WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. Meeting of: October 5, 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 5, 2018 in the County Commissioner s Board Room at the Wright County Government Center, Buffalo, Minnesota. Chairman, John Jones, called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. with all Board members present. Barry Rhineberger, Planner, represented the Planning & Zoning Office; Greg Kryzer, Assistant County Attorney, was legal counsel. MINUTES On a motion by Vick, seconded by Quiggle, all voted to approve the minutes for 9/7/2018 meeting as printed. 1. COKATO LAKE RV RESORT COOPERATIVE Cont. from 9/7/18 LOCATION: 2945 County Road 4 SW Parcels lying in Section 13 & 14, described as the South 750 feet of the SW ¼, Section 13; and part of Gov t Lot 2, Section 14, all in Township 119, Range 28, Wright County, MN. Tax # / / / / (Cokato Lake Cokato Twp.) Requests variances of Section , , ; and (E)(1)(b)1.Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to allow existing structures within campground that are less than 30 ft. from the side and 50 ft. from the rear property lines; and lake setback variances for 7 units and associated structures that are less than 100 ft. from the ordinary high-water mark of the lake with the closest being 50.7 ft. Also requests variances for future setbacks of new units and accessory buildings 3 ft. from the property lines and 50 ft. from the ordinary high-water mark of lake. Present: Shane Suchy, Vice President, Tom Kopacek, Board member, Rachel Hahn, Assoc. Member; Rod Halls; James Miller A. Rhineberger summarized the purpose of the last continuation was to allow the Board time to review Cooperative s Response to the preliminary write-up for potential conditions. B. Suchy looking for variances to allow a 3 setback for the entire perimeter and 50 from the lake. He felt they benefited from a site inspection so the Board could see the lots are small, they could see some of the RV s could only be positioned one way to avoid removal of trees. The Staff had asked for 15 from the property lines and 75 from the lake. Because of the trees and lay of land, on some lots this cannot happen and would eliminate some lots within five years. They have had no complaints from the surrounding property owners. The people at the campgrounds patronize local businesses; asked who would benefit from the 75 and 15 setbacks. Asking for 3 property lines and 50 from lake. C. Jones opened the hearing for public comment, no response. D. Vick is not concerned with the interior properties. On the lakeside, those units should

2 Page 2 meet current code. If replaced with a new unit, it should not be any bigger or closer. He felt they should meet a 5 side setback because if the farmer is spraying chemicals, it would not create a problem. He thought the one building just moved in was crowding the neighbor s too close and would like to see a setback on that one. He appreciated seeing the site. Suggests a minimum setback of 5 off the lines. Suchy noted the drainage project on the farmer s field ended up with a big berm about 50 back and they cannot farm up to the property anyway. Suchy people will have to move some things. Vick felt if they are more than 3 he would not object leaving those; but everything else at least 5. E. Aarestad felt the draft motion is too extreme, understanding Rhineberger did not have anything to go on. He felt the owner is been trying to work toward a solution. He would like an alternative and work with the applicant. A June deadline should be set and they work with the individuals and flag those sites that are having a problem. But, should try to meet setbacks as best as possible. Board would want a plan to review before next June s meeting that they can discuss and vote on in July. Most of these sites cannot meet setbacks without creating a hardship. He felt the applicant should do the work, Board could go out and see the site with any proposed revisions. The lake setback could be discussed, but there are properties with structures closer to the lake. He thinks there is room to make a compromise, understanding there is no way to improve the situation on some lots. If there is no effort to improve things, they can set a one-size fits all Order. F. Quiggle asked if this was established in 2005? Hahn yes. Quiggle - this is a selfimposed hardship. These units were platted without taking the County Ordinance into consideration at all. The lots on the lake could have been wider, RV s could have been horizontal to the lake rather than perpendicular to the lake. In 2005 they should have addressed the County Ordinances. The architectural committee is not making sure the setbacks, permits or Ordinances are abided by. This was a stand-alone entity and now looking for consideration for setback variances for a 5 opposed to a 50 rear yard, 15 rather than 30. The Staff have proposed generous variances. There was approval for 250 units and they have 225 at this time. If there are some properties that cannot be used because of setbacks, they have ability to create more. She feels what the Board is offering is generous. They have operated like the Ordinance did not apply to them. She would agree there should be an annual inspection. G. Mol his opinion falls somewhere between Aarestad and Quiggle s positions. The County has not pursued enforcement; this is an existing campground and it has been working. He has talked with the Town Board Supervisors and he has not heard any opposition to the Campground. The farmer has established his own barrier on the boundary. They have a existing situation and agrees they could look at improving what is near the lake. Suggested they find a middle ground, some of these may create more variances. Agrees a 5 setback is a minimum. If some don t fit, creating more lots may require a new campground layout. H. Rhineberger explained he used the surveys, measured out the suggested setbacks and found they can be met except for two sites. Staff reviewed this before making this available. If this was a lakeshore lot how would they look at this. In reference to other Staff Reports, he has never recommended half of a lake setback or a one-sixth setback on a side yard. They

