HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Packet; 10-11-17
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
(651) 747-3900
www.lakeelmo.org
NOTICE OF MEETING
The City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on
Wednesday October 11, 2017 at 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approve Agenda
3. Approve Minutes
a. September 25, 2017
4. Public Hearings
a. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. A request by Eileen and Chad Bergmann for a
conditional use permit to allow additional accessory structures to the maximum
number and size of accessory structures permitted in the Rural Residential zoning
district for the property located at 11459 60th Street N, PID #01.029.21.21.0005.
5. Business Items
a. WIND POWER ORDINANCE. Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission
provide additional feedback as to what should be included in the City’s wind
power ordinance.
6. Updates
a. City Council Updates – 10/3/17 Meeting
i. Lakewood Crossing 2nd Addition Developer Agreement - passed
ii. ZTA, ZMA and CUP for a Commercial Boarding Facility - tabled
iii. Variance 8323 Deer Pond Trail - passed
Staff Updates
iv. Upcoming Meetings:
October 23, 2017
November 13, 2017
v. MAC CEP Report-none
vi. Comprehensive Plan Update
b. Commission Concerns
7. Adjourn
***Note: Every effort will be made to accommodate person or persons that need special considerations to attend this
meeting due to a health condition or disability. Please contact the Lake Elmo City Clerk if you are in need of special
accommodations.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-25-17
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of September 25, 2017
Chairman Kreimer called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at
7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Kreimer, Lundquist, Hartley, Dodson, Emerson, Johnson, &
Dorschner
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Williams & Larson
STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Becker & City Administrator Handt
Approve Agenda:
M/S/P: Lundquist/Hartley, move to accept the agenda as presented, Vote: 7-0, motion
carried unanimously.
Approve Minutes: September 11, 2017
M/S/P: Dodson/Hartley, move to approve the September 11, 2017 minutes as amended,
Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing Item – Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Planned Unit
Development (PUD) Concept Plan.
Becker started her presentation regarding the request for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to re-guide a portion of PID # 34.029.21.43.0003 from Urban Medium
Density Residential to Urban High Density Residential along with a General Planned Unit
Development (PUD) Concept Plan for a 300 unit multi-family development on a 21.60
acre parcel to be called Springs Apartments.
The Concept proposed has 15 buildings with 20 units each . There are 4 detached
garages, 542 parking spaces, and a clubhouse and pool area. The development is
proposed to be a fenced in community with controlled access. The apartments are
proposed to be town house style, two stories in height with a ground level entrance to
each unit. This development is proposed to have a density of 13.89 units per acre. The
property is currently guided Medium Density Residential which allows for 4.5-7 units per
acre. While the land use guidance is not currently appropri ate for the proposed
development, there are a number of statements in the Comprehensive Plan’s City Wide
2
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-25-17
Planning Policy that indicate the city should provide a variety of housing options
available to moderate income families as well as options for senior housing. The met
Council reported that there currently is only 204 rental units within the City. The system
statement indicated that there is a need for 508 more units of affordable households in
Lake Elmo. This development could satisfy a need for both rental units and add a variety
of housing options for the community.
This development is a Planned Unit Development to provide flexibility in the use of land
and placement and size of the buildings in order to utilize the site features and obtain a
higher quality development. They require a planned unit development as they are
proposing more than one principal building on a lot and requesting larger than 1,000
foot garage. To be a Planned Unit Development, the applicant must meet the objectives
outlined in code. Staff feels that the applicant meets a number of the objectives. This
proposal meets the minimum requirements for a PUD for land area, open space and
street layout. There are also a number of proposed amenities such as the underground
parking, clubhouse, pool, etc. The City could also require additional amenities.
This development was reviewed against HDR standards, as that is the zoning that would
be necessary to move forward. The developer is not proposing a park, but this
development has not gone to Parks Commission yet. The developer currently shows a
sidewalk, but the comprehensive trail plan calls for a trail. That would be a condition of
approval. The Savona Park is within walking distance, so staff would not recommend an
additional park in this development.
There were a number of engineering comments such as turn lanes would need to be
installed at proposed Hudson Blvd and Junco intersection, connecting trail segment to
Savona Park, consider a financial contribution to Keats/Hudson traffic light.
Becker went through the recommended conditions which include Comp Plan
Amendment be approved, City Engineer Memo addressed, identify all deviations,
landscape plan reviewed and approved, etc.
