Loading...
2017-11-28 Planning Comm Agenda Packet CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA NOVEMBER 28, 2017 – 7:00 p.m. Mendota Heights City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Adopt Agenda 4. Approval of October 24, 2017 Planning Commission (Regular Meeting) Minutes 5. Public Hearings: a. Case No. 2017-28: Lot Split request for property located at 697 Wesley Lane (Keith Schweiger – Applicant) b. Case No. 2017-29: Conditional Use Permit for Over-Sized Garage and Wetlands Permit for property located at 2260 Wagon Wheel Court (Gonyea Homes – Applicant on behalf of Jason & Thomasine Eggers- Owners) 6. Staff Announcements / Update on Developments 7. 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. October 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 1 of 10 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES October 24, 2017 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 27, 2017 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 John Mazzitello, Michael Noonan, Mary Magnuson, Michael Toth, and Brian Petschel. Commissioner Doug Hennes was absent/excused. Staff Present: Consulting Planner Phil Carlson (Stantec), Community Development Director Tim Benetti, and Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of September 26, 2017 Minutes COMMISSIONER JOHN MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2017, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Hennes) Approval of October 11, 2017 Special (Workshop) Minutes Chair Field noted that this particular meeting was not recorded but as the Comprehensive Plan, which was the main topic of the workshop session, is a critical part of the Commissions work that they approve the minutes for the record. COMMISSIONER JOHN MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 11, 2017. Commissioner Mazzitello pointed out a quote on page four that was not closed; typographical error of the minutes. Commissioner Magnuson also noted that Goal 3 seemed to have an incomplete sentence. Staff agreed to make these adjustments. Commissioner Noonan abstained from voting as he was not present at the workshop meeting. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 October 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 2 of 10 ABSTAIN: 1 (Noonan) ABSENT: 1 (Hennes) Hearings A) PLANNING CASE #2017-26 SEAN HOFFMAN, 711 WOODRIDGE DRIVE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Sean Hoffmann was seeking a critical area permit to construct a new cedar-wood pergola fence and remove some invasive trees in their rear yard. The property is located in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, which requires a critical area permit for all development activities requiring a building permit or special zoning approvals. As this is a public hearing item, notices were posted in the local Southwest Review and letters were mailed to owners within 350 feet of the subject property. Staff received one inquiry from a residential neighbor. After responding to the question over the phone the neighbor was very pleased that nothing was being done physically in the bluff area as far as any grading or any additions. She then stated that she had no issues with the request. Mr. Benetti shared aerial images of the property and pointed out its location in proximity to residential streets, the neighboring properties, and the critical area bluff line edge. The property is 0.66 acres in size and contains a 2,870 square foot single story residential dwelling. In June 2014 a landslide event occurred in the bluff area a couple houses down from this property, resulting in the installation of a very large and expensive concrete retaining wall by that homeowner. Mr. Hoffmann indicated that a similar landslide event took place almost 17 years ago on his property, which also resulted in the installation of concrete block retaining walls in the bluff area. Some of the requested work would be to help facilitate protection of these wall features. Mr. Hoffmann would like to remove some box elders (approx. 1 to 1.5 inches in diameter) along the backside of the wall, 5-6 Sumac Shrubs, two Siberian Elms, and an Amur Maple; of which are considered undesirable and invasive plants. Mr. Benetti explained that the desired pergola structure would be installed and anchored on the existing concrete patio and no part of the bluff line would be affected by this installation. No grading or soil disturbance or excess vegetation removal would occur as part of this project. Mr. Hoffman also asked to put in up an open, cable-wired style fence along the backside of the bluff line, basically where the lawn meets the bluff line. This would be an added safety measure for his young children playing in the rear yard, as the drop-off from the edge of the lawn at the bluff line is severe and the grades are very steep. As part of this analysis, staff did look at the plans to prevent and mitigate irreversible damage, promote orderly development, and to preserve and enhance the Critical Area’s value. Mr. Benetti October 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 3 of 10 also shared the pertinent provisions in Section 12-3-7 of the code as it pertains to this request and how the plans meet those provisions and standards. The pergola, although it is a structure per se, it does not require a building permit as it does not fall under the building code regulations. The city’s building official determined that a pergola, no matter the size, because it does not have any extraneous code enforcement or code measures it becomes more of a landscape feature. Therefore, they do not need a building permit for the pergola; however, they will need a fence permit. The planned fence is cable-wired fence which would provide much better views through the fence; meets the 30% opacity standards; and should be less obtrusive or noticeable from the adjacent properties and; therefore, is in general compliance of the Critical Area standards for new features. Staff sent the application materials to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and to the City of St. Paul Parks and Recreation Department. The DNR acknowledge receipt of the application request and had no objections. They did provide recommendations related to the future maintenance or prevention of vegetation growth near the retaining wall (sprayed with herbicide). No comments were received from the City of St. Paul Parks and Recreation Department. Commissioner Noonan asked why staff recommended that the trees and vegetation removal be performed by qualified tree and landscaping professional/firm as there are many homes in there that may not be in the bluff area but are under undertaking significant tree removal to deal with invasive species and