing southeast to the rear property line. According to the Engineering Department, the 30 foot easement is a Utility Easement for a sanitary sewer interceptor, but it is not clear what the 60 foot easement is for. The 60 foot easement appears to have been a temporary construction easement for the installation of the interceptor. City Engineer Review. The City Engineer has reviewed the application requests and has no issues with the invisible fence being located within the easements. In addition, the City Engineer has no issues with the plank bridges being located over the stream as they are not permanent structures. However, the City Engineer has made the following suggestions/recommendations in terms of the application, including the following: • The invisible fence wire shall be buried and not laid on top of the ground throughout the yard; • The invisible fence wire shall be placed entirely on the applicant's property and shall not be located in the undeveloped right-of-way; and • The Land Disturbance Guidance Document shall be adhered to. In addition, all grading, drainage, and erosion control matters shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Letter of Intent. The applicant has submitted a letter of intent, stating that the laying of the invisible fence wire on the ground and under rocks in the creek is anticipated to have zero impact upon the wetland. No change to drainage, grading, vegetation, or landscaping is required for the laying of the wire, according to the applicant. The applicant goes on to state that the plank bridges will rest on the banks of the creek, and no change to drainage, grading, vegetation, or landscaping is required to set the planks on the piers. The applicant states that the plank bridges will have a positive impact on the wetland by reducing erosion caused from climbing down the banks and jumping from and onto the banks when no bridge exists. Lastly, the applicant states that the planting of native plants, trees, and shrubs along the creek and wetland buffer zone will provide erosion control of the creek banks, as well as improve water quality and provide habitat for birds, butterflies, and other wildlife. The applicant has researched utilizing native plantings for landscaping and restoration in Minnesota on the MN DNR website. Action Requested: Regarding the request for a Wetlands Permit at 790 Ridge Place in order to install an invisible fence, two plank bridges, and native plantings, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following options after a public hearing: 3 1. Approval of the Wetlands Permit based upon the attached draft findings of fact, and subject to the following conditions: a. The invisible fence wire shall be buried and not laid on top of the ground throughout the yard; b. The invisible fence wire shall be placed entirely on the applicant's property and shall not be located in the undeveloped right-of-way; C. The Land Disturbance Guidance Document shall be adhered to; d. Specifics on the native plantings shall be provided to the City by the applicant; e. Exposed or eroded soil on the property shall be re -vegetated with appropriate wetland buffer plantings and grasses, f. All issues related to grading, drainage and erosion control of the site shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer; and g. Previous CUP approval conditions continue to apply to existing or proposed traditional fencing on the property. 2. Denial of the Wetlands Permit based on a finding that the application is inconsistent with the intent of the Wetlands Ordinance. Staff Recommendation: Planning staff recommends approval of the requested Wetlands Permit, subject to the aforementioned conditions, as the proposed project will not result in any negative impacts to the wetland; the proposal does not appear to interfere with wetland water quality; and the addition of the natural vegetation will help in treatment of stormwater runoff before it reaches the stream area. Supplementary Materials: 1. Draft Findings of Fact 2. Application Materials submitted April 5, 2010 3. Site location map 4 Draft Findings of Fact for Approval Wetlands Permit 790 Ridge Place The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the above Wetlands Permit: 1. The project involves insignificant dirt -moving and no addition of impervious surface. 2. Potential for erosion will be minimal. 3. The addition of the natural vegetation will help in treatment of stormwater runoff before it reaches the stream area. 4. The proposal will not result in any negative impacts to the wetland. 