WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Meeting of: September 1, 2017 M I N U T E S (Informational)

Transcription

1 WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT M I N U T E S (Informational) The Wright County met September 1, 2017 in the County Commissioner s Board Room at the Wright County Government Center, Buffalo, Minnesota. Vice Chair, Dan Mol, called the meeting to order with the following Board members present: Mol, John Jones, Charlotte Quiggle and Paul Aarestad. Barry, Rhineberger, Planner, represented the Planning & Zoning Office and Greg Kryzer, Assistant County Attorney, was legal counsel present. Sean Riley, Zoning Administrator, addressed the Board and audience noting the empty chair in honor of long-time Chair and Board member, Bob Schermann, who passed away two weeks earlier. Riley commented on the long dedication and contribution he made to this Board and community as a whole. Schermann was appointed to the Board in October of 1988 and elected and served as Chair since His death has saddened everyone who has fond memories of Bob. Riley also wanted to recognize his wife since 1960, Lucy, who brought him to these meetings and often sat while we finished up the hearings. A moment of silence followed. MINUTES On a motion by Jones, seconded by Aarestad, all voted to approve the minutes for the August 4, 2017 meeting as printed. 1. GREG L. GERULIS Cont. from 8/4/17 LOCATION: nd St. NW Part of Gov t Lot 5, Section 34, Township 121, Range 28, Wright County, Minnesota. (E. Lake Sylvia Southside Twp.) Tax # Requests a variance as regulated in Section & Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to allow expansion of upper-level deck 4.5 to match the lower level deck and fill in a 10.5 x 33 space between the two decks with a screen porch, 14.5 from the ordinary high-water mark. Replace a deck with a 7.1 x 27.5 living space over existing basement that is located roadside of dwelling. Also proposed is a 780 sq. ft. detached garage that is in the bluff. Entire project is within the bluff; existing and proposed construction exceed impervious. Present: Greg Gerulis A. Rhineberger this is the third meeting on the petition and the Board made a site inspection. The applicant was not present at the last meeting; but the Board made some suggestions and it appears the applicant has new plans with him. He has not had a chance to review them. B. Gerulis submitted the revised plans to Rhineberger and stated the revisions have brought the impervious coverage down to 25%. Rhineberger reviewed the survey displayed for the Board and what was viewed at the site. Although, there is not time at the meeting to review all the details, the new plan shows they have shifted the garage slightly to the east. The breakdown on the survey shows 23.5% for impervious coverage. Past discussion by the Board was not favorable for the screen porch and the applicant has dropped that part of the request. There has not been enough time for the applicant to get a water management plan. The large flow of water coming through the property is the concern and removal of the bituminous could make it worse from the standpoint of erosion. From a pollution standpoint the culvert puts that water directly into the lake, but may be better from an erosion standpoint. C. Kryzer pointed out the timeframe for a decision, and Mol suggested a continuation to October to finalize the water management plan and give Staff time to review the new plan.

2 Page 2 D. Quiggle a lot of the runoff comes from the farm fields across the road; and she asked at what point does the farmer have a responsibility for taking care of his own runoff on his property and would that be a SWCD project. There are some other ways on this lot to address how to slow down the water with vegetation and check dams. Don t want the matter to come back without addressing that. Mol noted they will need time to develop the plan. E. Mol opened the hearing for public comment no response. F. Gerulis, stated he just bought the property four months ago and has not been able to use the property yet. A portion of the project is over the existing foundation, can they get it started and get the garage approved contingent on the water management plan approval. He has no problem with doing it, but he needs a garage with the cabin. He has talked with Bernie Miller who is very busy, but they can come up with a plan. Mol noted the applicant just bought the property and he knew there was no garage with no guarantee he could get a garage. There are a number of problems and he has to show he can do it within the County and State rules. Kryzer noted it does not help when plans are dropped on them at 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Gerulis stated the professional designers are very busy and that has been some of the problem. G. Rhineberger explained the contours of the slope and is still considered a bluff. Some of it is over a disturbed area, but reviewed the proposed location. If there is a piece of the project the Board does not want to see they should give some indication. Kryzer stated the problem for the Board is there is no storm water plan. Rhineberger they have an adjusted location, the framework is narrow, 26 x 30 and asked is the location a concern. Mol are they willing to allow a new building for a garage in a bluff? H. Aarestad the applicant was asking about starting on the addition on the backside of the house. Quiggle and Mol felt they need to see the completed plans and storm water plan first. Aarestad he is willing to look at a garage because part of it is within an existing driveway, but depends on the storm water plan. Questioned if it can be done without removal of two large trees. Gerulis indicated he can save the trees. Quiggle did not think it is reasonable to build an accessory structure in a bluff. Regardless, the storm water management plan is necessary because of the culvert and the addition. Jones agreed he would have a hard time approving the garage back in the bluff. Kryzer suggested they should set a deadline for submission of storm water plans. Rhineberger suggested a waiver of the time frame. Kryzer noted they cannot force that, but suggested a deadline for submission of plans by September 26. Mol noted the storm water plan will still be required even though it does not sound like the garage will be a go. I. Quiggle moved to continue the hearing to October 6, 2017 with complete plans including storm water management plan submitted to Staff by September 26. Aarestad seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: Gerulis asked why the storm water would be needed if they don t approve the garage, the addition is over an existing foundation and with a flat roof. Rhineberger stated because the Board will require a reduction of the impervious coverage to 25%, with removal of hard surface the water will no longer flow the way it has. The relation of the bituminous and culvert were noted; and the need to get proper drainage and control of potential erosion are the reasons.

