The URL can be used to link to this page

2010-07-27 Planning Comm Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA July 27, 2010 - 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of the Agenda 4. Approval of the June 22, 2010 Planning Cormnission Minutes 5. Discussion Variance Review Standard 6. Hearings a. Case No. 10-18: Elizabeth Tetzlaff — 995 Diego Lane — Conditional Use Permit and Variance for Accessory Building. Continued Public Hearing b. Case No. 10-12: Troy Troje — 574 Hiawatha Ave — Conditional Use Permit for Detached Garage. Public Hearing 7:00 P.M. c. Case No. 10-20: Stephen and Jana Patrick — 2536 Arbor Court - Lot Line Adjustment. Public Hearing 7:00 P.M. d. Case No. 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. Public Hearing 7:00 P.M. e. Case No. 10-24: Rob and Stacy Hermann — 1033 Williams Court — Conditional Use Permit and Variance for Detached Accessory Structure. Public Hearing 7:00 P.M. f. Case No. 10-25: Paul Plum — 1933 Dodd Road — Subdivision Approval to create one additional lot. Public Hearing 7:00 P.M. g. Case No. 10-26: Peter Opitz — 620 Watersedge Terrace — Wetlands Permit for a fence and play set. Public Hearing 7:00 P.M. 7. Verbal Review 8. 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. Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2010 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 22, 2010 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 22, 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, Norton, Povolny, and Viksnins. Those absent: None. Those present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, Acting Public Works Director/City Engineer Ryan Ruzek, and NAC Planner Stephen Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Carla Wirth. Approval ofMay 25, 2010, Minutes Commissioner Viksnins requested a correction on page seven, fourth paragraph from the bottom, to indicate: "Commissioner Viksnins Hennes stated he cannot support a Variance since no hardship has been found..." COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCMANUS, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2010, AS REVISED ABOVE. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Hearin. -s PLANNING CASE #10-18 Elizabeth Tetzlaff 995 Diego Lane Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Building (continued public hearing) Chair Lally noted that Elizabeth Tetzlaff had made application for a conditional use permit (CUP) for an accessory building larger than 144 square feet However, it was realized that the project, as proposed, also required a variance to the rear yard setback. Ms. Tetzlaff indicated her intent to make application for a variance so the CUP application was tabled for one month. Since the variance application was not submitted before the deadline for June consideration, Staff is recommending the Commission table the application for one more month and extend the 60 - day review period. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NORTON, TO TABLE PLANNING CASE #10-18 TO THE JULY 27, 2010, MEETING AND EXTEND THE 60 -DAY REVIEW PERIOD. AYES 7 NAYS 0 Chair Lally advised the Planning Commission would consider this application at its July 27, 2010, meeting. PLANNING CASE #10-21 Brian and Joanne Mullen 1122 Orchard Circle Critical Area Permit for a swimming pool Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2010 Planner Stephen Grittman explained that Brian and Joanne Mullen are requesting approval of a critical area permit in order to install an in -ground swimming pool, concrete patio, and fence in the rear yard of their property at 1122 Orchard Circle. He presented a site plan to identify the subject site, location of the existing home, and proposed swimming pool. Mr. Grittman explained the need for a critical area plan to assure the construction complies with the critical area objectives and ordinance requirements to protect the natural view of the river area from the river and to also protect sensitive bluffs or slopes. In this case, the parcel is not adjacent to the bluff and does not contain steep slopes. He reviewed the proposal to construct the swimming pool and patio in the rear yard surrounded with a black aluminum fence and gate that meets the City's requirements for openness and height for swimming pool protection. Mr. Grittman advised the project will total 22% of impervious surface. Staff believes this application complies with rules of the Critical Area Ordinance and recommends approval subject to conditions to allow engineering staff to review the site to assure stormwater, erosion control, and the swimming pool are managed properly. Mr. Grittman recommended an added condition that the project comply with the Land Disturbance Document, which will be provided to the applicant. Brian and Joanne Mullen, 1122 Orchard Circle, applicants, introduced themselves and indicated they have nothing to add to staff's presentation. Ms. Mullen noted the attendance of their landscaper should there be questions. Chair Lally read and explained the five conditions recommended by staff if the application is recommended for approval. Ms. Mullen asked if staff will provide guidance on timing and application for the fence and building permits. Assistant to the City Administrator Sedlacek explained they can make application for those building permits and pay the fee at any time so that process dovetails with City Council consideration. Ms. Mullen asked about the City Engineer's analysis. Acting Public Works Director/City Engineer Ruzek advised he has reviewed the grading identified on the plan submitted and does not foresee a problem but the disturbed areas will have to be seeded in a timely manner to eliminate erosion and assure completion of the project. Ms. Mullen stated they will move forward with the building permits and attend the City Council meeting. Commissioner McManus asked how excess dirt will be disposed. Ms. Mullen explained some will be used to create landscape berms and some to even the topography of their next door lot that contains an orchard and garden. She assured the Commission there will be no dramatic changes to the existing topography. Commissioner McManus asked if one tree will be removed. Ms. Mullen stated that is correct. Chair Lally opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Lally asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NORTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS COMMISSIONER NORTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE #10-21, CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR INSTALLATION OF A SWIMMING POOL, CONCRETE PATIO, AND FENCE, AS REQUESTED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A MORE DETAILED ANALYSIS SHALL BE PERFORMED IN REGARD TO THE PROPOSED GRADING CHANGES, ALTERING OF SLOPES, AND STORMWATER RUNOFF. 2. THE PROJECT SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. PA Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2010 3. ANY RECOMMENDATIONS SUGGESTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER FOR DRAINAGE AND SOIL EROSION CONTROL NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT THE PROJECT HAS NO IMPACT ON THE AREA. 4. A FENCE PERMIT SHALL BE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED PRIOR TO FENCE INSTALLATION. 5. A BUILDING PERMIT SHALL BE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION WORK ON THE SWIMMING POOL AND PATIO AREA. 6. ALL CONSTRUCTIONS ACTIVITIES MUST FOLLOW THE LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. AYES 7 NAYS 0 Chair Lally advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 6, 2010, meeting. PLANNING CASE #10-22 Paster Enterprises (McDonalds Corporation) 2020 Dodd Road Conditional Use Permit for a new side-by-side drive-thru Planner Stephen Grittman explained that Paster Enterprises and RLK Incorporated, on behalf of McDonalds Corporation, and Jane McKay are requesting approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) amendment in order to update the existing drive-thm at the McDonald's Restaurant at 2020 Dodd Road. He used a site plan to identify the subject site and location of the McDonald's Restaurant which is zoned B-4 Shopping Center and guided as MU - PUD on the future land use plan. Mr. Grittman indicated that B-4 Shopping Center zoning accommodates fast food restaurants with a CUP for drive-thrus. This site currently has a CUP for its drive-thru arrangement. Mr. Grittman presented a diagram showing the proposed modification to the current drive-thru and explained that the Pasters are co -applicants since the site gets access through the Mendota Plaza service road which will be changed to allow for an additional drive-thru arrangement. It was noted the proposed revision would allow for a dedicated stacking lane for the drive-thru that breaks into two menu board locations and then to the service area on the north side and exit from the main access point. Another advantage is improved circulation because drive-thru traffic would be separate, not part of the parking area. It also provides room for service vehicles to access the waste and bypass areas, for other parking and service traffic around the drive-thru lanes. Mr. Grittman explained that since the proposal requires modification of the existing CUP, a number of standards are reviewed such as how the site complies with zoning requirements and potential impact to surrounding properties. In this case, the only change is one of positive traffic circulation. Mr. Grittman stated staff finds the application complies with review standards and recommends approval based on the findings of fact identified in the staff report and condition that the vacant area in the northwest corner of the parking lot be striped to replace parking stalls that will be eliminated for the added drive-thru lane. Commissioner Field asked about additional signage. Mr. Grittman started the applicants propose resigning, which is a separate consideration not related to the CUP amendment. Commissioner Viksnins noted the property has an existing CUP for the current drive-thru and asked if the consideration tonight is to have two drive-thru lanes. Mr. Grittman stated that is correct and explained that substantive changes require consideration of a CUP amendment. If the changes are minor, such as a slight relocation of the menu boards, it would not require a complete CUP amendment application. The application under consideration also involves a change in site circulation so it requires a CUP amendment. Aaron Hemquist, RLK Incorporated, stated he has no comments to add to staffs presentation. He noted the attendance of Jane McKay. 3 Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2010 Chair Lally asked whether RLK Incorporated is representing Paster Enterprises. Mr. Hemquist answered in the affirmative. Chair Lally noted the access to McDonalds restaurant is over Paster owned property and asked if Jane McKay represents the owners. Mr. Hemquist stated that is correct and advised that cross access agreements are in place and the drive-thru as proposed is consistent with the previously approved master plan for Mendota Plaza. Commissioner McManus asked if the building is being repainted. Jean McKay explained the current roof is three shades of red, not consistent in color, so it is being repainted. 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 MCMANUS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES NAYS COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE #10-22, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO UPDATE THE EXISTING DRIVE-THRU LANE AT THE MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT, 2020 DODD ROAD, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1. THE VACANT AREA IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PARKING LOT SHALL BE STRIPED IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PARKING STALLS AND MAKE UP FOR THE ELIMINATED PARKING STALLS. AYES 7 NAYS 0 Chair Lally advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 6, 2010, meeting. Verbal Review Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #10-12 Troy Troje Variance • This application has been verbally withdrawn by the applicant and will be formally withdrawn. If needed, Mr. Grittman stated staff can administratively extend the 60 -day rule and the Planning Commission take action at its July meeting. PLANNING CASE #10-14 Clear Wireless, LLC Conditional Use Permit • Tabled by the City Council since application is not yet complete. PLANNING CASE #10-15 Mark Johnson Critical Area Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #10-16 Dorothy Haffely Conditional Use Permit and Variance • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE 910-17 Crystal and Tracy Crocker Wetlands Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #10-18 Elizabeth Tetzlaff Conditional Use Permit • Tabled by the Planning Commission and remains pending. PLANNING CASE #10-19 William Stein Wetlands Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER MCMANUS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER POVOLNY, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:28 P.M. S Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 2010 AYES NAYS Respectfully submitted, Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4300 Dison Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 plan ners@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: July 22, 2010 RE: Mendota Heights — Variance Review Standard NAC FILE: 254.04 In this month's Planning Commission agenda packet, there are two requests for variances from the City's setback requirements. Variance review has often been a topic of discussion, and the City's zoning ordinance includes specific language relating to the requirements for variance approval. That language, based generally in Minn. Stat. 462.357 Subd. 1, is found in Mendota Heights Code Section 12-1L-5, reads as follows: A. Authority To Grant Variances; Conditions: The council may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of this chapter and impose conditions and safeguards in the variances so granted in cases where there are practical difficulties or undue hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of this chapter. "Undue hardship", as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by this chapter and the hardship is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under this chapter. The City's Code goes on to add the following in this regard: E. Action By City Council: 1. Grant Of Variance: In considering applications for variance under this chapter, the council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the planning commission and the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated, traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on value of properties in the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed variance upon the comprehensive plan. If the council shall determine by resolution that the special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located, and that the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and that granting the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair health, safety, comfort, or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter and that the granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate undue hardship or difficulty, the council may grant such variance and impose conditions and safeguards therein. We have commonly interpreted this clause to the Planning Commission by noting that the applicant must first show generally that their proposed use is reasonable, given the requirements of the zoning ordinance and the context of the neighborhood, and then that the code requirements prohibit reasonable use of the property in some way. We have noted that this is a rigorous standard — variances are intended to be applied only where somebody cannot put their property to a reasonable use. Therefore, on a residential lot, a typical single family home together with the common accessory uses to such a home would constitute reasonable use. This is not always the property owners' desired home or uses, or the most convenient. The traditional standard required a finding of an undue hardship in putting the property to any reasonable use. Under the older formulation, an applicant had to show that they had no reasonable use of their property unless the city granted a variance. In such a situation, the City was virtually compelled to approve a variance, or entertain the possibility that the regulations had created a case of "regulatory taking" or "inverse condemnation" — basically regulations that prohibit any use at all. In a series of cases After a series of Minnesota Court of Appeals cases in the late 1990s (Rowell v. City o Moorhead, Sagstetter v. City of St. Paul, Nolan v. City of Eden Prairie), it had become easier for cities to grant variances when their finding was that the applicants use was reasonable, and only that practical difficulties stood in the way of such a reasonable use. Some cities followed this approach and loosened their variance approval standards, either through practice, or ordinance, or both. Recently, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued a decision in Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka which restated the standards that control when cities may consider variance approval. This case involved a neighbor who challenged the City's approval of a property owner's request seeking a setback variance to expand an existing garage. The City granted the variance, based on a determination that the applicant proposed to use the property in a reasonable manner. This standard for variance approval had been evolving in many cities over the past 10 to 15 years, loosening the review from "any reasonable use" to "use in a reasonable manner", and from "undue hardship" to a focus on "practical difficulties". 2 In Krummenacher, however, the Supreme Court stated that the plain reading of the statutory language compels a return to the traditional way of reviewing variances. That language is as follows: To hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in section 216C.06, subdivision 1.4, when in harmony with the ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments or the governing body as the case may be, may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or governing body as the case may be, may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one family dwelling as a two family dwelling. The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties. The Krummenacher Court rejected the transition to the "practical difficulties" and "reasonable manner" standards as being inconsistent with the statute. For Mendota Heights, the new court ruling will not change much in practice. The Court's decision leaves open the idea that reasonable use still has a relationship to the "character of the locality" as it is stated in the statute. Although the term "practical difficulties" is included in the City's code language, it has not been the defining standard for variance review. Instead, the City has worked to assure that variance requests accomplish the objectives noted above — reasonable use and undue hardship — in keeping with the findings of the Supreme Court in Krummenacher. As a final note, the Court observed that this interpretation of the statute must prevail unless the legislature decides to change the standards listed in 462.357 Subd. 6. We will continue to monitor any pending legislative changes in forthcoming sessions. 