There were a number of concerns received prior to the public hearing notice which
included 1) proposed density is almost double what is guided 2) didn’t know they would
be living next to apartments 3) increased use of 5th Street 4) apartments could attract
young people – problems with that 5) fear of section 8 6) increased foot traffic 7)
expression of support – good solid developer.
For the Comprehensive Plan amendment, recommended conditions of approval are 1)
that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment be submitted to the Met Council and that
review be completed and approved and 2) that the applicant obtain Preliminary Plat
approval from the City for the proposed development based on the proposed Concept
Plan.
3
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-25-17
Dodson asked why the PUD is necessary if it is reguided to HDR. Becker stated that the
reason this development would need to be a PUD is because they are proposing more
than 1 building on 1 parcel. Dodson asked if a building height has been determined yet.
Becker stated that it has not been given with the Concept plan, but she believes in this
zoning district it is limited to 35 feet. Dodson asked if this property was purchased and
if they have, why would they not know the parkland dedication. Becker does not
believe it has been purchased yet.
Hartley asked about the future road to the West. Becker stated that it would be
constructed with this development. That would give the access to this development and
would connect 5th Street and Hudson Blvd.
Emerson asked what the parcel to the West is guided for. Becker stated it is currently
guided the same as this parcel. Top half is Medium Density Residential and bottom half
is commercial.
Dorschner asked if the Comprehensive Plan goes through, how do they guarantee that
this applicant is the one that will use the property. Becker stated that a recommended
condition of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is that the City approve a preliminary
plat submitted by Continental 419 Fund, LLC based on this concept plan. If this Concept
plan does not get preliminary plat approval, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment does
not move forward.
Gwynn Wheeler, Continental Properties, stated that they have in-house management
staff. She stated that they are attracted to Lake Elmo and this property because it has
good access and will appeal to the people that they will market to. They looked at the
other sites in Lake Elmo that are guided high density and they ruled those sites out. This
is the best site for them based on their research. Wheeler presented features of
development including what the clubhouse and apartments would look like. Wheeler
showed some renderings of what the view from Savona would lo ok like. Wheeler talked
about the lighting for the development. She stated that they are fully aware of the City
lighting criteria. The average rent of an apartment at the Springs is $1,491.00 which is
close to a monthly mortgage payment.
Hartley asked about the noise control brought up by the DOT. Wheeler stated that they
feel the distance from the freeway will ensure that noise will not be a factor.
Dodson asked if there was a response to the Fire Chief’s comment about the emergency
access being paved. He is also wondering why Junco Road is not continued down into
the development as another access point. Wheeler stated that they did not meet
directly with the Fire Chief. She stated that it was their intention to have it unpaved as a
further deterrent that it is not a resident access point. Dodson is also wondering why
the pool is not more centrally located. Wheeler stated that it needs to be by the
clubhouse which is best located at the front of the development for access control.
4
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-25-17
Dorschner stated that one of the challenges in Lake Elmo is affordable housing and this
would not meet that criteria. He is wondering if there is any interest in making any of
the units affordable housing. Wheeler stated that all of the Springs is market rate and
affordable housing is not in their business model. Wheeler stated that the other sites
that are already zoned high density are not currently available. One is already under
contract and the other has no sanitary sewer available.
Public Hearing opened at 8:12 pm
Tucker Pearce, 9811 7th Street, for perspective, Savona has 310 units on 112 acres vs.
300 units on 21 acres. When residents purchased homes in Savona they did their
research to make sure this land wasn’t guided UHD, commercial or business park. He is
asking that the City stick to the Comprehensive Plan and deny the request.
Chris Peltier, 9586 Junco Road, he is concerned about the financial impact of being
located basically across the street from a 300 unit apartment building.
Ryan Atkin, 9539 Junco Rd, he is concerned about the selective data sharing by
Continental to generate acceptance of this proposal. The majority of Savona neighbors
oppose this development. Atkin feels the rentals are incompatible with the Savona
neighborhood and there is not an adequate buffer.
Michael Kobe, 9616 Junco Road, he feels that the property is correctly zoned as Urban
Medium density as there should be a buffer from single family homes and Urban High
density and commercial. Kobe stated that home values would decrease by 15% because
of proximity. Lake Elmo is on track to hit the required numbers without this
development going in. There is a reason this requires a 4/5 vote of the City Council
because the effects of this are significant.
