The URL can be used to link to this page

2010-09-28 Planning Comm Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA September 28, 2010 - 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of the Agenda 4. Approval of the July 27, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes 5. Hearings a. Case No. 10-27: Thomas Ademite — 804 Park Place Drive — Conditional Use Permit for a fence around a pool. Public Hearing 7:00 P.M. b. Case No. 10-28: Karry and Lisa Knoll —1836 Rolling Green Curve — Wetlands Permit for Pool and Fence. Public Hearing 7:00 P.M. c. Case No. 10-29: Jane Freeman— 1166 Kingsley Court -Critical Area Permit for a fence. Public Hearing 7:00 P.M. 6. Verbal Review 7. Adj ourn 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. I Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 2010 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 27, 2010 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 27, 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, Hennes, McManus, Povolny, and Viksnins. Those absent: Commissioner Norton. Those present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, Acting Public Works Director/City Engineer Ruzek, and NAC Planner Steve Grittinan. Minutes were recorded by Carla Wirth. .Approval of June 22 2010, Minutes COMMISSIONER MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER POVOLNY, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2010, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Discussion Variance Review Standard Chair Lally explained there has been a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling of June 24, 2010, that discussed review standards for variances. Planner Grittman presented the staff memorandum detailing the case impacting the standards by which variances are considered and approved. The city's ordinance reflects the statute language to consider an existing condition that created an undue hardship from reasonable use. The key terms are "undue hardship" and "reasonable use." He explained that over the past 10-15 years, state appeals court heard a number of cases that city's standards were perceived to be softening replacing "undue hardship" with "practical difficulties" and "reasonable use" with a different analysis whether the applicant's use was reasonable. There were a series of cases where city approved variances were challenged by neighbors and the cities had prevailed at the Appeals Court level. However, the recent case against the City of Minnetonka in the State Supreme Court decided the softening was not appropriate and the reading of the Statute requires "undue hardship" and "reasonable use" under general standard code requirements. A number of cities had started to follow the new formulation of "practical difficulties" and codified their ordinances in that way but the court ruling does not allow that interpretation so variance review needs to be more vigorous to meet an undue hardship. Mr. Grittman stated it is staff's feeling that the standards applied by Mendota Heights to variance cases is not impacted by the court ruling since it has followed the statute standards. Chair Lally noted there are additional considerations that the circumstances have to be unique to the property and not of the owner's creating, and approving would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Mr. Grittman stated that is correct and if it is determined the applicant is not able to put the property to a reasonable use, the other rationale is then considered. Commissioner Viksnins noted the city's code uses both terms "practical difficulties" and "undue hardship," and asked if the term "practical difficulties" should be removed. Mr. Grittman stated the language could be revised but the city has generally taken the view that the two terms define the same condition. Commissioner Viksnins stated he would support removal of a term not contained in state statutes. Hearings PLANNING CASE #10-18 Elizabeth Tetzlaff Planning Commission Mingles Aly 27, 2010 995 Diego Lane Conditional Use Permit and Variance for Accessory Building — Continued Public Hearing Planner Grittman explained that Elizabeth Tetzlaff, the applicant, is seeking a conditional use permit (CUP) in order to construct a detached accessory building that is over 144 square feet and a variance to construct the building within the required 10 -foot side yard setback. The proposed 200 square foot accessory building will be utilized as a storage building. The property, 995 Diego Lane, is zoned R-1, single family, and occupied by a single family home. He displayed the site plan of the subject parcel depicting the existing home and location of the proposed 10 -foot by 20 - foot detached accessory building. Mr. Grittman explained the setback requriements for a building of this size, noting the applicant proposed to locate the new structure 5 feet from the north (rear) propety line; however, a 10 - foot setback is required. The general location in the rear yard is appropriate according to the code and meets general standards for residential storage and the issue is whether the setback variance should be considered. Mr. Grittman presented the general standards for variance consdieration and explained this case provides whether a building can be placed in a location to meet the 10 -foot setback standards. The applicants have sugested that this is an appropriate location due to the location of existing trees and for visiblity. Staff believes it could be located to meet the required 10 -foot setback standard or a smaller sized building could be constructed that meets the setback and not compromise the property. Staff recommends approval of the CUP for a 200 square foot accessory building subject to the conditions detailed in the staff report but to deny the request for a variance. Commissioner Viksnins asked about alternate locations that comply with the 10 -foot setback. Mr. Grittman stated the building could be moved east, closer to the trees since it would not threaten their livelihood, or reconfigure the size of the shed (longer and more narrow) to create less encroachment to the trees and meet the setback requirement. He noted that residents have the right to an accessory building, smaller in size, but the setbacks need to be met. Elizabeth Tetzlaff and Dan Stoven, applicants, 995 Diego Lane, introduced themselves. Mr. Stoven stated they kept the shed narrow so it did not encroach into the middle of their yard and if shifted towards the trees it will appear to be in the middle of the yard. In addition, he believed that the closer the shed foundation footings are to the ash and maple trees, which are 40 years old, the more likely it will cause damage to the trees. He noted they have a corner lot and the suggested location is not viewed by the neighbors. Ms. Tetzlaff described the neighbors' open yard configurations and that shifting the shed will infringe on two of the neighbors. That is why they are suggesting a location behind their garage. Chair Lally stated a smaller sized shed can have a 5 -foot setback. Mr. Stoven stated they have no storage and a smaller sized building will not accommodate their storage needs. Ms. Tetzlaff explained they recently married so they needed additional storage for both of their belongings. Commissioner McManus stated if several feet was removed from one side of the building and added to the south end, it would be close to gaining the square footage they want without being much closer to the trees and still not be visible to the neighbor. He stated he appreciates the need for storage but thinks there are solutions to gain what the applicants want without violating the 10 -foot setback. Ms. Tetzlaff stated the shed could be longer and narrower but it would create more of a view impact for the neighbor, who already objects. Commissioner McManus noted the variance consideration requires a finding that they cannot reasonably use their property without this size of shed in that location. He stated if the shed is moved to the south, it would not impact the trees and could be of the size they want. Ms. Tetzlaff stated there is a garden in that location and it cannot be moved. Mr. Stoven stated they are trying to keep the building in the back yard and not towards the street. Commissioner Povolny asked whether they will be cutting down the pine trees. Ms. Tetzlaff confirmed they are cutting down the "thin" looking pine trees and planting arborvitae trees to provide screening. Commissioner Povolny asked about the utility easement, five feet on each side of the property line. Ms. Tetzlaff indicated there is such an easement. Commissioner Povolny stated there is not a problem considering the CUP for the additional square footage but the Commission must find a hardship for the additional 5 -foot setback and, in this case, the shed could be placed in the garden location. He stated he prefers to see no outside storage but the city has to follow its Plaw1117g Commission Minutes July 27, 2010 guidelines and since reasonable use of the property remains, he is not able to find a hardship. He stated he would prefer they add garage space to the house. Commissioner Hennes noted the trees are 40 years old and asked about the root structure to the west. Mr. Stoven stated both trees are healthy, the roots are shallow, and go into the 5 -foot setback area. Commissioner Hennes stated he is unsure if that would fall into the required hardship finding. Chair Lally opened the public hearing. Carol and John Murphy, 547 Winston Court, introduced themselves. Mr. Murphy stated they are 41 year residents and thanked the Commissioners for their time and consideration of this matter. He stated he talked with each of his Winston Court neighbors and has a petition signed by 95% of the neighbors who do not support the variance. Mr. Murphy stated he believes the building would be unsightly, impact his property if he tried to sell it, and may cause additional drainage problems. Mr. Murphy stated neighbors have landscaped their property and much of the drainage comes to his property. He displayed a picture of the property alongside his garage and patio showing a lot of water flows through the easement, especially during spring weather. Mr. Murphy stated they have tried to seal their garage doors from the water but it still causes a problem and the proposed building location would make it worse. Mr. Murphy stated he spent a considerable arnount of time with each of his neighbors to explain the application. Chair Lally stated that the issues of the utility easement and water drainage are helpful for the Commission to know. He explained the land owners have the option of building a smaller shed, 144 square feet, and locating it five feet from the property line. He asked Mr. Murphy how that size of building would affect his property. Mr. Murphy stated some neighbors have a small shed but they have larger sized lots so the sheds cannot be seen from the street or impact their abutting neighbors. He stated he cannot object to something that meets code, but the neighborhood is concerned about approving a variance and he and his neighbors would ask the Commission to not approve the application. Commissioner Hennes reviewed the six addresses contained in the petition in support of the variance that was included with the application. Mr. Murphy reviewed the addresses that signed the petition against the application and advised that several indicated they had signed the petition in support but did not understand what was being built. Commissioner Povolny stated if they build a 144 square foot shed, it could be located five feet from the property line. Mr. Murphy stated he understands and that it would meet code so he can't object. Commissioner McManus asked about a shed location to the south, towards the street. Mr. Grittman clarified there is a 30 -foot setback from that street. Mr. Murphy stated they are asking that the variance not be approved because this is a small lot and cutting down the pine trees will be another impact. Sandra Barrett, 550 Winston Court, stated when she was approached to sign the variance petition she asked why they couldn't build a smaller shed, noting no one else in the neighborhood has a 20 foot by 20 foot shed and this is a small lot. She stated she is concerned about losing the pine trees to build a large shed because it will be in plain view from the front window of five homes. She stated she is not against building something more in keeping with the size of their lot and asked the Commission not consider a variance for a large shed. Seeing no one else coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Lally asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS Planning Commission. Minutes July 27, 2010 Commissioner Hennes asked if the two older trees are a consideration in finding a hardship. Mr. Grittman stated trees can be considered as contributing towards a reasonable use of the property but the issue is whether you need a larger shed to make reasonable use of the property. Commissioner Field stated a CUP allows the ability to address the site plan and asked if it could be required that the pine trees not be removed. Mr. Grittman stated that recommendation could be made but the exact location of those trees is not known at this time. Commissioner McManus stated he thinks it is a subjective decision on the part of the owners that moving closer to the two trees would have a serious impact on those trees. He stated he is not prepared to consider that speculative information. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED DUE TO LACK OF A HARDSHIP AND TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE, AS REQUESTED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SHALL BE LOCATED IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. 2. AN UPDATED SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBMTITED PRIOR TO BULDING PERMIT APPROVAL. 3. A BUILDING PERMIT SHALL BE APPROVED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING Commissioner McManus stated the Commission does not have a great deal of information on how the shed may or may not impact the trees and there is doubt whether there will be an impact. He noted that the evergreen trees will be removed regardless. Ms. Tetzlaff stated that is correct. Commissioner Povolny stated that should be left to the decision of the property owner. AYES NAYS Chair Lally advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 3, 2010, meeting. PLANNING CASE #10-12 Troy Troje 574 Hiawatha Avenue Conditional Use Permit for Detached Garage Planner Grittman explained the applicants are seeking a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow the construction of a 484 square foot detached garage on their property located at 574 Hiawatha Avenue. He displayed a site plan of the subject site, noting it is a triangular shaped lot and zoned single family. The proposed single -car garage will replace an existing detached garage that is presently on the property but too small, below the City's threshold for garage size, and is too close to the property line. The new garage will be 484 square feet in size (22 feet by 22 feet) and meet both size and 10 -foot setback requirements of the zoning ordinance. He advised that the existing condition is nonconforming since code requries all single family homes to have a garage so the application will correct that nonconformity. Mr. Grittman stated staff recommends approval subject to the condition detailed in the staff report. Commissioner Povolny asked if the street vacation is documented. Mr. Grittman stated he believed it was vacated and that will be verified. Troy Troje, 574 Hiawatha Avenue, stated he is asking for a CUP for a two car -garage and had nothing to add to staff s report. He assured the Commission the structure will meet the required setback. Chair Lally opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Alinutes July 27, 2010 Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Lally asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER POVOLNY MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: VERIFICATION THAT THE GARAGE MEETS APPLICABLE TEN -FOOT SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Chair Lally advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 3, 2010, meeting. PLANNING CASE #10-20 Stephen and Jana Patrick 2536 Arbor Court Lot Line Adjustment Planner Grittman explained that Stephen and Jana Patrick are requesting approval of a lot line adjustment in order to resolve an existing property encroachment at 2536 Arbor Court. The applicant's home is located on Outlot A; however, a large portion of the driveway is located on Lot 11, directly to the north of Outlot A. The applicant would like to adjust the lot line so the driveway will be entirely on Outlot A, eliminate the existing easement, and allow the construction of a home. Mr. Grittman noted that the property is zoned single family residential and the other property is vacant and subject to future development with a current zoning of single family residential. He noted that these two parcels have frontage but do not have access to Mendota Heights Road and utilize a driveway access to Arbor Court. Mr. Grittman displayed a site plan to explain the proposed lot line adjustment. He noted this is an existing condition so the lot line adjustment does not change the number of buildable parcels, which remains at two. This is considered to be a simple subdivision since no additional parcels are created. Staff recommends approval of the lot line adjustment subject to the conditions detailed in the staff report. He recommended an added condition that the existing easements be vacated and new easements drawn to parallel the new lot line. Commissioner Field asked about the redrawn easements. Mr. Grittman stated drainage and utility easements are involved and all need to be redrawn to comply with the new lot lines and platted with the subdivision. Commissioner Povolny asked about vacation of the easement. Mr. Grittman stated the property owner will request the city vacate the current easements so they can be redrawn. Commissioner Povolny asked if there are houses between the subject site and lots fronting on Arbor Court. Mr. Grittman indicated he was unsure and noted the driveway extends through the area between the subject site and lots that front on Arbor Court. Stephen Patrick, 2536 Arbor Court, applicant, stated to his knowledge there is no eaement between the two lots. He explained every lot has a house other than the parcel identified as Lot 11 and the driveway easement crosses the property between this site and lots fronting on Arbor Court. He stated the easement will allow a driveway to cross his property to access parcel Y. Planning C0177777issiOn Minutes July 27, 2010 Commissioner Viksnins asked about the topography and elevation of the subject site. Mr. Patrick stated the northern parcel has a large buildable area. He described the topography of abutting lots, location of those homes, elevation of the subject site and abutting property, and location of the road easement. Commissioner Viksnins asked what will happen to the northern parcel. Mr. Patrick stated they use the lot to the north for recreation and may sell it eventually. 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 HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER POVOLNY, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AS REQUESTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A REVISED SURVEY SHALL BE SUBMITTED THAT ILLUSTRATES THE DRIVEWAY IS COMPLIANT WITH ORDINANCE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF FIVE FEET TO THE PROPERTY LINES. 2. A COPY OF THE LOT SPLIT SHALL BE RECORDED. 3. THE EXISTING EASEMENTS SHALL BE BE VACATED AND NEW EASEMENTS DRAWN AS REQUIRED. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Chair Lally advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 3, 2010, meeting. PLANNING CASE #10-23 Stephen and Sherry Kampa 2464 Westview Terrace Wetlands Permit for stabilization of hilltop and hillside, install a wall and build a storage shed Planner Grittman explained that Stephen and Sherry Kampa are requesting approval of a wetlands permit to construct a storage shed, boulder wall, replace a retaining wall, and clear buckthorn on their property at 2464 Westview Terrace. The property is zoned and guided for single family residential. Mr. Grittman reviewed the improvements proposed within 100 feet of the wetland, which requires a wetlands permit to assure the improvements do not negatively impact the water recourse of the community. He displayed the site plan and location of proposed work, location of the retaining wall, and 10 -foot by 10 -foot storage shed that will meet the side yard setback. He stated the area adjacent to the pond is a natural wetland and removal of buckthorn is consistent with the wetlands regulations. The retaining wall would be of boulders and imbedded into the slope so there would be little impact and vegetation would be retained. Mr. Grittman read the proposed conditions and stated staff recommends approval subject to the conditions detailed in the staff report. Commissioner McManus asked if the owner needs approval to remove buckthorn from this area. Mr. Grittman explained it has been the practice to obtain a permit when clearing buckthorn so the city is aware when such work is taking place. Planning Conunissim Minutes July 27, 2010 Commissioner Viksnins referenced the staff report indicating there is soil instability and erosion at the top of the hill. Mr. Grittman stated there is a steep slope from the back of the home to the wetland edge and the purpose of the improvements is to correct that situation. Stephen Kampa, 2464 Westview Terrace, applicant, stated he is trying to improve the property by stabilizing erosion, removing buckthorn, and installing the boulder wall. He stated the bank was not stabilized when the home was built and he had no objection to the recommended conditions of approval. Cormnissioner Viksnins stated his concern that the unstable soil at the top of the hill may be eroded and disturb the wetland during construction. Acting Public Works Director/City Engineer Ruzek stated the soils are unstable because of the tree canopy and advised that removing buckthorn and installing native plantings is an improvement that will stabilize the site. Chair Lally opened the public hearing. Seeing no one corning forward wishing to speak, Chair Lally asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCMANUS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WETLANDS PERMIT AS REQUESTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A REVISED SITE PLAN INDICATING THE SETBACKS FROM THE BOULDER WALL AND STORAGE SHED TO THE WETLAND SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW. 2. A DETAILED LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED AND APPROVE BY STAFF. 3. ALL CONSTRUCTION/EXCAVATION WORK MUST BE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE WETLAND. 4. ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES MUST FOLLOW THE LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE. AYES NAYS Chair Lally advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 3, 2010, meeting. PLANNING CASE #10-24 Rob and Stacy Hermann 1033 William Court Conditional Use Permit and Variance for Detached Accessory Structure Planner Grittman explained that Rob and Stacy Hermann are requesting approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) in order to construct a detached accessory building at 1033 William Court that is over 144 square feet and a variance to construct the building within the required 10 -foot side and rear yard setbacks. The applicant wishes to replace an existing 140 square foot accessory structure with a 360 square foot accessory structure within the required setbacks. The property is zoned single family residential. Mr. Grittman displayed a site plan of the subject site to describe the road alignment, existing home, driveway, and location of the proposed structure in the northwest corner of the parcel. The existing structure would be removed and replaced by the new structure located 7 feet to the rear (west) lot line and 5 feet to the side (north) lot line. He stated the building and location would be consistent with the character of the neighborhood and meets the code if it can meet the setback requirements. The other aspect of this building is that the city has a standard requirement for one garage building on a property but this building is not Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 2010 proposed to be used as a garage even though it will have a overhead garage door and be large enough to accommodate vehicles. In consideration of the one garage building rule, staff recommends the overhead garage door be replaced with a 6 -foot utility door so the structure cannot be used for a vehicle. Mr. Grittman noted that the variance consideration is based on whether the applicant can make a reasonable use of the property. In this case, it is possible to construct a building that meets setbacks on this parcel, even though the rear yard portion of this lot is constricted, by constructing a building that is smaller than 144 square feet and allows a 5 -foot setback. Therefore, staff does not believe there is a hardship finding in this case. Staff recormnends approval of the CUP since the use is consistent with what an applicant would expect to locate on this property, a 360 square foot building would not impact neighborhood character, and that the overhead garage door be replaced with a utility door. Staff also recommends denial of the variance and the site plan be modified to show the proposed building with the required 10 -foot setbacks. Commissioner Viksnins asked where the accessory structure could be located to avoid the need for a variance. Mr. Grittman stated a 10 -foot setback is required from both property lines. He used a site plan to identify a compliant location three feet east and five feet south and that the building configuration could be "flipped." Commissioner Povolny asked how far that location would be from the house. Mr. Grittman estimated 8-9 feet from the house and that the minimum distance by Fire Code is 6 feet. Commissioner Povolny asked about the requirement to replace the overhead door with a service door. Mr. Grittman stated the issue is where "garage meets shed" since this building is large enough to be used as a garage. To avoid running afoul of the one garage rule, staff has recommended that overhead garage doors not be used on accessory buildings. Commissioner Povolny asked if the existing building is located too close to the property line. Rob Hermann, the applicant, indicated it is 5 feet. Commissioner McManus asked whether an overhead door is considered a garage door but not a door that opens sideways. Mr. Grittman explained the city has used this as an informal test for some time but it is not a code requirement so the Commission is not bound to require the door be changed. Commissioner McManus stated when he looked at the property there were a lot of things in the driveway plus a camper. He stated people in the neighborhood may be happy to have that stored indoors. He noted the back yard has a lot of topography that would have to be leveled to place the storage building in another location. Mr. Grittman stated there are no wetland concerns in this location and grading is not an uncommon condition when constructing larger buildings. Commissioner Povolny asked if an 8 -foot double door is not a concern but an overhead garage door is not allowed. Mr. Grittman explained there is no code standard dictating the width of the door but the condition is placed to avoid meeting the garage threshold. He advised the Commission can approve any door that fits the character of the site. Rob and Stacy Hermann, 1033 William Court, applicants, introduced themselves. Ms. Hermann stated they proposed an 8 -foot door to accommodate the camper. Mr. Hermann explained that Menards said a typical garage was 20 feet deep with a 9 -foot garage door so they talked with staff and said they would make it only 18 feet deep with an 8 -foot door so it is not considered a garage. Ms. Hermann stated they can compromise with the door even if it does not accommodate the camper but preferred an overhead door so there is a good seal under the door since the building will be on grade. Ms. Hennann displayed pictures of the shed and existing block staircase. If the variance is allowed, they will not have to remove the staircase or do as much concrete work. Mr. Hermann stated if they reinstall the stairs to maintain back yard security, it will be very tight, almost against the house. Ms. Hermann noted that in addition, their back window would look out onto the proposed building. Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 2010 Mr. Hermann explained that his grandfather built this house, they had purchased it from his parents, and intend to remain in this house until they can no longer live there. Ms. Hermann stated she would like to look out of the three - season room and not have a full view of the proposed building and with the proposed location they would not have to relocate their fence. Mr. Hermann stated with the proposed sized building he will have to push out one mower to get access to the other mower. In addition, her parents are moving into this house so they will have extra items in need of storage space. Commissioner Hennes asked about the camper width. Mr. Hermann stated it would still fit with an 8 -foot door. Commissioner Hennes asked what the purpose is for the building. Ms. Hermann stated they would like to store their camper inside but the main purpose is for general storage. Ms. Hermann stated they would agree with a 6 -foot door to be able to build the shed but then the camper would not fit. Commissioner Viksnins asked about the location of the concrete steps and why the steps would have to be removed if the shed location complies with the 10 -foot setback. Mr. Hermann explained their lot is in the shape of a wedge. Ms. Hermann stated the steps are in good condition and removing them will involve more excavation and additional costs. Chair Lally asked if the hardship is the existing topography of the land. Mr. Hermann stated that is correct and if the shed is relocated to meet setbacks, it would be very close to the house and in full view of the back window. Commissioner Povolny asked about changing the configuration of the building, which will reduce the amount of excavation. Mr. Hermann stated the proposal is 10 feet wide to eliminate the need for additional concrete and excavation work. Ms. Hermann noted that would also cost more. Commissioner Povolny advised that financial hardship is not a consideration for a variance. Commissioner Povolny stated the variance request is the issue since a hardship must be found. Commissioner McManus asked where the rear house door is located. Ms. Hermann noted there are two rear doors and they are proposing to move the shed south and west. Commissioner McManus noted that location would not require a lot of ground preparation or removal of the steps. Ms. Hermann stated that is correct and they received signatures from both of their neighbors. She presented pictures of the neighboring properties. Commissioner Povolny asked if the existing building helps with the variance request since the new building would be in the same location. Mr. Grittman stated the existing building is 144 square feet so it complies with code. Commissioner Viksnins stated one factor for a variance is that the plight is with the property and not created by the landowners. He asked if the concrete steps and slab are a consideration or something created by the land owner. Mr. Grittman stated it was provided by a prior land owner. Commissioner Povolny noted the concrete steps were located to deal with the site's topography. Mr. Grittman agreed the stairs and wall were constructed to address a topographical issue. Commissioner Viksnins asked about removing the existing slab and steps. Mr. Grittman stated it is a possible project but may be burdensome and costly. The bigger question is whether a larger sized building is necessary to make reasonable use of this property. If so, the Commission can determine if additional issues exist that will be addressed by the variance. Commissioner Viksnins asked if there are other accessory structures of this size in the neighborhood. Mr. Hermann advised there is a very large structure across the street that is about 25 feet high. Ms. Hermann stated they considered whether the proposed building could be located elsewhere on the property but did not find any options. 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. Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 2010 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCMANUS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND THE VARIANCE REQUEST BASED ON THE FINDING THAT HARDSHIP EXISTS DUE TO THE TOPOGRAPHY AND ADDITIONAL EXCAVATION, CONCRETE, AND STEP WORK THAT WOULD BE NEEDED TO RELOCATE THE BUILDING TO MEET SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. Chair Lally stated the proposed building and its location will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, the conditions were not created by the landowner, and the conditions are unique to the property (topography, location of existing house, diagonal back lot line). He asked whether the property can be put to reasonable use without the variance. Commissioner Hennes stated they can still use their property so he believed it was a judgment call. Commissioner McManus asked if landowners are allowed to keep auxiliary trailers in the driveway or front yard. Mr. Grittman stated their camper is allowed as outdoor storage in the driveway. Commissioner Viksnins stated he questions whether a 360 square foot structure is necessary to put this property to reasonable use. Commissioner Hennes agreed that 360 may be large but they already have a 144 square foot structure and if that was acceptable, the property owners would not have made this application. Commissioner Viksnins stated the code sets the threshold at 144 square feet and the request is for a shed two and a half times larger. Commissioner Povolny stated he would rather approve a larger shed then to see outdoor storage and items covered with blue tarps. He noted the applicants may have a different use than other residents and he would like to help them gain more storage space. Commissioner McManus asked if it is not reasonable to allow a resident to have an accessory structure to store their items indoors. Commissioner Viksnins stated the question is how much is reasonable to own that needs auxiliary storage. Chair Lally stated the first application had questions similar to this application, such as constructing a smaller shed that required a 5 -foot setback. He stated he does not object to the size of the shed but granting the variance would require the finding of a hardship and he is having a hard time finding that "reasonable use" requires a larger shed. Commissioner Field asked about the door requirement. Commissioner Hennes stated the motion did not address the size of the door but the applicant indicated an 8 -foot door would be acceptable. Commissioner McManus stated if staff does not support overhead garage doors, the applicants may use bi-fold doors. Commissioner Field noted the applicant preferred an overhead garage door because it created a better seal since the slab is on grade. COMMISSIONERS HENNES AND MCMANUS ACCEPTED A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO ADD THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1. THE DOOR MUST BE MODIFIED TO BE AN 8 -FOOT DOOR SO IT DOES NOT CREATE A SECOND GARAGE. Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 2010 Assistant to the City Administrator Sedlacek noted the motion to approve the CUP and variance was based on only the finding of the topography creating a hardship. No other conditions of approval had been included. AYES 5 NAYS 1 (VIKSNINS) Chair Lally advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 3, 2010, meeting. PLANNING CASE #10-25 Paul Plum 1933 Dodd Road Subdivision Approval to create one additional lot Planner Grittman explained that Paul Plum is requesting approval of a subdivision to create one additional single- family lot on the parcel located at 1925 Dodd Road. The property is zoned R-1 and guided low density and occupied by a single family home. The applicant wants to split the lot to create an additional buildable property along Hilltop Road. He displayed a survey depicting the existing single family parcel and proposed division line west of the existing home. Mr. Grittman noted that the applicant provided a survey showing dimensions of the proposed parcel. Minimum requirements for a residential lot are 15,000 square feet and 100 feet of road frontage. He noted that both lots will meet the code's requirements, are in excess of the city's zoning standards, and the only concern is the rear yard setback requirement. Code requires 30 feet or no more than 20% of the lot depth. Due to the configuration of the lot, that 20% figure equals a 48 -foot rear setback and 44 feet is proposed. Mr. Grittman noted the council had considered entertaining lot splits such as this and commissioned an extensive study to address lot sizes. However, after review of the study, the council felt the 15,000 square foot and 100 -foot frontage rules should remain. The lot depth is 112 feet at the most narrow point. Staff recommends approval subject of the subdivision subject to the conditions detailed in the staff report. Mr Grittman read and explained the proposed conditions of approval. Commissioner Field asked about payment of the park fee prior to issuance of a building permit. Mr. Grittman stated at this time the applicant is only making application for the lot split. Commissioner Field asked if the city is forestalling payment of trail dedication into the future so it would have to remember to collect the fee. Mr. Grittman suggested the language be revised to indicate "consistent with city policy" rather than malting payment at a particular time. Mr. Sedlacek stated it has been past practice to require park dedication when the plat is filed with the County. Commissioner Field stated support of that practice. Commissioner Hennes questioned the driveway location for the existing home. Paul Plum, 1925 Dodd Road, applicant, advised it is off Dodd Road and the future driveway would be on Hilltop. Commissioner Vihsnins asked about application of the string rule when there is no home on the second parcel. Mr. Grittman stated it would apply in the future for placement of a new home on the parcel and staff wants to assure the string rule will not interfere with construction of a home. There is concern because the existing home is set back farther from Hilltop. He explained that once the city adopts the revised zoning ordinance the string rule will no longer be an issue for this site. Commissioner McManus felt the diagram slightly under estimated the bend in the road on the west side by the property. He noted the turn in Hilltop starts 30 feet before the end of the lot so he wondered how to apply the string rule when the road bends. Mr. Grittman described the location of the homes on either side and explained how the string rule would cut through the new lot and interfere with the buildable area. This is the problem with the string rule when homes face different directions on corner lots. However, the average setback rule will be changed under the new zoning code to allow for lots such as this and allow a more typical buildable area. Paul Plum, applicant, explained he owns 1925 Dodd Road and resides at 1933 Dodd Road. He stated he has known the seller for the past 8 years and is renting out the house. They live next door, have four children, and want to split Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 2010 the lot and have the option to sell the home and keep the lot for recreation. Mr. Plum stated they researched the ordinances prior to purchasing the property. He explained that in the past, this was a 2 -lot parcel and the previous owner built an oversized garage that crossed a lot line. Commissioner Field asked who was the previous owner of the home. Mr. Plum answered it was Vernon Christopherson. Commissioner Hennes asked if he was all right with moving the property line back to meet the rear yard setback. Mr. Plum answered in the affirmative. Cormnissioner Povolny asked if the home is occupied. Mr. Plum stated it will be in several days. Chair Lally opened the public hearing. Steve LaMae, 764 Hilltop Road, explained the ownership of their property. He stated they know Mr. Plum very well and only have one concern with the setback and application of the string rule. He asked how a new home on this lot would relate to their front yard, which they frequently use for entertaining, and that drainage be directed away from their property. Seeing no one else coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Lally asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER POVOLNY, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION REQUEST, AS REQUESTED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A REVISED SURVEY BE SUBMITTED INDICATING THE FOLLOWING: A. THE PROPOSED LOT LINE ADJUSTED FIVE FEET TO THE WEST IN ORDER TO MEET THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK FOR PROPOSED PARCEL 1; B. BOTH HOMES ON EITHER SIDES OF THE NEW LOT, ALONG WITH THE "REVISED STRING RULE," TO VERIFY THAT THERE IS ADEQUATE AREA FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE NEW LOT; AND, C. THE EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDING LOCATION AND SIZE ON PROPOSED PARCEL 1 TO VERIFY THAT IT MEETS REQUIRED SETBACK STANDARDS. 2. PARK AND TRAIL DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE SATISFIED AS A CASH FEE IN LIEU OF LAND. SUCH FEE SHALL BE PAID AT THE TIME OF PLAT. 3. CONNECTION CHARGES FOR STREET, SANITARY SEWER, AND WATER MAIN SHALL BE PAID PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. 4. THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT GRADING/TOPOGRAPHY PLANS AND UTILITY PLANS, SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE CITY ENGINEER. 5. THE APPLICANT SHALL DEDICATE 10 -FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ALONG THE FRONT PROPERTY LINES AND 5 FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE AN UTILITY EASEMENTS ALONG THE REAR PROPERTY LINES. 6. IF IT IS DEEMED NECESSARY, THE APPLICANT SHALL ENTER INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY AND PAY ALL APPLICABLE FEES AND SECURITIES. THE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE CITY ATTORNEY. AYES 6 Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 2010 NAYS 0 Chair Lally advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 3, 2010, meeting. PLANNING CASE #10-26 Peter Opitz 620 Watersedge Terrace Wetlands Permit for a fence and play set Planner Grittman explained that Peter Opitz is requesting approval of a Wetlands Permit to install a fence and children's play set in the rear yard of the property at 620 Watersedge Terrace. This property is zoned R-1 and guided for low density residential. The area is fully developed with single family homes and this lot abuts a wetland. He presented a site plan depicting the proposed improvements (play structure and fence) within the 100 - foot buffer area, which requires a wetlands permit to assure the improvements do not impact the water quality. Staff found there would be only minor disturbances to remove vegetation to construct the proposed fence, which is compliant with the City's zoning requirements. The southwest corner of the fence encroaches 15 feet into the wetland but the average setback is approximately 30 feet. The applicant has indicated there will be no disturbance of vegetation in area directly adjacent to the wetland. Staff recommends approval subject to the conditions detailed in the staff report. Linda Shea, 620 Watersedge Terrace, applicant with Peter Opitz, explained there are a few minor revisions to the submittal. They would like to add a gate midpoint, to remove some weeds (hosta and perennial landscaping), and move the location of the play set 5-7 feet to the west so it is not located under two Ash trees. Mr. Ruzek advised there is a storm sewer easement along the west property line so if it should need maintenance the property owner would assume any costs associated with the fence. Ms. Shae stated she accepts that condition. Commissioner Viksnins referenced e-mails regarding covenants for fences. Ms. Shae stated they explored that prior to purchasing the house and learned the Architectural Committee is no longer active and two other Copperfield properties have installed fences. Commissioner Field noted that would be a private matter. Mr. Grittman concurred and explained that staff's analysis relates to the City's ordinances. 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 VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER POVOLNY, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WETLANDS PERMIT, AS REQUESTED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1. A FENCE PERMIT SHALL BE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED PRIOR TO FENCE INSTALLATION. 2. A REVISED SITE PLAN IDENTIFYING THE LOCATION OF THE NEW GATE AND RELOCATION OF THE PLAY SET SHALL BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. AYES NAYS Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 2010 Chair Lally advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 3, 2010, meeting. Verbal Review Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #10-18 Elizabeth Tetzlaff Conditional Use Permit • Tabled to tonight. PLANNING CASE #10-21 Brian and Joanne Mullen Critical Area Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #10-22 Paster Enterprises Conditional Use Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Field noted there is more focus on variances cases and suggested complex cases be scheduled at the end of the agenda. Chair Lally stated this has been suggested previously and perhaps staff can review the applications and schedule the easier cases first so other applicants don't have to wait so long. Commissioner Hennes stated he had timed the agenda items considered tonight and found the Commission had spent twice as long to consider an application that included a variance. The Commission agreed with the suggestion of Commissioner Field that variances be scheduled at the end of the agenda. Mr. Sedlacek stated staff will look into that option. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:25 P.M. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Respectfully submitted, Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary ER .1C NORTHWESTASSOCIATED 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231-2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 plan ners@c nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Carie Fuhrman / Steve Grittman DATE: September 23, 2010 MEETING DATE: September 28, 2010 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit for Construction of a Fence CASE NO: Planning Case No. 10-27; NAC Case 254.04-10.28 APPLICANT(S): Thomas Ademite LOCATION: 804 Park Place Drive ZONING: R-1 — One Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: LR — Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request: The applicant is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow the construction of a fence surrounding a swimming pool. The property is located at 804 Park Place Drive, on the southwest corner of Park Place Drive and Wachtler Avenue, and is zoned R-1, One Family Residential. The Zoning Ordinance allows for fences up to six feet in height to encroach into side yard setbacks of corner lots upon approval of a CUP (Section 12-1 D -6D). Analysis: The purpose of the CUP is to ensure that the proposed fence will not interfere with the character of the neighborhood or with the general public's health, safety, or welfare. While a three-foot high fence is permitted without approval of a CUP, the City has established the CUP process to accommodate requests where property owners have corner lots adjacent to busier roadways and who prefer taller fences to allow for added privacy and security. The applicant is proposing to construct a fence to surround the proposed swimming pool in the rear yard of the property. The applicant is proposing to place a wrought iron style fence extending south from the southeast corner of the home, then turning southeast and running adjacent with the southern property line. At the southeast corner of the property, the fence material will change to a cedar privacy fence and run north, adjacent to the east property line/right-of-way of Wachtler Avenue. At that point, a wrought iron style fence will be used again and meet up with the northeast corner of the home. The height of the two fencing materials has not been submitted at this time; however, it is not allowed to be greater than six feet (6). In addition, the fence must meet the City's requirement of a 30% open design. A fence of ornamental iron commonly meets this condition, and the height and openness requirements should be added as conditions upon approval. In previous applications of this type, the City has approved fence designs that are decorative in nature or fence designs that created more of a screening effect for the rear yard areas. The proposed fence appears to be decorative in nature, especially the wrought iron style along the north and south property lines. The cedar privacy fence along the east property line will provide a screening effect for the applicant's rear yard from Wachtler Avenue. Action Requested: Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: 1. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit as requested based upon a finding that the proposed fence meets all of the Zoning Ordinance requirements and is consistent with the intent of the Conditional Use Permit criteria allowing such fences, 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, including the six foot (6) height maximum and the 30% open design requirement. 2. Denial of the Conditional Use Permit based on a finding that the applicant can meet the height and/or setback requirements with a standard fence design. Staff Recommendation: Planning staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed fence within the side and rear yard setback of 804 Park Place Drive. The Ordinance was written to accommodate these types of requests and the proposed fence is consistent with others that have been previously approved by the City. 2 Supplementary Materials: Site Location Map Application materials dated August 27, 2010 2 L .i U a) N s U CU PC21ri- 1-01 1 , 804 Park Place Drive ILI L Site Location Map Water/Wetlands /\,/ City Roads Major Roads parcels ®amme� ©oao©� Municipal Boundaries .APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. � - ,, / Date of Application Fee Paid �7ti c..Q;•;•� Applicant Name:'tl�,`allE�.� PH:it (Last) (First) M —� — E -Mail Address: A d d r e s s ''\� ��•-''c, `, 1.sr � �',� . � t_a �L-s ��.. �� f-� Rive P�� 8�' �� (Number & Street) (city) (Sate) (/_ir — Owner Name:e4"htf� — = - (Last) (First) (N1) Address._ �f_ -• .-- — (Number & Street) (City) (State) AA Street LocaticW) of Property in Question: � — --------------- Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Cam fete Legal from -title or Deed mast provided) Type of Request: .----Rezoning Variance _Conditional Use Permit Subdivision Approval -_-___ Conditional User Permit for P.U.D. Wetlands Permit - Preliminary/Final Plat Approval Critical Area Permit Comprehensive Plan Amendment __—_-Other (attach explanation) Applicable City Ordinance Number-— ----Section— Present _Section—Present Zoning of Property_ I —Present Use Proposed Zoning of Property 21 Proposed Use 'S r, _ `------------. I hereby declare that all statements made in this regr I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect (Sign Date Received__ b _�kD -- --� (Sign ie a.c dit-iiaqai material are true. -operty du' ring daylight hours. p(bant) of Owner 1101 Victoria Curve ° Mendota Heights. mrq 55118 ° (651) 452-ILS50 a FAX (65Il) 452-8940 www.menndotra-heights-com 8/30/10 City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Re: Conditional Use Permit — Fence 804 Park Place Drive To Whom It May Concern: The purpose of this letter is to request the need for a conditional use permit for a fence on our property. Our intent is to construct a pool on the east side of our home at 804 Park Place Drive. Prestige Pools will be the contractor for that project and I believe they are in the application process with the city for that permit as well. This fence would be on the east side of our home, which is on the corner of Park Place Drive and Watchler Road. This fence will comply with city regulations on height, security and construction with a pool on the premises. Please let us know if you have any questions, and you can reach us at 651-450-1887. Sinc rely, C/11 Tom & Vicki Ademite e x CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING September 7. 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, September 24, 2010 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Thomas Ademite to request a Conditional Use Permit to construct a fence around a swimming pool at the following described property: Lot 1 Block 4 Park Place (PID #27-56600-010-04) More particularly this property is located at 804 Park Place Drive 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. 804 Park Place Drive Dakota Countv, MN io�r iw�'i nl:. 14.0. 1411 '-1 1337 �. 341 `? 1315 �'-y r•f, •f; 1344 1342--- 13831(2 i 33 LI 27 $1 1rf.:, -., �q.... 1J3 ..._ 92 7?J8 1381 L V t 1 _ai Y 1 J5 108 38 20 315 58 1,3 h�.. 57 _:'iii _ 20 s-14 14 95 115 _,108 44 121 75 S 1555Rt tr j _ t 1558 T 155 l r 1552 1552 a f a'* 7- 95 1s 135 1553 157 ,15t 1557 , x 150 842 q 846 �,q 848 1423 �4J 1432 1'JQ j� 1 t 1435 �� O 14A\ F L` 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 = 142 feet appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. 1.14 2 Fci+ 1 �8 1445 tir. 1450; II I�r . �40 25' `, er• 1455 {' 1±15,3 rr I _G ri 135 ii LrSWEP COLC±NOIL DI? SQ. 24 . 104 .. � `7B4f1V" C) � Q ,1 CLQ 7 _ { L _ 1474 Ll x-791— ;Lr ( St i 10i ni 59 L i f'EFi 3L "•11.�.L DR _.98 46... .52 95 q. I — iPr to 798— L� n7 ' _. i', 92 'n 786 4i 98 97 7 29 _t c 755 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 = 142 feet appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. Vol 09 a5 Jose] Cherucheril Kurian G & Pennamm 784 Lower Colonial Dr Saint Paul Mn 55118-2712 Geraghty Michael E & Joan 1342 Cherry Hill Rd Saint Paul Mn 55118-2706 Trojack John E & Mary Jo 786 Upper Colonial Dr Saint Paul Mn 55118-2715 Karel Steven J & Kathryn A 1562 Park Cir Saint Paul Mn 55118-2745 spqej ssa,-gppv OAN-EAW, Vc- Gallegos Gloria Ann 1338 Cherry Hill Rd Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Smooth Feed shed s7m Ademite Thomas Use f?eiiil'plat`{e ToT 510 P, Crnobrna Robert J & Mary A Weslander Allen L & Maureen A Anderson William D & Paula M 790 Lower Colonial Rd 7-- Lower Colonial Dr dota Heights Mn 55118 798 Upper Colonial Dr Saint Paul Mn 55118-2715 Mendota Heights Mn 55118-2712 Schneeman Daniel J & Mary J Vonfeldt Charles B Huberty Charles A 787 Lower Colonial Dr 792 Upper Colonial Dr Saint Paul Mn 55118-2715 1445 Farmdale Rd Saint Paul Mn 55118-2733 Mendota Heights Mn 55118-2714 Boehmer Christine A Salisbury John C & Jacqu Mcgough Ann C 1456 Wachtler Rd 1450 Wachtler Ave 1442 Wachtler Rd Saint Paul Mn 55118-2721 Saint Paul Mn 55118-2721 Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Herbert Calvin C & Nancy Anderson Jerrold A & Bonita Schwartz Jerry A & Sue E 785 Upper Colonial Dr 791 Upper Colonial Dr 1474 Wachtler Ave Saint Paul Mn 55118-2716 Saint Paul Mn 55118-2716 Saint Paul Mn 55118-2722 Mastel Charles J & Marcia D' Ademite Thomas Cunningham Patrick B & Annette 1341 Cherry Hill 804 Park PI Saint Paul Mn 55118-2743 806 Park Place Dr Saint Paul Mn 55118-2743 Saint Paul Mn 55118-2705 Engel Gregory & Kathleen Tuohy John P & Jean E Walter Bert & Anna 813 Park Place Dr 808 Park Place Dr Paul Mn 55118-2743 809 Park Place Dr Saint Paul Mn 55118-2700 Saint Paul Mn 55118-2700 Saint Kanavati Lucas Steenberg Lois M Tste Garner Gary D & Denise N 814 Park Place Dr 807 Park Place Dr 818 Park Place Dr Saint Paul Mn 55118-2743 Saint Paul Mn 55118-2700 Saint Paul Mn 55118-2743 Chandler John M Schneeman Christopher & C M Plunkett Paul B & Susari A 803 Park Place Dr 1561 Park Cir Saint Paul Mn 55118-2745 1556 Park Cir Saint Paul Mn 55118-2745 Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Liston James E Jr Schafer Bradley J & Margaret Larson Leslie Jr & Kimberly 1558 Park Cir 1560 Park Cir Saint Paul Mn 55118-2745 1564 Park Circle Mendota Heights Mn 55118-2745 Saint Paul Mn 55118-2745 Bergeson David L & Lynda M Johnson Eric A Peick Patrick & Catherine 1566 Park Cir 810 Park Place Dr 811 Park Place Dr Saint Paul Mn 55118-2745 Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Saint Paul Mn 55118-2700 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Carie Fuhrman / Stephen Grittman DATE: September 23, 2010 MEETING DATE: September 28, 2010 SUBJECT: Wetlands Permit for Swimming Pool and Fence CASE NO: Case No. 10-28; NAC Case 254.04 — 10.29 APPLICANT(S): Karry Knoll LOCATION: 1836 Rolling Green Curve ZONING: R-1 — One Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: LR — Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request: The applicant is seeking a wetlands permit to install an in ground pool and fence at 1836 Rolling Green Curve. The project involves installing an in ground pool, concrete apron, and fence in the rear yard of the property, along with the removal of two maple trees in the southwest and southeast corners of the property. The property is zoned R-1, One Family Residential, and a wetland is located directly to the south of the subject home. Section 12-2-6 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a Wetlands Permit for any work conducted within 100 feet of a wetland. Analysis: The Wetlands Ordinance is intended to provide for City review of projects that may affect wetland plant and water quality, with the objective of ensuring that wetland areas are protected and enhanced. In Ground Pool. The applicant is proposing to install an 800 square foot (20 feet by 40 feet) in ground pool to the south of the home. The pool will consist of a steel wall/vinyl liner with footing, deck supports, and concrete decking. It will also be equipped with an under track auto cover. The pool is proposed to be 25 feet from the house, 39 feet from the west