2015-04-14 PC Agenda Packet
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
7:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL – ADOPT AGENDA
2. MINUTES
February 10, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting (pages 1-9)
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. Public Hearing to Consider a Request by Michael and Lisa DeMars for a Conditional
Use Permit to Move an Existing Home on the Lot at 5158 Main Avenue NE in
Albertville, MN (pages 10-19)
4. OTHER BUSINESS
None
5. ADJOURNMENT
A joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop will begin at 7:30 PM
immediately after the Planning Commission meeting to discuss the
Albertville Vision Study, Land Use Plan, and Policies
City of Albertville
5959 Main Avenue NE
P.O. Box 9
Albertville, MN 55301
Phone: 763-497-3384
UNAPPROVED
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2015
1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / ADOPT AGENDA:
Chair Klecker called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Acting Chair Ron Klecker, Commissioner Jeremy Dominick, and Commissioner Mark Barthel
and City Council Representative Walter Hudson.
Absent: Commissioners Natalya Lindberg and Dale Edberg
Staff members present: Alan Brixius and Sue Schwalbe
Others Present/Public: Jacob Steen, 8300 Norman Center, Bloomington, Minnesota
Steve Nelson, 7656 128th Street, Apple Valley, Minnesota
Tim Demery, 6448 82nd Street NE, Monticello, MN 55362
Jeremiah and Chein Curran, 851 Kayla Lane, Hanover, MN 55341
Jason and Jenny Becker, 6733 East Oak Drive, Monticello, MN 55362
Jeremy and Pargi Martin, 5680 Iffert Avenue Ne, St. Michael
Jason and Amanda Richardson, 486 Fourth Street NE, St. Michael
Greg Vetsch, 350 Creekside Drive, St. Michael
Juston Dahmen, 11199 69th Street NE, Albertville
Adam L’Herault, 7534 Lander Avenue NE, Otsego, MN 55301
Duale and Jan Capps, 11631 55th Street NE Albertville
J. Dawn and J. Bremmer, 13947 55th Street NE, St. Michael
Lance Burda, 12455 60th Street NE, Albertville
Chad Bennett, 565 Sycamore Circle NW, St. Michael
Jared Grove, 6572 Mason Avenue NE, Otsego
Stat Puseth, 13399 Hynes Road, Rogers
Samantha and Andrew Grimsle, 111 Rambling Creek Drive, SE. St. Michael
Marcia and Dexter Phillips, 4883 Kassel Avenue NE, Albertville
Melissa Harrison, 5462 Kalland Avenue NE, Albertville
Amanda Conrad, 18689 Traverse Lane, Big Lake, MN 55309
Dominick moved, second by Klecker to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion carried
unanimously.
City of Albertville
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
February 10, 2015
Page 2
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Dominick moved, second by Barthel to table approval of the minutes of the October 14, 2014
Planning Commission Minutes.
Motion carried unanimously.
3. APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS
Barthel moved, second Hudson to nominate Ron Klecker as Planning Commission Chair and
Jeremy Dominick Planning Commission Vice-Chair.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. Public Hearing to consider a request by Westbridge Community Church for a zoning map
amendment to rezone Outlot A of Heuring Meadows, located at the northwest corner of
Count Road 19 and 53rd Street, from B-2, Limited Business District to P/I, Pubic
Institutional District to allow the development of a church. .
Alan Brixius presented the planning report dated February 5, 2015 to the Planning Commission for their
consideration.
Section 300.1.F of the Albertville zoning ordinance outlines the review criteria for evaluating a change to
the City’s zoning map. Following these criteria Mr. Brixius offer the following analysis.
1. The Site is guided for commercial land use in the Albertville long range land use map. This land
use was originally established for the site in 1998. More recently this land use guidance was
reaffirmed with the adoption of the 2012 Vision Study. In review of the requested zoning change
finds that it is contrary to the City’s long range land use plan and the stated goal and polices of the
2012 Vision Study.
2. The current B-2 limited business zoning is to provide for low intensity retail and service outlet that
may be compatible with adjoining residential neighborhoods. This district does not allow for large
assembly land uses, as such the rezoning is required to allow a church. A church will have similar
use characteristic as commercial during the week, however, large assembly activities go beyond
the current B-2 district. The change in zoning will interrupt the proposed land use pattern planned
along C.R. 19 and will isolate a single B-2 zoned parcel between the church site and townhomes to
the north.
