Loading...
2020-08-25 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 25, 2020 7:00 PM- Mendota Heights City Hall 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights MN 55118 1.Call to Order / Roll Call 2.Approve the July 28, 2020 regular meeting minutes 3.Public Hearings a.Case No. 2020-16: Preliminary and Final Plat of MENDOTA HEIGHTS SENIOR LIVING, a subdivision of the former city-owned parcels in The Village, located at 725 Linden Street and 735 Maple Street. Grand Real Estate Advisors / MH Development LLC – Applicant / Owners b.Case No. 2020-18: Wetland Permit to install new swimming pool in fence at 781 Pondhaven Lane. John Steveken - Applicant / Owner 4.Staff Announcements / Update on Developments 5.Adjourn Meeting Packet Page No. 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 28, 2020 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 28, 2020 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Mary Magnuson, Commissioners Patrick Corbett, Litton Field, Michael Toth, and Andrew Katz. Those absent: Commissioners John Mazzitello and Brian Petschel. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of June 23, 2020 Minutes COMMISSIONER CORBETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 23, 2020 AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Hearings A) PLANNING CASE 2020-14 TEMPO HOMES AND VINH TRUONG, 1217 VICTORIA CURVE – CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Calvin Tran with Tempo Homes, as the applicant acting on behalf of Vinh Truong, is seeking a Critical Area Permit to construct a new single-family dwelling on property situated in the Critical Area Overlay District. City Code Section 12-305 requires a critical area permit (CAP) for all major development activities requiring a building permit or special zoning approval in this overlay district. The applicants also seek a conditional use permit (CUP) to construct an oversized attached garage up to 1,475 square feet in size. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; comments received were included in the packet. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Packet Page No. 2 Staff recommended approval of this application based on the findings and with conditions. Commissioner Corbett asked for details on ordinances dictating the position of the home on the lot. He asked if the string method of determining setbacks was used, or whether it should be used. He also asked if the adjacent homes are in compliance with the right-of-way setbacks. Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that staff and legal counsel came to the conclusion that the string yard rule applies to the minimum front yard setback rule and provided background information on that rule. Commissioner Corbett stated that it would then appear there is no intent in the string method to align home placement and is strictly a minimum front yard setback. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that only establishes a minimum front yard setback. He explained that a home could be placed further back on the lot, as long as the other required setbacks are met. Calvin Tran, Tempo Homes, representing the applicant, provided information on the owner of the property, who works at the VA and chose this home selection because it was close to his work. He also provided background information on himself and his past ten years of experience. He stated that they have taken the issues of erosion and drainage, which he believes are addressed by their plan. He stated that the design of the home is more modern, as he builds modern custom homes. He stated that all the concerns of the neighbors have been taken into consideration. He stated that they revised the drainage plan to address the issues of the neighbor, directing the water away from adjacent lots and instead to Victoria Curve. Commissioner Katz asked for details on the choice to place the home so far back on the lot. Mr. Tran stated that they chose the back placement in order to minimize the impact of tree removal. He noted that the driveway was also a concern, noting that the closer to Victoria Curve, the harder it would be to meet the slope requirements because of the topography of the hill. Commissioner Katz stated that it would appear that they are placing the home further back and at the highest spot, therefore his concern would be for two of the neighbors who would have a house sitting in an area that was their backyard or side yard. He stated that he would want to see a plan in place to create a natural border to minimize that impacts to neighbors. He asked if any of the grading would have to be changed on the property. Mr. Tran stated that if they choose another location for the home, they will have to remove more trees. He stated that he has a background in landscaping, and they have revised their erosion and grading plan to drain the water out towards the street rather than to the adjacent neighbors. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Alan Olstein, 1954 Glenhill Road, stated that he and his neighbors have concerns with the drainage from this site. He stated that the applicant has stated that his plan has been modified to address Packet Page No. 3 some of the drainage concerns brought forward in previous conversations. He stated that if you follow the arrows where water is going to flow, it goes into three of the adjacent neighboring lots. He stated that they would like to know about the measures being contemplated to resolve this drainage problem. He stated that a number of the neighbors have questions the choice of home placement for the lot, considering the added distance between the roof and Victoria Curve, which is where the water is supposed to go. He explained that additional front setback would only increase the distance the water needs to travel. Chair Magnuson asked if Mr. Olstein has had an opportunity to speak with the builder. Mr. Olstein replied that they have not met with the builder and the first they heard of this request was the notice from the City the previous week. Greg Bolin, 1215 Victoria Curve, stated that he sent an email with photographs to staff last Friday. He noted that his first concern is with the drainage for the site. He stated that the arrows on the plan show water going right to his home/basement. He noted that he has been told that a swale is included and wanted to ensure that would be provided to protect his home. He stated that in reviewing the grading contours, many of the lines come close to mature trees on his property and into some of his landscaping. He wanted to ensure that grading would be staked in order to prevent damage to mature trees and landscaping. He stated that his final concern is with the home placement. He noted that all of the homes were placed in a manner that each looks out into the backyards of other, whereas the placement of this home would be in the middle of everyone’s line of sight. Chair Magnuson asked for details related to the elevation of the subject property compared to the Bolin property. Mr. Bolin replied that the subject property is about two feet higher than his property. Lynn Burow, 1219 Victoria Curve, and property owner to the west, stated that her concern is with the drainage. She stated that she does not want the water to go into her garage. She stated that she does not mind the placement of the home as it is less impactful to her home and the trees would remain. Commissioner Katz asked if the resident has a problem with drainage currently. Ms. Burow commented that sometimes the garage is wet after a large amount of snow melts. She stated that she would not be concerned with the addition of the homes, as long as there is not disturbance within 20 feet of her garage as she did not believe that would impact her home at that point. She stated that if most of the drainage goes to the street, she believed there would not be an additional issue. Commissioner Katz asked if the resident has spoken with Tempo Homes. Ms. Burow commented that she has not. Packet Page No. 4 Commissioner Katz asked if the retaining wall between the resident garage and the property line is existing. Ms. Burow stated that she has a hand-built boulder wall that is not technically a retaining wall. Commissioner Toth asked the type of soil on the subject site. