HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Packet 07-11-11NOTICE OF MEETING
The City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on
Monday, July 11, 2011, at 7:00 p.m.
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approve Agenda
3. Approve Minutes
a. May 9, 2011 (future meeting)
b. June 13, 2011 (future meeting)
4. Public Hearing
a. VARIANCE: Consideration of an application to allow the reconstruction of a barn
that is non - conforming to size within the floodplain at 9940 59t" Street Court North.
The variance is to allow the 3,800 square foot building to be internally flood proofed
where the regulations allow the rebuilding of a structure within the floodplain when it
does not exceed 500 square feet.
b. VARIANCE: Consideration of a variance at 5761 Keats Avenue North to allow a
2,400 square foot detached accessory building to be built in addition to an existing
detached accessory building (2,310 square feet in size) where current regulations
allow only one accessory building up to 2,500 square feet.
5. Business Items (None)
6. Updates
a. City Council Updates
i. Variance Ordinance — Approved
ii. Appeal of Lot Line Interpretation for 7955 Hill Trail Court - Reversed
b. Staff Updates
c. Commission Concerns
7. Adjourn
Planning Commission
Date: 7/11/11
Public Hearing
Item: 4a
ITEM: Hold a public hearing to consider an application from Douglas Lovett for a
variance to permit the construction of a new accessory building at 9940
59" St. Ct. N.— OP /OS zoning — PID 03- 029 -21 -12 -0005.
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
REVIEWED BY: Kell Matzek, Planner
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: Staff is requesting that the planning commission hold a
public hearing to consider a request from Douglas Lovett for a variance to permit the
construction of a new accessory building at 9940 59th Street Court North. Specifically,
the accessory building requires a variance due to the fact that that the site is in a flood
plain, thus making it nonconforming. The construction of this barn is a result of an old
structure at the same location being damaged due to snow load. It should be noted that
the structure was not previously in the flood plain before FEMA updates their flood maps
in 2008.
For variance applications, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate why this
situation is unique and necessitates flexibility to code requirements. To make this case, a
variance can only be granted by the city when strict enforcement of the code would cause
"practical difficulties" on a property owner. Therefore, the case must meet the following
four findings:
a. A variance to the provision of this chapter may be granted by the Board of
Adjustment upon the application by the owner of the affected property where the
strict enforcement of this chapter would cause practical difficulties because of
circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration and then
only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirits
and intent of this chapter;
b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the landowner;
c. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality in
which the property in question is located; and
d. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
property adjacent to the property in question or substantially increase the
congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood.
In reviewing the request against the four findings listed above, staff determined all criteria
were met and considered reasonable.
At this time, the planning commission is asked to conduct a public hearing for the
variance request to allow construction of an accessory building. Upon conclusion of the
hearing, the commission is asked to make a recommendation to the City Council on this
request.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The Valley Branch Watershed District did not have any concerns with the application.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend that the Planning Commission approve the proposed variance for Douglas
Lovett at 9940 591h St. Ct. N. with conditions outlined in the attached staff report.
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction .......................... ...............................
- Report by staff ..................... ...............................
- Questions from the Commission ........................
- Applicant Comments.... .................. ...................
- Questions of the Applicant .. ...............................
- Open the Public Hearing ..... ...............................
- Close the Public Hearing ..... ...............................
- Call for a motion .................. ...............................
- Discussion of Commission on the motion ..........
- Action by the Planning Commission ...................
....... Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
....... Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
........ Chair & Commission Members
....... ..........................Chair facilitates
...... Chair & Commission Members
.................. ............................... Chair
............... ............................... Chair
............................. Chair Facilitates
. ............................... Chair Facilitates
......... Chair & Commission Members
ATTACHMENTS (6):
1. Site plan identifying dimensions of the accessory structure
2. Detailed staff report analyzing the request
3. Letter detailing contractor's flood proofing measures
4. Flood plain map
5. Survey of 9940 59" St. Ct. N.
6. Images of the old accessory structure that was damaged due to snow load
City of Lake Elmo Planning Department
Variance Review
To: Planning Commission
From: Kyle Matt, Planning Director
Meeting Date: 7/11/11
Applicant:
Doug Lovett
Owner:
Doug Lovett
Location:
9940 59th Street Court N.
Zoning:
OP /OS— Open Space Preservation District
Request Doug Lovett, 9940 59th St. Ct. N., is requesting that the City consider a variance to
allow the construction of an accessory building on the property at the site where the
previous structure was damaged due to snow load. The proposed building would be
located within the flood plain and would thus be non - conforming.
Site Data: Property Identification No. Area Use
03- 029 -21 -12 -0005 635,976 square feet Accessory Structure
(I4.60Acres)
The applicant's property is OP /OS Open Space Preservation District. It is located in
the Northern part of Lake Elmo. There is an existing single family home and accessory
structure located within the flood plain in Flood Fringe District. The fact that these
structures are in the flood plain is a result of FEMA's last updates of their flood map
in 2008. It should be noted that the extent to which the flood boundary extends is
farther than what is typically normal. The accessory structure, a barn used for the
property owner's farming activities, was constructed at more than 30 years prior. It is
important to note that the structure is not visible from Hwy 36 and does not present a
physical or visual nuisance in any way.
Applicable § 152.11 NONCONFORMING USES (A, 3)
Codes:
The cost of all structural alterations or additions to any nonconforming structure
over the life of the structure shall not exceed 50 percent of the market value of the
structure unless the conditions of this Section are satisfied. The cost of all
structural alterations and additions must include all costs such as construction
' t ,u± r o1 1, ,
materials and a reasonable cost placed on all manpower or labor. If the cost of all
previous and proposed alterations and additions exceeds 50 percent of the market
value of the structure, then the structure must meet the standards of Section 152.04
or 152.05 of this Ordinance for new structures depending upon whether the
structure is in the Floodway or Flood Fringe District, respectively.
