CORRECTED City of Nowthen PLANNING & ZONING MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2018 AGENDA 7 PM

Transcription

1 JULY S M T W TH F S CORRECTED City of Nowthen PLANNING & ZONING MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2018 AGENDA 7 PM AUGUST S M T W TH F S Meeting Called to Order Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Approve/Amend tonight s meeting agenda of July 24, Approve/Amend May 22, 2018 and June 26, 2018 Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes 1. FLOOR ITEMS 2. PUBLIC HEARING A SUBDIVISION REQUEST by Mark and Michelle Poce for property owned at Burns Parkway NW, to plat 44.8 acres into four (4) residential lots. (PID# , , ) PUBLIC HEARING SHOULD BE OPENED AND CONTINUED TO AUGUST MEETING. Applicant s surveyor was not able to provide the necessary documents. 3. MINOR SUBDIVISION A REQUEST by Alan and Joni Greenwaldt for property owned at st Avenue NW, for subdivision of acres into three (3) residential lots. (PID# ). 4. CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION PLAN A REQUEST by Rick Shermer and Steve Fricke (F & S Land Group LLC) for property owned at the intersection of 205 th Avenue NW and Twin Parkway NW to split acres into five (5) residential lots; (PID# ). 5. DISCUSSION CONTINUED Consider adoption of an ordinance to regulate small cell wireless networks installed in public rights-of-way, on publicly owned buildings and/or on commerciallyzoned property. Motion to Adjourn No later than 9:30 PM.

2 CITY OF NOWTHEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 22, 7:00 PM Present: Dale Ames Harold Jorgenson Kristin Moan Robert Schiller Jason Alders Kelly Pearo Jeff Pilon - Liaison Others: Absent: Planner Liz Stockman Barry Wagner Meeting called to order by Ames at 7:03 PM. Roll call taken. Pearo made the motion to approve the May 22, 2018 Agenda; Moan seconded. Motion carried. Alders made the motion to approve the April 24, 2018 Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes; Schiller seconded. Motion carried. 1. FLOOR ITEMS No Floor Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING CANCELLED A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT by Josh Peterson and Eldon Farb for property owned at 5259 Viking Boulevard. The property owner did not sign the application so the City cannot allow the rezoning request without the property owner s consent. 3. PUBLIC HEARING A REQUEST by Gary Uhde for property owned at 6080 Gypsy Valley Road (PID ), regarding the following three (3) matters: LOT SPLIT & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT to allow subdivision of a acre parcel with flag lot access to the parcel as required in Section G of the City Subdivision Ordinance; A VARIANCE to allow access via the existing 33-foot driveway easement from Gypsy Valley Road. Planner Stockman said that in July, 2017, Mr. Uhde had applied for a lot split and CUP for the flag lot. The City Attorney recommended that, because of the 33 ft. driveway easement that exists, he also apply for a variance because a flag lot regulations state that access is only allowed when ownership is out to a public road.

3 City of Nowthen Planning & Zoning Commission May 22, 2018 Page 2 Proposal is splitting the acre parcel with an existing pole barn, to build 2 houses, one on each lot. The lot with the pole barn would be 10 acres, to accommodate the size of that structure, and the other would be the remaining 9.71 acres. Graphic shows the density evaluation in neighborhood and the Uhde property. Currently there are 2 lots within 40 acres where he is located. With the City s allowance of 8 lots per 40 acres, there is room for further subdivision. Wetland delineation shows a couple small wetlands on the north side, and a larger wetland that encompasses most of the south side. There is no possibility to achieve any more than the 2 lots requested, based on the lot width of just over 600 feet. The City requires 300 foot lot width for individual lots. Previously PZ had evaluated how this might lay out if a subdivision were to occur in the surrounding area. Always take into consideration adjacent property and neighborhood potential when looking at splits. This property is very unique, but is not unlike other properties in the city. It was approved in Township days, when flag lots were more often used than they are now. Generally we still prohibit flag lots unless there are unique circumstances. This is a case where the flag lot might possibly be justified. Part of PZ s job tonight is to make a determination in that regard. City engineer recommends a couple options. 1.) Cul-de-sac. To serve Mertesdorf and/or Udhe properties. Lot to north cannot be subdivided, but there is potential to the north of being subdivided at a later date. An east/west street is being attempted in the long term between Basalt and Gypsy Valley, and would serve larger properties in the future. The reason the city engineer doesn t want a full intersection here is that intersection at curve is dangerous location and creates some issues. If it were to happen, it would require realignment of Gypsy Valley and it may become an east/west road. One option. Uhde has offered 66 feet of ROW from his property of what he owns. Only has 33 feet as easement. Uhde has offered to buy land from his neighbors, but neither of them is interested. PZ needs to determine what is reasonable under variance rules or due to natural features, and ask if Uhde s plan is a reasonable use of that property. This would only be a maximum of 2 parcels. If PZ determines that Uhde meets the practical difficulties rule, then determine what options are preferred for street arrangements. There are two concepts, older concepts, looking at how it could lay out. If the city waits, the circumstances are not going to change now or years. You have the option to say it is a premature subdivision without street access, but it s not going to change until we address it. To put the burden on neighbors that are adjacent and to the north in extending a cul-de-sac down, for instance, when this lot doesn t need the street frontage, that becomes a burden to the other property

4 City of Nowthen Planning & Zoning Commission May 22, 2018 Page 3 owners. It seems logical to address it now. The outcome will be the same now or in the future. Peter Koyle a real estate lawyer with Larkin Hoffman, has represented Mr. Uhde for 20 years I appreciate your time this evening. Thanks for hearing us out on this application. I think your Staff has done a terrific job of outlining the issue that is before you. I certainly hope you can support it. Just a few comments to follow up on what Ms. Stockman has provided to you. Mr. Uhde intends to have these 2 lots used by his children for their residences. Just so you know that. The easement adjacent to his property allows for this access, at least for the one lot. We understand the variance requirement and the CUP requirement because of the unique circumstance that we find ourselves in. In effect, our representation to you would be that we have a unique circumstance that is caused by this easement situation and the City s still unresolved question as to how the final Right-of-way plan will be configured. Uhde is willing to dedicate the 66 feet across the front of his property in advance, so you know that land is available. He has attempted to acquire additional 33 feet across his neighbor s property to satisfy the city s code requirement. In the end, he is going to be putting his property to a reasonable use. It s a use that is supported by the City s zoning. It s compatible with the uses of neighbors around him, but that has not been possible. For those reasons, we think the Lot split and variance and the CUP are reasonable and appropriate. We re happy to respond to your questions, and would appreciate your support if possible. Pia Troy of Gypsy Valley Rd. She is the owner of the slightly over 4 acre parcel to the north of Uhde. She has a couple comments, based on the graphics, Options 1 and 2. Option 2 she would not like. Her house was built in 1930 s, and is already in the street easement, so she would rather not lose any more of her property. Her lot is too small to sell land, but she doesn t recall being asked to sell property. For full disclosure, she doesn t want 2 houses next to her. She would rather it stay as a hay field, but knows that is not possible. Her concern regarding this is that when she has called the City Offices, the 1 st thing she usually hears is that the houses are for the property owner s two children. This may be true, but at the end of the day, it is worth keeping in mind that property gets bought and sold all the time. Whether it s a year, 5 years, or 10 years, it is going to be sold. There is going to be 2 houses there, and who the houses are for really shouldn t play into it, in her opinion. I don t like to come to the City Council and interfere with what someone wants to do with their property, but it is right next to her and fairly close. On the map it s hard to see that, but when she is out in her barn it is fairly close. There is a driveway there now, and Mr. Uhde did make a good faith effort to accommodate her concern at the last meeting regarding drainage. There was a culvert put in to try to help with drainage problems in the low spot in her pasture. Carol Mertesdorf of 6070 Gyspy Valley Rd Mr. Uhde did come to them and ask previous to purchasing the property about purchasing extra property to have an extra 33 feet. At that time they did tell him that they did not want to sell any

