WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. Meeting of: October 3, 2014

Transcription

1 WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT M I N U T E S - (Informational) The Wright County met October 3, 2014 in the County Commissioner s Board Room at the Wright County Government Center, Buffalo, Minnesota. Chairman, Bob Schermann, called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. with all Board members present. Barry Rhineberger, Planner, represented the Planning & Zoning Office. 1. DEANNA ALAMA Cont. from 9/5/14 LOCATION: st St. NW - Part of Govt Lot 2, in Section 27, Township 121, Range 28, Wright County, Minnesota. (Southside Twp.) Tax # Petitions for a variance as regulated in Section 502 & 604.5(2) of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance for an a fter-the-fact variance to allow replacement and expansion of a deck 4' closer to the road and is 28 from centerline of a 30 wide road right of way. Present: Deanna Alama A. Schermann reminded the Board and applicant that the public hearing was closed at the last meeting and no discussion can take place other than on the Findings. The continuation was for action on Findings prepared by the County Attorney s office. B. Alama stated her understanding was that the pending action could be appealed at this meeting and she had additional information. Schermann & Rhineberger indicated no testimony could be accepted once the public hearing is closed. Rhineberger explained that an appeal is through District Court. C. Schermann moved to adopt the Order and Findings for Denial as prepared by the County Attorney. Aarestad seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY D. Rhineberger stated for the record that a copy of the signed Order & Findings was handed to the applicant who was present. Alama asked for copies of the minutes and Rhineberger indicated after action is taken on the minutes at the end of the agenda, Staff would forward her a copy.

2 Page 2 2. ANDREW G. BRIGHT New Item LOCATION: xxx County Road 13 Part of S ½ of SW ¼ of Section 16, Township 118, Range 25, Wright County, Minnesota. (Franklin Twp. ) Tax # OWNER: Hennek Real Estate Holding, LLC & Scherer Requests a variance of Section 604.6(4) of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance to allow a 21- acre residential entitlement division with a 33 wide access strip to the Public Road. Division would leave a 45-acre restricted parcel on a 33 wide access strip to road. Present: Andy Bright, Tom Lyrek & Julie Lyrek A. Rhineberger presented a site plan and survey to show the 65.8 acre property and proposed division. The history of the property and access was reviewed which is now a 66 wide access strip to a short town road that extends east out to County Road 13. A portion is a town road easement and a small deeded parcel that was acquired by the Township extends the town road to this property. The property has an approved Administrative division just short of 7 acres which has not been divided off. The applicant now wants to increase the size of the residential lot over the ten acres allowed for a total of 21 acres. This include s a large portion of non-tillable land in to the future home s ite. Town Board approval was received. B. Bright explained the buyer of the tillable land is not interested in the non-tillable land. There is about 14 acres on the west end of the property. He explained this includes a hillside and is wet below, although some years they can get a hay crop down there. His plan is to build on the north side with no change to the use of the additional acreage. C. J. Lyrek questioned whether any change is proposed to the road going into the property. Rhineberger stated that would be up to the Town Board. He explained to the Board there was a different use for this property t hat would have changed the requirements f o r the access to the County Road. This is a new applicant who plans to use this for a residential site. D. Schermann questioned the width of the road access. It appears it goes from 33 wide to 66 width. Rhineberger followed the road in and noted on the west portion there is a bit of a slope down to a creek on another property. Survey was displayed to show the width is 66 but is s et off the section line a bit. Most is town road easement with a small piece owned by the Township. E. Aarestad stated his concern about the request is that the size is triple what is allowed. He asked if there is any other reason other than it cannot be farmed. He questioned the future use. Bright indicated he and his family would like to keep it for a wildlife area. He felt the reason for adding 14 acres is to follow a natural line between the area tilled and no n-tilled. This land is not useful to anyone else.

3 Page 3 F. Quiggle asked what they were trying to achieve with the Ordinance limiting divisions to ten acres. Rhineberger indicated he was not here when the Ordinance was written. Q uiggle indicated she was asking because the request appears to be primarily for economic reasons; and, they cannot grant a variance for that reason alone. Rhineberger explained not just the ten-acre lot; but in general, the Ordinance was developed to preserve the tillable agricultural land a long with other types of land. There is a clear break betwee n the tillable and nontillable; however there are other Ordinance restrictions tied to parcels ten-acres and less, such as the limits on animals and building sizes. The Ordinance tries to keep the farm parcels as large as possible, still allowing for a smaller residential division. Quiggle noted if this parcel becomes 22 acres, they don t know how a future owner may want to use the property of which only about 7 acres is useable. Rhineberger noted the Ordinance also attempts to keep the farm parcels as large as possible. A recent item in Albion Township was noted, an owner may want to put many animals on property not suite d for it. She did not see a practical difficulty here other than economic, the other considerations with animal units is a concern. She was not convinced but would defer until hearing comments from the rest of the Board. G. Mol asked about the driveway coming in and a small sliver of land between. Questioned the driveway location. Rhineberger noted the small parcel between is owned by the Township. He pointed out the full 66 wide strip, with a 33 wide strip to the building site with the balance of the 33 width to serve the ag parcel. In this case, the farmer would likely be given an easement to use the existing driveway. Mol could understand the larger split and the reason he wants to keep it. He noted if the owner wants horses, that area could become pasture. Rhineberger felt if the Board is concerned about animals they could place a limit that he cannot exceed one-half animal unit per acre. Bright indicated he has no intentions of having an animal feedlot and would not object to the Board placing a number of animal restrictions on it. H. Quiggle noted there is 1.4 acre of tillable ground that is coming out. It appears the rest of the map shows the land is wooded. The Ordinance is set up to save the tillable. Bright stated he is adding three acres back into tillable and noted the farmer could essentially take all the woods out and till up to the hillside. The previous owner had three horses back in there. There are ducks down in the low ground and he walks down there with his kids. I. Schmidt felt as far as allowing a large tract, it is not impacting the tillable and may be a good way to preserve this area. He hopes they have the town road squared away to avoid future problem s. Rhineberger stated there has been much discussion about the road, the right of way and roads under it. The Town Board purchased a small parcel so these parcels could meet the minimum amount required for frontage. J. Schermann he has concerns about the access, but if the Township has agreed, he would support preserving the wildlife area and prevent it f rom being tiled out for farmland. He felt they need to preserve some of these areas for wildlife. K. Lyrek asked where the small parcel for the road was. After the location was pointed out, she indicated that was not a concern.