3 Page 3 2. SCOTT G. KRUSEMARK Cont. from 8/4/17 LOCATION: TH St. NW Lot 5, Bungalo Beach Resort Addition, according to plat of record, Section 27, Township 121, Range 28, Wright County, Minnesota. (E. Lake Sylvia Southside Twp.) Tax # Requests a variance as regulated in Section & Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to replace 814 sq. ft. one-level dwelling that is 26.3 from the ordinary high-water mark of lake (existing in bluff), replace decking and 156 sq. ft. boathouse with a new 1,288 sq. ft. one-level dwelling over a walkout basement that is 26.3 from the ordinary high-water mark of lake and located within the bluff; in addition, construction of decking between dwelling and over new 20 x 20 boathouse. Present: Scott & Molly Krusemark; Mike Sharratt, their architect A. Rhineberger received revised plans. The Board requested a plan that shows no increase in the footprint, possibility of a basement. After talking with the applicant, they have come up with an alternative plan. Instead of a basement, they are suggesting an upper level, with the elevation of the main level dropped 1 below the lattice work on the existing structure. New plans shows a one-level with a half story with dormers. The footprint of the main level is the same, 521 sq. ft. in the second-floor and three dormers lakeside and one large dormer on the road side. Dropping the structure 1 will be lower than the highest peak of one part of the existing structure; the mass of the structure will not be much different according to the revised plan. The boathouse with a deck on top is the same and there is a lot of disturbance there already. For comparison he showed existing and proposed to show the height comparison. B. S. Krusemark they had heard they need to keep as much as possible within the footprint with a possibility of a basement, but there may be concerns with a true walkout. He did not think the basement walkout would function the way they wanted. The change will be a better layout, they are getting an extra 500 sq. ft. but within the structure footprint, the height is the same, by reducing part of the boathouse, the lot coverage will be 15% and by removing steps and concrete, felt this is a significant improvement. C. Sharratt they looked at what the Board asked for. The foot print is exactly what is there and the amount facing the lake is 10% less. Proposed elevation is exposed, surface area is 1120 sq. ft. The plan has a reduction of hard cover, staying with the height and footprint of what is there. D. Mol asked for public input, hearing no response returned to the Board. E. Quiggle reviewed the plan prior to the meeting and felt the revisions address her concerns. This provides functional space and storage. F. Jones, Aarestad and Mol agreed and thanked the applicant for addressing their concerns and the plan results in something they can work with. Quiggle addressed the replacement of the retaining wall with boulders. Krusemark felt it might be some sort of wood material. Quiggle advised the applicant to contact the DNR on that project. G. Rhineberger suggested a motion refer to the Exhibit held on file.

4 Page 4 H. Aarestad moved to approve a variance as regulated in Section & Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to replace 814 sq. ft. one-level dwelling that is 26.3 from the ordinary high-water mark of lake (existing in bluff), replace decking and 156 sq. ft. boathouse with a new one and a half story dwelling according to Exhibit A, held on filed that is 26.3 from the ordinary high-water mark of lake and located within the bluff; in addition, construction of decking between dwelling and over new 20 x 20 boathouse. Condition: The applicant to install proper silt fencing, be maintained during construction until grass is established and subject to a water management plan to be submitted. Quiggle seconded the motion.

5 Page 5 3. BRUCE PREVOST Cont. from 8/4/17 LOCATION: 7809 Pleason Avenue NW Lots 2 & 3, Block 1, Northridge Addition, according to plat of record, Section 28, Township 121, Range 28, Wright County, Minnesota. (W. Sylvia Southside Twp.) Tax # Property owner: Holmberg Requests a variance of Section (B)(12), , (E)(b)(1) to construct a 792 sq. ft. one-level addition over a 770 sq. ft. walkout basement to an existing 972 sq. ft. one-level-walkout dwelling. Existing structure and proposed addition are within the bluff, with the existing dwelling at 60.3 ft. and addition 60.9 ft. from the Ordinary High-water mark of lake. Also proposed is a new 28 x 36 detached garage 3 ft. from the bluff. Present: Bernie Miller, applicant designer A. Rhineberger the Board made a site inspection and summarized their visit. Discussion today is on what the Board might want to see at the next meeting. Town Board meets next week. B. Miller stated after the inspection and meeting the owner, the discussion centered on the size of the garage needed. Holmberg indicated he only needs the garage to be large enough for a boat and pontoon and reducing the size allows them to turn the building clockwise and get it further up the ridge, gaining more setback from the well. The driveway has a tight curve, a couple trees not in good shape will have to come out, but moved it out into the existing driveway. Understands the Board s concern about the storm water management plan. C. Mol asked for public comment hearing no response returned to the Board for discussion. D. Jones asked for an estimate from the bluff for the revised location. Miller the south and west side would gain 6-8. The determination on the bluff is difficult. The new building plans would be for a smaller garage. Jones depending on the plans they see. The addition on the house would be acceptable with proper water management. E. Aarestad shared Jones view. Agree the changes described are an improvement, help with the bluff addition. Could debate whether the house addition is in the bluff, but it is already a disturbed area and going away from the lake. The major issue, this is a heavy wooded lot and in the shaded area it is hard to get ground cover established. He wants to stress the water management and that they pay particular attention to that. F. Quiggle the addition make sense because it is in a more level area. With how this lot was developed over the years, it looks like a double bluff. The garage is not justified and would not support disturbing a bluff for storage. There are other options like shrink wrapping boats. G. Mol was not at the site inspection, not in favor of disturbance of a bluff. He would wait to see the storm water management plans first. Rhineberger moving back may improve that and also turning the structure with the direction of water coming off the roof, with gutters to control where the water goes may help. H. Aarestad moved to continue the hearing to October 6, 2017, plans to be submitted to the Planning & Zoning office by September 26. Jones seconded the motion.