As an alternative to fill, accessory structures that constitute a minimal investment
and that do not exceed 500 square feet at its largest projection may be internally
flood proofed in accordance with Section 152.04 (D, 5, c)
§ 152.04 FLOODWAY DISTRICT (D, 5, c)
Accessory structures shall be elevated on fill or structurally dry flood proofed in
accordance with the FP -I or FP -2 flood proofing classifications in the State
Building Code. As an alternative, an accessory structure may be flood proofed to
the FP -3 or FP -4 flood proofing classification in the State Building Code provided
that the accessory structure constitutes a minimal investment, does not exceed 500
square feet in size at its largest projection, and for a detached garage, the detached
garage must be used solely for parking of vehicles and limited storage. All flood
proofed accessory structures must meet the following standards:
1. The structure must be adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or
lateral movement of the structure and shall be designed to equalize
hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls;
2. Any mechanical and utility equipment in a structure must be elevated to or
above the regulatory flood protection elevation or properly flood proofed;
and
3. To allow for the equalization of hydrostatic pressure, there must be a
minimum of two "automatic' openings in the outside walls of the structure
having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot
of enclosed area subject to flooding. There must be openings on at least
two sides of the structure and the bottom of all openings must be no higher
than one foot above the lowest adjacent grade to the structure. Using
human intervention to open a garage door prior to flooding will not satisfy
this requirement for automatic openings.
§152.10 ADMINISTRATION (C, 3)
Variances. The Board of Adjustment may authorize upon appeal in specific cases
such relief or variance from the terms of this Ordinance as will not be contrary to
the public interest and only when the applicable criteria of Section 154.017 of the
City Code is met. In the granting of such variance, the Board of Adjustment shall
clearly identify in writing the specific conditions that existed consistent with the
criteria specified in this Ordinance, any other zoning regulations in the City, and in
materials and a reasonable cost placed on all manpower or labor. If the cost of all
previous and proposed alterations and additions exceeds 50 percent of the market
value of the structure, then the structure must meet the standards of Section 152.04
or 152.05 of this Ordinance for new structures depending upon whether the
structure is in the Floodway or Flood Fringe District, respectively.
As an alternative to fill, accessory structures that constitute a minimal investment
and that do not exceed 500 square feet at its largest projection may be internally
flood proofed in accordance with Section 152.04 (D, 5, c)
§ 152.04 FLOOD6WAY DISTRICT (D, 5, c)
Accessory structures shall be elevated on fill or structurally dry flood proofed in
accordance with the FP -1 or FP -2 flood proofing classifications in the State
Building Code. As an alternative, an accessory structure may be flood proofed to
the FP -3 or FP -4 flood proofing classification in the State Building Code provided
that the accessory structure constitutes a minimal investment, does not exceed 500
square feet in size at its largest projection, and for a detached garage, the detached
garage must be used solely for parking of vehicles and limited storage. All flood
proofed accessory structures must meet the following standards:
1. The structure must be adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or
lateral movement of the structure and shall be designed to equalize
hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls;
2. Any mechanical and utility equipment in a structure must be elevated to or
above the regulatory flood protection elevation or properly flood proofed;
and
3. To allow for the equalization of hydrostatic pressure, there must be a
minimum of two "automatic" openings in the outside walls of the structure
having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot
of enclosed area subject to flooding. There must be openings on at least
two sides of the structure and the bottom of all openings must be no higher
than one foot above the lowest adjacent grade to the structure. Using
human intervention to open a garage door prior to flooding will not satisfy
this requirement for automatic openings.
§152.10 ADMINISTRATION (C, 3)
Variances. The Board of Adjustment may authorize upon appeal in specific cases
such relief or variance from the terms of this Ordinance as will not be contrary to
the public interest and only when the applicable criteria of Section 154.017 of the
City Code is met. In the granting of such variance, the Board of Adjustment shall
clearly identify in writing the specific conditions that existed consistent with the
criteria specified in this Ordinance, any other zoning regulations in the City, and in
r7; trt r WNW1
the respective enabling legislation that justified the granting of the variance. No
variance shall have the effect of allowing in any district uses prohibited in that
district, permit a lower degree of flood protection than the regulatory flood
protection elevation for the particular area, or permit standards lower than those
required by state law. The following additional variance criteria of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency must be satisfied:
a. Variances shall not be issued by a community within any designated
regulatory floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood
discharge would result.
b. Variances shall only be issued by a community upon (i) a showing of good
and sufficient cause, (ii) a determination that failure to grant the variance
would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant, and (iii) a
determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased
flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public
expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victirnization on the public, or
conflict with existing local laws or ordinances.
c. Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the
minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief.
Applicable ACCESSORY BUILDING. A subordinate building, or a portion of the main building,
Code which is located on the same lot as the main building and the purpose of which is
Definitions: clearly incidental to that of the principal building.
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. A use or structure on the same lot with, and of a
nature customarily incidental and subordinate to, the principal use or structure.
BUILDING. Any structure, either temporary or permanent, having a roof and used or
built for the shelter or enclosure of any person, animal, or movable property of any
kind. When any portion of a building is completely separated from every other part of
a building by area separation, each portion of the building shall be deemed as a
separate building.
PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES. "Practical difficulties ", as used in connection to the
granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a
reasonable manner not permitted by an official control.
STRUCTURE. Anything constructed or erected on the ground or attached to the
ground or on -site utilities, including, but not limited to, buildings, factories, sheds,
detached garages, cabins, manufactured homes, signs, and other similar items.
USE, ACCESSORY. A use subordinate to and serving the principal use or structure
on the same lot and customarily incidental to the principal use.
VARIANCE. A modification of a specific permitted development standard required
to allow an alternative development standard not stated as acceptable in the official
control, but only as applied to a particular property for the purpose of alleviating a
hardship as defined in Section 300.06, Subd. 3. Economic considerations along shall
not constitute a hardship. [sic]
Variance I The applicant is requesting that the City consider a variance to allow the construction
Request.* of an accessory structure within the flood plain on the property.