5 City of Nowthen Planning & Zoning Commission May 22, 2018 Page 4 property, so he did know before he purchased the property. The letter from Larklin and Hoffman Attorneys mentions a minimal traffic impact, but it has been their experience this past winter that there has been a semi-tractor and trailer coming going in and out morning and night, and a tractor parked outside quite frequently. She offered pictures. Pole barn pictured in the presentation was slated as an AG building, built for storage. Her question to Mr. Uhde is, If that building is set for storage, why did you have to build a lean-to out back for a fish house and boat? What is that building going to be used for? If it is going to be used for semitractor/trailer or other heavy equipment, what impact is that going to have on our tar road out front that all of us have to pay for? Regarding the two septic systems look like it will be 2 tanks for each home that will be pumped. She asked if there is not going to be a drain field for each one. Uhde responded yes, that sites are provided for both lots. Stockman explained that what is being seen on the plan is the primary and secondary septic sites and drain fields. There will be drainfields and a backup site, as always. Mertesdorf asked about percolation tests, and Stockman confirmed that they would be done. She commented on Mr. Coyle s mention of reasonable use of his property. She doesn t think that his version with the semi-tractor/trailer is the same as our reasonable use of the property, though she could be wrong about that. Uhde, the petitioner, of 3157 Berwick Knoll, Brooklyn Park, MN He responded regarding the use of property. He is a developer, and is somewhat embarrassed to even have to address this commission over this issue. Where he develops in Lino Lakes, outside storage is not allowed at all. The lean-to was put up in back, so that as they pour concrete floor inside other AG building, they could get everything hidden out of sight so it isn t sitting outside. That was just his concern and thought process. It will not be used as a business or used as anything other than just for storage of things. Uhde is in the process of getting a permit through the City staff for getting one house on the site, to be within the confines of the Ordinance regarding one house on the site. What is being requested now is a subdivision, so that they can get two lots, and still meet all the Ordinance requirements and be able to put two houses on the sites. Both of his sons are the ones that would be building. That is the plan right now, and is not to be sold on the market. Also, when he did contact the Mertesdorfs about buying additional land, he already owned it. It was after the fact that he realized that he only had one easement, and for a lot subdivision they would need two. So they tried to buy the 33 feet. The reason they didn t address it with Ms. Troy was because she was already on a smaller site and there were wetland issues and certain confinements, so it would be wasted time and effort. If the semi-trailer parked out there is an issue, then that is an outside storage issue. They can certainly make that part of the conditions about anything parked outside. That has always been Uhde s objective was to have no outside storage visible to any of the neighbors. In the more Metro area there is no such thing as outside storage allowed. He doesn t particularly condone it either and likes to keep the site neat and clean.

6 City of Nowthen Planning & Zoning Commission May 22, 2018 Page 5 The pictures of the site show that the buildings are neat and clean, and the grass is mowed along the paved driveway. There is now a mess because he is in the process of pouring concrete floor. If the issue of never having a trailer parked on the site outside should never happen, he was willing to make that a condition. This will not be used as a business. If it should ever be used as a business, he understands very clearly that he would have to come back to the City and get a Conditional Use Permit, conditional upon certain things. At this time there is no intention of using either site for businesses. Ann Uhde of 3157 Berwick Knoll, Brooklyn Park, MN applicant s wife. When they acquired this property, they were very excited about unique natural features. Now that their son is looking to building on the site, they are willing to make additional investment into the community. They want to be good neighbors and will continue to take pride in how it s kept there. They certainly respect the rural character of the neighborhood. They want to be good neighbors, and feel that this request will end up fitting in very well. She asks that the Commission please support it. Planner Stockman clarified that she did address the concerns regarding storage. Uhde has agreed to pay building permit fees for the pole building and the lean-to. It will not necessarily be 100% used for AG, esp. when the house is there, so he did agree to that. For those who weren t here when Uhde built the pole barn, Uhde was the last one to get in under old rules for AG buildings. The regulations at that time allowed including Green Acre status of other properties, not just in the City. He was able to use the production and total acres toward the Green Acre status. The City has since removed that designation or reference to that Green Acre as part of the City s definition. As far as use, it really should not come into play who is going to live in the home. The type of use is a single-family residential use, and that is all the City allows in the Rural Residential zoning. She is certain that the house will eventually change hands, as all houses do. The Commission needs to look at the land use, not the ownership pattern. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Ames asked what has actually changed. Stockman said Uhde has added the variance, which considers the practical difficulties rule, although the CUP also refers to practical difficulties and that it needs to be based on physical characteristics, street and lot size, plat arrangements and natural features. As Uhde bought the lot the way it is, it is a fact that this situation was not caused by him. The questions for the PZ Commission to consider are: A.) Is it reasonable to have 2 homes on this approx. 20 acres one on 10 acres and the other on the 9.71 acres. B.) If so, then he is requesting variance from the accessibility of 33 feet, to allow 2 homes instead of one, knowing that he doesn t own out to the

7 City of Nowthen Planning & Zoning Commission May 22, 2018 Page 6 street. That s what he is asking for variance from. The PZ options would be: does the City want Uhde to dedicate the right-of-way to the City for either a cul-de-sac or a future through street and how that might look. Those are the kinds of things the PZ needs to discuss. Uhde has the 33 feet, but the City now requires 66 foot ownership out to a public road, unless it s a situation where there would be no possible future extension of a road. Since there is no way for him to purchase this, PZ needs to look at other options. Is the request reasonable, and how should this be addressed? Ames wondered if a maintenance contract would be written up. He asked if a culde-sac could be put on a 33 foot easement. Stockman said no, and that Uhde has no access onto Gypsy Valley Rd right now with a 66 foot width. PZ needs to decide if the City will allow 2 houses on the easement, or does the City take the 66 feet so that his land does not impede any future subdivision potential. If PZ was considering allowing it, she recommended allowing it as a dead-end arrangement or as a through street. In her mind it made more sense to go to the north because of all the vacant land where the frontage can serve additional lots. Having the 66 feet, it will not impede any future street arrangement. It s easier to vacate it later if the City doesn t need it, than to not ask for it now. Uhde is willing to dedicate 66 feet across his property to dedicate for a cul-de-sac or through street for the City, with future access to more. The current driveway easement is over the Mertesdorf property. Alders asked how much land was actually usable. Based on the wetland delineation, it looks like the land falls off right after the pole barn. Is there only 5 acres of buildable land for these 2 homes to be built on? Approx. 300 x 350 usable land, best case, of usable land on each lot. Moan said that is not uncommon as her lot is exactly the same. Stockman said there are many lots that have less than that. Uhde would be building first on the lot to the left, close to the tree line. The other house would be close to the existing pole barn. Alders asked from a fire standpoint, if 33 feet was enough for emergency vehicles to turn around. Does this meet requirements for emergency vehicles? Stockman said that the fire chief hasn t looked at this yet, but that is in the plan. If PZ didn t want the cul-de-sac, then Uhde would have to allow a place for a large vehicle to turn around. Moan said she can sympathize with not wanting a lot of houses, but this area allows for that. Splitting into 2 lots is reasonable. There could ve easily been a road that went there, but what he s asking for is not that different than many areas in the city. Pearo said she would like to comment that yes, there are practical difficulties. She is more in favor of a cul-de-sac than a through street. That corner is treacherous,