6 Page 6 4. ANNITA M. SMYTHE Cont. from 8/4/17 LOCATION: Property lies between 400 Broadway Avenue N (County Rd. 3) & Johnson Avenue N described as the S 15 rods of the N 35 rods of NW ¼ of SW ¼, except tract described in Book 295 of Deeds, page 365, Section 27, Township 119, Range 28, Wright County, Minnesota. (Cokato Twp.) Tax # Property owner: Loumar Properties, LLC Requests a variance of Section (B)(70), , , (F)(6) to allow the division of approximately 2 acres from the Luomar residential lot and attach it to the City park property across the street to be used as a parking lot for the park. Proposed division would leave the remainder of the Luomar property without the required 150 ft. of road frontage. Additionally, the proposed parking lot on the division will exceed the 25% impervious surface coverage limitation, with proposed coverage at 27.45%. Present: Applicant not present A. Rhineberger explained the applicant, who is the City Administrator, was unable to make the Township meeting because their City council met the same night. Continuation to October is the written request they have made. B. Quiggle moved to continue the hearing to October 6, 2017 at the applicant s request. Aarestad seconded the motion.

7 Page 7 5. JAMES M. LIEN New Item LOCATION: 4204 Fillmore Avenue NW Lot 20, Ramsey Lake Heights, according to plat of record, Section 7, Township 120, Range 26, Wright County, Minnesota. (Ramsey Lake Maple Lake Twp.) Tax # Requests an appeal as regulated in Section , , of Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances of the 2002 Board Order declaring the property unbuildable and seeking a variance to construct a 30 x one and half story dwelling over a 6 ft. crawl space that will be 100 ft. from the Ordinary High-water Mark of lake and 14.1 ft. from the side property line. Proposed septic system will require that driveway access will be less than 5 ft. from a property line. Present: Jim & Charlotte Lien A. Rhineberger reviewed the 12,130 sq. ft. lot on Ramsey Lake which the Board heard a request in At the time the owners and City were under discussions about extending municipal sewer to the area. A trunk line was going down County Road 7 to the new treatment plant in Albion Township at the time which is only a quarter mile from here. The neighborhood and City did not reach an agreement on the sewer. The variances requested to build were reviewed and denied and lot declared unbuildable and notes when City sewer and water become available a new application could be submitted. The applicant purchased the lot in 2007 and is appealing the decision. The proposed building plan was reviewed and needs 1 variance for the setback required. Only leaves 10 on either side of the mound sewer and a driveway must be 5 off the line not leaving enough room for the driveway. This is based on the survey; possibly there can be a shift. The 30 x 34 dwelling does not include a deck and if approved, there is no allowance for one. The plan has a 6 crawl space and if there were any changes, new variances would be needed. Environmental Health have looked at the septic design, large mound for a two-bedroom home, but looks like it will work. The Township approves. Alan Johnson wrote the lake has a poor water quality and more homes will make that worse. B. Quiggle asked if it is a Type I sewer. Rhineberger stated and it meets State sizing standards, but not County standards. He reviewed options for a Type III system with a time dosing system to reduce the size. The information provided is not what would be required for a permit, no test pits yet and depending on what is found on site it could go to a Type III. C. Mol asked if the applicant had more to add, they declined and no one was present in the audience who wanted to speak on this. D. Discussion on how to proceed and members should address the appeal. Aarestad felt it is important that a septic system will work. He does not see how a driveway could work the way it is setup and creates problems with the neighbor. If a compliant sewer plan is provided and they show how the parking would be handled, he would consider changing the status. E. J. Lien there are many lots on the lake that are smaller. Rhineberger the sewer meets the State minimum requirement but the County requires more sizing than the State. Aarestad felt it is close and if he could address those issues he would reconsider the unbuildable status.

