Loading...
2017-01-24 Planning Comm Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA January 24, 2017 — 7:00 p.m. Mendota Heights City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Adopt Agenda 4. Approve November 21, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes 5. Public Hearings: a. Case No. 2016-43: Domestic Chickens — draft ordinance b. Case No. 2017-01: DBG, LLC, Lot Split & Critical Area Permit at 1919 Hunter Lane. c. Case No. 2017-02: Mark Gergen, Lot Split 697 Wesley Lane. 6. Verbal Review 7. Staff and Commission Announcements 8. Adjourn Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Hall at 651.452.1850 with requests. Page 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES November 21, 2016 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 21, 2016 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Howard Roston, Michael Noonan, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: Christine Costello Approval ofAgenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of October 25, 2016 Minutes COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25, 2016, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 Hearings A) DISCUSS ISSUES AND ORDINANCE OPTIONS RELATING TO DOMESTIC CHICKENS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Consulting Planner Phil Carlson, AICP gave the highlights of the staff report by stating that discussion on this issue has occurred in recent past. He also noted that he personally takes advantage of his neighbors who bring him fresh eggs on occasion but he would try not to let that sway his recommendations. The issue has come up with a number of residents approaching the City Council requesting that action be taken. The issue is that, currently in the City only domestic animals (cats, dogs, etc.) are allowed in the City. No other kinds of farm animals are allowed in the residential areas. The City Council has asked the Planning Commission to consider it and staff has then worked with some of these residents who had ideas and suggestions. In the memo of December 21 staff outlined several things: • Residents are interested in having healthy fresh food • Other surrounding communities are allowing chickens in residential areas with restrictions November 21, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 1 Page 2 Approaches to Regulating Chickens in Residential Areas Currently in the Mendota Heights City Code, they simply are not allowed because the code is silent on it. 1. Zoning Approach In other communities where they are allowed they are mostly covered by a zoning ordinance and they are then included as an accessory use to residential uses; typically issues addressed are clearly defined numbers of chickens allowed and regulations on where, kind of structure, the setback requirements, etc. 2. Animal Control Approach The City of Edina has a very different approach, which is simply to regulate them under the Animal Control Ordinance, which regulates stray dogs and what is done if there are dangerous animals around. It simply lists the kinds of animals that could and could not be had and then says `accept for four or six domestic chickens which may be kept'. As far as on the ground, if that were to be allowed in Mendota Heights, you may not see any difference if they have them in their backyards. What would be different would be the enforcement and how the City would handle that if there were problems or issues. Planner Carlson did not go through is memorandum line by line since it merely outlined the two approaches that could be taken. However, he did mention specifically the concern that he heard when speaking with city staff and with the Chief of Police. Currently, in the City the Chief of Police is the designated Animal Warden and is responsible for dealing with problem animals, typically stray dogs. Most of this authority then is handed off to an outside agency for approximately $3,000/year. This agency then would go out and actually take care of these kinds of problem animals. This is on a complaint basis as there is no regular patrolling of the City for this kind of issue. It was the Chief's concern, and others, that this would create a problem for enforcement for which there is currently no budget and no staff specifically directed to do it. So this is something that the planner position and a zone enforcement role could take up; it is something that a police officer or community officer or other designated person could handle if it were under the animal control portion of the code. If the zoning approach were recommended, then the code would be amended in several places to allow the keeping of chickens as an accessory use; just like a storage shed or garage. In the single-family residential districts chickens would be added to the definition of domestic animals; chicken coops would be added to the definition of animal kennels; a kennel for chickens would be added to the list of permitted accessory structures; and clarify that only one chicken enclosure is allowed. If the animal control approach were recommended, he suggested it be renamed to `domestic animals'; currently in the code it is just dogs and cats. Then add a new section on chickens stating that up to four female chickens are allowed as a domestic animal. He then added that only female chickens are allowed in the sample ordinances he provided as male roosters tend to crow at the crack of dawn and are not very popular in residential neighborhoods. Continuing he November 21, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 2 Page 3 explained that the animal control approach would also state that a chicken coop or enclosure would need to meet the standards for an accessory structure in the zoning code and enforcement would be by the same animal warden who enforces regulations on dogs and cats. Planner Carlson also included in his memo a list of communities that allow chickens and the basic provisions that are in their zoning codes. Planner Carlson and staff did not may any specific recommendations on this issue but did list a number of options for the Commission to consider: 1) Recommend to the City Council that they approve an ordinance using the zoning code approach to allowing domestic chickens, with or without conditions or revisions. 2) Recommend to the City Council that they approve an ordinance using the animal control approach to allowing domestic chickens, with or without conditions or revisions. 3) Recommend denial of the proposal to allow domestic chickens in the City. 4) Recommend another course of action to city staff or the City Council. Planner Carlson then read an email received from Commissioner Costello in response to this issue, "I am unable to attend the Planning Commission Meeting. Here are my thoughts on chickens for whatever it's worth. Not looking for a response because it would be considered a quorum if a bunch of PC members responded, just thoughts." "Complaint code enforcement is difficult no matter if zoning or animal control. There is usually a verbal or written notice; then if not corrected within a certain number of days another letter; then another wait to allow correction; then another or a ticket. This is just something to keep in mind as there is not a quick remedy process." "If a zoning ordinance is considered, I'd want to see a limit on chickens, no roosters, coop size and height limit, not within setbacks, and removal of fecal waste that is not compostable." "Couple of questions: how long have the cities referenced in the report have their ordinances in place. Curious if they have made any amendments since adopting or if it is working. Second, for those that don't require a license or permit, are they receiving complaints difficulty in enforcing." At this point, Planner Carlson noted that staff researched the codes and excerpted the policies in the memo. He himself has not followed up to ask any of Commissioner Costello's questions; when was it adopted, have they had complaints, is it working, etc. Chair Field reiterated that the Commission's work this evening is to look at options and forward the public hearing results and this report to City Council. The Commission will not be drafting any ordinances at this time. Council needs to make the policy decision; do they want the Commission to actually go forward. Commissioner Hennes noted that the Commission dealt with this issue several years ago. Chair Field noted that it was no more than 1.5 years ago. Commissioner Hennes continued by stating that he believed the Commission recommended against it. Discussion occurred over whether or November 21, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 3 Page 4 not the actual discussion was for pigeons or chickens. When the discussion occurred on chickens the Commission was tied on its recommendation. At that time, the Council denied the request. However, there is a new Council being seated in January 2017 so this work is now being done for a different Council that will meet on January 3, 2017. Commissioner Roston noted that he has heard two different things from people he has spoken with regarding this issue; 1) hens will not lay eggs unless there are roosters around or nearby and 2) hens will lay eggs without a rooster nearby. He then asked which was correct. Commissioner Petschel asked if the chickens lay eggs for four to five years but they live for ten; and it appears that most of the other cities ordinances prohibit slaughter; what do the chickens do for the remaining five to six years. Planner Carlson replied that he was unaware of what the actual practice is but he imagined that they could be taken elsewhere for slaughter or simply keep them as pets. No ordinance actually requires them to lay eggs. Commissioner Petschel asked for clarification or confirmation that this would only refer to the keeping of chickens, not other types of domestic fowls (i.e. turkeys, ducks, geese). Planner Carlson replied that he has not seen those other types of domestic fowls in other ordinances. Chair Field noted that, as he was reading the memo, that the City could do both an animal enforcement and zoning solution. Planner Carlson confirmed this could be done as long as they were coordinated. Commissioner Hennes asked why some cities require a permit or license and others do not. Planner Carlson replied that he did not have an answer to that question. A permit would allow the City to keep track and have some kind of record and at least be aware of the regulations. Without a permit, it is simply on the books and people are expected to know and enforcement actions would be on a complaint basis. Chair Field asked if the municipalities that required a permit otherwise bad animal control officers. Planner Carlson was unable to answer that question. Commissioner Noonan asked if the City currently requires permits or licenses for other domestic animals. Planner Carlson replied that only dogs are required to have licenses. Commissioner Noonan asked Planner Carlson to walk them through requirements for a coop and asked how it would fit in, or how large would those coops be in light of the accessory structure requirements. Planner Carlson explained that on a lot that is less than 4 acres the size limit is 144 square feet; however, on a larger lot the accessory structure could be as much as 1,000 square feet. When talking about a typical residential lot in the City of Mendota Heights, the size would be limited to 144 square feet. November 21, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 4 Page 5 Commissioner Magnuson asked, referencing the photos included in the memo, if the coop was the actual building and included the fencing around it or if it was only the building itself and the fencing was extra. Planner Carlson replied that to be a structure, it would need to be enclosed. Also referencing the photos, Commissioner Petschel noted that one of the coops appears to be an enclosed fenced area with a transparent roof. He then asked if that counted as a structure. Planner Carlson replied in the affirmative. An enclosed structure within a fenced area - only the enclosed building would be considered an accessory structure. Councilmember Roston, referencing the list of cities that have adopted ordinances, asked if there were other cities that had considered and rejected these ordinances. Planner Carlson replied that he did not look into that area. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Mr. Patrick Watson, 1327 Delaware Avenue, had spoken before the Council, among others about allowing chickens within the City and did not wish to repeat himself. The Planning Commission and the Council had considered this a few times in the past, most recently in response to a violation where some people were found to have chickens illegally. He and his friends are trying to do this the legal way; most people he has spoken with are ignorant of the fact that it is illegal and others have questions that require answers. He pointed out that most of the cities that have permits are the ones that were the first adopters to either rollback an ordinance that previously existed or allowed more permissible ordinances. What is happening now in most cities that have adopted it recently (like Richfield, Edina, and St. Paul) is they are rescinding their permit requirements because they have discovered that it is not necessary and they are handling it all under either zoning or animal control. Commissioner Magnuson noted that in other municipalities that have permitted chickens, they range anywhere from two chickens to six chickens. She then asked Mr. Watson if he was aware of some kind of `magic' number. Mr. Watson replied that a chicken in its prime generally lays one egg a day. It is just a matter of how many people want eggs. Typically two or three is the magic number for a backyard flock for a family that does not do much with eggs. He and his neighbors put in a request for six in their request because they were aware that are two elementary schools in their district and a high school, where they do occasionally raise chickens. They have had up to six in each location. They had also put in an age requirement in their request; up to six over 4 months old. Then they would be allowed to hatch a flock, adopt out the spares, and keep six. Chair Field asked for confirmation that the testimony given was before the City Council, not before the Planning Commission. Mr. Watson confirmed. Commissioner Magnuson asked if chicken waste was compostable what was done with it. Mr. Watson replied that chicken waste is 100% compostable; he referred to the University of Minnesota Extension Service and a few other places that give very good guidance on composting backyard chicken waste. Dodge Nature Center is also very happy to show anyone how backyard November 21, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 5 Page 6 composting works for a reasonable amount of chicken waste (a small ash can full a week). The odor is not objectionable if they compost regularly. If a family does not compost, it can be disposed of just like kitty litter in the garbage. Addressing an earlier question about what do to with chickens that have stopped laying, Mr. Watson stated that there are three choices; 1) if on a farm, the chicken goes into the pot but if slaughtering is not allowed in the area then it can be taken somewhere else for slaughtering, 2) some people raise them to the end of their natural lives (10 — 12 years), or 3) euthanasia, just like dogs and cats. Commissioner Petschel noted that in other municipalities it appears that there are no prohibitions on slaughtering the animals. He then asked if there were specific rules for slaughtering them. Mr. Watson replied that this is a big pink elephant in the room. In a civilized society they would either take them to the vet for euthanasia or keep elderly chickens running around in the backyard. Mr. Watson also noted that the coop itself would the weatherized structure that would keep the animal out of the weather, the wind, the rain, and the snow. The `run' is what gives them the opportunity to have sunshine, grass, insects, etc. — the chicken wire enclosure. Most runs are protected overhead to keep predatory birds from diving in and raccoons from climbing in. So, most likely, that would be considered a part of the accessory structure permitted limit. Mr. Alex Theobald, 1045 Delaware Avenue, stated that many cities around Mendota Heights already have the option to raise chickens. He continued by stating that when moving to Mendota Heights it surprised him that the city does not allow chickens; given the fact that this area was all farm fields. He also believes that raising backyard chickens could serve as a way to create a better relationship among neighbors. He understands the concerns about noise, smells, and etc.; however, there should also be thought given to what could be created that would be good. As Planner Carlson pointed out, he enjoys getting eggs from his neighbor. This could provide an opportunity for neighbors to get to know one another better; provide opportunity for children in the neighborhood to obtain experience in having responsibility (i.e. watching the chickens while the neighbor is on vacation). He continued by explaining that he was raised on a farm in Iowa and could answer some of the questions or address concerns anyone could have. He also confirmed that hens lay eggs without a rooster present. They are also considered to be pets, just like any other domestic dog or cat. Commissioner Petschel asked, in Mr. Theobald's experience, if the run and the coop are considered in the size of an accessory structure. Mr. Theobald replied that he was unsure what was being got at; however, chickens are social animals. As far as the size goes, a person would want to ensure that there is sufficient space available otherwise they will get bored and start picking on each other. Commissioner Magnuson asked if a person were limited to 144 square feet would it be of sufficient size. The response was in the affirmative for the number of chickens being considered (for the coop and the run). November 21, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 6 Page 7 Planner Carlson stated that the enclosures he is familiar with in his neighborhood where they have four or six chickens; the actual enclosed area where they are huddled in the cold weather is fairly small (4x4 or 4x6) and then there is a larger area that is fenced on all sides (and covered) so the whole area would be the structure from a zoning definition. Commissioner Petschel asked when the two residents look at the options that the Commission is considering — the zoning approach or the domestic animal approach — does it make any difference. Mr. Theobald replied that maybe Mr. Watson could answer that question. Mr. Watson replied that the domestic animal approach was not even in the scope of what he and his neighbors were considering but he agrees that it would be simpler and gives them everything they are looking for. Mr. Theobald also commented that if the City has a permit requirement they would need to have someone to address the permits in the office. In his job as CPA, he knows that any compliance activity is an additional burden and oftentimes governments place the requirements on citizens and themselves. In the end it becomes less efficient and more of a burden than a benefit. Chair Field commented that if there were problems with compliance that needs to be enforced without an animal control officer, the city is going to underwrite an undue burden to have to enforce the regulations, which may explain why the permitting process has been used initially while cities feel their way into permitting domestic chickens. Mr. Watson stated that if one were to look back at the cities that have this and they will tell you that there have not been issues — no one is seeing chicken farms, mass slaughtering, vermin, noise problems — even rooster or cock fighting are not allowable activities. Planner Carlson noted that in his years of land use planning and zoning he has come to a question that could frame many issues — let's let people do anything they want to with their property, unless it causes a problem. The city does not regulate many, many things that they do with their property. Whenever there are regulations under contemplation he often asks `what is the problem we are trying to solve'. Imagine there were chickens in every other backyard in Mendota Heights — what would be the problems anticipated, what would be the problems to be solved, and are there regulations needed to solve those problems; or cannot they be easily solved and that is a use that poses so many problems that they should not be allowed or should prohibition of chickens in the City be continued. Commissioner Noonan stated that it was not so much a problem to be solved but what the desire and expectations are of the community. He took exception to the comment that as a landowner he should be able to do whatever he wants with his property provided it does not cause a problem. That is not the nature of what zoning is all about. Zoning is there to provide an appropriate exercise of the police power to control health, safety, and welfare standards. By the same token the Commission weighing in on whether or not the city is going to permit or not permit — or recommend chickens in backyards is very much is a reflection of the zoning and the police power. This is an appropriate discussion to have, whether the Commission believes this meets the expectations of the community. He stated that he felt a little bit naked as there were November 21, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 7 Page 8 two individuals advocating a particular position, yet the Commission does not have the broader community weighing in. Rather than believing that the broader community does not care, he surmised that the broader community does not know. Chair Field replied that the Commission was not asked to have a public hearing to say yea or nay; it was asked to explore possible alternatives to chicken in Mendota Heights so that the City Council could then make a policy decision, answering the question asked about the community. Commissioner Noonan respectfully disagreed, as there was a public hearing, the Commission heard testimony from two individuals, but did not hear anything from the other side of the issue. With the Commission asked to make a decision with only hearing one side of the issue makes him uncomfortable. Chair Field reiterated that the Commission is not being asked to make a recommendation — they were asked to hear about this and refer up to the Council various aspects that could be used for an ordinance for them to make a determination. Commissioner Noonan noted that in the staff report there are four options: 1) Recommend to the City Council that they approve an ordinance using the zoning code approach to allowing domestic chickens, with or without conditions or revisions. 2) Recommend to the City Council that they approve an ordinance using the animal control approach to allowing domestic chickens, with or without conditions or revisions. 3) Recommend denial of the proposal to allow domestic chickens in the City. 4) Recommend another course of action to city staff or the City Council. It is a recommendation based upon the testimony and the discussion being had now. Commissioner Noonan explained that he was not assuming that the Commission was going to write an ordinance tonight. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 Noting the banter earlier, Commissioner Roston asked if the Commission was to make a recommendation yes, we think it's a good policy to come up with some ordinance that would allow chickens; or no, we think it's not a good policy. Chair Field replied that what he saw at the City Council meeting was that they did not know what to do; they wanted the Commission to look at different ways to dealing with the subject matter. The Commission was to be proposed with different communities ways of handling it, the Commission might suggest that it should be done by means of permitting, might suggest it should be done by means of zoning, or might want to do it both — but it is not the Commission's job to draft an ordinance. The City Council needs to direct the Commission as to what they want it to do. Planner Carlson stated that he believes the Council's direction was not very explicit. The four options before the Commission were entirely his; it was an attempt to list ways the Commission could handle this issue but they may come up with something else. Chair Field replied that it is November 21, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 8 Page 9 very hard for the Commission given the fact that the Council did not say `come back to us with an ordinance' to deal with this subject matter. He took this evening as an opportunity to hear from the folks that came this evening, to see what different communities are using as an option, and to forward that information up to the Council and then have them tell the Commission what they would like — whether that is an ordinance or not. Commissioner Noonan stated that it sounds like the Council wants the Commission to make a determination on whether or not this would be a good public policy — to permit chickens. If the Commission feels that it would be good public policy then they could offer an opinion on the options of zoning or animal control or something else — or get that decision option back on the rebound. The Commission would make a broad-based policy recommendation to Council, Council decides whether or not they agree with the recommendation, and then they punch it back and the Commission rolls up its sleeves. Chair Field stated that was sort of the work the Commission was trying to not roll up their sleeves and get into the ordinance and redrawing the ordinance. Commissioner Hennes stated that he believes there is some value in sharing with the Council how the Commission feels; it all boils down to the issue of whether or not to allow chickens. He does not have a problem with it; if someone wants to have chickens in their backyard it would not bother him. Commissioner Roston stated that he is completely opposed to this. Someone comes before the Commission and wants pigeons and they deal with that; someone wants bees and they deal with that; someone wants whatever and they deal with that. He understands that chickens is the animal du Jour and everyone is hot about chickens right now, but next year it could be something else. His belief is that Mendota Heights is a suburb not farmland. If people want to have chickens — he goes to great Minnesota all of the time and there is tons of farmland out there to be had if you want to raise chickens. He expressed his dislike of the look of the coops when he drives by them as they are ugly and make the backyard look bad. He also does not like the concept of starting to add additional domestic animals. He cannot rationalize how the Commission could say yes to chickens but no to pigeons, or no to bees, or no to something else. Everyone that he has personally reached out to has the same