6:30 I CALL TO ORDER6:30 II PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE6:30 III APPROVAL OF AGENDA6:30 IV CONSENT AGENDA

A. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes for November 1, 2018

B. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes for December 6, 2018

6:35 V OPEN FORUM

6:40 VI COUNCIL UPDATE

VII REGULAR MEETING

6:45 C.

7:30 VIII NOTICES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

D.

7:35 IX ADJOURNMENT

The City of Dayton's mission is to promote a thriving community and to provide residents with a safe and pleasant place to live while preserving our rural character, creating connections to our natural resources,

and providing customer service that is efficient, fiscally responsible, and responsive.

The next Planning Commission Meeting is Tentatively Scheduled for February 7, 2019 at 6:30pm

AGENDACITY OF DAYTON, MINNESOTA

12260 So. Diamond Lake Road, Dayton, MN 55327Thursday, January 10, 2019

REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION - 6:30 P.M.

is limited to 3 minutes for non-agenda items; state your name and address; No Commission Action will be taken and items will be referred back to staff

These routine or previously discussed items are enacted with one motion. Note: Commissioners absent from previous meetings may still vote to approve minutes.

Application by Robert Weidema for a Variance allowing a second driveway access at 13931 Berkshire Lane North

MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 1, 2018, PLANNING COMMISSION Schmitz called the November 1, 2018, Planning Commission Meeting to order at 6:34 P.M. Roll Call Present: Planning Commission members Schmitz, Faulds and Sevald; Councilmember O’Brien Absent: Planning Commission members Kangas and Dahlheimer Also in Attendance: Tina Goodroad, City Administrator/Development Director; Alec Henderson, Associate Planner and Stacie Brown, Deputy Clerk Approval of Agenda Faulds moved to approve the agenda, and Sevald seconded. The motion passed. Consent Agenda

A. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes for August 9, 2018 B. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes for September 6, 2018

Motion: Sevald moved to approve, Faulds seconded, the Consent Agenda. The motion passed. Open Forum opened at 6:35 pm, closed at 6:35 pm. Council Update O’Brien provided updates on previous Council meetings. Council reaffirmed the diverging diamond design for the Dayton Parkway Interchange. Brayburn Trails asked for a change to the entryway and was approved. We are working with Loucks to create a street design for parkways. Council approved the final plat of Pineview Meadows 2nd Addition, and approved vacating easements for Pineview Meadows. The Territorial utility project was put on hold for one year after discussion with Rogers. An interim moratorium on development was approved. The Pineview/Oakview feasibility study was approved. A preliminary plat for Cloquet Island Estates was approved with changes suggested by Council. The LT Properties (DeMars) concept design was discussed. Jerry Holm presented that he was looking to develop a parcel behind the church on Fernbrook Lane; the Ordinance was explained and he was told that until the City allows large lots, this would not be possible. Council received a presentation from Kelly Grissman of Three Rivers Park. Trail issues were discussed, as well has how we can be partners in the development. The MLRT and City of Dayton Trailway Agreement was approved. A proposal was made for parkway design standards. A Resolution was approved for the final plat and Developers Agreement for Sundance Greens first phase. A discussion was had regarding Activity Center upgrades, and the suggestion was

made for design minimum standards to be developed and re-submit for bids. This was also recommended for the fence around Stephens Park. Council amended the noise control Ordinance, giving more control to staff. PUBLIC HEARINGS

C. Application by Eric Odegard for Home Extended Business (IUP) at 14847 Vicksburg Lane North

Henderson presented that in April of this year, Eric Odegard applied for a building permit for an Accessory Building on his Agriculturally Zoned lot. Ag lots may build accessory buildings up to the impervious surface coverage for the district (10%) if the buildings are for an agricultural use. Staff was led to believe that the building was to be used for Ag production on his lot (as a large portion of his parcel is used for row crops). Several months later we were notified by a neighboring property owner that the Applicant has been operating an unpermitted boat/RV storage business out of his existing building and expanded the business into his new accessory building – thereby operating a business out of two accessory buildings. Staff has no record of a Home Occupation for the business ever being approved at the subject property. Staff contacted the applicant to notify him that he was operating an illegal home business and would be required to apply for a Home Extended Business (IUP) for review by Planning Commission and would require Council approval to continue operation. The subject property is currently zoned A-1 – Agriculture, and all surrounding properties are in agricultural districts. The 2030 Land Use plan designated the parcels abutting Vicksburg Lane as mixed use and low-medium density, however, the Draft 2040 Plan designates this area as part of a Master Planned Development. The subject property is 19.75 acres and its current principle use is as homesteaded residential lot and a portion of the land is used for agricultural production. The parcels surrounding the lot have similar existing uses as homestead and agriculture. North of the subject property, at the corner of Vicksburg and Dayton River Road, Laurel Tree farm is a Homestead Lot where a tree nursery operation is conducted. Based on our Home Occupation Ordinance (included in tonight’s packet), home occupations must be clearly incidental and secondary to residential use, the owner-operator must reside in the dwelling, no more than 8 round trips from vehicles. Home Extended Businesses may be operated on Agricultural lots over 1 acre, and must be 100 feet from any residential dwelling (other than subject property). Only one accessory building is permitted for use as a business, however, the ordinance does allow flexibility: “The City Council may allow Home Occupations to operate in excess of the provisions in this section provided the City has reasonable assurance, due to the nature of the Home Occupation or through mitigation measures (e.g. increase landscaping, or screening than required), that the Home Occupation will not adversely impact neighboring properties or become a nuisance.” Henderson reviewed the proposed use in detail, which was also included in tonight’s meeting packet.