such. It seemed to him that it worked against the whole notion of looking after their own property and the sweat equity that could be put into their own property. Mr. Benetti replied that this condition may be more of a holdover from the first case he worked on when he came to work for the City of Mendota Heights. In that case, he worked with Consultant Planner Phil Carlson who heavily supported the fact that, in that case, the work that had to be done on that property should have been done by a professional landscaper. Mr. Benetti had been carrying that over since then and since Mr. Hoffmann had indicated that is landscaper or lawn professional was going to do the work, he left it in there as an add-on condition. However, it is his property and he could do the work himself if he wanted to. Commissioner Magnuson, stating that she did not want to over-lawyer this, asked that if the Commission decided that the pergola is not a structure within the meaning of the critical area permit, shouldn’t they just take it out of the findings entirely. Mr. Benetti replied that the Commission could remove it if they wished. Commissioner Magnuson read condition #5 in part; “the proposed wooden pergola features does not increase the extent (livable space) or height of the existing principal structure” and noted that it seems to say that it is a structure but it complies with the critical area code. That would mean that the City would have to conclude that the patio was part of the existing structure and she was unsure that it was. Mr. Benetti agreed that this portion of the condition could be removed if the Commission wished. Commissioner Magnuson then asked if someone were to build a landscape feature in their yard, would they have to get a critical area permit. Mr. Benetti replied that it would depend on what they were doing; the extent of their work. If a property owner were building a structure – like a shed or such like – that would require a permit. October 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 4 of 10 Commissioner Toth asked for confirmation that the existing retaining wall was built approximately 17 years ago, which Mr. Benetti provided. He then asked, as the trees continue to grow, if there were currently any signs of failure to that wall. Mr. Benetti replied that he looked at the retaining all from the road and did not see any signs on the main (bottom) wall. He also noted that the request does not contain any engineering of the wall; he simply wanted to remove existing plantings to prevent future damage. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Mr. Sean Hoffmann did not have any additional comments to add to the staff report. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Hennes) COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-26, CRITICAL AREA PERMIT APPLICATION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, AS AMENDED: 1. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District, and is consistent with the general policies and objectives of the comprehensive plan; including (but not limited to) the following goals and statements: a. Maintain and enrich the mature, fully developed residential environment and character of the community. b. Enhance and protect the natural and living environment. c. Provide for maintenance and further natural restoration of ecological systems. d. The prevention and mitigation of irreversible damage to (the MRCCA) and the preservation and enhancement of its natural, aesthetic, cultural and historic values is in furtherance of the health, safety and general welfare of the city. 2. The Applicant will make a concerted effort to remove a minimal number of invasive trees on the subject property; and keep and preserve existing significant trees in and around the bluff line area. 3. The work proposed involved is reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical Area. 4. The proposed work is in keeping with the character of the area. 5. The new fence [and pergola feature] will not be obtrusive or detract from any views from nearby properties; and the proposed wooden pergola feature does not increase the extent (livable space) or height of the existing principal structure. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: October 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 5 of 10 1. Removal of trees and vegetation, including any invasive trees or unsuitable vegetation must be performed by qualified tree and landscaping professional/firm. 2. Removal of trees and vegetation limited to the box elders near the bottom retaining wall; the two (2) Siberian Elms and one (1) Amur maple located near the top edge of the bluff line; the sumac shrubs along the top edge of the bluff line; and any buckthorn or other undesirable invasives that may be present or evident during removals. 3. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. 4. A separate fence permit must be obtained prior to fence installation work. Commissioner Noonan explained his reasoning for the removal of Condition #1 by stating that on two separate occasions the Commission had included that type of condition largely in the case of individuals jumping the gun – getting in and doing substantial and intensive removal of vegetation and the Commission felt that in order to mitigate the impact that was done they needed to bring in a professional firm. Chair Field replied that leaving this in would create the folklore that it is required on all; this is a distinction properly made. However, if Mr. Benetti feels in a particular case that it is warranted, he should not be shy about making that recommendation. All agreed. Transcriptionist note: [ ] = insertion of text; strikethrough = deletion of text AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Hennes) Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its November 7, 2017 meeting. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update A) CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED VISION, MISSION STATEMENT, & GOALS/POLICIES Consulting Planner Phil Carlson of Stantec lead the continued discussion of the Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update, noting that this is the third in the scheduled Planning Commission Meetings. Mr. Carlson noted that goal this evening was to review the Vision Statement that was crafted at the last meeting, review the issues analysis (S.W.O.T.), and to continue the discussion on the goals and policies. Vision Statement (draft) “Mendota Heights will be recognized as a high quality, family-oriented, residential community with a spacious, natural feel and the amenities of a city” October 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 6 of 10 Chair Field noted that his concern is that it leaves out – the City has a very vibrant industrial park – and the fact that the City is more than a residential community just does not strike him as he thinks about this statement. Discussions were had on the suggestion to simply remove the word ‘residential’; what the ‘amenities of a city’ are; to include words like institution, educational, competitive, advantageous, and well regarded educational and religious institutions. Suggested statement: “Mendota Heights will be recognized as a high quality, family-oriented, residential community with a vibrant business and industrial base, highly regarded educational and religious institutions, and a spacious, natural feel with the amenities of a city.” Discussions followed. S.W.O.T. Analysis The Planning Commission created a list of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats; which was also available for public comments at the Fire Station Open House on Saturday, October 14. The top S.W.O.T. lists follow: Strengths • low taxes • low crime rates • overall accessibility (transportation) • natural and spacious feel feel Strengths were very similar between the commissioners and the public Weaknesses • limited amenities • financially constrained (need diversity) • lack of commercial / retail services • limited development opportunities • airport noise. The first four listed were on the Commissioners list of top weaknesses; however, ‘financially constrained’ was replaced with ‘airport noise’ on the public’s list. Opportunities • Aging population (encourages younger populace to move in) • Vikings development • Bourn Lane Properties (city-owned lands off Hwy 13 & south of Resurrection Cem.) • Select Redevelopment Again, the first four listed were on the Commissioners list of top opportunities; however, ‘Select Redevelopment’ was not on the public’s list of top four – they added ‘proximity to Minneapolis / St. Paul cities / MSP Airport’ October 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 7 of 10 Threats • Development in Adjoining Communities (especially traffic) • Aging infrastructure • Increase air traffic • Age of housing stock The first four listed were on the Commissioners list of top threats; however, ‘age of housing stock’ was not on the public list, they had stagnation – due to maturity of community Air traffic was listed as a weakness on the Commissioners list but as a threat on the public’s list. Stagnation due to maturity of community was an issue that was mentioned but was not one of the Commissioner’s top priorities. Overall, the top issues were remarkably agreeable. The Commissioners worked on getting these lists down to a handful of issues. Mr. Carlson summarized the Issues/SWOT analysis as follows: Development & Redevelopment • Commercial/Retail Options • Redevelopment Opportunities • Impact of Vikings Facility (positively and negatively) • Character, Design, Natural and Spacious Feel Housing • Generational Turnover • Character, Design, Natural and Spacious Feel Proximity to Airport • Business Opportunities • Noise Infrastructure • Aging, Cost He pointed out that ‘natural and spacious feel’ spanned all areas; residential, commercial, industrial, and parks/trails. At this point, the Commission picked up where they left off at the October 14th workshop meeting in terms of discussing the goals and policies listed in each category and suggesting edits, deletions, and additions as necessary. Land Use 1. The land use plan will serve as the foundation for land use decisions in Mendota Heights October 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 8 of 10 2. Preserve, protect and enrich the established residential environment and character of the community 3. Support industrial and commercial development in designated areas 4. Enhance and protect the natural environment 5. Reduce the impact of aircraft noise within the community 6. Protect reasonable access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems Housing 1. Preserve and improve existing neighborhoods and housing units 2. Meet future needs with a variety of housing products Parks and Open Space 1. Provide the optimum amount of active and passive open space for the enjoyment of all Mendota Heights residents 2. Provide a park system that assures the quality of facilities will match resident’s desires and standards of living 3. Use the park system as a means to enhance the environment of each neighborhood and the City as a whole 4. Support the Dakota County 2030 Greenway Corridors Plan/Vision Transportation 1. Provide a safe, high-quality, and cost effective multi-modal transportation system 2. Expand transit options serving Mendota Heights Water Supply Sanitary Sewer 1. Effective and efficient operation and maintenance of the City’s sanitary sewer system 2. To provide sanitary sewer service that is adequate to meet current and future development needs 3. Mendota Heights provides a cost effective sanitary sewer system that is equitably financed Surface Water 1. Manage surface and groundwater resources using approaches that meet or exceed regulatory requirements by following the City’s local surface water management plan, the local watershed plans, and permits administered by the MPCA, BWSR, USACE, MNDNR, and any other governing agencies that are applicable and have jurisdiction authority within the City of Mendota Heights Economic Development 1. Promote economic development in Mendota Heights through a comprehensive approach to business needs 2. Promote business attraction, retention, and expansion in Mendota Heights 3. Promote economic development through public financing tools 4. Continue to develop community commercial areas that serve the whole community October 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 9 of 10 5. Continue to develop business park areas that provide jobs and serve the local and regional economy Next Steps Community meetings/open houses for public information/public engagement have been identified as follows: Thursday, November 2 – 5:00 – 8:00 pm – City Hall Council Chambers Wednesday, November 8 – 5:00 – 8:00 pm – Somerset Elementary School Wednesday, November 15 – 5:00 – 8:00 pm – Friendly Hills Middle School Then in 2018, there will be other meetings scheduled: January Planning Commission – Alternatives March Planning Commission – Implementation May Planning Commission – Draft Plan June Planning Commission – Open House & Hearing August – City Council Adoption Commissioner Mazzitello noted a copy of an email he sent to City Administrator Mark McNeill that included a suggested Mission Statement: “Our Mission is to preserve and enhance the quality of life in the community by providing quality public safety, infrastructure, and planning for orderly and sustainable growth” A Mission Statement is