WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. Meeting of: October 6, 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 October 6, 2017 in the County Commissioner s Board Room at the Wright County Government Center, Buffalo, Minnesota. Board members present were Charlotte Quiggle, John Jones, Paul Aarestad and Dan Vick. Absent was Dan Mol. Greg Kryzer, Assistant County Attorney was legal counsel present. In the absence of Mol, Rhineberger called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. and asked for a nomination for a temporary Chair for this meeting. On a motion by Aarestad, seconded by Jones, all voted to elect Quiggle to serve as Chair in Mol s absence. MINUTES On a motion by Jones, seconded by Aarestad, all voted to approve the minutes for the September 1, 2017 meeting. 1. WOJO MOJO LLC Cont. from 9/1/17 LOCATION: 601 County Road 39 NW - Approximately 25 acres described as part of Gov t Lot 4, and Lot A, and part of Gov t Lot 5, Section 12, Township 121, Range 26, Wright County, Minnesota. (Lake Ida-Silver Creek Twp.) Tax # & (Formerly the Minneapolis Meat Cutters & Food Handlers ) Request an appeal of the zoning administrator s opinion that the campground on the property is a private operation that existed as a non-conforming use and cannot be opened to the public as it would be expansion. Also appealing zoning administrator s opinion on what elements of the campground are recognized as a legal non-conforming use that can continue. Regulated in Section and (H). Present: Applicant/representative not present A. Kryzer reviewed the hearings and evidence were part of the Findings prepared after the Board closed the public hearing. The direction he was given was a decision to reverse the Zoning Administrator s decision because the campgrounds was closed in excess of one year. The Findings were distributed to the Board and Quiggle had a few amendments she wanted incorporated and those have been included in the new Order that is before the Board. B. Quiggle stated she further clarified the requests for changes, some grammatical which she read. C. Aarestad moved to adopt the Findings as amended. Jones seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED, Vick abstained Rhineberger stated since the applicant or their legal counsel is not present, the Findings would be sent by US Mail.

2 Page 2 2. DOUGLAS W. STARRY Cont. from 9/1/17 LOCATION: Dillon Avenue NW Part of the SE ¼ of SW ¼, Section 9, Township 121, Range 26, Wright County, Minnesota. (Silver Creek Twp.) Tax # Requests a variance of Section , Chapter 152 & , (F)(3) Chapter 155, Title XV Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinance to allow a one-acre entitlement division to include the existing house with the proposed property line less than 30 ft. from three accessory buildings and less than 100 ft. from a poultry building on the remainder parcel. Present: Douglas Starry A. Rhineberger explained the hearing had been continued to allow for Town Board review. A written response from the Township indicates they approve. B. Starry explained the house is to be separated from the farm for his son and daughter-in-law who are also working on the farm. Starry stated he now lives on an adjoining parcel, another son involved in the farm lives down the road. C. Jones stated the concern raised at the last meeting was that the way the lines are drawn may make sense today, however, in the future it could create problems after ownership changes. D. Starry stated the family has discussed that and will include in the documents the farm will have the right of first refusal to buy the house back. This will ensure the house will stay with the farm. E. Board discussed the fact the Town Board approves and parties are aware of potential problems it could cause in the future. Based on this they could support the division. F. Aarestad moved to allow a one-acre entitlement division to include the existing house with the proposed property line less than 30 ft. from three accessory buildings and less than 100 ft. from a poultry building on the remainder parcel, according to Certificate of Survey prepared by Taylor Land Surveyors, Inc. dated 5/19/17 File No Subject to Deed Restriction to be signed and recorded. Vick seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