8 Page 8 They will have to go to the septic designer on the sewer and prove how you can park cars on the lot. F. Quiggle also is concerned that there is no driveway or parking room. They are looking at a statute that addresses nonconforming lots of record and the fact the lot was previously determined unbuildable. She read the Statute that states, if all setbacks can be met and a Type I treatment system can be installed consistent with the MN rules, don t exceed the lot coverage then it can be built on. She asked Bernie Miller who was in the audience, if an alternate type of system would be more compact and help free up room for parking and a driveway. Miller he looked at this property in 2002 and felt there is ways to do it. Quiggle felt the technology may have outpaced the laws. Rhineberger asked the sizing requirement for a loam and sandy loam soil. Miller a mound requires 10 x 25 for two-bedroom and County requires 10 x 30 area. State statute says 7080 has to be met. Quiggle they also have to look at what is reasonable for this lot, rationally they need to have a driveway and parking. Miller asked if the Ordinance requires you park on your own property. Mol that is township right of way. Lien noted there is a lower lot allowed to build on the lake at 70 from the lake. That setback would help. G. Jones as a former Township Supervisor he would need information to show where they could park, he would not want a situation with cars out along the road. He needs more detail and information for the sewer. H. C. Lien asked if they could get a decision on whether it is buildable. They were not the ones before the Board in the past. Mol at that time there was the possibility of hooking up to the City sewer. There is concern about having room for the sewer and suggested they could continue this. Quiggle stated they are looking to see where the driveway and parking area would go. Aarestad felt the applicants are close and feel they should continue exploring it. Rhineberger stated the driveway has to be 5 off the property line and there is a requirement that there is enough space for a parking space on the same lot and does not include the road right of way. C. Lien stated the problem they were running into is some of the soils have been compacted from parking. Quiggle was deemed unbuildable and that kind of lot is likely to have a motor home parked on it, compacting the soils. C. Lien they have another system option, but to meet the deadline and get before the Board they presented this. I. Mol suggested now that the applicant has some feedback they could continue for further information. Rhineberger stated he would need new plans by September 26. J. Aarestad moved to continue to October 6, 2017 to explore revised plans which should be submitted to Staff by September 26. Quiggle seconded the motion.

9 Page 9 6. DAVID A. WANGERIN New Item LOCATION: 7885 Braddock Avenue NE Lot 13, Cedar Lake Shores, according to plat of record, Section 30, Township 121, Range 25, Wright County, Minnesota. (Cedar Lake Monticello Twp.) Tax # Requests a variance as regulated in Section , , & (c)(Table 3) of Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to install a septic system 5 ft. from a property line. Present: David Wangerin A. Rhineberger reviewed the lot size on Cedar Lake. This is a rebuild of an existing cabin that was damaged after a tree fell on it. A variance was granted for a manufactured home, now the plans changed and is larger. Structure is being moved and meets setbacks. The Type I system to serve the home will be 5 from north property line and 5 from the road right of way. The design for sewer was provided and pictures to show the site. Town Board approved. B. Wangerin - the sewer has been designed, will need to remove one tree possibly two. Have done everything they could to meet the standards. C. Mol opened the hearing for public comment, hearing no response returned to the Board for discussion. D. Jones his primary concern was the sewer. Rhineberger - even for an exact replacement they would be facing the same sewer setbacks. Aarestad any time they can upgrade from a holding tank that is positive. This seems like a reasonable solution. Quiggle and Mol concurred with the comments. Rhineberger suggested the owner put in some barrier to keep parking off the system. Wangerin did not think it would be a problem, but agreed to do that. E. Quiggle moved to grant a variance as regulated in Section , , & (c)(Table 3) of Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to install a septic system 5 ft. from a property line. Condition: The roadside area of the sewer system be marked by a fence or some other feature to keep people from driving or parking on it. Aarestad seconded the motion.