5. The proposal does not appear to interfere with wetland water quality. 6. The proposal will not adversely impact the surrounding environment. 7. The proposed project meets the intent and is consistent with the Wetlands Ordinance. 5 1808 4 8 824 8 8, 820 C -P 795 816 \2\; 11,01, —A 812 CD\ 8-0 3 1800 CP fi 825 jj 828 822 816 817,,...-�'""..' 795 805 1900 0 790 Ridge Place 804 785 IN 784 \y� 782 1920 1933 1940 1937 781 1941 789 765 772 State Hwy 110 1 1/ z State Hwy 110 z 2075 'IQ ,• , rP 2020 Site Location Map r,:.? City Limits Major Roads Parcels City Roads Water/Wetlands 1)960 1938 1944 Applicant Name C 15 ity Of Mendota fle'- 9n� APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. Date of Application - Fee Paid�35�,°O PH. (La First) (M) E -Mail Address: { I , ; fit/ 5� Address: _ : a (City) (State) (Zip) (Number & Street Owner Name: - ` w" (I (First) (M) Address: (State) (Zip) (Number & Street(City) Street Location of Property in Question: Legal Description & PIN of Property- (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) J 5 100 C Type of Request: �n N Rezoning ___Conditional Use Permit Conditional User Permit for P.U.D -_—Conditional —Preliminary/Final Plat Approval Comprehensive Plan Amendment 0 0 ` IVB to to vJ j .tom Lot 3 S N (m UV L- - Variance Subdivision Approval Wetlands Permit Critical Area Permit Other (attach explanation) Applicable City Ordinance Number Section - Present Zoning of Property k'S Present Use— Proposed Zoning of Property 2S _Proposed Use I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional dylight terial e tuns. I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect � e above p'9p, y during ( gna ure of Ap,pl Date Received ' s de� O 1101 Victopna Curve ° Mendota 1tHeaght", r`AR SAW, ( j aver. mreenndota-Hneights-COM Maureen Haggerty 790 Ridge Place Mendota Heights, MN 55118 April 5, 2010 Linda Shipton Senior Secretary 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 RE: Letter of Intent for Wetlands Permit at 790 Ridge Place Dear Ms. Shipton, Proposal: A. Invisible Fence. I would like to run Invisible Fence wire inside the perimeter of my property. My property has a creek running through it, so the wire would be crossing the creek at the bottom of the creek bed, held down by the sand and rocks which exist in the creek. Out of the creek, withing the wetlands buffer zone the wire will lay on top of the land. The location of the invisible fence wire is shown by a reWt' iine on the topographical map attached. B. Plank Bridge. I would like to lay 2 simple 12 foot planks across the creek for crossing. One would be a 12 wide board. The other up to 3 feet wide. These plank bridges would set on top of the soil. The location of the planks are indicated on the topographical map. C. Native plants. I would like to plant native plant species in and along the banks and within 25 feet of the creek. Our MN DNR encourages the use of native plants for landscaping. The MN DNR website has extensive information listing and on how to use native plants for landscaping and restoration in Minnesota. Impact on the wetland: A. Invisible Fence. The laying of the invisible fence wire on the ground and under rocks in the creek is anticipated to have zero impact upon the wetland. No change to drainage, grading, vegetation or landscaping is required for the laying of the wire. B. Plank Bridge. The plank bridges will rest on the banks of the creek. No change to drainage, grading, vegetation or landscaping is required to set the plank on the piers. They will have a positive impact on the wetland by reducing erosion caused from climbing down the banks and jumping from and onto the banks when no bridge exists. Page 1 of 2 C. Native Plants. The planting of native plants, trees and shrubs along the creek and the wetland buffer zone will provide erosion control of the creek banks as well as improve water quality and provide habitat for birds, butterflies and other wildlife. This type of planting is encouraged by the MN DNR. Time Period for work: A. Invisible Fence. Installation completed by end of May. B. Plank Bridge. By end of September. C. Native Plants. On going through planting seasons. Sincerely, Maureen Haggerty Owner, Resident 790 Ridge Place Attachment: Topographical map/site plan Page 2of2 Disclaimer. Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not Map Scale guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search, 1 inch = 50 feet appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. Tnv�sb�� s�;'� httn_//gis.co.dakota.mn.us/website/dakotanetgis/printPreview.aspx?PrintOptData=Dakota C... 4/4/2010 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING April 5, 2010 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, April 27, 2010 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Maureen Haggerty for a Wetlands Permit for an invisible fence, plantings and plank bridge at the following described property. Lot 25, Somerset Hills, Except the part beg at NW Cor E on N Line 130 ft SW to Pt on NL of S 100 Ft which pt is 1010 ft E of W Line W on N Line of S 100 ft to W Line Lot 25 N on W Line to Beg, (PIN #27-71050-251-00) More particularly this property is located at 790 Ridge Place This notice is pursuant to Title 12 (Zoning), Chapter 2 of the Mendota Heights City Code. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to this Wetlands Permit will be heard at this meeting. Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk Auxiliary aids for disabled persons 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 Administrator at 452-1850. 790 Ridge Place Dakota County, MN Disclaimer.' Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not Map Scale guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search, 1 inch = 147 feet appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. Disclaimer. Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not Map Scale guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search, 1 inch = 50 feet `appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. i i.Vi�{U+il�a� ; \f S — E kirc� v�L ssc5�U V. http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/website/dakotanetgis/printPreview.aspx?PrintOptData7—Dakota C... 4/4/2010 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO DATE: April 27, 2010 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administrat2� SUBJECT: Planning Case 10-11, Rosga Discussion Planning Case 10-11 is a request to amend a CUP which was approved last year (09-26). As such, staff is resubmitting the plamier's report for planning case 09-26 for analysis. The Site Plan submitted with planning case 09-26 requested that a 5' high wrought iron fence be located 8-10 feet from the property line along Stanwich Lane. The applicant had intended to construct the fence 8-10 feet from the curb. After reviewing past application materials, and fence requirements, staff agreed to allow the applicant to submit a revision to the CUP to place the fence just inside of the property line along Stanwich Lane. The applicant is not proposing any change to the fence construction or material. Staff does not feel that the proposed change has any significant impact on the approval of planning case 09-26, but did feel it necessary to conduct a new public hearing on the matter in the event of a neighborhood objection to the new location. Commission action, conditions and findings can be the same as planning case 09-26, this application simply defines a new location for the fence, 8-10 feet closer to the right of way. NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. ! r�` 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MIDI 55422 -a Telephone: 763.231 .2555 Facsimile: 763.231,25E31 planners cnacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Carie A. Fuhrman/Stephen Grittman DATE: June 17, 2009 MEETING DATE: June 23, 2009 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit for Fence CASE NO: Case No. 09-26; NAC Case 254.04-09.26 APPLICANT(S): Julie M. Rosga LOCATION: 1745 Lansford Lane ZONING: R-1, One Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: LR, Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request: The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit in order to construct a five foot raw iron fence that encroaches into the rear yard and side yard of a corner lot when said yard abuts a public street. The subject site is located at 1745 Lansford Lane, to the southwest of the intersection of Stanwich Lane and Lansford Lane. The property is zoned R-1, One Family Residential and is 15,486 square feet (0.36) in size. Analysis: The property is located on the corner of Lansford Lane and Stanwich Lane. Driveway access is off of Lansford Lane. There is a single family home with attached garage located approximately in the center of the property. The applicant is proposing to install a five-foot fence in the north side yard and rear yard of the subject property (see site plan). The fence shall run north from the side of the home for 20.2 feet and then west for approximately 100 feet to just before the rear lot line. The fence is proposed to be eight to 10 feet from the north (side) property