Variance
Criteria:
By code, a variance can only be granted where the city finds the request can
successfully address the following four criteria:
A variance to the provision of this chapter may be granted by the Board of
Adjustment upon the application by the owner of the affected property where the
strict enforcement of this chapter would cause practical difficulties because of
circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration and then only
when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirits and
intent of this chapter;
The applicant is proposing to rebuild an accessory building that was damaged due to
snow load. Despite the fact that rebuilding the structure in its current location is
within the boundary of the flood plain, it is important to differentiate that the structure
is located in a Flood Fringe District as opposed to a Floodway District. It should also
be noted that there have been no previous incidents of flooding of this structure.
Given that if the appropriate flood proofing is completed by the property owner,
rebuilding this structure in its current location is found to be reasonable.
It is critical to note that according to City Code, the property owner would be allowed
to construct the structure with the same dimension had it not been in the flood plain.
In other words, the location of the structure in the flood plain is the only factor making
the structure nonconforming.
In addition to these finding, the property owners have noted that an accessory structure
of only 500 square feet, which is what is allowed within the Flood Fringe District, is
not large enough to fulfill the needs of their farming activities that currently occur.
Therefore, an accessory structure of this size would significantly limit their ability to
continue their farming activities.
It should also be noted that in order to repair and rebuild this structure, the property
owners must obtain a variance due to the fact that the cost of the project exceeds 50
percent of the market value of the structure, as specified in Section 152.11.
The request to rebuild the accessory building that was damaged due to snow load on
the property is a reasonable request. Therefore, staff finds this condition is met.
2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
Nffle
Variance
Variance
Criteria:
not constitute a hardship. [sic]
I he applicant is requesting that the City consider a variance to allow the construction
of an accessory structure within the flood plain on the property.
By code, a variance can only be granted where the city finds the request can
successfully address the following four criteria:
A variance to the provision of this chapter may be granted by the Board of
Adjustment upon the application by the owner of the affected property where the
strict enforcement of this chapter would cause practical difficulties because of
circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration and then only
when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirits and
intent of this chapter;
The applicant is proposing to rebuild an accessory building that was damaged due to
snow load. Despite the fact that rebuilding the structure in its current location is
within the boundary of the flood plain, it is important to differentiate that the structure
is located in a Flood Fringe District as opposed to a Floodway District. It should also
be noted that there have been no previous incidents of flooding of this structure.
Given that if the appropriate flood proofing is completed by the property owner,
rebuilding this structure in its current location is found to be reasonable.
It is critical to note that according to City Code, the property owner would be allowed
to construct the structure with the same dimension had it not been in the flood plain.
In other words, the location of the structure in the flood plain is the only factor making
the structure nonconforming.
In addition to these finding, the property owners have noted that an accessory structure
of only 500 square feet, which is what is allowed within the Flood Fringe District, is
not large enough to fulfill the needs of their farming activities that currently occur.
Therefore, an accessory structure of this size would significantly limit their ability to
continue their farming activities.
It should also be noted that in order to repair and rebuild this structure, the property
owners must obtain a variance due to the fact that the cost of the project exceeds 50
percent of the market value of the structure, as specified in Section 152.11.
The request to rebuild the accessory building that was damaged due to snow load on
the property is a reasonable request. Therefore, staff finds this condition is met.
2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the landowner,
In 2008, FEMA updated the flood map, which resulted in the accessory structure on
the Lovett property being included in the Flood Fringe District. In addition, the area
of the flood plain is substantially larger than normal. Finally, the damage caused by
snow load made the structure unsafe, necessitating new construction.
Therefore staff finds this condition is met.
3. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality in which
the property in question is located.
The structure existed in the same location before being included in the Flood Fringe
District. As mentioned before, this structure has never previously flooded. As long as
the appropriate flood proofing techniques are utilized, then there shouldn't be any
concern as to a shift in the character of the locality.
Therefore, staff finds this condition is met.
4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
property adjacent to the property in question or substantially increase the
congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood.
Repairing the damaged structure should ensure that property values do not diminish in
the neighborhood. In addition, completing the necessary flood proofing would not
diminish the property value in any way. Finally, repairing this structure should not
impair the supply of light or air, or cause any congestion to the public streets.
Planning As long as the property owner successfully flood proofs the structure up to the
Issues: specifications required, then the barn should be construbted in its existing location.
MNDNR This variance was submitted to the MN DNR, but given the current state government
Concerns: shut -down, there was no response.
Therefore, staff finds this condition is met.
Based on the analysis of the review criteria in City Code, staff would recommend
Variance
Conclusions:
approval of the variance to allow the construction of the accessory structure.
Resident
Concerns:
Staff is not aware of any resident concerns regarding the requested variance.
Planning As long as the property owner successfully flood proofs the structure up to the
Issues: specifications required, then the barn should be construbted in its existing location.
MNDNR This variance was submitted to the MN DNR, but given the current state government
Concerns: shut -down, there was no response.
Plan: i_ o,11,111so h..;10" I 'e (r
Fire
Department The fire department has not expressed any significant concerns.
Comments:
Engineer
Comments: ( The City Engineer has not expressed any significant concerns.
VBWD
Comments: The Valley Branch Watershed District did not have any concerns.
Conclusion:
The applicant is seeking approval of a variance allowing the construction and repair of
an accessory structure.
Commission The Planning Commission was presented with the following options:
Options A) Recommend approval of the requested variance as it will not adversely impact
Presented: the essential character of the locality.
B) Recommend denial of the requested variance based on the findings identified
by the commission.
The deadline for a Council decision on this item is August 22, 2011.
Staff Rec: Staff recommended approval of the variance request based on the following:
1) The construction of the accessory structure will not alter the essential character
of the locality.
2) The implementation of flood proofing measures will ensure that the structure is
not a nuisance or hazard.
3) An accessory structure of only 500 square feet would limit the property
owner's ability to continue the farming activities in the future that presently
occur.
Provided the following conditions are met
I) It must be anchored to resist flotation, collapse, and lateral movement;
2) The portions of these structures located below the Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
must be constructed of flood - resistant materials;
3) It must be designed to allow for the automatic entry of flood waters;
4) Mechanical and utility equipment must be elevated or flood proofed at or
above the BFE;
"/)'r w .. &; Iff , .
Fire
Department The fire department has not expressed any significant concerns.
Comments:
Engineer
Comments: I The City Engineer has not expressed any significant concerns.