3 Page 3 looked at how this property functions. He displayed the survey showing where the suggested setbacks fall on the lots in relation to the required setbacks. They made sure all things would fit the 15 setback. Based on paper, two on the most southern portion are the only lots that are not physically feasible to fit on the lots. Those that find they have a hardship, can apply for individual variances and at that time they could look at individual topographical features. I. Suchy understands how Rhineberger arrived at this, but it does not take into consideration where the trees are or topography. This was the reason for the site visit, because it is different on site. Lots are small. Not sure why this did not happen in 2005; he explained how their Board has not had consistency because of turn over and terms are staggered. They approached the County a year ago to try and fix what has happened out here since the first Board members were seated. He has only been on the Board for a year and agreed it should have been taken care of when the first Board was seated. Quiggle responded that she feels they created their own hardship, 2005 was not ancient history and it is criteria in State Statute the Board must look at. She feels the Staff s suggestion is generous, but it is not what they want. Suchy stated they are trying to make things right. There are things that should be considered such as parking of cars. The campground is different than a private individual parcel on a lake. He would like to reach a common ground on this. He presented pictures to show how tight some of the sites are. J. Jones asked if there is any comment from the public, hearing no response, felt the issue is difficult for the applicant and this Board because it was not set up properly back years ago when it was first started. Appreciate the applicant s willingness to work with them and agreed with Aarestad s suggestion to move forward and look at specific things. Suggested when a lot is sold or RV removed they should look at how setbacks can be improved. The Board is willing to work with them, but want to establish something for future owners who may want to put these in other parts of the County. He noted the Board and Ordinances change also. K. Aarestad moved that the Board will give the applicant until June 1, 2019 to work with the Park owners and determine where 15 is and if they cannot meet that. Individual lot requests can be made; but require they stake it out with explanation on why 15 cannot be met, visit the site. Mol seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: Quiggle asked if Staff or the BOA would go out. Aarestad felt the Board would. Rhineberger based on the motion, the Board is not approving anything now. Aarestad that is right, he thinks 15 is reasonable, however, there might be sites that have legitimate reasons why they cannot meet this. Quiggle suggested they approve the 15 and anyone who cannot meet that can come back for a request for less and prove the reasons. Kryzer the applicant only provided a limited survey, no tree placement or topography. It is the applicant s responsibility to bring in the evidence. There is very limited information with just a boundary survey and nothing interior. They need to show the issues on the survey. Vick would like to see this get done. If it is closer than 3, move it back. He felt 5 for accessory buildings is more than sufficient and the RV s cannot get any bigger on the lake or closer, and must be moved back

4 Page 4 when replaced or come back to the Board. Hahn came to Staff for guidance, were having issues with the architectural control committee, and Staff stated they were not concerned what they were doing within the boundaries, but asked for a boundary survey. The reason they got the survey was to determine where the encroachments were. Told to request what they wanted, so asked for 3, although felt they could meet 5. Want to make sure the lakeshore is legal. She is a realtor and is selling these and wants to make sure what she is telling people is legal. They each own their lots. In 1983 they were approved for 250 sites, they do not want to increase the number of sites. Pictures show the topography. Parking is a big issue for the lakeshore owners. The farmers they have talked to have no problems with it. Vick the neighbors he has talked to are supportive; but is hard for the Board when others have to maintain a 100 from the lake. Suggested they take action and feels 5 is adequate. Quiggle asked if a 15 setback for the RVs is agreeable? Vick felt 15 is acceptable except for a couple units. If they are now less than 3, move them; but if setback more they could wait until they replace them. Rhineberger there is no way to monitor that because permits are not required. Quiggle the Committee is not policing these and making sure the Ordinance is me. She feels the annual inspection should be required. Hahn explained they have an architectural committee that does monitor what comes in and must meet certain standards. They want one voice and not individual owners coming before the Board. Rhineberger Staff took a harder look at building code and had not interpreted Minnesota Rooms as needing a permit, they have discovered it does. He is not suggesting they go after what is there now. Since 2016 there has been conversations with the Committee on what needs a permit and are operating under Staff s guidance; but there have been changes on what needs permits. Going forward the Minnesota Rooms will need a permit. Hahn stated it will be the Association that will be applying for permits and not individuals. Rhineberger there are quite a few that should meet the suggested setbacks, there are a few that won t. He would suggest approval, but by June 1, if there are issues with some of the lots, they can readdress those. The Board can ask those sites be staked for the Board to view the problem next year. The applicant will have to prove they have a legitimate, physical reason why they cannot. Pointed to the narrow lots that have plenty of room for parking and cautioned them the Board only wants to see the ones that have a valid reason. Quiggle concurred it would have to be related to the physical topography. Aarestad and Mol rescinded the motion and second. FURTHER DISCUSSION: Aarestad asked the applicant if this is something they can work with the individuals on. Hahn stated there is a park model that is only 3.9 from the back field. The farmer has said this location does not interfere with their farming. There is little room to move this unit because there are only a few feet from the deck and a tree. Rhineberger displayed the picture of that unit. Hahn that person has been waiting on some projects for the outcome of this hearing. Quiggle agreed it is one they could look at. Aarestad continuation was to June, but could look at this in December. Mol the applicant is trying to correct a lot of wrongs, there is going to pain for people. Whether it is 1 or 3, they will need to get movers in there. In reference to this particular unit, may need a variance, but they will have to look at it. Action on this today will not hold others up in getting movement towards cleaning up the problems. Suchy asked if there is a way they can make it work and allow the existing units to remain as they are. Quiggle indicated it is not okay for her. Suchy to move units will require sewer,