response. The City does not need to have the same ordinance as everyone else just because they are in close proximity and allow it. Commissioner Magnuson expressed her confusion about what should be done now — should someone make a motion. Chair Field replied that this is what everyone is trying to determine based on the ambiguous charge from the City Council. She continued by stating that she would be happy to roll up her sleeves and work on an ordinance and is happy to offer her view on chickens — she not have a particular problem with chickens — although she believes the proposed ordinance provided would need to be augmented in some significant ways. But just as a bare general policy matter, she would be all right with two or three but was unsure about allowing six. Commissioner Petschel noted that he is leaning towards allowing chickens but a good point was brought up — as there are arbitrary alliances — why not pigeons, why not reindeer — can the Commission come up with a good argument for why they would differentiate between chickens and pigeons. November 21, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 9 Page 10 Chair Field clarified that if someone owned a piece of property in Mendota Heights that was zoned agricultural they could have all of these types of animals. The issue under discussion would be within the residential zoning districts. He also noted that, in many cases, it is not until it comes to the attention of a neighbor that it becomes an issue; which was the case with a pigeon application before. Commissioner Noonan voices his support of Commissioner Roston's position. In thinking about his own neighborhood and what would his reaction be to a neighbor's having a chicken coop and run in their backyard. He has also tried to put his feet in their shoes as well — he does not believe it meets the expectations of what this community is all about. It is pushing the envelope of what a domestic animal is and moving into an area with a slippery slope — it could be chickens today and something else altogether tomorrow. The use is inappropriate and it raises an issue that has one perspective being shared today without benefit of the other perspective. COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PROPOSAL TO ALLOW DOMESTIC CHICKENS IN THE CITY AYES: 2 (Roston, Noonan) NAYS: 4 (Hennes, Magnuson, Petschel, Field) ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY APPROVE AN ORDINANCE USING THE ANIMAL CONTROL APPROACH TO ALLOWING DOMESTIC CHICKENS, WITH OR WITHOUT CONDITIONS OR REVISIONS Commissioner Hennes then asked for a friendly revision so that the Commission would not be tied to either the zoning approach or the animal control approach. After discussion, the movement was: COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ALLOWING DOMESTIC CHICKENS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS OF THE CITY, WITH THE STANTEC REPORT DETAILING VARIOUS ZONING OPTIONS IN ADJACENT COMMUNITIES, AND WITH NO RECOMMENDATION AS TO THE TYPE OF ORDINANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL AYES: 4 (Hennes, Magnuson, Petschel, Field) NAYS: 2 (Roston, Noonan) ABSENT: 1 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its January 2, 2017 meeting. November 21, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 10 Page 11 Verbal Review City Administrator Mark McNeill informed the Commission that staff has completed interviews for the Community Development Director and a tentative offer has been made to a candidate. Staff is now in the process of doing some background investigation and negotiations. It is hoped that this would be successful and it would be taken to the City Council on January 17, 2017 with that individual being able to start their duties in mid-February 2017. Planner Carlson noted that he sat in on those interviews and he has known this individual; he was their first choice. Chair Field also noted that he interviewed this person and believes the City would be very pleased with them. Consulting Planner Phil Carlson, AICP gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #2016-40 Ideal Energies, LLC, 1450 Mendota Heights Road Conditional User Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission PLANNING CASE #2016-41 Jerry Trooien, 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway Critical Area Permit and Conditional Use Permit • Tabled by the City Council o In light of work being done outside of obtaining a permit the applicant was asked to work with staff to address those issues; the applicant was asked to apply for an after - the -fact permit to address those issues; the applicant engaged a landscape architect to develop plans, however due to the onset of winter those detailed plans did not come together; the architect requested permission to do stop -gap measures to prevent erosion; plans are expected sometime this winter or early spring; the 120 -day review deadline comes up in the middle of February, a decision will need to be made to either deny the permit on the table or to ask the applicant to waive that deadline PLANNING CASE #2016-42 Timothy McGough, 1787 Lexington Avenue Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning • Withdrawn at the request of the applicant Adiournment COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:05 P.M. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 November 21, 2016 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting - DRAFT Page 11 Page 12 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone I 651.452.8940 fax www.mendc)ta-helghts.com CITY OF MENDDTA HEIGHTS Request for Planning Commission Action MEETING DATE: January 24, 2017 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Phil Carlson, AICP Interim Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2016-43 Domestic Chicken Ordinance COMMENT: Introduction The item is a draft ordinance allowing domestic chickens, for Planning Commission review. Background The City Council has asked the Planning Commission to prepare an ordinance to allow keeping domestic chickens in residential neighborhoods in Mendota Heights. The attached draft code amendment is our attempt to bring together the various issues that have been discussed in one ordinance. Discussion The attached draft amends both the Animal Control and Zoning Code portions of the code, with primary administration of chicken coops under the Zoning Code as a permitted accessory use. The draft amendment requires an annual permit with a fee. With this licensing there could be rules developed relative to the time period from a complaint to addressing concerns — perhaps 15 to 30 days — before losing the license. These provisions are not specifically stated in the ordinance. The fee might be set by the City Council at $25, which is typical of other cities, but more than Mendota Heights license fees for a dog - $10/neutered or $15/unaltered. There is currently no provision for screening of the coop from neighbors, but a 10' setback is required to side yards. Attached is an article discussing chicken waste — this code draft allows it to be composted if handled correctly. There was discussion of requiring surrounding neighbors to sign off on a request for a chicken coop, but in my experience the approval of neighbors should not be a condition of meeting the ordinance. Attached are draft ordinances both in a "clean" format and another with comments on the side to see the rationale or explanation for each section. Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the draft ordinance and make a recommendation to the City Council, or carry it over for further discussion at a future Planning Commission meeting. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. Page 13 Mendota Heights Draft Ordinance Re: Domestic Chickens January 24, 2017 The City Code is hereby amended as follows: Section 5-3 of the City Code is hereby amended by changing the name of the section as follows: Chapter 3 Domestic Animals Section 5-3-1 of the City Code is hereby amended by adding the following definition: CHICKEN: A fowl of the genus Gallus and species Gallus domesticus that is commonly referred to as domesticated fowl. Section 5-3 of the City Code is hereby amended by adding a new sub -section 5-3- 10 as follows and renumbering the subsequent sub -sections: 5-3-10: CHICKENS A. Up to four female chickens, Gallus gallus domesticus, may be kept on a residential premise as domestic animals, provided such chickens are kept in an accessory structure meeting the provisions of Section 12-1 D-3 of the Zoning Code. Such structure must be constructed so that it may be easily cleaned, and so that the chickens are completely enclosed and protected from children and animals on the outside. B. The Animal Warden has the authority to enter upon private premises whenever there is a reasonable cause to believe that the chickens are being mistreated or pose a threat to the health and safety of people or other animals. 5-3-11: EXEMPTIONS FROM PROVISIONS: Hospitals, clinics and other premises operated by licensed veterinarians exclusively for the care and treatment of animals are exempt from the provisions of this chapter except where such duties are expressly stated. (Ord. 331, 5-18-1999) 5-3-12: PENALTY: Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall, upon conviction therefor, be punishable as provided in section 1-4-1 of this code. (Ord. 331, 5-18-1999; amd. 2003 Code) Section 12-1 B-2 Definitions is hereby amended to add the following definitions: ANIMALS, DOMESTIC: Dogs, cats, birds and other common domestic household pets including female chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) kept for purposes of companionship or egg production for household use only. CHICKEN COOP: Any structure used for the housing of chickens. Page 14 Mendota Heights Draft Ordinance Re: Domestic Chickens January 24, 2017 2 CHICKEN RUN: A fenced outdoor area for the keeping and exercising of chickens. ROOSTER: A male chicken. Section 12 -1D -3C Accessory Structures In All Residential Districts is amended by adding a new paragraph 2 as follows: 2. Chicken Coops and Runs in all Residential Districts a. Number, Size and Building Requirements: (1) One chicken coop and run may be constructed with the issuance of a permit as stipulated in this Title. (2) The dimensions of such coop and run are limited to: (A) The interior floor space of the chicken coop shall be a minimum size of two (2) square feet for each chicken authorized under the permit. The floor area of the run must be five (5) square feet per chicken. The coop and run must not exceed a maximum area of one hundred and forty-four (144) square feet. (B) The coop and run are limited to a maximum height of six (6) feet tall. (C) The coop and run must be set back 10 feet from the side lot lines of the property and thirty (30) feet from the rear lot line of the property. The coop and run must be located in the rear or side yard and are not permitted in the front yard of the property. (3) Construction requirements for the chicken coop and run include: (A) The exterior finish materials of the chicken coop shall be: U weather -resistant, protective covering material, decay -resistant wood, or if exterior finish wood is not decay resistant, then the wood finish shall be protected from the elements and decay by paint or protective covering (e.g., siding, fascia wrap): and(ii) in accordance with the accessory structure regulations set forth in the zoning regulations in this Code. (C) The construction of and materials used for the chicken coop and run must be adequate to prevent access by rodents. (D) The chicken run shall be attached to the chicken coop. The chicken coop and run shall be deemed as a single structure and subject to the accessory structure regulations set forth in the zoning regulations of this Code. The chicken run shall be fully enclosed (sides and top) by fencing or other similar material. Screenina of the cooD and run is reauired as Der Section 12-11-9 of this Code. Page 15 Mendota Heights Draft Ordinance Re: Domestic Chickens January 24, 2017 b. Regulations: The keeping, harboring, maintaining, or possessing of any chicken shall be in accordance with the following: (1) No more than four chickens shall be kept or harbored on the premises to which the permit applies. (2) Roosters are prohibited. (3) Slaughtering of chickens on any property zoned for residential use is prohibited. (4) No chicken eaas shall be sold or offered for sale: all chicken eaas shall be for personal use or consumption. (5) Chickens shall not be raised or kept for fighting. 