10 Page PAUL R. KEENEY New Item LOCATION: Greer Avenue NW Lot 9, Robinson s Terrace, according to plat of record, Section 36, Township 122, Range 27, Wright County, Minnesota. (Sugar Lake Clearwater Twp.) Tax # Requests a variance as regulated in Section (B), , , of Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to construct a 811 sq. ft. main-level addition with 208 sq. ft. covered porch, 187 sq. ft. basement addition and 607 sq. ft. upper-level addition onto a dwelling that is 42.6 ft. from lake to deck, 53 ft. to existing dwelling and 67.1 ft. to proposed addition. Present: Paul Keeney A. Rhineberger reviewed the location of the 32,246 sq. ft. lot on the north side of Sugar Lake. The plans and location maps were viewed and he reviewed the proposed additions and setback variances requested. The main portion of the expansion is over the attached garage. The Board had heard a variance in 2014 for a garage and had asked for a higher roof pitch and space in the upper level. Did not get approval for the upper level, but the pitch. The pictures of the structure were viewed and noted the expansion would go back toward the garage in the middle of the lot. Town Board approves as long as it meets lot and impervious coverage and the silt fence is properly installed and maintained. Two negative comments from Grimm and Spoda were noted that evolve around current runoff issues. Wright County Soil & Water Conservation District has been to the site to address erosion control issues in the past. B. Kenney had purchased the property three years ago and had come before the Board for a structure for parking their cars in the winter. They were making this their year around home. At the time the sewer was installed they had a large rain event and installer had not installed a silt fence, however, was installed the day after the rain event. The detached garage showed a proposed addition similar to where this one is and the Board said they would address that when they were ready to build. Since that time, his wife had an auto accident with some brain injury that have caused some issues. This will provide a safer route to get into a garage. They have come up with a better solution for the addition but is 8 too close to the lake. Have tried to keep as much open space on the lot and designed the addition at 45 degree angle, 61 from the lake at the closest. Because of the septic tank location they cannot go in that direction, can only go to the north. He visited with his neighbors and provided some positive feedback from neighbors who thought this is a reasonable request. The changes will accommodate his wife s health challenges. The roof would be extended over the porch to line up the roof lines. Also adding dormers to get more light in the home. The deck is rotting and would remove the cedar decking and putting in new hardwood on the existing deck. Small garage addition is to put the furnace in a heated space and a new master bedroom with therapeutic tubs. C. Aarestad has concerns about the double size, however, is tucked behind away from the lake. The additions are within what the Board has compromised on in the past. Because this is close to the lake, felt a good storm water management plan is important. Kenney there are gutters on the north side and entire front side is sent to the northwest corner of the house where it is the steepest and he would plan to change the down spouts to the other side. Aarestad applauded him for those improvements, but felt the storm water management plan is needed. Keeney agreed and stated they do have plans to address that.

11 Page 11 D. Quiggle stated she lives on this lake. The additional roof and angle of the garage and addition is kept out of the lake setback. She would agree with Aarestad a good storm water management plan is important when the roof area is doubled. The gutters with down spouts need to go to an infiltration system to treat the water before it reaches the lake. E. Jones concurred with the proposed plan as long as the applicant has a well-planned storm water plan. F. Mol stated he is familiar with the property. There are steep banks and the owner is lower. There was Township road project down there. The new garage should be tied into the storm water management plan. Keeney explained there were intense rains at the time of the township road construction and water was going down to Greer and a culvert. Since that time the Township has put in a swale and rebuilt the cul-de-sac that takes the water into the system and downhill. G. Rhineberger noted there is not a lot of cover on the north and west corner of the lot. Keeney stated he has made improvements, has tiered the area and put in grass. He definitely wants to landscape and address the water. H. Aarestad moved to grant a variance as regulated in Section (B), , , of Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to construct a 811 sq. ft. main-level addition with 208 sq. ft. covered porch, 187 sq. ft. basement addition and 607 sq. ft. upper-level addition onto a dwelling that is 42.6 ft. from lake to deck, 53 ft. to existing dwelling and 67.1 ft. to proposed addition according to Exhibit A. Condition: A storm water management plan be submitted at the time the building permit is applied for and must include infiltration and include all storm water runoff and prevents it from going directly to the lake or road. Jones seconded the motion.

12 Page PATRICIA A. FISHER New Item LOCATION: Part of S ½ of NE ¼ and Gov t Lot 1, Section 32, and also part of the east feet of the SW 1/4 Section 33, all in Township 122, Range 27, Wright County, Minnesota. (Clearwater Twp.) Tax # & Requests an appeal of the Board's 2015 order to allow the division of one of the parcels allowed into two separate lots and move an entitlement to newly created parcel as regulated in Section & (F)(4) of Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinance. Present: Pat Fisher A. Rhineberger summarized the original request in 2015 when the Board acted on divisions of the property and assignment of entitlements on a cart way. He noted the property lacks road frontage and a 33 wide cart way gives access out to State Highway 24 was noted. Board addressed a specific plan for the division of the property and where the entitlements were to go. He reviewed the proposed change to layout of that plan that Fisher is requesting to make the property more marketable. The site plan was displayed to show the new division, wanting to move the entitlement assigned to C to the northern portion of what was B resulting in two entitlements in the first half mile of the cartway. If allowed, this would restrict C, which is primarily woods and swamp. This cuts one parcel smaller and moves an entitlement. He noted the property is in the Land Use Plan for Resource Area and it could be argued this would protect the trees. Smaller lots will be more marketable. The Town Board recommends that the two B lots be a minimum of ten acres with Lot C being restricted. The proposal before the Board is a six acre and a ten acre lots. Rhineberger assumes it might be the size requirements in the AG district that they are thinking, but ten is a maximum not minimum. The Board has already approved over ten acre in the last action and less than ten acres is permitted. This is what the Town Board suggests, but it would require extending one lot into what will be the restricted C lot. He reviewed the Board s last action was a staged requirement for extending the cart way before they build. Another option would be to put the northern portion of B with C and whether that would make sense. Kryzer asked if the first part of the cart way was completed. Fisher it should be completed at the end of September. She described the progress. B. Fisher originally the farm was 300 acres and how they split down the five entitlements and requirements on the cart way. This does not increase development, it puts an entitlement down by the cart way and preserves a natural wooded area. Feels this will solve some of the problems with providing emergency access. C. Mol asked for public comment, hearing no response returned to the Board. D. Jones is there a concern with meeting the ten acres the Township wanted. Fisher, no but she would like to split off the large pole barn with six acres and sell it to her youngest daughter. She plans to keep the ten acre lot and the 64 acres. Felt this will keep it smaller so the value is low enough that a family member can purchase it. Jones asked if the barn will meet setback requirements. Rhineberger answered yes. E. Aarestad was concerned about taking tillable land out, but hearing the explanation that it