3 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 5542.2 Telephone: 763-231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 plan ners��pnacplann ng_com MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Carie A. Fuhrman/Stephen Grittman DATE: July 22, 2010 MEETING DATE: July 27, 2010 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit & Variance for Accessory Building CASE NO: Case No. 10-18; NAC Case 254.04-10.21 APPLICANT(S): Elizabeth Tetzlaff LOCATION: 995 Diego Lane ZONING: R-1, One Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: LR, Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request: The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit in order to, construct a 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 (10 feet by 20 feet) accessory building shall be utilized as a storage outbuilding. The applicant applied for a conditional use permit for an accessory building larger than 144 square feet at the May Planning Commission. Through review of the application, it was realized that the project also required a variance to the rear yard setback. The application was then tabled at the May and June Planning Commission meetings, and the 60 -day review period was extended, in order for the applicant to complete an application for a variance. The subject property is located at 995 Diego Lane and is zoned R-1, One Family Residential. Section 12-1E-3 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that a conditional use permit be obtained for an accessory structure more than 144 square feet if the area of the property on which such structure is to be located is four acres or less. Section 12- 1 D-4C1d requires that an accessory structure that exceeds 144 square feet shall not be closer than 10 feet to any side or rear lot line. Analysis: The subject property is located to the northwest of the intersection of Winston Court and Diego Lane and is 0.21 acres in size. The applicant is proposing to construct a 10 feet by 20 feet detached accessory building in the northwest corner of the property. A photograph of the proposed building has been submitted with the application materials. The applicant has stated that the building will be painted and shingled to blend in with the existing home on the property. The height of the accessory structure has not been submitted, but does not appear that it will exceed the 15 foot height limit in the Residential Districts. The accessory building has a utility door on the long side of the building. Thus, it would not qualify as a garage under the standard zoning ordinance definition. The Zoning Ordinance allows the accessory building as proposed, so long as it does not constitute a second garage. Setbacks. Section 12-1 D -4d of the Ordinance requires that an accessory structure that exceeds 144 square feet shall not be closer than 10 feet from any side or rear lot line. The site plan indicates that the shed shall be located 10 feet from the north (rear) property line, which meets the Ordinance requirement. However, the proposed west (side) yard setback of -5 feet is not in compliance with the Ordinance. Letter of Intent. The applicant's letter of intent, dated May 25, 2010, indicates that the existing tuck -under garage has very limited storage, and there is need to store items such as a riding lawn mower, garden tools, ladders, bikes, and hunting gear. She has also stated that the smaller width of 10 feet makes sense with the yard space available. The applicant states that alternative locations have been reviewed, but will not be acceptable for the following reasons: at the ten foot setback, the shed would obstruct views for neighbors and would interfere with the root systems of the large ash and maple trees. On the submitted site plan, the applicant has indicated that locating the shed at the required 10 foot setback would place the shed 12 feet from the tree, while placing the shed at the requested 5 foot setback would place the shed 17 feet from the tree. The applicant goes on to state that the proposed shed location will not interfere with any neighbor's view or recreation area of the 3 adjoined yards, nor will it interfere with the root systems of the trees. The applicant also states that a 5 foot hedge or arborvitae will be planted behind the shed (facing the neighbor's garage to the west), and the sides will be landscaped with flowering perennials. Conditional Use Permit Review. According to Section 12-1 L-6, in considering an application for a conditional use permit, the Planning Commission and City Council shall consider the following factors: 2 • Effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants, surrounding lands, or community; Staff Comment: The proposed accessory structure to be used for storage should not affect the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, assuming compliance with standard zoning regulations. The applicant plans to plant tall shrubs and colorful perennials surrounding the accessory building, which will help serve as a screen between the proposed building and adjacent properties. • Existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets, Staff Comment: The accessory structure shall not influence traffic conditions or parking facilities on adjacent streets. • Effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan; Staff Comment: The Comprehensive Plan has designated this parcel as Low Density Residential. A detached accessory structure for storage is a compatible use with this designation. • It must be determined that the proposed use will not seriously depreciate the surrounding property value; Staff Comment: There is no reason to believe that the proposed accessory structure would seriously depreciate the surrounding property value. • Proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter. Staff Comment: The proposed structure meets all other Ordinance standards, with the noted exception of the required 10 foot setback requirements. Variance Review. The Zoning Ordinance establishes a standard for reviewing variance requests, which is based on the finding that the variance is not a mere convenience to the applicant, but rather it is necessary to alleviate undue hardship or difficulty. The Ordinance further defines undue hardship as a condition which restricts the owner from putting the property to reasonable use under the strict zoning regulations. In this regard, the Minnesota Supreme Court has recently ruled on the standard that cities should use in deciding variance cases. Essentially, the ruling rewinds a series of more recent decisions that had the effect of permitting a relaxation of the burden for variance approval. In some cities, the standard had replaced "undue hardship' and "reasonable use" with "practical difficulties" and the use of land in a "reasonable manner". We have provided a memorandum on this issue to the Planning Commission that provides additional detail. The Court states that an applicant for a variance must show that the code creates an undue hardship in making reasonable use of the property. While this is a change for some cities, the newly -stated standard is not dissimilar to the practice that has been followed by Mendota Heights. As previously indicated, the applicant wishes to construct a detached accessory structure in the rear and side yard. The shed is proposed to be setback five (5) feet from the west property line, rather than the required 10 foot setback. In planning staff's 3 view, it does not appear that the property contains any specific unique circumstances or special conditions, such as steep slopes, topographical limitations, narrow configuration of the lot, or small lot size, which would prevent constructing the new shed in the conforming location. Locating the shed at the required 10 foot side yard setback will indeed place it five (5) feet closer to the existing trees, as indicated by the applicant. However, it is not clear that a 12 foot separation from the tree that results from meeting the 10 foot setback would necessarily damage the tree. In addition, a shed meeting the City's normal 144 square foot threshold would need only meet a 5 foot setback. Because a standard -sized shed could be placed on the property at the desired 5 foot setback, or a large shed could be placed at a setback of 10 feet, it does not appear that the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated hardship to justify approval of the requested setback variance. With this in mind, it is the opinion of planning staff that adherence to the 10 foot side yard setback requirement would not deny the applicant reasonable use of her property. For these reasons, it is not believed that the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated hardship to justify approval of the requested side yard setback variance. Action Requested: CUP Request. After a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: 1. Approval of the conditional use permit application, based on the following findings: the proposed accessory building does not affect the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands; it shall not influence traffic conditions or parking facilities on adjacent streets; an accessory building on a single family lot is a compatible use within the designated land use district, there is no reason to believe that the proposed accessory building would seriously depreciate the surrounding property value; and the detached accessory building meets the Ordinance requirements. Moreover, the accessory building is not a garage under ordinance definitions. Approval should be made subject to the following conditions: a. The accessory structure shall be located in compliance with all setback requirements. b. An updated site plan shall be submitted prior to building permit approval. c. A building permit shall be approved prior to construction of the building. 10914 2. Denial of the conditional use permit application based on one of the following findings: the proposed use will have a detrimental effect on the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding lands and community; or the accessory structure will negatively influence traffic conditions and parking facilities on adjacent streets; or the proposed use is not consistent with the general purpose and intent 0 of the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Ordinance, or the accessory structure will seriously depreciate the surrounding property values. Variance Request. After a public hearing, the Planning Commission may make one of the following recommendations regarding the variance request: 1. Approval of the Variance as submitted, based on the attached draft findings of fact, and subject to the following condition: approval of the Conditional Use Permit to construct an accessory structure larger than 144 square feet on a lot 4 acres in size or less. 2. Denial of the Variance based on the attached draft findings of fact. Staff Recommendation: When considering a request for a conditional use permit, there are numerous factors that must be taken into account, including the possible effects on traffic, parking, and property values; its compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance standards; and its possible impacts on the surrounding lands and community. Planning staff believes that the proposed accessory building over 144 square feet is compliant with the review standards and therefore is recommending approval of the proposed conditional use permit, but subject to the above -stated conditions, including meeting the 10 foot setback requirement. As noted in this report, it does not appear that compliance with the required 10 foot side yard setback will deny the applicant reasonable use of his property. Thus, Planning Staff recommends denial of the variance. Supplementary Materials: 1. Application materials June 28, 2010 2. Site location map E Draft Findings of Fact for Denial Variance to Side Yard Setback 995 Diego Lane The property does not contain any specific unique circumstances or special conditions, which would prevent constructing the new accessory structure in the conforming location. 2. The requested detached accessory structure can be constructed in compliance with applicable side yard setback requirements. 3. Adherence to the 10 foot side yard setback requirement would not deny the applicant reasonable use of her property. 4. The applicant has not satisfactorily demonstrated undue hardship to justify approval of the requested side yard setback variance. 5. Other options exist for either a smaller accessory shed with a 5 foot setback or a larger accessory shed with a 10 foot setback without need for variance. Draft Findings of Fact for Approval Variance to Side Yard Setback 995 Diego Lane The property contains specific unique circumstances or special conditions that would prevent constructing the new garage in the conforming location. 2. The variance has been requested based on a unique condition of the property. 3. Adherence to the 10 foot side yard setback requirement would deny the applicant reasonable use of her property. 4. The applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated hardship to justify approval of the requested side yard setback variance. 7 Site Location Map WaterMetlands City Roads Major Roads parcels ®o®®®1 Municipal Boundaries CRY Of n o t a H, e IN g n L 5 APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. ' z Date of Application '-Ir" ; �<< Fee Paid Applicant Name: >��Z%�� ,E�rz --- (Last) (First) (M) E -Mail Address: 0, Cory -7 Address:)..�G�C/ (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Owner Name:._._T' /I, 11 z'V-/`' (Last) (First) (I�) Address: S i c --q (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question:GI�--- Legai 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 Present Zoning of Property _Y—__Variance Subdivision Approval Wetlands Permit Critical Area Permit Other (attach explanation) Present Use Proposed Zoning of Property __Proposed Use Section I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above property during daylight hours. (Signafure of Applica Date Received;'! _ - 4 (Sig ture of Owr er) 1101 Victoria Curve ° Mendota Heights, MN 55118 a (651) 452-1850 m FAx (651) 452-8940 shtww mendota-heights.com May 25, 2010 City of Mendota Heights RE: Elizabeth Tetzlaff - 995 Diego Lane Conditional Use Permit and Variance for back yard shed I am writing to show reason for structure size and lot placement of a wood shed The shed proposed will be 10' by 20' and sit on the side lot parallel to neighbor's far side of his garage. Reason for need Tuck under garage has very limited storage Riding lawn mower, garden tools, ladders, bikes, hunting gear The smaller width of 10' makes sense with the yard space available Why 5 foot set back Will not interfere with any neighbor's view or recreation area of the 3 adjoined yards (At 10 foot setback shed would obstruct views for neighbors) Will not interfere with trees (large ash and large maple) root systems (At 10 foot setback shed would be interfering with root systems) Alternative locations have been reviewed but will not be acceptable for these reasons NOTE on landscape of the structure The cement slab will be poured and the structure will be placed per the written plan. We will be planting a tall (5 foot) hedge or arbervity (5) behind the shed so the back (facing the neighbor's garage) will be pleasing. The sides will also be landscaped with flowering perennials. It will be painted and shingled to blend with the house currently. Thank you for your consideration Elizabeth Tetzlaff 226 GS / 13 2 -__-__---_�'_`~~~~~~� �% c€F' S P w"," � � �"Mendota He�ghts SIGNATURES OF CONSENT FOR VARIANCE REQUEST To: The Planning Commission, City off Mendota Heights FROM: Property Owners of RE- We the undersigned have reviewed the plans for and understand the terms and conditions of the requested variance for �'�� 5 4- We have no objections to this request and do hereby give our written consent and consent to waiver of public hearing. Sincerely, NAME (Please i'rint) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (INICL( )LOT) / +� 7 0 1101 Victoria curve o Mendota Heights. MN 55118 a (651) 452-1850 m FAX (651) 452-8940 www. mendota-heights. weal CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO DATE: June 22, 2010 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City Administratof SUBJECT: 10-18: Conditional Use Permit, Tetzloff Discussion At the May 25 Planning Commission meeting Elizabeth Tetzloff made application for a conditional use permit for an accessory building larger than 144 square feet. It was realized through discussion that the project, as proposed, also requires a variance to the rear yard setback. The Ms. Tetzloff expressed her intent to request a variance for consideration at the June Planning Commission meeting. The application for a conditional use permit was tabled for one month, so the applicant could complete an application for variance before the June planning submission deadline. Ms. Tetzloff did not submit the variance application before the deadline for June consideration, but has expressed her intent to request the variance to staff. Recommendation Staff recommends tabling the application for one more month, which would require an extension of the 60 day review period. Action Required If the commission wishes to implement the recommendation, they may pass a motion tabling planning case 10-18 to July 27, and extending the 60 day review period, malting any changes the commission deems appropriate. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING July 6. 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, July 27, 2010 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Elizabeth Tetzlaff to request a Conditional Use Permit and variance to construct a 10 x 20 wood shed at the following described property: Lot 1 Lametti Addition #2 (PID #27-44400-010-00) More particularly this property is located at 995 Diego Lane This notice is pursuant to Title 12 (Zoning), Chapter 1 of the Mendota Heights City Code. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to this Conditional Use Permit will be heard at this meeting. Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk Auxiliary aids for disabled persons are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administrator at 452-1850. 995 Diego Lane Dakota County, MN Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not Map Scale guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search, 1 inch = 131 feet appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. Schnick Patricia A Carlson Phyllis E Matsch Phyllis 987 Chippewa Ave 995 Chippewa Ave 987 Diego Ln Mendota Heights Mn 55118-1029 Saint Paul Mn 55118-1029 Saint Paul Mn 55118-1030 Frank Daniel Stary Frank C Tste Lysne Julie H 999 Chippewa 983 Diego Ln 1000 Diego Ln Saint Paul Mn 55118-1029 Mendota Heights Mn 55118-1030 Mendota Heights Mn 55118-1031 Gonsowski Eugene J & M D Lysne Julie H Gergen Thomas J & Gina M 544 Miriam St 1000 Diego Ln 552 Miriam St Saint Paul Mn 55118-1033 Mendota Heights Mn 55118-1031 Mendota Heights Mn 55118-1033 Gackstetter Randal W & Connie Young Sean C Hanson Robert J 990 Diego Ln 537 Miriam St 556 Miriam St Mendota Heights Mn 55118-1031 Mendoat Heights Mn 55118 Mendota Heights Mn 55118-1033 Osland Gregory Eckert Adrian & Deborah J Independent Residential Constr 531 Miriam St 560 Miriam St 529 Miriam Ave Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Saint Paul Mn 55118-1033 Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Diebel B Michael Kowski Ronald A & Rosemary City Of Mendota Heights 532 Miriam St 548 Junction Ln 1101 Victoria Cury Mendota Heights Mn 55118-1041 Saint Paul Mn 55118-1833 Saint Paul Mn 55118-4167 Tetzlaff Elizabeth A Finnegan Shawn P Murphy John L & Carol A 995 Diego Ln 991 Diego Ln 547 Winston Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Saint Paul Mn 55118-1030 Saint Paul Mn 55118-1038 Baird Harry G & Audrey Arndt Floyd G & Claire E Gydesen Eric M 553 Winston Ct 557 Winston Ct 561 Winston Ct Saint Paul Mn 55118-1038 Saint Paul Mn 55118-1038 Mendota Heights Mn 55118-1038 Nagel Ronald R & Kay B Krueger Paul L & Betty A Hesse Bernard C & Kathleen 565 Winston Ct 558 Winston Ct 554 Winston Ct Saint Paul Mn 55118-1038 Saint Paul Mn 55118-1037 Saint Paul Mn 55118-1037 arott Timothy J Tste Nadeau Nicholas T Hanzal Brandon 550 Winston Ct 546 Winston Ct 543 Junction Ln Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Mendota Heights Mn 55118-1037 Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Solomonson Scott D Nygren David Heuer Andrew John 540 Junction Ln 542 Winston Ct 536 Junction Ln Mendota Heights Mn 55118-1833 Saint Paul Mn 55118-1037 Saint Paul Mn 55118-1833 Tweh Clarence W 537 Junction Ln Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Kopet Joseph C & Corrine E 524 Junction Ln Saint Paul Mn 55118-1833 Mckinley Susan Ries 1011 Chippewa Ave Saint Paul Mn 55118-1029 Shaughnessy William & Elizabet 562 Winston Ct Saint Paul Mn 55118-1037 Exner Cecilia 531 Junction Ln Saint Paul Mn 55118-1834 Mcmonigal Alicia C 1003 Chippewa Saint Paul Mn 55118-1029 Thomas Raymond Donald 548 Miriam St Mendota Heights Mn 55118-1033 Hanson Leroy M & Shirley A 530 Junction Ln Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Hess Jacqueline Lynn 523 Junction Ln Saint Paul Mn 55118-1834 Berry Mary Leone 1015 Chippewa Ave Mendota Heights Mn 55118-1029 Schmiesing Scott E 555 Junction Ln Saint Paul Mn 55118-1834 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.. 