Based on the information we have about the applicant’s home occupation, it meets the majority of the code requirements. No outdoor storage is present, no parking on street, no more than two off-site employees, traffic seems to be no greater than a standard residence. The home occupation is at least 100 feet from any other residence. The Home Extended Business guidelines do speak of limiting the use of accessory buildings to one building. It also limits customer visits to one at a time. The intent of limiting customer visits would be to mitigate the chance of a full parking lot in a more residential area. Colleen Tompkins; 3017 Canyon Road, Chaska – came forward. She is not against home-based businesses, but would like to know of any potential impact on the value of her property, which neighbors the property being considered for this IUP. Goodroad explained that though she does not have a specific answer, we can put her in contact with an assessor at Hennepin County. Goodroad mentioned that the business is operating fairly minimally. This has been operating since 2007, so if Ms. Tompkins has not seen any change in her property’s valuation since then, she should not from an increase in the building. Eric Odegard; 14847 Vicksburg Lane - We do not have any driveways on the north side of the building. Everything is done through the south side. There are doors on the north side, but they are not used. The original building was constructed for his daughter’s horses, however she needed to move out of state for employment and the building is no longer used for that purpose. Years ago, he had discussed with the City that this building would be used for boat storage. He did not intentionally avoid going through the IUP process, he assumed it was all ok. Schmitz closed the public hearing at 7:00 Schmitz expressed that the screening should be on the north end, not right up to the building line, but to the west enough so that if someone did build a residence, they would not be looking at the building. Sevald stated he doesn’t feel that trees could ever hide this. Goodroad explained that the intent isn’t to hide, rather to soften the appearance. Sevald expressed that overall, he is ok with this; however, asked if there are nearby commercial properties that are competing against this. Schmitz mentioned that he believes the closest storage business is located in Rogers. Goodroad confirmed that per the Ordinance, the IUP would expire when the property sells, or would need to be renewed at the 5-year mark. Sevald inquired on the timeline for sewer extension to this area. Goodroad believes it is 2020 timeframe – which is an approximate time line. There is a lot of land in that area the pipe would need to cross first.

Schmitz does not have a problem with this as long as it is screened to protect the neighboring property. Henderson reviewed the screening conditions, and the Commission recommended a minimum tree height of 8 feet, spaced 10 feet apart. Signage was discussed- only small signs will be allowed. Schmitz moved to approve recommendation of the Application by Eric Odegard for Home Extended Business (IUP) at 14847 Vicksburg Lane North with added screening conditions. Faulds seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Schmitz asked that the neighbors be kept informed of the status. Goodroad confirmed that it will be on the November 13 Council agenda, and staff reports can be accessed.

D. Application by US Solar for Text Amendment to Section 1001.43, Alternative Energy Systems

Goodroad presented that in Summer of 2017, there were preliminary discussions on amending our Alternative Energy Systems Zoning Code to allow community solar gardens as an Interim Use on parcels of a certain size, zoning district, and staging. These discussions were initiated by City Council with direction to staff to prepare a draft ordinance upon hearing of requests for such uses. US Solar was one of the companies interested in leasing and developing the parcel directly south (Engstrom Property) of the new Public Works building as a community solar garden. Ultimately, the City Council did not act on the draft amendment prepared by staff. In late August, US Solar submitted a formal text amendment with suggested amendment language for our Alternative Energy Systems code requiring a public hearing. The applicant submitted minor edits to the 2017 version that has been reviewed by Planning Commission in previous public hearings and by the City Council, but not adopted. Through this application, US Solar is again requesting consideration of this text amendment. In August of 2017, the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed potential revisions twice (each). No formal action was taken on the amendment to zoning code in 2017. There was broad support for solar in general on roof tops and as accessory uses. No support was given for community solar gardens as a principal use (with an IUP) because there were concerns over aesthetics, screening, and length of lease time (25-year life of solar garden) contributing to disorderly development or as a barrier to utility extension. Current Zoning Code only allows ground mounted solar panels as an accessory use up to the allowable Accessory Building allowance by district. Building mounted systems are allowed like any other building/architectural element. Our Alternative Energy Systems zoning code does not include allowances for wind energy production. Continuing to allow roof mounted solar and regulating the allowed square footage for ground mounted solar panels meets the requirements of state statute to protect and develop access to solar.