6) Food materials stored outside shall be within closed containers with lids. (7) All containment areas and structures shall be maintained in a clean, sanitary, and odor -free environment and shall be free from the presence of rodents or vermin at all times. (8) Fecal waste or litter shall be removed at such reasonable times to prevent odors from emitting over property lines. Such waste or litter must be double bagged and disposed of in city garbage or composted provided the method used and the location does not present a public nuisance or health issue. (9) Chickens shall not be kept in such a manner as to constitute a public nuisance. Any violation of the provisions of this subdivision shall be deemed a public nuisance. (10)Permit Required: An application for a permit hereunder shall be filed with the city clerk upon an application form furnished by the city. The permit fee, which shall be paid and filed with the permit application, shall be in an amount established by city council resolution. A permit issued hereunder shall be for duration of one year from its date of issuance. An application for permit renewal shall be filed 60 days prior to the expiration of the current permit. The permit application shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (A) The full name and address of the following persons: a. The applicant signed thereto; and b. The owner(s) of the premises on which chickens are sought to be kept and for which the permit would apply; (B) The street address of the premises on which chickens are sought to be kept; (C) The number of chickens to be kept on the premises; Page 16 Mendota Heights Draft Ordinance Re: Domestic Chickens January 24, 2017 4 (D) A detailed sketch plan of the premises on which chickens are sought to be kept, including the location, the dimensions and design of the coop and run, establishing compliance with the chicken coop and run specifications provided in Section 12-1 D-3; (E) A statement certifying whether the property's homeowners' association rules, if any, prohibit the keeping of chickens on the property for which the application is sought; (F) If the applicant is not the fee owner of the premises on which the chickens are sought to be kept and for which the permit would apply, the application shall be signed by all fee owners of the premises. (G) Any other and further information as the city deems necessary. Section 12-1 D -3C.2 is amended by renumbering it to paragraph 3 and amending sub- paragraph 2 as follows: 3. Accessory structures (other than detached, private garages) in all residential districts: (2) Property is four (4) acres or less*: One accessory structure with the area not to exceed one hundred forty four (144) square feet, or one accessory structure plus a chicken coop and run provided the total of both structures shall not exceed one hundred forty-four (144) square feet. Section 12-1 E -3C Accessory Uses in hereby amended to add the following conditional use: Keeping of chickens for noncommercial purposes, as regulated in Section 5-3-10 and in Section 12-1 D-3 of this code Page 17 Mendota Heights Draft Ordinance Re: Domestic Chickens January 24, 2017 The City Code is hereby amended as follows: Section 5-3 of the City Code is hereby amended by changing the name of the section as follows: Chapter 3 Domestic Animals Section 0-3-1 of the City Code is hereby amended by adding the following definition: Commented [PC1]: Section 5-3 is currently "Dogs & Cats" CHICKEN: A fowl of the genus Gallus and species Gallus domesticus that is commonly referred to Commented [PC2]: This is the standard term to clearly as domesticated fowl. define what we mean by domestic chickens Section 5-3 of the City Code is hereby amended by adding a new sub -section 5-3- 10 as follows and renumbering the subsequent sub -sections: 5-3-10: CHICKENS A. Up to four Lma16 chickens, Gallus callus domesticus, may be kept on a residential premise Commented [PC3]: In the Domestic Animal section we as domestic animals, provided such chickens are kept in an accessory structure meeting clarify that chickens are allowed and refer to the Zoning the provisions of Section 12-1 D-3 of the Zoning Code. Such structure must be constructed Code for detailed standards so that it may be easily cleaned, and so that the chickens are completely enclosed and protected from children and animals on the outside. B. The ,Animal) Warden has the authority to enter upon private premises whenever there is a Commented [PC4]: Gives the Animal warden authority to reasonable cause to believe that the chickens are being mistreated or pose a threat to the inspect if necessary health and safety of people or other animals. 5-3-11: EXEMPTIONS FROM PROVISIONS: Commented [PC5]: Simply renumbering existing sections that are moved down the list Hospitals, clinics and other premises operated by licensed veterinarians exclusively for the care and treatment of animals are exempt from the provisions of this chapter except where such duties are expressly stated. (Ord. 331, 5-18-1999) 5-3-12: PENALTY: Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall, upon conviction therefor, be punishable as provided in section 1-4-1 of this code. (Ord. 331, 5-18-1999; amd. 2003 Code) Section 12-1 B-2 Definitions is hereby amended to add the following definitions: ANIMALS, DOMESTIC: Dogs, cats, birds and other common domestic household pets including female chickens (Gallus callus domesticus) kept for purposes of companionship or egg production for household use only. CHICKEN COOP: Any structure used for the housing of chickens. Page 18 Commented [PC6]: Adding definitions in the Zoning Code that relate to chickens Mendota Heights Draft Ordinance Re: Domestic Chickens January 24, 2017 CHICKEN RUN: A fenced outdoor area for the keeping and exercising of chickens. ROOSTER: A male chicken. Section 12-1 D -3C Accessory Structures In All Residential Districts is amended by adding a new paragraph 2 as follows: 2. Chicken Coops and Runs in all Residential Districts a. Number, Size and Building Requirements: Commented [PC7]: Adding to the regulations under Accessory Structures in the Zoning Code (1) One chicken coop and run may be constructed with the issuance of a IpermN as stipulated in -- Commented [PC8]: Permit requirements in section b(10) this Title. further down (2) The dimensions of such coop and run are limited to: forty-four (144) square feet. side yard and are not permitted in the front yard of the property. (3) Construction requirements for the chicken coop and run include: A) The exterior finish materials of the chicken coop shall be: (i) weather -resistant. protective covering material, decay -resistant wood, or if exterior finish wood is not decay resistant, then the wood finish shall be protected from the elements and decay by paint or protective covering (e.a.. sidina. fascia wrap): and (ii) in accordance with the accessory structure reaulations set forth in the zoning regulations in this Code. (C) The construction of and materials used for the chicken coop and run must be adequate to prevent access by rodents. (D) The chicken run shall be attached to the chicken coop. The chicken coop and run shall be deemed as a single structure and subject to the accessory structure regulations set forth in the zoning regulations of this Code. (E) The chicken run shall be fully enclosed (sides and top) by fencing or other similar material. (F) Screening of the coop and run is required as per Section 12-11-9 of this Code. Page 19 Commented [PC9]: Many cities require 2 sq ft per chicken Commented [PC10]: Similarly, we require 5 sq ft per chicken for the run Commented [PC11]: Six-foot height supersedes the standard accessory structure height of 15 feet Commented [PC12]: Side setback supersedes standard 5 - foot setback for other accessory structures Commented [PC13]: Rear or side yard only Mendota Heights Draft Ordinance Re: Domestic Chickens January 24, 2017 b. IRegulationsj: The keeping, harboring, maintaining, or possessing of any chicken shall be in accordance with the following: (1) No more than four chickens shall be kept or harbored on the premises to which the permit applies. (2) Roosters are prohibited. (3) Slaughtering of chickens on any property zoned for residential use is prohibited. (4) No chicken eggs shall be sold or offered for sale; all chicken eggs shall be for personal use or consumption. (5) Chickens shall not be raised or kept for fighting. (6) Food materials stored outside shall be within closed containers with lids. (7) All containment areas and structures shall be maintained in a clean, sanitary, and odor -free environment and shall be free from the presence of rodents or vermin at all times. emitting over property lines. Such waste or litter must be double bagged and disposed of in city garbage or composted provided the method used and the location does not present a public nuisance or health issue. (9) Chickens shall not be kept in such a manner as to constitute a public nuisance. Any violation of the provisions of this subdivision shall be deemed a public nuisance. the permit application, shall be in an amount established by city council resolution. A permit issued hereunder shall be for duration of one year from its date of issuance. An application for permit renewal shall be filed 60 days prior to the expiration of the current permit. The permit application shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (A) The full name and address of the following persons: a. The applicant signed thereto; and b. The owner(s) of the premises on which chickens are sought to be kept and for which the permit would apply: (B) The street address of the premises on which chickens are sought to be kept: (C) The number of chickens to be kept on the premises: Page 20 Commented [PC14]: Standards as we understood discussion from the Planning Commission and City Council Commented [PC15]: Most communities allow composting of waste, see attached article from UNV. This section notes either disposal or composting. Commented [PC16]: Permit is under the Zoning Code which means it would be processed as a zoning action, not animal control. Mendota Heights Draft Ordinance Re: Domestic Chickens January 24, 2017 (D) A detailed sketch plan of the premises on which chickens are sought to be kept, including the location, the dimensions and design of the coop and run, establishing compliance with the chicken coop and run specifications provided in Section 12-1 D-3; (E) A statement certifying whether the property's homeowners' association rules, if any, prohibit the keeping of chickens on the property for which the application is sought; (F) If the applicant is not the fee owner of the premises on which the chickens are sought to be kept and for which the permit would apply, the application shall be signed by all fee owners of the premises. (G) Any other and further information as the city deems necessary. Section 12-1 D -3C.2 is amended by renumbering it to paragraph 3 and amending sub- paragraph 2 as follows: 3. Accessory structures (other than detached, private garages) in all residential districts: (2) Property is four (4) acres or less': One accessory structure with the area not to exceed one hundred forty four (144) square feet, or one accesso structure plus a chicken coop and run Commented [PC17]: clarifies that a person might have a provided the total of both structures shall not exceed one hundred forty-four (144) square feet. storage shed plus a chicken coop and run, but the total area must stay under 144 sq ft. It seemed unreasonable to allow Section 12 -1E -3C �ccessory Uses in hereby amended to add the following conditional use: either a storage shed or a chicken coop/run. Commented [PC18]: Adds keeping od domestic chickens Keeping of chickens for noncommercial purposes, as regulated in Section 5-3-10 and in Section under the list of permitted Accessory Uses in the Zoning 12-1 D-3 of this code Code Page 21 University of Nevada Cooperative Extension Fact Sheet 13-23 Using Chicken Manure Safely in Home Gardens and Landscapes Raymond Saliga III The Greenhouse Project Operations Manager JoAnne Skelly Extension Educator, Carson City / Storey County Introduction Raising chickens at home is making a comeback. While a chicken can produce an egg every 24 hours, the average hen produces something else in abundance, one cubic foot of manure every six months (Anderson, 2010). With more than one hen, this rapidly adds up to a significant amount of manure that has to be managed. It can't continue to collect in the coop, or it will harm the chickens. r: Raising chickens at home has increased in popularity. (photo: W. Hanson-Mazet) Page 22 What does a homeowner, particularly one who lives in an urban environment, do with all that manure? The answer is to use it as a soil amendment or fertilizer. However, raw chicken manure can burn and damage plants. It should be composted or aged prior to use. In addition, raw manure can contain pathogens that can harm people and animals. If composting is done properly, the process destroys disease -causing organisms, making chicken manure safe to use around plants, people and pets. Composition What comes out of a chicken coop isn't simply fecal matter. It also consists of urine, feathers, undigested food and coop bedding material. Composting decomposes these materials into a form that is good for plants. Benefits Composted chicken manure provides a slow-release source of macro- and micronutrients and acts as a soil amendment. Compared to other manures, chicken manure and the associated litter are higher in nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus and calcium, and are also rich in organic matter (Zublena, 1993). Addition of organic matter to soils increases a soil's water - holding capacity, improves aeration and drainage, reduces erosion, reduces fertilizer leaching and improves a soil's structure. Additionally, organic matter provides a food source for soil microbes, which increases soil biological diversity, accelerating the breakdown of organic nutrients into forms more readily available to plants. All of these factors can improve plant health (Rosen, 2005) The use of composted manure and litter can also reduce the need to apply additional fertilizers. Safety Like other animal wastes, chicken manure and litter may harbor pathogens, such as E. coli, Salmonella, Cryptosporidium and others. To reduce risk to humans and pets, proper handling and precautions are necessary. Stockpiled manure should be kept in a protected area where children, pets and livestock do not have access. Before applying