3 Page 3 3. BARB & MARK L. BREDENBERG New Item LOCATON: Devitt Avenue NW Back lot: Part of Gov t Lot 4; Also Lot 22 & part of Lot 21, Locke Lake Heights, according to plat of record, all in Section 21, Township 122, Range 26, Wright County, Minnesota. (Locke Lake - Silver Creek Twp.) Tax # & Requests a variance of Section , (F)(2) & as regulated Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to allow a move-in 22 x 28 detached garage (currently located 5 lots down the street) to be relocated on the applicant s backlot 2' from the edge of the dedicated road right-of-way (35' from the centerline) of a township road. Present: Barb Bredenberg A. Rhineberger displayed the location map and history when the backlot went through the Board for approval. This parcel is tied to the applicant s lake lot. An air photo shows the legal descriptions as transferred in 2014 for a land swap, this does not match the area and a garage never used by this owner. There is a survey on record for that division, however, the legal description from when they bought it does not match those lines and the owners are currently trying to get that cleared up with a title company. The air photo shows it more in line than B on the survey. Rhineberger stated he was to the site and found the survey pins on the front side. The cement slab is on the edge of the road right-of-way and is in the general location of the proposed garage. The garage to be moved to this lot is currently five lots down from this. Generally, a move-in structure would require a Conditional Use Permit. Staff felt because the garage is already in the neighborhood and fits in, they are waiving the requirement for a separate hearing. The position of the garage was reviewed which is 1 from the edge of the road right-of-way. The site plan and survey show how it will be positioned and door facing the road would put cars parked in front in the road right of way. Written responses from Norberg was favorable and the Town Board approves if the garage is measured 33 from center. B. Quiggle asked about the Ordinance that allows exception for a 20 setback if it is the average within the neighborhood. Rhineberger stated the average in this neighborhood does not factor in here. The applicant wants to be closer than that. C. Bredenberg explained they want to put the garage where the existing cement slab is. D. Aarestad stated the Board is concerned that parking would end up in the road right of way. He would be willing to consider the 2 if the door faces the side, otherwise the structure should be moved back to get room to park in front of the garage, out of the road right of way. He asked if there is any hardship to prevent them from moving it back. Bredenberg stated the lot drops off. Aarestad asked if this could line up with the one on the Johnson lot. Rhineberger responded, that structure is meeting the 65 setback.

4 Page 4 E. Bredenberg asked if there are rules against parking in front. Kryzer explained that is a Township matter, this Board can only address the variance setback. Bredenberg noted the cars parked along this road. She indicated she can move a car or park it in the garage. F. Jones as a former Supervisor for Silver Creek Township, is familiar with the area and although it might be in tune with the neighborhood, they should not keep making exceptions. He asked if it would be feasible to turn the garage and still get it on the slab. Bredenberg stated they would be replacing the slab. To turn the garage would require more material because it drops off in back. Rhineberger indicated he would estimate on the west side it could take 2-3 of fill. The fill would be minimal and handled with the building permit because this is not considered a bluff or in a flood plain. Suggested if they are going to take the slab out anyway, he would like to see them turn the garage. Would not support the variance with the garage facing the road. G. Vick his advice to the applicant, as a long-time contractor, would be to turn the garage to avoid water coming back into the garage from the road. H. Bredenberg although she could, noted everyone else has doors facing the road and would look out of place. Rhineberger stated the garage is currently sitting on a lot perpendicular to the road, but there is a mix along here both on setbacks and how they are facing. Vick, added it would not cost the applicant much more and felt they would like it better with doors turned to a side line. I. Quiggle would concur with the opinions expressed, she would prefer 20 off the road right of way, unless the topography prevents that. It would be best to have the entrance to the side and avoid cars sticking out into the road right of way. Bredenberg preferred not to turn it unless that is the only way it will get approved. Quiggle closed the public hearing. J. Aarestad moved to approve a variance of Section , (F) (2) & as regulated Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to move-in 22 x 28 detached garage (currently located 5 lots down the street) to be relocated on the applicant s backlot, 2' from the edge of the dedicated road right-ofway (35' from the centerline) of a township road. Condition: The garage entrance to be positioned parallel to the road so the garage entrance is from the side and not roadside. Jones seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

5 Page 5 4. GREG L. GERULIS Cont. from 9/1/17 LOCATION: nd St. NW Part of Gov t Lot 5, Section 34, Township 121, Range 28, Wright County, MN. (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 & site designer, Bernie Miller A. Rhineberger summarized the discussion from the September 1, meeting. The Board made a site inspection and had asked for more information on a storm-water management plan. The applicant has revisited the garage size and location and has made modifications to the original plan. The garage has been downsized to 24 x 28 and moved it over a portion of the existing driveway and is turned, further back and up the hill. The storm-water plan addresses primarily the culvert that funnels water from the driveway to the lake. He noted from an erosion standpoint it is a positive, however, does not filter the water and may not be the best for the lake. The proposal is to convert some of the asphalt driveway, which takes water to the culvert, to a vegetative swale with check dams. Leave the culvert in place and the water going through the culvert would be cleaner. The site is not suited for rain gardens because of the steep slope and overloading the soils would be a concern. There was some discussion about taking the water off the house roof. Quiggle there was a 100 sq. ft. rain garden for that. Rhineberger screen porch on the lakeside was dropped by the applicant, the portion on the back was to be considered. B. Miller further looked at where the garage could go and get the best drainage plan without disturbing the trees. Reviewed the location which will work best for drainage, would not fill to construct the garage. The garage is narrowed to 24 wide. The yellow hatched area on the plan is area they would need erosion control blankets, is where the asphalt would be removed and calculates over 2,000 sq. ft. The garage is now 672 sq. ft., existing deck on roadside to be removed and take the impervious from 29.2% down to 24.8%, below 25% impervious coverage allowed. Dan Nadeau, of Wright County Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD) would be in favor of leaving the asphalt the way it is; and did not have a preference whether the rain water falls on the asphalt or green space. There is a difference of opinion on that, he would agree there is benefit to installing a vegetative swale with check dams because it will take some sediment and slow it down. He has been told in other counties the rain garden should be 50 from a well. In talking to the MN Department of Health, there is a 35 setback from storm ponds, but if it holds less than 500 gallons for less than half a year there is no setback from the well. Based on that, they can have the rain garden there. Quiggle and Miller further discussed soils and design differences. C. Aarestad felt the changes will result in a better situation, asked Rhineberger how the Board can give the applicant some flexibility based on the soils found and how they design it.

