WRIGHT COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. Meeting of: January 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 Board of Adjustment met January 6, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. in the County Commissioner s Board Room at the Wright County Government Center, Buffalo, Minnesota. Barry Rhineberger, Planner, acting as Chairman pro-tem, called the meeting to order with the following Board members present: Bob Schermann, John Jones, Dan Mol and Paul Aarestad. Absent was Charlotte Quiggle. Greg Kryzer, Assistant County Attorney, was legal counsel present. First order of business was election of a Chair for ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS: One nomination was made by Mol, seconded by Aarestad to nominate Bob Schermann as Chair, hearing no further nominations, a unanimous ballot was cast for Schermann. Schermann assumed the Chair and opened nominations for a Vice-Chair. Schermann nominated Mol, seconded by Aarestad, hearing no further nominations a unanimous ballot was cast for Mol Meeting Calendar Dates and Time. Jones moved to adopt the calendar as presented to the Board. Aarestad seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Minutes On a motion by Aarestad, seconded by Mol, the minutes for the December meeting were approved as printed. 1. LON L. VOIGT Cont. from 12/2/2016 LOCATION: 583 Halsey Avenue SE Part of Lot 21, Charlotte Shores, plat of record, Section 5, Township 119, Range 24, Wright County, Minnesota. (Lake Charlotte Rockford Twp.) Tax # Requests a variance as regulated in Section , , (F)(3) & (E)(1)(b) of Title IV, Land Usage & Zoning of the Wright County Code of Ordinances to allow replacement of an 817 sq. ft. one-story dwelling over a basement that is 46.3 ft. from the Ordinary High-water Mark of lake (OHW), 5.8 ft. from the north property line, and 13.2 ft. from the south property line, with a new one-story dwelling that is 2,570 sq. ft. over a basement (including attached garage) 46.3 ft. from the OHW, 5.8 ft. from the north property line, and 10.5 ft. from the south property line. Lot coverage would increase from 11.2% to 15.7% and impervious coverage to increase from 34.9% to 38.4%. Present: Lon Voigt A. Rhineberger summarized discussion at the first hearing that included requests for revisions to the plans. Because the lot is deep, they directed the applicant to attempt to meet a 75 lake setback. The lot coverage is also a problem for this lot with 38-39% impervious coverage. The Ordinance allows up to 25%. Also, modifications of the size building, noting a porch with a deck exceeds the limit by 140 sq. ft. Rhineberger stated the sketch received indicates the revisions are still

2 Page 2 over the impervious allowed. Staff would suggest if the revisions are acceptable, they require a survey with the plans on the survey to verify his calculations. He felt the plan is very close, just over by sq. ft. The structure has moved back 30 from the lake and 5 has been taken off the garage. B. Aarestad asked if there is a reason the structure could not be shifted back from 73 to meet the 75 setback? Voigt stated the dwelling is back 40 from the first plan at a little more than 75 set back. Aarestad stated his other concern is the watershed from the roof line onto to the neighbor s lot. The neighbor who voiced concerns is downhill and they don t want to create a problem for that neighbor. Could gutters be installed to direct the water away? Voigt concurred gutters could be installed; but, noted the structure was shifted away from that line and is now 8 back. Aarestad felt the Board could work with the new plan. His concern is the watershed. Voigt explained there is a drainage ditch between the two properties. The two lots to the south are the lowest along here. He has talked with Haas about putting rip-rap along this drainage area. Aarestad asked if they should see a storm-water drainage plan. Rhineberger suggested gutters on the house and try to direct the water to the northwest. The only way the water can go on this lot is toward the lake. He would suggest working with Wright County Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD) to see what the best way to address this issue is. C. Mol agreed with Aarestad that the water is the biggest concern. He also would like the impervious coverage brought down to 25%, this is pushing the limit. D. Jones & Schermann concurred with the statements on the impervious coverage and suggested the applicant work with SWCD. E. Schermann opened the hearing for public comment. Hearing none, returned to the Board for action. F. Aarestad moved to approve a revised house plan as submitted and marked Exhibit A, held on file along with the concept plan marked Exhibit B, held on file. Minimum setbacks to be 75 from the ordinary high-water mark of the lake, 8 from the side line and impervious coverage not to exceed 25% of the lot. The building location, sizes, setbacks, driveway location and coverage calculations to be shown on a certificate of survey to be submitted prior to a building permit. Mol seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