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that a soil survey has not been submitted. He commented that staff would not be concerned about a wetland type soil, it would be a more stable soil. Commissioner Toth commented that if the type of soil were known, that would help to determine the impact. He stated that it would also be helpful to know the elevation of the footings of the homes to the east and west compared to what is being built. He reviewed some of those elevations Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek provided details on the elevations of the proposed home. Mr. Tran commented that the elevation of the proposed home on its east side is very similar to the elevation of the home to the east. Seeing no one further coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Magnuson asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER CORBETT, MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR 1217 VICTORIA CURVE, WITH WOULD ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN OVERSIZED ATTACHED GARAGE, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.A BUILDING PERMIT, INCLUDING ALL NEW GRADING AND DRAINAGE WORK, MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION WORK. 2.FULL EROSION AND SEDIMENT MEASURES WILL BE PUT IN PLACE PRIOR TO AND DURING GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION WORK ACTIVITIES. 3.ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND CODES, AS WELL AS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY’S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. 4.A COMPLETE AND DETAILED LANDSCAPING PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL AS PART OF ANY NEW BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS. THE APPLICANT AGREES TO REPLANT ONE NEW TREE Packet Page No. 5 (MINIMUM 2.5” CALIPER SIZE FOR DECIDUOUS AND 6’ FOR EVERGREENS) FOR EACH SIGNIFICANT TREE REMOVED FROM THE SITE FOR THIS HOME PROJECT. AS PER THE CITY’S POLLINATOR FRIENDLY POLICY, ALL NEW TREES AND LANDSCAPING SHALL MEET THE CITY’S NATIVE PLANT LIST. 5. ALL WORK ON SITE WILL ONLY BE PERFORMED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:00 A.M. AND 8:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY; 9:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. WEEKENDS. 6. ALL DISTURBED AREAS IN AND AROUND THE PROJECT SITE SHALL BE RESTORED AND HAVE ESTABLISHED AND PERMANENT GROUND COVER IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED. Further discussion: Commissioner Field noted that many of the concerns expressed will be addressed throughout the City review process. Chair Magnuson encouraged the builder to make themselves available to the neighbors to hear their concerns related to drainage. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its August 4, 2020 meeting. B) PLANNING CASE 2020-15 MICHELLE CULLIGAN, NW QUADRANT OF VICTORIA CURVE AND GLENHILL ROAD – PRELIMINARY PLAT, CRITICAL AREA PERMIT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Michelle Culligan, acting on behalf of her parents and property owners Larry and Mary Culligan, is seeking to subdivide an existing vacant parcel into nine (9) new lots, to be titled “Valley View Oak 3rd Addition” to Mendota Heights. Hearing notices were published and mailed to all properties within 350-ft. of the site; a number of comments and/or concerns were received and included in the packet. Community Development Director Tim Benetti provided a planning staff report and a presentation on this planning item to the Commission (which is available for viewing through the City’s website). Staff recommended that the public hearing be held, and the issue then be tabled to allow input from the Park and Recreation Commission. He noted that this would then come back to the Planning Commission on August 25th. Packet Page No. 6 Commissioner Field stated that the rules allow someone to testify once and asked how that would apply in this situation where they could speak but then additional information could come forward from the Park and Recreation Commission that they might want to respond to at the next meeting. Commissioner Corbett believed that people are allowed to speak twice, as long as everyone has had an opportunity to speak. Chair Magnuson stated that she would be willing to allow people to respond at the second meeting to things that may have changed. Community Development Director Tim Benetti confirmed that staff would recommend allowing people to comment at both meetings. Michelle Culligan, applicant, stated that this land has been in their family for almost 100 years and her parents currently live on the property. She stated that because of that, they take how the property could be developed very seriously. She recognized that there are a number of challenges with the topography and the Critical Overlay District and therefore reached out to staff early in this process along with experts to help guide them. She stated that they have approached this in a manner of working with the topography to minimize tree removal and maintain the wooded nature of the property. She stated that they intended to hold a neighborhood meeting but refrained because of COVID and the age of her parents and therefore felt that the public hearing would be the best method of obtaining input. Commissioner Corbett asked if this project would be feasible without the variances. Ms. Culligan replied that it would be feasible without the variances but that would require additional tree removal which would expose more of the bluff. Commissioner Corbett asked if the retaining walls every 20 feet would be feasible. Ms. Culligan confirmed that would be possible but would be costly, require tree removal and is something she would rather avoid. Chair Magnuson stated that the retaining walls would span multiple properties and therefore could create a problem with maintenance. She asked how that would be handled. Ms. Culligan stated that there has been discussion of an HOA to maintain that element and others. She noted that discussion of a conservation easement was also discussed. She stated that the homeowners themselves would also desire an association in order to preserve the environment and nature of the neighborhood. Commissioner Katz stated that he appreciates the spirit to attempting to keep the bluff and vegetation preserved. He stated that because this is within the Critical Area, there is a possibility that this area was used as a burial ground. He asked the procedure the property owners would follow if bones were discovered. Packet Page No. 7 Ms. Culligan stated that she is not aware of all the steps would be taken but acknowledged that there is a procedure outlined. Chair Magnuson confirmed that State law would govern that process. Commissioner Katz stated that he simply wanted to ensure that the property owner was aware of the process that would need to be followed if that were to occur and the