6 Page 6 Rhineberger suggested approve in accord with plans, with the required specifications including gutters on the house directed to the rain garden. Staff will get the specs at the time the garage permit is applied for. Miller there are different ways to design this, if there are sandy soils they will take advantage of those in the design. Vick agreed. D. Quiggle is not in favor of the garage in the bluff as they try to avoid that. She asked if there is a plant list and how many gutters go into the rain garden? Miller just the eastern half of the house. The house with the addition is 1200 sq. ft., usually the rain garden is designed to take 20% of the surface area to be drained; she feels it may be a little undersized. The rain garden is generally designed a minimum of 10 from a residential structure because of potential damage to the foundation; although not in the Ordinance, suggested they be mindful. Miller stated it is12.5 from the foundation from his calculations. Quiggle noted the list of plants will need to be carefully selected so they are successful. Miller he is not going to be building the rain garden and would suggest they hire a contractor familiar with these. He is providing the concept and there is more detail to be done. The soils are sandy. He asked if Corinna has not given approval and if it creates a problem, they have a mitigation plan. Quiggle agreed, but the concept plan is good, but there are concerns for the owner to keep in mind. E. Jones he is primarily concerned with the impervious coverage. Miller 24.8% is an improvement from 29.2%. Jones shares some bluff concerns, but they have reduced the runoff with the plan proposed. F. Vick he is okay with the garage in the bluff. Aarestad based on the fact it is going into area of the driveway where there are disturbed soils, he would agree with it. G. Rhineberger stated to best protect the site, he would suggest a phased construction. The addition should take place using the bituminous to get there; second, the grassy swale and storm water plans completed and then construct the garage and remove the blacktop behind the garage last. Quiggle closed the public hearing. H. Aarestad moved to allow a variance as regulated in Section & Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to replace a deck with a 7.1 x 27.5 living space over existing basement that is located roadside of dwelling and 24 x 28 garage in the bluff on the condition the project be phased as follows: House addition first, storm water manage plan, then the garage, and last storm water management plan behind the garage. Water management plans according to Exhibit A, house plan labeled Exhibit B, except screen porch on the lakeside is not approved; and any deck replacement has to be of the exact existing size. That part of the storm water management plan for the water on the east side of the house be directed by gutters into a rain garden and the specific plan to be submitted at the time of the building permit; the bituminous to be removed must be covered with erosion control fabric until fully vegetated and silt fence must remain in place until vegetation is established. Also, the portion of the asphalt on the upper slope will remain until after the garage is built. Jones seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED, Quiggle voted nay

7 Page 7 5. BRUCE PREVOST Cont. from 9/1/17 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-levelwalkout 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: Peter Holmberg and site designer, Bernie Miller A. Rhineberger summarized several hearings, with the Board making a site inspection followed by discussion on modifications to the plans along with a water management plan. The petition was also continued for Town Board review. Revised plans show the adjusted location for the garage, a change to the driveway surface. The site is difficult to design a water management plan because there is very little area that is flat to make a rain garden. The concern is inundating the soils with a lot of water. The Town Board response was favorable for a garage and an addition to the house. The garage was shifted to improve the setback. B. Miller noted this is the first time the owner, Holmberg, has been before the Board. Holmberg bought two lots and wants to increase the dwelling size. They have modified the plans three or four times now and feel they have come up with something that addresses the bluff and type of lot without tearing down the entire dwelling and move back. The addition will increase bedrooms and bath and adds a detached garage on the higher elevation where they enter the property. The garage size has been decreased. He noted as the Board could see at the site inspection, they are taking advantage of a disturbed area and is the most practical place. The only erosion is coming down some steps and the addition will take care of that by cutting it off. Since the terrain of the lot is not conducive to rain gardens, they have discussed options with Wright County Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD). Using the site plan described the vegetative swale, does not think permanent check dams are needed, but felt there are a number of ways to handle the water. Using the topographic map explained the unique bluff feature that is only 16 wide at one point. Rhineberger concurred it took much time with the contours of this property to make a determination on the bluff. Miller agreed the entire property is a steep slope, driveway curves into the property and noted a couple of trees they will pull the driveway away from. The garage will have a gable roof, with the direction of the peak running lake to roadside. Only a small amount of fill for the garage, SWCD suggested gutters, but with the amount of vegetation and trees he questioned if it is needed. Rhineberger felt gutters on the south side might be advisable because drainage runs to the neighbor. C. Quiggle felt it might be best to let water dissipate on the land since it is vegetated, then channeling it. Rhineberger- he would be comfortable either way; but, felt if gutters are a