Stefany Lorang, 9918 7th Street, when they built their home, they did their research and
looked at the Comprehensive Plan to see what could be built around them. This
property is guided for Medium Density. The proposed plan is for High Density and at
the high range which is nearly double what it is currently guided. She is concerned
about the increased traffic as traffic projections was based on the UMD density. She is
concerned about the lack of buffer, light pollution, and undesirable aesthetic of 15
identical buildings. Lorang submitted a petition signed by 48 residents.
Michael Brixius, 9594 Junco Rd, lived in one of the properties owned by Continental.
Some things that were not talked about was all of the moving trucks with people moving
in and out. With the “pet friendly” environment comes stray cats and excess garbage.
Kyle Heller, 9684 7th Street, agrees with former speakers. Savona is a close knit
neighborhood and they are a connected part of the community. The recent article
5
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-25-17
talked about Lake Elmo being the fastest growing community. Is this necessary and can
we slow down? The City is on track to meet their numbers, so moving quickly is not
necessary. Heller feels that the long range planning is important and the City should
stick to the vision that has been set forth from the long range planning.
Email from Jacob Hafdahl, stating that they didn’t buy in Savona thinking that they
would be living adjacent to High Density Residential. Moved to Lake Elmo because of
issues they had where they lived with adjacent High Density.
Email from Todd Williams, Planning Commission Member, does not have a problem with
development, but would like to see affordable housing included in the proposal.
Letter from Eric Piekarski in support and stated that it would be a complementary
addition to Lake Elmo.
Paul Rstvedt, 528 Juniper Ct N, agrees with everyone who spoke before him. He is
concerned with the number of people that would be moving in. That is a lot of people
in a small area.
Public Hearing closed at 8:45 pm
Dorschner thinks that if this is done with a PUD, the City has a lot more control over
what goes in vs if it is left medium density residential. He thinks it is a good product, but
with all of the input he has heard tonight, he hesitates to support it.
Lundquist is for the apartments, because there is nothing like that in Lake Elmo. She is
not in favor of it going on this property however.
Dodson feels that if people are relying on the Comprehensive Plan when purchasing
property, that should be taken into consideration. He likes the development, but feels
there might be a better location for it.
Johnson thinks that along 94, there will be some sort of mix of this type of product. This
use would be allowed on that property, just not at the density proposed. If not this
development, than what would it be?
Dorschner would rather have high end apartments at a higher density, than lower end
apartments at a lower density.
Emerson went out to site and feels that the high end apartments at a higher density
would be better than low end apartments with a lower density. He doesn’t think there
is a different spot in Lake Elmo that could accommodate this plan.
6
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-25-17
Hartley feels that the Comprehensive Plan is a public document that people have relied
on. He feels this is a case of balancing the rights of existing residents with the rights of
the property owner to develop.
Dodson stated the right of the property owner to develop is according to how the
Comprehensive Plan is set.
Kreimer helped plan the I-94 Corridor and they set out to have a good transition from
low density and transitioning to higher density and commercial as it gets closer to 94.
He does not like that it is jumping to high density here. However, the plan feels more
like a medium density because of the lower buildings and it is a nice plan. He is not
comfortable with it being at the top of the high density. It is difficult, but until
something is built, things can change. Kreimer is not sure he can support this plan as is,
but could get there with changes.
M/S/P: Dodson/Dorschner, move to add condition #10 that the buildings be built to add
sound abatement materials, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Hartley asked what the highest density of Medium density is. Becker stated it is 7 units
per acre, and this could be increased to 8.4 units per acre with a PUD .
M/S/P: Kreimer/Emerson, move to add condition #11 that extensive screening be added
above and beyond City requirements along 5th Street, Vote: 7-0, motion carried
unanimously.
M/S/P: Kreimer/Lundquist, move to add condition #12 that Park Commission input be
given regarding a tot lot, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
M/S/P: Dorschner/Lundquist, move to add condition #13 to limit the height of the
building to 2 stories not to exceed 32 feet, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
M/S/P: Dodson/Dorschner, move to recommend denial of a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment re-guiding a portion of PID # 34.029.21.43.0003 from Urban Medium
Density Residential to Urban High Density Residential as requested by Continental 419
Fund LLC subject to recommended conditions of approval, Vote: 7-0, motion carried
unanimously.