property line, 23 feet to the east property line, and 20 feet to the edge of the wetland, which is south of the proposed pool. Concrete Apron. Immediately following the pool installation, the applicant plans to place a concrete apron surrounding the pool area: 9 feet wide on the west side, 5 feet wide on the south side, and 5 feet wide on the east side. Eleven feet of concrete will also be added to the north side of the pool, adjacent to the house (existing deck). The concrete apron is proposed to be 30 feet from the west property line, 18 feet to the east property line, and 15 feet to the edge of the wetland. Fence. Once the concrete has been installed, the applicant plans to install a 5 foot aluminum privacy fence with minimum 30% open space surrounding the pool area in the rear yard. The fence is proposed to extend west from the side of the house, run south along the west property line, extend east on the south side of the pool area, then run north along the east property line, and finally connect to the opposite side of the house. The fence is proposed to be 14 feet, 6 inches from to the edge of the wetland. Landscaping. As a part of this project, the applicant plans to remove two maple trees approximately 60 to 70 feet tall that are currently located in the southwest and southeast corners of the property. According to the applicant, the stumps will be ground down to surface level to prevent any additional soil erosion. Two river birch trees approximately 25 feet tall and one maple tree approximately 60 to 70 feet tall will remain in place. All dirt removed for the pool installation will remain on the subject property and will be spread out around the pool, according to the applicant. Grass, mulch, and natural plant materials will then be planted around the pool to help stabilize the soil and to divert water from flowing off of the new concrete area directly into the wetland. Natural material at the edge of the wetland area will remain natural, and any material deemed positive for keeping the wetland area healthy will be kept and/or planted according to the applicant. Applicant Letter. According to the applicant, they intend to keep the area south of the pool and concrete area between the fence and wetland in its natural state. They have stated that they are willing to plant any natural material to prevent soil erosion and to promote wildlife. Upon installation of the pool, the applicant has stated that a silt fence will be erected and will remain until permanent fencing has been installed and a sufficient plant, grass, and natural material (mulch) is established to prevent erosion of soil and water run off into the wetland. The applicant also plans on removing the two maple trees that currently sit in the corners of the property. They have stated that they are willing to plant additional river birch trees if the city thinks this is necessary to prevent soil erosion into the pond area. The applicant plans on installation to start mid-October, but most likely installation will not start until the ground thaws in spring of 2011 and will hopefully be completed mid- May 2011. 2 Wetlands Permit. 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. As it is currently proposed, there is 10 feet of concrete between the steps to the upper deck and the pool edge. There appears to be adequate room to move the pool, concrete apron, and fence 5 feet closer to the home, and ultimately 5 feet further away from the wetland. Instead of the pool being 20 feet setback from the edge of the wetland, it would be setback 25 feet. In addition, the concrete apron would be 20 feet from the edge of the wetland, and the fence would be 19 feet, 6 inches from the edge of the wetland. Staff would recommend investigating this option to increase the natural area between the fence line and the edge of the wetland. Action Requested: Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: 1. Approval of the wetlands permit for the installation of the in ground pool, concrete area, fence, and landscaping work, based on the attached findings of fact, and subject to the following conditions: a. The location of the pool, concrete apron, and fence shall be adjusted at least five (5) feet to the north if determined to be practical; b. Additional native vegetation shall be planted between the pool and wetland area; C. All construction activities must follow the Land Disturbance Guidance document; d. Any additional conditions recommended by the City Engineer; and e. The applicant shall receive proper building and fence permits prior to installation or construction work. e 2. Denial of the wetlands permit, based on a finding that the installation of the in ground pool, concrete area, fence, and landscaping work will have negative impacts on the existing wetland and is inconsistent with the intent of the Wetlands Ordinance. Staff Recommendation: Planning staff recommends approval of the wetlands permit for the installation of the in ground pool, concrete area, fence, and landscaping work, subject to the above- mentioned conditions, including investigating the possibility that the pool, adjacent concrete apron, and fence be moved at least five feet (5) to the north of its proposed 3 location. Increasing the setback between the impervious surface and the wetland will add additional buffering between the improved area and the wetland, helping to filter the runoff into the wetland. The proposed project should not have a negative impact on the wetland, especially with the silt fence installation and native vegetation plantings proposed between the pool area and the wetland, which shall better serve to filter the runoff into the wetland. The project appears to meet the intent of the Wetlands Ordinance and will not degrade or threaten the water quality of the wetland. Supplementary Materials: 1. Application Materials Dated September 2, 2010 2. Site Location Map rd Draft Findings of Fact for Approval Wetlands Permit 1836 Rolling Green Curve The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the above Wetlands Permit: 1. The project meets the intent of the Wetlands Ordinance. 2. The project has been reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, subject to the above-mentioned conditions. 3. Silt fence is being installed between the disturbed area and the wetland. 4. The wetland itself will be untouched. 5. The area between the fenced in pool area and the wetland will be maintained in its natural state with native vegetation to serve as a buffer. 9 04 � 11111}- 1836 Rolling G een Curve - z�� Eagle id Site Location Map WaterNVetlands /^\/ City Roads Major Roads parcels �oaa000 4o®ao©� MunicipalBoundaries Applicant Name: Knoll (Last) Address: H1 �._R_I & (Number StrA Owner Name: (Last) APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST , Case No. / -G�- , Date of Application_ ` l� Fee Paid cP �T�d . Vic• c K Re L, . (First) (M) ;t) (City) PH:�— E-Mail Address: -K LY,1\J ,3L(,S 0 F -T M \j 55- 11 (State) (Zip) lock r ��a� l"_ (First) (M) Address: l (,__ p " 1�� 0 (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) d�(il+ � 0 Street Location off Property in Question: 1 q 3 k,,R o � � enr�a� - � P S5 t l� Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) 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 [ I- - Variance _Subdivision Approval _ —Wetlands Penrlit Critical Area Permit Other (attach explanation) Section Present Zoning of Property I Present Use �¢S ------ — Proposed Zoning of Property I _--Proposed Use - I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize Citi Officials and agents to inspect the above property during dayiiaht hours. Z F' f i'',. (Si gnatu e of Applicant)- f Date Received (Signature of Owner) Ili®R Victoria Curve ° Mendota Heights, MN s5118 o (651) 452-1850 ° FAX (651) 452-8940 0 www.uuueuud®tx-heightts.c®u l Letter of Intent The following summarizes the intent of Karry & Lisa Knoll to have a pool installed at 1836 Rolling Green Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118. We would like to have an in ground pool installed on the south side of our property located in the wetlands setback of our property. We have worked with Mike Henry from Paragon Pool & Spa T 651-208-7954 and Steve Muellner from J&S Contracting 715-294-2748 for pool and concrete planning, scope of work, and installation costs. The following dimensions were provided by Paragon Pool & Spa. The pool will be located in the wetlands setback. Pool wall is 20' from wetland on south side of property. The concrete deck is 15 feet from wetland area. The 5 foot aluminum fence would be 14'6" from wetland area. Construction of pool will consist of a steel wall/vinyl liner pool with footing, deck supports and concrete decking. Pool is equipped with an under track auto cover. The pool meets setbacks on the east property line of 23' and the west property line of 39'. House setback is 75'. To the wooden deck is 10'. A concrete apron would be 5' on East end, 9' concrete apron on west end, 5' on south end, and 11' added on house side (to existing deck). Pool elevation would be equal to patio door sill. See document A pages 1-5 for specific dimension information as well as diagrams provided by Paragon Pool & Spa and J&S General Contracting. We will NOT be asking for any variances and will be maintaining the standard 20' distance from the wetlands on the south edge of the property to the pool wall. We intend to keep the wetlands setback south of the pool in its natural state that best suits the wetlands. We are willing to plant any natural material to prevent soil erosion and to promote wildlife. Upon installation of pool, a silt fence will be erected and will remain until permanent fence has been installed and a sufficient plant, grass and natural material (mulch) is established to prevent erosion of soil, and water run off into the wetlands. We currently have two 20' River Birch trees that will remain upon completion of the pool and we plan on removing two maple trees that currently sit at the southeast and southwest edge of the property. The stumps will only be ground down to surface level to prevent any additional soil erosion. We are willing to plant additional river birch trees if the city thinks this is necessary to prevent soil erosion into the pond area. Lastly, we are open to feedback from the City of Mendota Heights to insure wetlands stay healthy and in its natural state. Thank you for your consideration and please contact Karry Knoll with any questions or concerns. T 651-503-8571 or karryaa northiandusa.com. Regards, Karry Knoll Wetland Permit Checklist Information • A full and adequate description of all phase of the operation and/or proposed physical changes. We will be removing (2) maple trees one located at southeast and southwest corner of property. Stumps will be ground down only to ground level to prevent further soil erosion. Paragon Pool will then bring backhoe tracker to remove dirt but will keep all dirt on property. A silt fence will be installed to keep existing soil material in place during the installation of the pool, cement, and fence. Immediately following pool installation all concrete will be installed with proper drainage installed to keep water from flowing towards wetlands. A 5' privacy fence aluminum fence with minimum 30% air gap will installed upon completion of the concrete installation. All dirt will remain on property and will be spread out around pool. Grass, mulch, and natural plant material will then be planted around pool to keep soil in place and to divert water from flowing off new concrete and hill from simply flowing into wetland area. See document A pages 1-5 for additional information. • A detailed site plan of the proposal showing proposed drainage, grading, and landscaping. See document A pages 1-5 for additional information. • A site design map showing the location of existing and future man-made features within the site. See document A pages 1-5 for additional information. • Information on existing drainage and vegetation of all land within the site. Southside of house has gutters on entire south side of house. Drain downspouts on south side of house do not point towards wetland area. West side downspout connects directly into drain tile and drain tile takes water to west edge of property. East downspout points water towards the east side of property. 