5 Page 5 water and electric lines to be moved at much cost. Can they keep things the way they are on the premise that once they are sold or something new comes in, they must be moved to the setback established Quiggle explained that is not manageable because there is no way to police when a unit is sold. Vick noted they have an architectural committee that would. Suchy noted one unit on the hill was moved, a shed moved over since the Board was out, they are policing it and also have their own rules. In the southeast corner that unit has been sold and the new buyer asked about the difference between the Campground rules and the County. Noted they have more restrictive rules on storage sheds, with a limit of 120 sq. ft. and the code has changed to allow 200 sq. ft. without a building permit. Hahn stated they don t want decks that require permits, the limit on height of decks is 30 above grade. Suchy they tell people no concrete. Vick added, and no more than three risers. Vick would like to see some review of individual sites. Rhineberger suggested those who have problems meeting it should come in as a group. Mol the Committee is trying to make it right, but they want to adopt something that will go forward and give future representatives direction for a time when these members are no longer on the Board. Rhineberger the next group of Board members may have different ideas. Hahn this is controlled by their By-laws that are not easily changed. Rhineberger this is not an official plat recognized by the County. L. Quiggle moved to adopt the Staff s summary pages 1, 2 for the variances required from the rear and side yard lines for both accessory and RV placements. These must come into compliance by June 1, If accessory structures cannot meet the 5 for rear, or a 15 for rear and side yards for the RV s specific requests can be made, with the specifics on why it cannot be met and sites staked. If the Board finds it meets the hardship criteria they will address those at one time. The 75 lake setback is to be met. Aarestad seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: Rhineberger asked the Board for direction on how he should handle an application. Board indicated a renotification fee is adequate. They wanted any further consideration to brought back at one time and the Board would make a site inspection after the locations are staked. VOTE: CARRIED, Vick, voted nay

6 Page 6 2. ANNITA M. SMYTHE New Item LOCAITON: 4164 County Road 4 SW Part of the SW ¼ of the SE ¼ lying easterly and southeaster of centerline of CSAH 4, Section 23; also N ½ of the NE ¼, Section 26; W 32 rods of the NW ¼ of NW ¼, Section 25; all in Township 119, Range 28, Wright County, Minnesota. (Cokato Twp.) Property owner: City of Cokato Tax # , & Requests an appeal of 1992 Board order that states "no further building entitlements will be allowed on the parcel described in Section 26 and request is for the Board to lift the restriction as regulated in Section (B) & (G)(3) Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances. Present: Annita Smythe A. Rhineberger reviewed the property and noted it was before the Board in 1992 to allow an entitlement transfer to a smaller parcel to the north. He reviewed property the City owned at the time which included 111 acres. The Board allowed the transfer, but restricted the balance of the land to no further entitlements and divisions. Since the Ordinance has changed this would be in line. Town Board approves. B. Aarestad had no problem with bringing the property into line with current standards. Quiggle there are references to two different acreages. Rhineberger, the 80 acres was the one parcel but the entire ownership was 111 acres. Mol agreed with the appeal. C. Aarestad moved to grant the appeal and lift the restriction as regulated in Section (B) & (G)(3) Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances and allow another entitlement, in addition to existing house. Quiggle seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: Rhineberger confirmed this will allow an entitlement in addition to the existing house. Smythe explained the purpose is they have a sewage treatment facility and were approached for another utility locate. It makes sense to keep utilities on the same parcel. Rhineberger explained they will be applying for another conditional use permit. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