3. The proposed use must conform to all performance standards of the Albertville development
codes. Mr. Brixius noted that the rezoning was only a first step. The site exists as an outlot and
must be subdivided/ platted before a building permit may be issued. Through the subdivision
process the city and applicant must determine how the site will access C.R. 19 and whether this
City of Albertville
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
February 10, 2015
Page 3
will be a share access with the site to the north. The institutional use would also require a site and
building plan review through the planning commission and city council.
4. The change in zoning cannot tend to depreciate the area where it is proposed. With regard to this
item Mr. Brixius offered the following comments.
a. The church would have no negative impact on the adjoining residential properties to the
west.
b. The church will isolate a single B-2 lot to the north. The city has planned to have all the B-2
properties in this area be to developed in a cohesive pattern, with shared access as a means
of promoting accumulative customer attraction and business interchange between
businesses. The change in zoning will impact the use, design and value of this remaining
B-2 lot.
c. The change of use will remove 11.5 acres of commercial zoned land for the property taxes.
Mr. Brixius compared this site with Shoppes at Prairie Run another B-2 site that generates
approximately $37000 per acre annually in property tax. Using this figure, Mr. Brixius
estimated that the subject 11.5 acre site could annually generate $416,000 in total property
taxes when fully developed. The city’s share would be approximately 32% or $133,000.
The balance of this amount would go to the county and school district.
d. The applicant has offered a service agreement to compensate the city for services in lieu of
taxes. The City Attorney has given an opinion that these service agreements are not
enforceable. State law exempts religious properties for paying real estate taxes which fund
these services.
5. Mr. Brixius indicated that the in-place utilities have the capacity to accommodate either the
planned commercial use or the proposed church.
6. Mr.Brixius indicated that the adjoining streets have been designed for commercial development on
the subject site. They will have the capacity to accommodate a church. The introduction of any
large assembly land use at this time may expedite the need for a traffic signal at 53rd Street and
C.R. 19.
At the conclusion of Mr. Brixius’ presentation, he indicated that the Staff recommendation is to deny the
rezoning request based on the findings outlined in the February 5, 2015 planning report.
Commissioner Dominick questioned the access and easements. Chair Klecker questioned the ownership
of the street within the subject site if shared access from C.R. were constructed. Brixius responded the
streets could be private easements or public right of way.
Chair Klecker indicated the City has other properties for a church and does not agree with the result in
loss of the commercial property and is concerned with traffic flow.
Chair Klecker opened the Public Hearing at 7:40 p.m.
Jerimiah Curran, Pastor of Westbridge Community gave a basic history of the Church and addressed
staff’s findings as follows:
City of Albertville
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
February 10, 2015
Page 4
1. Pastor Curran challenged the consistency with the comprehensive plan stating that the rezoning
application provides a process to reexamine the land use and zoning. This process allows the city
to reconsider its guided land use.
2. Pastor Curran stated that the church would have land use characteristic similar to commercial uses
and would be a compatible neighbor with the adjoining residential neighborhood. He indicated
that the church would share in the cost of intersection signalization if traffic volumes warranted a
new traffic signal at 53rd Street and C.R. 19.
3. If the rezoning is approved the church will follow the development application process for
subdivision and site and building plan approval. The church development will comply with the
city’ development regulations.
4. Pastor Curran acknowledged the lost to property tax revenues. He explained that the church will
provide economic benefit to the community. He stated that churches provide social services to the
community and surrounding areas not otherwise offered. These social services may have a value
as high a $160,000 annually. He also stated that the church is a major attraction to a community
attracting people to the community on a regular basis to the community. These people will
patronize local retailers, service providers and restaurants.
5. The church will not overburden local utilities, services or streets. If a traffic signal is needed at
53rd Street and C.R, 19 the church would share in the cost.
Commissioner Barthel questioned the applicant if they had met with staff to discuss options and Curran
indicated they had met with staff.
Tim Demry, Monticello, addressed the Commissioner stating this would be a great use for bringing non-
residents into Albertville to use gas stations, restaurants, etc.
Jarod Grove of Otsego, addressed the Commission also stating this would be a good use for the property.
Melissa Hanson, Albertville resident for 13 years stated she is not a member of Westbridge Church but is
an abutting neighbor of the property and believes this would be a good use of the property as it has sat
dormant for years.