The applicant has submitted an application for a text amendment using the 2017 draft (that was not adopted – see attached draft 2017-10) with suggested changes. The proposed changes from the applicant can be seen in the redline version (enclosed in tonight’s packet) from US Solar (no changes were suggested for the proposed wind energy amendments of 2017-10). The applicant is asking for consideration that the Planning Commission could reject or make revisions to the screening plan. Goodroad stated that staff is suggesting that the Planning Commission only operates as a recommending body, so this would ultimately be an action by the City Council, not simply by the Planning Commission. Staff also suggests that if the Commission is going to recommend an Ordinance, a minimum height at planting would be established for trees. Options for the Commission would be to recommend support for the amendment with any changes they would like to see, table with direction to staff as to more changes, or recommend denial to the City Council based on limited support by both bodies from 2017, and recommend that this be further pursued as we work through the Comprehensive Plan update. Faulds inquired if this was land being considered for the City Park. Goodroad explained that there was consideration for the land across the street however this is no longer being considered. Sevald inquired on the lifespan of the solar panels. Goodroad stated she assumes at least 25 years. Sevald feels that technology may change and these could be replaced. However, he feels it’s a good interim use, as long as it’s covered up so nobody can see it. Schmitz stated he has yet to see a solar garden that looks nice screened. Faulds agreed. O’Brien added that we need to consider that Zanzibar may be a future parkway with the interchange coming. Goodroad confirmed that it will be designed as a future parkway. Schmitz stated that if we were not a developing City in the process of expanding sewer and water, he may be more inclined to look at this. Faulds expressed agreement. Sevald stated that he is more open to it, but questions if it’s something he would want to live next to. The Commission discussed the potential impact on property values. Sevald inquired on the benefit to US Solar to be in Dayton. The applicant came forward to address this. Schmitz opened the Public Hearing at 7:16 pm David Watts – US Solar; presented information regarding support for renewable energy. He is seeking recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission on this Text Amendment. He reviewed benefits to the City. He addressed concerns over aesthetics and limited public support. He responded to the question of lifespan of solar panels, stating that US Solar purchases high-quality solar panels with a 25-year warranty.

Faulds asked about land choice- why they would put this in a suburb rather than a more open area. Watts stated that according to State law, they are required to have subscribers be within the same county or adjacent. Faulds inquired on how far the sub-station is from the Zanzibar property. The estimated distance is a few miles. Sevald mentioned that he is not necessarily opposed to it, but is not comfortable voting on it, because it affects the whole City. He would like to see a map showing the relationship to sewer staging. Schmitz expressed concerns over the pending increase in traffic with the interchange; Zanzibar would be the likely spot for a parkway. Do we want all of those panels located in this area? Faulds is uncomfortable with visible solar arrays. He would either decline or not move on this tonight. Watts inquired if there is any concern about visibility that isn’t addressed in the text amendment application. Faulds stated that with the height of the roads, there is no way it would not be visible. The Commission expressed concern over property values and visibility. Sevald would consider tabling this – he is wondering if it could go somewhere else in Dayton. Schmitz closed the Public Hearing at 7:53 pm. Schmitz moved to deny recommendation of approval for the Application by US Solar for Text Amendment to Section 1001.43, Alternative Energy Systems. Faulds seconded. Ayes: Schmitz and Faulds Nays: Sevald

E. Amendments to Zoning Ordinance Pertaining to Fences In April this year, we recently updated the fence requirements to clear up confusing language and omit outdated information. This year we have received a large number of fence permits and as new residential neighborhoods are developed, the number of fences will increase. It has come to staff’s attention that the code may not do enough to regulate the proximity of fences to trails and road frontage as it relates to properties with more than one road frontage. This problem is clear especially with corner lots. The pictures enclosed in the packet tonight show two fences that were approved, meeting the requirements of our current zoning ordinance. The end result is a large mass of privacy fencing. This item is to review possible options to reduce the visual impacts of fencing along road frontage and/or trails. Staff seeks to reduce the future possibility for massing of fencing in residential areas which negatively impact streets and neighborhood character. The intent of the Ordinance is to begin treating corner lots, specifically, as though they have two front

yards, increase the design expectation of fences within front yards, and only allow privacy fencing along lots lines not directly adjacent to road right-of-way. Public Hearing Opened at 8:00 pm; no one came forward. Public Hearing Closed at 8:00 pm. Goodroad expressed that not everyone is aware of the Ordinances, so education is necessary. Schmitz motioned to approve recommendation of Amendments to Zoning Ordinance Pertaining to Fences; Sevald seconded. Motion passes unanimously. NOTICES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

F. We will have a brief Planning Commission meeting on December 6; we have one variance application, and Henderson will be covering that meeting as Goodroad cannot be there.

Coming up in November we have “Navigating the New Normal” presented by the Urban Land Institute, and the Planning Commission has been invited. We also have an open house on the Dayton Parkway Interchange on November 26th at Faithbrook Church. ADJOURN Schmitz moved to adjourn, Faulds seconded the motion. All ayes, and the motion passed. Meeting adjourned at 8:08 pm. Respectfully submitted, Stacie Brown

MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 6, 2018, PLANNING COMMISSION Kangas called the December 6, 2018, Planning Commission Meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. Roll Call Present: Planning Commission members Kangas, Dahlheimer and Sevald; Councilmember O’Brien Absent: Planning Commission members Schmitz and Faulds Also in Attendance: Alec Henderson, Associate Planner, Steve Hegland, Engineer, and Stacie Brown, Deputy Clerk Approval of Agenda Sevald moved to approve the agenda, and Dahlheimer seconded. The motion carries unanimously. Consent Agenda

A. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes for November 1, 2018 Sevald and Kangas abstained as they were not present at the meeting. With no majority vote, the motion is tabled until the next Planning Commission meeting. Open Forum opened at 6:34 pm, closed at 6:34 pm. Council Update O’Brien reviewed details from the two most recent Council meetings, including a discussion regarding Bunce Backyard Productions, an application for an IUP for a storage facility (which was approved), the Urban Land Institute workshop, an update from Jason Quisberg on a CenterPoint Energy project on South Diamond Lake Road, and an invitation was extended for a recognition and cake for Councilmembers Ziebell and Shermer prior to the 12/11 meeting. The Dayton Parkway Interchange open house was a success, with over 100 people in attendance. The Park Commission is kicking off an effort on December 4 for the National Park Service technical assistance grant. Also, plans and specs were authorized for a trail connection at Jonquil, and Council approved final plat of the Enclave at Hayden Hills as well as the final draft of the fence Ordinance. PUBLIC HEARINGS