designed to backup the Vision Statement, and provide more clarity as to how the Vision will ultimately be realized. The Commission decided to ponder the draft mission statement and discuss it at a future meeting. They did agree that it could be shared at the community meetings as a draft and for possible feedback. Staff Announcements / Update on Developments Community Development Director Tim Benetti gave the following verbal review: • Planning Case 2017-22, Conditional Use Permit to Woodspring Hotels, was approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. They are currently in submittal for a building permit. • Planning Case 2017-24, Wetlands Permit was approved as recommended by the Planning Commission • Planning Case 2017-25, Wetlands Permit was approved as recommended by the Planning Commission October 24, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 10 of 10 • Michael Development is very, very close to getting the demolition work started, probably by next week Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek noted that the city will be accepting brush drop-offs for the City’s bonfire event. Brush can be dropped off at Mendota Plaza right off of South Plaza Drive beginning Thursday, October 26, 2017. Commissioner Magnuson noted that she read in the newspaper that apparently Highway 110 is being renamed to Highway 62. There are plans to re-sign and a number of things. Mr. Ruzek replied that the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is proposing to change the name of Highway 110 to Highway 62 to eliminate some confusion. There is a website on the project. This change is proposed for July 2018. They will dual-name the street for at least a year if not two as ‘Old Highway 110’ and ‘Highway 62’. Adjournment COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:28 P.M. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Hennes) Planning Staff Report DATE: November 28, 2017 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-28 Lot Split – Subdivision Request APPLICANT: Keith Schweiger PROPERTY ADDRESS: 697 Wesley Lane ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: February 27, 2018 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Mr. Keith Schweiger is requesting approval to subdivide a parcel located in the R-1 One Family Residential zoning district, to replace one single-family lot (with an existing home) with two conforming single-family lots for future residential development. The request requires City Council approval before any plat or survey can be accepted and recorded by Dakota County. BACKGROUND The subject site contains an existing single family home, consisting of 2,100 sq. ft. of finished floor area. The subject lot consists of 0.813 acres in size, and contains a number of mature over-story trees throughout the lot. The dwelling has a walkout basement on the east elevation (facing Wesley Court), and a single- lane driveway onto Wesley Lane only. According to the submitted property survey, this driveway appears to be very close to or on the shared west lot line. The property also contains a landscaped, raised berm approx. 3-4 feet in height along the frontage with Wesley Lane. 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. All properties adjacent to the site and most properties in its immediate vicinity are single family homes. The exception is St. Paul’s Methodist Church, which is located at 700 Wesley Lane (west of the subject site). The property is a corner lot that directly abuts three other properties, with 703 Wesley Lane to the west, 695 Wesley Court to the northeast, and 706 Mager Court to the northwest. At the January 24, 2017 regular Planning Commission meeting, a planning application was submitted for review by Mr. Mark Gergen, requesting a very similar lot split of the same subject property. This item was given full consideration by the Commission that night under a public hearing, and upon close of the hearing, a unanimous recommendation (7-0 vote) was made to the City Council to approve said lot split. The final consideration of this application was delayed before presenting to the City Council in order to give the previous applicant (Gergen) additional time to work out some development impacts with neighbors; and resolve or address potential drainage issues between properties. Eventually, the application was requested to be withdrawn for final consideration by Mr. Gergen on June 15, 2017. 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 11/13/2017 from Bohlen Surveying and Associates (image below): • Parcel A: the western area of the existing parcel measures out to be approx. 101’ x 175’ lot, and would include 17,762 square feet of lot area. Access will be gained from Wesley Lane via a relocated curb-cut and driveway. City Code requires all driveways to have a minimum 5-foot setback from lines. The proposed driveway is planned to be moved slightly the east and meet the required 5-ft. setback, and the small retaining wall will likely be removed. Depending on the final grading plan for any new dwelling located on Parcel A, an additional retaining wall may be needed to shore-up the easterly edge of the new driveway as well. As indicated previously, the existing driveway is very close to or on the west lot line, and contains a small rock retaining wall along the east edge of the driveway near the access point onto Wesley Lane. The existing asphalt driveway is quite extensive and runs much deeper into the lot to access the garage on the back side the existing home. The removal of a large section of this driveway, and maintaining the 5-foot setback will hopefully reduce or eliminate some complaints and concerns from the neighbor to the west (703 Wesley Lane- Ken and Rosemary Larson), particularly with snow plowing and leaf removals. The proposed house pad is shown with a side-loading driveway as a preferred design under this plan; however, this driveway may be revised later when the new home building permit plan set is submitted for review. The City will ensure that the driveway meets and maintains the minimum 5-ft. setback regardless of this initial design layout. • Parcel B: the east side of the existing lot is measures out to approximately 102’ x 175’ lot, and include 17,688 square feet, with access from Wesley Court via a new (proposed) curb cut and driveway. Pursuant to Title 12-1E-1.B, all driveways on a corner lot must be a minimum of 30-feet from the property lines adjacent to a street corner. This 30-ft. setback appears to be met. • Tree Removals: Some trees are proposed to be removed to allow the lot split and build two new homes: o Parcel A: with the proposed placement of the new house pad and driveway location, the lot will lose 10 trees. Some of these are indicated