3 Page 3 2. JOHN M. BISHOP New Item LOCATION: TH Street NW Lot 10, Coates P Bull Addition, according to plat of record, Section 33, Township 121, Range 28, Wright County, Minnesota. (Lake Sylvia Southside Twp.) Tax # Requests a variance of Section , & (E)(1)(b), Title XV, Land Usage, Wright County Code of Ordinances to replace existing 720 sq. ft. one-level cabin that is 27.6 ft. from the ordinary high-water mark of lake (OHW) with the following: construct a new 1,710 sq. ft. two-story dwelling 45 ft. from the OHW on two sides and 23.3 ft. from the right-of-way of a dead-end public road. Also a variance to install a new Type IV septic system that would be 5 ft. from the property line, 13.8 ft. from the attached garage and 16.7 ft. from the dwelling. Present: John Bishop, Bernie Miller, WRM Services; Brian Hallquist, Hallquist Design, Inc. A. Rhineberger reviewed the location map to show the peninsula shaped lot that totals 28,132 sq. ft. He illustrated an area of about 15,000 sq. ft. that is available for building since the peninsula portion is only 20 wide. The applicant proposes to replace a 700 sq. ft. cabin with a two-story 1710 sq. ft. ground-level dwelling that includes an attached garage. The setback variances are from the lake, sewer is 5 from the property line and 16.7 from the Type IV sewer and the tank is a compliant setback. Much impervious coverage exists. Applicant is removing much of that, including the asphalt boat launch and coverage will be met. They have to consider the entire lot when calculating coverage. The survey showing the house and sewer placement was viewed. The lake setback is improved by approximately 18. Two-story modified is about 30 high with a 12:12 roof pitch. About half of the footprint (800 sq. ft.) in the upper level is living space. Wright County Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD) has suggested a buffer strip around the lot. Two neighbors feel the structure is too big for the lot and don t like the setback variance for the sewer. Response from another neighbor indicates they don t approve or disapprove, leaving it up to the adjacent neighbors. B. Bishop stated they purchased the lot in May with the buildings and thought they could add a second story on what is there. However, with the fireplace in the middle takes up the entire space, bedrooms are very small, no washer/dryer or tub and shower it is not suitable for year around. Felt they could come up with a footprint that would improve everything. He has worked with Miller to try to come up with a plan. This does not expand the footprint by much and get an improved sewer with a Type IV system. C. Miller stated he has worked extensively with the applicant. Prior to the sale to Bishop, he had designed a Type I sewer for the transfer and designed for the existing house. Now they are looking at a new structure; but there is only 300 sq. ft. on the lot to build on and meet all the setbacks. They looked at trying to meet the 65 from the lake, but that did not leave enough room for a home. He suggested the applicant work with a house designer to see what is feasible for area needed within the home. Rhineberger displayed the site plan to show the buildable area that would meet setback. Miller explained Bishop is trying to get a house with a full bathroom and attached garage. The design shows the smallest home to accommodate year-around use. The garage is small. Explained if they took the existing house along with the existing garage and move it into this area they are only increasing coverage by 3%. Once all the impervious