M/S/P: Dorschner/Dodson, move that if the City Council approves the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment, that they follow the Planning Commission recommendations on
conditions of approval for the Concept PUD Plan as amended, Vote: 7-0, motion carried
unanimously.
Public Hearing Item – Variance request for 8130 Hill Trail N.
7
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-25-17
Becker started her presentation regarding the request for 8130 Hill Trail North to allow
installation of a new septic system which does not meet setback standards and
expansion of a non-conforming structure within the Shoreland district. The existing
drainfield has been there since 1981. The proposed drainfield is much more conforming
to existing standards than the existing.
The type of septic system being proposed is a Multi-Flo system. There is an aerobic tank
which filters over 95% of contaminants before entering the drainfield. It is required to
be serviced 2 times a year with reports being sent.
The application was sent to Washington Public Health and the DNR for review and no
comments were received back.
The applicant is replacing the existing septic to expand their existing home which is
mostly in the required setback from OHWL. With all of the proposed improvements, the
impervious is decreasing from 27% to 25%.
Soil borings taken by septic designer determined that there is no other acceptable place
to put the septic. The applicant is trying not to increase the non-conformity of the
property.
There are 2 recommended conditions of approval for the septic variance 1) the sewage
system should be serviced and inspected every 2 years and 2) The existing tanks shall be
abandoned, pumped and filled with soil and a tank abandonment report shall be
completed.
There are 2 recommended conditions of approval for the expansion of a Non -
conforming structure 1) the applicant remove the existing gravel driveway and re-sod
the proposed site plan and 2) the maximum allowable impervious surface coverage on
the property shall not exceed the proposed 25%.
Hartley asked if there was any information from an independ ent engineering company.
Becker stated that there is no information from an independent engineering company
and they have not heard from Washington County.
Peter Pavek, 8130 Hill Trail, stated this is an improvement to what is already there.
Chris LeClaire was on-site when the soil borings were done and it was determined this
was the appropriate site for the septic.
Public Hearing opened at 10:00 pm
Dean Dwarak, 8114 Hill Trail, is in support of the variance as it is an improvement to the
septic system as well as the house. These improvements will increase property values
for the neighborhood.
8
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-25-17
Edward Gwiazdon, 8164 Hill Trail, they are in full support of the variance to improve the
property and keep the lake safer.
There were 2 emails received in support of the variance.
Public Hearing closed at 10:04 pm
M/S/P: Hartley/Dorschner, move to add a condition that a Washington County septic
permit be obtained, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
M/S/P: Lundquist/Johnson, move to recommend approval of the request from Peter and
Adrienne Pavek for a variance from the required setbacks for a septic system from
property lines, shoreland bluff line, Ordinary High Water Level and non-occupied
structure, subject to recommended conditions of approval as amended, Vote: 7-0,
motion carried unanimously.
M/S/P: Dorschner/Lundquist, move to recommend approval of the request from Peter
and Adrienne Pavek for a variance to allow expansion of a non-conforming structure not
meeting the required setback from the Ordinary High Water Level or minimum lot size
required within the Rural Single Family zoning district, subject to recommended
conditions of approval, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearing Item – Variance request for 8323 Deer Pond Trail N.
Becker started her presentation of a request from Ben Ostarello for a variance from the
minimum front setback standards for the Rural Single Family zoning district in order to
add an additional stall to an existing attached garage on the property at 8323 Deer Pond
Trail.
The house was built in 1973 and is constructed at an angle which makes adding on
difficult. The character of the locality is not affected.
Ben Ostarello, 8323 Deer Pond Tr, they have 2 small children and need the space to
expand. He feels this variance will increase the value of his home.
Public Hearing opened at 10:22 pm
2 letters were received both in favor of the variance.
Public Hearing closed at 10:22 pm
M/S/P: Lundquist/Hartley, move to recommend approval of the request from Ben
Ostarello for a variance from the City’s Rural Single Family minimum front yard setback
9
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-25-17
requirements for the property located at 8323 Deer Pond Trail N , Vote: 7-0, motion
carried unanimously.
City Council Updates – September 19, 2017 Meeting
i) Royal Golf Development Agreement – passed
ii) Northport Development Agreement – passed
iii) Hidden Meadows Final Plat Extension Denial- passed
Staff Updates
1. Upcoming Meetings
a. October 11, 2017
b. October 23, 2017
2. MAC CEP Report
Commission Concerns
Hartley found it a little disturbing that the developer was conducting neighborhood
meetings. It is concerning that the minutes are prepared and presented by the
developer. He had zero confidence in them.