4800 Dison Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MI's 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 pian ners@)nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman / Nate Sparks DATE: July 23, 2010 MEETING DATE: July 27, 2010 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a detached garage CASE NO: City Case #10-12 NAC Case# 254.04-10.12 APPLICANT(S): Alyssa and Troy Troje LOCATION: 574 Hiawatha Avenue ZONING: R-1, Single Family GUIDE PLAN: Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request The applicants are seeking a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a detached garage on their property located at 574 Hiawatha Avenue. The proposed garage measures 484 square feet in size (22' x 22'). The proposed garage would replace an existing detached garage which is presently on the property but is too small (single car only). The current garage is below the City's threshold for garage size, and sits too close to the property line. The applicants note that the new garage will meet both size and setback requirements of the zoning ordinance. Analysis A conditional use permit is required for the construction of detached garages. According to the zoning ordinance, no accessory structure may be closer than 5 feet from any side or rear lot line or within any front yard, except that where an accessory structure exceeds 144 square feet, it shall not be closer than 10 feet. The applicants' letter of intent indicates that the building will meet the 10 foot setbacks. This should be verified prior to construction. All conditions of the Minnesota State Building Code must be met prior to the granting of the building permit. As previously indicated, it is the applicant's intent to replace an existing detached garage with a new structure. The applicants have indicated that the proposed garage will be constructed to match the exterior materials and colors of the house. Detached garages are a relatively common condition for parcels in this neighborhood. As such, the requirements for CUP approval that relate to character of the neighborhood are met. There is no reason to believe that the proposed structure would negatively impact any of the City's systems, and the building will eliminate existing non -conforming conditions on the property. The building will be served by the existing driveway, which for much of its length appears to violate the 5 foot driveway setback. However, this is an existing condition that will not be affected by the construction of the new garage. Moreover, there is no other alternative to the driveway in place due to the shape of the lot and the placement of the existing home. Action Requested: Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission may make one of the following recommendations: Approval of the Conditional Use Permit with conditions, based upon a finding that the proposed structure is consistent with the intent of the Conditional Use Permit clause allowing detached garages. Conditions may include the following: A. Verification that the garage meet applicable 10 foot side and rear yard setback requirements. 2. Denial of the Conditional Use Permit, based on a finding that the proposed garage would adversely affect surrounding properties. Staff Recommendation: Detached garages are common to the area in which the detached garage is proposed. With this in mind, planning staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed above. Supplementary materials: N Application materials dated July 20, 2010 Findings of Fact Findings of Fact Troje Garage Conditional Use Permit 574 Hiawatha Avenue The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the above Permit: 1. The proposed garage meets all zoning requirements for setback and size. 2. The proposed detached garage is consistent with other single family properties in the area. 3. The proposed garage will be able to be designed and constructed to be consistent with the architecture and materials of the principal building. 4. The new structure will replace an existing structure that is inconsistent with current zoning regulations. M Troy and Alyssa Troje 574 Hiawatha Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 July 20, 2010 City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Subject: Letter of Intent Regarding Conditional Use Permit for Garage at 574 Hiawatha Avenue Dear Jake: After completing a survey of our property and discussions with our neighbors we have revised our previous request for a variance and conditional use permit in order to replace our current detached single car garage with a detached two car garage. Though we previously requested a variance, our current request is only for a conditional use permit because we have moved the location of the proposed garage to conform to the setback requirements. The proposed new detached two car garage would be constructed of the same materials as the house (gray James Hardie siding with white trim). The garage will be placed 10 feet off the northern property line and 10 feet of the southern property line. The garage would be approximately 110' from the street and approximately 22' x 22' in dimension. Attached is an approximate drawing of the proposed garage. Thank you for your time. If you have any questions or concerns, please call us at 612- 695-6350. Thank You, Alyssa M. Troje. Troy M. Troje Page 1 of 1 http://gisx.co.dakota.mn.us/scriptslesrimap.dll?name=webql &Cmd=Image&Left=553229.... 3/10/2010 ME_NARDS Page 1 of 2 Design # 94548 Design=lt� M 812010 ms Selected: L_,; roof wl 8112 pitch, spread web trusses 2' O,C, Truss Design Location Zip Code: 55118 314" T&G OSB RIA Floor Sheathing 2x4 Wall Framing Material 22' Wide X 22' Deep X 8' High 8" SmartLap Lap Siding 1x4 Smart Trim Outside Corners 112" OSB Wall Sheathing Typar Housewrap 0" gable/12" eave overhangs 518" OSB Roof Sheathing 30 yr. Duration, Storm Cloud Shingles White Aluminum Soffit & Fascia White Premium Roof Edge 1- Garage Door Opener Smart Trim Overhead Door Jamb Options Selected: The options you have selected are: Wood Attic Access Ladder 15 LB Roof Felt 1- Vinyl Gable Vent(s) 1-114" Coil Roofing Nails 3" 33 Deg Framing Nails Today's estimated base price: $2,741.37 The base price includes: 0" Eave10" Gable Overhangs, Framing Materials, 7116 OSB Roof Sheathing, 20 yr. Fiberglass Classic - Onyx Black Shingles, Pine Fascia, Galvanized Regular Roof Edge, xtured Vertical Hardboard Siding, No Service Doors, iverhead Doors, No Windows, or Any Other Options. Front View Back View trj p�oA nAl� r��L�raL�r� Q��°0i°0ri Today's estimated price; $5,346.74 If purchased today, you save: $315,47 Monthly BIG Card payment: $150.15 Jobsite delivery may be required for trusses. *** Take this sheet to the Building Materials counter to purchase your materials. *** All informalion on this form, other than price, has been provided by guest and Menards is not responsible for any errors in the information on this estimate, including but not limited to quantity, dimension and quality. Please examine this estimate carefully. MENARDS MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS, ORAL, WRITTEN OR OTHERWISE, THAT THE MATERIALS LISTED ARE SUITABLE FOR ANY PURPOSE BEING CONSIDERED BY THE GUEST. BECAUSE OF THE WIDE VARIATIONS IN CODES, THERE ARE NO REPRESENTATIONS THAT THE MATERIALS LISTED HEREIN MEET YOUR CODE REQUIREMENTS. MENARQS` Design 'it Here are the wall configurations for your design, Illustration May Not Depict All Options Selected U D ❑1J❑❑❑ ❑❑❑❑❑ 16'X 7' Gable Front View (1) -16X1 WHITE NONINSL RAISEDPNL EXTSP MSST Eave Front View (1) - 36X36 SELECT 100 SLID IGPC2SG3030 Building Size: 22 feet wide X 22 feet long X 8 feet high Approximate Peak Height: 15 feel 9 inches (189 inches) Page 2 of 2 711812010 Gable Back View 3' X 6'-8" Eave Back View (1) - CM16-PANEL STEEL DOOR PH36X80 LH SB 1 - 36X36 SELECT 100 SLID IGPC2SG3030 Menards provided material estimates are intended as a general construction aid and have been calculated using typical construction methods. Because of the wide variable in codes and site restrictions, all final plans and material lists must be verified with your local zoning office, architect and/or builder for building design and code compliance. Menards is a supplier of construction materials and does not assume liability for design, engineering or the completeness of any material lists provided, Underground electrical, phone and gas lines should be located and marked before your building plans are finalized. Remember to use safety equipment including dust masks and sight and hearing protection during construction to ensure a positive building experience, June 25, 2010 Troy Troje 574 Hiawatha Ave Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Troy: �_ ' 1 KY Mendota He This letter is the formal follow-up to our conversation following your letter dated May 18, 2009 requesting that your planning application for a conditional use permit and variance to the side yard setback be post phoned (Planning Case 10-12). As we discussed at the time, the City has extended the 60 day review period as you complete a survey to better define the property lines and finding a location for the garage that was acceptable to the neighbors. The initial June 5 deadline has been extended to August 4, 2010. I have reviewed the building permit materials submitted for the new garage. While there is no longer need for a variance to the side yard setback, the garage does still require a conditional use permit — this varies from the opinion I gave you earlier this week. As such, the planning application needs to be heard at a public hearing before the planning commission. Your application for the conditional use permit (but no variance) is currently on the agenda for the next Planning Commission meeting, Tuesday, July 27. Sincerely, Jake Sedlacek Assistant to the City Administrator cc: Planning Case File #10-12 1101 victoria Curare m Mendota Heights, nN 55118 ° (651) 452-1850 a FAX (651) 452-89*U wnarea. meand®ta-heights e com I APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. 10-1a Date of Application 4-5-10 Fee Paid ��p,oa . *' 7 7,77/ -� F/6D, Oa .oa_, 0 7 7 -7.7 -- Applicant Name: /�D -C /�� _Al PH: �� —".5- (Ya s t) ( i t) (M) E -Mail Address: � 1-i � dyiyr�Ke I've. � j a� Address: 577V 47 ,q wa � A- �� Wafzc yc eA7 (Number & Street) Owner Name: Address: (Last) (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) (First) (M) (City) (State) (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question: J—% q Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) /Q �Z off' - i 60/41 _e`i�ia / � � � �,E !�!�'�h z�",- - C di %z Gird r N p / ' -29 7- /7/b6-&�6-6-2 Type of Req�dst- /1�L�n Jb7� 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 Present Zoning of Property Present Use _ Proposed Zoning of Property _g l Proposed Use Section I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above property during daylight hours. (Si ure of cant) Date Received 1101 Victoria Mendota gvil www.mendota-heights.com Troy and Alyssa Troje 574 Hiawatha Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 April 3, 2010 City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Subject: Conditional Use Permit and Variance for Garage at 574 Hiawatha Avenue Dear Jake: We are requesting a conditional use permit and variance for 574 Hiawatha Avenue in order to replace our current detached single car garage with a detached two car garage. The current structure is located on the northern property line and is not in conformity with the 10 foot setback now required. The proposed new detached two car garage would be constructed of the same materials as the house (gray James Hardie siding with white trim) set in line with the current driveway which is within a foot of the northern property line. The garage would be approximately 110' from the street and approximately 24' x 24' in dimension. Attached is an approximate drawing of the proposed garage. We are requesting that the City grant a variance and allow the new two car garage for the following reasons: 1. The triangle shape of the lot makes it difficult to build on the rear portion of the lot and be in conformity with the required setbacks, 2. The neighbors at 572 Hiawatha Avenue have stated that they have no objection to the new structure being built on or near the property line between the two lots; 3. A variance would allow the use of the existing driveway; 4. A variance would allow us to keep many large trees on the property; 5_ The current single car garage is very old and in need of replacement; and 6. The new structure would be built to match the house and be more visually pleasing. We have considered other options for building a new garage, which include building on the southern side of the house (either an attached or detached garage) but have concluded that because we desire to keep the southern side of the house open for a possible future addition, we would like to keep the garage on the northern side of the lot. In addition, to build a garage on the southern side of the lot would mean that we would lose many large trees in order to connect a driveway. Thank you for your time. If you have any questions or concerns, please call us at 612- 695 -6350 - Thank You, Alys M. Troje Troy M. roj e N 574 Hiawatha Ave WE S Al . � k kJA 50 25 0eet City of !-I:161 3/22/10 Mendota Heights 574 Hiawatha Avenue Dakota County, MN Disclaimer. Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not Map Scale guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search, 1 inch = 137 feet appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Carie A. Fuhrman/Stephen Grittman DATE: July 22, 2010 MEETING DATE: July 27, 2010 SUBJECT: Lot Line Adjustment CASE NO: Case No. 10-20; NAC Case 254.04 — 10.22 APPLICANT(S): Stephen Patrick LOCATION: Outlot A (2536 Arbor Court) & Lot 11, Block 1, Mendota Woods ZONING: R-1, One Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: HR -PUD Background and Description of Request: Stephen Patrick is requesting approval of a lot line adjustment in order to resolve an existing property encroachment. The applicant's home is located on Outlot A; however, a large portion of his 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 and get ride of the existing easement. Technically, this request involves the separation of a small portion of property from one parcel and concurrently adding it to the adjacent parcel — there will remain two buildable parcels, and no new building sites are to be created as a result of this subdivision action. The subject property is located at 2536 Arbor Court, is zoned R-1, One Family Residential, and is planned for HR -PUD. Analysis: Lot Split. The applicant's home is located in the northwest corner of Outlot A. The driveway was constructed to follow the existing grade, and as a result, it encroaches onto the southwest corner of Lot 11, directly to the north of Outlot A. A driveway easement is currently in place on Lot 11 for the driveway from Outlot A. The applicant would like to adjust the lot line between Lot 11 and Outlot A in order to contain the driveway entirely on the lot of Outlot A and get rid of the easement. The lot line adjustment proposes to adjust the lot line between Outlot A and Lot 11, resulting in the formation of Parcel Y and Parcel Z. The lot line adjustment will result in the driveway being entirely on Parcel Z (formerly Outlot A) and will remove the need for a driveway easement. The following displays the change in lot sizes resulting from the lot line adjustment: Pre Lot Line Adjustment Lot 11 (1.5 ac) Outlot A (1.03 ac) 4 Post Lot Line Adjustment Parcel Y (1.43 ac) Parcel Z (1.09 ac) The City's Subdivision Ordinance permits the subdivision of lots in the City provided that the resulting lots are compliant with all aspects of the respective Zoning District. Both proposed Parcels Y and Z meet the R-1 minimum lot size requirement of at least 15,000 square feet, and the adjustment is actually increasing the setback of the home to the north property line on Parcel Z from 32 feet to 47 feet. However, the proposed lot line does not meet the required property line setback for driveways, which is five feet. A large portion of the pavement extends into Parcel Y, and a second portion of the driveway appears to be within the five foot setback requirement. In order to meet the Ordinance setback requirement, either portions of the driveway need to be altered, or the lot line needs to be altered. A revised survey should be submitted showing that the Ordinance setback requirement is met. With regard to Parcel Y, the parcel appears to offer adequate area for the construction of a single family home that meets the required setbacks: 30 feet to the front property line (Mendota Heights Road); 10 feet to the side property lines; and 30 feet to the rear property line. The existing topography of the parcel adjacent to Mendota Heights Road would lead staff to conclude that a driveway will not be accessible off of Mendota Heights Road. Therefore, driveway access will need to be provided via an alternate route. The City is not generally in favor of shared driveways, but this is an existing condition, and a shared driveway with Parcel Z may be required. Letter of Intent. The applicant states that the proposed lot split will clean up questions or disputes that now could arise as to ownership and maintenance issues of the driveway. He owns both lots in questions, but envisions the day when he will want to sell one or both lots. I According to the applicant, the neighboring property owner and he came together to plat Mendota Woods in 1991. At that time, Outlot A and B were platted with the intentions to be sold to the townhouse developer across Brookfield Lane. However, by the time the platting process was completed, the agreement with the townhouse developer fell through. Eventually, Outlot B was sold for the construction of a single family home, and the applicant built his home on Outlot A in 1994. According to the applicant, the driveway that was constructed at that time followed the existing grade, which is how it came to encroach onto Lot 11. Comprehensive Plan. Although this property is currently zoned as R-1, One Family Residential, the Comprehensive Plan designates this property as HR -PUD. According to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update, this land use provides for multi -family residential uses at densities of up to 8.54 units per acre. The corresponding zoning district classifications are: R-3 and HR -PUD. Improving the current driveway encroachment issue should not affect the future land use planning of this area, but should be noted that this area is proposed for multi -family densities. Action Requested: After a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: 1. Recommend approval of the proposed lot line adjustment, based on a finding that the lot line adjustment shall improve the current encroachment situation, subject to the following conditions: a. A revised survey shall be submitted that illustrates the driveway is compliant with Ordinance setback requirements of five feet to the property lines. b. A copy of the lot split shall be recorded. 