line, adjacent to Stanwich Lane. According to Section 12-1E-3 of the Zoning Ordinance, fences greater than 36 inches in height, but no greater than six feet in height, and no less than 30 percent open, may be allowed to encroach into rear yards of corner lots or side yards of corner lots by conditional use permit 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. The proposed fence meets the criteria of this conditional use permit in the following ways: • the subject side yard (to the north) and the rear yard abut a public street, Stanwich Lane; • the fence height is five feet; • the proposed fence appears to be over 30 percent open (see manufacturer's information); and • the fence shall not be located on the drainage and utility easement located on the property, which is 10 feet wide and runs along the front property line, adjacent to Lansford Lane. Conditional Use Permit Standards. According to Section 12-1L-6, in considering an application for a conditional use permit, the Planning Commission and City Council shall consider the following factors: • Effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants, surrounding lands, or community; Staff Comment: The proposed fence should not affect the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands. • Existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets; Staff Comment: The fence shall not influence traffic conditions or parking facilities on adjacent streets. • Effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan; Staff Comment: The Comprehensive Plan has designated this parcel as Low Density Residential. A fence for a single family home is a compatible use with this designation. It must be determined that the proposed use will not seriously depreciate the surrounding property value; Staff Comment: The proposed fence will not seriously depreciate the surrounding property value. • Proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter. Staff Comment: The proposed structure meets all other Ordinance requirements, including setback requirements. Letter of Intent. The applicant has submitted a letter of intent stating that they have three children and one on the way. They recently installed a 1,000 square foot concrete pad in their backyard to provide a safe area for their children to ride their bicycles, tricycles, and play basketball. There are no sidewalks in their neighborhood. They are requesting to install a fence that is higher than three feet as this does not seem to be tall 2 enough to protect their children. The fence would allow for the kids to play in their yard and still be safe. Action Requested: After a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: 1. Approval of the conditional use permit application, based on the following findings: the fence will not have a detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding lands and community; the fence will not influence traffic conditions or parking facilities on adjacent streets; the fence is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance; and the fence will not seriously depreciate the surrounding property value, subject to the following conditions: a) The applicant shall receive a fence permit prior to installation of the fence; and b) The fence shall meet the regulations established in Section 12-1 D-6. 2. Denial of the conditional use permit application based on one of the following findings: the fence will have a detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding lands and community; or the fence will negatively influence traffic conditions and parking facilities on adjacent streets; or the fence is not consistent with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Ordinance; or the fence will seriously depreciate the surrounding property values. Staff Recommendation: When considering a request for a conditional use permit, there are numerous factors that must be taken into account, including the possible effects on traffic, parking, and property values; its compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance standards; and its possible impacts on the surrounding lands and community. Planning staff believes that the proposed fence is compliant with the review standards and therefore is recommending approval of the proposed conditional use permit, but subject to the above -stated conditions. Supplementary Materials: 1. Application materials 06-08-09 2. Site location map 3 AR Of Mendota Heloqg4�ts APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. /0 —// Date of Application Fee Paid 0�7°° Applicant Name: PH: 6:51 6 ° f i `1 (La ) (First) (M) E -Mail Address: i it , c; ✓ r -s 0, 0-- c ,,i J Address: 1_1'15 C u 1y�ivc 6',-- Mtic f) -� --k �11(� SSI1 (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Owner Name: )()-06c, o-� Jd, , d-uJ)4—,ryI ( ast) (First) (M) Address: �j c) �-cL.