as 14’, 20’ and 30’ evergreen trees, with a number of large deciduous trees as well. o Parcel B: twelve (12) trees are slated to be removed, which are also made up of some large sized evergreen and deciduous trees. Two trees along the Wesley Court frontage would be removed to make room for the new driveway and five internal trees would be removed for the new house. The original plan in January (Gergen application) called for the removal of 5 trees on Parcel A and only 7 trees on Parcel B. The previous January 24th Planning Staff Report indicated the following: “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. “ Unless these trees are diseased, poor shape or dying, City staff would like the Applicant to explain or justify a reason for removing so many more trees than originally planned on this site; and if possible, Staff further encourage the Applicant to maintain the existing berm and vegetation along Wesley Lane to provide a continued and natural screening of the two properties. If this many trees are needed to be removed, Staff would also recommend that a one-to-one tree replacement plan of one 6’-8’ evergreen tree for each evergreen removed, plus one 2” to 3” caliper sized deciduous tree for each deciduous tree removed be implemented, in order to replace and restore the site with new trees. ANALYSIS  Comprehensive Plan The subject parcel is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant’s request to subdivide the subject parcel into two parcels, consisting of approximately 0.407 acres and 0.406 acres each, is consistent with the LR maximum density of 2.9 units per acre. According to the Comprehensive Plan, “Infill sites” are meant to be any property in Mendota Heights that has the opportunity to develop, or redevelop, beyond its current level. Because these properties tend to be smaller and surrounded by established neighborhoods, development would have the potential to dramatically change the environment of the areas in which they are located. The City’s policies for consideration of development in these sensitive areas are noted as follows: o Require that any new development or redevelopment meets all zoning and subdivision regulations. o Avoid access and traffic which unduly burdens just a few properties. o Ensure that development of infill sites will not result in any negative impact on existing environmental conditions, such as soils, wetlands, drainage, or similar factors. o Require that all development of infill sites provide access to a public street, new or existing. o Ensure that land uses are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and do not reflect a “spot-zoning” pattern. o Avoid infill development that relies on private street or “flag-lot” design.  Zoning Requirements Title 11-3-2 of the City Code (Subdivision Ordinance) allows the subdivision of parcels, provided that the resulting lots are compliant with the requirements of the applicable zoning district. As shown in the table below based on the attached plan set, the proposed parcels are compliant with the R-1 District’s lot area and width standards: Standard Subject Parcel New Parcel A New Parcel B Lot Area 15,000 SF 35,450 sq. ft. 17,762 sq. ft. (0.407 acres) 17,688 sq. ft. (0.406 acres) Lot Width 100 ft. 202.76 ft. / 154.56 ft. 101.02 ft. 101.74 ft. / 154.56 ft. Title 12-1D-4-D-2 of the Code requires the following: Whenever buildings have been built on one side of the street between two (2) intersections, no building shall hereafter be erected to extend closer toward the street than the average of the required district setback and average setback of the adjoining principal structures. The proposed 60’ x 60’ house pads are shown with a setback of 30.2-ft. and 30.5-ft., respectively. The existing dwelling on the subject parcel has a front-yard setback from Wesley Lane of 44.3-ft. and approximately 120-ft. from Wesley Court. The Applicant has noted on the survey that the proposed building pads “front setback shown at 30’ because the 4 houses to the west have front setbacks that vary from 30’ to 35.5.” The adjoining principal structure to the west (703 Wesley Ln.) has a front yard setback of 35.5 feet; and city records indicate the structure at 709 Wesley Ln is 31-ft.; and the dwelling at 721 Wesley Ln. is shown with a setback of 31.5-ft. (note: no survey records of 715 Wesley Ln. exists). The average of these “known setbacks” is actually 32.83 feet. Because the new house pads are considered a general design” in nature, Staff is recommending the setbacks for any new homes on both lots match with the neighboring 703 Wesley Lane of 35.5 feet. The corner front setback along Wesley Court can remain at 30-ft. 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 and conditions of approval as noted herein. OR 2. Recommend denial of the lot split based on revised or determined findings of fact. OR 3. Table the request, pending additional information from staff or the Applicant. 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. Staff recommends 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) All grading work and land disturbance activities must comply with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance document. 3) The lots shall include infiltration of 1 inch over all new increased impervious surface and there shall be no increase in run off from the existing conditions. 4) All erosion control measures shall be installed prior to any construction, and maintained throughout the duration of any construction activities on both sites and until each have been properly restored. 5) Front-yard setbacks from Wesley Lane for future structures on both Parcel A and Parcel B shall be a minimum of 35.5 feet; and the setback along Wesley Court shall be 30-feet. 6) The Applicant agrees to preserve and protect as many mature/over-story trees on the subject site; shall submit a detailed landscape plan for each new lot as part of any new building permit application review; and shall plat one 6’-8’ evergreen tree for each evergreen tree removed, plus one 2” to 3” caliper sized deciduous tree for each deciduous tree removed. 7) 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. 8) On Parcel A, the existing asphalt 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. 9) On Parcel A, the new driveway shall meet a minimum 5-ft. setback from the westerly lot line, and this setback will apply to any retaining wall or similar shoring system if needed. 10) Park dedication fee of $4,000 (in lieu of land - per current City policy) will be paid before the subdivision is recorded with Dakota County. 11) The existing home must be demolished before the subdivision is recorded with Dakota County. 12) Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water main shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Lot Split – Subdivision Request for 697 Wesley Lane The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed lot split and construction activities meet the purpose and intent of the City Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. No change to the Comprehensive Plan or zoning designation and no variance is requested. 3. The proposed subdivision and additional new housing will not create any negative impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood; and the increased front yard setbacks will ensure the new homes are in alignment with other residential uses along Wesley Lane. 4. 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. Keith Schweiger 2291 Ocala Ct Mendota Heights, MN 55120 October 28, 2017 To Whom It May Concern: 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, to two new conforming single family lots. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. Sincerely, Keith Schweiger Phone: (651) 687-9385 203170 1321 1 3 101 6860189 1 7 8 100 223 2 6 8 697 706 695 703 687 WESLEY LN WESLEY CTScale Site Plan697 Wesley Lane Date: 1/18/2017 City ofMendotaHeights040 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat, survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entityfrom 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. Vicinity of 697 Wesley Lane –Existing Topography & Drainage Planning Staff Report MEETING DATE: November 28, 2017 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-29 Conditional Use Permit for Oversized Garage and Wetlands Permit APPLICANT: Gonyea Homes / Jason & Thomasine Eggers PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2260 Wagon Wheel Court ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/ LR-Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: January 7, 2018 INTRODUCTION The applicants are seeking a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 1,427 sq. ft. attached garage, along with a Wetlands Permit to construct a new 4,440-sf. residential dwelling. The subject property is located at the newly assigned address of 2260 Wagon Wheel Court (note: the public hearing notice indicated an address of 2270 Wagon Wheel Court, which was a hold-over from the original parcel address). A public hearing notice for this planning item was published in the local newspaper and notice letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. BACKGROUND On December 1, 2015, the City adopted Resolution No. 2015-93, which approved a preliminary and final plat of Caroline’s Lake Second Addition. This plat was essentially a two lot subdivision by the Ratchye/Light family of their original 3.02 acre lot along Rogers Lake, which created two lots of 0.71 acres and 2.31 acres, respectively. The Eggers recently purchased the 2.31 acre lot, and are seeking to build the new home and oversized attached garage on the lot. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Title 12-1D-3, Subpart C. provides for attached garages “more than one thousand two hundred (1,200) up to one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet” to be allowed via a conditional use permit. The Applicants seek to build an attached garage up to 1,427 square feet in area. Title 12-1D-3, Subpart C.1.c.(2) states “No more than 36-ft. linear feet of garage door per structure…” The proposed garage contains two, 16.2-foot wide overhead doors. The proposed residence and garage will have access directly from Wagon Wheel Court. The home is setback 39.5-ft. (at its closest point) off Wagon Wheel Court ROW, 25.3-ft. from the south lot line , and approx. 150 feet from the east lot line, and well over 210-ft. from the north line (along Wagon Wheel Trail). ANALYSIS  Comprehensive Plan The subject property is guided LR-Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed residential dwelling, along with the proposed oversized garage qualifies as a conditional use in the applicable zoning district and would remain compliant with the Comprehensive Plan, subject to city approvals.  Conditional Use Permit Title 12-1L-6-E-1 of the City Code contains standards for reviewing a conditional use permit request; the following are to be taken into consideration: • The effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants or surrounding lands; • existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets; and • the effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan. In addition, the following standards must be met: • The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; • will not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards; • will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and • the proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan. Pursuant to Title 12-1D-3, Subpart C., any attached garage “more than one thousand two hundred (1,200) up to one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet” can be allowed only by means of a conditional use permit. Because of the proposed 1,427 sq. ft. garage under this new house plan, the Applicants must request and receive approval of a conditional use permit prior to any construction. Title 12-1D-3, Subpart C. contains the added standard regulating the size and number of garage doors: “No more than thirty six (36) linear feet of garage door per structure, measured horizontally, may be installed to provide access to any private garage or other accessory building space on a single- or two-family residential property. More than thirty six (36) linear feet of garage door may be provided by conditional use permit when such additional garage door exposure is not visible from a public street or from surrounding residential property.” The applicant’s plans indicate two 16’-2” doors for each opening on the front of the garage. The plan calls for a narrow, vertical sky-light window on the left-hand side of the garage, along with a dormer style window on the right-hand side of the upper roof area (which makes it appear to be a two story structure). However, the plans do not indicate if any living or storage space is being planned above this garage area, so Staff assumes this area will be left open or unfinished. For all intents and purposes, this expanded garage structure fits nicely with the overall, larger footprint of the new 4,000+ sf. home, and will offer adequate means in providing additional storage of vehicles, equipment and storage space for the homeowners. City staff believes the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and the proposed use appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan.  