VRWD
Comments: The Valley Branch Watershed District did not have any concerns.
Conclusion:
The applicant is seeking approval of a variance allowing the construction and repair of
an accessory structure.
Commission The Planning Commission was presented with the following options:
Options A) Recommend approval of the requested variance as it will not adversely impact
Presented: the essential character of the locality.
B) Recommend denial of the requested variance based on the findings identified
by the commission.
The deadline for a Council decision on this item is August 22, 2011.
StaffRec: Staff recommended approval of the variance request based on the following:
1) The construction of the accessory structure will not alter the essential character
of the locality.
2) The implementation of flood proofing measures will ensure that the structure is
not a nuisance or hazard.
3) An accessory structure of only 500 square feet would limit the property
owner's ability to continue the farming activities in the future that presently
occur.
Provided the following conditions are met
1) It must be anchored to resist flotation, collapse, and lateral movement;
2) The portions of these structures located below the Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
must be constructed of flood- resistant materials;
3) It must be designed to allow for the automatic entry of flood waters;
4) Mechanical and utility equipment must be elevated or flood proofed at or
above the BFE;
r.,,�:.,
5) It must comply with the floodway encroachment provisions of the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Regulations;
6) Its use must be limited to parking and/or limited storage; and
7) The structure must pass additional review to ensure that all of these conditions
have been met.
Approval To approve the request, you may use the following motion as a guide:
Motion
Template: I move to approve the requested variance for an accessory structure at 11002
Upper 33rd Street based on the findings provided by staff and with the conditions
identified in the staff report. ...(use staff's findings provided above or cite your
iown)
Denial To deny the request, you may use the following motion as a guide:
Motion
Template: I move to deny the requested variance at 11002 Upper 33rd Street based on the
following findings ... (please site reasons for the recommendation)
cc: Doug Lovett, 9940 59`" St. Ct. N.
1
_ o
a J oruib I!1 II
olm
�. i-
I ,
a
c
W' y
4 ^ u
o c I1rt1f
Mel
O / Q
I
0
Here is a picture of the remaining structure after the damage was removed.
Since one third of the roof collapsed, we were told that the remaining two - thirds of the roof should be
replaced and brought up to code or it could fall down too
We were also told that since the collapsed roof was taken down, there is a danger that the walls could
fall down. To reduce this risk, we removed the metal from the side walls but have left the posts, slab,
plumbing and electric in place.
We have contacted the City of Lake Elmo and are requesting the proper permits to proceed.
We would like to install a new roof which would meet snow load requirements and replace the metal on
the sides which was taken down to mitigate the risk of the walls falling down.
We would like to leave the posts, slab, plumbing and electric but will replace them if it is required by the
building codes.
The insurance company requires us to submit all claim information by June 28`h in order to receive
payment. The mortgage company is requiring that we rebuild the barn in order to protect their
interests.
Here is a picture of the barn with the damaged roof section removed.
On December 24`h, 2011, one third of our 40 foot by 95 foot pole barn collapsed from snow load. We
have 4 children ages 10 and younger so we had an immediate need to make the area safe.
On December 29th, 2011, we were issued a building permit of "Class of Work" Repair to remove the
damage and make the building safe. As a first step, we removed the section of collapsed roof.
Kyle Klatt
From: doug @thelovettfarm. corn
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 3:21 PM
To: Kelli Matzek; Kyle Klatt
Subject: 9940 59th Street Ct N - Flood Proofing
I have discussed the need to flood proof our barn with our building supplier, Wick Buildings. They told me that
the barn will include the following attributes intended to make it FP -3 or FP -4 compliant:
1. Galvanized screws
2. Treated two by eight inch girt
3. Steal sides
4. Treated posts
5. Posts secured four to five feet deep, eight feet on center
6. Ten to sixteen foot openings in front and back of building
Please let me know if Lake Elmo requires any additional information or changes to the barn design.
Thank you,
Doug Lovett
99405 9th Street Ct N
651.338.8575
Planning Commission
Date: 7/11/11
Public Hearing
Item: 4b
ITEM: Hold a public hearing to consider an application for a variance to permit the
construction of a second accessory building at 5671 Keats Avenue — RR
zoning; 02.029.21.22.0001
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director �6,
REVIEWED BY: Kelli Matzek, City Planner
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED
Staff is requesting the Planning Commission hold a public hearing to consider a variance request
from Steve and Joan Ziertman, 5761 Keats Avenue, to allow the construction of a new 2,400
square foot accessory building on their property. A variance has been requested because the
applicants already have built a 2,310 square -foot building on their property, and the RR — Rural
Residential Zoning District only allows one such accessory building on their property. The
proposed building would be used to house equipment related to the growing and selling of
agricultural products (primarily pumpkins).
For variance applications, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate why this situation is
unique and necessitates flexibility to code requirements. To make this case, a variance can only
be granted by the city when strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of
circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration and then only when it is
demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. The
criteria that are included in the City Code for making such a decision include the following:
Practical Difficulties. A variance to the provision of this chapter may be granted by the Board
of Adjustment upon the application by the owner of the affected property where the strict
enforcement of this chapter would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances
unique to the individual property under consideration and then only when it is demonstrated
that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter.
(1) Definition of practical difficulties. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection
with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use
the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control.
Unique Circumstances. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the
property not created by the landowner
Character of locality. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the
locality in which the property in question is located.
Adjacent properties and traffic. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of
light and air to property adjacent to the property in question or substantially increase the
congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish or impair property values within the
neighborhood.
In reviewing the request against the four criteria listed above, staff determined that not of all of
these criteria were met and is recommending denial of the request based on the suggested
findings included in the attached Staff report.
At this time, the Planning Commission is asked to conduct a public hearing for the variance
request to allow construction of a second accessory building on the applicants' property. Upon
conclusion of the hearing, the commission is asked to make a recommendation to the City
Council on this request.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
® Four letter /emails in support of the applicants' request are attached.
No other comments from other City Staff or outside agencies have been submitted to
the City.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that he Planning Commission recommend denial of the proposed variance
for the construction of a second accessory building at 5761 Keats Avenue with the findings
outlined in the attached report.