8 City of Nowthen Planning & Zoning Commission May 22, 2018 Page 7 so it would be wise in future development of the city to look at an intersection not on that corner. Two houses down there is not the end of the world. Shared driveways can be a nuisance, from the standpoint of market value or getting along with the neighbors, since we have to cross another person s access. Moan asked if a cul-de-sac meant that it was blacktopped. Stockman said, no. Typically it would be built to 9 ton standards. It wouldn t make sense to rip up what he s got already and put in part of a cul-de-sac. Liz asked Mertesdorfs, knowing that the potential street could benefit them someday, and if Mr. Udhe builds the cul-de-sac out to Gypsy Valley, does that make it any more appealing. They said no. Uhde said that the 33 feet would be filed with the county with the deeds as joint access and lives forever. That s a matter of record on the county deed. There can be issues, but doesn t need to be. Real estate attorney look into when Mertesdorfs bought their property from the previous owner, it included everything but the north 33 feet, so there is a question as to who owns it. Uhde guesses that when the City went through the original subdivision they asked for that 33 feet. In a court of law it would probably go to the property owners. Uhde says he definitely has legal access there, and it is not an issue with Nowthen s city attorney. The joint driveway on the 33 ft. is just a temporary situation, because eventually the City will change the street. Moan said if the City would ask for the 66 feet, it wouldn t necessarily require anything to go in there. It would just be for future use. Property owners could continue to use the existing driveway or share the current access. Stockman said yes, that the City could just ask for the right of way. The land would be deeded to the City, but then the City in turn would allow them to use the driveway. Alders asked regarding the location of the proposed cul-de-sac. Stockman demonstrated on the visual up on the screen the 66 ft. access with a bulb, saying that it could be vacated later. Ames asked if that would take care of the Fire Truck turn around needs. Stockman said no, but that he would still need a paved area. If PZ didn t require him to build that part of the cul-de-sac, he would still have to provide an area for a large vehicle to back up, which doesn t have to be paved, with the dimensions of 12 x35 as per the Fire Chief. Ames said he doesn t like changing the ordinances. If the City doesn t allow this, then the other land-locked properties would be facing the same problem. Stockman said that by requiring it from Uhde, the City isn t perpetuating the issue later. Shared driveway is typically viewed as a short term access, but there is no way to get 66 feet now.

9 City of Nowthen Planning & Zoning Commission May 22, 2018 Page 8 Moan said that 66 feet becomes a slight moot point, since he s actually offering it up. The City would not be putting Uhde in a position that he s not saying he wouldn t be in anyway. If one of the properties were to be sold at a later date with the shared driveway, it would still be there, and the 66 feet would not be used yet. The new home buyer would understand that when purchasing the home. Alders said that Uhde is offering up the 66 feet, which is great. The problem is that the 33 ft. is across someone else s land, and it would be perpetuating that. For the 2 homes on 20 acres, if we don t like the split driveway, then put in a provision for a cul-de-sac, and have that be part of the change. Then at least the city has access to get in there for garbage, fire, school busses, etc. At some point if someone decides to sell it, then vehicles can get in there and turn around if needed. To split off of the 33 ft driveway that is there currently, it s going to be difficult to get in there. He recommended proposing the 66 ft. easement so that if the City has future growth there that require a cul-de-sac, then the City can put in 2 separate driveways for the separate lots. There is not a lot that can be done about the choke point, but at least this would solve the problem of getting from that property. There are 2 driveways leading to the cul-de-sac with opportunity for Fire or Rescue access. If the property sells in the future, then there would be an opportunity to remove the 33 ft. there and get a 66 ft. right of way. Moan agreed with everything Alders said. Alders made a motion to have Uhde make a variance to request the correct size cul-de-sac be put in, and have separate drives feeding into the cul-desac, gravel is fine, for each lot split, and move forward with lot split. Moan seconded. Motion carried. Planner Stockman will work with Uhde to develop a plan on paper for a driveway plan and configuration to present to the City Council. 3. PUBLIC HEARING A REQUEST by Jim Clemmer for property owned at rd Ave NW (PID ), regarding the following matter: A VARIANCE to allow deviation from required setbacks to a 40 x 60 accessory building currently under construction (24.6 foot variance). Stockman met with Clemmer last Fall. He lives in the portion of the City near Rogers Lake, and has an unusual lot configuration. It is a substandard lot, by the current standards. It is a legal, non-conforming house which is closer to the front lot line and to the side lot line than is required now. Clemmer contacted Stockman about building pole barn. They met and discussed setbacks. The original plan they had drawn up together indicated where the home was, and a new septic was shown on the plan. The setback line was drawn in, as well as

10 City of Nowthen Planning & Zoning Commission May 22, 2018 Page 9 the proposed location of the building. There is one driveway access on 183 rd for the home, and a 2 nd driveway with culvert where he wanted to drive in and access building. He has a temporary structure or two in the area, which he plans to remove. Earlier this year it was brought to the City s attention that the building was possibly in the wrong place. Stockman pulled up an aerial photo that was taken last fall after post holes were dug for the pole barn. The new septic mound was drawn in back into the trees, and he would have to remove a lot of trees to even make it happen. It ended up being much larger than anticipated, so when they went to place the building, they knew they had to move it over. They rotated it to the current configuration, turning it almost 90 degrees. Generally speaking, Stockman tried to talk Clemmer out of applying for a variance, because it is not a situation that we like to promote and legalize errors basically in placement of buildings or any other variance from City regulations. PZ can have the discussion, but Stockman cannot support this request in the location that it s sitting. TPC Cannot support this request where it is sitting based on the variance. The measurement indicates a 120 ft. setback from the center line of the road to the closest part of the building. One corner is not too far from it, but it just got rotated in such a way that it is skewed a lot. This variance is a 50.8 ft. variance request. Sticks out 50.8 ft. farther than it should have. Variances deal with practical difficulties, and consider if this unique to the land. Is this a circumstance that was not created by the landowner? What are the influences of this building on neighborhood? Looking at neighborhood in general, Stockman did look at neighboring pole building setbacks. It is an older neighborhood, and two of those buildings don t comply with current setbacks. The visual demonstrated where the septic system is and how the house is nonconforming. PZ needs to determine if this is reasonable and what effect it has on the neighborhood. Is this the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty? No. This building is off by a huge distance. Stockman s office cannot support this under the variance rules. The PZ Commission needs to discuss it, and Mr. Clemmer will have the opportunity to comment. The City s Building official is present, if there are any questions for him. Moan asked what the status of the building was at this time. Stockman said that the building is framed but not sided. James Clemmer, of rd Ave NW, said that he made the mistake, and admits that he is totally at fault. They saw the mound and realized that they had to be 10 feet from bottom of the mound, and they staked it out. He didn t realize that the cul-de-sac was considered a road is considered a road also, because it is not a through street. It is just a dead end. Neighbor to the NW, has a pole barn that is right off to the end, and his deck is very close as well. Clemmer didn t want to turn the building where it was originally marked, because it would ve been right off the neighbor s deck. The original plan was drawn up on

11 City of Nowthen Planning & Zoning Commission May 22, 2018 Page 10 aerial view from 2014, but the 2 nd aerial view was from 2017, and had to be the day of or the day after they drilled the footings. When Stockman notified Clemmer, he knew he had majorly messed up. He had not done a survey beforehand, but has had a survey done since recently. He s not even sure that he could build that size of pole shed. He was aware that the power line ran underneath it, but he contacted Connexus Energy, and he will have pay to move the power line. He was aware of the power line, but they were really careful and had it marked for that and the septic too. Clemmer had pulled a permit to do his house, and wanted to do both to save time and money. He had invited Andy to inspect the basement, and had asked him to inspect the framing as well. Andy is the one who brought this situation to his attention. Now he is stuck with tearing it down or getting a variance. He is not trying to hide anything, and admits that it is his mistake. He didn t do it purposely. The only neighbors this would affect are ok with it where it is, because the trees provide coverage. Clemmer has stopped the progress of the building until this situation gets resolved. Basically would have to scrap the whole building and salvage what he can, if he is unable to get a variance. Bo & Tiffane Eschbach of Salish Circle NW sent a letter to be read for the Planning and Zoning Commission: To the Nowthen City Council, Mr. James Clemmer had personally requested our presence this evening to discuss this variance with the City of Nowthen, to voice any concerns about the location of his pole barn. We, the residents at Salish Circle NW, who have an adjoining property line with Mr. James Clemmer, have no issues of concerns when it comes to his pole barn location and/or distance from the cul-de-sac or to the road. We request that the Nowthen City Council note this and contact us with any further questions or concerns, as we are unable to be there this evening. Bo and Tiffany Eschbach Kay Clemmer, of rd Ave NW, said that it is a lot of work that has been done. There are 2 boats stored there and some other stuff that would be an eyesore if just under a tent. A pole barn is much better for all their stuff, snow blowers, etc., than having all their stuff sitting outside. They had someone try to break into the tent enclosure. The trail cam video caught someone trying to steal from boat. Pole barn is mostly for safe storage. Jerry Falon lives across 183 rd from the Clemmers. He has no opposition at all with where the building is placed. He is just fine where it is at this point. No other public comments.