7 Page 7 3. BRYAN A. ERICKSON Cont. from 9//7/18 LOCATION: 5622 Quinlar Avenue NW Part of Gov t Lot 2, Section 5, Township 120, Range 28, Wright County. (W. Lake Sylvia French Lake Twp.) Tax # Requests a variance of Section , , ((F)(3), (E)(1)(b), (B)(12)(a), Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage, Wright County Code of Ordinances to allow a 12 x 24 one-level addition to the existing 16 x 24 one-level cabin that is 30.4 ft. from Ordinary Highwater Mark of lake (19 ft. to deck) and 12.3 (north) and 13.2 (south) from side property lines. Proposed construction is 94.8% of the existing value for a property served by a holding tank. Existing impervious coverage is at 38%, with proposed impervious decreasing to 32.7%. Present: Bryan Erickson A. Rhineberger reviewed the request that has been continued a few times. The 11,000-sq. ft. lot on W. Sylvia was reviewed. The Board had made a site inspection and the applicant has not appeared since, although he has been working on revisions to the plans. He is looking for more direction from the Board before he completes the plans. The bluff conditions, setback of existing structure at 30 and deck at 19 from the lake were noted. The proposal was to build a 16 x 24 one-level addition on a holding tank. This is in a bluff. The discussion at the first meeting was the size of the addition, the bluff and runoff. Board should address the setback and if the Board willing to consider this large of an addition at this setback. Or are they looking at picking it up and moving it back, if a full sewer can be installed. The question is whether the Board is willing to accept the proposed addition or replacement structure at the same setback. B. Jones his concern was the lack of adequate foundation. The concern is runoff to the lake and where they can put a sewer system. Erickson stated he is working with Miller with a pump system with a time-release to pump it up the hill. The sewer designer is confident that it can be done. SWCD has ideas on how to address water runoff from neighboring lots. Their builder has an estimate for a total replacement. He wants to build the addition where it exists. They invested in a deck this summer and there is a holding tank, that location was noted. There is only a small area between the holding tank and where the pump station would go. C. Quiggle hearing that Miller could get a full system in is good news; she would like to see the structure moved back with expansion if it is a complete rebuild. She noted the applicant was warned that if he built the deck here, it was a risk he took. The house is in the shore impact zone, the deck further encroaches into the impact zone. The idea of replacing it in the same location is not acceptable. With expansion it would no longer fall under the replacement Statute. D. Rhineberger pointed out a rock retaining wall behind the cabin on the photo. Using the survey that shows this, he measured from the Ordinary High-water mark to the wall and there is 84. The existing structure that is 29 wide to that wall is approximately 50. A

8 Page 8 new structure including the expansion at 42 from the lake, there would be 12 to the retaining wall. Quiggle noted that is an improvement. Erickson noted the location of the pump station would have to be moved and questioned if there is enough incline to the proposed house location. Rhineberger as they move back the terrain rises and both would move up; also offers the option of a crawl space for storage, access to plumbing and need for other storage buildings is reduced. Vick noted raising it up some would help with drainage. Erickson stated they are working with the architect and planning for storage space and access to plumbing under the existing structure. This will allow reduction of hard cover by removing storage structures. The cabin to the south would block their lake view for the suggested location. The whole beauty of this location is the lake view. The purpose of the addition was to get a bedroom and bathroom because they cannot get a standard loan because the cabin does not have those. The cost is getting extreme and picking it up and moving back would take away what they love about the small cabin. E. Mol if they rebuild, will have to move it back because they do that across the board. The applicant can fix and repair what they have. An addition requires they try and make things more conforming, he agrees getting this off a holding tank is a positive. On the other hand, if they are only using the property on weekends, what they have might meet their needs. Now that expansion is requested, they need to get if off the lake. The Board must treat this the same as others on lakes around the County and State. He does not feel he can allow adding this much where it is. F. Erickson would a smaller addition be acceptable. Vick questioned something on the back side. Rhineberger he is hearing the consensus is the size is not going to be allowed. Question is if he were to add on, how big would they allow. Vick looking at the structure, he felt the foundation is not adequate and suggests the owner consider moving back to where the front of the existing cabin is now. He would have a better product. G. Aarestad cannot go with the plans submitted, there are impervious and sewer issues. He felt addition is too large, would not object to a small bathroom on the holding tank. There are many issues here. The applicant has many more options if they start with a new structure and move it back. H. Quiggle the Board has a consensus the applicant can consider. Aarestad would go along with a bathroom. Erickson stated he would need a bedroom walled off. Understands the Board wants the structure moved back or would only allow a small bathroom. Discussion on the roof and foundation and whether existing is adequate. Mol the applicant should consider how he wants to proceed. Rhineberger this has been delayed for some time, been on four agendas and it is up to the applicant. Suggested the Board give a size of the bathroom addition and he can decide if he wants to accept that. Otherwise, the applicant could withdraw and work on firm replacement plans and definite plans for the sewer. Rhineberger new notices would be needed, possibly a new Town Board review. Mol suggested action on the bathroom and if he wants to replace the structure come back. Bathroom dimensions were suggested. Quiggle if they allow a 12 x 12 it would increase the existing structure by 33% which is huge. Vick agreed that is a large bath. Rhineberger some of the other issues discussed may not be required with a small addition.