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
Introduction... ..... ...............................
Report by staff... ........ ...............
Questions from the Commission .........
Applicant Comments ...........................
Questions of the Applicant ..................
Open the Public Hearing .....................
Close the Public Hearing .....................
- Call for a motion ........... ...............................
- Discussion of Commission on the motion ...
- Action by the Planning Commission............
. .......................Planning Director
. .......................Planning Director
Chair & Commission Members
.....................Chair facilitates
Chair & Commission Members
........ ............................... Chair
............ ............................... Chair
......................... Chair Facilitates
................... Chair Facilitates
.. Chair & Commission Members
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Detailed staff report analyzing the request
2. Application form
3. Applicants narrative and proposed findings (with Comprehensive Plan excerpts)
4. Site Plan
5. Site photographs
6. Aerial image of site
7. Comments and maintenance change worksheet from City Assessor
8. Letters of support
City of Lake Elmo Planning Department
Variance Reauest
To: Planning Commission
From: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
Meeting Date: 7/11111
Applicant: Steve and Joan Ziertman
Location: 5761 Keats Avenue
Zoning. RR — Rural Residential
Application The City of Lake Elmo has received a variance request from Steve and Joan Ziertman,
Summary: 5761 Keats Avenue, to allow the construction of a new 2,400 square foot accessory
building on their property. A variance has been requested because the applicants
already have built a 2,310 square -foot building on their property, and the RR — Rural
Residential Zoning District only allows one such accessory building on their property.
The proposed building would be used to house equipment related to the growing and
selling of agricultural products (primarily pumpkins).
Property The applicants' property and neighboring property at 5699 Keats Avenue were split
Information: from their family's farm in 1989, with houses being constructed on these lots a short
time later. The original farmstead, including the house and barn, were later sold to the
organization that built the Rockpoint Church in 2006; which also received approval at
this time for a preliminary plat for an open space subdivision named Hidden
Meadows. This 25 -lot development has not yet received final plat approval from the
City, and therefore, all property immediately to the north and west of the applicants'
property is either vacant or being rented out for agricultural production (except for the
church and parking lot). In the future, there will be residential lots to the east of the
applicants' property, with open space /conservation land planned to the north.
The applicants' property at 5761 Keats Avenue is approximately 10.7 acres in size,
and in addition to the principal residential structure, there is a detached accessory
building that was built in two phases at different times. These accessory buildings are
now joined together by a breezeway, in which case they are viewed at one detached
structure in accordance with the Building Code and Zoning Ordinance. Most of the
property located to the rear of the house is used for the growing of agricultural
products, including pumpkins, gourds, hay, corn stalks, ornamental corn, and other
products, which are then sold on the premises as part of an agricultural sales operation.
There is currently some equipment being stored outside that does not meet the City
Code requirements for such exterior storage, but most of this equipment is located
s;;or hi teats .-
t t> . 9 ?ti ttS Ur Ya' _ .
Applicable
Codes:
FU
behind a screening fence on near the northern property line, and because it is screened
from view, it does comply with the City requirements.
Because the Ziertmans have requested time at the Planning Commission meeting to
review their request with the Commission, Staff will not be providing a detailed
description of the farming activity taking place on the site as part of this report.
Section 150.017 Variances.
jA -A Variances. Identifies procedures and requirements for the processing and
review of a variance application. Please note that this section was recently
updated by the City to comply with revisions to Minnesota State Statutes.
Section 154.036 RR- Rural Residential.
(A -F) RR — Rural Residential Zoning District. Specifies the permitted uses,
district requirements, and minimum district requirements for the RR zoning
district.
Section 154.092 Accessory Buildings and Structures.
Describes the types of accessory buildings and regulations based on building type.
Section 154.093 Number /Size of Accessory Buildings
Specifies the number and size of accessory buildings that are allowed in each
zoning district based on the size of the property.
Site Overview
Site Data: I Lot Size: 10.7 acres
Applicable
Definitions:
Existing Use: Residential/Agricultural
Existing Zoning: RR — Rural Residential;
Property Identification Number (PID): 02.029.21.22.0001
BUILDING. Any structure either temporary or permanent, having a roof and
used or built for the shelter or enclosure of any person, animal, or movable property of
any kind. When any portion of a building is completely separate from every other part
of a building by area separation, each portion of the building shall be deemed as a
separate building.
DETACHED RURAL STORAGE BUILDING. A 1 -story accessory building
used or intended for the storage of hobby tools, garden equipment, workshop
equipment and the like. Exterior materials shall match the principal structure in
exterior color or be of an earthen tone.
AGRICULTURAL FARM BUILDING. An accessory building used or intended
fr
57fj
for use on an active commercial food - producing farm operation of more than 20 acres,
a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency permit may be required.
DWELLING, SINGLE- FAMILY. A residential structure designed for or used
exclusively as 1 dwelling unit of permanent occupancy.
PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES "Practical difficulties," as used in connection
with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the
property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control.
UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES. The plight of the landowner is due to
circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner
AGRICULTURAL SALES BUSINESS. The retail sale of fresh fruits, vegetables,
flowers, herbs, trees, or other agricultural, floricultural, or horticultural products.
produced on the premises. The operation may be indoors or outdoors, include pick -
your -own or cut - your -own opportunities include pick- your -own opportunities, and
may involve the ancillary sale of items considered accessory to the agricultural
products being sold or accessory sales of unprocessed foodstuffs; home processed
food products such as jams, jellies, pickles, sauces; or baked goods and homemade
handicrafts. The floor area devoted to the sale of accessory items shall not exceed
25% of the total floor area. No commercially packaged handicrafts or commercially
processed or packaged foodstuffs shall be sold as accessory items. No activities other
than the sale of goods as outlined above shall be allowed as part of the
AGRICULTURAL SALES BUSINESS.
AGRICULTURE. The production of livestock, dairy animals, dairy products, fur -
bearing animals, horticultural and floricultural nursery stock, fruits of all kinds,
vegetables, forage, grains, bees, and apiary products.