B. Application by Robert Weidema for a Variance Allowing a Second Driveway Access at 13931 Berkshire Lane North

Henderson presented that this summer, the Applicant applied for a building permit for an accessory building on his property at 13931 Berkshire Lane North. A second driveway was not indicated on the site plan for the building permit. We were notified via

a complaint from a resident that a second access was being constructed to the accessory building to the north of the home. An additional driveway was extended to Berkshire Lane which was not approved in conjunction with the building permit. After the complaint was received, we put a stop work order on the driveway. According to Zoning Code § 1001.14 General Regulations, a second access is not permitted for residential uses, or uses which are not agricultural in nature. A second access may be used in conjunction with an agricultural use (i.e. a second access on a parcel for farm related equipment to access crop land). The access limits were adopted in 2010. A variance would be required for a second driveway for residential uses and is required to meet the merits of a three part-test described by legislature. The subject property is currently Zoned A-1, Agriculture as are all surrounding properties. However, the property is used for residential purposes and no known agricultural uses are conducted on the property. The 2030 Land Use plan designated the parcels abutting Berkshire Lane as Urban Reserve. The 2040 Draft Land Use shows this area as a possible Rural Reserve designation which would allow this area to maintain their large rural lots. The subject property is 10.09 acres and its current principle use is as homesteaded residential lot. The parcels surrounding the lot have similar existing uses as homestead and some limited agriculture production. The lot on the west side of Berkshire at the end of the cul-de-sac does have two driveways, however, this second driveway was installed prior to the zoning ordinance being amended limiting the number of driveways allowed per parcel (constructed in the 1990s). Henderson explained the requirements under Minnesota State Statute, which dictates how variance requests are to be considered by a three-part test (meeting all parts of the test). Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance established that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Meaning: 1. The property owner proposed to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by zoning ordinance; 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; 3. And the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties (ie if it is too expensive to follow zoning code, this is not a reason that meets the merits of the Practical Difficulties test). Henderson shared that through conversations with the applicant and review of the property, it is understood that there are several reasons why connecting a drive to the existing access presents a practical difficulty. The location of the home and existing driveway, in conjunction with the large wetland in the rear yard, pushed the septic system and secondary system into the front yard (the North East part of the parcel). Additionally, existing grades make it difficult to connect an off-shoot drive directly into

the existing driveway. A separate drive would skirt around these difficult areas and connect directly to Berkshire Lane. Staff feels the applicant’s unique situation presents sufficient practical difficulties meeting the merits of the Variance test. Staff would support recommendation in favor of the variance with the following conditions: 1. The new driveway access width at Berkshire Lane shall be no wider than twenty-eight (28) feet. 2. The driveway shall be setback a least five (5) feet from the northern property line and be outside the easement along the northern property line. Henderson displayed slides showing the original and revised scaled plans. He explained that some of the concern which has been expressed by neighboring property owners is a fear of the accessory building being used for commercial use; which is not on the table today. Commercial uses for home occupations are allowed, but only if they meet certain conditions. Additionally, an IUP would likely be required, which would be another Resolution and public hearing process that the Applicant would need to go through. Henderson displayed a staff mark-up of the scaled site plan showing the approximate driveway access under construction, and shared that the driveway was about half-way constructed before a stop work order was able to be placed. He also shared staff additions to the proposed findings and conditions based on resident feedback, including the specification that this resolution for Variance is only to review approvals related to a second driveway access and does not give tacit approval to any Commercial use of the building and, by extension the second driveway access. Additionally, the applicant shall use the accessory building for residential purposes. Any commercial activity on the property shall confirm to the Home Occupations Section 1001.13 as may be amended from time to time. Kangas inquired if there is a clear definition somewhere of commercial vs. residential use. Henderson responded that the zoning code generally regulates parking outside. If the use of the building is a relay point for multiple contractors, whether coming or going, beyond what is allowed by the Home Occupation Ordinance, that would be a commercial use that may not fit in that area for Ag. Generally commercial use deals with delivering services. It’s hard to say whether high tonnage vehicles would make the cut as far as a commercial-type use rather than industrial type use. Kangas stated that he feels there is a big difference between day-to-day use vs. week-to-week use vs. seasonal storage or something; as far as the amount of traffic.