8 Page 8 requirement, that is where he would suggest they install them. Miller felt once the vegetation is established, it should not be necessary. D. Aarestad recalled there are sedges and solid ground and commended them for the hard work on improving the plan. He has no objection and Vick & Jones indicated their agreement. E. Quiggle as she commented at earlier meetings, did not feel it is reasonable to allow a garage for the owner s toys in a bluff. She would agree the house addition makes sense because it is a flat area which was part of the original alteration when the house was built. She would suggest they keep the check dams in the vegetated swale. F. Quiggle called for public comment, hearing none closed the public hearing. G. Jones moved to approve 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, according to Exhibit A, held on file. 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 30 detached garage 16 ft. from the bluff, as outlined on Exhibit B on file which is the revised site plan dated September 13, Erosion measures in place prior to construction and to remain in place until permanent vegetation is established. Septic system must be submitted with the first building permit application. Aarestad seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

9 Page 9 6. STEVEN P. DICK New Item LOCATION: Platt Avenue NW Lot 14, Block 1, Bartlett s Millpond South Villages, according to plat of record, Section 9, Township 121, Range 28, Wright County, Minnesota. (Lake Marie Southside Twp.) Tax # Requests a variance as regulated in Section , (F)(2) Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to allow construction of a 32 x 32 detached garage 10' from the edge of the right-of-way of a cul-de-sac (25' required). Present: Steven Dick A. Rhineberger reviewed the 1.77 acre lot and proposal to build a 32 x 32 garage 10 from the road right of way. The cul-de-sac requires a 25 setback from the right of way. Town Board did review and suggest if approved the drainage be directed to the south into a ditch so the water drains to a culvert and eventually into a wetland beyond. B. Dick was not aware of the Township s condition, but noted a ditch in the tree line and did not think this would be impacted by the building. The natural drainage would be toward the ditch and migrates back to the low land in the back of the property. C. Jones asked if there is any way to move the garage back further than 10. Dick stated it is the elevation drop that prevents it. The picture was displayed to show the elevation where the land drops right behind and would require much fill. Jones asked if the size can be reduced. Quiggle asked is this is to store an extra car. Dick yes and a 25 + trailer so they are not sitting outside. Jones asked for the site plan view and questioned if they can move it to the other side. Dick the ditch runs through the middle and on the other side is the sewer system. Although there are two acres, the area is limited to the southeast quadrant. D. Aarestad this might be reasonable because the road dead-ends with this lot at the end and it was noted the neighborhood is built up he would consider the variance as long as there is no parking in the road. E. Vick would agree with Aarestad, but asked about an alternate location that would line it up with the house. Dick- noted the house is on a knoll and felt this location would be best aesthetically. He has looked at that option. F. Quiggle asked about the edge of the travelled road surface as it relates to the dedicated. Rhineberger estimated it is 66 from center of travelled cul-de-sac from travelled. Quiggle on a dead-end that should be sufficient. Rhineberger agreed the maintenance is not the concern as if it were a straight road past. Dick this is now a paved road. G. Aarestad questioned the Township s concern on drainage and if gutters should be required. Rhineberger described the natural drainage and felt the Township was concerned they do not alter that. Dick there will be some fill on the south corner of the garage to prevent water problems into the garage.