AGRICULTURAL BUILDING. A structure on agricultural land, as defined
below in the definition for FARM, RURAL of this section, designed, constructed, and
used to house farm implements, livestock, or agricultural produce or products grown
by the owner, lessee, or sublessee of the building and members of their immediate
families, their employees, and persons engaged in the pickup or delivery of
agricultural produce or products.
FARM, RURAL. The portion of a 10 or more acre parcel of land which is devoted
to agriculture by the property owner or by a lessee of the property owner.
Variance I 1'tie applicants are proposing to construct a second accessory building on their
Review: property that would be 2,400 square feet in size and located 25 feet off of the southern
property line. It would be situated in back of the existing buildings on the property
and at a lower elevation than the existing structures as well. There is a fairly
Variance
Criteria:
substantial buffer of evergreen trees between the proposed building location and
neighboring property, which would greatly reduce the visibility of the structure from
the south. The applicants have stated that they need additional space to store
agricultural equipment used as part of their farming operation, partially because they
are losing the use of the historic barn that was part of their family's original
homestead. No driveway is proposed to provide access to the structure since it will be
primarily be used to store equipment used in the adjacent fields.
The City's Zoning regulations limit the number of accessory buildings that can be
established in a Rural Residential District to no more than one such building with
2,500 square feet for parcels that are between 10 and 15 acres in size. The proposed
accessory building would be the second such building on the site, and therefore would
not be allowed under the terms of the RR Zoning District regulations and Accessory
Building requirements.
Please note that the City Code does include differing definitions and requirements for
various agricultural buildings and activities. Specifically, the code contains three
definitions that could fit this building, including AGRICULTURAL BUILDING,
DETACHED RURAL STORAGE BUILDING, and AGRICULTURAL FARM
BUILDING. Because the tern used in the accessory building section of the Code is
"agricultural farm building ", it is Staff's interpretation that a farming operation would
need to have at least 20 acres of land in order to be exempt from the City's zoning
requirements (such agricultural buildings are exempt from the City's zoning
requirements).
An applicant must establish and demonstrate compliance with the variance criteria set
forth in Lake Elmo City Code Section 154.017 before an exception or modification to
city code requirements can be granted. Because the City has not yet reviewed a
variance under the ordinance, some of these required findings will be new to both staff
and Planning Commissioners. These criteria are listed below, along with comments
from Staff regarding applicability of these criteria to the applicants' request.
1. Practical Difficulties. A variance to the provision of this chapter may be granted
by the Board of Adjustment upon the application by the owner of the affected
property where the strict enforcement of this chapter would cause practical
difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under
consideration and then only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in
keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. Definition of practical
difficult es - `Practical diculties" as used in connection with the granting of a
variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a
reasonable manner not permitted by an official control.
The language concerning "practical difficulties" represents the bulk of the new
provisions that were amended in the City Code. Under this standard, the City
would need to find that the construction of a second accessory building at 5761
Keats Avenue is a reasonable use of the property not otherwise permitted under the
rrt.a,r
zoning ordinance. Staff has found that the proposed building would exceed the
number and size of permitted accessory buildings on the site, and therefore, the
Plarming Commission will need to consider the "reasonableness" of the proposal
as submitted by the applicants. Under this criteria, Staff would suggest the
following findings that could be made either in support or opposition to the
variance:
APPROVE: That the proposed use is reasonable because the applicants have
demonstrated the need for additional agricultural storage on their property beyond
what can be accommodated in the current buildings on the site. The accessory
building is located on a portion of the site that is not directly visible from the any
roads, and would be well screened from adjacent properties. Because most of the
site is being used to grow agricultural products, the property functions as an
operating farm which has different usage and storage requirements than a property
that is only used for residential purposes.
DENY: That the proposed use is not reasonable because the applicants already
have a large accessory building in use on the property in addition to an attached
garage. There are other alternatives to storing wagons and other agricultural
equipment on the site, including renting out space from another agricultural
property as they have been doing in the past. The operation of a fanning operation
of ten acres in size can be accommodated within the allowed building size limits.
2. Unique Circumstances. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances
unique to the property not created by the landowner.
This standard is relatively unchanged from the previous variance provisions, but
represents the most problematic aspect of the variance request from Staffs
perspective. In this case, the language is very specific to the "property" and not
the "use" of the property, and therefore, the Planning Commission should be
thinking about how this site is different and unique from any other property that is
zoned RR in the City. Variances are typically used to address issues specific to the
site, for instance, a property with a large ravine or irregular lot lines that make
compliance with the zoning standards difficult. Again, some is suggesting some
findings that could be considered by the Planning Commission either in support or
opposition to the variance:
APPROVE: That the applicants are using the property for agricultural purposes
and have been classified as such by the Washington County Assessor's office.
Very few properties that are Less than 20 acres in size are used and/or classified in
this manner. Because nearly all of the property is being actively farmed, the
equipment and storage needs for this parcel are much greater than other sites that
are not under active agricultural production.
DENY: That the plight of the land owner is not due to circumstances unique to
the property (and not created by the landowner). There is very little that
differentiates the applicants' 10.7 acre parcel from any other parcel of this size in
it w", i,
the community other than how this property is being used, which is something
directly under the applicants control. Any property owner in the RR — Rural
Residential District can use their property for agricultural purposes, and therefore,
the use of the property is not something that is unique to this parcel.
3. Character of locality. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character
of 'the locality in which the property in question is located.
Depending on how the Planning Commission interprets the term "locality ", the
proposed building may or may not meet this criterion. Staff is suggesting that the
Commission focus on the land immediately surrounding the applicants' property
since these parcels would be most directly impacted by the construction of a larger
building on this site. If a broader view is used, the site may not be as appropriate
for a larger structure given the existing and proposed residential development that
ultimately will surround this land. Staff is again suggesting findings that could be
used either in support or opposition of the request.
APPROVE: The area surrounding the applicants' property has historically been
used for active farming, including open space land that is part of an open space
development to the north and east of this property. The proposed building will be
located in such a manner that it will not be directly visible from surrounding
properties, and will be located behind a row of evergreen trees that will provide
year round buffering. Former farm sites with multiple accessory buildings are not
uncommon in this area and many of these sites have been successfully
incorporated into residential subdivisions.