12 City of Nowthen Planning & Zoning Commission May 22, 2018 Page 11 Ames said he can understand the problem Clemmer has, but there is no question that it he did not follow the ordinance. Staff did work with Clemmer about the right place to put it. Alders said that if Clemmer put the pole building inside the red box, he assumed the drain field and mound system would block access to the front of the building. Liz said if the 2 nd access were eliminated on 183 rd or 184 th, he could instead access off Salish Circle. Pearo asked Clemmer if the 2 nd driveway has been eliminated on 184 th. It looks like they are trying to use a new drive at Salish. She asked Clemmer if that is actually being done. Clemmer said those are where the old driveway was, and that new drive was how the contractor was bringing in materials when they did the septic system. Septic is next to house, but that new drive was the only way to access that with the big trucks. Clemmer created that access, but knows that only two are allowed. Either one is fine with him. It was just more practical to use the driveway on Salish Circle. Stockman asked Clemmer if he had to remove a lot of trees to put it the pole barn where it is now. Clemmer said yes he removed many trees. Further down where the trees are still is also low land. Jorgensen said it could be turned more north/south, and moved east to come into the code. Access may not be the best. Alders said if the building were turned a quarter turn it might work. Fire truck issues are not an issue. They can stay on the road. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Ames made the motion to deny. Schiller seconded. Alders understands the variance, but the other properties in the area all have a similar situation. He realizes that we re trying to update the code, but he also looks at if we enforce the code and make him move the building, it will wipe out the majority of his trees on his lot. He would have to raise the property up to build the building and Clemmer may choose not to do that, and then all of his stuff will not be in the building. He wonders if the residents of the city would rather look at all of his vehicles and equipment in temporary storage shelters, or do we want a building that none of the neighbors seem to care about but doesn t meet the code.

13 City of Nowthen Planning & Zoning Commission May 22, 2018 Page 12 Pearo agrees, but what about the setbacks and reasons to try to conform, and now we have someone who has an oops and is trying to get a variance. What s going to stop anyone else from oops-ing and asking for a variance as well. Moan agrees with Pearo. She doesn t want to approve of bad behavior, but also doesn t want PZ to overreact, not saying that making Clemmer move it would be an overreaction. She agrees with Alders, in that the area agrees with what Clemmer did. There are larger implications with moving the pole barn into the approved area. His neighbors don t seem to care. This is a really tough spot for all involved. Her personal opinion is that maybe there should be another option without just throwing it under. Liz suggested that Clemmer cut the northerly 20 feet off, and made it a 40x40, as a compromise. She did some measuring, and that would actually get him about 50 feet from the right of way plus another 33 feet, making him 83 feet back instead of 120. If Clemmer had come and asked for a variance because of environmental factors, it may have been granted, but it wouldn t have been this extreme. It s a tough call. Schiller said he would definitely like to have a reason to approve it, but if we set a precedent of granting a variance because they didn t follow the rules, it would be a bad thing. Moan said this is not setting precedence. Pilon said, if it wasn t tough it wouldn t come to the commission. The Planner would handle them all. Planning and Zoning Commission is always going to get the tough ones. The precedents do come back - in writing. It is a tough situation because they were working with the city staff and decided to change it without incorporating city staff. He strongly encouraged the Commission that it needs to stick to the ordinances and statutes as written. The League of MN requires that a variance cannot be issued because of the homeowner s own doing. For many years, throughout the state, they just stopped issuing variances until the court ruled on it. You have to determine why to accept it or reject it, and put it in writing to justify it. A judge will always rule against the city if anything seems arbitrary or capricious. If it is opinion rather than standing on the ordinances, established policies, and zoning regulations it becomes arbitrary. Cities always lose those cases. Planner Stockman said that this should not have ended up at the Commission, because it is not allowed by our statutes and ordinances, but the homeowner wanted to attempt getting a variance. Land use issues are always hard, but decisions do become precedents, and are often pulled out by others later to ask for similar treatment.

14 City of Nowthen Planning & Zoning Commission May 22, 2018 Page 13 Moan asked if she were to go against a denial of this, would she be going against the law. Pilon pointed her to the denial document in the packet, and had members look at the readings. It pretty much states the case. Pilon said this is hard because even though you want to do something good for good people, you have 4,500 residents here right now and there will be more. These issues will come up again. League document states very clearly that A city should create a record to support its decisions of denial or approval. That is what will be hauled into court when land use cases goes into the court. Clemmer said that when aerial view was taken, dates are His septic wasn t put in until The inspector came out day after the septic was installed, to inspect footings for the pole barn. Stockman brought this aerial view to Clemmer months after she got it, because she didn t realize it was from 2014 when we drew up the original plan. Andy s guy denied the footing holes at first because he was 2 hours early and they weren t ready. When he came the 2 nd time, he approved the footing holes the way they were. He assumed everything was right because an inspector had inspected the footings. Clemmer said if the footings had been denied, he would have been able to move the building at minimal cost. If he would bring this to court, and the judge would throw it out because he isn t going to go on an 2017 aerial view that is dated Clemmer said he could hire an attorney and fight this, but he doesn t want to do that. He is here to plead his case. He admits this is his fault, but he didn t have all of his information. He said it isn t financial, he just doesn t want to have to tear more trees down and incur the cost of tearing down the pole barn, but will put up portable shelters instead. Stockman said that regarding aerial photo, the County took the photo in November and didn t get it online until February. She called them in March to inform them that the date on photo was wrong. At the time Clemmer drilled those holes, this aerial photo wasn t released to the public yet. She also said regarding the portable shelters, they are considered temporary and only allowed 6 months out of the year. Motion by Ames, seconded by Schiller. Motion unanimously carried to deny variance. 4. PUBLIC HEARING A REQUEST by Paul Leyendecker for property owned at St. Francis Blvd. (PID ), regarding the following two (2) matters: An INTERIM USE PERMIT to allow continuation of the existing Home Extended Business which allows storage of personal work vehicles greater than 20,000

15 City of Nowthen Planning & Zoning Commission May 22, 2018 Page 14 pounds GVW and to allow outdoor storage of vehicles and equipment for others; REVOCATION of an existing Conditional Use Permit issued in 2002 for roofing business that is no longer operating. Stockman introduced Mr. Leyendecker, sole owner of the property. The area is question is regarding a storage operation that he is currently running. As the roofing business went out, it gradually became a storage facility. This was a fenced area for an ostrich farm that was run by the previous owner. His request is to maintain this area. He does have some wood chip piles & brush along the north side. There have been no complaints by neighbors. Shelly Peterson, who lives on Krypton. Liz read the . I m writing you regarding a Conditional Use Permit [Stockman clarified that it is actually an Interim Use Permit] being considered, for a small storage business at St Francis Blvd. We have several home businesses located nearby us that have little respect for their neighbors or community, but I believe Paul Leyendecker is one of the more responsible home business owners in our area. I would be supportive of his continued business only if I could be assured it would remain completely behind his fenced area, and it was used for storage of operable equipment and not a salvage yard. Thank-you. In working through this, Stockman tried to include conditions that are good to include, specifics so that everyone is comfortable with conditions. Her recommendation is to approve it, providing it doesn t grow any larger than the current configuration. Generally speaking, this is not unlike several home businesses in the city. Consideration should be the impact on neighbors, view from public roadway, and any comments that have been received. Leyendecker said he was not looking to expand his business at all. He had a previous CUP that involved trucks coming and going. When that business ended, traffic just became people coming to store things. He has had no complaints from neighbors for 10 years. He didn t think it needed to be changed, because it was close to the parameters of the former CUP. It is set back from the neighbors. There is less traffic now. He did talk to the neighbors, and had in hand a signed statement from his neighbors. Some had concerns of it turning into a junkyard, a fear of the unknown. He has already improved the space, the ground surface and fence. He just wanted to do something with the land he owned. He read the letter with his neighbors signatures: I,, who resides on the property, have had no issues or complaints over the past 10 years about the small storage business run by Paul Leyendecker on the above mentioned