Lundquist stated that they have a right to sub mit whatever they choose and it is up to
the Planning Commission to be discerning when they read the information.
Kreimer stated that they have no way of knowing who attended the meetings. There
could have been a different group of people that were in favor that didn’t come to the
Planning Commission meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 10:27 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Joan Ziertman
Planning Program Assistant
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B – ACTION ITEM
STAFF REPORT
DATE: 10/11/17
REGULAR
ITEM#: 4A – PUBLIC HEARING
MOTION
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Emily Becker, Planning Director
AGENDA ITEM: Conditional Use Permit Request from the Maximum Number and Size of
Accessory Structures Allowed within Rural Districts
REVIEWED BY: Joan Ziertman, Planning Program Assistant
BACKGROUND:
The City has received a request from Richard, Eileen and Chad Bergmann for a conditional use
permit to allow additional accessory buildings beyond those allowed in the Rural Residential zoning
district for the property located at 11459 60th Street North (PID# 01.029.21.21.0005).
ISSUE BEFORE COMMISSION:
The Commission is being asked to hold a public hearing, review and make recommendation on the
above mentioned request.
REVIEW/ANALYSIS:
Existing Land Use/Zoning: Single-family detached residential home/Rural Residential
Surrounding Land Use/
Zoning:
Surrounded by single family homes and guided for Rural
Residential
History: The property has long been used as a single-family detached
dwelling.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 8/30/2017
60 Day Deadline – 10/29/2017
Extension Letter Mailed – N/A
120 Day Deadline – N/A
Applicable Regulations: Article V - Zoning Administration and Enforcement
Section 154.406 – Accessory Structures, Rural Districts
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
History. In 2006, the applicant was granted a variance which allowed an additional accessory
structure than would be allowed by the Zoning Code at that time. The variance was subject to the
condition that a minor subdivision be approved by Council. The minor subdivision was ultimately
2
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
not approved by Council, however, as the City Attorney at that time explained that the resultant
parcel would be considered non-conforming, as it did not meet the minimum size standard of ten
acres. It has been verified with the current City Attorney, however, that a lot line adjustment would
be appropriate in this case, as Section 153.09: Exceptions to Platting of the Municipal Code states the
following:
(1) Each resultant parcel, when combined with an abutting parcel through a Tax Parcel
Consolidation Procedure approved by Washington County, equals or exceeds the
minimum lot dimension requirements and public road frontage requirements for the
zoning district in which the property is located;
Lot Line Adjustment Request. Prior to application for a conditional use permit, the applicant had
requested a lot line adjustment, which would increase the size of the subject property. The reason for
the lot line adjustment request was to include an existing barn on the same parcel as the homestead.
The barn and homestead are both served by the same well and electricity source. The original
property was 60 acres, and was subdivided around 1970 to create 11459 60th St N or PID#
01.029.21.21.0005.For some reason, the subdivision caused the barn to be separate from the
homestead. Later, additional acreage was subdivided from the original property (PID#
01.029.21.21.0007) and sold to the Sanctuary Development.
While a lot line adjustment can be processed administratively by Staff, a lot line adjustment mus t
result in two resultant parcels that are more conforming than would be prior to the lot line
adjustment, and as explained below, the number and size of accessory structures that would exist on
the resultant parcel exceeds the maximum amount allowed, adding a nonconformity. Therefore, the
applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow more accessory structures than permitted by
Code, thereby eliminating this nonconformity.
Size and Number Standards. Section 154.406 of the Zoning Code limits the number of accessory
structures on properties within rural districts based on the size of a parcel. The proposed lot line
adjustment will increase the parcel size to 6.66 acres. A parcel of such size is limited to two
accessory structures with a maximum square footage of 2,000. The existing accessory structures on
the site total 2700 square feet.
Need for Conditional Use Permit. While, as previously mentioned, the applicant was previously
granted a variance, the variance was conditioned on the minor subdivision being approved. Because
the minor subdivision was not approved, and because the Zoning Code states that variances shall
expire if work does not commence (the work in this case being recording of the minor subdivision)
within twelve (12) months of the date of granting such variance, the variance is no longer valid.