manure or litter to the garden, it should be composted or aged Pagg 23 Proper composting will generate temperatures of 140 F to 160 F, which is enough to kill most human and animal pathogens, such as E. coli and Salmonella (Griffiths, 2011). Aging the manure and litter only reduces populations of disease -causing microbes by providing unfavorable growing conditions that cause them to die off gradually due to changes in moisture content, temperature and nutrient availability. Pathogens are not actively killed by aging, but instead are inhibited from reproducing, which results in a slow decline of the population. Whether composted or aged, manure should be applied no later than 90 days prior to harvest of non -ground -contact crops such as trellised tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers; and no later than 120 days prior to harvest of ground -contact crops such as lettuce, strawberries and carrots (Rosen, 2005). Storage When planning how to handle chicken manure and litter, one must consider the storage requirements needed. The size of the storage area will depend on the amount of litter produced, but should always be isolated from children, animals and rain. Liquid runoff should not be allowed to stand or pool and the pile should drain well to prevent unpleasant odors and the buildup of disease -causing organisms (Griffiths, 2005). Additionally, the storage area should not be located where runoff could contaminate vegetable gardens, edible plants or children's' play areas. A laying hen will produce about a cubic foot (about 7.5 gallons) of litter every six months, which means a flock of 10 hens, will produce about three-quarters of a cubic yard per year. If stored, this would create a pile that is about 3 feet long, 3 feet wide and 2 feet high. However, composting or aging will reduce this volume by about half over time. Composting and Aging Chicken litter is high in nitrogen, and can be composted in about five to six weeks. Composting "cools" the manure and litter material, meaning it reduces the ammonia content so it will no longer burn plants. It also reduces the total volume, weight and odor of the pile. Additionally, composting stabilizes nutrients enabling a slow, long-term release over a few years. Finally, the temperatures generated in the composting process will kill most pathogens and weed seeds. In residential areas, odors caused by manure piles can quickly become a nuisance to both the chicken owner and surrounding neighbors, if not properly managed. Foul odors usually occur when the interior of a pile has an inadequate supply of oxygen, allowing the proliferation of microbes responsible for unpleasant, sewage -like smells. When composting, adequate pile drainage must be maintained and the pile turned weekly to introduce oxygen. A well-managed compost pile should have an "earthy" smell, like good potting soil. 3 Page 24 If a compost pile cannot be turned each week, a better approach may be to dry out and age the manure before adding it to a pile. Removing the moisture from the manure inhibits microbial growth and decomposition, preventing the associated smells. Each time a coop is cleaned, the manure can be thinly spread on a tarp or other impermeable surface to dry in the sun, before adding it to the pile. The drying pile should be protected from precipitation or other water sources, or decomposition (and odors) may occur. Safety Tips • Only apply composted or aged manure to soil, unless it is applied the fall before planting. • Always wear gloves when handling manure. • Wash raw vegetables thoroughly before eating. • People who are susceptible to foodborne illnesses should avoid eating uncooked vegetables from manure -amended gardens. Those who face risks from foodborne illness include pregnant women, young children and persons with cancer, kidney failure, liver disease, diabetes or AIDS (Anderson, 2010). Conclusion "Poultry manure, properly handled, is the most valuable of all manures produced by livestock" (Mitchell and Donald, 1995). When a family raises chickens, they have a ready supply of brown gold from composted or aged manure to benefit their garden and landscape plants. References Anderson, E. 2010. Using manure, including chicken manure, as compost. Community Horticulture Fact Sheet #25. Washington State University. Seattle, WA. [Online] Available at: http://county.wsu.edu/king/gardening/mg /factsheets/Fact%20Sheets/Usinq%20M anure%20as%20Compost. pdf Griffiths, N. 2011. Best practice guidelines for using poultry litter on pastures. Primefact 534. Department of Industry Development, Agriculture & Forestry. New South Wales, Australia. [Online] Available at: http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/ data/asset s/pdf file/0004/140359/Best-practice- guidelines-for-using-poultry-litter-on- pastures.pdf Mitchell, C. C. and Donald, J. O. 1995. The value and use of poultry manures as fertilizer. Circular ANR-244. Alabama A & M and Auburn Universities. Alabama Cooperative Extension System. [Online] Available at: http://hubcap.clemson.edu/—blpprt/Aub+ 244. htm I Rosen, C. J.and Bierman, P. M. 2005. Using manure and compost as nutrient sources for fruit and vegetable crops. Circular M1192. Department of Soil, Water and Climate. University of Minnesota Extension. [Online] Available at: http://www.extension.umn.edu/distributio n/horticulture/M 1192. htm I Zublena J. P., Barker J. C., Carter T. A. 1993. Poultry manure as a fertilizer source. Publication AG -439-5. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. [Online] Available at: http://www.soil.ncsu.edu/publications/So ilfacts/AG-439-05/ Copyright © 2013. University of Nevada Cooperative Extension. The University of Nevada, Reno is an Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action employer and does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, creed, national origin, veteran status, physical or mental disability, sexual orientation, or genetic information in any program or activity it operates. The University of Nevada employs only United States citizens and aliens lawfully authorized to work in the United States. 4 Page 25 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone I 651.452.8940 fax www.mendc)ta-helghts.com CITY OF MENDDTA HEIGHTS Request for Planning Commission Action MEETING DATE: January 24, 2017 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Phil Carlson, AICP Interim Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-01 Lot Split & Critical Area Permit DBG, LLC, 1919 Hunter Lane COMMENT: Introduction The application is for a lot split (subdivision) and Critical Area Permit. Background There is an existing single family home on the lot which would be removed to create two new single family lots. Discussion The City is using its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on subdivision and zoning requests and has limited discretion; a determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required. Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the requests in this case and make a recommendation to the City Council. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. Page 26 (3 Stantec Item No. 2017-01 MEMORANDUM Date: January 24, 2017 To: Mendota Heights Planning Commission From: Phil Carlson, AICP, Consulting Planner RE: Planning Case 2017-01: Request for a Lot Split Applicant DBG, LLC Property Address 1919 Hunter Lane Action: Approval of lot split/subdivision request; Approval of Critical Area Permit Deadline: March 7, 2017 (60 days from complete application submittal) REQUEST Request to subdivide in an R-1 district to replace one single-family lot (existing home) with two conforming single-family lots; Request for Critical Area Permit SITE CONTEXT Existing Zoning R-1 One -Family Residential Existing Lot Existing Lot Area Lots 1 and 2, LEONE 43,914 square feet (1.01 acres) Designated Future Land Use Low Density Residential Site Description and Present Use The subject site contains an existing single family home. The site is bordered to the north and west by existing single family homes, to the east by Hunter Lane and to the south by Culligan Lane. Existing access to the property is from Hunter Lane through a driveway on the property's northern edge. The existing home sits in the middle of the property. Surrounding Properties and Neighborhood All properties adjacent to the site and most properties in the vicinity are single family homes. The exception is the synagogue, a block south at 1 179 Victoria Curve. The subject property is a Page 27 (3 Stantec Mendota Heights Planning Commission Item 2017-01 DBG, LLC Lot Split Request January 24, 2017 2 corner lot that directly abuts two other properties. To the west is a single family home fronting Culligan Lane. To the north is a single family home fronting Hunter Court, a residential cul-de-sac, and to the east across Hunter Lane are single-family homes. Project Description The applicant proposes to remove the existing single family home and subdivide the lot into two single-family lots: • Proposed Parcel 1, on the north side of the existing lot, would be 100' x 200' and include 20,000 square feet and have frontage on Hunter Lane. • Proposed Parcel 2, on the south side of the existing lot, would be 120' x 200' and include 23,914 square feet, and have frontage on both Hunter Lane and Culligan Lane. i1.lY[-tel l I n 11,1 Vl- nU l/II tIIV fB >% =L_ q SS W �A aI A![ -I I -�ViV ll_I♦ O— R91S) I V 1Y111 V L_L.L- I 2.(10 )JM%4Q.E IG I!&, B1SL y w I `'•`�pmpRP�'� REIL\9F �- 1 � I I V �yl � �fAtlfl5 t # F32 Rlil PRfP020 __ i 3 ib 4 V PARCEL 1 ��------F�-o If I I I I . i V Q 911. R1e.e. I t: lil BI .0 J I Snel � R 5usa WxR mx X909.1 5IUY YH f 9150 B' 1lS SNI Sfll RY 9eLAt CULLIGAN LANE SUBDIVISON ANALYSIS 1) This application would result in two one -family lots. Both lots exceed the lot area (15,000 square feet) and lot width (100 feet) of the R-1 One Family Residential District. 2) The proposed lot size for both lots are comparable to the lot size and frontages of many nearby existing lots. Page 28 200.00 SB9 49 W uDVC A 11 W . o� � - P - U ens. !\ � s �M 3 �.. aRaposD'"� � Z 9ux o RIIILDIHOI 8 ' � ho-sa,TM) s I 7 PARCELI 1 e�l.lc noes I 1 bbb R v I 1 ISI ❑ EV SEIRN lIR � � ®�I R 9P1.9 SRP H� H1WA4 � I I I u px^ Hp AL14 n 160-00 1 89°5649"E BI .0 J I Snel � R 5usa WxR mx X909.1 5IUY YH f 9150 B' 1lS SNI Sfll RY 9eLAt CULLIGAN LANE SUBDIVISON ANALYSIS 1) This application would result in two one -family lots. Both lots exceed the lot area (15,000 square feet) and lot width (100 feet) of the R-1 One Family Residential District. 2) The proposed lot size for both lots are comparable to the lot size and frontages of many nearby existing lots. Page 28 (3 Stantec Mendota Heights Planning Commission Item 2017-01 DBG, LLC Lot Split Request January 24, 2017 3) Setbacks to both Hunter Lane and Culligan Lane are governed by the "average setback rule" in Section 12-1 D -4D, averaging the adjacent setbacks and the 30' code standard: a. For Parcel 1, the adjacent home to the north is setback about 38' from the lot line, which by formula would yield a required setback of 34' for the new home. b. For Parcel 2, the adjacent home to the west is setback about 46' from the lot line, which by formula would yield a required setback of 38' for the new home. c. The plans note that the front setbacks will be 40 feet, so the standard is easily met for both parcels. 4) The property was originally platted as two lots so park dedication fees are not required. CRITICAL AREA PERMIT ANALYSIS 1) Section 12-3-2 of the City Code notes the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District: Prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to this unique state, local, regional and national resource • Promote orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas Preserve and enhance its values to the public and protect and preserve the system as an essential element in the city's transportation, sewer and water and recreational systems • Section 12-3-8-A of the City Code notes: • The objectives of dimensional standards are to maintain the aesthetic integrity and natural environment of the Mississippi River corridor critical area. These standards are designed to protect and enhance the shoreline and bluff areas, as well as provide sufficient setback for on-site sanitary facilities, to prevent erosion of bluffs, to minimize flood damage and to prevent pollution of surface and ground water. 2) The map above is a portion of the Dakota County mapping system showing contours in yellow and the subject property outlined in orange. The closest corner of the property is about 400 feet from the bluff line. The map to the right is a portion of the Dakota County Page 29 (3 Stantec Mendota Heights Planning Commission Item 2017-01 DBG, LLC Lot Split Request January 24, 2017 mapping system showing contours in yellow and the subject property outlined in orange. The closest corner of the property is about 400 feet from the bluff line. 3) The proposed development does not impact the shoreline or bluff areas, does not involve an on-site sanitary facility, and will, through the building permit process, provide for adequate erosion protection and pollution prevention measures as part of the construction activities. 