expense/change in direction that could be needed. Tom Goodrum, planning consultant for the applicant, stated that he appreciates all of the comments that have been received, recognizing that development within the Critical Area does not happen all the time. He provided background information on his firm and their experience with bluff development and critical area development. He also reviewed his experience with bluffs and critical areas. He stated that although the retaining walls reach up to 23 feet, that height is only in a very small area of the walls. He stated that they worked with the DNR and were conservative on their slope analysis. He stated that they want to respect the slopes and they need the retaining walls to help them with that. He noted that none of the retaining walls or house pads are up against the 40-foot setback line. He stated that they attempted to stay east to the extent possible, which is why variances are included. He stated that the soils on this site are fast draining. He stated that any drainage coming off the slope would be brought to the retention pond for treatment and disbursed at a much slower pace. Commissioner Toth referenced the locations of the retaining wall and degree of slope, asking if that would be a walkable slope. He stated that there is currently vegetation holding the soil in place and asked how they would prevent erosion once the vegetation is removed. Mr. Goodrum stated that they have a stormwater prevention plan to ensure that when the land is striped, they establish erosion control measures. He stated that once they open the soil, they will know which erosion control measures will be implemented. He commented that a 40 percent slope would be slightly greater than a freeway embankment. He stated that the wall would be vertical and provided details on the wall locations. Commissioner Toth asked the type of material that would be used for the walls. Mr. Goodrum replied that they are unsure as the soil type would dictate the materials/type necessary. He recognized that the City has material requirements as well. He stated that they will work with City staff to ensure the design meets everyone’s standards. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Allen Olstein, 1954 Glenhill Road, stated that he wants the developers to be aware that the two proposed properties across the street from his property are adjacent to a blind curve. He commented on the hazard of backing out of property in that area. Steven Douglas, 330 G Street, stated that there is a holding pond in the corner that is not visible on this plan. He stated that about 20,000 gallons a day drain to that area and water comes into his Packet Page No. 8 basement. He stated that he cannot handle any more water and has been unable to sell his home because of that problem. Bob Bruestle, 370 G Street (Mendota), stated that the former proposal of the development included a holding pond, which is not a retaining pond. He stated that a small pipe came out of that pond and inundated his yard. He stated that he blocked that pipe and is currently draining is through a hose. He stated that when the soil is frozen there is not retention. He stated that he would like to see a topographical map, as the property all slopes. He stated that the Mendota Springs have not yet been addressed, noting that hillside is full of springs and if cut into, that water drains out. He stated that there are two real Indian mounds under the original Culligan development. He stated that this is a Critical Area and was initially looked at as urban open space. He commented that not everything has to be developed to have equitable living. He encouraged the Commission members to visit the area to see the slopes in person. He stated that in the winter, the water all comes down. Brian Mielke, 1395 2nd Street (Mendota), stated that he is the Mayor of Mendota and they have multiple concerns with this development. He stated that their concerns are not just what you see, but what you do not see, like the underground springs. He stated that the proposed walls built into the ground will disrupt the underground springs and adjacent properties. He stated that if the water is going to be drained to a retention pond, it will still eventually go into Mendota. He stated that he would think there is a reason this is the last undeveloped property in that area. He referenced a landslide that occurred 12 years after a previous development was built, noting that if this development is approved, the problems might not be seen today it will be seen in the future. He stated that he would like to see the DNR response to the project, as the DNR expressed concerns with development in Mendota. He stated that he is also curious if BWSR has commented. Chair Magnuson asked if the springs have ever been marked. Mr. Mielke stated that the Mendota property owners would welcome members of the Planning Commission to come to their properties and see the water on the property from the natural springs. Commissioner Katz asked if there is a list of ongoing issues with Mendota Heights that could be addressed between the cities, rather than bringing concerns forward on a piece by piece basis with projects. He stated that he wants to ensure that Mendota feels that Mendota Heights recognizes its concerns and that there is a cooperative relationship. Mr. Mielke commented that he believes there is a good relationship between the cities. He noted that he does not have any other concerns outside of this development, which he was alerted of this week. Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that notices were mailed to property owners on July 14th and he sent something to the Mendota City Clerk prior to that date. Mr. Mielke stated that he will provide his email to City staff and would like to have notices of this type emailed to him as well. Packet Page No. 9 Commissioner Katz commented that it appears the drainage issue in this case is the first concern. He asked if there are other concerns. Mr. Mielke stated that Mendota is a small city that operates differently than Mendota Heights. He stated that some of the property owners in that area have accepted the wet conditions, they simply do not want them made worse. Steve Golias, 1308 4th Street (Mendota), stated that he owns block 34 and the triangle piece that abuts this parcel. He stated that he is the Deputy Mayor of Mendota and has been on the Council for 30 years. He stated that the development that occurred in the 1980s just happened, as the process was much different then. He stated that the consequences from that development have been severe. He stated that the property owner at 1290 4th Street has been at the hospital and was unable to attend but also has concerns over this development. He stated that water does run 365 days of the year, even in the winter. He stated that they water their plants with water coming out of the hills. He stated that the Mendota City Council only meets once per month and therefore its Planning Commission and City Council could review the issue at their August meetings. He stated that he has two homes on his property that are served with well water and has concern with the damage that could occur to the springs in the hills with this development and the impact that could have on their wells. He stated that when this project was proposed in the 1980’s, it was stopped because MnDOT would not give access to 110. He stated that he is concerned with water runoff from the steep slopes. He asked if the holding pond would be City owned and maintained. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek commented that the holding pond is City owned. He stated that when the new pond on Victoria Curve was constructed, the storm sewer was stubbed in for this property. Mr. Golias stated that he would want to ensure that the pond does not discharge down slope. He stated that he has concern with the disruption of the springs, impacts to wells, and would like to know additional information about the sewage and how that would be discharged. He stated that sometimes homeowners install swimming pools and asked if those would be allowed and if so, how would drainage of those be handled. He stated that the subject property was an old wagon trail and when he was young his father found an old musket. He stated that he would caution not just against burial grounds, but other artifacts that could be found. He stated that his triangle piece of property is landlocked and technically a part of Mendota Heights. He stated that if this goes forward, he would like to have access to water or to allow that parcel to be a part of Mendota. Mark Hunt, 1224 Culligan Lane, stated that there are a lot of issues with this property and it seems that it would seem to have additional engineering completed. He stated that he is concerned with the number of variances requested within the Critical Corridor area. He stated that the retaining walls seem triple the size of anything in this area. He stated that he is very concerned with the tightness proposed, noting that one lot would adjoin to his backyard. He stated that he does not want to see the land stripped. Ms. Culligan stated that they can explore the drainage concerns more. She stated that they could have less variances, with a wider road, but that would have more impacts. She explained that they are trying to work within the bounds of the property. Packet Page No. 10 Mr. Goodrum stated that he appreciates the input from residents that have lived in the area for years and from City staff, noting that they will attempt to address those concerns when they come back in August. Chair Magnuson encouraged the applicant and their team to make themselves available to the residents and City staff of Mendota. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ TO LEAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND TABLE THE ISSUE TO THE AUGUST 25, 2020 REGULAR MEETING AND DIRECT STAFF TO BRING THIS LAND USE REQUEST ITEM BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THIS SAME DATE. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Community Development Director Tim Benetti noted that this will be reviewed by the Park and Recreation Commission on August 12, 2020. He noted that notices are not typically sent out when an item is tabled but stated that staff could send out notices prior to the August Planning Commission meeting if desired. Chair Magnuson advised staff to follow the normal process. Staff Announcements / Updates Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review: • The Fred Peterson plat that was recommended for denial was presented to the Council and was approved. • The Verizon Wireless request for CUP was approved. • The Preliminary and Final Plat of Cosgriff Place was approved. • LDK Builders request for CUP was approved. Adjournment COMMISSIONER KATZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:03 P.M. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Packet Page No. 11 Planning Staff Report DATE: August 25, 2020 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2020-16 Preliminary and Final Plat of Mendota Heights Senior Living APPLICANT: Pope Architects, on behalf of Grand Real Estate Advisors / MH Development LLC PROPERTY ADDRESS: 725 Linden Street / 735 Maple Street ZONING/GUIDED: MU-PUD [Mixed Use-Planned Unit Development] ACTION DEADLINE: November 22, 2020 INTRODUCTION Pope Architects, acting on behalf of Grand Real Estate Advisors, is requesting consideration of a Preliminary Plat and Final Plat of the former city-owned parcels, generally located in The Village at Mendota Heights. The lots are bounded by Dodd Road to the west, Maple Street to the south, and Linden Street to the east (between the Linden Street Lofts condominiums and Mendakota Animal Hospital). The proposed title of the plat is “MENDOTA HEIGHTS SENIOR LIVING”. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the Pioneer Press newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcels. The city received no comments or objections on this item. BACKGROUND & DESCRIPTION of REQUEST The subject properties consist of four original parcels: Lot 1/Blk. 3 at 0.48 acres, Lot 2/Blk. 3 at 0.79 acres, Lot 1/Blk. 2 at 0.45 acres; and Outlot D with 0.95 acres. A total of 2.67 acres is available for this development. The properties are currently guided and zoned MU-PUD [Mixed Use-Planned Unit Development] and have been since 2002. No zoning or land uses changes are being requested under this re-platting. At the January 28th and February 27th planning commission meetings, the city was asked to consider a conditional use permit application from Grand Real Estate Advisors of St. Paul (GREA), which approval would officially amend the original 2002 Planned Unit Development of Mendota Heights Town Center (now The Village at Mendota Heights). This CUP/PUD Amendment requested approval of a new three- Packet Page No. 12 story, 48-unit senior, luxury apartment with an attached 4,300-sf restaurant. On March 4, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-14, approving the CUP and PUD Amendment plans for this site. The city recently finalized the real estate closing of these four parcels on July 29th; and a separate developer’s agreement has been completed and entered into between the city and the developers. The site is now legally owned by MH Development LLC (a legal entity of GREA). The city has assigned new addresses for this mixed-use development site; 725 Linden Street for the apartments and 735 Maple Street for the new restaurant. As part of the PUD Amendment process, the city conditioned that once GREA owned or obtained control of the development site, they must file a follow-up application to re-plat the four original parcels, thereby creating a new main development parcel for the apartment and restaurant use; a separate “off-site” parcel for the adjacent parking lot; and re-establish the old outlot to the north created under the original Mendota Heights Town Center plat. The proposed plat illustrates the triangular shaped parcel as new Lot 1, Block 1, used for the development’s off-site/adjacent parking lot; Lot 1 Block 2 is the new main parcel for the joint apartment/restaurant building; and Outlot A is the slightly smaller and re-shaped outlot to be kept as a drainage and utility easement for this and the surrounding properties. The Final Plat map has all the necessary drainage and utility easements as requested along Hwy 149 (Dodd Road) and other perimeter areas. Lot 1/Block 1 (the triangular shaped lot) is being dedicated with a drainage and utility easement over the entire lot. MH Development LLC also intends to deed over Outlot A back to the city, in order to keep ownership and maintenance rights on this drainage and utility area with the city. This preliminary and final plat approval is more of a “house-keeping” item, which was intended to be filed after the developer’s obtained possession of the former city-owned lands. The consideration, approval or filing of this plat, even after construction has begun, is acceptable and does not impede or prohibit the continued development of this site. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat of Mendota Heights Senior Living, with condition the final plat must be submitted to the City of Mendota Heights for the Mayor and City Clerk signatures, and filed with Dakota County Recorders at earliest opportunity by the Applicant; or 2. Recommend denial of the Preliminary and Final Plat of Mendota Heights Senior Living, based on specific findings of fact which support such a recommendation of denial; or 3. Table the request, and require city staff and/or the applicant to provide additional information as needed or requested. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat and Final Plat of MENDOTA HEIGHTS SENIOR LIVING, based on the attached findings of fact. No other conditions of approval are being requested at this time. Conditions related to this plat were previously memorialized in adopted Resolution No. 2020-14. Packet Page No. 13 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Preliminary & Final Plat MENDOTA HEIGHTS SENIOR LIVING 725 Linden Street / 735 Maple Street The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1. The proposed plat meets the purpose and intent of the Subdivision Code. 2. The proposed plat request meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. All required easements will be dedicated under this plat for the benefit of the city, its agents and representatives, private and/or public utility service providers, along with state and county agencies as needed. 4. The proposed plat and lots are all consistent with the intended layout and plans associated with the approved Planned Unit Development Amendment, submitted under Planning Case No. 2020-01, officially authorized under Resolution No. 2020-14 and adopted March 4, 2020. Packet Page No. 14 EU 66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 6 6 6 6666666666666666666666666 6 66666 6 66666666666666666666" ³ " ³ ³ ³* * ³³* * ³** ³ ³³ ³ ³" ³ ³ * ( ( "! ³³!!" ³ * ! " " "" " " ! ! " " ³ ³ ³ ³ ³³³ ³ ³ !³ ³ ³ ³ ³ ! """" !³³³³ ³ " """! ³ !"" " "! *³³ ³" * " " " ! ! ! ! " " " * ³66 66666 66 6666666666666666666666 6666!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 (] 700 1960 702 750 764 1925 699 780 720 1883 755 745 776 765 1933 1938 1944 1887 1899 6971941 1937 1894 1888 1882 698 1876 730 1865 770 772 781 696 697 740 721 715 709 703 692698 689 401'287'270'319'236'234'275' 223' 298' 1 8 5 ' 299' 149' 313'144'14 2 '141'138'90'124'101.6'173.5'163.9'112'108'73'104'101'125.7'248'126.5'56'104.8'106.8'7 4 . 6 '47'86.7'73.5' 150' 1 4 9 '185'142'Village Lots (MH Senior Living) The Linden of Mendota Heights City ofMendotaHeights0190 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. 8/20/2020 Packet Page No. 15 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2020-14 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2002 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND MASTER PLAN FOR THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS TOWN CENTER N/K/A THE VILLAGE AT MENDOTA HEIGHTS) LOCATED AT 725 LINDEN STREET AND 735 MAPLE STREET WHEREAS, Grand Real Estate Advisors (the "Applicant") has applied for a conditional use permit to amend a previously approved planned unit development (PUD) and final master development plan for the development originally titled The Mendota Heights Town Center, which is now known as The Village at Mendota Heights, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2020-01 and for the properties legally described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, this amendment seeks to amend the "West Neighborhood" of this original Mendota Heights Town Center PUD plan, which called for fourteen (14) residential townhomes and five (5) home -office style townhomes, to be replaced with a new mixed -used development consisting of a three-story, 48 -unit senior apartment building with an attached sit-down style cafe/restaurant, with underground and surface parking facilities, initially titled "Mendota Heights Senior Apartments"; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2020, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission received a planning staff report and presentation on this planning application item, held a public hearing on this matter, received comments from the public and Applicant, and whereby this item was tabled by the commission to the February 27, 2020 regular meeting; and WHEREAS, at the February 27, 2020 meeting, staff and the Applicant provided additional information for the planning commission's consideration, re -opened the public hearing, heard additional comments from the public, and after closing the hearing, the commission recommended unanimously (7- 0 vote) to approve the conditional use permit authorizing an amendment to The Mendota Heights Town Center (n/k/a The Village at Mendota Heights) Planned Unit Development Packet Page No. 16 and its Master Development Plan, with certain findings of fact to support such approval, and with certain conditions of approval. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the conditional use permit authorizing an amendment to The Mendota Heights Town Center (n/k/a The Village at Mendota Heights) Planned Unit Development and its Master Development Plan, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2020-01, is hereby approved with the following findings of fact: The proposed amendment to a Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable City Code requirements for such a development. 2. The proposed amended planned unit development can be planned and developed to harmonize with any existing or proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site 3. The proposed project utilizes the planned unit development (PUD) zoning flexibility to enhance development of the property without negatively impacting surrounding land uses and natural resources. 4. The reduced setback and building separation does not pose any threat to the general health, safety and welfare of the surrounding properties or diminishes the usefulness of the planned development of this property. 5. The proposed PUD should be approved with a higher density allotment, due to: a. it will be an effective and unified treatment of the development; b. the development plan includes provisions for the preservation and replacement of natural amenities; c. financing is available to the applicant on conditions and in an amount which is sufficient to assure completion of the planned unit development and the PUD is consistent with the comprehensive plan; and d. the new PUD Amendment plans can be and will be planned and developed to harmonize with any existing or proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site. e. The proposed increased density is consistent with surrounding suburban communities and would allow for adequate open space as part of the proposed development; and f. The increased density provides for construction of a housing type that is lacking in the City and would help to reach the forecasted population projections 6. Construction of the proposed high-density residential development will help contribute to meeting the projected Metropolitan Council's 2040 forecasted population and household numbers. Res 2020-14 Page 2 Packet Page No. 17 7. The new mixed-use senior residential with a restaurant use would be in character with other surrounding uses in the existing PUD area. 8. The proposed trail and pedestrian connections included as part of the mixed-use development project will facilitate a walkable and livable environment within the overall Village at Mendota Heights PUD and the surrounding neighborhoods. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the conditional use permit authorizing an amendment to The Mendota Heights Town Center (n/k/a The Village at Mendota Heights) Planned Unit Development and Master Development Plan, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2020-01, is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. The Developer shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Mendota Heights, in a form prepared by the city attorney; and final draft shall be approved by the city council. 2. Developer shall provide a clearly marked crosswalk on Maple Street over to the separated parking lot, with final location and design approved by Public Works Director. 3. Necessary drainage and utility easements shall be included on the Final Plat, as determined by the Public Works Director and if necessary the Saint Paul Regional Water Services. 4. All new buildings shall be constructed only in conformance to building and site plans certified by a registered architect and engineers (as applicable); and in accordance with all architectural and building standards found under Title 12-1E-8, Subpart F Architectural Controls" and Subpart G — Structural, Electrical and Mechanical Requirements. 5. Any ground -level mechanicals and utility appurtenances, must be screened with vegetation or one or more of the materials used in the construction of the principal structure, which must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department as part of the building permit process. 6. Plant material shall be utilized as a screening element for any building utility areas, but shall not obstruct fire department connections or hydrants, to be reviewed by the Planning and Fire Departments and verified as part of the building permit review process. 7. A park dedication fee of $4,000/residential unit shall be paid at time of building permit approvals. Res 2020-14 Page 3 Packet Page No. 18 8. A performance bond or letter of credit shall be supplied by the applicant in an amount equal to at least one and one-half (11/2) times the value of such screening, landscaping, or other improvements, to be included as part of the Development Agreement. 9. The Developer and/or their respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan and which have died shall be replaced as soon as seasonal or weather conditions allow. All landscape areas must be irrigated. 10. The proposed water system shall be designed and constructed to Saint Paul Regional Water Service (SPRWS) standards. 11. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction commencement. 12. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City's Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 13. All applicable fire and building codes, as adopted/amended by the City, shall apply and the buildings shall be fully -protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 4th day of March, 2020. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: L ri Smith, City Clerk Res 2020-14 Page 4 Packet Page No. 19 EXHIBIT A Legal Descriptions Parcel 1: Lot 1, Block 2, Mendota Heights Town Center. Dakota County, Minnesota Abstract Property Parcel ID Number 27-48335-02-010 Parcel 2: Lot 1, Block 3, Mendota Heights Town Center. Dakota County, Minnesota Abstract Property Parcel ID Number 27-48335-03-010 Parcel 3: Lot 2, Block 3, Mendota Heights Town Center. Dakota County, Minnesota Abstract Property Parcel ID Number 27-48335-03-020 Parcel 4: Outlot D, Mendota Heights Town Center. Dakota County, Minnesota Abstract Property Parcel ID Number 27-48335-00-040 Packet Page No. 20 VICINITY MAPSUBJECTPROPERTIES1. Bearings shown hereon are based on the Dakota County Coordinate System relative to theNAD83(11) control adjustment.2. Elevations and contours shown hereon were established with GPS and are relative to theNAVD88 vertical datum.3. Date of field work was November 8, 2019.LEGEND 5898-000SHEETDMLJRAMENDOTAHEIGHTSAPARTMENTSMENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN01/06/POPE ARCHITECTS, IN1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SUITE 2ST. PAUL, MN 55108-27(651) 642-9200 | FAX (651) 642-11www.popearch.coWENCK ASSOCIATES, IN7500 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY, SUITE 3GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 554(763) 252-6800 | FAX (952) 831-12WWW.WENCK.COWARNING:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALLCOOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND/OR RELOCATION OF LINES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FORTHE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIEDSTRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURINGCONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.GOPHER STATE ONE CALLTWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166CALL BEFORE YOU DIGCITY SUBMITTAL01/17/CITY SUBMITTAL11/18/CONCEPT SUBMITTAL02/07/CITY COMMENT REVISION 102/13/CITY SUBMITTAL02/18/2CITY COMMENT REVISION 202/25/2CITY COMMENT REVISION 3PARCEL 1: 19,476 S. F. (0.447 AC.)PARCEL 2: 20,768 S. F. (0.477 AC.)PARCEL 3: 34,457 S. F. (0.791 AC.)PARCEL 4: 41,459 S. F. (0.952 AC.)PLAT BOUNDARY AREA = 116,160 S. F. (2.667 AC.)LOT 1, BLOCK 1 = 19,476 S. F. (0.447 ± AC.)LOT 1, BLOCK 2 = 70,998 S. F. (1.630 ± AC.)OUTLOT A = 25,685 S. F. (0.590 ± AC.)DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS PROPOSED TO BE REDEDICATED:BEING 3 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING LOT LINES AND BEING 3 FEET INWIDTH AND ADJOINING PUBLIC WAYS AND REAR LOT LINES, UNLESSOTHERWISE INDICATED ON THIS PLAT.DRAINAGE AND UTILTY EASEMENT OVER ALL OF OUTLOT A.BEARING ORIENTATION NOTE:BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE WEST LINE OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, MENDOTAHEIGHTS TOWN CENTER HAS AN ASSUMED BEARING OF N 00 DEGREES 12MINUTES 37 SECONDS WEST.LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE PLATTEDPARCEL 1:CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS(THIS PARCEL HAS NOT BEEN ASSIGNED AN ADDRESS)PID NUMBER: 27-48335-02-010PARCEL 2:CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS(THIS PARCEL HAS NOT BEEN ASSIGNED AN ADDRESS)PID NUMBER: 27-48335-03-010PARCEL 3CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS735 MAPLE STREETMENDOTA HEIGHTS MN 55118PID NUMBER: 27-48335-03-020PARCEL 4 :CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS(THIS PARCEL HAS NOT BEEN ASSIGNED AN ADDRESS)PID NUMBER: 27-48335-00-040PRESENT OWNER / ADDRESS / PARCEL ID NO.EXISTING PARCEL AND PROPOSED PLAT AREAS MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENTSPRELIMINARY PLAT OFParcel 1:Lot 1, Block 2, MENDOTA HEIGHTS TOWN CENTER,Dakota County, MinnesotaAbstract PropertyParcel 2:Lot 1, Block 3, MENDOTA HEIGHTS TOWN CENTER,Dakota County, MinnesotaAbstract PropertyParcel 3:Lot 2, Block 3, MENDOTA HEIGHTS TOWN CENTER,Dakota County, MinnesotaAbstract PropertyParcel 4:Outlot D, MENDOTA HEIGHTS TOWN CENTER,Dakota County, MinnesotaAbstract PropertyWENCK ASSOCIATES,1800 PIONEER CREEK CENTER,MAPLE PLAIN, MNGARY BJORKLUND, MN.LICENSE NUMBER 46563LAND SURVEYORMARCH 10, 2020DATE OF PRELIMINARY PLAT ZONINGMU-PUD MIXED USE PER CITY ZONING MAP 2018SURVEY NOTES DENOTES PUBLIC DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS TO BE VACATEDPacket Page No. 21 WENCKASSOCIATESMENDOTA HEIGHTS SENIOR LIVINGPacket Page No. 22 WENCKASSOCIATESLEGEND MENDOTA HEIGHTS SENIOR LIVINGPacket Page No. 23 Planning Staff Report DATE: August 25, 2020 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2020-18 WETLANDS PERMIT APPLICANT: John Steveken PROPERTY ADDRESS: 781 Pondhaven Lane ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: October 6, 2020 