DENY: The area surrounding the applicants' property is guided for rural
agricultural density (open space) development, and land to the north, east, and
west of their property has already been developed in this manner. Large accessory
buildings are not consistent with the current or future expected character of this
area.
4. Adjacent properties and traffic. The proposed variance will not impair an
adequate supply of light and air to property adjacent to the property in question or
substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish
or impair property values within the neighborhood.
Staff has found that the proposed accessory building will comply with this
provision since it is located in a manner that will minimize direct impacts to
adjacent properties and will not create any additional traffic on the streets
surrounding the applicants' property.
Considering the potential findings of fact as suggested in the preceding section, Staff
is recommending denial of the variance request based on the findings noted under
"denial" in items 1, 2, and 3 above. The most significant issue in this case concerns
the uniqueness of the property, and Staff is not able to identify any particular factors
associated with this site that are specific to the site under consideration and no other
" °" rge 6
property. Should the Planning Commission disagree with this assessment based on
the information included with this report or other information presented and discussed
the public hearing, Staff has included draft findings in the report that could be used as
a basis for a recommendation of approval. Should the Commission make a
recommendation of approval, Staff would recommend at least two conditions of
approval to help ensure that the intent of the Zoning Ordinance is upheld once the
building is constructed. These conditions include the following:
That the use of the proposed accessory building be restricted to agricultural
activities only, and that it not be used for the storage of personal automobiles,
home based business activities, or other non - agricultural equipment.
• That additional trees be planted along the east side of the proposed building to
provide screening from the future residential area to the west of the applicants'
property.
Variance Based on the analysis of the review criteria in City Code and City Staff would
Conclusions: recommend denial of the accessory building request for 5671 Keats Avenue.
Resident Staff has received four letters /emails in support of the variance. These are attached for
Concerns: review by the Planning Commission.
Additional The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed location of the building and has not
Information: expressed any concerns regarding the proposed construction site.
Conclusion:
Commission
Options:
The applicants are seeking approval of a variance to allow the construction of a second
detached agricultural farm building on their property at 5761 Keats Avenue.
The Planning Commission has the following options:
A) Recommend approval of the variance request;
B) Recommend denial of the variance request;
C) Table the request and direct staff or the applicant to provide additional
information concerning this application.
The deadline for a Council decision on this item is August 14, 2011, which can be
extended an additional 60 -days if needed.
Rec:
Staff is recommending denial of the variance to allow the construction of a second
detached agricultural farm building on their property at 5761 Keats Avenue based on
the findings documented above under "denial ".
Denial To deny the request, you may use the following motion as a guide:
Motion
Template: I move to recommend denial of the request for a variance to allow the
construction of a second detached agricultural farm building on property at 5761
Keats Avenue ...(please site reasons for the recommendation)
Approval
Motion
Template:
To approve the request, you may use the following motion as a guide:
I move to recommend approval of the request for a variance to allow the
construction of a second detached agricultural farm building on property at 5761
Keats Avenue ...(or cite your own)
...with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
cc: Steve and Joan Ziertman, 5761 Keats Avenue
City of Lake Elmo
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM
❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment
❑ Zoning District Amendment
❑ Text Amendment
Flood Plain C,U.P.
Conditional Use Permit
❑ Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.)
APPLICANT: Sk
(Name)
TELEPHONES:
FEE OWNER:
TELEPHONES:
Variance * (See below)
❑ Minor Subdivision
❑ Lot Line Adjustment
El Residential Subdivision
Sketch/Concept Plan
Site & Building Plan Review
I
Address)
Fee $
Residential Subdivision
PreliminaryfFinal Plat
O 0: — 10 Lots
O I 1 —2D Lots
O 21 Lots or More
Excavating & Grading Permit
❑ Appeal ❑ PUD
(Name)
(Mailing
Address}
(Work)
JUN 15 2011
6ROPERTY LOCATION (Address and Complete (Long) Legal Description):
x (�
DETAILED REASON FOR REQUEST:
*VARIANCE REQUESTS: As outlined in Section 301.066 C. of the. Lake Elmo Municipal Code, the Applicant must
demonstrate a hardship before a variance carp be granted: The hardship related to this application is as follows:
In signing this application, I hereby acknowledge that I haste read and fully understand the applicable provisions of the
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and current administrative procedures. I further acknowl'd ethe fee explanation �,
outlined in the application Procedures and hereby atrrce to av all statements received from the ltv efee ex e to
acd/ditional anplication exp°nse
Siona(ur� fApplicant — �"""
l t_2120N Ciry of Lake Elmo - 3800 Laverne Avenue North • i_a e Dme - 5504'_ • 6Si 77-,-5510 - Fox 651.777 -9615
L _ 1!1111 •.
Written Statements:
PARCEL 10.78 Acres or 466,092
»
Another point is that currently AG parcels of 41 acres or more can
have a 20,000 square foot building in addition to unlimited AG
unlimited buildings. That would equate to 5000 square feet on 10 acres witho
AG buildings. only '. or • tal square footage t
the property
Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan Chapter // — City -v✓ide Planning Policy
CITY -WIDE PLANNING POLICY
The following general planning and development policies will guide development in a
manner that will allow reasonable growth to take place, while preserving and enhancing
the rural character and features of Lake Elmo that make the City a unique and desirable
community:
1. Develop land use and infrastructure plans corresponding to the 2030
population forecast of 24,000 in the 2030 Regional Development
Framework.
2. Encourage the majority of the new households created in areas north of
10" Street North, and outside of the Village Area to be efficiently
developed in a rural context in the form of Open Space Development
cluster neighborhoods.
3. Guide new community growth in keeping with the geographic
assignments and decennial household, population, and employment targets
established by the Memorandum of Understanding entered into by the City
and the Metropolitan Council in January 2005,
4. Limit Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) expansion to the area
that can be served from the Regional Wastewater Interceptors specified, in
the wastewater volumes specified by the afore mentioned Memorandum of
Understanding, and staged consistent with a City adopted development
Staging Plan.