4) The submitted plans indicate 14 trees surveyed on the site, of which b will be removed. Additional trees will be replaced when building plans for the new homes are submitted. Two large pines in the middle of the Hunter Lane frontage are slated to be removed, but it appears that with minor modifications to the grading or building locations these trees could be saved, which we would urge the applicant to do. Above: View NW at Hunter & Culligan: Below: View SW on Hunter Lane Page 30 (3 Stantec Mendota Heights Planning Commission Item 2017-01 DBG, LLC Lot Split Request January 24, 2017 RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission must determine the effect of the proposed lot split on the character and development of the neighborhood in forming its recommendation to the City Council. We recommend that the planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of lot split and Critical Area Permit subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and dimensioned site plans with associated easements, subject to review and approval of the Engineering Department as part of any building permit application. 2) The applicant shall submit landscape plans, subject to review and approval by the Planning Department, as part of any building permit application, such additional landscaping to be compatible with the spirit and intent of the Critical Area. This will include revisions to the submitted grading and landscape plans to allow the 20" pine and 22" pine trees on the Hunter Lane frontage to remain if at all possible. 3) The applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easements on both parcels to be denoted on the Certificate of Survey submitted to Dakota County: 10 feet wide along the front property lines and 5 feet wide along the side and rear property lines. 4) The existing home is to be demolished before the subdivision is recorded with Dakota County. 5) Connection charges for City Project # 200902 shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. REQUESTED ACTION Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of the lot split and Critical Area Permit based on the attached findings of fact. OR 2. Recommend denial of the lot split and Critical Area Permit based on findings of fact. CIN 3. Table the request, pending additional information from staff or others. Page 31 (3 Stantec Mendota Heights Planning Commission Item 2017-01 DBG, LLC Lot Split Request January 24, 2017 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Lot split and Critical Area Permit for 1919 Hunter Lane 1. No change to the Comprehensive Plan or zoning designation and no variance is requested. 2. The two lots resulting from the lot split are comparable in size and frontage to other lots in the area. 3. The plans and approvals required in the building permit process will serve to ensure adherence to the spirit and intent of the Critical Area code. Page 32 Scale Site Plan city of 1919 Hunter Lane N Mendota 0 40 �LL��1� Heights Date: 1/18/2017 SCALE IN FEET 0 ti w 16 0 0 N 1919 Z J ry LL Z 0 0 R C916 L(j 1 �&9 I I I CULLIGAN LN 'I I 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 contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. p.gnp i 3 CITY OF MENOOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING APPLICATION OIte Mie ase', e. Fee :Paid A ` fes ` :; pp ..Hate# ' `_ . ` in�t�aila. 1 ;: i Pp cab a7rd#prr #.e�orr, Exiitig Z hr�g �ripse tTh€� E� s ng se. Pr'�pr�sed lJse: Property Address/Street Location: 1919 Hunter Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Applicant Name: DBG, LLC Phone, 612-554-2556 Applicant E -Mail Address: kfritz@mandmquality.com Applicant Mailing Address: 4725 Vilest Lane Shorewood, MN 55331 Property Owner Name: DBG, LLCPhone: 612-554-2556 Property Owner Mailing Address: 4725 West Lane Shorewood, MN 55331 Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must he provided) Leone Rearrangement, all of lots 1 and 2 Type of Request: ❑ Rezoning ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Interim Use Permit ❑ Variance I❑ Wetlands Permit ❑ Preliminary/Final Plat Approval ® Lot Split/Adjustment ❑ Critical Area Permit ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment C! Code Amendment ❑ Appeal ❑ Other 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. Planning Application (modified 6/1/2016) Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner Signature of Owner (if more than one) Date Page 34 Page 1 of 1 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.4521850 phone E 651.452.8940 fax www.mendota-heights.rom C1rr or MENGGTA HEIGHTS CRITICAL AREA PERMIT APPLICATION APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: • Electronic and hard copies of all the required materials must be submitted according to the current application submittal schedule. W Submit 1 electronic copy and 2 hard copies (full-size/to-scale) of all required pians. The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete: ld Fee, as included in current Fee Schedule (check payable to City of Mendota Heights). NOTE: Planning Application fees do not cover building permit fees, utilities, or other fees which may be required to complete the project. d Completed Application Form(s). d Letter of Intent. Id Site Plan. APPLICANT MUST CHECK ALL APPLICABLE ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE SUBMITTAL Site Plan (may include multiple sheets): C�Location of the property, including such information as the name and numbers of adjoining roads, railroads, existing subdivisions, or other landmarks. f"Existing topography as indicated on a contour map having a contour interval no greater than two feet (2) per contour; the contour map shall also clearly delineate any bluff line, all streams, including intermittent streams and swales, rivers, water bodies, and wetlands located on the site. dA plan delineating the existing drainage of the water setting forth in which direction the volume, and at what rate the stormwater is conveyed from the site in setting forth those areas on the site where stormwater collects and is gradually percolated into the ground or slowly released to stream or lame. &""'A description of the soils on the site including a map indicating soil types by areas to be disturbed as well as a soil report containing information on the suitability of the soils for the type of development proposed and for the type of sewage disposal proposed and describing any remedial steps to be taken by the developer to render the soils suitable. All areas proposed for grading shall be identified by soil type, both as to soil type of existing topsoil Critical Area Permit Application (modified 4/5/2016) Page 1 of 2 Page 35 and soil type of the new contour. The location and extent of any erosion areas shall be /included in the soils description. I Description of the flora and fauna, which occupy the site or are occasionally found thereon, setting forth with detail those areas where unique plant or animal species may be found on the site. Description of any features, buildings, or areas which are of historic significance. dMap indicating proposed finished grading shown at contours at the same intervals proposed above or as required to clearly indicate the relationship of proposed changes to existing topography and remaining features. E( Landscape pian drawn to an appropriate scale including dimensions, distance, location, type, size, and description of all existing vegetation, clearly locating and describing any vegetation proposed for removal and all proposed landscape materials which will be added to this site as part of the development. Proposed drainage plan of the developed site delineating in which direction, volume, and at what rate stormwater will be conveyed from the site and setting forth the areas of the site where stormwater will be allowed to collect and gradually percolate into the soil, or be slowly released to stream or lake. The plan shall also set forth hydraulic capacity of all structures to be constructed or exiting structures to be utilized, including volume or holding ponds and design storms. d/Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan indicating the type, location, and necessary technical information on control measures to be taken both during and after construction including a statement expressing the calculated anticipated gross soil loss expressed in /tons/acres/year both during and after construction. G', Proposed size, alignment, height, and intended use of any structures to be erected or located on the site. dClear delineation of all areas which shall be paved or surfaced including a description of the surfacing material to be used. Description of the method to be provided for vehicular and pedestrian access to the proposed development and public access to the river and/or public river view opportunities both before and after development; a description of the development's impact on existing views of and along the river, E( Description of all parking facilities to be provided as part of the development of the site including an analysis of parking needs generated by the proposed development. L Delineation of the area or areas to be dedicated for public use. U�Delineation of the location and amounts of excavated soils to be stored on the site during construction. O/Any other information pertinent to that particular project which in the opinion of the City or applicant is necessary or helpful for the review of the project. Critical Area Permit Application (modfed 41512016) Page 36 Page 2of2 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY & EXISTING CONDITIONS for: 1919 Hunter Lane, Mendota Heights EXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTION LEGEND ,2pin n Lots 1 and 2, LEONE RE -AR., Dakota County, Minnesota. XXX.X Denotes Proposed Elevation '0 XXX.X Denotes Existing Elevation FLORA AND FAUNA -► Denotes Surface Drainage There is no unique flora and fauna observed on site. O Denotes Offset Hub or Spike / ---- Denotes Drain. and Utility Ease. HISTORIC BUILDINGS • Denotes Monument Found There are no historic buildings on site. O Denotes Monument Set � --900-- Denotes Existing Contour EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY NOTE 864 Denotes Proposed Contour There are no existing wetlands, bluffs, or water bodies on site. �g L Deciduous Tree 22pin � / y Coniferous Tree SOILS NOTE Soils information will be provided by others. -0- Utility Pole BENCHMARK BASIS OF BEARINGS Top nut hydrant NW corner of Hunter Ln and Culligan Ln, Elev. 910.82 The north line of Lot 1 is assumed to bear N89°56'49"E 0 30 Scale in Feet g2o� A N I C- i 1 L) L-) I I l U 9 I I I NI T L� �/ L /-\ /916/ RO1 .5 CB TI I t A I I F -I I I lJ l I L_I \ /0 R 915.7 u IV l l W.00 N89°56'4911 E EXISTING HOUSE #1187 CULLIGAN LN 0 C) 0 / m SAN MH RIM 913.0 >� > 916.1 915.8 2 917.0 a X 915.3 SEWER SERVICE 5. x 915.3 X 915.0 26ash 6\ s \ 915.3 - 16spr Q�\� 1 �� ,2pin n 915.1 � NSP EASEMENT PER DOC. '0 I -T17786. PARTIAL RELEASE JN1\� 6\� PER DOC. T42473 ~ U O w / /O ac d w X915.2 / �Q / 916.2 Q s Cf)J /g16/916.0 a Q x 915.3 915.7 � < z� /�n A � 916.1 915.8 2 917.0 a X 915.3 SEWER SERVICE 5. x 915.3 X 915.0 26ash 6\ s \ 915.3 - 16spr Q�\� V I, V V V V K 0 C C SUj X 915. G Z� ��\ ^� / - C)xx LL 1 s 917.5 F I�\�19 g 1 QG�G� / 1 1 a OO �'�y{ p 22spr FFA 6° N w z \ 29 / O cl-cn 2 Lo I \ �spin / -1 -- 6 9j / N � N / D✓/ - V BOULDER WALL 22spr / / \ i 0ooQ / 25spr ce /g12 SEWERWATER J , CD R 907.9 SERVICE SERVICE � BENCHMARI 910 TOP NUT HYDRANT 20pin pELEV. 910.8 V F913.4 N A l 909.3 21s r $vv41 � f CURB �ti �910-�0 89056'49"E STOP 912.0 910 909.3 908.2 / 906.6 905.7 CB WATERMAIN CB R 909.8 R 905.1 9" VCSP SAN SEW > > > > > > > > > > CULLIGAN LANE 3 2 d \ 20 900 OQr - 00. Oo SAN MH RIM 906.43 -> > V PREPARED FOR: CERTIFICATIONw SISU LAND SURVEYING hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared ril 10775 Poppltz Lane M & M Home Contractors by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Chaska, MN 55318 Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 612-418-6828 Contact: Mike Fritz, 612-554-2556 12/26/16 Curtiss J. Kallio, Lic. No. *A 9 37 Date JOB NO.: 1659 SHEET 1 OF 4 1 �� 915.1 - 2oash co JN1\� 6\� x 915.4 / FN� c9° �<1\ 20pin a / 916.2 Q s J915.4/ x / /g16/916.0 oi6P .6 o3 s BLOCK WALL 91 .0 _ / �g L tiO�G� 22pin � / V I, V V V V K 0 C C SUj X 915. G Z� ��\ ^� / - C)xx LL 1 s 917.5 F I�\�19 g 1 QG�G� / 1 1 a OO �'�y{ p 22spr FFA 6° N w z \ 29 / O cl-cn 2 Lo I \ �spin / -1 -- 6 9j / N � N / D✓/ - V BOULDER WALL 22spr / / \ i 0ooQ / 25spr ce /g12 SEWERWATER J , CD R 907.9 SERVICE SERVICE � BENCHMARI 910 TOP NUT HYDRANT 20pin pELEV. 