13 Page 13 would be a tradeoff and save wooded land seems practical the way the applicant has proposed it. F. Quiggle considering C is in the Resource Land, justifies it. In general, she would support the Township s recommendation, but felt they may have misunderstood the requirement and would not object to the six acre division knowing that. G. Mol what assurance do they have C will stay restricted? This is a Resource area, but there is land to the north and what will they be coming back to ask for. Should be a 1 per 40 density and try to preserve the land. He questioned if they can really uphold the restriction. Rhineberger there is no absolute assurance because someone can ask to rezone, but it would be up to the Planning Commission. In general, cartways or non-public maintained roads are not accepted for development. He would hope that the Commission would require it would have to be a public road to gain further development. There are provisions in the Resource Land designation about whether it should be rezoned. can only look at whether this is a reasonable adjustment of lines. They cannot reject an application. Mol can understand putting the homes closer because roads are expensive to build. He is concerned someone in the future will not want to extend the road because they have access. Rhineberger the cul-de-sac would have given C an entitlement. The second entitlement for E and F and that is when the extension of the cart way comes in. They could have built on C without extending the cart way. That will come later for the other parcels. H. Fisher clarified further when additional entitlements can be used, there is one entitlement on E once the cart way is extended further. The 40 to the west is actually D and they can build a second home on the 80 acres that has two entitlements to the north is what will require the extension of the cart way. Rhineberger confirmed that is right. If the adjustment is approved, they can get three homes in there on the cart way and cul-de-sac that is about 300 in length and is currently being built. I. Mol hearing the explanation stated he could agree with the change. Kryzer suggested they restate the condition of the cart way from the previous action. J. Quiggle moved to grant the appeal and allow the division of one of the parcels allowed into two separate lots and move an entitlement to newly created parcel as regulated in Section & (F)(4) of Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinance. Conditions: Property owner will still be required to meet the requirements of the cart way in the Board action of September 4, 2015; subject to a revised Deed Restriction once the survey is completed and provided to the Planning & Zoning Office. Aarestad seconded the motion. Meeting adjourned for a ten minute recess.

14 Page AMES PETTIT New Item LOCATION: 9000 Common St. SW Part of SE ¼ of SE ¼ and NE ¼ of SE ¼, Section 33, Township 118, Range 27, Wright County, Minnesota. (Victor Twp.) Tax # & Property owners: Pettit & Barth Requests a variance of Section & (F) (4) of Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinance to allow the division of 4 acres from the Pettit property and attach it to the Barth 7.1 acre entitlement division for a total of an 11.1 acre parcel. Present: James & Michelle Pettit A. Rhineberger reminded the Board of a recent decision to approve an adjustment on the north side of the farm parcel. The new proposal is to add 4 acres to a 7.1 acre lot to the south. Because adding this acreage will put that lot over ten acres (11.1 acres) a variance is needed. Town Board approval was received. B. J. Pettit explained they are selling the farm and is part of the sale and trying to get the best return on the sale. C. Mol asked for public comment, no one came forward and the matter returned to the Board for their consideration. D. Quiggle stated she can see no particular problem with the adjustment. Jones agreed. Aarestad they are usually concerned about taking more Ag land, however, it makes sense, has not been tilled and will avoid odd corners. Mol noted a line of evergreens is an established windbreak. E. Aarestad moved to grant a variance of Section & (F)(4) of Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinance to allow the division of 4 acres from the Pettit property and attach it to the Barth 7.1 acre entitlement division for a total of an 11.1 acre parcel. Condition: The additional land must be incorporated into the Barth tax parcel or an Administrative Order be signed and recorded. Quiggle seconded the motion.

15 Page BLAIR A. DERRY New Item LOCATION: 8559 County Road 8 SW North 600 feet of the East 726 feet of the E ½ of SE ¼, as measured at right angles to the North and West lines, Section 17, Township 118, Range 26, Wright County, Minnesota. (Woodland Twp.) Tax # Requests a variance of Section & , Chapter 155, Title XV Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinance to allow a home extended business less than 500 from nearest residence in a new structure to be built on the property. Present: Blair Derry A. Rhineberger reviewed the property location and explained the variance is needed to locate a beauty shop within a new building to be constructed. The size has increased 10 but does not impact the separation from the beauty shop and neighbors homes. He noted the location of the shop in relation to the portion to be used for storage. The responses received were from a neighbor approving along with Town Board approval. B. Derry stated she has talked to both her neighbors. C. Aarestad the building is very close to meeting the 500 separation and it looks like there is a building between her business and one home. D. Quiggle felt the purpose of the 500 separation was to allow some distance from the type of businesses that could be a nuisance if they were too close. She felt the variance is acceptable. E. Mol indicated he would agree. The requirements for parking and other matters will get addressed at the Planning Commission hearing. F. Aarestad moved to grant a variance of Section & , Chapter 155, Title XV Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinance to allow a home extended business less than 500 from nearest residence in a new structure to be built on the property. Jones seconded the motion.