16 City of Nowthen Planning & Zoning Commission May 22, 2018 Page 15 property. I also have no issues or concerns that this small storage business continues to operate as it has been for the last 10 years. Signed by: Ron & Jean Jost, St Francis Blvd Marcell Garretson,18600 St Francis Blvd Bob Johnson,18585 Cleary Rd Sue & Douglas Dickhousen, not a close neighbor Roger Perl, a lot away to the North Norm Mather Ames asked him about the truck that is stored outside. Leyendecker said he is a truck driver, owner/operator, and he drives a straight 26 dock/box truck. It is parked close to the house because he drives it to work every day. Stockman said that could be part of the IUP. Leyendecker said he has an outdoor wood boiler, so trucks come to drop off woodchips for him to burn. Leyendecker built a privacy fence to improve the fenced area on 3 sides, with steel pole barn fence on the front side. North of fenced area, it is heavily wooded, and is not seen by anyone. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. Cars are parked on the approved surface, class 5 gravel. He addressed a potential concern for possible leakage by covering the hard surface with heavy duty tarps to contain any potential leakage. He is hoping that an exception can be made on the hard, paved surface as long as he can show that he is containing any oil that might drip. They are nailed down into the ground with 7 spikes with cardboard that can be easily changed out if oil drips so it doesn t go into soil. He requests it to be ok to park vehicles on the hard surface. Ames said they needed to look at the hours of operation. Leyendecker is requesting Dawn to Dusk. The recommendation is 6AM to 9PM. Leyendecker said it sounds reasonable, but on Sunday nights when people come home from the weekend, it is sometime later. No one is having issues with traffic coming and going. There is far less traffic than with his previous business. Pilon advised the PZ to make their recommendation as strong as can be one way or the other. The PZ had 2 decisions for commercial areas for outdoor storage in This is the time to state conditions clearly. General discussion among members continued about IUP issues. Stockman said the issue with this is that we are looking at state rules with the MPCA, versus PZ trying to decide if it is legal or not. The license typically is

17 City of Nowthen Planning & Zoning Commission May 22, 2018 Page 16 indicative of someone willing to put the money into the license and is using the vehicle. Older vehicles will leak. Class 5 is considered impervious, and Stockman didn t know if that would meet the MPCA standard or not. Leyendecker said he has 40 spots around perimeter of fence, with open access to renters. There is no room for more. Moan asked about the building at the north end. Pilon wondered if the building rental is included in the request. Leyendecker said yes, it would be included, as he rents that space for storage as well. He is just trying to use the space he improved. Stockman agreed that PZ needs to be very cut & dried. This is generally a very neat site. Moan said that it is reasonable to say that business needs to be kept to the business area and personal kept to the personal area. Ames asked about #5 recommendation all unlicensed vehicles prohibited unless stored within paved area. Stockman asked if PZ preferred to not allow unlicensed vehicles or if he could put down some sort of barrier and be allowed to store those vehicles. Alders asked about gravel being considered a hard surface. Liz said it is considered to be impervious. She isn t sure if it complies with MPCA standards. Moan asked if it could be a condition of the Findings, to be sure the vehicle is legally stored. Stockman said it basically goes back to what is called a salvage yard and how many are there. Leyendecker said it is not a salvage yard. Pearo, based on sizes and spaces, the fenced area comes in at about 40 spaces for this area. Any non-operable vehicle may potentially leak, and PZ needs to determine how he needs to keep contaminates out of the dirt. Good number based on size of property. This is a big enough property, and there are no complaints. Pearo said she would approve the IUP for up to 40 items being stored in 8.5x40 rentable sites for storage for items that are not personal, within fenced in area. Stockman recommended going through the italicized Findings recommendations one by one. Ames agreed. #1 Hours of operation: 6AM 9PM, 7 days a week unless issues arise. #3 6 ft fence is adequate #5 Find out if the gravel surface is going to be ok for inoperable vehicles to

18 City of Nowthen Planning & Zoning Commission May 22, 2018 Page 17 stay there by MPCA standards #6 eliminate #8 Limit number and types of vehicles to storage of residential vehicles, not large-scale construction equipment; 40 rentable sites, 10 X40. Stockman asked if PZ wanted to limit containers to the three already present and say no more, or if they are ok with containers occupying some of those 40 spots. Discussion among members concluded that a container could use an available spot within the 40 spaces. Pilon recommended using the model from last fall in the commercial district with criteria. Be consistent with what you re doing. Gravel surface was ok in commercial area, so this shouldn t be a problem here either. Stockman read the Tiny Homes conditions. Motion by Pearo to accept the IUP with the Findings and Fact recommendations with the recommended changes to #1,5,& 8 on the list, eliminate #6 and direct Planner to check into MPCA requirements for impervious surface and storm water. Moan seconded. Motion carried. Checking with MPCA for gravel surface and inoperable vehicles. Limiting # of sites to 40 available sites and 1 storage unit outside the fence. 6. DISCUSSION CONTINUED to June Meeting Consider adoption of an ordinance to regulate small cell wireless networks installed in public rights-ofway, on publicly owned buildings and/or on commercially-zoned property. 7. UPCOMING PROJECTS a. Comp Plan Workshop Date extended review to 2019 b. Annexation Hearing Update, Sept c. Zoning Text Amendment re: Accessory building setbacks on corner lots strike this. Decided it was easier to move building. Moan made the motion to Adjourn; Schiller seconded. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:55 PM.

19 City of Nowthen PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 7:00 PM Present: Dale Ames Harold Jorgenson Kristin Moan Robert Schiller Jason Alders Kelly Pearo Others: Absent: Planner Liz Stockman Barry Wagner Jeff Pilon, Council Liaison Meeting Called to Order at 7:00 Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Approve/Amend tonight s meeting agenda of June 26, 2018 Motion to approve by Alders; Seconded by Schiller; Motion Carried. 1. FLOOR ITEMS No Comments 2. CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION PLAN Mark & Michelle Poce of Burns Parkway NW; PIN # , , Discussion of Minor Subdivision Concept Stockman said that Mark & Michelle Poce are planning to divide their acreage and keep a lot for themselves. There is a large wetland in the southern portion of this lot. They are proposing 3 new lots, not interested in developing any street or cul-de-sac, but just use the frontage he has on Burns Parkway. There is a little frontage where the triangle lot cuts off access, but that can be corrected with the proposed survey and documents. He is in the process of doing a survey and wetland delineation. This piece in the back may be reconfigured, and have the middle lot be L shaped to take advantage of the hig spot for view. The cul-de-sac could be extended down, but could be combined with his 5 acre piece now. He wants to have PZ input before he comes back with final plans and is ready to go. Ames asked about the Park & Trail Plan. Stockman said there is the option of requiring the right-of-way for that trail. There is a formula for determining the value. The City would work out the review and make the call at time of the split. The pink dotted line is indicating an arrangement of local streets for trail access. The trail along Burns parkway

20 City of Nowthen Planning & Zoning Commission June 26, 2018 Page 2 would be trail access. We currently do not have a trail on Nowthen Blvd. Park & Rec Committee will get the actual survey and may chime in on this as well as the PZ. Ames said that if we ask for the trail, then that would that be in lieu of the fee for the park & trail plan. Stockman explained the fees for park & trail. Stockman said that since he already owns the land, there should be some sort of compromise for the fees. Ames asked if the value does not equal what they are asking. Stockman said you can ask for both - part fee, part land. Stockman said they would need to talk to an attorney to get actual value of the land per acre, and she doesn t have any idea at this time. The lots are very deep, and it is reasonable to ask for an additional 20 ft for a trail. Stockman recommended looking on both side of Burns Parkway to see where the trail should be. Ames said that his personal opinion is to ask for the 20 feet for all 3 lots. Stockman said that is reasonable to ask for, and it is for PZ to make a recommendation, Jorgensen said that the 20 feet is not even half an acre, and that is not a good road to work on. He thinks that it would be better to take the money instead of the land. This is not a choice piece of road. The trail would be good for those 3 parcels and no one else. The creek runs along there too. Discussion ensued about which side of the road is the lowest. Pearo said that the windy road is a problem that needs to be fixed. Getting the 20 feet would help fix that situation. Recent subdivisions have already dedicated the 75 feet for right-of-way. With the 75 ft. that is being required to split this lot up, that changes the flag lot to be basically right in the right-of-way, so we don t have to deal with renting land on the corner. Stockman said that it would work itself out as the subdivision is designed. We don t need a road to go through the large wetland, but it may someday be a trail connection. Alders asked if the existing lots have all the proper width for the road access. Stockman said yes. Ames asked Poce if he had any comments. He said that he actually owns the pie shaped remnant on the other side of the road, and would be willing to donate that. As far as the trail, it is actually not a friendly road, but can be very dangerous because of the speed people drive. Not a great place for a trail. Stockman said that to start with PZ would recommend asking for 20 feet to be dedicated for Park & Trail. Schiller said that he d recommend not charging for the 3 rd lot. Ames said there are 3 new lots. Ames made a motion to recommend asking for 20 feet for the 3 lots to be dedicated for Park & Trail. Moan 2 nd. No Discussion. Motion carried.