4 Page 4 L. Quiggle moved to grant a variance to allow a 21-acre residential entitlement division with a 33 wide access strip to the public road. Division would leave a 45-acre restricted parcel on a 33 wide access strip to road. Conditions: Any animals brought onto the residential site will be limited to one-half animal unit per acre; also a Deed Restriction is signed and filed. Mol seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

5 Page 5 3. RICHARD TIEVA New Item LOCATION : xxx Platt Avenue NW Outlot B, Bulls Island Second Addition, accord ing to plat of record. Tax # Property owner: Waldhauer Trust 6603 Platt Avenue NW S 75 feet of Lot 5, as measured at right angles to south line thereof, Alvah Bull Addition Number 1, according to plat of record. Tax # Property Owner: Tieva 6625 Platt Avenue NW Lot 4 & 5, also part of vacated road, except.., Alvah Bull Addition No 1, according to plat of record. Tax # Property owner: Hagberg Trust Requests a l ot line adjustment as regulated in Section of the Wright County Zoning Ordinance to divide the 2.9 acre Waldhauer backlot into three pieces. Parcel A is.43 acres to be owned by Tieva (across Platt Ave) as a backlot. Parcel B is.77 acres to be owned by Hagberg (across Platt Ave) as a backlot. Parcel C is 1.7 acres to be retained by Waldhauer. Present: Richard Tieva & Mark Hagberg A. Rhineberger reviewed the 2.9 acre Outlot of Bull s Second Addition. He explained there was a plat approval that was recorded as two separate plats, with a condition that this Outlot must be owned in common with an adjoining residential site. Waldhauer was the person that developed the plat and still owns this Outlot with several other lots in the area. The survey prepared shows the division into three parcels. Tieva and Hagberg own lots across the road in another plat and propose to purchase and attach A and B to their residential sites. Waldhauer is going to retain C, although that could be sold to another adjoining landowner. Rhineberger explained these parcels cannot be combined on one tax number because they are in different plats. Administrative Orders will be required to combine for zoning purposes. Town Board approval was received. B. Tieva stated the purpose for purchasing the additional land is for parking needs and upgrade of the sewer system. Possibly, construction of a garage. His main concern is for an area for his sewer if it needs upgrading. C. Schmidt stated backlots are a good idea and many times needed for sewer with small lakeshore lots. He would want to make sure that they do not use an area for a garage that might be needed for the septic. D. Aarestad asked if they join these if the owners could separate them in the future. Rhineberger commented on a few instances in recent years when mortgages filed on just the lakeside lot were foreclosed on and ended up under separate ownership. Sometimes for various reasons, the Auditor-Treasurer s office cannot combine parcels into one tax parcel. If a sale happens that does not include the backlot, the County would have to pursue legal action. E. Quiggle described a situation in her Township when a back lot was not sold with the residential lot and is no w sitting with two large accessory structures. She would want the

6 Page 6 applicants to be clear on the condition that if this is approved the back lots cannot be sold separate f r om their lakeshore properties. Tieva and Hagberg indicated they understand. Rhineberger stated a separate document would have to be signed agreeing to the restriction. F. Mol asked if an accessory structure could allow for guest quarters. How can they make sure the use of the accessory buildings stay within what is allowed by Ordinance. Rhineberger noted the Board can and has limited the size structure to 800 sq. ft. A guest house is not allowed on a back lot because it is the primary use. G. Schermann agreed with the idea of preserving the lake with an available septic site back off the lake. Rhineberger indicated they could make sure the septic site is designed before an accessory structure is built so that area can be protected. H. Schmidt moved to grant a lot line adjustment t o app rove the backlots as presented as Parcel A and B on Certificate of Survey prepared by Otto Associates # for possible sewer sites for the Tieva and Haberg residential lots lakeside. The sewer systems must be designed on the back lot and area protected for that use. Aarestad seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: Quiggle asked if a condition should be attached requiring an Administrative Orders tying the back lots to the lakeside. Another suggested condition was limiting storage buildings to no larger than 800 sq. ft. Schmidt amended his motion, Aarestad his second, to include the conditions that Tieva and Hagberg sign Administrative Orders to tie the parcels under common ownership with their respective lakeshore property and that any storage shed not exceed 800 sq. ft. in size. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY MINUTES On a motion be Quiggle, seconded by Schmidt all voted to approve the minutes for the September 5, 2014 meeting as printed. Meeting adjourned at 9:10 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Barry J. Rhineberger Planner cc: Twp. Clerk Applicant/owner Kryzer

7 Page 7