10 Page 10 H. Aarestad moved to grant a variance as regulated in Section , (F)(2) Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to allow construction of a 32 x 32 detached garage 10' from the edge of the right-of-way of a culde-sac. Township approved of the 10 setback from the cul-de-sac. Jones seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

11 Page JAMES M. LIEN Cont. from 9/1/17 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 continued for a redesign, more information and see if it could fit. They went from a Type I to a Type III sewer design, Environmental Health has not done soil verifications, relying on the designer at this point. If the soils call changes it could change the Type of system to Type IV. The system is designed for a two-bedroom home. The site plan shows they have made adjustments to provide driveway and accessibility to the lot. This decision is a determination for buildability of the lot. Variances of 14 from the property line is requested for a potential house and allows for a conforming driveway/parking area. B. Jones asked if 14 is needed from both the north and south sides and not 9? Rhineberger in 2002 the applicant at the time was asking for a 9 setback and Board declared the lot unbuildable. Jones felt this could be a difficult build and placement, but the potential buyers should be aware of. C. Aarestad asked if they would have to come back for a Type IV sewer? Rhineberger that type of system may not take as much room but they are the systems that require a pretreatment and monitoring. In order to build on a lot, by State law, you have to have a site for a Type I system, without a variance. Rhineberger because the applicant is coming in for a variance the Board can address it. D. Vick felt as a contractor the crawl space opens it up for improper use down there. He would suggest they limit that area to 5 so a bedroom does not end up down there. Rhineberger explained the policy the Board adopted because the State replacement law is vague. The Board has dealt with replacement of lake cabins and allow a 6 crawl space which is not habitable space. A 6 crawl space allows for mechanical and storage space. E. Quiggle the plan brought back provides adequate sewer system, drive and parking area. The house is a concept plan, but asked if the sewer has to be installed prior to sale? Rhineberger no it is all in concept. Quiggle would agree there is a way to build on the lot. Rhineberger this particular plan requires a setback variance and they could just address the buildable nature of the lot and a future buyer could come back if the concept plan or setback variances are needed. Quiggle would agree they are just addressing

12 Page 12 whether the lot is buildable. Rhineberger stated a concept is needed to know where the house and septic could go. A 30 wide house is too wide to meet setback. Quiggle the house would not have to be that wide. Rhineberger this plan has a crawl space which is probably not what a builder/owner will want. Vick could they not allow up to 14 setback. Rhineberger, agreed they could or state any variance of setbacks or specific house plan would have to come back. Quiggle the house can be a smaller design. F. Aarestad approved the request as regulated in Section , , of Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances for an appeal of the 2002 Board Order and lift the unbuildable status on the condition any future house plan and site plan will be evaluated against the sewer design on file and all setbacks are to be met, otherwise, a new application for variances will have to be applied for. Jones seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Quiggle recessed the meeting for 10 minutes at 10:10 a.m.

13 Page ANNITA M. SMYTHE Cont. from 9/1/17 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: Anita Smythe A. Rhineberger explained the hearing was continued for Town Board review and since have received favorable action from the Township. The applicant has withdrawn the parking plan that had been included in the proposal. The Board is now just dealing with the road frontage variance. He explained before the additional land is developed, it would likely be annexed into the City. B. Smythe felt Rhineberger summarized it well. The City council has not approved any particular use or plan for parking and that would be dealt with in the future. They did not want the result of their purchase to be an illegal non-conforming parcel. C. Quiggle poll of Board members indicated their agreement, noting that this purchase would not change the road frontage for the house existing on the east side. D. Aarestad moved to grant 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. Applicant has withdrawn the portion of the request that relates to the parking lot. Condition: Administrator Order must be filed combining parcel with the City parcel across the road to the west. Jones seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

14 Page WADE HOFFMAN Cont. from 9/1/17 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: Wade Hoffman A. Rhineberger displayed the air photo to show the long forty and portion bisected by County Road 37. The proposal is divide that portion south of CR 37 as an entitlement division. The variance is needed because the size is approximately 15 acres, 7.5 acres is prime farm soils. The remainder on the north side is 25 acres and would be restricted land. Town Board approves, noting the division makes sense. B. Hoffman felt this is the best way to make a division. Board consensus was favorable noting how the road bisects the property makes this a reasonable request. C. Jones 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 separation of the existing buildings and land lying south of County Road 37 as an entitlement division. Subject to a certificate of survey provided to the Planning & Zoning office; and, filing of a Deed Restriction. Aarestad seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