2. Recommend denial of the proposed lot line adjustment based on the finding that the lot line adjustment is inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan. Staff Recommendation: Planning staff recommends approval of the requested lot line adjustment, subject to the aforementioned conditions, as the proposed lot line adjustment will improve the current encroachment situation, and the requests are consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Supplementary Materials: 1. Application materials dated May 24, 2010 2. Site Location map 3 Dr IN nd Lot 11, Block 1, Mendota Woods (Outlot A) 2536 Arbor court ME Site Location Map WaterMetlands City Roads Major Roads parcels MunicipalBoundaries M&t , J& city o' Mendota Heightki-- APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. /6/- - Zo Date of Application 5_ - 2-A-) Fee Paid 35-0 #` r Applicant Name: � PH: (Last) (First t ) aw E -Mail Address: � it wb r, Address: &K (:�r_ (Number & treet) (City) (State) (Zip) Owner Name: (Last) (First) (M) Address: �� (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question: IZ- 7 ov, (-L-D Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) Type of Request: Rezoning Variance Conditional Use Permit Subdivision Approval Conditional User Permit for P.U.D. Wetlands Permit. Preliminary/Final Plat Approval Critical Area Permit Comprehensive Plan Amendment Other (attach explanation) Applicable City Ordinance Number Section Present Zoning of Property Present Use Proposed Zoning of Property Proposed Use I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above property during dayligh. our �. (Si toe plicant)re Date Received � � �� 'j 11o1 Victoria curve Mendota Heights, MN 5 ) 5 - RZ�FAX"(61) 452-8940 www.mendota-he ights. com 14 May 2010 Steve and Jana Patrick 2536 Arbor Ct Mendota Hts MN 55120 Mr Jake Sedlacek Asst City Administrator 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Hts MN 55118 Dear Mx Sedlacek Enclosed is our application for a lot split of our property at 2536 Arbor Ct. in the Mendota Woods subdivision. The intended purpose of this lot split is to re -draw the property line between Outlot A and Lot 11 so as to properly contain the driveway to our house, rather than having it run across an easement on the adjacent lot, as it does now. This proposed lot split will clean up questions or disputes that now could arise as to ownership and maintenance issues, etc. At present we own both of the lots in question, but we can envision the day when we will want to sell one or both. When this property was originally platted in 1991, we, along with the neighboring property owner came together to develop Mendota Woods. At the time, the townhouses to the east were being built, and the developer of that property bad offered to purchase property from each of us. Thus those two parcels were platted as Outlot A and Outlot B, each with separate owners, and each intended to be sold to the townhouse developer across Brookfield Lane. By the time we completed the platting process however, the deal fell through with the townhouse development. Outlot B was eventually sold for a single family home, and we built our present house on Outlot A in 1994. The driveway we constructed at that time simply followed the existing grade, which is how it came to encroach onto Lot 11. Therefore the proposed lot split will add property to Outlot A so that the driveway no longer encroaches onto Lot 11. Thank you for your consideration of this request. We look forward to answering any questions you or the City Council may have on this. Sincerely, Stephen Patrick Jana Patrick CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING July 6, 2010 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the City Council of Mendota Heights will meet at 7:30 P.M., or as soon as possible thereafter, on Tuesday, July 27, 2010 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Stephen Patrick for a Lot Split to create an additional single family lot at the following described property: Lot 11, Block 1 Mendota Woods; PIN #27-48460-112-01 More particularly this property is located at 2536 Arbor Court This notice is pursuant to Title 11 (Subdivision), Chapter 1 of the Mendota Heights City Code. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to this Subdivision 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. 2536 Arbor Court Dakota County, MN rpC:G r, Cr a.r,tP 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 = 144 feet appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. 143 t- 2520-' c. n _ 1 I 1 2536 r t rpC:G r, Cr a.r,tP 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 = 144 feet appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. Lee James R Axinia Gheorghe Marvy Bradley R 2515 Wishire Ct 2490 Wilshire Ct 2511 Wilshire Ct "endota Heights Mn 55120 Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1706 Polarek David L Oconnor Mollie A Polarek David L 2513 Wilshire Ct 2494 Wilshire Ct 2513 Wilshire Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1706 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1706 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1706 Cheesebrough Kathleen A Oconnor Mollie A Cheesebrough Kathleen A 2496 Wilshire Ct 2494 Wilshire Ct 2496 Wilshire Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1706 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1706 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1706 Selander Craig Anderson Karen J Morson M Jerome Sr 3298 Rolling Hills Dr 2514 Wilshire Ct 2492 Wilshire Ct Eagan Mn 55121 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1706 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1706 Janssen Elfi Ehrlich Morson M Jerome Sr Tste Maher Mary T 2516 Wilshire Ct 2492 Wilshire Ct 2520 Wilshire Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1706 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1706 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1706 Strommer Linda M Matheson Donald E & Marie A Strommer Linda M 2510 Wilshire Ct 2522 Wilshire Ct 2510 Wilshire Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1706 Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Lennon Joan R Selander Craig Woods Timothy J 2524 Wilshire Ct 3298 Rolling Hills Dr 2526 Wilshire Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1706 Eagan Mn 55121 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1706 Janssen Elfi Ehrlich Widman Cynthia R Woods Timothy J 2516 Wilshire Ct 2532 Wilshire Ct 2526 Wilshire Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1706 Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1706 Soshnik James A & Margaret J Lennon Joan R Poore Michelle A 2534 Wilshire Ct 2524 Wilshire Ct 2536 Wilshire Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1706 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1706 Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Jlatheson Donald E & Marie A Kietzmann Donald & Mary Olson Craig J 2522 Wilshire Ct 2542 Concord Way 2544 Concord Way Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1706 Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1701 Soshnik James A & Margaret J Vigdorovich Inessa P Dietz Mary G & James R 2534 Wilshire Ct 2546 Concord Way 7623 W Starry Night Ln Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1701 Tucson Az 85743 Rizzo Anne D Rizzo Anne D Lee James R 2517 Wilshire Ct 2517 Wilshire Ct 2515 Wishire Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Hren Rosemary H Tste Polarek David L Stoneking Randall 1 2527 Wilshire Ct 2513 Wilshire Ct 2525 Wilshire Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1706 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1706 Marvy Bradley R Bergstrom Karen J Hren Rosemary H Tste 2511 Wilshire Ct 2523 Wilshire Ct 2527 Wilshire Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1706 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1706 Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Stoneking Randall I Stoneking Randall I Russell Sheelagh Frost 2525 Wilshire Ct 2525 Wilshire Ct 2521 Wilshire Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1706 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1706 Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Bergstrom Karen J Russell Sheelagh Frost Friedman David C 2523 Wilshire Ct 2521 Wilshire Ct 2502 Concord Way Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1706 Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1700 Tschida James & Diane Blissenbach Jacqueline A Bjorklund Carol L 2508 Concord Way 2504 Concord Way 2506 Concord Way Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1700 Bjorklund Carol L Blissenbach Jacqueline A Bjorklund Carol L 2506 Concord Way 2504 Concord Way 2506 Concord Way Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1700 Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1700 Friedman David C Alton Thomas Independent School Dist 197 2502 Concord Way 2500 Mendota Heights Cir 1897 Delaware Ave Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1700 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1690 Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Adams James R & Beverly M Widman Cynthia R Poore Michelle A 2550 Concord Way 2532 Wilshire Ct 2536 Wilshire Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1728 Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Kosowski Jean M Robinson Marilyn J The Feifarek Family Trust 2554 Concord Way PO Box 398078 2540 Concord Way 9ndota Heights Mn 55120-1728 Edina Mn 55439 Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Dheilly Jesse M Kietzmann Donald & Mary Friedman Margo 2560 Concord Way 2542 Concord Way 2562 Concord Way Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1728 Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Olson Craig J Sheppard Carol L Vigdorich Inessa P 2544 Concord Way 2564 Concord Way 2546 Concord Way Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1701 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1728 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1701 Rabuse Patricia M Adams James R & Beverly M Palmer Patricia A 2566 Concord Way 2550 Concord Way 2552 Concord Way Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1728 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1728 Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Kosowski Jean M Robinson Marilyn J Rabuse Patricia M 2554 Concord Way PO Box 398078 2566 Concord Way Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1728 Edina Mn 55439 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1728 Sheppard Carol L Dheilly Jesse M Friedman Margo 2564 Concord Way 2560 Concord Way 2562 Concord Way Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1728 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1728 Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Friedman Margo Wing Barbara E Krawetz Ethele 2562 Concord Way 2591 Heritage Dr 801 N I St Unit 202 Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1738 Tacoma Wa 98403-2031 Mccormick Leslie A Thorson Sonja R Herbst Amber L 2595 Heritage Dr 1492 Red Cedar Rd 2581 Heritage Dr Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1738 Eagan Mn 55121 Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Carlson Richard E Mitchell Jane P Goetz Dianne M & Thomas A 2585 Heritage Dr 2587 Heritage Dr 2571 Heritage Dr Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1738 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1738 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1737 risher Diana Cline Thomas Cameron Paulette M 2573 Heritage Dr 2575 Heritage Dr 2577 Heritage Dr Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Cohoes Ruth M Tste Boerger Laurel T Child James D 2561 Heritage Dr 2563 Heritage Dr 2565 Heritage Dr Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1737 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1737 Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Kueppers Laura J & George Jr Kirshbaum Ralph B Hollenbeck Bonnie L 2567 Heritage Dr 2541 Concord Way 2543 Concord Way Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1737 Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1701 Wagner Elaine Kase Matthew S Larson Vicki L 2545 Concord Way 2547 Concord Way 2531 Concord Way Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1701 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1701 Garvey Ann M Tcf National Bank Wing Barbara E 2533 Concord Way 801 Marquette Ave 2591 Heritage Dr Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1701 Minneapolis Mn 55402 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1738 Hanebuth Ann E Sanchez Margaret M Krawetz Ethele 2521 Concord Way 2523 Concord Way 801 N I St Unit 202 Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1700 Tacoma Wa 98403-2031 Aaron Sandra R Mccormick Leslie A Durfee Janet M 2525 Concord Way 2595 Heritage Dr 3535 S Ball St Unit 919 Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1738 Arlington Va 22202 Thorson Sonja R Schwartz Katherine Mitchell Jane P 2597 Heritage. Dr 2511 .Concord Way 2587 Heritage Dr Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1738 Inver Grove Heights Mn 55120 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1738 Christenson Elizabeth A Carlson Richard E Polski Heather L 2513 Concord Way 2585 Heritage Dr 2515 Concord Way Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1700 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1738 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1700 Herbst Amber L Smith Vincent L & Dorothy Halsey Daniel A 2581 Heritage Dr 2517 Concord Way 17766 Langford Blvd Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1700 Prior Lake Mn 55372 Ramstad Monica L Halsey Daniel A Agpoon Jose S & Perla P 2520 Brookfield Ln 17766 Langford Blvd 1835 Pilgrim Pkwy Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1702 Prior Lake Mn 55372 Brookfield Wi 53005 Slater John F Cline Thomas Johnson Kathleen M Dr 2526 Brookfield Ln 2524 Brookfield Ln 2575 Heritage -idota Heights Mn 55120-1702 Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1702 Fisher Diana 2573 Heritage Dr Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Fineberg Marvin S 2532 Brookfield Ln Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Boerger Laurel T 2563 Heritage Dr Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1737 Kirshbaum Ralph B 2541 Concord Way Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Kase Matthew S 2547 Concord Way Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1701 Larson Vicki L 2531 Concord Way Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1701 Aaron Sandra R 2525 Concord Way Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Christenson Elizabeth A 2513 Concord Way Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1700 Grout Maxine Stoven 2530 Brookfield Ln Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1702 Cameron Paulette M 2577 Heritage Dr Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Peterson Anthony W 2536 Brookfield Ln Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Hollenbeck Bonnie L 2543 Concord Way Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1701 Tcf National Bank 801 Marquette Ave Minneapolis Mn 55402 Garvey Ann M 2533 Concord Way Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1701 Sanchez Margaret M 2523 Concord Way Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1700 Polski Heather L 2515 Concord Way Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1700 Goetz Dianne M & Thomas A 2571 Heritage Dr Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1737 Pope Kathleen A 2534 Brookfield Ln Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Kueppers Laura J & George Jr 2567 Heritage Dr Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1737 Wagner Elaine 2545 Concord Way Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Ecker Virginia M 2535 Concord Way Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1701 Tcf National Bank 801 Marquette Ave Minneapolis Mn 55402 Hanebuth Ann E 2521 Concord Way Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Schwartz Katherine 2511 Concord Way Inver Grove Heights Mn 55120 L Ramstad Monica L Ramstad Monica -Smith Vincent L &Dorothy 2517 Concord Way 2520 Brookfield Ln 2520 Brookfield Ln Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1700 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1702 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1702 Slater John F Johnson Kathleen M Peterson Anthony W 2524 Brookfield Ln 2526 Brookfield Ln 2536 Brookfield Ln Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1702 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1702 Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Pope Kathleen A 2534 Brookfield Ln Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Fineberg Marvin S 2532 Brookfield Ln Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Olsen David S & Karen J 2540 Arbor Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Ayd David C & Rita M 2510 Arbor Ct Saint Paul Mn 55120-2604 Tschida James & Diane 2508 Concord Way Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Axinia Gheorghe 2490 Wilshire Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Maher Mary T 2520 Wilshire Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1706 Palmer Patricia A 2552 Concord Way Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Grout Maxine Stoven 2530 Brookfield Ln Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1702 Raffin Thomas G & Betty J 2542 Brookfield Ln Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1702 Hudalla Michael C 2530 Arbor Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Patrick Jana B Tste 2536 Arbor Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Morson M Jerome Sr 2492 Wilshire Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1706 Anderson Karen J 2514 Wilshire Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1706 The Feifarek Family Trust 2540 Concord Way Mendota Heights Mn 55120 The Feifarek Family Trust 2540 Concord Way Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Fineberg Marvin S 2532 Brookfield Ln Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Stevens Paul J 2550 Arbor Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55120-2604 Rabanus Richard C & Karla T 2520 Arbor Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55120-2604 Patrick Jana B Tste 2536 Arbor Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Strommer Linda M 2510 Wilshire Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Dietz Mary G & James R 7623 W Starry Night Ln Tucson Az 85743 Poore Michelle A 2536 Wilshire Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Adams James R & Beverly M 2550 Concord Way Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1728 Halsey Daniel A Ecker Virginia M Wing Barbara E 213 Crestridge Dr 2535 Concord Way 2591 Heritage Dr Burnsville Mn 55337-4077 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1701 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1738 Cline Thomas Child James D Cohoes Ruth M Tste 2575 Heritage Dr 2565 Heritage Dr 2561 Heritage Dr 14endota Heights Mn 55120 Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1737 Kueppers Laura J & George Jr 2567 Heritage Dr Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1737 Kirshbaum Ralph B 2541 Concord Way Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Aaron Sandra R 2525 Concord Way Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Durfee Janet Smith Vincent L & Dorothy Agpoon Jose S & Perla P 3535 S Ball St Unit 919 2517 Concord Way 1835 Pilgrim Pkwy Arlington Va 22202 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1700 Brooksfield Wi 53005 -for- STEVE PATRICK 2536. Arbor Court Mendota Heights, MN 55120 �of- LOT 11, BLOCK 1 AND OUTLOT A OF MENDOTA WOODS EXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS: (Certificate of Title No. 134684) Lot 11, Block 1 and OutlotA, MENDOTA WOODS according to the recorded pelt thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota. EXISTING PROPERTY TAS DESCRIPTIONS: Lot 11, Block 1, MENDOTA WOODS, Dakota County, Minnesota, except the southerly 20 feet thereof as measured at right angles to and parallel with the south line of said Lot 11. (PID No. 2 7 48 46 011 201) AND Outlot A, MENDOTA WOODS, Dakota County, Minnesota and the southerly 20 feet of Lot 11, Block 1, MENDOTA WOODS, Dakota County, Minnesota, as measured at right angles to and parallel with the south line of sold Lot 11. (PID No. 274846011101) PROPOSED PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS: PARCEL Y Lot 11, Block 1, MENDOTA WOODS, Dakota County, Minnesota, except that port thereof described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Lot 11; thence on an assumed bearing of North 03 degrees 22 minutes 13 seconds East, along the west line of said Lot 11, a distance of 72.46 feet; thence North 78 degrees 28 minutes 39 seconds East a- distance of 52.01 feet; thence South 60 degrees 07 monites 20 seconds East a distance of 105.76 feet to the south line of said Lot 11; thence South 78 degrees 26 minutes 50 seconds West, along said south line, a distance of 149.97 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL Z Outlot A, MENDOTA WOODS, Dakota County, Minnesota. AND That partofLot 11, Block 1, MENDOTA WOODS, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Lot 11: thence on an assumed bearing of North 03 degrees 22 minutes 13 seconds East, along the west line of said Lot 11, a distance of 72.46 feet: thence North 78 degrees 28 minutes 39 seconds East a distance of 52.01 feet; thence South 60 degrees 07 monites 20 seconds East a distance of 105.76 feet to the south line of sold Lot 11; thence South 78 degrees 26 minutes 50 seconds West, along said south line, a distance of 149.97 feet to the point of beginning. I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under. the lows of the State of Minnesota: JOHN A. REN60 V Date: 41 S /D License No. 25344 'mProfessional Land Surveyors www.egrud.com 677W Lake Drive NE, Suite 110 Lino Lakes, MN 55014 NOTES: Field survey was completed 'by EG. Rud and Sons, Inc. on 4/15/10 Bearings shown are on an Dakota County Coordinate System Contours shown were provided by the Dakota County G.I.S.. Dept. and also taken from ❑ site plan by Steven Patrick dated August 15, 1993. This survey was prepared without the benefit of title work. Additional easements, restrictions and/or encumbrances may exist other than those shown hereon. Survey subject to revision upon receipt of a current title commitment or "an attorney's title opinion. . Existing Zoning (Outlot A and Lot 11): R-1 (One Family Residential) PROPOSED AREAS: PARCEL Y = 62.293 SO. FT. (1.43 ACRES) PARCEL Z = 47,685 S0. FT. (1.09 ACRES) IEGEN® o DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND AS LABELED . o. DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET, MARKED RLSJ 25344 -r - DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS (FROM DAKOTA CO. GIS) DENOTES. CONCRETE ,SURFACE DENOTES BITUMINOUS SURFACE DRAN11 BY• BAB JOB N0: 10118 ILIAM 4/23110 CHECK B7' JAR ISCANNM ❑ 2 3DATE DESCRIPTION BY 7 VICINITY MR PART OF SEC, 36, TWP. 28, RNG. 23 DAKOTA COL1NTf, MIRMNESOTA NO SCALD GRAPHIC SCALE ( IN FEET ) I Inch = 30 it w -02 DAKOTA COL1NTf, MIRMNESOTA NO SCALD GRAPHIC SCALE ( IN FEET ) I Inch = 30 it 11291112q1115411154,-IL-1219CA's ilk 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@riacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Carie Fuhrman / Stephen Grittman DATE: July 22, 2010 MEETING DATE: July 27, 2010 SUBJECT: Wetlands Permit CASE NO: Case No. 10-23; NAC Case 254.04 — 10.23 APPLICANT(S): Stephen Kampa LOCATION: 2464 Westview Terrace ZONING: R-1, One Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: LR — Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request: Stephen Kampa is seeking a wetlands permit to construct a storage shed, boulder wall, replace a retaining wall, and clear buckthorn on his property located at 2464 Westview Terrace. The property is zoned R-1, One Family Residential. Section 12-2-6 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a Wetlands Permit for any work conducted within 100 feet of a wetland. Analysis: The subject property is located on a cul-de-sac, with street frontage being in the southwest corner of the lot, and a wetland located in the northeast corner of the lot. 