4 Page 4 coverage is removed, they are down to 12% coverage, not including the area out in the peninsula. He pointed out what is to be removed to bring it down to 12.6% impervious coverage. The primary issue left seems to be the lake setback of 45. The soils are sandy. Owner is willing to install some buffer on the north bay. He has contacted Dan at SWCD about the storm-water management. They suggest a buffer. This is a fairly flat lot. The shore that is best for recreation is where the boat ramp is located. He pointed to the other side of the peninsula that could accommodate a buffer strip. If the concern is about runoff, he thinks this would protect the lake better than what they can do on some lots with steep slopes. Dan with SWCD agrees a storm-water plan may not be beneficial because the lot is so flat. Rain gardens would create more of a problem by channeling to one spot rather than dispersing water across the lot more evenly. D. Miller further reviewed the location of the new house, about half of the house would meet the 65 setback. Hallquist this will be a beautiful home and has a small floor plan with a 1200 sq. ft. footprint. The peak to roof is 30, but is no different from a two-story home. If it is a requirement to bring the roof down they could to lessen the impact. Proposing earth-tone colors to blend into the shoreline. It is hard to make a house plan fit. If they cut off the outside corners to meet the setback better, it would make it difficult to locate furniture on the inside. E. Bob Johnson owns property to the west. He has an issue with the lake setback variance. He noted the location of their drainfield and after the survey was done he feels he has lost property. He objects to the sewer setback issues. His wife, Barb, stated from the audience that this is too much house for the lot. B. Johnson variances from the 75 are needed on both sides. F. Grace Pederson asked about the Type IV sewer proposed and if it is above-ground? Miller explained the advanced technology that will treat the water before going into the drainfield. This is a full in-ground pressure bed system. This system treats the water before it gets to the system and is cleaner than the lake water. With this type of system it allows them to reduce the size of the drainfield. Rhineberger noted this will be under a monitoring contract. G. Mol several concerns with the setbacks proposed. The applicant just purchased the property and should have known the requirements. This is new construction and they try their best to meet the setbacks. This is not even close, do they need to scale the house down in size. The applicant bought a cabin and not a year-around home. The proposal looks like too much for the lot, this may be a beautiful home, but many naturalists would argue that having this size house sitting out on the peninsula may not be what they want to look at. He appreciates the work put into this design, but this is a small lot. H. Jones his biggest concern is the Board likes to hold to the 75 setback, pointing to the Voigt request who had to come back with a different design. He would agree this is too much square footage for the size of the lot. I. Aarestad although they have tried to do a good job on the design; the house is going from 700 sq. ft. to 1200 sq. ft. and asked if that includes the upper level. Rhineberger, the 1200 is on the ground, also an attached garage and an upper level is about 800 sq. ft. Aarestad this doubles the size. Understands this is a unique lot and would consider that as far as a lake setback, too much for small area. He asked if the water coming off that roof would not go over the drainfield. The

5 Page 5 neighbor has mentioned his sewer on the other side and they are concerned there might be a potential problem with the water coming off and flooding their sewer system. Asked if the tank is supposed to be 20 from house. Rhineberger stated Staff can administratively approve a tank 10 from the house. Miller clarified it is the drainfield that is 20 from the house, the tank by State law can be 10 from house. Aarestad could not go along with the plan as it is too big for this lot. J. Schermann felt the consensus from the comments is that the Board is not going to approve the plan before them. He summarized the action the Board can take; and, asked if the applicant would like more time to go back and redesign. K. Rhineberger every Board member has mentioned this is too large for the lot and for the setbacks requested. He asked for some direction to assist the applicant on what might be considered. Schermann did not feel the Board should be put in a position of designing this. He felt the cabin that is there is probably more than what should be on this lot. Aarestad would like to see the house scaled back on size, the reduction of impervious coverage is a positive. He would like the concerns about the location of the neighbor s sewer addressed. Mol agreed. Jones asked if the 75 setback is critical as the Board seldom deviates from that. L. Rhineberger this is a request he would suggest a site inspection to look at the elevation and impact. The Board might come up with other ideas. Schermann asked if the applicant could rebuild on the same footprint. Rhineberger stated they can have exact replacement and not add living space. The policy would allow one story 700 sq. ft., crawl space with less than 6 in ceiling height; and storage area no more than 6 in height with a drop down ladder for access. Schermann would consider on the same footprint but allow some expansion in a second floor. Rhineberger asked Schermann if he wanted to see an improvement in the lake setback. Mol would like improvement on the lake setback as far back as possible. M. Kryzer stated another design issue is the roof height and pitch at 12:12. Schermann the 12:12 pitch is a concern to him. Rhineberger the Board has considered the closer to the lake the less of a profile the Board likes to see. If a 75 setback can be met it is not as much of a concern. It is a sliding scale on that issue. Aarestad would not be in favor of a 12:12. Hallquist noted a twostory would be the same height, but more mass. N. Schermann asked the applicant how they want to proceed. Bishop asked if he could table this until April. Kryzer stated the applicant must sign the waiver for the Board to do that. Bishop the design includes removing a garage that is there. If they redesign that includes the garage as well, or want to leave the house at 720 sq. ft. and not attach the garage. Rhineberger in general, when they are looking at same square footage the Board can look at that. If a two-car garage is proposed, than they have to look at what the setbacks would be. O. Schermann moved to continue the hearing to April 7, 2017 for a site inspection, revised plans on the condition the applicant sign the waiver. Aarestad seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY New plans available at the site inspection, scheduled just before the April meeting. Kryzer asked the applicant and his representatives to submit plans three weeks prior.