Dexter Phillips, Albertville, stated this property would be finally put to use.
Chair Klecker closed the Public Hearing at 8:45 p.m.
City Council Representative Hudson stated he believes this would be a good property in Albertville and
this property has been vacant for too long. Also stating Westbridge Community Church needs might
change in 20 years and relocate.
Commissioner Dominick concurs with Hudson stating this property has been vacant too long.
City of Albertville
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
February 10, 2015
Page 5
Commissioner Barthel believes this property should be considered prime real estate and is okay with this
use.
Dominick moved, second by Klecker to recommend approval of the request of Westbridge
Community Church for a zoning map amendment to rezone Outlot A of Heuring Meadows, located
that the northwest corner of County Road 19 and 53rd Street, from B-2, Limited Business District to
P/I, Public Institutional District to allow the development of a church.
Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Representative Hudson excused himself from meeting.
b. Public Hearing to Consider a request by Stephen H Nelson Land Company for a variance
from the City’s maximum 30 foot billboard height standard. The applicant is requesting a
40 foot tall billboard.
Alan Brixius presented the planning report dated January 27, 2015 to the Planning Commission for their
consideration. Mr. Brixius stated that there are arguments both in for and against granting the variance.
He offered the following analysis based on variance review criteria.
The variance offers reasonable use of the property not permitted by the zoning ordinance.
Pros:
1. The Site is zoned B-3 Highway Commercial District. This district allows both commercial uses
and the bill boards as a permitted use.
2. The site qualifies as a billboard site based on the city’s spacing and setback performance
standards
3. The additional sign height will allow preserve the potential of the site for development of a
commercial building.
4. This site is 18.5 feet below the freeway elevation immediately north of the site.
Cons:
1. The variance is not a reasonable use of the site in that the billboard was approved for the site at a
30 foot height. This height was acceptable and the applicant provided acknowledgement of future
freeway improvement and a waiver of damages that may result if improvements would impair
sight lines to the sign.
The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the
property owner.
City of Albertville
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
February 10, 2015
Page 6
Pros:
1. The site is a very small in area and is further complicated by the easements and setbacks that
reduce the buildable area of the lot to just 26% of the total lot area. The Additional sign height
will allow for the combination of a commercial building and sign on the same site.
2. The city’s comprehensive plan goals and policies promote the preservation of the city commercial
guided land. The combination of uses through the variance would allow addition future
commercial development on this property.
Cons:
1. Without a timetable for site development, there is no assurance that the variance will allow future
development of the site.
2. The practical difficulty is a plight created by the property owner with his desires to develop the
site with both a building and a billboard. Absent this combination the height variance is not
required.
3. Absent the variance, the site may still be utilized for commercial development or billboard or a
combination of both and the impaired sight lines to a 30 foot tall sign is a condition created by the
property owner.
Variance will not change the essential character of the locality;
Pros:
1. The site meets the 1000 foot spacing standards for a new billboard.
2. The Knechtl billboard located north across the freeway to this site was granted a variance for a 40
foot tall billboard to overcome the elevation differential between the site and freeway.
Cons:
1. The proposed 40 billboard will be located in close proximity to the future c-d road and freeway
ramp than other billboard.
Variance will not impair light or air to adjacent property. Mr. Brixius indicated that due to the location of
the site and the proposed sign variance would not negatively impair light or air to adjacent properties.
Variance will not diminish property values. Mr. Brixius indicated that the site location is somewhat
isolated and the sign variance will not significantly impact adjoining properties. The preservation of the
site for future commercial development would contribute to the city’s future tax base.
Absent the variance approval the city code would deny the property owner reasonable use of the property.
Mr. Brixius stated the site without the variance can be reasonably use as either a billboard site as reflect in
City of Albertville
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
February 10, 2015
Page 7
the approval of a previous sign permit. Or the site can be reasonably developed with a commercial
building as reflected with the approval of the original subdivision and the submission of the original site
concept plan. It is the combination of uses that creates the need for the variance. The City must
determine if the combination of uses on this site is reasonable.
Granting this variance will not convey special privilege to this property owner that would be denied to
other properties in the same district. Mr. Brixius indicated that this site is unique in size, location,
elevation below the freeway, and billboard eligibility so that approval of the variance will confer special
privileges to the applicant.