16 Page ANN M. LAMBRECHT New Item LOCATION: Clementa Avenue SW SW ¼ of NW ¼ and NW ¼ of SW ¼, except tracts... Section 26, Township 118, Range 26, Wright County, Minnesota. (Woodland Twp.) Tax # Requests a variance of Section & , Chapter 155, Title XV Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinance to allow two entitlement divisions that will exceed more than 2.5 acres of tillable land and one lot will not meet minimum 300 wide on a public road. Present: Ann Lambrecht, Personal Representative for the Salonek estate A. Rhineberger displayed a map to show the 62 acre parcel. Three options were discussed and the request and notice was for the worst case scenario. The sketch plans were displayed. He explained no variance is needed for the homestead division that is identified as Parcel 1. It is the divisions and use of the two entitlements that is before them. Soil borings were done and is what is driving how the lots are proposed. There are some soil problems, where the borings are shown is the only spot the soils will allow two Type I systems on each parcel. Reviewed three options. The one parcel exceeds 2.5 acre tillable and the 10 acres, exceeds 2.5 acres of tillable land and does not meeting the 300 wide on the road. The second option, there is only an access strip provided and the only exception on the frontage in the Ordinance is to save tillable land and the lot proposed is in the middle of tillable. The third option is just one division of 2.9 acres, exceeds 2.5 acres tillable land allowed in the division. Comment from Woodland Township indicates they prefer one lot 2.5 acres or less with 300 on the road and approve less than 300 on the public road on the other parcel. B. Lambrecht thanked the Board for considering the proposal. She is representing the heirs and they would like to use both entitlements, understand it is a difficult situation with soils. C. Mol asked for public input, no response and the matter returned to the Board. D. Jones asked if these lots will be built on by family members. Lambrecht they would be sold. One of the family members plans to take the homestead. Jones stated he understands that locating the sewer is the reason, but if sold they would have to understand someone would be building right behind the other. Because the Town Board approves, he would not object. E. Aarestad agreed it is the sewer sites that are making the challenge and he would agree with Option 2 since the Township approves. F. Quiggle stated she would like to see a modification of Option 2. Felt both parcels could be reduced to get closer to the 2.5 acres allowed. Keep the 300 wide on one of the lots and the access strip on the second lot. Everything else would be kept as the restricted agricultural parcel. G. Mol this is all good farmland; as a farmer, he would look at an alteration of Option 3. He would prefer the 2.5 acre division and keep the balance of the parcel with an entitlement. Farmers might want to buy the farmland and have an entitlement they could use later. The way it is proposed they are creating tight corners to try to farm and creates more issues with the agricultural portion and using up the entitlements. A restricted farm parcel may not be as

17 Page 17 valuable because they lose the option to recoup their investment if they cannot make money by farming it. H. Lambrecht the sale of another part of this farm was sold four years ago and kept that entitlement. It is same the farmer who is buying this piece and does not need or want an entitlement. Rhineberger better off going with Option 1 and cutting it off square. Mol agreed Option 1 may be better. Aarestad would have concerns about taking more Ag land out of production. Rhineberger noted the land can continue to be farmed by putting in the driveway along the north line and have a rental agreement. I. Lambrecht asked on Option 1 instead of squaring it off with the farmstead, make the second parcel smaller and make it L shaped with less acreage. J. Jones agrees the Ag land together and keeping the parcel functional for farming. Rhineberger does not have the topography, the septic sites are proposed at the highest point. These potential sewer sites are limiting where the building sites could be. K. Mol asked where the homes are located in the area. Rhineberger stated there are l per 40 divisions and an AG plat where Varner moved several entitlements. This one would be heading for a cluster hearing eventually. L. Aarestad stated he would prefer Option #3 modified and that would honor the Township recommendation. Rhineberger that puts all potential sewer sites on one lot. M. Quiggle the entitlement is an asset that could be used somewhere else in the Township. Rhineberger explained the land has to be under common ownership for three years to be transferred off. N. Mol moved to allow a lot line split for one entitlement division as outlined as Parcel #2, but division not to exceed 2.5 acres of prime tillable farmland. The remainder of the acreage to retain the second entitlement on the large parcel. This allows for a sewer site on the large parcel. Subject to a survey and deed restriction. Jones seconded the motion.