9 Page 9 I. Aarestad moved to grant an addition for a 12 x 10 one-level bathroom addition to existing to the existing 16 x 24 one-level cabin that is 30.4 ft. from Ordinary Highwater Mark of lake (19 ft. to deck) and 12.3 (north) and 13.2 (south) from side property lines. According to plans submitted on June 22, 2018, identified as Exhibit A, held on file, which removes impervious coverage down to 31%. Quiggle seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

10 Page JOSH D. WURM Cont. from 9/7/18 for New Request Location: 2878 Donnelly Dr. NW & 2860 Donnelly Dr. NW Part of Gov t Lot 2, Section 3, Township 120, Range 26, Wright County, Minnesota. (Maple Lake Maple Lake Township) Tax # Property Owner: Pribyl Tax # Property Owner: Wurm Requests a lot line adjustment of Section & , Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to allow land to be added from adjacent lot owned by Pribyl to the Wurm lot to the west. The adjustment will allow replacement of existing dwelling with a new dwelling meeting all setbacks. The existing Pribyl dwelling (rebuilt in 2014) to remain on a separate (existing) lot. Present: Josh Wurm, Tim Pribyl A. Rhineberger summarized the previous hearing and request was to combine two lots, keeping a cabin. The Board was not in favor, but suggested a lot line adjustment to fit a new house plan on the lot to the west. The adjustment the applicant submitted is about 7,000 sq. ft., taking about 40 at the roadside and angle the lot line to a point on the shore that does not change the lake width of the lots. Both parties would meet the impervious at 25% & 24.9%. B. Wurm took the Board s advice and went back to Otto Associates who surveyed and calculated lot coverage and setbacks and what is proposed meets those standards. C. Mol by making the lot adjustment they meet the setbacks and both parties agree, the impervious coverage is not exceeded, he supports this. D. Vick both properties are owned by them, he would agree. E. Aarestad he would like to see a condition that storm-water management plans are part of the project because this is such a large structure. This would better address water runoff. Quiggle agreed with this suggestion. F. Wurm asked if that could be handled with the building permit. Board concurred. G. Aarestad moved to grant a lot line adjustment and allow land to be added from adjacent lot owned by Pribyl to the Wurm lot to the west. The adjustment will allow replacement of existing dwelling with a new dwelling meeting all setbacks. According to Exhibit A, held on file. Conditions: A storm-water management plan be submitted at the time of the application for building permit for the Wurm dwelling and the property owners combine the land adjustment to avoid separate tax parcels. Mol seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

11 Page JAY M. NEMITZ Cont. from 9/7/18 for New Request LOCATION: 6225 Pilger Avenue NW - Part of Lot B, of Gov t Lot 5 & part of Gov t Lot 6, Section 33, Township 121, Range 28, Wright County, Minnesota. (W. Lake Sylvia Southside Twp.) Tax # Property Owners: James & Mary Schwebel NEW REQUEST INCLUDES ADDITIONAL ADJACENT TRACT: Tax # Requests a lot line adjustment between the two lots owned by Schwebel as regulated in Section , & Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances. This will allow the construction of a 9 x 10 deck with a 4.5 ft. walkway and not require a variance from a side yard setback. Present: Jay Nemitz A. Rhineberger explained a variance was requested to build a deck that needed a side yard variance. The owner owns the lot next door, it was suggested adding some land to meet the setback. Proposal is to add 11 to meet the setback. The angle of the new lot line was reviewed. The adjustment keeps the line at the lake and road side the same and does not change the status of the adjacent lot. Applicant went back to the Town Board and received their approval. B. Vick felt Quiggle s suggestion at the last meeting is agreeable. Jones polled the rest of the Board members who indicated their agreement. C. Mol moved to grant a lot line adjustment to add Schwebel as regulated in Section , & Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances. This will allow the construction of a 9 x 10 deck with a 4.5 ft. walkway and not require a variance from a side yard setback. Condition: The additional sliver of land to be joined under one tax parcel identification number to avoid separate parcels. Quiggle seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

12 Page DARREN DROEGEMUELLER New Item LOCATION: Lot 12, Kiehn s North Shore Addition, Section 26; and also part of the SE ¼ of SE ¼, in Section 23, Township 121, Range 28, Wright County, Minnesota. (Lake John -Southside Twp.) Tax # & Property owners: Applicant & Kiehn Requests a lot line adjustment as regulated in Section , & Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to allow a division of the Kiehn property to create a one-acre backlot across 80th St. to serve and be owned in common with the undersized lakeshore lot owned by Droegenueller. Present: Darren & Kim Droegemueller A. Rhineberger reviewed the location of the property and proposal for a backlot. The applicant has had soil tests to verify there is a potential site for sewer. Met with the Town Board and they approve. B. Aarestad questioned the proposed lines for the back lot and if it prevents future lots on the lake an opportunity to also buy a backlot. He feels they should avoid drawing lines that might prevent this. Rhineberger the direct access is only available for a potential of four lots, beyond that there would be another road between. He did not do a complete calculation, but it is something the Board looks like. The neighboring lot was given 100 wide. Aarestad he also looked at the next four lots, but asked if it would be possible owners further down could tap into this back property. Rhineberger indicated it is up to the Board but those would not be directly behind. It is possible to bore under the road at an angle to get sewers there. He noted backlots also provide area for storage. Staff do try to keep the backlots as square as possible with the lakeshore lot property lines. Platting makes it easier, but in these cases, it is piecemeal. Aarestad agreed they could address it with other requests. C. Quiggle agrees, Mol concurred. D. Vick asked about future septic for the neighbor s house. Rhineberger that is not part of this proposal, that neighbor may have to go on a holding tank. Neighbors do have the option of reaching an agreement for an easement to place a new sewer on someone else s property. This is a recorded document. E. Aarestad moved grant a lot line adjustment of.65 acre, according to Exhibit A, held on file as regulated in Section , & Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to allow a division of the Kiehn property to create a backlot across 80th St. to serve and be owned in common with the undersized lakeshore lot owned by Droegemueller. Condition: Accessory structure is limited to 800 sq. ft., and at the time the building permit is requested, must submit a design to show how area will be protected for the future sewer system. Subject to survey to be submitted to Staff who will prepare an Administrative Order to be signed by the property owner and recorded. Quiggle seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