21 City of Nowthen Planning & Zoning Commission June 26, 2018 Page 3 3. CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION PLAN Mike Brede/Greg Begin of Jasper St. NW; PIN # Discussion of Three Lot Split Concepts Planner Stockman said this is a unique situation. It is a 10 acre parcel, nestled in with a whole subdivision in the 70 s that was not platted. All the roads are metes and bounds, not platted, and these 10 acres were not included in the density calculations. The owner plans to remove the existing house and build. His preference would be to go with the smaller lot in the upper corner, Concept 1 or 2, buildability, primary & secondary septic site, the only thing that could vary is the lot size. There are no trails along the 3 side streets. Stockman asked Brede which direction he would like the driveway to come out. He said either to the south or the existing driveway. Stockman advised PZ to consider that unique situations are allowed with variances. She said that she d like hear some conversation about having to meet the 2.5 acre minimum or if we could allow him to go slightly smaller. Brede would come back through PZ, if a variance would be required. He is asking for leniency. Schiller said that just because something was done in the 70 s doesn t mean it needs to be allowed today. Alders agreed and said there aren t any other hardships. Stockman said that it is a bit of a concern that he is losing ROW on 3 sides of his land and can only get 2 lots. Brede is asking for some deviation based on the uniqueness of the neighborhood and the fact that he is abutting these smaller lots. Pearo asked Brede which option he preferred. He said that he would prefer Option 1, because his mother would be living there. Pearo said PZ could give Brede Concept 1, within our Ordinances. If it gets too close to the barn, then they could go with Concept 2 with an angle. Then the 300 feet would be up at the top of Concept 2. Alders made the motion to follow the existing ordinance, with setbacks and 300 ft., dedicated right-of-way, and proceed to design a subdivision with the smallest parcel being 2.5 acres, 300 lot width. Schiller 2 nd. Motion carried. PZ doesn t care how it is designed, as long as they follow the Ordinances. 4. DISCUSSION CONTINUED Consider adoption of an ordinance to regulate small cell wireless networks installed in public rights-of-way, on publicly owned buildings and/or on commercially-zoned property At the end of the last meeting the discussion was about possibly combining the small cell poles with sirens, light poles, street signs, etc. The light poles are very typical, and there are cities that have designated how they should look, spacing, etc. Users can co-locate but it is not common that they do that. Stockman recommended going through her memo and discussing the things she had presented. Most cities followed the LMC example, varied in height. She had a lot of trouble finding anyone local to comment. It was a struggle to find information. Because these

22 City of Nowthen Planning & Zoning Commission June 26, 2018 Page 4 are smaller than your typical cell tower, they are closer together. The advantage is that you can place them in a low area or a peak, to help with poor reception area. The smaller towers provide better reception to people on the ground, particularly in higher density areas. Not usually a problem for rural areas like Nowthen. We do have some pole issues because of the metal structures. These are still called small cell, whether it is in a residential area or downtown. Underground use was not recommended at all for MN. Reception is not good. Strategies covering cities like Nowthen, the recommendation would be to stick with the taller towers that cover the larger areas. If PZ wanted to establish regulations for areas like city center, there can be different types, like for pedestrian users. Wood poles are used, but most common are metal poles that are painted. Most common was to have poles be multi-use. Page 4 showed different small cell deployment scenarios. Page 5 showed a street light that also has an antenna on it. Some cities allow poles to be shared with traffic lights. Pages 6,7 are from the Stealth company to show different examples of ways to conceal the antenna. Page 8 shows different styles of poles available. Page 9 shows the actual antenna on top measures 27 tall and is about 24 off the ground. The lights are about 2/3rds of that, so about 16 ft off the ground. On page 10, as part of the applications of these, it is very helpful when the providers take a picture and show what their design is, so the city governing body gets a nice visual about how it will look within the street right-of-way. Ames asked what was the goal to accomplish to get a rough draft ordinance started? Stockman said yes. There is a lot to think about, and the only way to realize that would be to take an example and amend it, instead of wasting time putting something together. The Council s recommendation is that it is better to plan for it, instead of trying to correct things afterward. Moan said it would be better to have taller ones in Nowthen. We don t have a lot of sidewalks where people are coming and going. You would want an aesthetic look. Ames asked if the electric company would allow anything on their poles. Schiller said absolutely not, unless it is part of their company. Alders asked if we could make some basic requirements that if it is within the city proper it needs to be combined on a light pole. If it is outside the main city proper, then they would have to bring it before the PZ and pull a permit to approve what it would look like.

23 City of Nowthen Planning & Zoning Commission June 26, 2018 Page 5 Stockman said we could create a map that would say within that boundary the small cell tower would need to be combined on a light pole, and outside of that boundary it would need a permit and review by the CC. Moan said it would be best to take someone else s guidelines and adapt them to our city. It would be best to give the small cell companies options instead of them giving the city options. Stockman said she could start with these recommendations. Pearo asked if she could get someone else s guidelines to give us a basic guideline for how to proceed. Schiller said he would like to discuss this with the council in the next joint meeting. Stockman said that she agrees, but it is PZ s job to work out the kinks and give things to the CC for their feedback. It is important to work through some of the details and then present it to the CC. Moan said that we don t need to get into the legalities of it, but just look at what everyone else is doing. Stockman said she will look into the LMC s recommendation and compare with other cities, and will put together some talking points. Stockman highlighted an from LMC strongly urging the cities to not sign a letter going around about FCC regulations. Schiller made the motion to adjourn. Alders 2 nd. Motion Carried. 8:29PM

24 3601 Thurston Avenue Anoka, MN PLANNING REPORT TO: FROM: Nowthen Mayor and City Council Nowthen Planning and Zoning Commission Elizabeth Stockman DATE: July 16, 2018 RE: Nowthen Greenwaldt Minor Subdivision, st Avenue NW (PID ) FILE NO: BACKGROUND Alan and Joni Greenwaldt have submitted a Minor Subdivision application for their acre property located at st Avenue NW. They are requesting a total of three (3) lots to be split from the property: two 10-acre parcels and the remaining acres. The middle lot (Parcel B) contains the existing farmhouse and accessory buildings. The proposed split is Phase One of the conceptual lot layout shown in Exhibit D that was reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission in June of The property is appropriately zoned RRA, Rural Residential Agriculture and guided Low Density Residential through 2030 as part of Nowthen s Comprehensive Land Use Plan. EXHIBITS A Application (3 pages) B Site Location C Aerial Photo D Concept Plan E Survey F 60-day Letter G 60-day Extension ( , 2 pages) H Engineer s Report I Wetland Map J Park and Trail Plan K - Findings of Fact 1