Sevald inquired on when the home was built. Henderson responded that it may have been in the 1980’s or 1990’s. Kangas opened the public hearing at 6:46 pm. Ryan Woytcke, 13880 Berkshire Lane; Stated that he has nothing against Mr. Weidema or his pole barn; however has concerns over the ethicality of the zoning code and the process here. He appreciates that some of the concerns of the neighborhood have been addressed in some ways through the staff recommendations, however he wanted to add a few more technical points with the zoning code in particular. After seeking some legal counsel, he is here to encourage a vote to deny this. He has read the staff report, and respectfully disagrees with parts of it. The zoning code establishes rules that guide development of land within the City. There are times when some flexibility may be needed. He feels that property owner has failed to show that there is anything unique about the property that requires flexibility from the code requirements. He has postulated that the location of the existing home and septic system are practical difficulties. However, the practical difficulties that are meant to be relieved by this sort of variance are things like topography or wetlands that directly prevent a property owner from following the rules of the code while still constructing something that would otherwise be permitted. Importantly, the code states that variances should not be granted to allow for use not permitted by the zoning district; nor to merely remove inconveniences or financial burdens that the requirements of this chapter may impose on property owners in general. Because the property owner can access his pole barn using and expanding the existing driveway, the request for the variance appears to be for convenience. It may be more expensive to relocate his septic or construct an offshoot given topography, but these are things that should have been taken into account when the pole barn was built. Finally, the code notes that variances are intended to address extraordinary, exceptional or unique situations that were not caused by the applicant’s act or omission. There is nothing extraordinary about this situation. Topography did not stop construction of the pole barn, nor would it prevent an extension of the existing driveway. The septic system is not a valid reason as it could be skirted, potentially. Lastly, the applicant has already constructed part of this driveway, and now he seeks a variance to justify the work that has already been done. This is completely contrary to the purpose of the variance process and undermines the intent of having these rules in the form of a zoning code. Woytcke stated he does not feel that Planning Commissions or City Councils should reward behavior that proceeds as desired, and then simply asks for forgiveness once something is done; rather than seeking permission before commencing construction. With the amount of development that is occurring in Dayton, maintaining the veracity of the zoning code and similar Ordinances is in the best interest of the City. The City code clearly states that a variance should not be granted unless the property owner can demonstrate that there are non-economic practical difficulties that are unique to the lot or parcel; not difficulties created by the owner. Woytcke stated that in this case, the property owner has failed to meet those standards, and for those reasons, he respectfully requests that the Commission votes to recommend denial of this variance.

Cathy Meyers - 13800 Berkshire Lane – Was surprised to hear that a neighbor said something, because it was not her. She stated the driveway is complete with topsoil and everything on it. The culverts are in, so they have the whole thing completed already. Her main concern is if this is going to be used for commercial. She does not care if he has all of his personal stuff in there, but would if he has his trucks from Cloquet Island going back and forth. It seems that he just puts things in and then all of the sudden decides he’s going to ask for things. She knows that they are going to try to develop this land in the future – in her opinion that is their next step. This will be a way that they will say “we already have a driveway in there, so can’t we split this property too?”. She feels the development was designed the way it is to stay that way. Kangas opened the floor for the Applicant to make comments, however he was not present. Kangas closed the public hearing at 6:52 pm. Sevald moved that the Commission table this until the Applicant shows up. There are questions he would like the Applicant to answer, and if they are not going to show up for their own public hearing, he doesn’t think we need to vote on this. O’Brien inquired on the timeline for this. Henderson confirmed that the 60-day point will be December 30, 2018, but we can invoke an extension for another 60 days. The tentative schedule was to not have a Planning Commission meeting in January. Sevald stated that if it needs to be beyond the 60 days, the Applicant can consent to being longer than the 120 days. Kangas stated we can automatically request 60 days, we would just need their consent beyond 120. Dahlheimer inquired if the City Council can vote without Planning Commission recommendation. It was agreed they cannot if the Commission has tabled. Sevald would like to hear from the Applicant regarding two questions; which are the intended use of the building; is it personal storage, is it commercial, is he storing items for someone else? Also, was he aware that a driveway permit was required prior to building it? Sevald thinks it seems reasonable wanting to have the driveway avoid going over the septic system, however there was a comment in one of the letters stating this was putting the cart before the horse. Without hearing from the Applicant, Sevald does not know if that was intentional, or just purely accidental. This is something he would like the Applicant to answer. Kangas has a couple more questions he would raise. He wondered if they would have put the building in that location knowing a secondary driveway was not an option. Putting the driveway over the secondary septic location may or may not be an issue. There very well could be secondary locations behind the house they would have to use in the event of a failure of their primary. There are options to pull from the existing driveway and loop around, which would be more inconvenient, but it would be following the rules. He agrees that we can either table or vote to deny as the Applicant did not

present for the meeting tonight. He does not see the practical hardship, and feels rules are rules. Dahlheimer agreed that it would be nice to hear from the Applicant, but would be open to either tabling or denying. Kangas asked Henderson if he has had direct contact with Mr. Weidema. Henderson responded that Tina Goodroad has had direct contact with Scott Weidema, the applicant’s father. He called, fairly upset about the stop work order on the driveway initially. The general sense for Ag districts is that any use is allowed, which is not the case. Generally, the driveway Ordinance is fairly clear on allowing second driveways in conjunction with Ag uses. So, if the building were used to store Ag materials, if it’s a barn for Ag purposes; that would be when a second driveway could be permitted without a variance process. Sevald inquired if a permit was issued for the building. Henderson confirmed that a permit was issued. Sevald mentioned that based on that, it’s not an agricultural building. Henderson stated that is right. We asked if it was for Ag, but were told it was for personal use. Sevald would like to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt if he was stuck in traffic and wasn’t able to get a hold of anyone here, and feels he should have a chance of being heard. Kangas mentioned comments which were made that are critical of the process. He wants to be transparent and let the residents know that we attempt to follow the processes. Obviously the Commission doesn’t control the day-to-day operations at City Hall. He speculated on what we may have learned through this that we can avoid the next time. Without having seen any of the application materials, it seems apparent that no driveway was illustrated. Henderson displayed the illustration that was submitted, and explained that he had to speak with the Applicant and draw the scaled site plan. Sevald noted that it appears they were not particularly helpful with this, but he is still going to give some benefit of the doubt to the property owner. Whoever installed the driveway has some responsibility too. He does not know if that was a relative, or a contractor. Dahlheimer inquired if it is zoned Ag, would a permit be needed for an Ag building. Henderson responded that a building official would know that, based on State Statute. Motion Sevald moved to table the Application by Robert Weidema for a Variance allowing a Second Driveway Access at 13931 Berkshire Lane North. Kangas seconded. Motion carries unanimously