INTRODUCTION John Steveken is seeking approval of a Wetlands Permit to allow the installation of a new in-ground swimming pool on the property located at 781 Pondhaven Lane. A public hearing notice for this planning item was published in the Pioneer Press and notice letters were mailed to all properties within 350-feet of the subject property. No comments or objections were received. BACKGROUND / PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property is 0.78 acres (33,985-sf.) in size, and contains a 3,750 sf. two-story single family dwelling. The property located in the R-1 One Family Residential zone. Approximately one-half of the lot is covered by the adjacent pond (see aerial image - below): Packet Page No. 24 The pond is identified under the City’s Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) as a “Freshwater Pond”; and further classified as a Type III wetland (i.e. Slightly Susceptible Wetland). The back one-half of the lot is also covered by a drainage and utility easement, dedicated under the Bridgewater Shores 2nd Addition. The homeowners have hired Kalifornia Pool & Spas to install a new 15’ x 32’ in-ground swimming pool, along with a new concrete patio deck around the perimeter of the pool (see site plan image – below). The Applicant’s surveyor was provided the ordinary high water (OHW) elevation of 875.10-ft. (as per the SWMP), and was instructed to include a wetland buffer line (offset) of 25-feet from this elevation line. Wetland buffer edges are not required by the ordinance, but are recommended in the SWMP as an effective means to reducing negative impacts to the wetlands from adjacent development. Packet Page No. 25 The pool structure itself does not impact the buffer; and the surrounding concrete pool deck edge just touches the buffer line near the northeast corner. The rear yard of the property is currently fenced with a 4-ft. high, white vinyl decorative style fence, but the rear section along the back pond edge was recently removed by the homeowner. Any yard that contains a pool (or the pool area itself) must have a 5 to 6-ft. high fence. The Applicant is requesting to install a new 5-ft. or 6-ft. black aluminum decorative style fence along the rear yard area (see images – below) as a replacement to the old fence. As noted in the image above, the Applicant is seeking to install the rear section of the new fence inside the 25-foot buffer edge. The fence is not intended to impact or encroach over the OHW line or existing pond/water line. ANALYSIS Pursuant to City Code Section 12-2-3, the Wetland Systems ordinance applies to wetlands and water resource related areas, and to adjacent land within one hundred feet (100') of normal high water markers of wetlands and water resource related areas as delineated on the official city wetlands systems map. City Code Section 12-2-6 further states that any work or development upon or which would otherwise alter a wetland or potentially impact a water related resource area, must obtain a written permit from the city; with the list of activities noted as follows: 1. The deposit or removal of any debris, fill or other material over 100 cubic yards. 2. Any excavation over 100 cubic yards. 3. The digging, dredging, filling, or in any other way altering or removing any material from water bodies, watercourses, wetlands, floodplain, or natural drainage system. 4. The construction, alteration, or removal of any structure. Packet Page No. 26 5. The removal of vegetation. 6. The altering of any embankment, ponding, or changing of the flow of water or ponding capacity. 7. Permanently storing materials. 8. Disposing of waste materials (including sewage, garbage, rubbish, and other discarded materials). 9. Installation and maintenance of essential services. The purpose of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the City Code Title 12-2-1 is to: • Provide for protection, preservation, maintenance, and use wetlands and water resource-related areas; • Maintain the natural drainage system; • Minimize disturbance which may result from alteration by earthwork, loss of vegetation, loss of wildlife and aquatic organisms as a result of the disturbance of the natural environment or from excessive sedimentation; • Provide for protection of potable fresh water supplies; and • Ensure safety from floods. The Surface Water Management Plan provides certain guidelines and suggested standards (not requirements) for the city to follow or implement when dealing with new development near natural water features. The SWMP recommends a 25-foot no-disturbance/natural vegetative buffer zone from the wetland edge, to provide an extra level or measure of erosion and silt protection, and any fertilizer/chemical runoff from the lawn area. It appears all major construction activities related to the building of the new pool and deck are far enough away from the established pond edge; and any construction or installation work near the 25-ft. buffer should be minimal or nominal. The new (and required) fencing however, is being requested to encroach or placed inside this wetland buffer. The subject property currently has an established and natural vegetative buffer in place, which was situated outside the old fence line (see images – below). Per the Wetland Ordinance Section 12-2-7 Standards and Conditions: • Runoff from developed property and construction projects may be directed to the wetland only when reasonably free of silt and debris and chemical pollutants, and at such rates such as not to disturb wetland vegetation or increase turbidity. Packet Page No. 27 • No deleterious waste shall be discharged in a wetland or disposed of in a manner that would cause the waste to enter the wetland or other water resource area. • Removal of vegetation shall be permitted only when and where such work within the W district has been approved in accordance with the standards of this chapter. • Removal of vegetation within the W district but outside the wetland shall be limited to that reasonably required for the placement of structures and the use of property. The Applicant has stated he is requesting to install the fencing farther out towards the pond edge in order to obtain or provide additional yard space, due to some loss of the narrow back-yard space with the installation of the new pool. The Applicant does not intend to remove this vegetative buffer area and turn this yard space between the pool and new fence into additional lawn or “mow-able” area. Instead, he has agreed to restore the natural vegetative wetland buffer edge in this area, with the fence closer to the pond, and is willing to work with the city staff, namely the Natural Resource Technician on new planting types and materials conducive to and beneficial for a wetland edge. Full erosion control measures will be mandatory and held in place during and after the completion of the project, as per the city’s Land Disturbance Guidelines. The Applicant is fully aware that per Section 9-2-1 Swimming Pools, the drainage or back-flushing of water from pool shall be directed onto the owner's property or into approved public drainage ways and shall not drain onto adjacent private lands. Drainage onto public streets or other public drainage ways shall require permission of the appropriate local city officials. This new pool is intended to be a salt-water and closed filter cleaning system. As has been reported or stated on other pool projects approved in the city, most pools of this type (or even in Midwest locations) do not need or require continuous drainage or back flushing. However, for any flushing or drainage that