Mr. Brixius conclude his presentation citing that the planning commission has two options on this
application. That their decision should weighed the presented analysis and should be supported by the
findings for either approval or denial.
Chair Klecker opened the public hearing at 8:40 p.m.
Jacob Steen addressed the Planning Commission requesting the variance be granted for the retail use of
the property. He is currently working with a developer and the development requires the variance. Steen
also stated the sign would donate five hours per month for the City of Albertville for Community
messages.
Commissioner Barthel stated he has spoken with residents and they do not want a taller sign.
Chair Klecker stated that a 30’ high sign was approved and the applicant should apply for a 40’ high sign
when the building will be constructed.
Dominick moved to recommend approval to the City Council to approve a variance is reasonable and
meets the criteria for variance.
1. The site is zoned B-3, Highway Commercial District and both commercial building development
and billboards are an allowed use within the district.
2. The site meets the spacing and setback standards of the Albertville Sign Code to be eligible for the
construction of a new legally conformed billboard.
3. The requested height variance is necessary to allow the site to accommodate both the approved
billboard and a commercial building. The preservation of the site for a future building is
consistent with the Albertville’s 2012 Vision Study goals and policies including:
• Maintain its current planned commercial and industrial land use patterns and zoning.
• Promote commercial development by the City to take advantage of its access to I-94 and the
growing population of Albertville and adjoining communities.
• Be patient with infill development to insure property access, quality site design, and quality
architecture.
4. The City finds that the site has the following practical difficulties unique to the site that
complicates the reasonable use of the site that were not created by the property owner:
• The site, due to setbacks and easements, only has 26% of the lot area as being buildable.
• The site is 18.5 feet below the freeway elevation.
City of Albertville
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
February 10, 2015
Page 8
• The site is one of the few locations within the City that meets the billboard spacing
requirements that make it eligible for a new billboard.
5. The variance will not change the essential character of the area due to the site’s isolated location
and the billboard’s separation from other billboards.
6. The requested variance will not impact traffic congestion, public safety, or diminish property
values.
7. The variance is needed to overcome practical difficulties with the site and will not confer special
privileges denied other eligible billboard sites having similar practical difficulties.
As no second the motion fails.
Barthel moved, second by Klecker to recommend the variance criteria have not been met, and deny
the variance with the following findings:
1. The variance is not a reasonable use of the site in that the billboard was approved for the site at a
40 foot height. This height was acceptable and the applicant provided acknowledgement of future
freeway improvements and a waiver of damages that may result if improvements would impair
sight lines to the sign.
2. Without a timetable for the site development, there is no assurance that the variance will allow
future development of the site.
3. The practical difficulty is a plight created by the property owner with his desires to develop the
site with both a building and a billboard. Absent this combination, the height variance is not
required.
4. Absent the variance, the site may still be utilized for commercial development or billboard or a
combination of both and the impaired sight lines to a 30 foot tall sign is a condition created by the
property owner.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Chair Klecker, Aye
Commissioner Barthel: Aye
Commissioner Dominick: Nay
c. Public Hearing to consider a zoning text amendment to Chapter 500, Section 500.1.B,
Variance Review Criteria of the Albertville Zoning Code, making this section consistent with
the Minnesota State Statutes 462.357, Subd. 6.2.
Alan Brixius presented the planning report dated February 3, 2015 to the Planning Commission for their
consideration.
Chair Klecker opened the Public Hearing at 9:15 p.m.
No comments
Chair Klecker closed the Public Hearing at 9:15 p.m.
Commission Barthel stated this is basically a house keeping issue.
Dominick moved, Barthel seconded to recommend approval to the City Council to consider a
zoning a text amendment to Chapter 500, Section 500.1.B, Variance Review Criteria of the
City of Albertville
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
February 10, 2015
Page 9
Albertville Zoning Code, making this section consistent with the Minnesota State Statutes 462.357,
Subd. 6.2.
Motion carried unanimously.
5. OTHER BUSINESS:
Mr. Brixius invited the planning commissioners to attend a joint city council and planning commission
workshop at 6:00 p.m. on March 2, 2015 to participate in the 2015 goal setting. This workshop will
review the 2012 Vision Study and outline community priorities for the next ten years.
6. ADJOURNMENT:
Barthel moved, second by Dominick to adjourn meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously.