� 1'YL I 0I Mi\�— (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question: k11 c' Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) � I � 2'1 q a D'I 0 — 0 7-.) - �� + '1 0100 I✓ 66-", C/, Type of Request: Rezoning __Conditional Use Permit Conditional User Permit for P.U.D. Preliminary/Final Plat Approval Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number Present Zoning of Property Proposed Zoning of Property Present Use Proposed Use Variance Subdivision Approval Wetlands Permit Y Critical Area Permit Other (attach explanation) Section I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above property during daylight hours. (Sig ature of A` licant) Date Received 411,110— ( i nature of wne)��` 11o1 victuula Curwe ° Mendota Heights, MN 55118 ° (651) 1452-1850 PAX (651) 452-8940 wvwvwd n endofa-heig is-ccom I am writing this letter because I want to keep my children safe, and so 5 beautiful evergreens trees can stay alive by allowing them to grow less inhibited. I would like to propose placing a fence on city property, avoiding utilities, cable and phone lines. I understand and respect that if at any time the city or any of these entities needs to, they can dig up their lines. I applied for our fence last year asking for a 5 foot fence that would end up on city property. We have 4 children age ranging from 13-5mo. My 4 year old has Down syndrome and I am very concerned with his safety especially with no yield or stop sign on the corner of Stanwich and Lansford. He is very fast, and even when you are right next to him he tends to dart into the street. (Godzilla, Columbus, Escape artist and Pure Love all mixed into one ..... is Jeffrey)Thankfully the 5 foot fence was approved, and now our budget allowed us to move forward with our project. I contacted the city to ensure our paperwork was all set and to apply for our permit. Upon reviewing the drawings I saw the 8-10 feet from the curb was translated into 8-10 from the current property line, inward toward our home. There seemed to be a miscommunication, as the plan did not reflect my original letter or my oral request to the committee. The trees that are currently on our property line were planted by the builder before we bought the home. We inherited the situation we are faced with, and would like to maintain the current space provided between the trees to encourage strength and health of the trees and the natural privacy they will one day provide VS removal and or moving and risking the trees ability to survive. I have provided pictures and the current plan for your review. I appreciate your time and consideration •may, T, i 1 -g- �- en zneerzn Mendota Heights Office Coon Rapids Office 2422 Enterprise Drive CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCWTECrS 201 85th Avenue N.W. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Coon Rapids, MN 55433 (651) 6811914 Fax:6819488 Mendota Heights Office (763) 783 1880 Fax:783 1883 Certificate of Survey for: LOT AREA =15,486 SQ FT HOUSE AREA =2,643 SQ FT O 877.7 ��-�- n 878.5 8791 /678.8 N tv'} O j{ r EXISTING HOUSE 878.7 878.3 O r HUTTNER CONSTRUCTION 1745 LANSFORD LANE, MENDOTA HEIGHTS; MN OV JJ STAN WI CH LANE ` �j876.8 =►Jew T;eAL- l ecu l io r - 't' 882.3 O 887.6 1 150.00 885.3 884.0 J� I �lC U �� 887.9 .n 60. 3 35.0 Q 887.7 30 J % S� N� 885.9 % N n ��I �� I 10 o w 4.E 1�1 ci O 88PIx x887• Q D I / / \ x J �M C5 Z Q' kill C� rge)k I ( o f 0 I Q LU d Ld X 885.9 110 886.1 p of/ 0 Z N asr4 x 885-7 ' �-_ 32.00 -- �4 w I LLJ ¢ V-) I z 0 �/ f 0 �o I ow o O 6 Q /N � 9.50 � I J 2.00 L o I �> 0� 887.1.E 4.7 �O o 1 Zw 1887.1 / 1 7( ��• 1.4.0 w/B 4. k6s.i ----� i '0/ �' 0 �i.�o �� G)��- o - !- 52.7 - , ao / D -Q V)/ 88 - 1 886.6 w,m I 885.1 88 88U�.[]-------� 1 b87,:0 I M 14.00 o z I 7.33 �' 884.9= I (n 00 r(38X2,i �. /-�• ------ Z - o Io/wt I Q el x 667.9 � .0886.) 10.00 881. 65a�, e84,3' C, :a _1 83.8 tl O�K 8 0.'O 88 i.9 li Q t �8�3'I � 3 Na7.7 883.6 35.0 -ii- - I 1] 0 87.4 x A7.1 I p1 8 ..'8- �_..1�. 885.3 884.9 82.9 I 87 :4 VA 883.3 �� ` 0� 887' 6 � 'S 60.33 , 35.00 n 885.3 C33,3� ` 887.4 886.0 30 882.9 EAST 883.5 886.0 150.00��' 2� (s� - 882.5 I x . 1 :0 EXISTING------�-` GARAGE �I L ` 1 vl�_ f �•Y� i�JO�tt'iP�1Gl'il\ice (� �. �I�I TOP GAR. FLR. BENCH MARK: TOP NUT HYDRANT LANSFORD AND STANWICH ELEV.