5. Adopt a MUSA expansion development Staging Plan/schedule that will
limit total annual City household and employment growth to a use, mix,
and scale that remains sustainable in the context of providing municipal
services /infrastructure and local government fiscal responsibility.
Agricultural Preservation
In keeping with the general policies enumerated above, existing operating agricultural
uses and qualifying alternative uses that preserve the open space within the community
shall be supported. These uses shall be encouraged to continue operations and to retain
large land holdings that contribute to operating efficiency.
In keeping with the general policies enumerated above, the City shall affirmatively
establish and pursue specific strategies and seek resources to assist existing agricultural
uses in remaining a viable alternative to urbanization for landowners, consistent with the
concept of "a right to farm." The provision of municipal infrastructure and services to
areas of the City where operating agriculture exists shall not be in a manner that results in
an economic or operational disincentive to continue agricultural use of the land.
Residential Development
All residential units will be designed, sited, and constructed to conserve energy in
lighting, cooling, and heating processes.
The primary style of residential dwelling unit within RAD, RED, RAD2, and NC land
11 -1
6t
0
t4)
lz
iq,,' 5
�.
ww .
?�. \»
� °
� / \�
k�C.%
� w.}
Kyle Klatt
From: Frank Langer [ Frank .Langer @co.washington.mn.usj
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 12:29 PM
To: Kyle Klatt
Subject: AY11_LAKE ELMO_ZIERTMAN 02.029.21.22.0001_CBAE.xlsx
Attachments: AY11 LAKE ELMO ZIERTMAN 02.029.21.22.0001 CBAE.xlsx
Ni Kyle,
Regarding our conversation this morning, it is my understanding that the zoning of property is the allowed legal use of a
property. For property tax purpose the tax classification is based on the actual use of the property regardless of what
the zoning is. An example of this could be a large agriculturally zoned piece of property where part of it is used for a
gravel mining operation. This property would then have a split classification of commercial and agriculture for taxes.
The only time we look at zoning as a guide to help determine the classification for taxes is when there is no use of a
property and then we look at the most likely future legal use of the property and use it as a guideline for tax
classification.
Frank
IT7-
0
0
0
0
+e
tp
N
m
O
40
'.O
O
o
O
O
n
O
O
O
o
O
O
O
o
n
n
o
m
o
0
0
Ln
v
o
0
m
m
m
m
rn
m
m
c
c
c
w
w
m
D
m
D
m
ro
m
m
m
4
m
m
E
E
E
r
E
0
E
0
S
S
m
m
Q
Q
Q
A
Q
Z 1
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Z
Z
O
0
O
o
a
N
N
N
N
a
a
n
o
0
c 0
Y .D
Y 0
J i vs
J z"L
J %2
O
r
O
i
p0
fo
O
e
O
O
O
O
O
=
n
a
�
c
c
w
D
N
2
C
E
�
c
o
o
�
E
m
m
N
N
E
E
0
0
c
3
'c
3
y
m
f/
m
Z
Z
Z
0
O
o
O
n
iy
a
,y
a
i
D
L gull
Z gull
g auil
JUL .-5 Kill
To the City of Lake Elmo
July 2, 2011
9913 59th St. Ct. N.
Lake Elmo
In regard to the variance to build a 2400 square building on the Ziertman farm.
I believe the Ziertman family to be good stewards of their land and good
neighbors. If the building is not visible from Keats and all other requirements are
met I have no problem with this structure.
Thank you
Carolyn Flock
5C/ rh_
Sm
Kyle Matt
From: Ronald Hawkins [hawkinsimpala @gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 8:08 PM
To: Kyle Klatt
Cc: ziertman @msn.com
Subject: variance
Kyle, We have been informated that our neighbor Steve & Joan Ziertman at 5761 Keats Ave. No. would like to
build a building to house there farm equipment. They are very good neighbors and keep there property looking
very nice.I would much like to see them put the equipment in a building then setting outside.Its nice that they
are keeping a little farm operations going along with the pumpkins. We as neighbor would hope that you can
give them a variance to build. Thank you Ron & Sue Hawkins 9924 59th St. Ct. No. Lake Elmo
Kyle Klatt
From:
JOAN ZIERTMAN [ziertman @msn.com]
Sent:
Thursday, July 07, 2011 7:15 AM
To:
Kyle Klatt
Cc:
Kelli Matzek
Subject:
Fw: variance for 2400 building
Kyle,
Here is a coy of an email that our neighbor wrote regarding our variance. He had the wrong email for
you, so it bounced back. Thanks!
Joan
- - - -- Original Message - - - --
From: Steve Chlebeck
To: kklahrWakeelmo.org
Cc: ziertman(amsn.com
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 6:40 AM
Subject: variance for 2400 building
I just want to voice my concern that I am in favor to let the Ziertman's build another building on their
property.
I do purchase Pumpkins and Corn stalks every year from the pumpkin farm and it very nice to have a small
farm still left in our neighborhood. This would be a great lost for all of us if they would close the farm because
of a building that they need to store the wagons and other equipment was not allowed. I saw were this
building would be erected and this would not every be seen from Keats Ave.1 hope the City see that giving the
Ziertman's the variance is the correct thing to do.
I live at 9692 57`h just west of the Ziertman's. Thank you.
Steve Chlebeck
Territory Sales Manager
Phone: (612) 867 -2345
Cell: (612) 867 -2345
Fax: (952) 895-5312
E -mail: schlebeck(a)forceamerica.com
FORCE America Inc.
VariTech Industries
PreCise MRM
601 East Cliff Road
Burnsville MN 55337
www.forceam erica.com
www.varitech-industries.com
www.orecisemrm.com
The Leading innovator in Mobile Hydraulic Solutions
The information contained in this message and any attachment may be proprietary, confidential, and
privileged or subject to the work product doctrine and thus protected from disclosure. If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me
immediately by replying to this message and deleting it and all copies and backups thereof. Thank you.
www.codetwo.com
The information contained in this message and any attachment may be proprietary, confidential, and
privileged or subject to the work product doctrine and thus protected from disclosure. If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me
immediately by replying to this message and deleting it and all copies and backups thereof. Thank you.