may be done with this pool, it must not be drained towards the wetland. The scope and scale of this proposed new pool project fits nicely with the overall size of the property, especially in this narrow stretch of rear-yard space. Most of the new work is being contained or limited to the area in and around where the existing, flat, rear yard space exists today. The following statements are presented for the Planning Commission to review and consider in your determination of this wetland permit: a) the work should have very little, if any impacts to the adjacent wetland feature; b) the Applicant/Owners will provide for the protection and preservation of the adjacent wetland/water resource feature by installing silt fence and stormwater run-off protection measures as per the City’s Land Disturbance Guidelines and city staff direction; c) the protective and natural wetland buffer area will be restored and replanted with vegetation that ensures storm water, soil and contaminant runoff is reduced or minimized from the subject property; d) the Applicant/Owners will make every attempt to minimize disturbances of the vegetative buffer area and other surrounding areas in order to protect and preserve the natural pond environment, thereby minimizing and avoiding any impacts to wildlife and aquatic organisms. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the Wetlands Permit based on certain findings of fact, along with specific conditions of approval as noted herein; or 2. Deny the requested Wetlands Permit based on revised finding(s) of facts as determined by the Planning Commission; or Packet Page No. 28 3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, pursuant to MN State Statute 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a Wetlands Permit to John Steveken and the property located at 781 Pondhaven Lane, which would allow the construction of a new in-ground swimming pool and fence located within 100-feet of a wetland, based on the attached findings of fact and subject to the following conditions: 1. The new pool structure shall comply with all standards and rules under Title 9 Building Regulations Section 9-2-1: Swimming Pools, and Title 12 Zoning of the City Code, and the Minnesota State Building Code regulations. The new fence must be a minimum of 5-ft. in height and fully installed and inspected prior to using the swimming pool. 2. The new swimming pool and related structure work shall comply with all applicable standards and conditions noted under Title 12, Chapter 2 Wetlands Systems of City Code. 3. Draining or back-flushing of water from the pool shall be directed onto the owner's property only, and shall not drain directly into the pond/wetland systems. Any drainage onto public streets or other public drainage ways shall require permission of the appropriate local city officials. 4. The Applicant/Owner shall replant and re-vegetate the 25-foot wetland buffer area with plantings and materials as per the direction of the city’s Natural Resources Technician. 5. Any new excavating, grading and/or construction activity related to the new pol and fence work shall be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. Full erosion/sedimentation measures shall be installed prior to commencement of work and maintained throughout the duration of the construction project 6. A building permit must be approved prior to the commencement of any construction work on this pool. Site construction shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm weekdays; and 9:00 am to 5:00 pm weekends. 7. All disturbed areas in and around the project site shall be restored and have an established, protected and permanent ground cover immediately after the pool project is completed. Packet Page No. 29 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Wetlands Permit for New Swimming Pool and Fence Improvements 781 Pondhaven Lane Planning Case No. 2020-18 The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed construction activities related to the new pool project and allowed under this Wetlands Permit meets the purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The re-establishment of the wetland buffer will provide adequate safeguards for storm water, soil erosion and contaminant leeching into the adjacent pond/wetland. 3. The placement of the new fence inside the 25-foot wetland buffer area will have minimal impacts to the adjacent pond/wetland and vegetative cover. 4. Adequate erosion control measures will be maintained and observed during construction. 5. Any disturbed areas or vegetation removed as part of this pool project will be planted in the disturbed areas after construction is completed. Packet Page No. 30 SITE PHOTOS – 781 PONDHAVEN LANE STEVEKEN RESIDENCE Packet Page No. 31 Packet Page No. 32 IMAGE of PROPOSED FENCE Packet Page No. 33 August 6, 2020 To: Mendota Heights Planning Commission From: John & Lisa Steveken Re: Letter of Intent / Project Description Planning Commission, It is our desire to construct a 15 x 32 foot pool in our backyard at 781 Pondhaven Lane in Mendota Heights. Pagel Pond butts up to our backyard and, although our project would encroach into the 25 foot buffer area from the OHWL, the actual survey shows a minimal amount of encroachment. As a result, of course, a 5 ft tall fence would also be in that buffer zone. Since moving to Mendota Heights in 1997, our goals have remained consistent with the City of Mendota Heights when it comes to protecting any natural and artificial wetlands. We remain steadfast in our desire to maintain and protect any shoreline, aquatic life and native plants. Our family appreciates your commitment towards our goal and we look forward to meeting with you to answer any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, John & Lisa Steveken 612-840-6753 cell jsteveken@mbasoft.com Packet Page No. 34 EU$1 666 6666666666666 666666666666666666 66666666 666666" ! ( * " " *" " * "! ! * ! ³ ! ³³ * "³ "" ³³ * ""* "" * " * ³³ " * * * * * " * ³"" " " * ""* ³ ³ ³6666 6666 6666666666 66666666 66 66 6 66 66 6 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 !!2!!2 !!2 !!2 (] (] (] (] 2455 750 2469 819 813 2455 2391 816 2390 740 2530 814 2475 2487 803 2496 2381 2486 815 815 2525 2491 807 790 767 810 760 2400 2465 2515 800 784 771 750 775 2473 754 2510 809 799 809 766 2477 781785 2520 796 783 794 760 781 810 788 775 2481 778 793 2496 2464 2493 753 782 769 776 772 775 2487 2472 2480 2488 2492 24842482 771 2490 785 2491 790 2481 2376 815 788 831 819 2467 778 796 840 842 800 778 770 772 784 2425 834 772 2476 838836 813 782 818 784 815 786 2477 817 820822824826 819 828830832 821823 744 825 814 766 2464 2496 767 2535 2400 752 754 2473 2492 2499 24702475 2488 806 356' 330'303'367' 252' 238' 234' 359' 225' 218'215'214'208' 207' 206' 186'182'222'177'174'173'159'155'99'141' 136' 94'134'132'130'399'88'119'107'251'173'781 PONDHAVEN LANE(Steveken Res.)City ofMendotaHeights0260 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. 8/20/2020 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD Packet Page No. 35 6666666666666666666666666666 66 66 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6666666 6 6 30729729515150 96142120 79 77 100 91 40 37 82 33 32 31 29289 27 262526722 21 66 2521210 5 38 26 100 25 775 781785 781 775 785 2472 771 790796800 2464 784 2464 771 PONDHAVEN LN 218'356' 238' WETLANDS MAP 781 Pondhaven Lane City ofMendotaHeights050 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. 8/20/2020 Packet Page No. 36 Packet Page No. 37 Packet Page No. 38 Packet Page No. 39 Packet Page No. 40 Packet Page No. 41 Packet Page No. 42