C. Application by Faithbrook Church of the Nazarene to amend a Conditional Use Permit for future improvements to the property at 14100 Elm Creek Road

Henderson presented that Faithbrook Church has requested to amend their Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in order to expand the existing parking lot and the storm water pond. They also have plans to ultimately expand parking, extend a fire lane, and expand the church building sometime in the future. The only improvements happening right now, however, are the southwest parking lot expansion and the pond expansion. The improvements proposed in the attached plans are consistent with the plans proposed in 2016. The pond will be expanded to hold run off from all possible future improvements (to be expanded within a year). The parking area in the southwest area of the property will be expanded approximately 22,550 square feet (to be completed within a year). The following improvements will occur in the future; however, a timeline has not been established: 1. Additional 6,420 square feet of parking will be added east of the driveway (in the South East part of the site); 2. Additional 2,130 square feet of parking is proposed just South East of the building; 3. Additional 3,920 square foot fire lane is proposed to wrap around the existing building; 4. A building addition of approximately 7,775 square feet North West of the existing building; 5. An additional 1,300 square feet of sidewalk which would connect the new addition to the existing building and parking lot. The subject property is currently Zoned R-1 – Residential. The property was rezoned as a part of the Preliminary Plat approval for the church lots with the condition of connecting to water and sewer once it is available. Religious institutions such as churches, chapels, temples and synagogues are permitted in the R-1 District with a Conditional Use Permit. The original CUP approved in 2016 required an Amendment for parking or building expansion. Henderson displayed a slide with the 2016 plan as well as the 2018 plan and immediate plans. Staff believes the ultimate improvements meet the intent of the ordinance and the original CUP and Site Plan approval from 2016. Additionally, the pond, which will be improved as part of the first phase, will support run off from the additional future phases for the ultimate build out. Staff supports recommendation of approval. Rather than requiring an amendment for each subsequent phase of driveway, parking or building expansion, staff suggests approval of a maximum surface area allowed improvements without needing an additional CUP approval. However, because the original building required a

Site Plan review and approval by Planning Commission and City Council, we would require the building plans for the building addition to be reviewed via the site plan process prior to issuance of building permit. Henderson summarized the suggested findings and conditions from the staff report published in the Planning Commission Packet. Kangas opened the Public Hearing at 7:07 pm. Hilary McNallan; 11260 Fernbrook Lane N – Owns the property to the north of the church. All of the water is coming through his back yard. He has concerns about the lack of drainage. Something needs to be done about a different culvert (without sharp bends) at 112th. Hegland explained that Public Works has done some maintenance on the culverts through town, and we will need to continue to keep an eye on this. He also has concerns over future development across Fernbrook, and potential for increased water. Dahlheimer agreed that the pond looked full all of the time, and wondered if it was supposed to be decorative as well as a holding pond. Sevald asked if he McNallan has noticed a difference on the ditch that goes by his property since the church and the stormwater pond was built. McNallan stated that he hasn’t noticed a lot of difference, but the pond did fill up right away. When there was farmland, the water had a chance to soak into the ground before it reached his property. Kangas has noticed when driving by that the pond is unusually full. Hegland explained that improvements will be incorporated to help regulate the pond. This plan will include an over-flow control structure. Kangas commented that future development should not create an increase in the volume in water, as long as it’s done correctly. Jesse Young; 14001 112th Ave N – Owns property to the north. Wonders if the ditch will be cleaned out at the corner of Fernbrook and 112th. The field has been pretty much wet since the church has been built – it now doesn’t drain at all. 2-3 years ago they were farming it, but now they can’t. Dahlheimer asked if the water is coming out of the pond more than it did before. Young stated that it is. Sevald asked if the field is owned by him or the church. Young confirmed that he owns it. Hegland explained that the way the pond will operate will lessen the water drainage problem. The ditch cleaning is a separate issue; but that is something Public Works could address. Kangas stated that hopefully the new improvements will restore the drainage to what it should have been. Hegland confirmed he will bring the ditch issue to Marty Farrell’s attention to look at it next spring. Kangas closed the public hearing at 7:19 pm.