_____________________________
Sue Schwalbe, Recording Secretary
10
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Adam Nafstad
FROM: Alan Brixius
DATE: April 8, 2015
RE: Albertville - DeMars Building Relocation Conditional Use Permit
FILE NO: 163.06 - 15.02
BACKGROUND
Michael and Lisa DeMars have requested approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) to
allow the relocation of an existing single home to property located north of 51st Street
NE and east of Main Avenue NE (5158 Main Avenue NE). According to the City Code,
a conditional use permit is required for all permanent relocation of residences and for
the relocation of any building requiring a permit in the City.
The subject site is zoned R-1, Residential Single Family and is presently occupied by a
dilapidated single family home and detached garage. The applicants plan to remove
the existing structures prior to the relocation of the home onto the subject site.
The home to be relocated (from the City of Grove City) is a single story rambler. In
conjunction with the building relocation, the applicants plan to construct an attached
garage (with a breezeway connection) on the east side of the home. The applicants
hope to move the building to the subject site in the month of May.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A: Site Location
Exhibit B: Site Plan
Exhibit C: Floor Plan
Exhibit D: Building Photographs
Exhibit E: Garage Detail
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Performance Standards. Section 1400.4 of the City Code establishes a specific set of
standards which must be satisfied in the consideration of building relocation requests
11
(via CUP). The following is a listing of the various performance standards followed by a
City Staff response:
A. Upon relocation, the building shall comply with the applicable
requirements of the State Building Code.
Staff Comment. As a condition of CUP approval, the home to be located must
comply with the applicable provisions of the State Building Code. The applicants
have indicated that the home to be relocated will be “gutted” and all building
modifications will comply with City and State building requirements. Proposed
improvements would include new electrical, HVAC, insulation, plumbing, siding
and foundation (basement). As part of the application for building permit, the
submission of detailed site and building plans will be required. This issue will be
subject to further review and approval by the City Building Official.
B. The proposed relocated building shall comply with the character of the
neighborhood in which it is being relocated as determined by the City
Council.
Staff Comment. The subject site is bordered by single family residential uses on
all sides. Most homes in the neighborhood are likewise single story ramblers.
The applicants have indicated that the home to be relocated will be finished in
aluminum siding which will be gray in color. The applicants have further
indicated that the awnings illustrated in the provided building photos are to be
removed. It is the opinion of City Staff that the home to be relocated will be
compatible in appearance with existing homes in the area.
C. The relocated use will not result in a depreciation of neighborhood or
adjacent property values.
Staff Comment. Considering that the home will be compatible with size and
appearance of other homes in the area and that Building Code compliance will
be made a condition of CUP approval, the proposed use is not expected to
depreciate neighborhood property values.
D. The relocated structure shall be similar to the market valuation of adjacent
principal structures as determined by the City or County Assessor.
Staff Comment. The home to be relocated exhibits a ground floor footprint of
1,770 square feet (not including an approximate 1,000 square foot attached
garage). In this regard, the footprint of the home will be slightly larger than most
homes in the area. With this in mind, the value of the home is not expected to be
less than that of adjacent structures.
E. The relocated structure shall be ready for occupancy within six months
from the date of location on the site.
12
Staff Comment. As a condition of CUP approval, the relocated structure will be
required to be occupied within six months of the date of City Council approval.
F. The travel route of the building move must reflect proper capacity of the
street with regard to load bearing capacity, will not interfere with utilities,
and will not create congestion or traffic safety issues on the public street.
Staff Comment. As required, the applicants described the proposed travel route
to the site from Grove City. The move would occur during nighttime hours and is
expected to occur sometime during the month of May. As a condition of CUP
approval, the proposed travel route and related timing should be subject to
approval by the City Engineer.
The company performing the move (Otting House Movers, LLC) is licensed by
the State of Minnesota. At the time of building permit, the house moving
company will be required to provide documentation of such licensure as well as
insurance.
Setbacks. The following is a listing of minimum R-1 District principal building setback
requirements as well as setbacks proposed by the applicants:
Required Proposed
South Front Yard: 30 feet 35 feet
West Side yard: 20 feet 40 feet
East Side Yard: 10 feet 27 feet
North Rear Yard: 25 feet 82 feet
While the proposed house location meets applicable setback requirements of the
Ordinance, some concern exists in regard to their accuracy as the submitted site plan is
not drawn to scale. Compliance with required setbacks should be confirmed prior to the
placement of the building upon the site. The City shall require a certificate of survey
showing the placement of the house and compliance with the required setbacks. Said
survey shall also include location of the driveway curb cut and utility connections to the
new house.