6 Page 6 3. JOSEPH A. KOOPMAN New Item LOCATION: 2117 County Road 4 SW SW ¼ of SW ¼, Section 12; and also NW ¼ of NW ¼, Section 13, all in Township 119, Range 28, Wright County, Minnesota. (Cokato Twp.) Tax # & Requests a variance of Section (E)(2) & (G)(4) Title XV, Land Usage, Wright County Code of Ordinances to subdivide a 70-acre (approx.) property as follows: A new lot of 26 acres (approx.) with an entitlement on a 100 ft. access strip with less than 300 on the public road right-ofway. The remaining 45 acres would have the existing dwelling and outbuildings, meeting the public road frontage requirement. Present: Applicant not present Schermann held the item over until the end of the meeting.

7 Page 7 4. ROGER D. STROMMEN New Item LOCATION: xxx 120 th Street NE Part of SE 1 /4 of SE ¼ of Section 36, Township 122, Range 26; and also Government Lot 3, except the east 330 feet of Section 31, Township 122, Range 25, Wright County, Minnesota. (Silver Creek & Monticello Twps.) Tax # & Requests a lot line adjustment as regulated in Section (E)(2) & (B) Title XV, Land Usage, Wright County Code of Ordinances to add 40 feet from the parcel owned in Section 36 (Silver Creek Twp.) to the applicant parcel in Section 31 (Monticello Twp.). Present: Les Linstrom, agent for Strommen; Paul Otto, Otto Associates A. Rhineberger displayed the property location maps and concept plan provided. The proposal is to add 51 from the property owned in Silver Creek to the land in Monticello Township. The purpose is to provide enough land to request a rezoning and a subdivision in Monticello Township. He pointed to the lake on the north side that creates the problem with meeting frontage requirements for the proposed new lot sizes. He noted they will be unable to combine the area for tax purposes because of the town line. B. Otto stated without the adjustment, a proposed new lot would be short 300 wide for the rezoning proposed. The end result will be four lots, although there is enough acreage for five lots. The hardship is the lake on the north. Rhineberger explained the strip being attached will have to be part of the rezoning request. C. Schermann asked for public comment, hearing none, brought discussion back to the Board. D. Jones asked about the Town Board response. Rhineberger indicated they approve. Jones felt the lake portion makes this confusing. E. Aarestad asked if a variance cannot be requested to be less than the 300 required. Rhineberger by Ordinance they cannot ask for a variance before the lot exists. The Planning Commission cannot grant a variance to the subdivision requirements. Rhineberger they don t want to start granting variances where the requirement can be met. He understands this is a practical issue. If this were in the same Township they could have done this. F. Mol and Schermann agreed to the adjustment. G. Mol moved to grant a lot line adjustment as regulated in Section (E)(2) & (B) Title XV, Land Usage, Wright County Code of Ordinances to add 51 feet from the parcel owned in Section 36 (Silver Creek Twp.) to the applicant parcel in Section 31 (Monticello Twp.). Aarestad seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

8 Page 8 JOSEPH A. KOOPMAN Cont. from earlier on the agenda Present: Applicant not present A. Dan Bravinder, representing Cokato Township came forward to say the applicant met with the Town Board and they had explained the applicant was required to attend this meeting. He reviewed the property split and access into the second property is not 300. B. Rhineberger using the map outlined the frontage of the existing property and the subdivision proposed. Bravinder added that this property sits between the Crow River and Sucker Creek. The Town Board approves the proposed division because of the uniqueness of the property. Rhineberger noted the second entitlement is difficult to use. Bravinder stated the party s only plan to share the approach and each will have their own driveway. C. Mol moved to continue the hearing to February 3, 2017 with notice going to the applicant that he must appear at the next meeting or the matter may be dismissed without prejudice. Aarestad seconded the motion. VOTE: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Meeting adjourned at 9:40 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Barry J. Rhineberger Planner BJR:tp Cc: Board of Adjustment County Board Kryzer Applicants Twp. Clerks