15 Page JOHN H. SCHACHERER New Item LOCATION: Gunderson Avenue NW Lot 5, Block 1, Sugar Hills, according to plat of record, Section 36, Township 122, Range 27, Wright County (Sugar Lake- Clearwater Twp.) Tax # Requests a variance of Section (B)(1), , (F)(2) as regulated Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to replace an existing garage and allow a 36 x 45 accessory building 8.5' from the edge of a cul-de-sac and 52.5 ft. from the center of a platted road. Building exceeds the 1,400 sq. ft. allowed in a single structure and 1,600 sq. ft. total allowed. Present: John & Bonnie Schacherer A. Rhineberger reviewed the lot is a 36,274 sq. ft. lot in Clearwater Township. The applicant is seeking to replace the current garage and build 36 x 45 accessory building (1,620 sq. ft.) that would be 8.5 ft. from the edge of a cul-de-sac and 52.5 ft. from the center of the platted road. This situation is a little unusual because there is a center line road setback of 65 ft. as well as the 25 ft. cul-de-sac setback. Note that the 52.5 ft. is as platted and not as traveled. The Township approved the size variance, but would like to see a condition added that the structure will meet the 65 setback from the center line of where the road is actually traveled. One neighbor did indicate that they approve the variance. Rhinberger measured the survey and noted that using the as traveled portion of the road the structure would be roughly 51 ft. from the gravel edge. Bonnie Schacherer mentioned that the Township has since tarred the road. B. John Schacherer explained that the current garage needs a lot of work. He described the topography of the land and where the new shed would be located. The back of the lot is sloped, so if the shed is moved back further into the lot, quite a lot of fill that would need to be brought in. The sheds gable ends would direct the water off the roof and into this low area. Right now the garage is sloped towards the street. C. Rhinberger displayed the proposed plans of where the shed would go and explained the building layout as compared to what is currently on the lot. Jones asked for clarification that both the small shed and garage would be removed. Rhinberger confirmed that is what the applicant has proposed. D. Quiggle feels the Board should go with the Township s recommendation for the distance from the actual traveled road and cul-de-sac but is not in favor of approving the size variance. The ordinance says 1,400 sq. ft. for this particular zoning district and the Board should hold to that rule; it is only fair and equitable for the neighbors and citizens of the County. There does not appear to be any practical difficulty in not keeping to the maximum 1400 sq. ft. limit. E. B. Schacherer - there is only one other neighbor in the cul-de-sac and he was permitted a 40 x 50 shed. J. Schacherer mentioned that another neighbor was granted a 42 x 50 permit. Quiggle pointed out that a lot depends on when a structure was built and if the lots are zoned

16 Page 16 the same; but at the same time, she does agree that the Board needs to be fair. J. Schacherer stated that the neighbor with the 40 x 50 shed was granted the permit 2 years ago. Quiggle reminded the applicant that each matter is reviewed on an individual basis. Rhinberger started to do some research on the mentioned neighbors permitted buildings and Quiggle asked the Board members to speak while Rhinberger did his research. F. Jones has some of the same concerns that were already mentioned. There are rules and regulations for a reason and the size of the building presents some concern. G. J. Schacherer mentioned his lot is not feasible for a house to be built and that it is only suitable for storage. H. Aarestad noted the Town Board recommendation carries a lot of weight in their decisions; however, the neighbors have larger buildings, he can see wanting to fit into the neighborhood. He agrees with the other the Board members that the shed size is concerning. Since the building is only intended for storage, is there a way the building can be turned sideways and give a little more room? Making an adjustment to size and location might help with the setback issue. B. Schacherer Stated that there are established trees and vegetation they would hate to remove. Aarestad Indicated he would be willing to work with the applicant on the distance, but the size is concerning and he can t see approving the request currently presented. J. Schacherer Asked the Board to clarify how far back they would be comfortable with? Aarestad Stated that he would like to see an additional 8 feet. Possibly downsizing the shed and moving it back would get that 8 feet. Quiggle agreed that downsizing would help with the distance. J. Schacherer Questioned how much downsizing would the Board like to see. Quiggle the ordinance limit is 1,400 sq. ft. Aarestad since the Township approved a larger building he might be willing to work with the applicant. Quiggle Reminded the Board that the Township didn t specify any hardship that would validate a shed over the 1,400 sq. ft. I. Rhinberger noted that the neighbor with the 40 x 50 shed has 2 lots, was granted a variance in 2003, the permit was pulled in 2006, but the shed was never built. Therefore, the variance itself has expired. J. Kryzer stated that was a different Board with different policies and a different time. Quiggle Each case is unique and looked at individually. Kryzer stated that there is 14 years of separation from that variance request and the one currently being presented. K. Vick would prefer a larger shed then see someone store items outside. He asked Rhinberger what area dimensions would bring the size down to 1,400 sq. ft. Rhinberger figured of 35 x 40 would be 1,400 sq. ft. Quiggle asked what hardship or practical difficulty is present that would warrant granting the size variance. Vick stated that the Township already approved the size so he was trying to compromise with the Ordinance and the applicants request. Quiggle stated that the Township gives guidance to the Board but they don t make the rules. The Board has to go by the statute and find a practical difficulty as a reason to grant a variance to the size of structure. In this situation, the applicant has not shown there is practical difficulty related to the shed size.