25 ANALYSIS Zoning and Land Use Plan Consistency The property is zoned RRA, Rural Residential Agriculture. All proposed parcels exceed the minimum lot size requirement of five (5) acres as required under Section F, RRA District standards, which is consistent with the low density residential land use designation on the City s 2030 Land Use Plan. Lot Width and Public Street Frontage. The Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances require a minimum lot width of 300 feet and a minimum of 150 feet of lot frontage on a public street. The Greenwaldt property has feet of frontage on 181 st Avenue; all parcels exceed the lot width and depth requirements as well as street frontage minimums. Wetland Delineation & Review. The wetland delineation has been completed, so wetland boundaries are presumed accurate as depicted on the survey, however, the 2016 delineation is not officially complete until the City s wetland specialist coordinates review in the field. A Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) meeting is noticed, conducted and then a decision is issued on the delineation. This is a requirement of the Wetland Conservation Act. The TEP meeting may include representatives from the City, DNR, Board of Water and Soil Resources, Upper Rum River Watershed District Anoka Conservation District and/or the Army Corps of Engineers, depending on the wetlands and jurisdictions involved. This process and final decision on the delineation shall be made a condition of subdivision approval. Lot Buildability. Section of the Nowthen Subdivision Ordinance requires that several criteria be met upon each new lot to be considered a buildable parcel. Lot buildability standards require soil borings with soil properties and percolation rates suitable for primary/backup septic systems and structures, one acre of continuous land per parcel, minimum of 23,000 square feet with a 3-foot separation above the highest known water table, a basement elevation 1 foot above mottled soils, and usable yards. Parcels A and B show primary and secondary septic system drain field areas, but lot buildability was not included for Parcel C since it is planned for further subdivision at a later date. At the present time, the City Council must proceed in one of the following ways: 1. Require lot buildability information and revision of the survey. 2. Waive the lot buildability requirements as part of the minor subdivision process, allowed based on the (large) size of the parcel, future subdivision plans and the following sections of the Nowthen Subdivision Ordinance: Section D: The City Council emphasizes the point that A LEGAL CONVEYANCE DOES NOT IMPLY A BUILDABLE LOT. Any land division intended to be used for residential development must be accepted by the City Council and meet all City standards as specified in Section of this Chapter. 2

26 Section A: In the case of a subdivision resulting in three (3) or fewer parcels, situated in a locality where conditions are well defined, the City Council may exempt the subdivider from complying with some of the requirements of these regulations. 3. Require that as a condition of approval, a deed restriction is filed against the property to prevent a building permit from being issued on the land. A deed restriction defines specific limits regarding allowable uses and development of a property. It is established by a landowner on a property's title, typically when the landowner is selling the land and wishes to exert some influence over its use, usually to benefit adjacent lands to which he or she intends to retain title. State law presently limits enforceability of deed restrictions to 30 years (with exceptions defined in MN Title Standard No. 91A). Accessory Building Setbacks. The proposed lots must be large enough to accommodate the number and square footage of existing accessory structures. Parcel B is 10 acres and can accommodate the existing number and square footage of accessory buildings, however, a small structure on the east property line is 15 feet from the lot line rather than the required 20 feet. The City Council may allow it to remain as a legally non-conforming use or may ask that it be removed. A single building on Parcel C is located 24.6 feet from the side lot line. An old concrete pad on Parcel C is flat to the ground and does not need to meet setbacks or be counted as accessory structure area. It will likely be removed when Parcel C is replatted. Road Easements. As part of the proposed subdivision, road easements may need to be deeded to Anoka County for County Road 64 (181 st Avenue). As a condition of approval, legal descriptions and deeds shall be prepared for review, if required. In other areas along 181 st Avenue, ROW has been dedicated up to 60-feet from the centerline. The subdivision shall also be subject to review and approval by the Anoka County Highway Department. New driveway access will require approval of a county access permit. Temporary Access Easement. The Greenwaldts are proposing an access easement 20 feet wide and 150 long on Parcel B along the lot line shared with Parcel C. This will allow access from 181 st Avenue along the existing gravel driveway to a point where the ground is flat and a vehicle can access the barn which is to remain on Parcel C. At such time as Parcel C is further subdivided and lots are sold, the easement would be vacated. A legal description needs to be established for this easement so it can be recorded at Anoka County. Park & Trail Dedication. There are no park or trail facilities which abut the subject property as shown on the City s Park and Trail Plan, adopted in 2009, attached as Exhibit J. The Planning and Zoning Commission should make a recommendation regarding park ($2000/lot) and trail ($500/lot) dedication fees. It is recommended that park/trail dedication fees be required for Parcels A and C. If Parcel C is not built upon prior to further subdivision of this land, credit can be given for one lot in the future plat. 3

27 Section A: In all new subdivisions, as defined in this Section, the subdivider shall be required to make a cash contribution to the City s park fund and to the City s trail fund and/or shall dedicate land for parks, trails, and public open spaces as provided by this Section. Section K: The park and trail dedication requirement shall be applied to all subdivision of land, as defined by this Section, regardless of the type of proposed development and the number of lots created. On plats, this fee will be paid to the clerk prior to signing the official mylars. On other subdivisions, the fee will be paid prior to recording the lot split. CONCLUSION & POSSIBLE MOTIONS Approval of the minor subdivision for the Greenwaldt property within the RRA District is a decision to be made by the City Council after consideration of the subdivision and zoning regulations outlined herein. Motion to approve the minor subdivision to create two 10-acre lots and one acre lot, based on demonstration that the request is consistent with Comprehensive Plan, Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance regulations, and subject to the conditions (as may be amended) attached in the findings of fact. Motion to deny the application based on a finding that the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Ordinance. Motion to table/continue the lot split request until a future meeting. C: Ellen Lendt, Deputy Clerk Alan and Joni Greenwaldt Shane Nelson, City Engineer 4

28

29

30

31 TWIN PKWY NW EATON S BAUGH ST NW BAUGH ST NW BAUGH ST NW WOLVERINE ST NW 8970 TIGER ST NW 8812 SUGARBUSH RD NW 8833 TIGER ST NW TIGER ST NW RABBIT ST NW IGUANA ST N W x NOWTHEN BLVD NW ZEOLITE ST NW VARIOLITE ST NW RHINESTONE ST NW JASPAR ST NW BASALT ST NW YTTRIUM ST NW XENON ST NW WOLFRAM ST NW URANIUM ST NW SODIUM ST NW WACO ST N W VENTR E ST NOTICE: City files must be consulted to verify the zoning classification of property in addition to this map. City of Nowthen Zoning Map IMAN ST NW ND AVE NW EATON ST NW ND C 224TH AVE NW 223RD AVE NW IR NW 225TH AVE NW 224TH CT NW SUGAR BU SH RD NW Burns Lake 225TH AVE NW RD AVE NW OLIVINE ST N W HILLEND ALE RD NW MARB L E S T NW HILLSIDE TRL NW SPRI NG HILL RD N W GARNET ST NW TH CIR NW TH AV E N W TH AVE NW TH AVE NW TH AVE NW POST RD NW BRIDGESTONE RD NW TH AVE NW ARGON ST NW Norris Lake Ekstrom Lake Mud Lake JARVIS ST NW NORRIS LAKE RD NW TH AVE NW Goose Lake PINNAKER RD NW Pinnaker Lake TH CT TH CT 6712 DOLOMITE ST TH AVE NW 215TH AVE NW TH AVE NW TH AVE NW 6350 TUNGSTEN ST NW CLEARY RD NW LITHIUM ST NW 212TH AVE NW WACO S T N W TH AVE NW Bear Lake MINNESOTA PIPE LINE CO. 207TH AVE NW GYPSY VALLEY RD NW VERDE VALLEY RD NW 210TH AVE NW COBALT ST NW 210TH LN NW 5154 SAINT FRANCIS BLVD NW 205TH AVE NW ENGEN BLVD NW 205TH AVE NW PER IDOT ST NW TH AVE NW TH LN NW POTASSIUM ST NW DOUGLAS CIR NW HALAS ST NW RD AV E NW T NW TH AVE NW DRISCOLL ST NW 9230 East Twin Lake 203RD AVE NW BIRCHWOOD VIKING BLVD NW 194TH LN NW ST AVE NW MARMO SET ST NW TH LN NW HEDGEHOG ST NW FERRET ST NW 199TH AVE NW TH LN NW SPARRE RD NW Pickerel Lake Bass Lake RD AVE NW OLD VIKING BLVD NW TH AVE NW W FORD BROOK DR W FORD BROOK DR TH AVE NW IMAN S T NW TH AVE NW N.S.P. EAS EMENT 188TH AVE NW TH AVE NW VICUNA ST NW TH AVE NW BURNS PKWY NW 185TH AVE NW KANGAROO ST N W IGUANA CIR NW BISON ST NW ALPACA ST NW ZEOLITE ST NW ST LN NW 188TH LN N W X ENOLITH ST NW TH AVE NW 181ST AVE NW IDOT ST NW PER TH AVE NW 190TH LN NW 189TH LN NW GA R NET ST NW E BO NY S T NW EBON Y ST NW 6721 DOLOMITE ST N W Mccann Lake 191ST AVE NW YTTRIUM ST NW TH LN NW URANIUM ST NW ST LN NW C LIF TON R D NW WATERCREST BLVD NW MERLES 187TH AVE NW LN POTASSIUM ST NW S T NW LIT HIUM RD AVE NW KRYPTON S T NW KRYPT O N ST NW VEGA DR NW ERKIUM ST NW YAKIMA ST NW TH WACO ST N W ND LN NW Benjamin Lake LN NW TH AVE NW RD L N NW NW WAC O ST SALISH CIR NW ZONING C-1 - Commercial District (568 acres / 2.62%) Mile I-1 - Industrial District (359 acres / 1.65%) CON - Conservancy District (77 acres / 0.35%) LTA - Long Term Agriculture (0 acres / 0%) RRA - Rural Residential Agriculture (19,451 acres / 89.6%) LRUS - Long Range Urban Service (1,256 acres / 5.78%) Shoreland Overlay District Sources: City of Nowthen, Anoka County, MN DNR, HAA & TPC Ordinance #38, adpoted October 13, 2011 Revised Shoreland Overlay District February 19, 2014 TPC K:\cad_eng\PROJECTS\GIS\NT901\2014\NT Zoning Map