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. Buckthorn Clearing. During phase one of the project, the applicant is proposing to clear the hillside behind the home of all invasive Buckthorn growth and replant the hillside with native plantings to stabilize areas that previously contained Buckthorn. The applicant is planning this work for the summer of 2010. Boulder Wall. During phase two, the applicant is proposing to install a 90 foot boulder wall between the house and the wetland with the intent of stabilizing the hillside and creating a separation between the lawn and native plantings. The setback between the proposed boulder wall and the wetland has not been indicated. Staff would request that the applicant provide this information. The boulders are proposed to be approximately 36 inches in size, set in an 18 inch trench, with 18 inches exposed. The trench is proposed to have a gravel base, landscaping fabric is proposed to line the boulder wall, and the wall is proposed to be backfilled flush with the top of the wall and finished with sod. The applicant is planning this work for the summer of 2010. Storage Shed. Phase three of the project includes the construction of a 10 foot by 10 foot (100 square foot) storage shed. According to the applicant, the shed shall be setback five (5) feet from the property line, which meets the Ordinance requirement. The setback from the proposed shed to the wetland has not been indicated. Staff would request that this information also be provided. The applicant does not have immediate plans to construct the shed. With regard to location, the City would recommend that the shed be placed no closer than 25 feet to the wetland edge to minimize impacts from ground disturbance, grading, or stormwater. Replace Retaining Wall. Phase four of the project includes the removal of an existing wood retaining wall and replacing it with a new retaining wall in the same footprint (50 feet by 6 feet). 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. Engineer Review. The Assistant City Engineer has reviewed the permit application and has stated that all construction activities must follow the City's Land Disturbance Guidance document. Applicant Letter. According to the applicant, there is soil instability and erosion at the top of the hill that necessitates the need for work for stabilization of the hilltop and hillside. The applicant also indicates that there are numerous buckthorn trees on the hillside that are shading and preventing hill -stabilizing undergrowth. 2 Action Requested: Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: 1. Approval of the wetlands permit to construct a storage shed, boulder wall, replace a retaining wall, and clear buckthorn, based on the attached findings of fact, and subject to the following conditions: a. A revised site plan indicating the setbacks from the boulder wall and storage shed to the wetland shall be submitted for review; b. A detailed Landscape Plan shall be submitted and approved by staff; C. All construction/excavation work must be located outside of the wetland; and d. All construction activities must follow the Land Disturbance Guidance document. rein 2. Denial of the wetlands permit, based on a finding that the projected work will have negative impacts on the existing wetland and is inconsistent with the intent of the Wetlands Ordinance. Staff Recommendation: Planning staff recommends approval of the wetlands permit subject to the above- mentioned conditions. The proposed project should not have a negative impact on the wetland, especially with the native vegetation plantings proposed to replace the buckthorn between the improved lawn 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 June 3, 2010 2. Site Location Map 7 Draft Findings of Fact for Approval Wetlands Permit 2464 Westview Terrace 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. The wetland itself will be untouched. 4. The area between the improved lawn and the wetland will be planted with native vegetation to serve as a buffer. LI QF 2464 Westview Terrace L - Site Location ap Water/Wetlands /^ / City Roads Major Roads parcels swam®oma L—.J MunicipalBoundaries APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. 'C Z-3 Date of Application Fee Paid.5 Applicant Name -PH -_C — (Last) (First) (M) E -Mail Address:s_� Address: (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Owner Name: (Last) (First) (M) Address: & �1s� V �1�1 �t %Z / �d9 /' �iA' (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question: UO e!Sry Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Titlet or Deed must be provided) 3� -— – 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 Present Zoning of Property Proposed Zoning of Property Present. Use Proposed Use Section I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above property during daylight hours. 1 Si n`a ure f Applicant) Date Received Si ature f Own r) (Sig 1101 victoria Came ° Mendota Heights, MIX 55118 ° (651) 452-1850 ° FAX (651) 452-8940 www.mendota-heights.com Date: May 26, 2010 (modified June 18, 2010) Applicant: Stephen J. Kampa Property Address: 2464 Westview Terrace, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Legal Description: Plat Name BRIDGEVIEW SHORES 2ND ADD Lot and Block 9 1 Property ID: 27 15151 090 01 Reason for Phase I and II There is soil instability and erosion at the top of the hill (See location of proposed boulder wall in drawing below) that necessitate the need for work to stabilization of the hilltop and hillside. On the hillside there are numerous Buckthorn trees (See location of proposed buckthorn removal in drawing below) that are shading and preventing hill stabilizing undergrowth. Phase I: Expected Timing: Summer of 2010 Description: Clear hillside of all non native Buckthorn. Replant hillside with native plantings to stabilize areas that previously contained Buckthorn. Phase II: Expected Timing: Summer of 2010 Description: Install a - 90'x 36" boulder wall to stabilize Hillside and create a separation of Lawn and native plantings. The boulder wall would be approximately 36" high with 18" exposed. The boulder wall would be set in an 18" trench with a gravel base. Landscaping fabric will line the wall. Wall will be backfilled flush with top of wall and finished with sod. Phase III: Description: Build storage shed. Approximately 10'x10. Shed to be setback 5' from property line. Expected Timing: TBD no immediate plans. Phase IV: Description: Remove current wooden retaining wall and replace with new wall. Same footprint as current wall 50' x 6' . Expected Timing: TBD no immediate plans. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING July 6. 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, July 27, 2010 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Stephen Kampa for a Wetlands Permit for stabilization of hilltop and hillside, install a wall and build a storage shed located at the following described property: Lot 9 Block 1 Bridgeview Shores 2"d Addition (PIN #27-15151-090-01) More particularly this property is located at 2464 Westview Terrace 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. 2464 Westview Terrace Dakota County, MN 1 tr. - F'I n -a ' r 7 E:WJ 2133 15 I'D tox HAZEL C= 34 gr 15 VJ J f Y t 1 Jry LJ N_i 4 r 14 C, Fy T tC� 0 f 1137��5 ?g ' i Il . � I 1-2 I Yk V. �761— :.G4iu ' I .. 4'j V` _ L 0 96 CIO } ota f?i f EC: Jul .J ?J tyc a6 114 1FL V l r. F ? 54 -- Idla 4 '34 T 172 4 Y tet. c' .�•1£ y 1i a c t 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. Collier Ronald L & Nell E Buell Jeffrey R & Dana M Bredemus Paul R & Kelly 2490 Westview Terr 2482 Westview Terr 815 Westview Cir Saint Paul Mn 55120-2600 Saint Paul Mn 55120-2600 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1698 Easton Jacqueline A Rogers Catherine E Tste Miller Jay P & Rebecca A 809 Westview Cir 788 Pondhaven Ln Heights Mn 55120-2603 2475 Westview Terr Mendota Heights Mn 55120-2601 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1698 Mendota Johnson Neil K & Lynette R Olsen Steven R Stein William Joseph 2487 Pondhaven Cir 2469 Westview Terr 2465 Westview Terr Saint Paul Mn 55120-1695 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1699 Mendota Heights Mn 55118 Kampa Stephen J & Sherry L Rinker Kenton D & Rebecca A Yang Yu Kun 2464 Westview Terr 782 Pond Haven Ln 2472 Westview Terr Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1691 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1699 Maurer Eric W Steveken John G & Lisa A Kolstad William & Jean 785 Pondhaven Lane 781 Pondhaven Ln 775 Pondhaven Ln Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1692 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1692 Beaty J Scott Nelson Richard E & Mary T Deslauriers John S & Kathleen 800 Havenview Ct 796 Havenview Ct 790 Havenview Ct Saint Paul Mn 55120-1801 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1800 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1800 Wallen Daniel B & Nadine Walsh Janet C Edwards Kent R & Catherine 784 Havernview Ct 803 Hazel Ct 810 Hazel Ct Saint Paul Mn 55120 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1626 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1626 Persons David G & Theresa A Losleben James P Wild Paul W & Elizabeth 814 Hazel Ct 815 Hazel Ct 813 Hazel Ct Saint Paul Mn 55120-1626 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1626 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1626 Moeri Sharon D Farley Brian P & Kara L Miller James M & Elizabeth 809 Hazel Ct 771 Pondhaven Ln 794 Pondhaven Ln Saint Paul Mn 55120-1626 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1692 Saint Paul Mn 55120-2603 Hemauer Matthew J 776 Pondhaven Ln Saint Paul Mn 55120-1691 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 pian ners@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Carie Fuhrman / Stephen Grittman DATE: July 22, 2010 MEETING DATE: July 27, 2010 SUBJECT: CUP and Variance for Detached Accessory Structure CASE NO: Case No. 10-24; NAC Case: 254.04-10.24 APPLICANT(S): Rob & Stacy Hermann LOCATION: 1033 William Court ZONING: R-1, One Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: LR - Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request: The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit in order to construct a detached accessory building that is over 144 square feet and a variance to construct the building within the required 10 foot side and rear yard setbacks. Specifically, the applicant wishes to replace an existing 140 square foot accessory structure with a 360 square foot accessory structure within the required setbacks. The subject property is located at 1033 William Court and is zoned R-1, One Family Residential. Section 12-1E-3 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that a conditional use permit be obtained for an accessory structure more than 144 square feet if the area of the property is four acres or less. In addition, Section 12-1D-4.C.1.d requires that an accessory structure that exceeds 144 square feet in size shall not be closer than 10 feet to any side or rear lot line. Analysis: The property is 0.57 acres in size and is located along a curve of William Court. A single family home with a tuck -under garage and a detached accessory structure are located in the northwest corner of the property. The existing accessory structure is 140 square feet in size (10 feet by 14 feet) and is loc;/ated 12 feet to the rear (west) lot line and 5 feet to the side (north) lot line, existing as a legal nonconforming structure in that it lies within the required 10 foot setback to the side (north) lot line. The applicant wishes to remove the existing accessory structure and construct a larger accessory structure. The proposed accessory structure would be 360 square feet in size (20 feet by 18 feet) and is proposed to be located 7 feet to the rear (west) lot line and 5 feet to the side (north) lot line. Number of Accessory Buildings. The R-1 District allows only one private garage — either attached or detached — per each principal residential structure (Section 12-1E- 313). The home currently contains a double stall, tuck -under garage. A private garage is defined as a detached accessory building or portion of the principal building, including a carport, which is used primarily for storing passenger vehicles, trailers or one truck of a rated capacity not in excess of one and one-half (1'h tons). According to the applicant's letter of intent, the proposed structure is not intended to be a garage and will not be used to store a motor vehicle. However, the applicant also states that they would be able to store a camper inside the proposed building during the winter months. In addition, according to the submitted elevations, site plan drawings, and spec sheet, an 8 feet by 7 feet standard opening garage door is proposed on the elevation facing the front, directly accessed by the driveway. This would indicate that the proposed accessory building is to be constructed as a garage -type building.. Staff would recommend that the design of the proposed accessory building be modified so that it does not constitute a second garage. The most common way to do this would be to include a service door of no more than 6 feet in width, rather than the 8 foot wide overhead door. Letter of Intent. According to the applicants, a larger storage shed is needed to accommodate additional residential storage for family reasons. The applicants have stated that in order to achieve the ten foot setback, it would be necessary to move the proposed storage shed forward and to the left on the property, which would result in the following: • More extensive excavation • Remove portions of the current driveway and apron • Restructure existing 4 feet tall retaining wall and steps • Reduce the size of existing backyard • The view out of the windows would be obstructed • Bring the proposed storage shed closer to the home CUP Review. Section 12-1 E-3 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that a conditional use permit be obtained for an accessory structure more than 144 square feet if the area of the property is four acres or less. According to Section 12-1 L-6, in considering an application for a conditional use permit, the Planning Commission and City Council shall consider the following factors: • Effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants, surrounding lands, or community; 2 Staff Comment: The proposed detached structure should not affect the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants, surrounding lands, or community. • Existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets; Staff Comment: The detached structure should have no impact on traffic conditions or parking facilities on adjacent streets. • Effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan; Staff Comment: The Comprehensive Plan has designated this parcel as Low Density Residential. A detached accessory structure for a single family home is a compatible use with this designation. • It must be determined that the proposed use will not seriously depreciate the surrounding property value; Staff Comment: There is no reason to believe that the proposed detached garage would seriously depreciate the surrounding property value. • Proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter. Staff Comment: The proposed use as a storage structure is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance. However, the proposed setbacks and overhead garage door would lead staff to assume that the proposed accessory building constitutes a second garage, which is not in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance. Variance Review. The Zoning Ordinance establishes a standard for reviewing variance requests, which is based on the finding that the variance is not a mere convenience to the applicant, but rather it is necessary to alleviate undue hardship or difficulty. The ordinance further defines undue hardship as a condition which restricts the owner from putting the property to reasonable use under the strict zoning regulations. For additional background on the standard of review for variances, see the memorandum accompanying the reports to the Planning Commission for this agenda. Because accessory structures are not allowed to be within any front yard, the area allowed for an accessory structure is limited on the subject property. However, the rear yard of the property does provide sufficient area to locate the requested accessory structure size and still meet the required 10 foot setbacks. It is clear from the applicant's letter of intent that an alternative location may be less desirable or convenient. However, the standard is whether the code requirements place an undue hardship in putting the property to reasonable use. In Planning Staff's view, it does not appear that the property contains any specific unique circumstances or special conditions, such as steep slopes, topographical limitations, or narrow configuration of the lot, which would prevent constructing the new garage in the conforming location. Moreover, a shed currently exists on the property, and a larger shed could be constructed that meets the setback regulations. 3 Therefore, it does not appear that the applicant has satisfactory demonstrated undue hardship to justify approval of the requested setback variances. For these reasons, it is the opinion of planning staff that adherence to the 10 foot side and rear yard setback requirements would not deny the applicant reasonable use of their property. City Engineer Review. The Assistant City Engineer has reviewed the request and has stated that the Land Disturbance Guidance Document should be followed. Action Requested: CUP Request. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission may make one of the following recommendations regarding the CUP request: 1. Approval of the CUP to construct a 360 square foot detached accessory building on the subject property, based on the following findings of fact: the proposed detached garage should not affect the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands; it shall not influence traffic conditions or parking facilities on adjacent streets; a detached garage on a single family lot is a compatible use within the designated land use district; there is no reason to believe that the proposed detached garage would seriously depreciate the surrounding property value; and the detached garage meets the Ordinance requirements (if the subject conditions are met), subject to the following conditions: a. The accessory building shall meet the required setback requirements. b. The design of the accessory building shall be modified so that it does not constitute a second garage (removal of the overhead door). c. An updated site plan shall be submitted prior to building permit approval, indicating the required 10 foot side and rear yard setbacks. d. A building permit shall be issued prior to construction of the new building. e. The accessory building shall match the home in color and materials. f. The Land Disturbance Guidance Document shall be followed. 