Applicant Grady Kinghorn came forward. Last summer they recognized that there was a problem with the drainage, went back through and found out what the issue was. At that point, they were going to go in and do a repair. At the same time, there was discussion about adding more parking to the church, so they started talking with the City and the congregation, and it was determined that it would be best not to do the pond multiple times, but to fix it once and for all. So, they incorporated the pond issue into the overall plan for expanding the parking lot. They were delayed due to rain, so the decision was made to hold off until spring. We think that by making the pond the size it is going to be, it should work just find. Numerous engineers have reviewed the plan. Kangas commented that there seems to be an acknowledgement that there is an issue. Kinghorn confirmed this was acknowledged last spring. Kangas asked when the work would likely take place. Kinghorn stated it would be pretty close to when the frost is out. Dahlheimer asked if they would have to lower the pond to fix it. Kinghorn responded that they would. Kangas stated that they need to be respectful to the neighboring property so that they can utilize the land the way they were accustomed to, so getting in as early as possible would be good. Sevald inquired on what the proposed addition would be used for. Kinghorn responded that Kinghorn explained that it would be a multi-purpose room/youth activities room, and they are not increasing the sanctuary. That addition could be 4-5 years down the road. They have built additional parking into the plan due to demand, as well as additional bituminous for Fire Department access from both sides. Henderson confirmed that the Fire Marshall has reviewed the plan, but wants to make sure there is enough turning radius when the addition is eventually put in. This is included in the conditions that have been made. Sevald asked if a revised site plan will be needed when they decide to do the addition. Henderson confirmed that is correct. Kinghorn stated that the watershed has reviewed and approved all of the plans. Kangas would like to see that the best possible use is happening for the church’s site. He has provided staff with additional suggestions. Kinghorn stated that he appreciated the input, but they have found they could not incorporate them based on what could be approved through the City of Dayton because of the drive lanes and safety factors that are built into the code requirements. Henderson explained that that parking has drive lane width requirements for free access and reducing conflict points. Kangas inquired on the need for additional parking. Kinghorn that the need is created when there are simultaneous events. Motion

Kangas moved to recommend approval of Application by Faithbrook Church of the Nazarene to amend a Conditional Use Permit for future improvements to the property at 14100 Elm Creek Road. Dahlheimer seconded. The motion passes unanimously NOTICES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

D. No January Planning Commission meeting is scheduled, however since there is a need to bring back the Weidema Variance request, we would need to reschedule one. We will only have three Commission members as Schmitz and Faulds will not be back. A date was set for January 10, 2018 for the next Planning Commission meeting.

Dahlheimer would like to thank Schmitz and Faulds for their service to the City. They have been very involved and very dedicated. Kangas agreed and said that they will be missed. ADJOURN Sevald moved to adjourn, Dahlheimer seconded the motion. All ayes, and the motion passed. Meeting adjourned at 7:40 pm. Respectfully submitted, Stacie Brown

Council Update: 1 19 Planning Comm.

12/11/2018 Council Meeting

Approved consent agenda:

Scope of work Dayton Parkway Interchange Design for SRF.

Approved CUP Amendment Faithbrook Church.

Badge pinning for three firefighters.

Public Hearing for truth in taxation and final presentation of the 2019 Budget.

Adopted:

Final Tax Levy for 2019.

Final EDA/HRA Levy.

Acceptance of 2019 Long Term Plan.

Approved purchase of Fire Department Radios.

12/20/2018 Council Meeting:

Payment of claims approved.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all.

Bob O’Brien

Meeting Date: 1-10-19 Item: C.

ITEM: Application by Robert Weidema for a Variance allowing a second driveway access at 13931 Berkshire Lane North. PRESENTER/PRESENTERS: Robert Weidema; Peter Coyle, Attorney 60-DAY RULE SUMMARY: Application Accepted: 10/31/2018 60-Day Review Deadline: 12/30/2018 60-Day Extension Invoked: 02/28/2019 BACKGROUND/OVERVIEW: This past summer, the Applicant applied for a building permit for an accessory building on his property at 13931 Berkshire Lane North. An additional driveway was extended to Berkshire Lane which was not approved in conjunction with the building permit. A second driveway was not indicated on the site plan for the building permit; staff was not made aware that the driveway was being constructed for permanent access until it was partially completed. Knowledge of the additional driveway came about when a resident came in for reasons unrelated to the application and wanted to know more about the driveway and accessory building. According to Zoning Code § 1001.14 General Regulations, a second access is not permitted for residential uses, or uses which are not agricultural in nature. A second access may be used in conjunction with an agricultural use (i.e. a second access on a parcel for farm related equipment to access crop land). The access limits were adopted in 2010. A variance would be required for a second driveway for residential uses and is required to meet the merits of a three part-test described by legislature. ZONING AND LAND USE: The subject property is currently Zoned A-1, Agriculture as are all surrounding properties. However, the property is used for residential purposes and no known agricultural uses are conducted on the property. The 2030 Land Use plan designated the parcels abutting Berkshire Lane as Urban Reserve. The 2040 Draft Land Use shows this area as a possible Rural Reserve designation which would allow this area to maintain their large rural lots. The subject property is 10.09 acres and its current principle use is as homesteaded residential lot. The parcels surrounding the lot have similar existing uses as homestead and some limited agriculture production. The lot on the west side of Berkshire at the end of the cul-de-sac does have two driveways, however, this second driveway was installed prior to the zoning ordinance being amended limiting the number of driveways allowed per parcel (constructed in the 1990s). VARIANCE PROCESS/ARGUMENT: Requirements

Page 2 of 3

Minnesota State Statute § 462.357, Subd. 6 dictates how variance requests are to be considered by a three-part test (meeting all parts of the test). Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance established that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Meaning:

1. The property owner proposed to use the property in a reasonable manner not permittedby zoning ordinance;

2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not createdby the landowner;

3. And the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties (ie if it is too expensive to follow zoning code, that is not a reason which meets the merits of the Practical Difficulties test).

Applicant’s Argument The Applicant’s Attorney has submitted a narrative which is similar to the summary of the applicant narrative presented by staff in December. Driveways are a reasonable use. Soil conditions necessitated the placement of the septic system in the front yard, and grade presents a challenge for connecting to the existing access. The driveway will not impose a burden on the neighborhood.