17 Page 17 L. J. Schacherer asked for clarification as to what the ordinance says regarding the size limit and if he is correct in thinking 1,400 sq. ft. for a single structure and 1,600 sq. ft. for multiple buildings. Rhinberger confirmed that those are the accessory structure rules for the R1 district and that other zoning districts have different limits. J. Schacherer questioned if it would be more aesthetically appealing to have one large building vs. two buildings. Quiggle agreed with that rational and commented that the ordinance does not read that way and the Board is bound to follow the current statute. B. Schacherer asked if two buildings could be attached. Rhinberger it is possible, the buildings would require a fire coded separation wall and there are building code rules that would apply. A conversation with the building inspector would be needed to clarify how to connect the buildings with a fire wall. Kryzer mentioned that most people will separate two buildings by 10 feet. M. Jones commented that he would like to see the setback moved to the Township recommendation as well as see the building size come down to the 1,400 sq. ft. limit. N. Rhinberger stated that by using the traveled portion of the road and moving the shed back 3 ft. the setback variance would go away and the only variance for the Board to review would be the building size. Rhinberger noted that because of standard construction sizes the Planning and Zoning Office can administratively approve a 1,440 sq. ft. building. O. J. Schacherer asked if the shed is built at 1,440 sq. ft. can the 10 x 10 shed stay. Quiggle indicated that yes because he would be under the 1,600 sq. ft. for multiple structures. P. B. Schacherer asked if a variance be required when using the as traveled portion of the road. Rhinberger Yes, need a cul-de-sac setback variance, even if they move it back 3 feet, because the building will only be 11 feet back and 25 feet is required. Q. Aarestad moved to grant a variance of Section (B)(1), , (F)(2) as regulated Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to replace an existing garage and allow a 36 (width) x 40 accessory building 11' from the edge of the cul-de-sac and 65 ft. from the center of the traveled road, as requested by the Town Board. Jones seconded the motion. Discussion: Rhinberger made note that the 65 ft. from the center line of the traveled road was requested by Clearwater Township. The existing 10 x 10 storage building can stay as long as the total building size is under the 1,600 sq. ft. as specified in the R1 rules. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

18 Page CARLOS LOPEZ New Item LOCATION: Forsythe Avenue NW Lot 1, Block 1, Woodlawn Shores, according to plat of record, Section 18, Township 122, Range 26, Wright County, Minnesota. (Fish Lake - Clearwater Twp.) Tax # Requests a variance as regulated in Section , (F)(2) & (3), Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to construct a 9.33 x 16 two-story addition over walkout basement to be on the lakeside of existing structure, 9 from the North property line. Also, convert existing 16 x 17 lakeside deck into a master bedroom and a new 12 x lakeside deck. Existing structure is less than 1 ft. from the road right-of-way, 8.7 ft. and 13 ft. from the side property lines and 167' from the Ordinary High-water Mark of an RD lake (100 setback required). Present: Carlos Lopez & Claire Lopez and their son David Lopez A. Rhinberger reviewed the lot as 17, 761 sq. ft. located on Fish Lake, which is a Recreational Development (RD) lake. The home does not meet the side yard or road setback requirements but does meet the lake setback. In 2001 a new home was approved on this location, because it was being attached to an existing garage. The applicant is seeking to add three additions to the existing dwelling, which is less than 1 ft. from the road right-of-way, 8.7 ft. and 13 ft. from the side property lines. Pictures of the existing structures were displayed to show where additions are proposed, noting a portion of the deck (3 ) would remain and a new deck would come around the bay side. The first addition is a 9.33 x 16 two-story addition over a walkout basement on the north side of the structure, 9 ft. from the property line. The second addition involves converting a 16 x 17 area of an existing main level lakeside deck into a master bedroom. The last addition is for a new 12 x deck lakeside. The Board needs to be aware that when the septic was installed the site plan drawings where hand drawn and not to scale. When visiting the site it became known that the actual deck footing posts are roughly 1 ft. from the septic tanks. The manholes are also within a couple of feet of those posts. With the construction process this might be a concern when work is being done so close to the tanks. The footing setback to a tank is required to be 10 feet and this tank won t meet that requirement, unless moved. There could be a potential need for a variance related to the structure and septic. Clearwater Township did approve the request, as long as they don t move any closer to the property lines. The proposed request won t bring the structure any closer to the property lines. B. C. Lopez Purchased the property in 2001 and built the house with deck. The reason for the request is to better meet their needs as there is potential for mobility issues and wheelchair use. Their son, David, was the general contractor that built the house and will address the construction side of the proposal. C. D. Lopez The deck was built with materials and in a way that in the future a structure like this could be added without having to redo the supports. The original plans were engineered and designed to over build, so that the posts could handle additional weight. None of the supports will need to be moved or added.