5 trees are currently in back yard. 3 maple trees approximately 60-70 feet tall and 2 river birch trees approximately 25' tall. The two maple trees located at southeast and southwest edge of property will be removed but stumps will only be ground down to soil level. The other maple tree along with the two river birch trees will remain. Natural material at the edge of the wetland area will remain natural and any material deemed positive for keeping the wetland area healthy will be kept and/or planted. • The time period for completion of development including timing for staging of development if applicable. We plan on installation to start either mid October but most likely installation will start upon thawing of ground in spring of 2011 to hopefully be completed mid May 2011. Design specifications for all sediment and erosion control measures. See document A pages 1-5 for additional information. Individual(s) to Individual(s) STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $, Date: Warranty Deed FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Julie T. Kunkel and Thomas R. Hall, wife and husband, Grantor(s) hereby convey(s) and warrant(s) to National Residential Nominee Services Inc. Grantee(s), real property in Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: See Attached Exhibit "A" together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto, subject to the following exceptions: Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and easements of record, if any. I J. 1<a" 4, �' J i T. el Affix Deed Tax Stamp Here Thomas . Hall STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF ,O'f ° f -'- On this -4J 19 day of -J 2o u 3 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared Julie T. Kunkel, wife, Grantor, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that she executed the same. NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL (OR OTHER TITLE OR RANK) Ls MANCTRK5GADBERRYMMjo- MN �MKIT MeM� MARK GADBERRY SIGNATURE OF Tax Statements for therod6propeAVIdescribed in this instrument should be sent to (Include nmfie and ad ss of Grantee): STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF On this day of ��`� , 3 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared Thomas R. Hall, husband, Grantor, known tome to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same. NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL (OR OTHER TITLE OR RANK) .s MARK GAMERRY MOTARy pLeLIG IOTA My{ta1-20os THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY (NAME AND ADDRESS) F.R.S. 340464 901 N. I Oth Street, First Floor St. Louis, MO 63101 SIGNATURE OF PERSON T Tax Statements for the real be sent to (Include name at ACKNOWLEDGMENT in this instrument should FRS File No.: 340964 Customer File No.: 1092790 Julie T. Kunkel EXHIBIT A Lot 10, Block 3, ROLLING GREEN, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Dakota County, Minnesota. T NC 0 0 r) O co ry 00 0 0 Cl? o rn O m cn (o (n O o V' O cn c0 CO cl> (o Co o C c CL U m o 0 0 rn co (o 0 (o00 C) co o Lo 't o co o c a) E U) U3 fR ({} (fl N cu N W X cco � w F- a o Q n t0 c t0 o o dt 0 0 L 0 N O) 0 o O Q co M co M o . c c O O O (L 00 CD Z N n n 0 U) C) (» in V O cn O r O (» (o rn (o O E» C v to CD N (n M M cc ER ER 64 (Pr .'C. > W CY N r T d' d' EH 64 Ff3 (f} N cary U Q cn V) U > W Z m J M O O � a) : aj O X c N > W a) Y x C .0 U US c n NQ. p N a) C CL O 0 0 3 E x o o_ a) w x cu c- E a) u) m Z W I— d d v p cn O O s C 3 U0 (nN =O p U N X F- U) "CS OQ M T 'O a w 3 a) U c Q <r a> a) c a � ami U n a`) c+oi i v 7 a) U V ca '7 'o N > U) 3 O .0 U X ro C co > T ° a) L r C m o d M (Dc °� a) N m � Of xx U) a a U p o U n E F- M X ca Un W > u-) a) X a) F- _{ F— n c 2 Q J o U n o c cn o a T Tc (� o S X in M O m U) W S .� Om t O 3 Z Z� a CL >Q iC— U �W igO o a O Q m i O Z O_ r p Ti 2 70(4 Z o m Lo O Q O W o rn w o U W ti c 0_ (moo (n J Z LLc o a)�N. Q tYl x y .r O O 06 J O O O 1 m � a3 Q (O O O -aO a) `)t/) U 'x F 4a M Z W E a) v E ca ;° °� a) f° o c m 0 u F N i ca cn U) p O a f `o a) v I ) a a) d d °aFC m o c o aa)) o C) Q > a) a) a) o a U a U C) U) U) cn 1 d (1 C� L6 06 C6 c3i o � Q OF N 4-a O !t/asf /tee oir%ie NEl off/>e NGl/%4 o�Sec.26 �� - `-- �--- 76--. �N wl � s:0 j8%f43a! J i4a:ao 1 N ' m �I N 4'3 I Vo P GREEN o N• 0 °L / 3/. '— I L—/OD_00_J I L_/6 / O V OI Aq� /V 4'3 I Vo P GREEN o N• 0 °L / 3/. '— I L—/OD_00_J I L_/6 i11 V OI I� /07.08 - J � _ /00•}70 sono3 4i'EAVENUE Ail .Paragon Pool and Spa 305 Stillwater Road 1148 West Broadway 13999 North 60th Street Mahtomedi, MN 55090 Forest Lake, MN 55025 Stillwater-, MN 55082 (651) 653-6807 (651) 464-4401 (651) 439-5632 Fax (651) 653-1104 Fax (651') 464-7280 Fax (651) 439-5233 14691 �I�ST �� ZZOz aragon u an pa 305 Stillwater Road 1148 West Broadway 13999 North 60th Street Mahtomedi, MN 55090 Forest Lake, MN 55025 Stillwater, MN 55082 (651) 653-6807 (651) 464-4401 (651) 439-5632 Fax (651) 653-1104 Fax (651) 464-7280 Fax (651) 439-5233 _ 9 viol -xi) x 14 s �Z Xlib 1 1836 Rolling Green Curve ......._.... ........_..............._13aG� _.....__.................. 100 .3 - City of xMendota 0 40 A &A `® Heights SCALE IN FEET j1818 o• NI o� _ rl 1827 I :150 � I t . O � M : "' I ' l 99 --------------------�' \`fes 1824 3,27. r------- -------------------- ----- ----- ------------------r-- CD t 1842....._......"....... _.......'�..��. .. 183 1830 II- too 24 2 183 100 'I:, 1p 181 Ln J, sit 1845 �m �m 1.t xc .. Y / pli1yy i/ o � Ln J, sit 1845 �m �m f_\I' 1 Pari® Pools 305 Stillwater Road • WWerrmie, MN 55090 (651) 653-6807 ^ Fax: (651) 653-1104 Ecqui_ pent Needed Acct,No Pool; Size, Date l; Bob Cat , �t ,1 Home Phone _ Back Hoe _ Cat _ Truck Name y�._'' � ��' !�. �a�� ;.s.: "'` ' " �" r f d Snow Pence _ Uni-Loader -�`� Street , Work Phone Contact r i State Z+p Code .nsp_ ctions e City _Walls . Plumbing Tooting Before Backfill eY1� cYVV1'v'�. Directions *Paragon Pool & ratio as, fence, or othe pool building permit.(Electrical, g responsibility of the contractor doing the work). *The actual cost of the ep rmit is the responsibility Paragon Pool & Patio will expect to be reimbursed for within 30 days of obtaining the p Date: - Si ned• Of the home owner and this permit cost .�"E3ark location of filter and/or ._ Location for disposal of dirt: heater by (#z)• paragon Pool & Patio recommends that d by W. _' Indicate deep encustomer install (As soon as possible _ Does Customer wish to retain following pool construction)'; any or all dirt from pool 1)Rain gutters adjacent to pool excavation:„%•=t z)Retaining wall where diagramed _ will any obstructions be en- 3)Run off control or drainfield countered -such as trees,4)permanent or temporary fence clothes poles or power/phone lines etc.: _ Elevation from location marked "A” in diagram: 3�: _ Show type and location of slide if app *** CUSTOMER ALSO UNDERSTANDS & ACKNOWLEDGES THE FOLLOWING *** *Normal Excavation time using a back hoe and a dump truck is less unusual day. X *If Limestone, Saan one ndstone, Shale or anyy substance, table ructionsofuthisnpool,lthers rbackfilcustomerlisaresponsible forterial that is utheecost in the cons of removal and replacement of suitable materials. *Some damage *Trees and or tree stumps are the responsibility of the customer and must e removed before construction begins.X entering and leaving the yard during may be done to the yard and/or driveway for electrical construction:Initial .*Customer assumes responsibility and grounding of the pool (including permit if req, wising for the gas installation of heater if *Customer assumes responsibility or the :Iaitial___• applicable(including;permit`if req / << � ., � '- .�,� I Customer Signature ;�7 Paragon Signature', '- •_ '=' 20 10 06:05a Dan Thiel & Steve Mueller 715-294-2740 0 Om A N\ LJ 1, C, > > --40 G) M rr, — MO m Iz. m 7C C-) -zcn mi Gl 1836 Rolling Green Curve August 10, 2010 0 40 SCALE IN FEET City of Mendota Heights 16 24 ------ 49 1836 100 ... ........ 16 24 ------ 49 1836 100 Page 1 of 1 Print Preview 1836 Rolling Green Curve Dakota County, MN 1795 MARIEAVEVO ; 55 7aLl...-..- 1r,.. 1 Ir Y 1 L _.� i I 15 1515 1 G'3 x rel I rr. rt j.512r 1 1813 81 , L c x 35`7 141' G' 165 115. (l I 1r,— �- 1827 1 42. 1 CD 1$24 _! 18 r r� 49 1n�3v _ 1834--.� l I 185 4' Y 1548 ~ 1337 "? , 13421 �' 2 U �=iiis 1 i •.10111 1 w c�,'Q` ;� _~ I 1845 ,/`]` CJ ~t r 443 15 . , - 18 fr�rJ In ^`1853 s ; a• 1.81_ .: ; s N 443. ,' 1851,E t 4.54 z 15r, 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 = 135 feet appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. +(h.+Tla+n—nalrnta C 9/7/9.010 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING September 8. 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, September 28, 2010 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Karry and Lisa Knoll for a Wetlands Permit to construct a swimming pool and fence at the following described property: Lot 10, Block 6 Copperfield 3rd Addition (PIN #27-64700-100-03) More particularly this property is located at 1836 Rolling Green Curve 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. NORTHWEST CONSULTANTS, 4500 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.2:31.2561 plan nersCc,)nacplanning.con-i MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Carie Fuhrman/Stephen W. Grittman DATE: September 23, 2010 MEETING DATE: September 28, 2010 SUBJECT: Critical Area Permit for Fence Installation CASE NO: Case No. 10-29; NAC Case 254.04 — 10.30 APPLICANT(S): Jane Freeman LOCATION: 1166 Kingsley Court ZONING: R-1 — One Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: LR — Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request: The applicant, Jane Freeman, is seeking a Critical Area Permit in order to install a fence along the south property line within the common area of the Kingsley Estates Townhomes. The property is located at 1166 Kingsley Court, is zoned R-1, One Family Residential, and is located within the Mississippi River corridor. According to Section 12-3-17 of the Zoning Ordinance, any work conducted within the Mississippi River Corridor requires a Critical Area Permit. Analysis: The property is located at 1166 Kingsley court, within the Kingsley Estate Townhome development. The applicant is proposing a privacy fence 6 feet in height and 38 feet in length along the south property line of the common area of the Kingsley Estates Townhomes. Association Manager, Jerry Murphy, has confirmed with staff that the proposed fence is acceptable to the Homeowner's Association. The fence is proposed to provide privacy between the applicant's townhome and the single family home on Orchard Place immediately south of the townhome. The fence is described as a "western red cedar alternating board on board privacy fence." Fence Standards. Section 12-1D-6 of the Zoning Ordinance established standards for fence construction and location. Section 12 -11D -6.131b requires that fences up to and including six feet (6') in height may be erected on interior lot lines behind the front yard setback line and on rear lot lines. Fences are also required to be constructed in such a manner that no less than 30% of the plane between the ground and the top of the fence is open. This shall be added as a condition upon approval. Critical Area Permit. This property is located within the Mississippi River corridor. Any work conducted within this corridor requires a Critical Area Permit. As a part of this project, no landscaping or paving is being considered, no change in grade is planned, no soil loss is anticipated during construction, and no slopes are being affected; therefore, the project should not have a negative impact on the aesthetic integrity and natural environment of the Mississippi critical area. The Critical Area Ordinance recommends the use of natural materials in building and site construction, including wood fencing. Comprehensive Plan. The subject parcel is guided as LR, Low Density Residential in the 1999 Comprehensive Plan. The fence request is consistent with this land use category, which provides for single family development. Action Requested: After a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: 1. Approval of the Critical Area Permit to install a fence, based on the following findings: the fence project shall not involve landscaping, paving, changing in grades, soil loss, or altering of slopes; therefore, it shall not jeopardize the aesthetic integrity and natural environment of the Mississippi River corridor critical area, 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 12-1D-6, including the 30% open design requirement. 