2. Denial of the CUP to construct a 360 square foot detached garage on the subject property, based on one of the following findings of fact: the proposed detached accessory building will affect the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands; it will influence traffic conditions or parking facilities on adjacent streets; a detached accessory building on a single family lot is not a compatible use within the designated land use district; the proposed detached accessory building would seriously depreciate the surrounding property value; or the detached accessory building does not meet the Ordinance requirements. Variance Request. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission may make one of the following recommendations regarding the variance request: II 1. Approval of the Variance as submitted, and subject to the following conditions: a. The Conditional Use Permit to construct an accessory building over 144 square feet in size is approved. b. The design of the accessory building shall be modified so that it does not constitute a second garage. c. A building permit shall be issued prior to construction of the new building. d. The accessory building shall match the home in color and materials. e. The Land Disturbance Guidance Document shall be followed. 2. Denial of the Variance based on the attached draft findings of fact. Staff Recommendation: A detached accessory building for storage is a reasonable use on a single family property, and with the exception of the overhead garage door and setback issue, the proposed accessory building meets the conditional use permit standards as presented in the Ordinance. Subject to the conditions above, including meeting the required 10 foot side and rear yard setbacks and modifying the design of the building so that it does not constitute a second garage, staff would recommend approval of the conditional use permit. In regards to the variance request, it does not appear that compliance with the required 10 foot side and rear yard setbacks will deny the applicant reasonable use of the property. The conforming location may not be the most convenient location for the applicant's, but the review standard for variances is not to provide a mere convenience to the applicant, but alleviate undue hardship. Thus, staff recommends denial of the variance. Supplementary Materials: 1. Application materials dated June 28, 2010 2. Site Location Map 5 Draft Findings of Fact for Denial Variance to Side and Rear Yard Setback 1033 William Court 1. The property does not contain any specific unique circumstances or special conditions, which would prevent constructing the new accessory building in the conforming location. 2. The variance has been requested based on a convenience, rather than a unique condition of the property. 3. An accessory building of smaller size, or of the same size, can be constructed in compliance with applicable side and rear yard setback requirements. 4. Adherence to the 10 foot side and rear yard setback requirements would not deny the applicant reasonable use of their property. 5. The applicant has not satisfactorily demonstrated hardship to justify approval of the requested side and rear yard setback variances. 0 Site Location Map Water/Wetlands City Roads Major Roads 0 parcels ��m®®® 1 MunicipalBoundaries s. In ON - 4 00 APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST of is Case No. Date of Application (a[2, 2010 Fee Paid 14 14,5Q;00 12 7' Z ? Applicant Name: -Wjjt-)0Lr)n Shk— (Last) (First) (M) E -Mail Address:��=� Address: C,tlry-� & uwf-e)(Yl6jp�-Ji - IhI J -1I j (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Owner Name: %lo(w\cun►'1 A -- (Last) (First) (M) Address:G�-M (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question: - VVI—_ --- 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 X Variance Subdivision Approval Wetlands Permit Critical Area Permit -Other (attach explanation) I Z Section Present Zoning of Property (� 9 ___Present Use Proposed Zoning of Property I? f __Proposed Use ST - hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above property during daylight hours. Date Received Z' (Signature --- rte' (Signature of Applicant (Signature of Owner) 1101 Victors -a Curve ® Mendota Heights, MN 5511B - (651L) 452-1850 ® FAX (65 1) 452-8940 www.mendota-heights coma MIDWESTGUARANTYTITLE COMPANY Policy issuing Agent For COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OWNERS POLICY Policy No..: 866-0276637 File No.: MW51842 The land referred to in this Final Policy as described as follows: Lot 2, Curley's Valley View Replat, except that part which lies Easterly and Southeasterly of a line run parallel with and distant 35 feet Westerly and Northwesterly of the following described line, to -wit. From a point on the South line of Section 26, Township 28, Range 23, distant 1160.4 feet East of the Southwest comer thereof, run Northeasterly at an angle of 98 degrees 12 minutes with said South section line for 313.69 feet, thence deflect to the right on a 1 degree 00 minute curve (delta angle 23 degrees 12 minutes) for 2,320 feet, thence on a tangent to said curve for 246.28 feet, thence deflect to the left at an angle of 121 degrees, 12 minutes 34 seconds for 10525 feet, thence deflect to the left at an angle of 1 degree, 48 minutes for 688.66 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described, thence deflect to the left at an angle of eighty-eight degrees, 23 minutes 30 seconds for 1,419.68 feel, thence deflect to the right on a curve having a radius of ,150 feet (delta angle 16 degrees, 16 minutes, 37 seconds) for 42.61 feet, thence on tangent to said curve for 79.71 feet, thence deflect to the right of a curve having a radius of 150 feet (delta angle 46 degrees, 27 minutes, 41 seconds) for 121.64 feet, thence on tangent to said curve for 100 feet and there terminating, together with all right of access being the right of ingress to and egress from that part of said Lot 2 not acquired by the State of Minnesota as hereinabove excepted, according to the recorded plat thereof. ALTA Owner's/Leasehold Owner's Exhibit A City of 1033 William Court Mendota 0 — 40 &&&ALAAHeights June 14, 2010 SCALE IN FEET �1(elIdS're y :I rn) # 225 1. 25 - - cd 1025- ;� ' coo 1 f N � Jf :48_ _---'�=------- 144----------- j --------;i 8-L t i i f f t } rr 'NA ok 033 E e (O 1037 C5 ::_ ,,. C- 1 'k • � r, : J _ ••:l f •'4 rr� �J iFF i `t f r } • qJ ;� ; j r- ,/93 s Y 1033 William Court June 14, 2010 .M 64e I Isl�ram 1025 4\ 4 1037E F 1 ic�o -r , rn-cln City of Mendota Heights . . . . . . . . . . . . SCALE IN FEET mi0') ro 225 i 8 Af i 4Y 1033 William Court June 14, 2010 F 0 40 SCALE IN FEET City of Mendota Heights City of 1033 William Court Mn Mendota 0 40&tom: Heights June 14, 2010 SCALE IN FEET '• ', i` - cfl , 225' i r 1025 Lo 144 co C-4 £ ---------- -------- - — t � i 1 t k ` : J c Yci,,"v A f `1 i c 033 f ro 1037 E 1 j r � � 1 i r r { r , �V ( fi f• n� t , i fn �o �� f'. j �" i r ,• � � f f} Jtt r'y � 221 II r f ;R F c If ' F S /� .,`��\'r• `,.y V ` , } �� iff{ ffi. � f �' . L Fr rr• ;is � �_ a� ff �fJ `lt l� �` �' „� t St t' 13 i•4" f7 i•r �l' 1 Letter of Intent We would like to build a 20' long by 18' deep shed to accommodate a lack of storage at our residence (drawings provided are not to scale). We have an existing 10' x 14' shed already located in the back corner of our lot. We would like to remove the current structure and build the larger one on the same footprint. Why we need a larger storage shed: - My parents are moving in with us, bringing their belongings and adding them to ours - Our house by design does not have a large amount of storage space. - We have a tuck under two car garage with a T span-crete ceiling; not allowing us to store anything overhead - The current 10' x 14' shed houses our 54" cut riding lawn mower, push mower, snow blower, wheel barrow, lawn care and gardening equipment, and some of our two children's toys - Additional recreational/sporting and gardening equipment would need to be stored in the future - We have a camper that currently sits in our driveway. We are considering storing it inside the storage building during the winter months. This would eliminate the need to tarp it in the front driveway and make for efficient snow removal Why build in the current location: - Most of our yard is in the front of the house and to maintain neighborhood esthetics it would be preferable to build behind it - Utilize the footprint of the current storage shed - Less excavation and landscape adjustments o Utilizing current concrete driveway and apron o Working around existing retaining wall and stairs o Aligning with current fencing - Current view of the existing storage shed is established and is not an obstruction to the neighbors o Current location is adjacent to the very back corner of the property to the west and not in direct line of sight o The owners of the property to the north have lined the property line with lilacs. They are approximately 10' tall. They have numerous plants and trees planted on that side of their yard Rob and Stacy Hermann 1033 William Court Page 1 of 2 Why other locations on the property will not work: - Front portion of property o Major trees would be a factor o Reason to believe there is an abandoned septic drain field in the front yard o Storage shed would be prominent structure obstructing the view of the home from the street reducing the curb appeal and over all esthetics of the property and neighborhood - Side portion of the property o Storage shed would be prominent structure seen as you round the corner of William Court reducing the esthetics of the neighborhood o Storage shed would be in direct line of sight from the neighbor to the west's front door o There are trees and an established garden located on the side portion of the property o Contours of the land would require major excavation • For the entire 18x2Q foot print of the storage shed ® An additional sidewalk or access path would be needed ® Additional landscaping items such as new retaining walls would be necessary Why do we need to apply for a variance from the required ten foot set back: To achieve the ten foot set back it would be necessary to move the proposed storage shed forward and to the left on the property. This would result in: - More extensive excavation - Cutting up and removing portions of the current driveway and apron. - Removing and restructuring existing 4' tall retaining wall and corresponding steps - Reducing the size of existing small back yard - The view out of our windows would be obstructed - It would bring the proposed storage shed closer to the home Other considerations: - This is NOT a garage and will not be used to store a motor vehicle - Exterior materials will match the house Rob and Stacy Hermann 1033 Williain Court Page 2 of 2 SIGNATURES OF CONSENT FOR VARIANCE REQUEST To: The Planning Commission, City of Mendota Heights M: Property Owners of 103" iNl 111 �� '� 0.4 Z FRO Gly �i�ti I �S — p RE: f `. We the undersigned have reviewed the plans for � � i Z�C�- CS h-&'' and understand the terms and conditions of the requested variance for e r i ii s �insfeao- 10 We have o objections to this request and do hereby give our written consent and consent to waiver of public hearing. Sincerely, NAME (Please Print) SIGNATURE ADDRESS (INCL. LOT) PY. MN 55118 (651) 452-1850 s FAX (651) 452-8940 The Home Depot # 2833 15101 t=LAGSTAFF AVE, APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124 (952) 432-7171 Tue Jun 29 15:30:00 2010 BRUCE VOIGT SMALLER SHED 17022 he materials in this garage will cost $4625.45 This Price does not include any Special Order Items. Drawing: 3 -Dimensional View The Hosie Depot # 2833 15101 FLAGSTAFF AVE, APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124 (952) 432-7171 6/29/2010 BRUCE VOIGT SMALLER SHED 147022 Qty UOM SKU Use Description 4 EA 124380 Base/Bottom Plate 2X4-10 PT #2 PRIME-WEATHERSHIELD 4 EA 167929 Base/Bottom Plate 2X4-8 PT #2 PRIME-WEATHERSHIELD 4 EA 161659 Cripple Stud 2X4-1 OFT. STD/BTR KD -HT SPF 6 EA 161659 Door Framing 2X4-1 OFT. STD/BTR KD -HT SPF 1 EA 161713 Door Header 2X6-8FT. #2/BTR KD -HT SPF 2 EA 835677 Door Header 2X10-1 OFT PREMIUM FIR 8 EA 124479 Fly/Barge Rafter 2X4-16 PT #2 PRIME-WEATHERSHIELD 2 EA 161659 Ladder/Gbl Overhang 2X4-1 OFT. STD/BTR KD -HT SPF 57 EA 161659 Stud 2X4-1 OFT. STD/BTR KD -HT SPF 2 EA 161756 Sub Fascia 2X6-12FT. #2/BTR KD -HT SPF 2 EA 161721 Sub Fascia 2X6-1 OFT. #2/BTR KD -HT SPF 4 EA 161772 Sub Fascia 2X6-14FT. #2/BTR KD -HT SPF 16 EA 161659 Top Plate 2X4-1 OFT. STD/BTR KD -HT SPF 6 EA 161659 Window Framing 2X4-1 OFT. STD/BTR KD -HT SPF 3 EA 161713 Window Header 2X6-8FT. #2/BTR KD -HT SPF 7 EA 984590 Caulk ALEX PLUS WHITE 1 EA 454141 Door Mnting Nails 16D 3-1/2" HOT GALV BOX 5 LB 4 BX 944327 Framing Nail-51bs 16D 3-1/4" COATED SINKER 5 LB 1 BX 418463 WindowMnting Nail 4D 1-1/2" ELECTRO GALV.ROOFING 5 LB 1 door8x7 Doors 8x7 S/O Garage Door 24 LF 252677 Brick Mould Wood BRICK WM180 PFJ 1-1/4X2 2 EA 161721 Door Track Backing 2X6-1 OFT. #2/BTR KD -HT SPF 2 EA 914770 Jamb Fascia Side 6" 1X6-8 #2 _BTR PINE S4S KD 1 EA 914770 Jamb Fascia Top 6" 1X6-8 #2 _BTR PINE S4S KD 1 EA 161721 Jamb Frame -Head 2X6-1 OFT. #2/BTR KD -HT SPF 1 120706 Jamb Seal Head GARAGE DOOR STOP WHITE 9' 1 120690 Jamb Seal Sides GARAGE DOOR STOP WHITE 7' 1 235466 Track Hanger Kit REAR TRACK HANGER KIT 1 CT 663622 Doors 1 7 460395 Entry Set #1 18 BD 346989 Roofing 2 RL 258830 15# Felt 10 EA 561967 Drip Edge Wht 1 BG 668946 PlywoodH-Clips?/16" 3 BD 346989 Ridge Cap 2 BX 675466 Roofing Nails 5lbs 18 EA 386081 RoofSheath OSB 7/16 2 BX 944319 RoofSheathNail5# E/O 32X80 LH BASIC FLUSH IS NBM TYLO KEYED ENTRY - PB ROYAL SOVEREIGN 25YR. NICKEL GRAY -SG #15 FELT 432 SQ FEET 2 1/2X1X1OFT WHT ALUM -ROOF EDGE EA 7/16" PLYWOOD CLIP-50PAK ROYAL SOVEREIGN 25YR. NICKEL G RAY -S G 3D 1-1/4" ELECTRO GALV.ROOFING 5 LB 7/16 4X8 OSB 8D 2-3/8" COATED SINKER 5 LB 4 CT 865719 Siding D4 .040 WHITE SIDING CTN 7 EA 613308 J Channel-Dr/Wnd 3/4" WHITE J CHANNEL EA 9 EA 613308 J Channel -Gables 3/4" WHITE J CHANNEL EA 4 EA 613308 J -Channel Eave 3/4" WHITE J CHANNEL EA 4 EA 159062 O/S Corner 3/4" WHITE OUTSIDE CORNER POST EA 2 EA 454001 Siding Nails 5lbs 6D 2" HOT GALV BOX 5 LB 8 EA 913474 Starter Strip METAL STARTER STRIP EA 1 EA 161985 U -Trim Window Sill WHITE UTILITY TRIM EA 22 EA 386081 WallSheathOSB 7/16 7/16 4X8 OSB 2 EA 166014 Soffits 1/4 4X8 BC SANDED PINE 1 BX 229091 Fascia Nail 8D 2-1/2"HOT GALV S/T PATIO DECK 5LB 97 EA 914797 Fascia-1x6/WW 1X6-12 #2 BTR PINE S4S KD 1 BX 944327 Framing Nails 16D 3-1/4" COATED SINKER 5 LB 2 EA 166014 Gable Soffit 1/4 4X8 BC SANDED PINE 2 EA 161667 Lateral Nailer 2X4-12FT. STD/BTR KD -HT SPF 1 EA 454001 Soffit Nails 6D 2" HOT GALV BOX 5 LB 8 EA 161667 Wall Nailer Eave 2X4-12FT. STD/BTR KD -HT SPF 9 EA 161667 Wall Nailer Gable 2X4-12FT. STD/BTR KD -HT SPF 1 232672 Windows E/O 8500 DH 36X38 WHT LOWE 1/1 SCRN 3 EA 249026 Brick Mould Vinyl BRICK MOULD WHITE VINYL 8' 16 EA 303965 Brick Mould Wood 1-1/4X2 PRIMED BRICKMOULD SET 1 232672 Windows E/O 8500 DH 36X38 WHT LOWE 1/1 SCRN 3 EA 249026 Brick Mould Vinyl BRICK MOULD WHITE VINYL 8' 16 EA 303965 Brick Mould Wood 1-1/4X2 PRIMED BRICKMOULD SET 1 232672 Windows E/O 8500 DH 36X38 WHT LOWE 1/1 SCRN 3 EA 249026 Brick Mould Vinyl BRICK MOULD WHITE VINYL 8' 16 EA 303965 Brick Mould Wood 1-1/4X2 PRIMED BRICKMOULD SET 9 Spec. Order 1 Trusses Custom Roof Trusses (See Note Below) 2 Spec. Order 2 Trusses Gable End Trusses (See Note Below) The total cost of in stock materials is $4625.45 plus tax. This Price does not include any Special Order Items. This estimate was created on 6/29/2010 and is valid for 3 business days. Your Roof Trusses must be constructed for: 8/12 pitch; 18 -foot span for 24 -inch spacing (o. c.); 12 -inch eave overhang; 12 -inch gable overhang 40 psf live load, 7 psf dead load arameters from UBC.cod parameter file. Parameters used: 20' by 18' by 8' high, Eave overhang of 12 inches, Gable overhang of 12 inches, with a foundation size of 8" wide by 0" high. WARNING: THIS IS NOT A FINAL DESIGN PLAN. VARIATIONS IN BUILDING CODES, SPECIFIC ARCHITECTURAL CONSIDERATIONS, OR SITE CONDITIONS MAY REQUIRE CHANGES TO THIS DESIGN. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINAL STRUCTURE, CODE VERIFICATION, MATERIAL USAGE, AND STRUCTURAL SAFETY OF THIS DESIGN. BE SURE TO CHECK AND VERIFY THE DESIGN WITH YOUR LOCAL ARCHITECT AND BUILDING INSPECTOR. THE COMPANY ASSUMES ABSOLUTELY NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CORRECT USE OF THIS PROGRAM. ALL OUTPUT SHOULD BE EXAMINED BY A QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL TO DETERMINE IF THEY ARE REASONABLE AND ACCURATE. The Home Depot # 2833 15101 FLAGSTAFF AVE, APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124 (952) 432-7171 Tue Jun 29 15:30:00 2010 BRUCE VOIGT SMALLER SHED 147022 Drawing: Plan View 20' The Home Depot # 2833 15101 FLAGSTAFF AVE, APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124 (952) 432-7171 Tue Jun 29 15:30:00 2010 BRUCE VOIGT SMALLER SHED 47022 ront Side Lu' The Home Depot # 2833 15101 FLAGSTAFF AVE, APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124 (952) 432-7171 Tue Jun 29 15:30:00 2010 BRUCE VOIGT SMALLER SHED 147022 Back Side The Home Depot # 2833 15101 FLAGSTAFF AVE, APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124 (952) 432-7171 Tue Jun 29 15:30:00 2010 BRUCE VOIGT SMALLER SHED 47022 <ight Side The Home Depot # 2833 -15101 FLAGSTAFF AVE, APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124 (952) 432-7171 Tue Jun 29 15:30:00 2010 BRUCE VOIGT SMALLER SHED 147022 Left Side CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS. NOTICE OF HEARING July 6. 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, July 27, 2010 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Robert and Stacy Hermann to request a Conditional Use Permit and variance to construct a 18 x 20 shed at the following described property: Lot 2 Curley's Valley View Replat, except part taken for Hwy (PID #27-19150- 020-00) More particularly this property is located at 1033 Williams Court 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. 