13 Page 13 Chairman called for a five-minute recess, reconvened at 10:15 a.m. 7. ROBB P. DOBESH New Item LOCATION: 8899 Hollister Avenue SW Part of Lot A of Gov t Lot 5, Section 14, Township 118, Range 27, Wright County. (Lake Ann Victor Twp.) Tax # Requests an after-the-fact variance as regulated in Section , , (F)(3) & of the Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to allow a deck that measures approximately 1500 sq. ft. that was built over the north property line, less than 15 from the south line and 70.4 from ordinary highwater mark of lake; also constructed a 216 sq. ft. screen porch less than 15 from the south side lot line, all built without permits. Also review of recent placement of a travel trailer located over the north property line and 78 from the ordinary highwater mark of lake. Present: Robb Dobesh A. Rhineberger displayed the property maps to show the 12,335 sq. ft. lot on Lake Ann. Board is considering variances for an after-the-fact deck with screen porch over that. Deck extends over the property line and because it is attached to the house requires a 15 side yard setback. Another screen porch is on the opposite site and is 4 from the south property line meeting the 100 lake setback. The lake setback from an RV set on the lot is 70.4 from the Ordinary Highwater Mark of lake and over the property line. The 2015 air photo was displayed to compare what was on the lot prior to the applicant s purchase and the air photo taken this past spring shows the construction and location of the RV. The property line goes through the back end of the RV. Town Board and three neighbors submitted approval. B. Dobesh gave background of himself and business experience explained he has worked in the surrounding area and is aware of permits in Hennepin County. Purchased the camper in 2015 and going to campgrounds did not work for them. Had constructed the deck in 8 sections at Codger s Resort across the lake, had the camper and deck out there. Explained how purchasing the property came about and moved the RV to avoid the loss in value if he were to sell it. The deck was constructed at the other property in sections making it easy to pick up and move it here. This road serving the lot and three others is marginal and is isolated. The owners back here all share the yards between them. The placement of the RV was approved by the neighbor and explained how the RV was brought in when the ground was frozen. He explained how it was built into the deck and goes up into the stairs. The deck behind and front of the camper are floating. The decks were established without railings and the area to the other side has some decking. There was an existing retaining wall, he presented pictures to show that; and felt because he stayed inside of that, it would be okay. The decking around the camper is floating with an outdoor kitchen. Behind it is wood for aesthetics. Both he and his neighbor knew it was over the line. Because this is very isolated he did not come in for a permit. C. Jones asked for public comment, hearing no response returned to the Board.

14 Page 14 D. Aarestad they need to fix the problem. The RV must go, there is no way to justify something over the line. The leg of deck in front of the RV and lower portion must be removed and improve the setbacks. He would work with him on the step deck and porch if it is meeting code. Dobesh stated the decks around the RV were going to be temporary and can be moved. Would appreciate keeping the lower deck that is sitting on the steps and is built across. E. Quiggle the RV must go and the deck should meet setbacks, or no closer than existing house, much of it would have to be removed. The screen porch could be allowed if the building inspector approves. She does not accept the excuse that because this is a remote place and neighbor approves, a permit was not applied for. F. Mo l & Vick stated they would concur with the previous Board statements. Vick asked about the deck extension on the south side. Rhineberger that is about 8 coming off the side of house and at the closest corner, 5 from the line. Using the survey pointed out the setback, original was an 8 deck off that side. A 15 side setback is required. The porch is from the line. Dobesh presented picture to show the original and what it looks like today. Quiggle questioned moving the deck. Rhineberger reviewed the setbacks on the air photo, the closest portion from the line. G. Vick asked about frost footings and whether they are adequate. He questioned how they are going to prove that this is structurally built to code. Dobesh that is a walkway between the neighbors. There is a cement shed on the neighbor s lot that crosses over. Originally two large lots that were split to create a lot between and the reason the line was put so close to the cement shed. H. Dobesh stated he is not asking for favors and apologized. Vick suggested the porch could remain at the 7-8 setback. I. Aarestad moved to allow an after the fact variance and allow the 216 sq. ft. porch less than 15 from south property line to remain; but must reduce the deck over the north property line; the remaining deck and porch must receive building permits and meet building codes. Applicant must remove the RV along with the decking by February 1, 2019 and no RV storage is allowed on the property. (Floating deck with chairs can remain in front of the porch.) Allow a variances on the southwest corner at 5, a deck on the north side 8 from the line. The south part of the stairs is 94 from the Ordinary Highwater mark of lake. Building permits are required by November 1, 2018 for structures allowed. Mol seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