Wetlands Permit Pursuant to City Code Title 12-2-1 Wetlands Systems, this chapter applies to adjacent land within 100-feet of a wetland or water resource related area. This chapter also provides specific allowances, rules and standards for certain activities near these recognized water features, including a permit for the construction, alteration or removal of any structure. The purpose of the Wetlands Systems Chapter is to: 1. Provide for protection, preservation, maintenance, and use wetlands and water resource-related areas; 2. Maintain the natural drainage system; 3. Minimize disturbance which may result from alteration by earthwork, loss of vegetation, loss of wildlife and aquatic organisms as a result of the disturbance of the natural environment or from excessive sedimentation; 4. Provide for protection of potable fresh water supplies; and 5. Ensure safety from floods. As part of the Ratchye/Light subdivision, a wetland report was provided, and the wetland in the upper northeast area of the lot was surveyed and delineated, and is noted on the updated survey under this CUP and Wetland Permit application. A 25-foot wetland buffer (easement) was also created as part of the conditions of approval under the Caroline’s 2nd Addition, and is clearly identified on the attached survey plans. No construction activities related to the new home, including grading or tree/vegetation removals are planned in or around this buffer or wetland edge; nor would any activity be allowed in this buffer under this permit. As shown in the attached maps, the 100-foot wetland buffer line has also been identified, which shows a small portion of the new home located inside this 100-foot wetland boundary line. Wetlands chapter does not provide a specific setback standard for structures from wetland edges, but in this case, the new home is measured approx. 80-ft. from the wetland edge (see image below). The plan indicates existing sanitary and water service lines extending down from the existing systems underneath Wagon Wheel Trail to the north, which were the old service lines that served the Ratchye/Light residence to the south (Note: Ratchye/Light installed new service connectors to Wagon Wheel Court systems). The plans call for the new home to re-use the old service lines, which will remain connected to the Wagon Wheel Trail systems. Should the contractor/owners determine these “old” lines are no longer feasible or available to use for the new home, alternative measures must be made to restore any disturbed areas caused by any underground utility work, or certain connection fees must be paid according to the conditions of approval made under Resolution No. 2015-93. Based on the proposed [overall] building pad site and construction of the new dwellings on Lot 2, some area of this lot will require grading and vegetation removal within this area. According to the Applicant’s plan, up to 43 trees have been identified for removal. Most of these trees are elms and cottonwoods, along with a few pine and one maple. The entire subject lot also contains an overgrowth of volunteers and scrub trees that will be removed or cleared for the new home project. After construction of the home, including the driveway and utility service line work, new vegetation and trees should be planted within any disturbed areas and the site restored as much as possible. The plans are absent of any new landscaping plan, but Staff is recommending that at least 15-20 new trees be planted to replace the 43 to be removed under this new home project. A full, detailed landscape plan should be submitted at time of building permit review. Proposed erosion control measures are shown on the Survey Map, which illustrates a large area outside the main building footprint will be protected during construction activities in and around the house. The erosion control or stormwater pollution prevention plan will be reviewed in greater detail by the Engineering Department as part of the building permit application. The scope and scale of this proposed new home project is relatively minor in size compared to the overall size of the 2.04 acre lot; and most of the work is being contained or limited to the area in and around the new dwelling. Due to this small scale of the project, the following statements are being presented for the Planning Commission to review and consider in your determination of this wetland permit: a) The work should have very little, if any impacts to the adjacent wetland feature; b) the Applicant/Owners will provide for the protection and preservation of the adjacent wetland/water resource feature by installing silt fence and stormwater run-off protection measures as per city staff direction; c) all natural drainage way systems will be maintained during and after the project is completed; and d) the Applicant/Owners will make every attempt to minimize disturbance of the area in order to protect and preserve the natural surroundings, avoid excess loss of vegetation, and avoid any impacts to wildlife and aquatic organisms. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Wetlands Permit, based on the findings of fact that the proposed use is compliant with the applicable City Code requirements and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, with conditions; OR 2. Deny the Conditional Use Permit and Wetlands Permit based on revised finding(s) of fact determined by the Planning Commission; and/or City Council. OR 3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a Conditional Use Permit, which would allow the construction of an oversized garage of 1,427 sq. ft.; along with a Wetlands Permit, which would allow the construction of a new home (and garage) adjacent to an established wetland feature, located in the R-1 One Family District, based on the findings of fact that the proposed project and use is compliant with the applicable City Code requirements and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Since access is being proposed off Wagon Wheel Court, a Public Utility/Improved Public Right- of-Way Fee of $21,390.86 is paid to the City prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. If any utility connection is made on to Wagon Wheel Court, a utility connection fee of $17,609.33 must be paid to the City prior to issuance of a building permit 3. No grading or construction activity on the subject site will occur on slopes over 25%. 4. The Applicant/Owners shall submit a final grading plan, utility plan and a dimensioned site plan with associated easements, subject to review and approval by the City Engineering Department as part of any building permit application. 5. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 6. No disturbance, grading work or any type of construction activities shall occur within 25 feet of the established wetlands edge. 7. A detailed Landscape Plan must be submitted for review to the Planning Department showing tree replacement and all new vegetation to be re-planted within all disturbed areas of the subject site. FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit & Wetlands Permit for 2260 Wagon Wheel Court The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1. The use of the subject parcel as a new single-family residential dwelling is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. 2. The planned development of the new dwelling with an oversized garage of 1,427 sq. ft. is considered a reasonable request, and is consistent with the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. 3. The proposed residential home and large garage easily meet the required setbacks and other standards established under the R-1 One Family District. 4. The proposed garage and residential structure will be compliant with the conditions included in the City Code that allow it by conditional use permit. 5. The proposed over-sized garage will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; should not cause any serious traffic congestion nor hazards; will not seriously depreciate surrounding property value; and said use appears to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City Code and the comprehensive plan. 6. The proposed new residential home project and any related construction activities will not cause or create any negative impacts to the ecologically sensitive area of the wetlands or Rogers Lake area, due to the proximity and separation of the structure from said water features. 994 945 945 953987999 954 2270 1011 2075 2301 949 954 2275 2273 940 2303 2270 940 954 987 991 2275 2257 2270 994 945 1021 940 900 954 949 954 2273 953 WAGON WHEEL TRL PRIVATE ROADWAGON WHEEL RDDakota County GIS 2270 WAGON WHEEL CT. (Gonyea Homes / Eggers Res.)City ofMendotaHeights0200 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. 11/7/2017 LOUCKS W:\2001\01790\CADD DATA\SURVEY\S01790-MasterPlotted: 11 /09 / 2015 8:48 AM7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others without written approval by the Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities. CADD QUALIFICATION SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE QUALITY CONTROL 2270 Wagon Wheel Court Mendota Heights Boyd Ratchye & Susan Light 2270 Wagon Wheel Court Mendota Heights, MN 55120 10/22/15 DRAWING ISSUED 11/06/15 CITY COMMENTS Preliminary Plat Paul J. McGinley - PLS License No. Date I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. VICINITY MAP Field Crew Project Lead Drawn By Checked By Loucks Project No. 16099 01-790 PJM JT BS 10/22/15 PRELIMINARY PLAT GENERAL NOTES SURVEYOR:OWNER/DEVELOPER: Loucks, Inc.Boyd Ratchye & Susan Light 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 2270 Wagon Wheel Court Maple Grove, MN 55330 Mendota Heights, MN 55120 763-424-5505 651-686-5238 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARCEL 1: That part of the west 55.00 feet of Lot 17, Caroline's Lake View, according to the plat thereof on file in the office of the County Recorder, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of said West 55.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 04 minutes 00 seconds East, bearing assumed, along the east line of said west 55.00 feet 393.49 feet to the point of beginning of the parcel to be described; thence continuing southerly along said east line 63.90 feet; thence South 40 degrees 19 minutes 11 seconds West 44.38 feet; thence North 49 degrees 40 minutes 49 seconds West 34.26 feet; thence northeasterly 62.27 feet along a nontangential curve, concave to the west, radius 105.20 feet, central angle 33 degrees 54 minutes 52 seconds, the chord of which has a bearing of North 17 degrees 56 minutes 23 seconds East and a length of 61.36 feet; thence North 0 degrees 58 minutes 57 seconds East 28.39 feet; thence South 61 degrees 35 minutes 28 seconds East 27.28 feet; thence North 81 degrees 09 minutes 10 seconds East 11.59 feet to the point of beginning. AND PARCEL 2: Lot Sixteen (16) excepting therefrom the East Two Hundred ten (210) feet thereof; Lot Seventeen (17) excepting therefrom the West fifty five (55) feet thereof, And excepting from said Lots 16 and 17 any parts lying southwesterly of the following described line: Commencing at the northeast corner of said west 55 feet; thence S. ƒ 04' 00"E., assumed bearing, along the east line of said west 55 feet 457.39 feet; thence S. ƒ 19' 11"W., 44.38 feet; thence S. ƒ 40' 49" E., 37.75 feet more or less to the east line of said west 55 feet, said point being the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence S. ƒ 40' 49" E. to the intersection with the west line of the east 210 feet of said Lot 16 extended southerly, and there terminating, All within Caroline's Lakeview, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds within and for Dakota County, Minnesota. AND That part of the west 55 feet of Lot 17, Caroline's Lake View, according to the plat thereof on file in the office of the County Recorder, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of said west 55 feet; thence 6ƒ 04' 00"E., assumed bearing, along the east line of said west 55 feet 457.39 feet to the point of beginning of the parcel to be described; thence S. ƒ 19' 11"W., 44.38 feet; thence S. ƒ 40' 49"E., 37.75 feet, more or less, to the east line of said west 55 feet; thence northerly to the point of beginning and there terminating AND Outlot A, KIPP ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota. EXCEPTING THEREFROM That part of said Lot 17 which lies northerly of a line run parallel with and distant 50.00 feet southerly of the following described line: From a point on the north line of Section 35, Township 28 North, Range 23 West, said Dakota County, distant 970.65 feet east of the northwest corner thereof, run southwesterly at an angle of 84 degrees 19 minutes 01 seconds with said north section line for 528.37 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence deflect to the left at an angle of 95 degrees 36 minutes 37 seconds for 1430.93 feet and there terminating. DATE OF PREPARATION: September 25, 2015 EXISTING ZONING: Zone (R-1) PROPOSED ZONING: Zone (R-1) AREAS: Proposed Lot 1 = 30,936 Sq.Ft. or 0.71 Acres Proposed Lot 2 = 100,632 Sq.Ft. or 2.31 Acres Total= 131,568 Sq.Ft. or 3.02 Acres PROPOSED BUILDING SETBACKS: Front = 30 Feet Side = 10 Feet on each side or 1/2 of the height of the structure contiguous to the side yard, whichever is greater, to a maximum of 15 feet Rear = 30 feet or 20% of the average lot depth, whichever is greater FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION: This property is contained in unprinted Flood Insurance Rate Map 27037C0085E (no special flood hazard areas). SCALE IN FEET 0 30 60 SCALE IN FEET 0 30 60 LOUCKS 1 INCH = 30 FEET