19 Page 19 D. Quiggle asked for clarification that what D. Lopez is saying is the functionality of the existing structure for the new structure will not affect the location of the septic. D. Lopez confirmed that all of the posts were engineered and approved, at the time the deck was built, to withstand the weight of the proposed addition. The existing posts will stay as is and the septic tanks will not be disturbed. Quiggle this Board is considering the land use plans, not building code; if the building inspector does not approve the plans and infringement of new posts on the septic would occur, the applicant would need to come back to the Board for a setback variance. Rhinberger indicated that yes that would be the case. Quiggle reminded the Board and applicant that at this meeting they are only dealing with the side yard setback. E. Jones stated that by not addressing the construction aspect of the build he does not see a problem with the setback variance request. F. Vick agrees with Jones and is okay with the side yard variance. G. Aarestad stated he would be okay with the variance. H. Quiggle the plans don t cause the lot to be any more nonconforming and the home is well set back from the lake. The Township has no problem with the distance from the road and that is where the building has been from day one so she is agreeable to the request. I. Aarestad made a motion to approve the variance as regulated in Section , (F)(2) & (3), Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to construct a 9.33 x 16 two-story addition over walkout basement to be on the lakeside of existing structure, 9 from the North property line. Also, convert the existing 16 x 17 lakeside deck into a master bedroom and a new 12 x lakeside deck as per plans marked Exhibit A. Existing structure is less than 1 ft. from the road right-ofway, 8.7 ft. and 13 ft. from the side property lines and 167' from the Ordinary High-water Mark of a Recreational Development lake. Jones seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

20 Page JIM & MAUREEN SEXTON New Item LOCATION: 3295 Edmonson Avenue NE NE ¼ of SE ¼, except the North 66 feet and Gov t Lot 3 and the West 200 feet of Gov t Lot 4, Section 14, Township 120, Range 25, Wright County, Minnesota. (Washington Lake Buffalo Twp.) Tax # Owner: Sexton Revocable Living Trust Requests a variance of Section & (G)(4)(C)3 as regulated Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to allow a new 24.4 acre "entitlement" division (existing house to be removed) leaving restricted 35 acres. Present: Jim & Maureen Sexton; Paul Otto, Surveyor A. Rhinberger displayed the proposed division and explained the history of the property. The property is roughly 60 acres in Buffalo Township and located on Washington Lake. The proposal is to split off 24.4 acers. The actual split will probably be slightly less than the proposed 24.4 acres because the lot line may need to be moved a little so that the setback requirements can be met. If approved the division would leave 35 acres to the south restricted with the existing house to be removed and the new northern lot would receive the entitlement. The Highway Department did indicate that they would need to issue a new access permit for that north parcel and they are okay with a new residential lot to the north. The Township did approve the applicants request. A letter against the request was received from the neighbor James Schultz. B. P. Otto explained why the applicant is before the Board with a division request larger than the 10 acre standard. When the lot was reviewed it was determined that the best building site lays at about 12 acres from the property line to the north. The proposal would not leave a strip of land to the north, but the division works best at a minimum of 12 acres. The applicant is asking for 24 acres; but if there is a buyer that wants just the 12 acres then the size could be adjusted to meet the buyers request. The applicant is asking the Board to approve up to the 24 acres, which will allow more flexibility for buyers. The plan is to get the lake shore area rezoned with the Planning Commission to get one entitlement on 35 acres. The applicant has intentions of eventually tearing down all the buildings and build a house down by the lake. The land is not currently being used in agricultural production. C. Quiggle asked Rhineberger to clarify if the parcel is in the land use plan as Agriculture (AG). Rhineberger confirmed that the parcel is listed as AG and is in not in the land use plan as Rural- Residential. The applicant will address the rezoning by using the portion of the land use plan regarding a determination that the shore land is especially suited for residential development. D. J. Sexton explained he was a home builder for 35 years. He determined there is a perfect site for a home that sits within the 12 acre area and he would hate seeing the site bisected to fit into that 10 acre limit. He would like to see the flexibility to allow more than 10 with the 12 acres minimum and as much as 24 acres. The entire lot is just more property than they need. E. James Schultz introduced himself as a neighbor that does not want the division. He proceeded to give a brief history of the property. Twenty years ago the lot in question was