15 Page PIERRE RAISANEN New Item LOCATION: 436 Coburn Avenue NW Part of Gov t Lot 6, Section 34, Township 120, Range 26, Wright County, Minnesota. (Chatham Twp.) Tax # Requests an after-the-fact variance to allow a 14 x 40 accessory structure with a 14 x 36 lean-to, built without a permit, to be 15 ft. from the rear property line as regulated in Section & (F)(4), Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances. Present: Pierre Raisanen A. Rhineberger displayed the air photo to show the buildings, the 2015 shows the slab is there but not the building. The Township s approval was received. B. Raisanen is looking to get some additional storage for bikes, scaffolding. He measured from the neighbor s fence and has 30, but that may not be the location of the line. Asking to keep the lean-to and will get the building permit. C. Jones noted the problem could have been avoided if the applicant first came in for the permit. Rhineberger agreed he would have been advised of the setback. Raisanen stated he is certain he is meeting a 15 setback. D. Quiggle the applicant is aware permits were needed because he has applied for those to remodel the home and other structures. She would like the lean to removed and make it conform. E. Mol applicant just applied for a Conditional Use Permit and heard from neighbors who were opposed, but received that use permit. The building can be compliant if removed, but asked what is behind this property. Rhineberger the adjacent property was zoned A/R, with a subdivision proposal for that 80 acres for 10 acre lots, this subdivision was not finalized. Mol asked if it is buildable directly behind. Rhineberger - the wetlands were pointed out a high spot is behind this property that has wetlands on either side that could be a potential house site. Raisanen talked with LaPlant and he is not willing to sell him additional land. Rhineberger calculated the potential for 10+ lots, and directly behind is likely because there is not enough high ground on the west end near the road. Kryzer that is a possibility, but felt the development might come in for a Planned Unit Development. Rhineberger concurred it is all conjecture, agreed they don t know where someone might build. Kryzer this area has become residential. F. Vick was also concerned what might be developed behind. G. Raisanen the shed was built on a flat area and the lean-to is used to store his scaffolding and ladders for the business and is out of sight. Quiggle asked about moving the lean to the other side. Raisanen on the end is an overhead door. Rhineberger there are other options, could build another structure or put a lean-to on the other building. Board must

16 Page 16 find justification to grant variances. Quiggle does not find a practical difficulty for allowing it. H. Aarestad agreed the lean-to should come down and the owner can look at other options. I. Rhineberger stated he did not require a survey, but the applicant has the option of hiring a surveyor to prove it meets a 30 setback. Mol felt that is up to the applicant. Rhineberger the Board action can require it meet the setback. He indicated if it should be off a 1, he would considerate it within margin of error. Kryzer in conclusion it appears the Board is not inclined to approve the variance. The applicant s options were spelled out. Raisanen has asked the neighbor to sell him some land, Kryzer that is another proceeding and with two different zoning districts is unlikely. Rhineberger explained withdrawal requires removal unless a survey proves the setback is met. Raisanen would not want to spend the money on a survey. Rhineberger informed the applicant a decision offers the applicant the opportunity to appeal to District Court. J. Raisanen hearing the explanation of his options, requested a decision on the petition. K. Mol moved to direct Staff to draft Findings consistent with denial and for a final decision on November 2, Quiggle seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

17 Page NICK J. GUERTIN New Item LOCATION: 1249 Foley Avenue NW Part of Gov t Lots 3 & 4, Section 30, Township 120, Range 26, Wright County, Minnesota. (Rock Lake - Chatham Twp.) Tax # Requests a variance of Section , & of the Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to allow replacement of the existing 24 x 27 detached garage with a new 29 x 29 detached tuck-under garage with main level 80 ft. from the Ordinary High-water Mark of a Recreational Development Lake. Present: Nick Guertin A. Rhineberger reviewed the replacement of a 24 x 27 detached garage with a 30 x 30 garage with a tuck-under garage space. The variance requested is 80 from the Natural Environment Lake. When he visited the property, he found there was an extensive amount of land alteration. He asked the representative on site to get silt fencing established with the rain in the forecast. The applicant provided pictures today to show that is in place. A land alteration permit has not been obtained. Photos taken on Wednesday to show the topography and show how the site was adjusted. Codes require that half of the sidewalls are below grade to be classified a tuck under garage. If it is not, it is classified as a twostory garage which is not allowed on lots under an acre. The original topography might have allowed for of it, but the grade has been dropped down at least a foot from the original. More detail is needed to see if it could meet a tuck-under for grading purposes. B. Quiggle asked about the alteration and removal of trees. Rhineberger the house has a permit for remodeling. He noted many trees were removed, but not all. Much dirt and trees were pushed over to the side and not protected. C. Rhineberger had contacted the Town Clerk and waiting on their input. Guertin talked with the Town Clerk, they have not seen the plans, but he is scheduled to meet with the Town Board the following Tuesday, if that is the direction of the Board. D. Jones opened the hearing to the public and applicant. E. Guertin purchased the property a year ago and there was a large amount of material, junk they have been cleaning up the property this past year. Rhineberger informed him they cannot store business equipment on site. Guertin stated his brother is an excavator and got carried away on moving dirt. His brother has some equipment stored there that he is trying to sell. This is his seasonal place, but his brother is currently living there. The garage is in bad shape and want to replace it. A neighbor is providing boulders and they will be getting more and are also concerned about erosion. Want to finish the job. F. Mol after looking at the pictures, he is startled to see what is going on next to a lake; but is interested in what the Town Board has to say before they decide. He urged the applicant to get the Township to weigh in on whether they feel this is an improvement.