1033 Williams Court Dakota County, MN Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not Map Scale guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search, 1 inch = 149 feet appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. f--as.r neeiO' Labe3s use Avery' -13 Template: 1,160' Mendakota Countryclub Inc 2075 Mendakota Dr Saint Paul Mn 55120-1300 Johnson Richard C & Helen 1019 William Ct Saint Paul Mn 55120-1303 Capiz Stephen P & Terry 2094 Timmy Saint Paul Mn 55120-1311 Arnold Leslie A & Richard K 2108 Timmy St Saint Paul Mn 55120-1311 Aldrich Timothy E Sr 1040 William Ct Saint Paul Mn 55120-1302 Griep Sarah K 2076 Timmy St Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Palmer Thomas T & Marlys J 1050 Williams Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1302 P -13nq Hrip to P t Ned'%pat ��_u � expose Poli 1:12 ECi��rr 4 Mcellistrem Paul F & Heidi R 1025 William Ct Saint Paul Mn 55120-1303 City Of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Cury Saint Paul Mn 55118-4167 Virginia M Anderson Trust Agre 2098 Timmy St Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Wynia Giselle L & Peter J 1043 William Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1303 Mcquillan Timothy E & Anne S 2130 Timmy Ave Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Blanchard Mark J & Mary L 1049 William Ct Saint Paul Mn 55120-1303 P 3¢ u t�t�s Pcbl s pal ! PL-pliea a 6a has.hum a13 s iJ� SC -11,, dL, P Utilisez Ike Ey gabarit AVERYG 5160 0" ' CSick't9�c3ti38e;� pylN ;kv�9er le eebord Flop-UA. 1 I t >AVER'Yr< s1&tY Brennan Lawrence & Lynn 1013 William Ct Saint Paul Mn 55120-1303 Gerner Yuriy 2086 Timmy St Saint Paul Mn 55120-1311 Mattson Gunner B & Angela M 2102 Timmy St Saint Paul Mn 55120-1311 Hermann Robert G & Stacy A 1033 Williams Ct Mendota Heights Mn 55120 City Of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Cury Saint Paul Mn 55118-4167 Oberg John R & Alice E 1037 William Ct Saint Paul Mn 55120-1303 1-800-GO-AN1ERY NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 plan ners@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Carie Fuhrman / Stephen Grittman DATE: July 22, 2010 MEETING DATE: July 27, 2010 SUBJECT: Subdivision to Create One Additional Lot CASE NO: Case No. 10-25; NAC Case 254.04 — 10.25 APPLICANT(S): Paul Plum LOCATION: 1925 Dodd Road ZONING: R-1, One Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: LR, Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request: Paul Plum is requesting approval for a subdivision to create one additional single family lot on the parcel located at 1925 Dodd Road. The current parcel is 1.42 acres in size, the subdivision would result in two lots consisting of 0.94 acres and 0.48 acres. The subject parcel is located at 1925 Dodd Road, at the corner of Hilltop and Dodd Road, and is zoned R-1, One Family Residential. A single family home is currently located on the subject lot and is proposed to remain on Parcel 1. The applicant recently purchased the parcel in June. Analysis: The City's Subdivision Ordinance permits the subdivision of lots in the City provided that the resulting lots are compliant with all aspects of the respective zoning district. The following table outlines the required lot area and setback requirements, as well as those dimensions proposed for the newly created lots: As the table illustrates, the proposed subdivision does not meet the required rear lot line setback for the existing house. The Ordinance requires a 30 foot rear yard setback, or 20% of the average lot depth, whichever is greater. According to the submitted survey, the average lot depth for proposed Parcel 1 is 240.65 feet, and 20% of this is 48.13 feet. This means that the rear lot line setback is required to be 48.13 feet. As a result, staff is recommending that the proposed lot line be adjusted to the west by about four feet to meet the required rear yard setback. In addition to the above -listed setback requirements, Section 12 -11D -41D2 requires that no building shall be erected to extend so as to project beyond a line drawn between the forward most portion of the nearest building on each side, which is commonly known as the "string rule." The revised Zoning Ordinance, which has not been adopted yet but is likely to be in place by the time this lot would be built upon, proposes a slightly revised version of the current "string rule." It states that whenever buildings have been built on one side of the street between two (2) intersections, no building shall hereafter be erected to extend closer toward the street than the average of the required district setback and average setback of the adjoining principal structures. The submitted survey does not illustrate the home on the lot directly to the west of the newly proposed lot; therefore, an estimate of the front yard setback was taken utilizing the County aerial photograph. It is setback approximately 143 feet from the front line, while the existing home on proposed parcel one is 39 feet from the front line. Utilizing the proposed revised "string rule," the new lot would be required to maintain an approximate 61 feet front yard setback. Staff would suggest that a revised survey be submitted that indicates 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. Under the current string rule, it is unlikely that a home could be constructed due to the sharply angled front setback line that would be required. IN Required Proposed Parcel 1 Parcel 2 (existing home) Lot Area 15,000 SF 41,061 SF 0.94 ac 20,863 SF 0.48 ac Lot Width 100 feet 240 feet 156 feet Front Setback 30 feet 102 feet Unknown Side Setback 10 feet —or— 30 feet 20 feet — South Line Unknown (abutting a street) 39 feet — North Line Rear Setback 30 feet/ 48.1 feet 44.5 feet Unknown (20% of avenue lot depth, whichever isgreater) *Section 12-1 DAD.2: Whenever buildings have been built on one side of the street between two (2) intersections, no building shall hereafter be erected to extend so as to project beyond a line drawn between the forward most portion of the nearest building on each side. As the table illustrates, the proposed subdivision does not meet the required rear lot line setback for the existing house. The Ordinance requires a 30 foot rear yard setback, or 20% of the average lot depth, whichever is greater. According to the submitted survey, the average lot depth for proposed Parcel 1 is 240.65 feet, and 20% of this is 48.13 feet. This means that the rear lot line setback is required to be 48.13 feet. As a result, staff is recommending that the proposed lot line be adjusted to the west by about four feet to meet the required rear yard setback. In addition to the above -listed setback requirements, Section 12 -11D -41D2 requires that no building shall be erected to extend so as to project beyond a line drawn between the forward most portion of the nearest building on each side, which is commonly known as the "string rule." The revised Zoning Ordinance, which has not been adopted yet but is likely to be in place by the time this lot would be built upon, proposes a slightly revised version of the current "string rule." It states that whenever buildings have been built on one side of the street between two (2) intersections, no building shall hereafter be erected to extend closer toward the street than the average of the required district setback and average setback of the adjoining principal structures. The submitted survey does not illustrate the home on the lot directly to the west of the newly proposed lot; therefore, an estimate of the front yard setback was taken utilizing the County aerial photograph. It is setback approximately 143 feet from the front line, while the existing home on proposed parcel one is 39 feet from the front line. Utilizing the proposed revised "string rule," the new lot would be required to maintain an approximate 61 feet front yard setback. Staff would suggest that a revised survey be submitted that indicates 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. Under the current string rule, it is unlikely that a home could be constructed due to the sharply angled front setback line that would be required. IN In addition, the County's aerial photos indicate a detached accessory structure located to the west of the house on proposed Parcel 1, but this is not indicated on the survey. Staff would suggest that the revised survey also illustrate this accessory building and ensure that it meets required setback standards. It is important to note that the subject site is immediately surrounded by larger single- family lots consisting of a range in size from 0.72 acres to 1.34 acres. The proposed subdivision will result in the new lot being smaller than those currently existing in the immediate area. At the same time, all of the properties in the immediate area are zoned R-1, and the proposed subdivision has demonstrated conformance with the R-1 District requirements. In 2005, the City undertook a study relating to the subdivision of parcels in neighborhoods of large lots. Several options were considered, including increasing lot size, creating separate zoning district regulations, and requiring neighborhood lot sizes to have an impact on subsequent subdivisions. However, the City Council determined that these changes were not in keeping with the expectations of the Comprehensive Plan, and decided to retain the lot size requirements in the R-1 Zoning District. Comprehensive Plan. The property is designated as LR, Low Density Residential in the City's Land Use Plan. The applicant's request to split the property into two lots — consisting of 20,863 square feet and 41,061 square feet — is consistent with this land use category's intent of single family development and density not to exceed 2.9 units per acre. Action Requested: Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations. - 1 ecommendations: 1. Motion to recommend approval of the subdivision request, based on a finding that the proposed lot split meets the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Comprehensive Plan, subject to the following conditions: a. A revised survey be submitted indicating the following: • the proposed lot line adjusted to the west in order to meet the required rear yard setback for proposed Parcel 1; 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 • the existing accessory building location and size on proposed Parcel 1 to verify that it meets required setback standards. b. Park and trail dedication requirements shall be satisfied as a cash fee in lieu of land. Such fee shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. c. Connection charges for street, sanitary sewer, and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. 3 d. The applicant shall submit grading/topography plans and utility plans, subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. e. The applicant shall dedicate 10 foot wide drainage and utility easements along the front property lines and 5 foot wide drainage and utility easements along the rear property lines. f. 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. •n 2. Motion to recommend denial of the subdivision request, based on a finding that the proposed lot split is not consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, or Comprehensive Plan. Staff Recommendation: Planning staff recommends approval of the subdivision request, based on the finding that the proposed lot split with the recommended conditions, meets the requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance with regards to lot width and area; the newly - created parcel will have adequate buildable area for a conforming single family home without the need for setback variances; and that the proposed use is consistent with the future Land Use Plan. Conditions cited in Option 1 above should be included with a recommendation of approval. Supplementary Materials 1. Application materials dated July 2, 2010 2. Site Plan illustrating "String Rule" 3. Site Location Map 11 1925 Dodd Road Site Location Map Water/Wetlands /\/ City Roads Major Roads parcels ®o®®®� MunicipalBoundaries NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.2.31.2561 plan ners@nacplanning.com TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: July 22, 2010 RE: Mendota Heights — Variance Review Standard NAC FILE: 254.04 In this month's Planning Commission agenda packet, there are two requests for variances from the City's setback requirements. Variance review has often been a topic of discussion, and the City's zoning ordinance includes specific language relating to the requirements for variance approval. That language, based generally in Minn. Stat. 462.357 Subd. 1, is found in Mendota Heights Code Section 12-1 L-5, reads as follows: A. Authority To Grant Variances; Conditions: The council may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of this chapter and impose conditions and safeguards in the variances so granted in cases where there are practical difficulties or undue hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of this chapter. "Undue hardship", as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by this chapter and the hardship is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under this chapter. The City's Code goes on to add the following in this regard: E. Action By City Council: 1. Grant Of Variance: In considering applications for variance under this chapter, the council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the planning commission and the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated, traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on value of properties in the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed variance upon the comprehensive plan. If the council shall determine by resolution that the special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located, and that the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and that granting the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair health, safety, comfort, or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter and that the granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate undue hardship or difficulty, the council may grant such variance and impose conditions and safeguards therein. We have commonly interpreted this clause to the Planning Commission by noting that the applicant must first show generally that their proposed use is reasonable, given the requirements of the zoning ordinance and the context of the neighborhood, and then that the code requirements prohibit reasonable use of the property in some way. We have noted that this is a rigorous standard — variances are intended to be applied only where somebody cannot put their property to a reasonable use. Therefore, on a residential lot, a typical single family home together with the common accessory uses to such a home would constitute reasonable use. This is not always the property owners' desired home or uses, or the most convenient. The traditional standard required a finding of an undue hardship in putting the property to any reasonable use. Under the older formulation, an applicant had to show that they had no reasonable use of their property unless the city granted a variance. In such a situation, the City was virtually compelled to approve a variance, or entertain the possibility that the regulations had created a case of "regulatory taking" or "inverse condemnation" — basically regulations that prohibit any use at all. In a series of cases After a series of Minnesota Court of Appeals cases in the late 1990s (Rowell v. City of Moorhead, Sagstetter v. City of St. Paul, Nolan v. City of Eden Prairie), it had become easier for cities to grant variances when their finding was that the applicants use was reasonable, and only that practical difficulties stood in the way of such a reasonable use. Some cities followed this approach and loosened their variance approval standards, either through practice, or ordinance, or both. Recently, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued a decision in Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka which restated the standards that control when cities may consider variance approval. This case involved a neighbor who challenged the City's approval of a property owner's request seeking a setback variance to expand an existing garage. The City granted the variance, based on a determination that the applicant proposed to use the property in a reasonable manner. This standard for variance approval had been evolving in many cities over the past 10 to 15 years, loosening the review from "any reasonable use" to "use in a reasonable manner", and from "undue hardship" to a focus on "practical difficulties". 2 In Krummenacher, however, the Supreme Court stated that the plain reading of the statutory language compels a return to the traditional way of reviewing variances. That language is as follows: To hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with the ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments or the governing body as the case may be, may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or governing body as the case may be, may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one family dwelling as a two family dwelling. The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties. The Krummenacher Court rejected the transition to the "practical difficulties" and "reasonable manner" standards as being inconsistent with the statute. For Mendota Heights, the new court ruling will not change much in practice. The Court's decision leaves open the idea that reasonable use still has a relationship to the "character of the locality" as it is stated in the statute. Although the term "practical difficulties" is included in the City's code language, it has not been the defining standard for variance review. Instead, the City has worked to assure that variance requests accomplish the objectives noted above — reasonable use and undue hardship — in keeping with the findings of the Supreme Court in Krummenacher. As a final note, the Court observed that this interpretation of the statute must prevail unless the legislature decides to change the standards listed in 462.357 Subd. 6. We will continue to monitor any pending legislative changes in forthcoming sessions. 91 #.'C U 'y' 0 ity of �y a� Meend ta h £ F i, S S a. ts APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No, l� Date of Application Fee Paid x:9,70,00 Applicant Name: 21Vl!l Ric",( 1) . PH: KC) (Last) (First) (M) E -Mail Address:cP, t" Address: 1"733 DoQQD )2v140 . 1'`7e�r�rr-rs�- i��vy'l� ��S'l/ P (dumber & Street) ((City} (State) (Zip) Owner Name: (Last) (First) (Cvl} Address: (Number & Street) Street Location of Property in Question oll� e1v4 4zr-k4—> (4 b 11. (City) I 11-1-d 5 - (State) t9o,tqe N Ile ,,//(Zip) iG d , ,� Legal Description & PIN of P(ope-ty: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) ,; - C C) 1 S Type of Request: Rezoning Conditional Use Permit Conditional User Permit for P,U.D. Preliminary/Final Plat Approval Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number Present Zoning of Property Proposed Zoning of Property Present Use Proposed Use ariance Subdivision Approval Wetlands Permit Critical Area Permit Other (attach explanation) Section I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. further authorize City Officials and their agents to inspect the above property uring da t hours.. �-��.• �`.�-®-.,.- / �.. (Signature of Applic nt) Date Received 11tJ! Victoriafir!! �Sa¢!cies!a FF ic�ttE. �iN 5511 (4 51)x._5'1 1135 . FAX (65 1) 452,119f0 GVtvtv.I'll eF1dutta-11eig 3ts.colrl Letter of Intent Lot split for 1925 Dodd Road July 2, 2010 As owners of 1925 Dodd Road, we intend to split the large residential lot into two separate residential lots. The property is on the comer of Dodd and Hilltop. With the lot being long enough to provide room for a potential second home off of Hilltop, we hope to have the lot officially split. We live right next door at 1933 Dodd. Being next door, it will be easy to maintain the new 2'd lot. It will be mowed and kept clear as needed. At some point, we will consider selling the new second, vacant, lot to a potential person who would want to build_ However, at this point, we simply want to split the lot and "hold" until later in time. If any questions come up during this process, please contact Paul Plum at 651-485-1492 or Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Paul and Megan Plum CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING July 6, 2010 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the City Council of Mendota Heights will meet at 7:30 P.M., or as soon as possible thereafter, on Tuesday, July 27, 2010 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Paul Plum for a Lot Split to create an additional single family lot at the following described property: Lot 30 and 31 Somerset Hills, PIN #27-71050-311-00 More particularly this property is located at 1925 Dodd Road This notice is pursuant to Title 11 (Subdivision), Chapter 1 of the Mendota Heights City Code. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to this Subdivision 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. 1925 Dodd Road Dakota County, MN � � 1 :534 Lj c 755 ;_4—i2o ;166 1G3e _ ' 1.925 —47 a {LS i S; c. .-'J27. r 1 �'i4 '7'L.r� r� ?riD 1554 1, �- _ P, 748 LM Z 1-55- r 7,55 Sy �` 7 775 �_ c 1 ;35 ., 75 ET '� 'a 1949 11919 1844 2'x75 . �.. %v� c rt — __ ( J 233. � —y 1865 1;21;' 15 aJ 03,"97 15,.)3 1-- `r21ti{'+'_�.•� J �y ti •--"775 � C �19°2 1833 888 - 32, Q 28H -' — 15°71 _, kf All2 .222 302. —� 1899 f. � l• 755— 11Ena4 r 782 ' 249 745 -770 T20 J 1 Y J fes+. j � r, .1 i 704 �tZ�s`' r ,fit Yfj J` ti ,�1 {�_ D I c b .76 4 r^ r 173 r 1$ v MAPLE S I j8i1} 'U 1941: f 7132 T y , F 1 1 5 t 41 S 697 �} F -��-�, h ' F 118 157. 287 ,J /gS i Y Ll�ry Zl / 1a7 HI61>L - .. ,..... kr'v f,� C: 194`!—nyt 2o2+a 7 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 = 289 feet appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. 