910.8 V F913.4 N A l 909.3 21s r $vv41 � f CURB �ti �910-�0 89056'49"E STOP 912.0 910 909.3 908.2 / 906.6 905.7 CB WATERMAIN CB R 909.8 R 905.1 9" VCSP SAN SEW > > > > > > > > > > CULLIGAN LANE 3 2 d \ 20 900 OQr - 00. Oo SAN MH RIM 906.43 -> > V PREPARED FOR: CERTIFICATIONw SISU LAND SURVEYING hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared ril 10775 Poppltz Lane M & M Home Contractors by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Chaska, MN 55318 Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 612-418-6828 Contact: Mike Fritz, 612-554-2556 12/26/16 Curtiss J. Kallio, Lic. No. *A 9 37 Date JOB NO.: 1659 SHEET 1 OF 4 SITE PLAN & PROPOSED PARCEL SPLIT for: 1919 Hunter Lane, Mendota Heights EXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lots 1 and 2, LEONE RE -AR., Dakota County, Minnesota. PROPOSED PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS Parcel 1 The northerly 100 feet of Lots 1 and 2, LEONE RE -AR., Dakota County, Minnesota. Parcel 2 That part of Lots 1 and 2, LEONE RE -AR., Dakota County, Minnesota lying southerly of the northerly 100 feet. LOT AREAS Existing Lot Area = 43,914 sq. ft. = 1.01 acres Proposed Parcel 1 = 20,000 sq. ft. = 0.46 acres Proposed Parcel 2 = 23,914 sq. ft. = 0.55 acres BENCHMARK Top nut hydrant NW corner of Hunter Ln and Culligan Ln, Elev. 910.82 SETBACKS Front = 40 feet Side = 10 feet Rear = 30 feet The above setbacks must be verified with the city prior to planning any improvements. AREAS & IMPERVIOUS Existing Lot Area = 43,914 sq. ft. Existing Impervious House and Garage = 3937 sq. ft. Porch = 239 sq. ft. Patio = 537 sq. ft. Driveway = 1903 sq. ft. Walk = 146 sq. f.t Total = 6762 sq. ft. = 15.4% Parcel 1 Lot Area = 20,000 sq. ft. Proposed Impervious House and Garage = 2800 sq. ft. Patio = 400 sq. ft. Driveway = 1200 sq. ft. Walk = 100 sq. f.t Total = 4500 sq. ft. = 22.5% Parcel 2 Lot Area = 23,914 sq. ft. Proposed Impervious House and Garage = 2800 sq. ft. Patio = 400 sq. ft. Driveway = 1200 sq. ft. Walk = 100 sq. f.t Total = 4500 sq. ft. - 18.8% LEGEND 20.4 XXX.X Denotes Proposed Elevation XXX.X Denotes Existing Elevation -► Denotes Surface Drainage O Denotes Offset Hub or Spike ---- Denotes Drain. and Utility Ease. - - Denotes Building Setback • Denotes Monument Found 0 Denotes Monument Set --900-- Denotes Existing Contour 864 Denotes Proposed Contour T17786. PARTIAL RELEASE Deciduous Tree PROPOSED Coniferous Tree -0- Utility Pole N BASIS OF BEARINGS BUILDING The north line of Lot o 1 is assumed to bear ~ U N89°56'49"E AREA (LO -SOUTH) 0 30 i I Scale in Feet PROPOSED BUILDINGS The proposed building areas and drives as shown are approximate. Actual building sizes and heights will be provided with building permit submittal. I I 1 1 N I T1 1^ AIN Ir --I U IVI I I 'I L_L_L- I 200.00 EXISTING HOUSE #1187 CULLIGAN LN it 0 Cn 0 z m SAN MH RIM 913.0 O O O Z O O O N N 915.2 O O O Z O O 0 � N N CP X 915.4 A f --N r-1 1 T 1 (--,\ N I A NIS_ L) L.) I I �J I v CB L -1 I L- I R 915.5 0, N89056'49"E 916.1 915.8 917.0 _ I I Q 915.3 SERVICE I I � j PROPOSED j I BUILDING X 915.3 I I 0 j AREA (FULL) i X $15.0 o I � 26ash Z j I O PAREL 1-x�3-------r Q - o 16spr I I I I z I I x 915.1 a I I I I � I I � < L -------------------- V 20pin 915.4 916.0 x X 200.00 S89056'49"W 20.4 -------- 0"8ma 100 FEET OF LOTS AND 2 X 915.4 �... 1 1 LL V/f 917.5x I I I spr V `� 22spr . I I (C::)) V NSP EASEMENT PER DOC. `a T17786. PARTIAL RELEASE PROPOSED �N PER DOC. T42473 N w z BUILDING j o ~ U AREA (LO -SOUTH) O a _ O i o e o� w z O w x 915.2 z Q aZ z O O �J w w� 18pin IV I I J z 0 Cf) aQ a0 w x 915.3 �Q za_0 n V - - - - - - - - - - D > - 917.5 11 CA D - 5 �- 20ash � I EXISTING HOUSE #1187 CULLIGAN LN it 0 Cn 0 z m SAN MH RIM 913.0 O O O Z O O O N N 915.2 O O O Z O O 0 � N N CP X 915.4 A f --N r-1 1 T 1 (--,\ N I A NIS_ L) L.) I I �J I v CB L -1 I L- I R 915.5 0, N89056'49"E 916.1 915.8 917.0 _ I I Q 915.3 SERVICE I I � j PROPOSED j I BUILDING X 915.3 I I 0 j AREA (FULL) i X $15.0 o I � 26ash Z j I O PAREL 1-x�3-------r Q - o 16spr I I I I z I I x 915.1 a I I I I � I I � < L -------------------- V 20pin 915.4 916.0 x X 200.00 S89056'49"W NL ------ WALL ..22spr SEWER SERVICE N 20pin ^^n -- 180.00 4 909.3 R 909.8 i CU LLIGAN _ 2pin I CB 1 R 915.7 46 V 30 II V V V V � v K c 0 C C SUi SOUTH LINE OF THE N'LY -------- 0"8ma 100 FEET OF LOTS AND 2 X 915.4 �... 1 1 LL V/f 917.5x I I I spr V `� 22spr . I I (C::)) V I I PARCEL' I I NL ------ WALL ..22spr SEWER SERVICE N 20pin ^^n -- 180.00 4 909.3 R 909.8 i CU LLIGAN _ 2pin I CB 1 R 915.7 46 V 30 II V V V V � v K c 0 C C SUi 9°56'49"E I STOP 9 V01M WATERMAIN 9" VCSP SAN SEW 3 O0OQ CB R 905.1 SAN MH RIM 906.43 PREPARED FOR: CERTIFICATIONw JOB NO.: SISU LAND SURVEYING I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared r ' 10775 Poppltz Lane M & M Home Contractors by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Chaska, MN 55318 Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 612-418-6828 Contact: Mike Fritz, 612-554-2556U --S 12/26/16 1 Curtiss J. Kallio, Lic. No. *9 9 38 Date 659 SHEET 2 OF 4 --A -------- --- - LL \ (C::)) V w PROPOSED i N w z BUILDING j o AREA (LO -SOUTH) a _ i o I aZ > 18pin IV I I p _ V - - - - - - - - - - D > - CA D � I o �Q 30 om"- V 25spr W CB WATER �V C� w R 907.9 SERVICE J m � BENCHMAR > I TOP NUT HYDRANT 21sor\-LELEV. 910.8 V 9°56'49"E I STOP 9 V01M WATERMAIN 9" VCSP SAN SEW 3 O0OQ CB R 905.1 SAN MH RIM 906.43 PREPARED FOR: CERTIFICATIONw JOB NO.: SISU LAND SURVEYING I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared r ' 10775 Poppltz Lane M & M Home Contractors by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Chaska, MN 55318 Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 612-418-6828 Contact: Mike Fritz, 612-554-2556U --S 12/26/16 1 Curtiss J. Kallio, Lic. No. *9 9 38 Date 659 SHEET 2 OF 4 GRADING, DRAINAGE, & EROSION CONTROL PLAN for: 1919 Hunter Lane, Mendota Heights STORMWATER RUNOFF SUMMARY N LEGEND XXX.X Denotes Proposed Elevation Peak Discharge Comparision XXX.X Denotes Existing Elevation 2 -Year Storm (cfs) 10 -Year Storm (cfs) 100 -Year Storm (cfs) -� Denotes Surface Drainage Exist Prop Change Exist Prop Change Exist Prop Change O Denotes Offset Hub or Spike TOTAL 1.43 1.52 0.09 2.96 3.08 0.12 6.95 7.08 0.13 ---- Denotes Drain. and Utility Ease. - - Denotes Building Setback • Denotes Monument Found Runoff Volume Comparison 0 Denotes Monument Set 2 -Year Storm (ac -ft) 10 -Year Storm (ac -ft) 100 -Year Storm (ac -ft) --900-- Denotes Existing Contour Exist Prop Change ExistProp Change Exist Prop Change 864 Denotes Proposed Contour TOTAL 0.083 0.088 0.005 0.170 1 0.177 0.007 0.407 0.417 0.010 Deciduous Tree Coniferous Tree EROSION CONTROL NOTES -0- Utility Pole 1. Place perimeter controls before any land disturbing activity. 2. All disturbed areas are to be seeded and mulched, or sodded. � Remove tree BASIS OF BEARINGS 3. The estimated disturbed area is 0.7 acreso The north line of Lot 4. The estimated total excavation for both sites is 1200 CY o o Rock construction 1 is assumed to bear entrance N89°56'49 "E BENCHMARK -MS_ Silt Fence, 0 30 Top nut hydrant NW corner of Hunter Ln and Culligan Machine Sliced Scale in Feet Ln, Elev. 910.82 � � _ A rinlTl/1f�1 g2o� A I` I C i LJ LJ I I l U I N I T �- L� L -/-N TI It AINIr -I I ` j 1UI LJIVIII1�L- q2n 4 916.1 / 915.8 ? EXISTING HOUSE #1187 CULLIGAN LN o 917.0 *12pin... ...�. NSP EASEMENT PER DOC. / 916 T17786. PARTIAL RELEAS 91� r_ - oo PER DOC. T42473 - I I a _ - sEVdEi2- o 915.3 SERVICE o / 41- 0 j PROPOSED o ox915.2 BUILDING x 915.3 as I m 6.0% Q j X AREA (FULL) a' i o� x 15.0 o c c� \ 26ash96 TF 918.4 j X PA R� EL 1 9097 _ Q 915.3 \< rl 16sppr < - '� pN j I j z X 91 5 �- 20ash co 11 1 -0c � I / I < a' � I I � Q x915.4 L--------------------� .. ... ... .. ... ... ... 20pli o 915.4,g16/916.ox PROPOSED PARCEL LI�JE / 912.0 SAN MH RIM 913.0 22pin �` 3 map ...-......... N - _/ ._ i' / n 915. -�\ ---- 2 917.5x I \ V 1 I 1 p 22spr pOTENTIAI I `n I I PROPOSED g10CKp1LE I BUILDING rn 8.3% �j AREA (LO -SOUTH) PARCEL TF 916.9 914 LF 908.2 I I / I I � \ 912 18pin I �� 3OULDERW%l L 22spr / 910.7 /L- CB R 915.7 Uj S • MIII .e 1-3 > 1 5✓ V � D - s... co...... ... MSS/ o \ N / MSS o MSS 2 5 s p r O CB E[� R WATER `v7 �\ o R 907.9 SERVICE SERVICE NJm _ � M � BENCHMAR � > / 910 TOP NUT HYDRANT -LA N 20pin 21spr ELEV. 910.8 V 909.3 - CURB STOP �g08 908.2 906.6 905.7 - V WATERMN CB R 905.1 SAN MH AI 9" VCSP SAN SEW - RIM 906.43 > > > > > > > LANE V �g10� 909.3 R 909.8 CU LLIGAN PREPARED FOR: CERTIFICATIONw JOB NO... SISU LAND SURVEYING I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared r ' 10775 Poppltz Lane M & M Home Contractors by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Chaska, MN 55318 Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 612-418-6828 Contact: Mike Fritz, 612-554-2556U --S 12/26/16 1 Curtiss J. Kallio, Lic. No. *9 9 39 Date659 SHEET 3 OF 4 N N 0 / 912.0 SAN MH RIM 913.0 22pin �` 3 map ...-......... N - _/ ._ i' / n 915. -�\ ---- 2 917.5x I \ V 1 I 1 p 22spr pOTENTIAI I `n I I PROPOSED g10CKp1LE I BUILDING rn 8.3% �j AREA (LO -SOUTH) PARCEL TF 916.9 914 LF 908.2 I I / I I � \ 912 18pin I �� 3OULDERW%l L 22spr / 910.7 /L- CB R 915.7 Uj S • MIII .e 1-3 > 1 5✓ V � D - s... co...... ... MSS/ o \ N / MSS o MSS 2 5 s p r O CB E[� R WATER `v7 �\ o R 907.9 SERVICE SERVICE NJm _ � M � BENCHMAR � > / 910 TOP NUT HYDRANT -LA N 20pin 21spr ELEV. 910.8 V 909.3 - CURB STOP �g08 908.2 906.6 905.7 - V WATERMN CB R 905.1 SAN MH AI 9" VCSP SAN SEW - RIM 906.43 > > > > > > > LANE V �g10� 909.3 R 909.8 CU LLIGAN PREPARED FOR: CERTIFICATIONw JOB NO... SISU LAND SURVEYING I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared r ' 10775 Poppltz Lane M & M Home Contractors by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Chaska, MN 55318 Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 612-418-6828 Contact: Mike Fritz, 612-554-2556U --S 12/26/16 1 Curtiss J. Kallio, Lic. No. *9 9 39 Date659 SHEET 3 OF 4 LANDSCAPE PLAN for: 1919 Hunter Lane, Mendota Heights TREE LEGEND LEGEND ma, XXX.X XXX.X Denotes Proposed Elevation Denotes Existing Elevation Tree Abreviation -► Denotes Surface Drainage Diameter O Denotes Offset Hub or Spike TREE ABREMATIONS ---- Denotes Drain. and Utility Ease. ash Ash - - Denotes Building Setback map Maple • Denotes Monument Found pin Pine O Denotes Monument Set spr Spruce --900-- Denotes Existing Contour Denotes Proposed Contour TREE PRESERVATION Total Trees Inventoried on site = 14 <0 Deciduous Tree Anticipated trees to be removed = 6 Coniferous Tree Trees to be saved = 8 -0- Utility Pole TREE PROTECTION \X Remove tree BASIS OF BEARINGS Tree protection will be as required by the city. The north line of Lot 1 is assumed to bear N89°56'49"E TREE REPLACEMENTS Since no construction will occur until new homes are 0 30 constructed, tree replacements if required will be shown Scale in Feet as part of the building permit process. g2o/A N I C- / I I I I N L _/-\ I L - TI 1t, AIN Ir --1 I UIVIII�IL_/ i 916.1 EXISTING HOUSE #1187 CULLIGAN LN C) 0 / m SAN MH RIM 913.0 >� > 915.2 917.0 A f-\r,ITI(--,\NI i \L) R 91 5 /g16/ O 915.8 a cs 2pin I- -\ - �'\ FNSP EASEMENT PER DOC. g1� / 916 '�T17786. PARTIAL RELEASE,*' P - 'D PER DOC. T42473 I I � I 915.3 SERVICE o 0 I rn j PROPOSED o jtxlr- 26ash \ x P152 I BUILDING X 915.3 �o 16.0% Q i X AREA (FULL) °' i .0 C7 �'� TF 918.4 I a J � x PAR I E L 1 909.7 Q � I 915.3 �-x� I -3----- -r � Q n 6sp\ z 5 - 20ash I\L \ rI i I x 915 (10 \ l D I I I of I I � x915.4 / L L--------------------� 20 in - - -- -- --------J p /' gX5 4 �<g16/916.o x cPROPOSE D PARCEL LI�JE map I I---- n 915. � rn I 122917.5x 4 pr spr I r �I 912.0 3.4 / NL W � L R 909.8 �g10� 909.3 CU LLIGAN ylb 22pin L_ ­J I J1 I PROPOSED L BUILDING rn I 8.3% AREA (LO -SOUTH) TF 916.9 ..N CB R 915.7 LU N V a wz N_ z En LF 908.2 / I m I� v X18pin 910.7 / ---� g12 ✓� - V D D o �� oma - V 25s r R WATER p 00CB CE SERVICE � o R 907.9 Jm BENCHMAR > 910TOP NUT HYDRANT N20pin n 21 sorELEV. 910.8 V CURB STOP �g08 2 906.6 905.7 WATERMAIN CB R 905.1 WIRN 9" VCSP SAN SEW - V -� SAN MH RIM 906.43 V PREPARED FOR: CERTIFICATIONw SISU LAND SURVEYING hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared ril 10775 Poppltz Lane M & M Home Contractors by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Chaska, MN 55318 Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 612-418-6828 Contact: Mike Fritz, 612-554-2556 12/26/16 Curtiss J. Kallio, Lic. No. *A 940 Date JOB NO.: 1659 SHEET 4 OF 4 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING A PUBLIC HEARING ON A LOT SPLIT AND CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AT 1919 HUNTER LANE 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, January 24, 2017 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider a Lot Split and Critical Area Permit at 1919 Hunter Lane. This request has been assigned Planning Case number 2017-01. This notice is pursuant to Title 12 (Zoning) of the Mendota Heights City Code. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to this request will be heard at this meeting. Lorri Smith City Clerk Page 41 1101 Victoria Curve I Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651.452.1850 phone I 651.452.8940 fax www.mendc)ta-helghts.com CITY OF MENDDTA HEIGHTS Request for Planning Commission Action MEETING DATE: January 24, 2017 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Phil Carlson, AICP Interim Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-02 Lot Split Mark Gergen, 697 Wesley Lane COMMENT: Introduction The application is for a lot split (subdivision). Background There is an existing single family home on the lot which would be removed to create two new single family lots. Discussion The City is using its quasi-judicial authority when considering action on subdivision and zoning requests and has limited discretion; a determination regarding whether or not the request meets the applicable code standards is required. Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the requests in this case and make a recommendation to the City Council. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. Page 42 (3 Stantec Item No. 2017-02 MEMORANDUM Date: January 24, 2017 To: Mendota Heights Planning Commission From: Phil Carlson, AICP, Consulting Planner RE: Planning Case 2017-02: Request for a Lot Split in Rolling Woods Addition Applicant: Mark Gergen Property Address: 697 Wesley Lane Action: Lot Split, Approval of Subdivision Request Deadline: March 4, 2017 (60 days from complete application submittal) REQUEST SITE CONTEXT Request to subdivide in an R-1 zoning district to replace one single-family lot (existing home) with two conforming single-family lots Existing Zoning R-1 One -Family Residential Existing Lot Existing Lot Area Lot 1, Block 1, Rolling Woods Addition 35,451 square feet (.81 acres) Designated Future Land Use Low Density Residential Site Description and Present Use The subject site contains an existing single family home. The site is bordered to the north and west by existing single family homes, to the east by Wesley Court and to the south by Wesley Lane. Existing access to the property is from Wesley Lane through a driveway along the property's western edge. The existing home sits in the middle of the property and the existing lot is bordered by mature trees on both Wesley Lane and Wesley Court. Surrounding Properties and Neighborhood All properties adjacent to the site and most properties in its immediate vicinity are single family homes. The exception is the church which is located at 700 Wesley Lane south of the subject site. The property is a corner lot that directly abuts two other properties. To the west is a single family Page 43 (3 Stantec Mendota Heights Planning Commission Item 2017-02 Gergen Lot Split Request, 697 Wesley Lane January 24, 2017 2 home fronting Wesley Lane. To the northeast is a single family home fronting Wesley Court and to the northwest is a single-family home fronting Mager Court. Project Description The applicant proposes to remove the existing single family home and subdivide the lot into two single-family lots, as illustrated on the survey drawing dated 1-13-2017 from Bohlen Surveying and Associates: .....__47RT'39'39"L lM13:b0 I. s74.7�,yz :... r PARCEL A 1 r -..x lielh':4N I I L fi:.. �iF 11 �i=7 E3 X '-A=1 '21'21" L=2 27 t R PARCEL B �I fl 1 I I / 17.6NX S1 E LU o �I ---H[n:cx 1= I 1 1 I s > -- c . l Pl2UYu5kJ} W I v z� '.01-4 — N89`16W"E 202.76 WESLEY LANE _ • Parcel A, on the west side of the existing lot would be about 1 01 ' x 175', and would include 17,762 square feet, with access from Wesley Lane via the existing curb cut and driveway. The existing driveway is on the west lot line, closer to the lot line than the 5 -foot setback required by code. • Parcel B, on the east side of the existing lot would be about 102' x 175', and include 17,688 square feet, with access from Wesley Court via a new curb cut and driveway. • Some trees are proposed to be removed to allow the lot split and build two new homes: o On Parcel A, keeping the existing curb cut and driveway in its current location allows most of the trees on the front of the lot to remain. Four trees in the interior of the lot would be removed for the new driveway and house. The new layout on Parcel A would remove most of the rear section of the existing driveway, eliminating activity and snow plowing there, a significant benefit for the neighbor to the west, but care must be taken not to aggravate drainage problems. Page 44 (3 Stantec Mendota Heights Planning Commission Item 2017-02 Gergen Lot Split Request, 697 Wesley Lane January 24, 2017 o On Parcel B, four trees on the Wesley Court frontage would be removed to make room for the new driveway and three internal trees would be removed for the new house. Above: View NE from Wesley Lane, Below: View SW from Wesley Court ANALYSIS 1) This application would result in two one -family lots. Both lots exceed the minimum lot area (15,000 square feet) and lot width (100 feet) of the R-1 District. 2) The proposed lot sizes for both lots exceed the lot size and frontages of nearby lots on Wesley Lane and the proposed frontages are comparable. 3) Front setbacks required on Wesley Lane would be slightly more than 30 feet, per the "average setback rule" in Section 12-1 D -4D, but the proposed plan shows more than this. Page 45 (3 Stantec Mendota Heights Planning Commission Item 2017-02 Gergen Lot Split Request, 697 Wesley Lane January 24, 2017 4) Preserving as many of the mature trees as possible on the Wesley Lane and Wesley Court frontages is desirable to impose the least disruption possible to the neighborhood character. 5) Park dedication fees are required for the new lot created as a result of the lot split. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission is asked to determine the effect of the proposed lot split on the character and development of the neighborhood in forming its recommendation to the City Council. We recommend that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the lot split as submitted, with the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall submit grading and utility plans and dimensioned site plans with associated easements, subject to review and approval of the Engineering Department as part of any building permit application. 2) Such grading plans and building plans that will allow for the preservation of the trees on both Parcel A and Parcel B as shown on the survey drawing date 1-13-2017 from Bohlen Surveying and which will serve to alleviate any drainage problems onto neighboring properties. Any other land disturbance must comply with the City's Land Disturbance Guidance document. 3) Front setbacks to Wesley Lane for future structures on both Parcel A and Parcel B shall be 40 feet and 45 feet, respectively, more or less as shown on the Bohlen survey drawing, in order to preserve the existing trees indicated. 4) The applicant shall submit landscape plans, subject to review and approval by the Planning Department, as part of any building permit application. 5) The applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easements on both parcels to be denoted on the Certificate of Survey submitted to Dakota County: 10 feet wide along the front property lines and 5 feet wide along the side and rear property lines. 6) On Parcel A, the rear portion of the existing driveway will be removed, and graded so as not to aggravate drainage problems, and the ground restored with suitable ground cover, as approved by the City Engineer before a certificate of occupancy is issued. 7) Park dedication fees in lieu of land per current City policy will be paid before the subdivision is recorded with Dakota County. 8) The existing home is to be demolished before the subdivision is recorded with Dakota County. 9) Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. Page 46 (3 Stantec Mendota Heights Planning Commission Item 2017-02 Gergen Lot Split Request, 697 Wesley Lane January 24, 2017 5 REQUESTED ACTION Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of the lot split based on the attached findings of fact. M 2. Recommend denial of the lot split based on findings of fact. OR 3. Table the request, pending additional information from staff or others. Page 47 (3 Stantec Mendota Heights Planning Commission Item 2017-02 Gergen Lot Split Request, 697 Wesley Lane January 24, 2017 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Lot split for 697 Wesley Lane 1. No change to the Comprehensive Plan or zoning designation and no variance is requested. 2. The two lots resulting from the lot split meet City code minimum standards and are comparable in size and frontage to other lots on Wesley Lane. 3. The specific plans proposed have placed the proposed future homes and driveways such that there is minimal removal of existing trees, thus preserving as much as practical the existing character of the neighborhood. Page 48 Scale Site Plan 697 Wesley Lane Date: 1/18/2017 N 0 40 SCALE IN FEET AiAAAA JA City of Mendota Heights 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 contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errors or omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. kw Date: 1/3/2017 To Whom it may concern, Mark Gergen, REALTOR Keller Williams Realty Integrity Lakes 1350 Lagoon Ave Ste 900 Minneapolis, MN 55408-2692 This letter is being written to express our intentions for the lot split of the property located at 697 Wesley Lane in Mendota Heights , Minnesota as part of the application for consideration of the planning request. We would like to split the lot into two new single family home sites. We will be proposing to change from an older existing home, two new conforming single family lots. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. Sincerely, M ergen 612-414-7143 markg@kw.com Each office is independently owned and operated. Page 50 KELLER'ddILLIAMS. REALTo' INTEGRITY LAKES kuthentisign ID; C9IA6332-31DA.41B9.9759-0277958600C3 ct*ry OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS of tis e.only.- Case PLANNING APPLICA ION M Applicable Ordinance Section: Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Existing Use: Proposed Use; Property AddressfStreet Location: & V_ I r�'Q�- '�" /- �7 Applicant Name: 0)-a . /.'-- e C' I Phone:. Applicant E -Mail Address, M cf�' ( V:_ 0 ry Applicant Mailing Address: Property Owner Name: Mi'm-0- yvl'-�HhQu) I Property Owner Mailing Address '0'e -L_ Legal Description & PIN f Property: (C"P"te Legal frc 1101 Victoria Curve I Vlendo'W Heights; MN 55118 k �vxle , . 61-2 L6+ C_1 U0 I /_ 'Ti /_ /_ �V_ 1_1�i kill 14 Title or Deed must be provided) � - C3 -T- 1 6) n'r .fe - / D D Type of Request: D Rezoning Q Conditional Use Permit El Interim Use Permit D Variance L3 Wetlands Permit D Preliminary/Final Plat Approval Split/Adjustment D Critical Area Permit LJ Comprehensive Plan Amendment D Code Amendment D Appeal D Other 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. AuthentimN 12127/2016 Si It nt. Date i A ignto of 0w6jer nate Signature of Owner (if more than one) Date Planning Appfloation (modified 61112016) Page I of I Page 51 ADDRESS: 697 WESLEY LANE 5 fi� 0' I VERGI ( I� 2 ) EXI5TING \ q DECK C:) I ,~ I 7> w ti .� N o z a w a � � m w �' o w O ri w N r O EXI5TING z HOUSE - V I I Ln In 20 I� L I v� 5 I EVERGREEN I c 0 I N - FT - Bohlen Bohlen CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR MARK GERGEN EXI5TING HOUSE ldllll/,cT v 24 T I v 20' LVEPGKI:I=ft j0 N82 °39'39+,E T 90 ' ��cr, RECT I I G W""L 25' 101 0 4B �2rr< \ \ EVER—GP E�t 0 �� PARCEL A 6'907 \ 9p5� \ " +rI EVERGREEN 17,762 SF 909 \ b I3 PLR -909.5 ' I I EXI5TING DRIVEWAY V _ (TO BE REYOVED) I I I 90 .0 ! I T w N 0 1 OII .OT -I---- I 1 0 o " TREE M 1 O�g LIT 2 I wl I \ YA w I'_X.S i. VG IQ M hOLJslf o a•;� a (FO BE �`• 906 5 h m _ 10A�ED)� LR 05.8 QN 908.2 907. LO 0 I � E C) 911.8 \ x I N a o\ 1 E c 7 - " lRO `SSE ADI � ♦. I 6 o' RA ` N I z TA W HOU B 1 E USE 5E 4 \2 EE D PROP05ED GE I DRIVEWAY ADD 3 EXTRA STEPS OL BETWEE THE HO AND )fiEGARAGE &NY I 9J ,faY � -913.5 rB =910.0 .tONC PATIO.. zo' �3% ��\\SII ///� i 1III 30 — — — — ERG 5 20' E ERGREEN \ 14" T K _ 10" T \ SPLIT X 2 1 ffi\ L EVERGREEN p EVERGREEN _ II I 2 I i 1"02, I 20' EVEFI R EVEI N 16'00"E 206= BENCHMARK: �- 06—¢ TNkJ=SJ 0. T2 8 -1079 Surveying & Associates 31432 Foliage Avenue 1682 Cliff Road E. Northfield, MN 55057 Burnsville, MN 55337 FRONT = 30' MIN OR 1/3 OF Phone: (507) 645-7768 Phone: (952) 895-9212 tomeara@bohlensurveying.com Fax: (952) 895-9259 WESLEY LANE CENTERLIN` / SETBACK INFORMATION. 0 DENOTES MAILBOX FRONT = 30' MIN OR 1/3 OF AVERAGE DEPTH OF LOT MAX 0 DENOTES IRON PIPE MONUMENT SET / SIDE = 10' 0 DENOTES FOUND IRON PIPE MONUMENT SIDE ALONG STREET = 30' REAR = 30' OR 20% OF THE DENOTES PROPOSED DRAINAGE DIRECTION AVERAGE LOT DEPTH WHICH EVER IS GREATER DENOTES SERVICE LOCATION R=78X00 El DENOTES WOOD HUB -' A-1 021'21 " 000.0 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION L-2 .27 DENOTES PROPOSED ON 'O OOo— DENOTES EXISTING CONTOUR DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOUR DENOTES DECIDUOUS TREE DENOTES EVERGREEN TREE 0 U DENOTES BITUMINOUS SURFACE , —i 1 " = 30' .a �. ' .a : ^ DENOTES CONCRETE SURFACE ' ,' U) DENOTES GRAVEL SURFACE w zl w �I EXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTION LOT 1, BLOCK 1, ROLLING WOODS ADDITION, CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA. PARCEL A, PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 30 THE WEST 101.00 FEET OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, ROLLING WOODS ADDITION, CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA. SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE & UTILITY PURPOSES OVER AND ACROSS THE NORTH, WEST AND EAST 5.00 FEET AND THE SOUTH 10.00 FEET OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY. UTI LITY -909— BOX/ � PARCEL B, PROPERTY DESCRIPTION LOT 1, BLOCK 1, ROLLING WOODS ADDITION, CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA. — EXCEPT THE WEST 101.00 FEET OF SAID LOT 1. SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE & UTILITY PURPOSES OVER AND ACROSS THE SOUTH AND EAST 10.00 FEET AND THE WEST AND NORTH 5.00 FEET OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY. NOTE.- FRONT SETBACK SHOWN AT 30' BECAUSE THE 4 HOUSES TO THE WEST HAVE FRONT SETBACKS THAT VARY FROM 30' TO 35.5'. NOTE.- ALL BUILDING TOTAL PARCEL AREA = 35,450 SQ. FT. 0.813 ACRES+— DIMENSIONS ARE SHOWN TO PARCEL A AREA = 17,762 SQ. FT. 0.407 ACRES+— OUTSIDE OF FOUNDATION PARCEL B AREA = 17,688 SQ. FT 0.406 ACRES+— WALL PROPOSED HOUSE PADS = 75X75'+— 5,625 SF+— Z:\S\Company Shared\Projects\Mendota-heights\rollin ,ffggdos�dwg\LIB1-split-1-13-17.dwg 1/13/2017 2:17:56 PM CST I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OFF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATE: 1-13-2017 I I l0f I� Jo OmAanIL THOMAS J. O'MEARA, LAND SURVEYOR MINNESOTA LICENSE NO. 46167 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING A PUBLIC HEARING ON A LOT SPLIT AT 697 WESLEY LANE 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, January 24, 2017 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider a Lot Split at 697 Wesley Lane. This request has been assigned Planning Case number 2017-02. This notice is pursuant to Title 12 (Zoning) of the Mendota Heights City Code. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to this request will be heard at this meeting. Lorri Smith City Clerk Page 53