=892.51 PROPOSED OUSE LEVA-TION \ NOTE: PROPOSED GRADES SHOWN PER GRADING PLAN BY: LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION: NOTE: BUILDING DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE FOR HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCATION TOP OF- BLOCK ELEVATION: ) a "-I OF STRUCTURES ONLY. SEE ANCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR BUILDING AND FOUNDATION DIMENSIONS. �� • O GARAGE SLAB ELEVATION: NOTE: NO SPECIFIC SOILS INVESTICATON HAS BEEN COMPLETED ON THIS LOT BY THVV� �� =� • ri lour. ..nn T. .r r. .-. •,•• .+.. .. 1745 Landsford Lane Mendota Heights MN 55118 June 5, 2009 Jake Sedlacek City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights MN 55118 Dear Jake Sedlacek, I am writing this letter to ask permission to put up a 5 foot fence in our backyard closer to the street than the current law permits. We live on the corner of Lansford Lane and Stanwich with 3 children and one on the way. Their ages vary from 12, 5, 3 and a new born due in October. My 3 year old has special needs. We have recently installed 1000 square feet of concrete in our backyard to provide a safe area for the kids to ride their bikes, trikes and play basketball. There are no sidewalks in our neighborhood. My son Jeffrey is 3 years old and has Downs Syndrome, he has no concept of the dangers our street can be. We continue to show him to look both ways and try to have them all respect the street, but often time there are no cars, and then there will be the cars who speed right through the yield sign over the blinding small hill with no breaking at all. He loved to ride down the driveway with his feet raised and end up right in the street in his little car or big wheel. The pavement in the back has stopped this activity and created a safe environment for the kids to play, however he is still a very curious 3 year old who loves to wander freely whenever you turn your head even for a moment. We are asking for a fence higher than 3 feet as I would imagine Jeffrey will find a way to get over that height in no time. We are looking to only place the fence from the side of our home into the backyard. This will not in any way block or even come close to the intersection at the corner. We would like to put in a 5 foot raw iron fence enclosing the small evergreen trees but giving them a little room to grow approximately 8-10 feet from the curb. This will allow for the kids room for a safe game of wiffle ball or soccer or just room to be curious explorers. I thank you so very much as a mother trying to keep her family safe this summer and many more to come. I appreciate you considering our proposal. Sincerely, Jll'lie Rosga CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING April 5, 2010 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, April 27, 2010 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Julie Rosga for a Conditional Use Permit for a 5 -foot fence at the following described property: Lot 7, Block 2, Somerset No. 2, Dakota County (PID #27-70900-070-02) More particularly this property is located at 1745 Lansford Lane 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 Conditional Use Permit will be heard at this meeting. Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk Auxiliary aids for disabled persons 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 Administrator at 452-1850. am 1745 Lansford Lane Dakota County, NM -.; Disclaimer. Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not Map Scale guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search, 1 inch = 136 feet appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. April 23, 2010 Planning File City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 To Whom It May Concern: i 9 The City of Mendota Heights submitted a planning application for an amendment to the zoning code, to add a chapter for floodplain management. The adoption of a new FEMA floodplain map was a critical part of the revised code. City Staff has learned that FEMA is rescinding the draft floodplain map for Dakota County which was to be adopted, and have been advised by MN Department of Natural Resources staff to delay any code updates until FEMA issues a new floodplain map. A new map is anticipated in approximately 12 months. As such, the staff is withdrawing the planning application, with the intent to re -apply upon issuance of an updated floodplain map from FEMA. Sincerely, JJake Sedlacek Asst to the City Administrator 1101 Victoria Curve ® Mendota Heights, MIS 55118 ® (651) 452-1850 , FAX (651) 452-8940 www.mendota-heights.com