ROLE OF PLANNING COMMISSION: The Public Hearing was closed. The PC role is to review the applicant’s argument with the legislative requirements for variance. The use of the accessory building is not agricultural in nature. Any home occupation related uses of the building would require a Home Extend Business IUP and would only allow for an Owner-Operated business. Any Home Occupation would likely require additional approvals if proposed for the accessory structure.

ACTION:

The Planning Commission has the following options: 1) Consider recommending support for the Variance with any conditions of approval which

can be added to the resolution submitted to City Council. Planning Commission wouldneed to detail findings of fact related to approval in regards to the variance test.

2) Consider recommending denial for the Variance with suggested findings related to denialto be reviewed by City Council.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION Should the Planning Commission feel that a variance is sufficiently argued, staff would make the following recommendation for conditions of approval:

1. The new driveway access width at Berkshire Lane shall be no wider than twenty-eight(28) feet.

2. The driveway shall be setback a least five (5) feet from the northern property line and beoutside the easement along the northern property line.

3. The applicant shall use the accessory building for residential purposes. Any commercialactivity on the property shall conform to the Home Occupations Section 1001.13 as maybe amended from time to time.

Page 3 of 3

ATTACHMENT(S): Location Map Site Plans Narrative from Peter Coyle, Applicant’s Attorney Neighborhood Letters (2).

Diamond Lake Road North

LegendSubject Property

Municipal Boundary

Weidema - 13931 Berkshire Lane North

¯0 420 840210 Feet

Larkin Ho~~ Larkin Hoffman

8300 Norman Center Drive Suite 1000 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55437-1060

GENERAL, 952-835-3800 FAX, 952-896-3333 WEB, www.larkinhoffman.com

January 3, 2019

City of Dayton Planning Commission c/o Alec Henderson City of Dayton 12260 South Diamond Lake Road Dayton, Minnesota 55327

Re: Robert Weidema Application for Driveway Variance

Dear Planning Commissioners:

We represent Robert Weidema with respect to his pending application for a variance to permit a second driveway on his property, 13931 Berkshire Lane North, to access a storage building that was lawfully constructed pursuant to a building permit from the City. I am authorized to speak on behalf of Mr. Weidema and will attend the next Planning Commission meeting on January 10, 2019 to answer your questions.

By way of confirmation, the 10 acre Weidema property is zoned Agriculture; the new storage building is a permitted use. In the AG District, a second driveway is also a permitted use. We understand that the City has an ordinance that purports to restrict second driveways on AG property that is being used primarily as a residence. The second driveway was constructed without realizing the unique City restriction on second driveways relating to AG-zoned property. Rather than resist the City's position, Mr. Weidema has chosen to pursue the requested variance for the driveway. The balance of this letter addresses the City's criteria for a variance, as provided by Minnesota law.

1. The property owner proposed to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by zoning ordinance.

The property is zoned AG with approximately 300 feet of frontage on Berkshire Lane; the second driveway would be allowed as ofright to serve the storage building but for the City's unique restriction on second driveways relating to residential uses. The storage building itself is a permitted use, constructed pursuant to a City permit. The second driveway is needed to bypass substantial grade changes from the front to rear yard and to avoid the primary and secondary drainage fields required for the residence on the property.

2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner.

City of Dayton Planning Commission January 3, 2019 Page 2

Given the soil conditions on the property, the primary and secondary drainage fields had to be constructed in the front yard of the residence. Mr. Weidema does not have a right to connect to public sanitary services based on City policies. The property also has substantial variation in grade from front to rear. The second driveway avoids conflict with the required drain fields and the change of grade.

3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.

The driveway enables access to the storage building, which by itself is a permitted use in the AG District. If Mr. Weidema was engaged in active agriculture, the second driveway would likewise be a permitted use. The Weidema property has 3 00 feet of frontage on Berkshire Lane; construction of the accessory driveway does not impose a burden on the adjacent residence to the north (the owner of which is aware of the driveway and has not raised any concerns with it).

We respectfully request City approval of the pending variance for the Robert Weidema property to authorize the accessory driveway to serve his permitted storage building.

~(]6-- Peter J. Coyle, for LARKIN HOFFMAN DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.

Cc: Robert Weidema

4836-8811-4564, V. 1

From: Melissa MillerTo: Tina Goodroad; Alec HendersonSubject: Dayton Planning Commission Meeting, Dec 6, 2018Date: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 11:25:16 PM

Hello Tina and Alec,I am sending this communication directly to you, since I did not find the PlanningCommission members' email addresses on the city website. Would you please forward to themand include for tomorrow's meeting?

Thanks in advance,Melissa

To: Members of the Dayton Planning CommissionRandy DahlheimerKevin FauldsPaul KangasJohn SchmitzJon Sevold

We appreciate the notice of the request for a variance for a second driveway at 13931Berkshire Ln.

I would like to be at Thursday's meeting in person, but am sending comments in advance, inthe event that I am unable to attend.

Our two primary concerns, include:1. Any wear and tear on the road due to commercial use of equipment2. Apparent mishandling of proper procedures in order of operations- the variance meeting isto approve the request for a driveway that has already been established. PLEASE address thisongoing concern!

The driveway itself does not present any concern to us, since it is not incongruent with theneighborhood tone and essence.

Melissa and Robert Miller