Garage Addition. As noted, a garage and breezeway addition is proposed on the east
side of the home. To be noted is that the garage measures 1,008 square feet in size
(24 feet by 42 feet) and exceeds the maximum 1,000 square footage requirement of the
Ordinance. As a condition of CUP approval, the size of the garage should be reduced
to not exceed 1,000 square feet.
Also as a condition of CUP approval, it is recommended that the design of the garage
and breezeway be compatible with the home to be relocated. In this regard, it is
specifically recommended that the garage and breezeway exhibit similar roof pitch,
finish materials and colors of the home to be relocated.
13
Landscaping. It is assumed that the removal of the existing structures and location of
the related home of the property will significantly impact existing site vegetation (turf and
landscaping). In this regard, it is recommended that the following conditions be
imposed as conditions of CUP approval:
1. The lot area remaining after providing for driveways, sidewalks, patios, building
site and/or other requirements shall be sodded, seeded and mulched prior to
issuance of a certificate of building occupancy.
2. Front yards and side yards which abut public streets shall be sodded. Other turf
areas may be seeded.
3. If the subject property does not contain a shade or evergreen tree, one shade
tree or evergreen tree shall be provided on the property consistent with the
permitted species list and minimum size requirements of Section 1000.7.B of the
Zoning Ordinance.
4. The preceding requirements be satisfied within six months of building occupancy.
Driveway Access. Like the home which presently exists upon the subject property, the
relocated home will likewise be accessed from the south via 51st Street NE. To be
noted however, is that the proposed driveway location and width do not match the
present curb cut. Thus, a new driveway apron, located within the City right-of-way, will
need to be constructed. The construction and cost of such apron will be the
responsibility of the applicants. This issue should be subject to further comment and
recommendation by the City Engineer.
RECOMMENDATION
Provided certain conditions are imposed, we believe the relocated home can compatibly
exist within the neighborhood in which it is proposed. As a result, and based on the
preceding review, our office recommends approval of the requested conditional use
permit subject to the following conditions:
1. The home to be located shall comply with the applicable provisions of the State
Building Code. As part of the application for building permit, the submission of
detailed site and building plans shall be required. This issue shall be subject to
further review and approval by the City Building Official.
2. The relocated structure shall be occupied within six months of the date of City
Council approval.
3. At the time of building permit, the house moving company performing the home
relocation shall provide documentation of licensure and insurance.
14
4. The proposed travel route (of the home to be relocated) and related timing shall
be subject to approval by the City Engineer.
5. With building permit application, the applicant shall submit a site plan on a
certificate of survey showing required setbacks, driveway curb cut location, and
utility connections to the new house.
6. The size of the proposed attached garage shall be reduced to not exceed 1,000
square feet.
7. The design of the attached garage and breezeway shall be compatible with the
home to be relocated. In this regard, the garage and breezeway shall exhibit
similar roof pitch, finish materials and colors of the home to be relocated.
8. The following landscaping-related conditions shall be satisfied:
a. The lot area remaining after providing for driveways, sidewalks, patios,
building site and/or other requirements shall be sodded, seeded and
mulched prior to issuance of a certificate of building occupancy.
b. Front yards and side yards which about public streets shall be sodded.
Other turf areas may be seeded.
c. If the subject property does not contain a shade or evergreen tree, one
shade tree or evergreen tree shall be provided on the property consistent
with the permitted species list and minimum size requirements of Section
1000.7.B of the Zoning Ordinance.
d. The preceding landscaping-related requirements shall be satisfied within
six months of building occupancy.
9. A new driveway apron shall be constructed within the 51st Street right-of-way to
match the limits of the new garage driveway. The construction and cost of such
apron shall be the responsibility of the applicants. This issue shall be subject to
further comment and recommendation by the City Engineer.
10. Comments of other City Staff.
c: Kim Olson
Sue Schwalbe
Paul Heins
Mike Couri
Michael and Lisa DeMars, 13350 55th Street NE, St. Michael, MN 55376
EXHIBIT A15
EXHIBIT B16
EXHIBIT C17
EXHIBIT D18
EXHIBIT E19