The Zoning Code has, since the time of the granted variance, been amended to allow additional
accessory buildings beyond two total buildings in the Agricultural and Rural Residential zoning
districts with a conditional use permit, as long as the buildings are agricultural buildings by definition
or clearly serve an agricultural purpose in the judgment of the City. A barn would be considered an
agricultural building, and so it is appropriate for a conditional use permit to be granted in this case.
Review by Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT). The proposed lot line
adjustment was sent to MNDOT, which did not have any comment regarding the proposed
adjustment. It has been verified by our City Attorney that the City cannot require right -of-way with
this application, as the proposed lot line adjustment is simply moving lot lines. Right -of-way can
only be required with a proposed subdivision or platting process.
Recommended Findings. 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
3
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
modification to city code requirements can be granted. The se criteria are listed below, along with
comments from Staff regarding applicability of these criteria to the applicant’s request.
1) The proposed use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort,
convenience, or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city.
FINDINGS. The accessory structures already exist, and a lot line adjustment to include more than
the permitted number of accessory structures on one parcel will not affect any of the aforementioned.
2) The use or development conforms to the City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan. The plight
of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner.
FINDINGS: The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the property is guided
for Rural Area Development. The Comprehensive Plan proclaims that “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 the operating efficiency…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.’”
3) The proposed use or development is compatible with the existing neighborhood.
FINDINGS: The barn, homestead and additional accessory structures already exist, and so the
proposed use will in no way alter the property’s compatibility with the existing neighborhood.
4) The proposed use meets all specific development standards for such use listed in Article 7 of
this Chapter.
FINDING: There are no specific development standards for additional accessory structures listed
in Article 7. The existing structures meet setback requirements.
5) If the proposed use is within a floodplain management or shoreland area, the proposed use
meets all the specific standards for such use listed in Section 154.800: Shoreland
Management Overlay District of the Zoning Code and Chapter 152: Flood Plain Management
of the Municipal Code.
FINDINGS: The property is not located within a floodplain management or shoreland area.
6) The proposed use will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be
compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and
will not change the essential character of that area.
FINDINGS: The barn and other additional accessory structures already exist and are compatible in
appearance with the existing character of the general vicinity.
7) The proposed use will not be hazardous or create a nuisance as defined under this Chapter to
existing or future neighboring structures.
FINDINGS: The proposed use will not be hazardous or create a nuisance.
8) The proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services,
including streets, police and fire protection, drainage struct ures, refuse disposal, water and
sewer systems and schools or will be served adequately by such facilities and services
provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use.
FINDINGS: The proposed use will be served adequately by the aforementioned.
4
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
9) The proposed use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public
facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
FINDINGS: The proposed use will not create excessive additional requirements.
10) The proposed use will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general
welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.
FINDINGS: The proposed use will not in any way be detrimental.
11) Vehicular approaches to the property, where present, will not create traffic congestion or
interfere with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares.
FINDINGS: The proposed use will not increase traffic.
12) The proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance.
FINDINGS: The proposed use will allow an existing barn to be located on the same property as an
existing homestead, thereby helping to preserve an existing feature.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The requested conditional use permit is not predicted to have any fiscal impact on the community.
OPTIONS:
The Planning Commission may:
Recommend granting the proposed conditional use permit subject to Staff conditions.
Amend Staff-recommended conditions of approval and recommend approval based on
amended conditions of approval.
Recommend denial of the conditional use permit, citing recommended findings of fact for
denial.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request for a
variance from the maximum number and size of accessory structures allowed within a rural
district for the property located at 11459 60th Street North, based on the following conditions:
Conditions:
1) A lot line adjustment, based on the survey dated August 5, 2017 must be approved by Staff
and recorded with the County, with proof of recording being provided to the City within 60
days of approval.
“Move to recommend approval of the request from Richard, Eileen and Chad Bergmann for a
conditional use permit to allow an excess of the permitted two accessory structures and accessory
structure size requirements in the Rural Residential zoning district for the property located at
11459 60th Street North subject to recommended condition of approval.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Conditional use permit application
2) Site Plan showing existing accessory structures
5
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4A – ACTION ITEM
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ........................................................................................ Planning Staff
- Report by Staff ................................................................................... Planning Staff
- Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members
- Open the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair
- Close the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair
- Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members
- Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members