32 st Ave NW April 6, :9, ,750 ft m Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification.

33

34 E

35 3601 Thurston Avenue Anoka, MN June 4, 2018 Alan and Joni Greenwaldt rd Ave NW Ramsey, MN RE: Nowthen Minor Subdivision, st Avenue, FILE: Dear Mr. and Mrs. Greenwaldt, This office serves as the City Planner for the City of Nowthen. The City received an application on April 3, 2018 for a minor subdivision at st Avenue NW in Nowthen. The City Council has 60 days in accordance with Minnesota Statute to consider the application and take action to approve or deny the request. The Statute also allows the City to extend the review period an additional 60 days if needed to complete its investigation of the application and make a decision. notification was sent to you on April 10, 2018 advising you that the application was incomplete. The City has not received any revised plans or additional information. Based on this action and to ensure that the City Council has adequate time to consider the request, this letter shall serve as notice that the City is extending the review period an additional 60 days in accordance with Minnesota Statues The deadline for City Council action on the request shall be August 1, 2018 unless the review period is extended indefinitely by you in writing. In order to obtain City Council approval by the July meeting, plans are needed by June 5, 2018 to be on the June Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Please contact me for any assistance you require regarding the application or with any questions regarding this notice. Sincerely, Elizabeth Stockman THE PLANNING COMPANY LLC c. Corrie LaDoucer Ellen Lendt

36 Elizabeth Stockman From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Greenwaldt, Joni L <joni_greenwaldt@baxter.com> Wednesday, June 13, :29 PM Elizabeth Stockman; agreenwaldt1@comcast.net 'Corrie LaDoucer'; 'City of Nowthen' RE: Greenwaldt 60-day letter Thank you, Liz. Is there anything we need to do? Joni From: Elizabeth Stockman [mailto:liz.stockman@planningco.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, :08 PM To: Greenwaldt, Joni L <joni_greenwaldt@baxter.com>; agreenwaldt1@comcast.net Cc: 'Corrie LaDoucer' <CLadoucer@nowthenmn.net>; 'City of Nowthen' <deputyclerk@nowthenmn.net> Subject: RE: Greenwaldt 60-day letter Joni, I am anticipating August approval by the City Council, but I need to get the changes to the survey in the next couple of weeks. I sent Lynn Caswell another separately. Liz From: Greenwaldt, Joni L <joni_greenwaldt@baxter.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 6, :43 PM To: Elizabeth Stockman <liz.stockman@planningco.com>; agreenwaldt1@comcast.net Cc: 'Corrie LaDoucer' <CLadoucer@nowthenmn.net>; 'City of Nowthen' <deputyclerk@nowthenmn.net> Subject: RE: Greenwaldt 60-day letter Hi Liz, We agree to extend as needed; however, have we not done everything we were told we needed to do? If so, is there any reason we would not be able to gain approval on August 14? We are just trying to understand the process. Thanks for all your help and any clarification you can provide. Best Regards, Al and Joni Greenwaldt From: Elizabeth Stockman [mailto:liz.stockman@planningco.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, :27 PM To: agreenwaldt1@comcast.net; Greenwaldt, Joni L <joni_greenwaldt@baxter.com> Cc: 'Corrie LaDoucer' <CLadoucer@nowthenmn.net>; 'City of Nowthen' <deputyclerk@nowthenmn.net> Subject: Greenwaldt 60-day letter Alan and Joni, At this point, based on the dates outlined in the letter and City submittal deadlines, approval could not happen until the August Council meeting at the earliest (Aug 14), if you can reply to this just stating that you agree to extending the 1

37 review period indefinitely, then we don t have to worry about when the approval happens. I know the sooner the better, of course Let me know if you have any questions. Elizabeth Stockman Consulting City Planner Direct

38 Main Office: 3601 Thurston Avenue, Anoka, MN Phone: 763/ Fax: 763/ MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: CC: City of Nowthen Shane Nelson, City Engineer Elizabeth Stockman, City Planner Corrie LaDoucer, City Clerk Bob Ruppe, City Attorney DATE: July 16, 2018 RE: Greenwaldt Minor Subdivision We have received and reviewed the Certificate of Survey for the above-referenced project and would offer the following: 1. Please provide information to depict that lot buildability standards will be met for both new parcels (Parcel A and Parcel C) as per Section of the City Code, including: a. One acre of contiguous area of upland for a building site b. A minimum of 23,000 square feet of land area with a 3 foot separation between the final surface elevation and mottled soil. c. Please shade/hatch the buildable area(s) for Parcel A and Parcel C on the survey. d. Provide a Buildability table. Include a summary of the contiguous upland building area, the area(s) with 3 separation, a summary of the soil borings including mottling elevations, the 100-Year HWL, and Lowest Livable Floor Elevation. 2. The Wetland Delineation Report has been received and is under review. A Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) meeting will be scheduled in the near future for an on-site review and a decision is forthcoming. 3. Wetland impacts will be necessary for Parcel A to construct a driveway. Please provide a detailed plan for the necessary wetland impacts and clearly depict the impacts on the plans. 4. The wetland impacts may require a wetland replacement plan. Please submit for review and approval. 5. The HWL s shall be determined for all wetlands and labeled on the plans. 6. Label E.O.F. s on the plans for all wetlands. 7. Depict the required wetland buffers on the plans. Based on the preliminary MnRAMs, the following can be depicted (subject to approval by TEP): a. Wetland 1 Minor Priority 15 buffer b. Wetlands 2, 3, and 4 Moderate Priority 20 minimum 8. Depict all setback lines on the plans. 9. CR 64 is a county road, and therefore new driveway access locations are subject to review and approval of the Anoka County Highway Department.

39 I Y:\Clients\ALAN_GREENWALDT\MapDocs\J FIG 2 Wetland Locations and NWI Overlay Map.mxd µ Drawn By: S.G Meters Feet Date Drawn/Revised:12/23/2015 Project No.J Soil Pit Location Site Boundary National Wetland Inventory Delineated Wetland Intermittent Stream 1 Inch = 150 Feet Map Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 15 N Basemap: Bing Aerial Imagery WMS Nowthen # M I N N E S O TA 181st Avenue Northwest Nowthen, Minnesota Nowthen Sub-Division Wetland Locations and NWI Overlay Map Figure 2