18 Page KELLY M. VAN RIPER New Item LOCATION: 1848 County Road 5 NW Tracts G & H, Registered Land Survey #17, and also Lots 2, 3 and N 20 feet of Outlot A, Granite Shores First Addition, according to plat of record, all in Section 30, Township 120, Range 27, Wright County, Minnesota. (Granite Lake Albion Twp.) Tax # & Also: & Requests a variance of Section & (F)(2) of Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinance to build a pole barn 66 from centerline of CSAH 5. Present: Kelly Van Riper and Andrew Jackson A. Rhineberger reviewed the location on Granite Lake. A variance is proposed for a 35 x 40 pole building originally requested 66 from the centerline of a county road, however, now looking at 72 based on the site conditions and the excavator s suggestion. A survey was displayed and it was noted the position of the shed is south of the driveway. A denial of a 1990 variance request for 110 was noted. The Board has heard other requests on either side of this lot and some have been approved at 65 in the last five years. Town Board has approved. A neighbor, Mackie, approves and Rhineberger noted he is the owner who was granted a variance from the road. B. Mol opened the hearing for public comment. C. Bob Neumann Township Supervisor approached the Board and indicated the Township was in agreement because it would keep the building in line with others along this road on either side. D. Aarestad felt considering the character of the neighborhood, with the Town Board approval the setback is agreeable. He questioned the pole building size and suggested limiting the building size to 1200 sq. ft. E. Quiggle noted the sewer is new and is a limiting factor. Rhineberger noted the location of the sewer and an overhead power line prevents them from shifting the shed further back. Quiggle felt considering other accessory structures are at 71 and 66, this is consistent. She does not have a concern with allowing the 1400 sq. ft., but informed the applicant there would not be any other accessory structures allowed on the lot. Van Riper the size is needed to get all their cars indoors. F. Jones did not have any objection to the location or size. Mol agreed 1400 sq. ft. could be allowed, but not any further accessory structures. Rhineberger clarified that the applicant does currently have a small shed, but is allowed up to a total accessory of 1600 sq. ft. G. Jones moved to grant a variance of Section & (F)(2) of Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinance to build a pole barn 66 from centerline of CSAH 5. Quiggle seconded the motion.

19 Page WADE HOFFMAN New Item LOCATION: 3627 County Road 5 NW E ½ of E ½ of NE ¼, Section 18, Township 120, Range 27, Wright County, Minnesota. (Albion Twp.) Tax # Requests a variance of Section & (F)(4) of Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinance to allow the separation of the existing buildings and land lying south of County Road 37 as an entitlement division. Present: Not present Mol continued the item to the end of the agenda to see if the applicant would show.

20 Page 20 Rhineberger asked that the order of the agenda items 14 & 15 be reversed and were heard as follows: 14. JOHN P. MEILAHN New Item LOCATION: Amery Avenue NW Lots 5 & 6, Wildwood Terrace, according to plat of record, Section 12, Township 121, Range 26, Wright County, Minnesota. (Lake Ida Silver Creek Twp.) Tax # Requests a variance of Section (B)(1), , (F)(2) & (3), , (C) Table 3, Chapter 155, Title XV Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinance to allow construction of a 643 sq. ft. one-level addition over a walkout basement; a 181 sq. ft. covered porch and 184 sq. ft. deck, to be within the bluff, 76' from the Ordinary High-water Mark (OHW) of lake. Existing structure is located within the bluff, 61 ft. from the OHW, 10.9 ft. from the side property line and 50' from the centerline of a township road. Proposed deck to be 8 ft. from the septic tank and 13 ft. from the treatment area. Present: John Meilahn and Kerry Becker, design contractor A. Rhineberger reviewed the property location on Lake Ida and the existing structure that sits 61 from the ordinary high water mark of the lake. Addition proposed has a walkout basement, covered porch and deck proposed is 76 from the lake and is being built into what was a bluff (similar to an earlier item, Prevost). He noted the bluff line runs through the middle of the existing home and the land around the home was disturbed years ago. The addition will step back from the front wall lakeside, but is still in the bluff. The addition will require a change to the sewer system installed in 2010 and location of a new Type III system requires setback variances of 8 from septic tank to deck and 13 from treatment area. Town Board approval was received. Wright County Soil & Water Conservation District recommends a silt fence and expressed concern about future erosion. B. Becker the placement of the addition is on the south side of house because it is the only space available. The point where they are starting the addition is 15 back from the lakeside wall of the existing house. The parking issues with the ending loading garage and not enough room to get the cars off the road are driving this. Changing the driveway and garage to a side loading will solve that problem. The existing deck and stairs are being removed and new deck will be on the south side to get further away from the front, however, that puts it closer to the sewer. Lakeside will be a walkout and match the existing side of the house. Proposal includes stone on the front of the addition so it blends in with the area and reduces the visual impact from the lake. He reported that a Town Board Supervisor mentioned Avery has the worst parking situation and a side loading garage will help; another Supervisor noted the applicant had put a lot of effort into stabilizing the bluff in recent years. C. Meilahn their surveyor established the bluff line and they tried to stay back from that. Rhineberger Staff does not agree with where the bluff line was drawn. D. Quiggle generally she is concerned about additional construction in the bluff, understanding there is a disagreement. She looked at the pictometry of the property and could see where it drops off in front of the existing house. The addition is in the flatter area. Meilahn commented further on the bluff concern. They hired Backyard Reflections from Annandale at