0 COR 7.28 R.23 S.25 \ `° HILLTOP ROAD F) / FD DAKOTA CO. CIM � > / — — _ _ _ _ — - 156.93 N86'09'32'W / o ------------ 455.92 hp pv�� A \ \ ` ----- !r ------- — — — — — — — — — — — — — 298.99 0 oQ O3�DD PROPOSED PARCEL 2 ,o D31 PROPOSED O �u A� 5 / q \ 3a. DRAINAGE & / Z �O /��` A ! ! ''4 -SD, ` UTILITY ESMT. /5 \ ! PROPOSED S89'56'07"W DRAINAGE & / / Q ry ) — — —_ UTILITY ESMT.631.56 ! a PROPOSED PARCEL 1<6 / ! ! o� zj3' O / 30 P vt / PINT ` 57 - ` '01- b' \1 4 00 P46D_\`p .660 a355T7'a AIeN60DOD / MN \ / / W 1/4 OR T.28 R.23 5.25 DA FD DAKOTA CO. CIM LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 30 and 31, SOMERSET HILLS, Dakota County, Minnesota PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS: Parcel 1: Lots 30 and 31, SOMERSET HILLS, except that part lying westerly of a line described as follows: Beginning at a point 156.93 feet easterly and along the north line of said Lot 31 from the northwest corner of Lot 31 to a point 172.36 feet easterly and along the south line of Lot 30 from the southwest corner of Lot 30. Parcel 2: Lots 30 and 31, SOMERSET HILLS, except that part lying easterly of a line described as follows: Beginning at a point 156.93 feet easterly and along the north line of said Lot 31 from the northwest corner of Lot 31 to a point 172.36 feet easterly and along the south line of Lot 30 from the southwest corner of Lot 30. Lot area = 61,924 sq. ft. or 1.42 acres Parcel 1 lot area = 41,061 sq. ft. or 0.94 acres Rear yard area = 8,091 sq. ft. or 0.19 acres 0.19/0.94 = 20.2% Rear yard area of total lot Parcel 2 lot area = 20,863 sq. ft. or 0.48 acres NOTES 1. The basis of bearings is Dakota County Coordinate System, NAD 83, 1986 Adjustment 2. All distances are in feet. 3. The subject property lies within zone R-1 Single Family Residential District LEGEND O SET CAP IRON MONUMENT 44110 ® FOUND IRON MONUMENT O FOUND DAKOTA COUNTY CAST IRON MONUMENT Design Pile: xxxxx Checked By. GB I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Land Surveyor under Minnesota statutes 326.D2 to 326.16. PETER D. GOERS Scale:Drawn B Y 1" = 60' PG _ Print Name 0 30 60 120 Signature 7—I`0�0 _ ""° ---------------------------- Date: Book No.: Date License Number 6/30/2010 110 SCALE IN FEET LOT SPLIT SURVEY ALLIANT A, ENGINEERING, INC. 1925 DODD ROAD 233 PARE AVE. SOUTH, SUITE 300 6415 MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN PHHOINE 612)7968I 090 FAX fG, 2) 75R-3094 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED 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: July 22, 2010 MEETING DATE: July 27, 2010 SUBJECT: Wetlands Permit CASE NO: Case No. 10-26; NAC Case 254.04 — 10.27 APPLICANT(S): Peter Opitz LOCATION: 620 Watersedge Terrace ZONING: R-1, One Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: LR -11 Background and Description of Request. The applicant is seeking a wetlands permit to install a fence and children's play set in the rear yard of the property at 620 Watersedge Terrace. The property is zoned R-1, One Family Residential. Section 12-2-6 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a Wetlands Permit for any work conducted within 100 feet of a wetland. Analysis; The property contains a single family home with an attached garage. A wetland is located in the rear yard, or south half of the property. 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. Play Set. The applicant is proposing to build a children's play set in the rear yard of the property, to the southeast of the home. The play set is proposed to be primarily constructed of southern yellow pine and is 11 feet at its highest point. The finished dimensions are 21 feet, 5 inches by 15 feet, 6 inches. The applicant materials include a plan drawing of the footprint of the play set and a colored rendering of the play set. Fence Standards. The applicants are proposing a five-foot tall cedar fence to enclose the rear yard (see attached site plan and attached fence picture). The fence is proposed to contain vertical boards, one inch thick by six inches wide, with a two-inch space between each vertical board and four inch square posts. The fence will contain three gates: one at the southwest corner of the home, one at the southeast corner of the home, and one on the south side of the rear yard. At its closest point, the fence is proposed to be approximately 15 feet from the wetland, although the site plan shows a typical setback distance of approximately 30 feet. Section 12-1 D-6 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes standards for fence construction and location, requiring the following: • A fence permit be obtained for any fence six feet (6') or less in height; Comment: This shall be added as a condition upon approval. • All fences shall be located entirely upon the private property of the property owner; Comment: This condition is being met according to the submitted site plan. • No less than 30% of the plane between the ground and the top of the fence shall be open; Comment: This condition appears to be met according to the submitted fence photograph and details. • Fences up to and including 6 feet in height may be erected on interior lot lines behind the front yard setback line and on rear lot lines. Comment: This condition is met as the fence is located behind the front yard setback line and within the rear yard of the parcel. Landscaping. The applicant is proposing landscaping changes in the southwest corner of the property in order to create room for the fence. The landscaping changes include removing hostas, weeds, and a small tree. The applicant has not indicated any intention to disturb landscape cover adjacent to the wetland area. It would be staff's recommendation that the area between the fence and the wetland remain undisturbed to minimize erosion and allow for a natural filter area for runoff. 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. Applicant Letter. According to the applicant, they are interested in constructing a fence to keep their two children and two dogs from the pond in the rear yard of the property. The fence will also help prevent the children from leaving the yard without permission and the dogs from leaving without being on a leash. The play set is a common residential recreational structure. The applicant does not anticipate that the 2 proposed work will have any direct impact on the wetland, current drainage and grading, vegetation, or sediment and erosion control measures. The applicant has stated that the work will involve creating holes for the fence posts and distributing the dirt on the property. The applicants anticipate that the work will be completed as soon as possible after receiving the Wetlands Permit. Action Requested: Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following recommendations: 1. Approval of the wetlands permit for the proposed fence and play set, based on the attached findings of fact, and subject to the following condition: A fence permit shall be submitted and approved prior to fence installation. 2. Denial of the wetlands permit, based on a finding that the installation of the fence and play set 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 a fence and play set in the rear yard, subject to the above-mentioned condition. The proposed project should not have a negative impact on the wetland and 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 July 2, 2010 2. Site Location Map 3 Draft Findings of Fact for Approval Wetlands Permit 620 Watersedge Terrace The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the above Wetlands Permit: The project meets the intent of the Wetlands Ordinance. 2. The project will not have a negative impact on the wetland. 3. The project will not degrade or threaten the water quality of the wetland. 4. The wetland itself will be untouched. F 620 Watersedge Terrace K Site Location Map j Water/Wetlands /\/ City Roads Major Roads parcels ®a9em� MunicipalBoundaries �6 city Of Mendota Helgbts APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. 0 bra Date of Application ze, Fee Paid t��z, -� `7,5 761 Applicant Name: — —_ t __PH:r I Z1= -P ---- (Last) (First) (M) E -Mail Address: Y Address: ' f r M-r:� r ... � � . � v 1"k , (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Owner Name:— (Last) (First) (M) Address:3c-�.�f (Number &Street) (City) (State) (Z_ip) Street Location of Property in Question:��ti�'----- Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) -------- f - I Cay ------ Type of Request'. Rezoning _ _Conditional Use Permit Conditional User Permit for P.U.D. Preliminary/Final Plat Approval ___Comprehensive Plan Amendment Variance Subdivision Approval Wetlands Permit Critical Area Permit Other (attach explanation) Applicable City Ordinance Number L l — —Section G �, Present Zoning of Property i'.Present Use;-?_" —__--- Proposed Zoning of Propertyvv, rl Proposed Use . ,r,,j -_)i_ I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to insp ct the above property during daylight hours. (S`jyr tune of Applicant) —c, Date Received ----- _ € ifs "' -- -- r ---- (Signature of Owner) 1101 Victoria Carve - Mendota Heights, Mrj 55118 a (651) 452-1850 ° FAX (651) 452-8940 www.mendota-heights.com July 1, 2010 Letter of Intent regarding Wetlands Permit Application for 620 Watersedge Terrace To Whom It May Concern: Summary of the proposal and its impact on the wetland My wife and I recently purchased a home at the above -noted address. We are submitting a Wetlands Permit Application, requesting to build a fence and play set in the backyard. The fence will serve to protect our two children and two dogs from the pond. It will also prevent the children from leaving the yard without permission and the dogs from leaving without being on a leash. The play set will provide active entertainment for our children. The fence will be made of cedar, standing five feet tall. It will be a framed fence with a two inch cap and two inch by four inch boards parallel to the ground at top and bottom. The vertical boards will be one inch thick by six inches wide; there will be a two inch space between each board. All posts will be four inches square. The installation location is shown on the attached topographic map. It will include three gates as indicated on that map. Included separately is an image of the type of fence to be installed. The play set is manufactured by Yardline Play Systems and is primarily constructed of south yellow pine. It stands 11 feet at its highest point. The finished dimensions are 21 feet five inches by 15 feet six inches. The installation location for the play set is also shown on the included topographic map. Also included is a color image of the play set as well as a drawing showing its footprint. We do not anticipate the work to have any direct impact on the wetland. Full and adequate description of all phases of the operation and/or proposed physical changes The fence will be installed as soon as the fencing company can be scheduled to perform the work following the receipt of the Wetlands Permit. The play set installation will be performed by the owner and completed within 30 days of receiving the permit. A summary of proposed drainage grading and landscaping The project will have no impact on current drainage and grading. Minor landscaping changes will be undertaken in the southwest corner of the property to make room for the fence. This involves removing some hostas, weeds and a small tree. The latter is damaged from bearing the weight of a creeping vine. Information on existing drainage and vegetation of all land within the site The work will involve creating holes for the fence posts and distributing the dirt on the property. We believe that the installation activities will have no material impact on the drainage or vegetation. Time period for completion of development including timing for staging of development if applicable The work will be completed as soon as possible after receiving the Wetlands Permit. It is anticipated that this will occur within 30 days, subject to scheduling the fence installation. Design specification for all sediment and erosion control measures We believe the project will have no impact in this regard. Thank you for considering this application. Regards,, Peter Opitz Owner, 620 Watersedge Terrace 6 620 Watersedge Terrace 624 May 10, 2010 .... . . ..... .. ........ 17 cnlg 14 12 6 .610 N (D 628 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . ..... .. ........ 17 cnlg 14 12 6 .610 Yardline Twin Titan Fortress - Product Demo s �=• _ �LIi3E5 P wemd by SWING 21*.S' I - 19I -01, 1 Note; These pages are hosted by UrbanVerve Click Here to review their Private Policy. Assemdy I'vhnual SFer_ifications _Spice Requirement CurLside Delivery Package ■ Customer Service Yardline 800.844.9273 http://yardline.net/TwinTitanJ 6/23/2010 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING July 6. 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, July 27, 2010 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Peter Opitz for a Wetlands Permit for fence and a playset located at the following described property: Lot 10, Block 6 Copperfield 3rd Addition (PIN #27-18302-100-06) More particularly this property is located at 620 Watersedge Terrace 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. 620 Watersedge Terrace Dakota County, MN Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not Map Scale guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search, 1 inch = 148 feet appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. S1 606 2335 2332 / 640 Y 617 2341 I C16 r 63 1 t\ Y r r, cv w42 2345�r / �srF� _ a ZP t Jam/ iv 37 'r :i 2351�\v~ U`� { v ,�'rC �.. 7 iI �. - rt r 3.17 - r.611 —1 i ^ 1 0 :a 6\,.i'i I f_-- _ ', i 9r rJr 2355 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 = 148 feet appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. S1 ft.. v / 640 Y I C16 r r, w42 �srF� _ a ZP CPF :i -...__ - r--_ 528 632 cl c•� 644 M� }� r- iA3 4 ,15 r+y 75 59 Ir 1'11. 10 92. 47 22- . - 53 17 31 25 .28 22 25 ; ,537 J33 r� j •� 3 — _ 325 i -- -.J �f 521 ffFp q '4 r, :, JS CU 7 r� fr 2454 - \ j o 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 = 148 feet appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. +`a i 7, � afbfd�: I � f'e6ad 9oadcs Eit�r i s e ! _ , ` it `'"4i r C s to U n f ( 11 ed Papr,S 2:xpose Pop-up Edge" Moore Bradley C Wassweiler William P & Ann M Norris Thomas N 637 Watersedge Terr 640 Pondview Dr 626 Pond View Dr Saint Paul Mn 55120-1931 Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1926 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1925 Krey Adam W & Margaret R Solomon Lawrance S Tste Gannon Michael L & Nancy A 622 Pond View Dr 618 Pond View Ct 2345 Fieldstone Dr Saint Paul Mn 55120-1925 Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1922 Lanpher Richard K & Mary J Greeley Joseph P & Rebecca L Wurden Donald A & Carole J 2351 Fieldstone Dr 631 Watersedge Terr 623 Watersedge Terr Saint Paul Mn 55120-1922 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1931 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1931 King Peter C & Camille Adams James K & Sharon Ann Fitzgerald Patrick W & Maria 617 Watersedge Terr 607 Watersedge Terrace Saint Paul Mn 55120-1931 601 Waters Edge Terr Saint Paul Mn 55120-1931 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1931 Pilla Wm J Jr & Mary K Pennell Christopher & Teresa Juetten Mark Joseph & Jane E 636 Watersedge Terr 632 Waters Edge Terr Saint Paul Mn 55120-1930 628 Waters Edge Terr Saint Paul Mn 55120-1930 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1930 Aarestad Thomas L & Jane Opitz Peter B City Of Mendota Heights 624 Watersedge Terr 620 Watersedge Terr 1101 Victoria Cury Saint Paul Mn 55120-1930 Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Saint Paul Mn 55118-4167 Brown Michael L Altier Mark R Tste Larock Lee F & Susan E 610 Watersedge Terr 604 Watersedge Terr 600 Watersedge Terr Saint Paul Mn 55120-1930 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1930 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1930 Greavu Denise M S Caruso Dawn M Smith Thomas J & Mary J 633 Hampshire Dr 629 Hampshire Dr 625 Hampshire Dr Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1935 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1935 Bernick Alan E & Elisa Tste Mansur Joseph P & Margaret City Of Mendota Heights 621 Hampshire Dr 617 Hampshire Dr 1101 Victoria Cury Saint Paul Mn 55120-1935 Mendota Heights Mn 55120 Saint Paul Mn 55118-4167 Ewen Marven G & Joanne Sommervold Barry J Payne Wm J & Nancy G 613 Hampshire Dr 609 Hampshire Dr 605 Hampshire Dr Saint Paul Mn 55120-1935 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1935 Saint Paul Mn 55120-1935 s �'saq�ael e� #aci3es yse9�a 9 A r Repliez 3 33 -hachure afbn .J� � z r ��fir.awerc� �usn —k—;.i, A..Ilcr�vc"s r -a sti 9 _r:<=.cs,de z re ��e� _�� 4e oe6to�cE E=�,� i-t.9pT s �i-g45yF1- Ol-d'a41 &t' obC•Is z &y. ,u;;n RevY 'd a4aajjgq iio'te to 0 6�'*34'Y 12','%7(` ® tl 5160 lsc Avev O't-Pn-a'c- 0' ! Geeai h. ,a ex��se �a�-tl�a E€a�e" sLi Ems-' � Eisenhuth Jennifer L 612 Pond View Ct Saint Paul Mn 55120-1923 Gaertner Stephen M & Ann M 614 Watersedge Terr Mendota Heights Mn 55120-1930 Pribnow Joel K 2341 Field Stone Dr Saint Paul Mn 55120-1922 Stone Jason & Kim 611 Watersedge Terr Mendota Heights Mn 55120 0 ftiquettes favi@es a Peler ; Repliez. ;4 N hachure afirz ;a ; �aruww.a�a ry.a csrr� O'til'asez le gabarit AVERY'5 -51500Sens de r6%,6ier ie r€ bard Pop-upvr,, 1-800-GO-AVEP A cI'aame neat A Linda Shipton From: Peter Opitz [pete_opitz@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 7:50 AM To: Linda Shipton Cc: Ijshea@hotmail.com Subject: Planning case file #10-26 Linda, As we discussed last Friday, below is an email forwarded to me by our real estate agent and related to the neighborhood covenants as they impact our wetlands permit application. I've deleted the referenced covenants. Would you please add this to our file? Additionally, I will be forwarding one other email on this same topic. Regards, Pete Peter Opitz 620 Watersedge Terrace From: paul dorn[mailto:paul@thedorncompany.com] Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 9:37 AM To: Allen, Laurie M Subject: Fw: Covenants Hi Laurie, Here are the covenants for the property which lies in the 3rd addition of Copperfield.I have spoken to two neighborhood people,one still lives there and is a builder while the other is a CBB real estate agent who just sold his home in the neighborhood so is no longer living there.Both said the association has not been active for years so the covenants are not enforced.As I mentioned before there are a number of homes on the pond that have fences even though the covenants of all phases have certain restrictions for fencing on pond lots.These parties all received approval from the city which is the only approval they needed. If you or your buyers would like to speak directly to any of these parties I would be happy to give you their contact info. I have also sent you the signed PA and counteroffer.The seller did add one thing to the disclosure.A couple weeks back she had a leak from her Englewood water which left a water stain on the ceiling near the patio door in the lower level. Have a great day and let me know how the inspection goes, Paul Paul Dorn Licensed Real Estate Broker Owner / P.L. Dorn Company, Inc. 651-452-3047 Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. See how. 7/8/2010 Linda Shipton From: Peter Opitz [pete_opitz@hotmail.com] it: Thursday, July 08, 2010 7:50 AM Linda Shipton Cc: Ijshea@hotmail.com Subject: Planning case file #10-26 Linda, The second (of two) emails forwarded to me by our real estate agent and related to the neighborhood covenants as they impact our wetlands permit application. Would you please add this to our file, too? Regards, Pete Peter Opitz 620 Watersedge Terrace Subject: RE: Homes with fences Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 12:32:11 -0500 From: LAllen@CBBURNET.COM To: pete_opitz@hotmail.com CC: Ijshea@hotmail.com F°++' ere, I have placed the call to him for more numbers, as well as sent on the original email. I guess when the developer was still in the game (back when it was being built) the association had a leader (the developer) but it has since fallen by the wayside and is not active. That does not mean that if someone got a bee in their bonnet that they couldn't stir up some roadblocks, but according to Paul Dorn and the owner, most of the fences would need to come down then, and the ones who want them could prove the association to be inactive.... There is still some risk here, but it looks relatively low. I will forward more names asap. WU Laurie Allen Laurie Allen Group/Coldwell Banker Burnet 3033 Excelsior Blvd #100/Minneapolis, MN 55416 w) 612-928-8662 0 612-920-4706 Email: lallen@cbburnet.com Website: www.laurieallengroup.com "Thank you for your continuing support! Your constant referrals to the Laurie Allen Group are the finest compliment I can ever receive!" The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. Get started. 7/8/2010 Costco Twin Titan Fortress Playset by Yardline Play Systems Twin Titan Fortress Playset by Yardline Play Systems Page 1 of 1 http://www.costco.com/Browse/PopupViewer.aspx?prodid=115273 59&whse=BC&cat=4062&1... 7/1/2010