2. Denial of the Critical Area Permit to install a fence, based on the finding that the fence project will negatively impact 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 6 -foot high, 48 -foot long fence as no landscaping, paving, soil loss, changing in grades, or 2 altering of slopes is planned, so the project should not have a negative impact on the aesthetic integrity and natural environment of the Mississippi critical area. Supplementary Materials: 1. Draft Findings for Approval 2. Draft Findings for Denial 3. Application materials dated September 9, 2010 4. Site Location map 3 Draft Findings for Approval Fence Installation in the Critical Area 1166 Kingsley Court 1. The proposed fence will have little or no visual impact on the critical area or surrounding property. 2. The fence will create no issues for grading or erosion. 3. The fence is proposed to have minimal impact on the land as it does not involve landscaping, paving, grade changes, soil loss, or altering of slopes. M Draft Findings for Denial Fence Installation in the Critical Area 1166 Kingsley Court 1. The proposed fence will have a visual impact on the critical area and neighboring property. 2. The installation of the fence has the potential for creating grading and erosion issues. 3. The installation of the fence has the potential for having a substantial impact on the land as it may cause grade changes, soil loss, or the altering of slopes. 5 r OP 4 00 � j l5 4 � a ........ . . . . . . . 0 1166 Kingsley Court B < Marie AVE /f fr d' a Orchard PI m c 0 J C i X C a Site Location Map 0 Water/Wetlands /\,/ City Roads /\/ Major Roads parcels �000©oma 00000 MunicipalBoundaries u�� ' �� Mendota ��K o R-g�=`�� APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. /�� - �� [}ate of Application Fee Paid D P Applicant Name: / /__�� ( E -Mail Address: Address: (Number & Street) (City) (State) (zip) Own erN Address'. A(tate) (zip) � Street Location of Property in Question: Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) Type \/ohanoe Request. - Rezoning ________ ---------- —Conditional Use Permit Subdivision Approval ---------' Cpnditinna|User Perrnitfor P.U.O. Wetlands Permit ----------Prc|irninory/Fina| P|atApprova| Critica| Areo Permit----------ConnprehonsivnP|anAnnendnnen[ / Other (attach explanation) Applicable City Ordinance Number 12 —Section -- Present Zoning of Prop eCtiOPnssentZ0niDgofPFope�L-\ Present Use Proposed Zoning ofProperty —Proposed Use I hereby declare that all St8teDl8DtS made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspept the bproperty during daylight hours. (Si nature of .. ' � Date Received (Si6nature of GwR4) (7 ~ <651>452-1850 ~ PAX (651)452'8940 www. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO DATE: September 8, 2010 TO: Planning File FROM: Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City AdministratQT7,,\ % SUBJECT: Jane Freeman Critical Area Permit Application Jane Freeman submitted an application materials for a critical area permit to construct a section of privacy fence within the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area on Tuesday, September 7, 2010. Mrs. Freeman had some difficulty understanding the application process; this memo serves as a letter of intent for the planning application. Mrs. Freeman wishes to construct a privacy fence six feet in height and 48 feet in length to the south of her townhome. The proposed fence location is just off the southern property line and within the common area of the Kingsley Estates Townhomes. Association Manager Jerry Murphy has confirmed with staff that the proposed fence is acceptable to the Homeowner's Association. The fence serves to provide privacy between Mrs. Freemans' townhome and the single family home on Orchard Place immediately south. The only land disturbance will be digging holes for fence posts — dirt will be removed from site. The applicant's townhome is located between the proposed fence and the critical area, limiting the visual impact upon the corridor. The applicant feels that the proposed fence fits with the aesthetics of the area, and will not pose any negative impact upon the river corridor. CYI .... ......... ...... .. .. .. . ....... .. .. ... ...... . ............ W, V/ 0 0 c Ojw Print Preview Dakota County, MN Page 1 of 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 = 153 feet appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. WOOD PRIVACY AfternatEng Board 5009;0 Lo-mveredl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ 5009;0 Lo-mveredl Gopher State (1) Call ID #464 Ticket # Nearest Intersecting Street1Z/�' �=' ' Hudson Page # L- �" Township Hudson Grid # t> 1 Range Corner Lot n Section/Quarter me J S )use dress &.11 !'� (- County �,,,r . y.i. State fail 1 Zip c: . iployer Home Phone( - 2_5 3 Y Site Address Work Phone Work Phone (Spouse) sail: Cell Phone: awn Payment: Check # A SERVICE CHARGE of It/a% per month (18% Annually) will be applied on all past due balances. The purchaser shall be responsible for any and all collection and legal costs incurred by Midwest Fence in the event of this bill becoming past due. Midwest Fence reserves the right to lien the improved property if payment in full as agreed to in this contract is not received. Date 20 1 Job No. Salesperson i I Picture No. Terms: 10% Down =- f-.' U 50% Start Up `f� ;�) Balance To Installer,.on Completion 6 Customer Initials Owner responsible for establishing correct property and fence lines. Any Permits required shall be the sole responsibility of the owner. Owner responsible for removal of obstructions of every nature which will interfere with the installation of the fence. This contract assumes normal ground conditions. Should rocky or excessive hard digging be encountered, owneragrees to payadditional costs of such work. Midwest Fence ✓I. Mfg. Co. shall furnish only the material and laborspecified in this contract. Any changes made from the above specifications will be billed at Midwest's current retail prices. lois order will become binding only upon Midwest Fence Manager's opprov®1. Customer Signature Date r.. 'J — Roy. 9_nS Manaaer Salesperson's Signature Date CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING September 8. 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, September 28, 2010 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from David and Jane Freeman for a Critical Area Permit for a fence located at the following described property: Lot 19 Block 1 Kinglsey Estates (PIN #27-41900-190-01) More particularly this property is located at 1166 Kingsley Court 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. 1166 Kingsley Court Dakota County, MN ry <:1 Jfr, 1775 Liv _, y 1147 (�____ � :� lE•) . J y 120. 1775.+ !'1154 j 1146, 1775 4 �. �I G� { r- ,els 1775 y) .1775, 1775 cL„ / y. ib 1176 .125, t LJ� •�- `� i— 2S 53 -.75 ,. ------ --`_—_ 1145", .1-16 170 5'4 ...11 1151 1145 1I'3 W 1133 1127 r` 1147 _a LN Ln 115, u 'V 1155 ' i 1 ivy �'? Y,IW::SIEY <:1 Jfr, � Liv _, y 1147 (�____ � :� lE•) . J 120. 55 !'1154 j 1146, I11vc5i1641156) �I G� { r- ,els 1140 I cL„ / y. .125, ......:..,1lb ...... .. ........._ Uo. 120 J -1;143 = ,1 1135 ' 1129 I� 75 w a .113 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 = 110 feet appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. S jl eo ORCHARD O 120. 55 _ LL113+4 { r- ,els 1140 I cL„ / y. t LJ� •�- `� i— 2S 53 -.75 ,. ------ --`_—_ -- 25—:12+J- 95 .1-16 170 5'4 ...11 1151 1145 1139 W 1133 1127 _a LN Ln 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 = 110 feet appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. Lexington Ct Townhouse Assn Arden Eldon E Tste Patrick J Oconnell Revoc Trust 1775 Lexington Ave S Ofc 35 1775 Lexington Ave S Unit 1 1775 Lexington Ave S Unit 4 S ''3aul Mn 55118-3629 Lilydale Mn 55118-3629 St Paul Mn 55118 Carlson Cheryl B & Phillip M 1775 Lexington Ave S Unit 2 Saint Paul Mn 55118-3629 Greenwald James M 1775 Lexington Ave S Unit 3 Saint Paul Mn 55118-3629 Fogt Robert G 1145 Orchard PI Saint Paul Mn 55118-4119 Cornick Michael C 1176 Sibley Memorial Hwy Saint Paul Mn 55118-3673 Stratton Glenn J 1165 Kingsley Cir Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Rutstein Harriette Fae Tste 1155 Kingsley Ct Saint Paul Mn 55118-4162 Lilleberg Peter A 1155 Orchard PI Mendota Heights Mn 55118-4119 Baldinger Steven G & Wendy 1147 Orchard Cir Mendota Heights Mn 55118-4146 Klukas Jerome R & Mary C 1775 Lexington Ave S Unit 5 Saint Paul Mn 55118 3629 Ross Constance G Tste 1775 Lexington Ave S Unit 6 Saint Paul Mn 55118-3629 Nordstrom Ralph W & Pamela 1139 Orchard PI Saint Paul Mn 55118-4119 Osmon Nancy S Tste 1144 Kingsley Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55118-4162 Grossmann Lois E 1167 Kingsley Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Koch Arthur H & Judith 1147 Kinsgsley Estates Saint Paul Mn 55118 Roscher Michael J & Margaret 1140 Orchard Cir Saint Paul Mn 55118-4146 Steffes Allan P & Mary E 1149 Orchard Cir Saint Paul Mn 55118-4146 Bordenave Bernice A Tste 1775 Lexington Ave S Unit 34 Lilydale Mn 55118 Starr Patrick M 2636 29Th Ave S Minneapolis Mn 55406 Janssen Robert I Tste 1021 Sibley Memorial Hwy Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Dawson Northrop Jr & Erna G 1164 Kingsley Ct Saint Paul Mn 55118-4162 Finn Dennis J & Bonnie J 1157 Kingsley Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Baldinger Steven G & Wendy 1147 Orchard Cir Mendota Heights Mn 55118-4146 Bertrand James J & Sharon W 1134 Orchard Ave Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Strommen Gerald A & Marilyn F 1128 Orchard Cir Saint Paul Mn 55118-4146 Mullen Brian E & Joanne J Dorn Paul G & Lisa M B Gordon Fred & Karen 1122 Orchard Cir 1129 Orchard Circle 1135 Orchard Cir Saint Paul Mn 55118-4146 Mendota Heights Mn 55118-4146 Saint Paul Mn 55118-4146 Deutsche Bank National Trust C Russell Inge B & Sheldon P Pitzele Charles E 7700 W Parmer Ln 1775 Lexington Ave S Unit 32 1775 Lexington Ave Unit 33 Building D Saint Paul Mn 55118-3629 Saint Paul Mn 55118-3624 Austin Tx 78729 Lane Miles I & Harriet K 1146 Kingsley Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55118-4162 Freeman David W & Jane 1166 Kingsley Ct Saint Paul Mn 55118-4162 Johnson Thomas E 1154 Kingsley Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55118-4162 Hnp Properties LLC % Howard D & Nancy H Punch 1145 Kingsley Ct S Saint Paul Mn 55118-4162 Alden John F & Meredith B 1156 Kingsley Ct Saint Paul Mn 55118-4162