18 Page 18 G. Quiggle agreed she is concerned with what they have done next to the lake. H. Vick would also like to hear what the Town Board will say. I. Aarestad asked how this impacts current setbacks. Rhineberger reviewed the expansion is 6 back 3 toward the house. There is enough room to the side. Mol asked if they move further back would it get into the hill. Rhineberger explained the way the road comes in and if they move further back it might require more landscaping lakeside and end up more of a tunnel type of construction and then require retaining walls on both sides. Has to be excavated so the bottom can be driven in and be useable. J. Vick would they gain 6. Rhineberger may lose the ability to park in front of the garage without impacting the neighbor s lot. K. Quiggle not in favor of a two-story garage. He would have to meet with the Town Board. She is shocked a licensed contractor would not put silt-fencing up in a shoreland area and not get a land alteration permit for that work. That has created problems for the applicant in getting this garage. Rhineberger Staff have looked at this and questioned how they can get calculations on the amount of material already moved. Quiggle not supposed to take out trees, they don t know what was there and there are reasons for permits. L. Rhineberger this will be continued but asked for guidance. Would the Board want to see the site? Quiggle she does not need to see it, but would not agree to a two-story garage. Rhineberger they can move material around and construct a retaining wall and fill it in to meet the definition for a tuck-under garage. There are ways to meet the requirements by bringing the material sitting on site and make it work. Quiggle - the question is whether it is reasonable with the topography to get a tuck-under garage. Mol is asking they meet the standards for a tuck-under, excavation happened and trees are gone. Rhineberger suggested a continuation for the Town Board response. Conditions can be placed on their action at the next meeting. M. Vick continue the hearing to November 2, 2018 for Town Board review and plans to show how they can meet the criteria. Aarestad seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

19 Page JAMES C. LEBAHN - New Item LOCATION: Custer Avenue NW Part of Gov t Lot 1, Section 22, Township 122, Range 26, Wright County, Minnesota. (Locke Lake Silver Creek Twp.) Tax # Requests a variance of Section (B)(1), , , (F)(2) & of the Chapter 155, Title XV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to allow a 24 x 32 detached garage 18.5 ft. from the edge of a private road easement. Proposed roof pitch exceeds 6/12. Existing impervious lot coverage will be at 26.9%. Present: Jim Lebahn A. Rhineberger displayed the survey of the property on Locke Lake showing the site plan of the property split by a road. The Board reviewed a variance on a neighboring lot with the easement road that serves these lots. The backlot, east of the road, is where a 768 sq. ft. garage is proposed at 18 5 from the edge of easement road, 30 from the center. The proposed roof style has a 10:12 roof pitch (net measured) style roof, with 6 headroom for storage room. His calculation of the property as a whole for impervious coverage would increase from 26.9% to 30.8%. If only the lot area east of the easement road is used, it would be 11.5%. The roof design was displayed and how it is measured is the ne. The Ordinance allow a 6:12 pitch. Town Board approves. Pictures of the site were displayed along with the garage to the north, recently approved. The purpose of the backlots was primarily for sewer and there is some question on the neighbor s lot. The applicant has presented information on the existing sewer, but one line would have to be capped and closed off. They have been talking with Environmental Health on what needs to be done and should be a condition of any action. B. Quiggle asked where the easement road ends. Rhineberger explained it ends at this lot, but there is one lot beyond. Lebahn stated his brother-in-law owns the lot beyond. Quiggle if the easement does not serve more, it should not impact anyone. C. Discussion on the problem with the pitch. Lebahn these are standard trusses, had received the plan from Menards. Could get the trusses redesigned, they like the barn style and looking to maximize the storage area on the upper level. D. Vick asked if impervious will be an issue. Rhineberger depends how the Board looks at lots split by the easement roads. If they look at this as a whole without the easement road, it is an issue. If they just look at what is separated by the easement it is not a problem. Vick would like to see a way to reduce coverage. E. Lebahn plans to put gutters on the garage and send the water through a hose to his garden. Quiggle noted that does not address water coming off the concrete. Rhineberger look at the distance from the road, don t want to block the road with parked cars, but getting further away increases impervious coverage with a longer driveway.