City of Duluth Planning Commission Minutes of Tuesday - GovDelivery

City of Duluth
Planning Commission
Minutes of Tuesday, January 10, 2006
City Council Chambers
I. Call to Order:
President Rand called the Planning Commissions regular meeting to order at 5 p.m., Tuesday,
January 10, 2006, in the third floor Council Chambers of Duluth City Hall and explained the
procedure to the public audience.
II.
Roll Call:
Members Present: Mike Akervik, Mindy Appold, Alan Beaulier, RuthAnn Eaton,
Gilbert Harries, Joan Morrison, Heather Rand, David Sarvela, Virgil Swing, John Vigen,
Roger Wedin.
Members Absent Excused: Carol Thomson
Staff Present: Kyle Deming, Chuck Froseth, Alison Lutterman, Cherie Merritt, Jim
Mohn
III.
Public Hearings
A. FN 06001 Petition by David Sackette for a Street Name Change for that portion of
Denim Drive in the Plat of Sackette Addition to Duluth. ND4
Staff Recommendation for Planning Commission action by Chuck Froseth: Mr. Froseth encouraged
viewing of the Staff Report of record for previous history, which he stated is quite lengthy and also
for interested parties in favor or opposed who were not able to be at the meeting.
Mr. Froseth recommended denial of the petition request to change the name to Wisteria Lane as
there is no public benefit along with the potential for confusion for the provision of public and
emergency services.
Questions of Staff: The question arose as to whether the applicant was asking to rename all of
Denim Drive to Wisteria Lane, to which Mr. Froseth stated just part of Denim was being requested
as a name change. Ms. Lutterman added that when a final plat was approved in 2005 the
approved extension of Denim Street is Denim Drive and all streets on a final plat must have a
name.
Applicant, David Sakette of 1823 Anderson Street came before the Commission: Mr. Sakette
clarified the issue of Denim St and Drive being two different places and that one is east/west and
one is north/south. At the time of platting, Denim Drive was named drive because it was an
opposite direction of the existing Denim Street. Now that the platting is completed it is Mr.
Sakettes desire to change the name of that part of Denim which is Drive to Wisteria Lane.
Chuck Urness (friend), 4408 W 8 th Street, came before the Commission to speak in favor: Mr.
Urness informed the Commission had has been involved for the past 20 years with the Sakettes on
the piece of land under discussion. Mr. Sakette named Denim Drive in the past and now wants to
change it and also that Mr. Sakette wants the cul de sac developed and has been dealing with it 20
years.
MOTION: Beaulier/Eaton - To approve a petition by David Sackette for a Street Name Change for
1
1/10/06 PC Mtg

that portion of Denim Drive in the Plat of Sackette Addition to Duluth.
Motion carried with one opposed (Swing).
B. FN 06002 Application by Daniel Williams for Release of Tax Forfeited Property from
Withheld from Sale Classification for Duluth Proper 2 nd Division, Block 157, Lot 321
(Parcel ID 1220-03950), A 50 X 150 foot (7500 sq ft) lot. ND3
Staff Recommendation for Planning Commission action by Kyle Deming: There seems to be little
public benefit to holding onto this individual parcel. Applicant owns land around the
area/adjacent to - allow the parcel to be reclassified so it could be sold through auction. Applicant
could then put a bid in. Mr. Deming recommended reclassifying to "Non-Conservation" the
requested parcel.
MOTION: Harries/Akervik - To approve an application by Daniel Williams for Release of Tax
Forfeited Property from Withheld from Sale Classification for Duluth Proper 2 nd Division, Block
157, Lot 321 (Parcel ID 1220-03950), A 50 X 150 foot (7500 sq ft) lot.
Motion carried unanimously.
C. FN 06003 Application by Ayres Associates on behalf of the City Engineering Division
for WRMO special use permit for 2006 City of Duluth Street Improvement Program for
locations on Maple Grove Road between Joshua Avenue and Swan Lake Road. ND4
Staff Recommendation for Planning Commission action by Jim Mohn: Mr. Mohn explained that
5147 square feet of wetlands were found and that amount requires mitigation. He mentioned the
Tech Evalution Panel (TEP) couldnt evaluate the area under discussion completely because of
current weather conditions. However, they are confident the number is accurate.
Mr. Mohn recommended the variance and special use permit be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the wetland delineation and mitigation plan be approved by the Technical
Evaluation Panel. Mr. Mohn added a note that there are existing wetlands adjacent to and
near the project corridor which may qualify for "mitigation credit" with the creation of
"wetland conservation easements." This would be subject to acceptance by the Board of
Water & Soil Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This option should be
investigated prior to the completion of the WCA permit and the TEP evaluation and
approval of the mitigation plan.
MOTION: Harries/Eaton - To approve an application by Ayres Associates on behalf of the City
Engineering Division for WRMO special use permit for 2006 City of Duluth Street Improvement
Program for locations on Maple Grove Road between Joshua Avenue and Swan Lake Road.
The motion carried unanimously.
D. FN 06004 Application by Daniel Maddy on behalf of Marick Development Inc. for
WRMO variance request for a reduced Setback of 20' front yard and 15' one sideyard
and 20' the other sideyard from the Ordinary Highwater Mark of Superior Bay for a
property located at 3129 Minnesota Avenue. CF ND5
Staff Recommendation for Planning Commission action by Chuck Froseth: Mr. Froseth informed
the Commission they had a revised staff report on the table. He apologized for the late receiving of
2
1/10/06 PC Mtg

the staff report but explained that a meeting with staff and legal counsel wasnt able to happen
earlier. Mr. Froseth went on to say at first look the location seemed fine but as it was looked at
further, it was discovered not just one setback was involved but two, for that particular spot. He
posed the query of what is the hardship but without a variance, the owner cant build. It was Mr.
Froseths professional opinion the property cant be rendered useless and that the City of Duluth
harbor gives a unique situation to deal with. In research Mr. Froseth looked at what is reasonable
- as some kind of setback is needed. This owner had gone to the Board of Zoning Appeals,
received a denial of hardship in July, 2005, which was subsequently reversed by the City Council.
est. Mr. Froseth was recommending at least 20' from the ordinary high water mark.
Questions of Staff: Commission Harries posed the question as to what would be a guestimate of
what would be allowed if there were no variances other than the setback, to which Mr. Froseth
responded approximately 600 square feet. Further discussion ensued regarding setbacks, single
family versus duplex, footage of lot under water, question of rendering or not rending the
property useless, more square footage than was originally there, question as to whether there
could be litigation if the Commission denies since Building Safety issued permits and owner tore
down the building based on such permits.
Ms. Lutterman addressed the final query by informing the Commission that a building permit
issued in error by the Building Safety Division cannot be used by the petitioner as a hardship.
This decision was made by the courts in a previous case. The owner had supplied a site map
which erroneously showed an incorrect high water mark and once the error was discovered, the
Building Safety Division put a Stop Work out on the project.
Dan Maddy, Fryberger, Buchanan, Smith & Frederick, P.A.speaking on behalf of applicant,
Marick Development, came before the Planning Commission: Mr. Maddy informed the
Commission he felt the Board of Zoning Appeals denied the variance because they felt it wasnt a
reasonable use. Also, his and the applicants opinion is that this development will not have a
negative impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Maddy mentioned that the deck shown in the drawing
doesnt count in setback or impervious surface and that impervious pavers were previously
approved. He also
mentioned the porch shown in the drawing doesnt count in footage, according to the city zoning
coordinator.
In further discourse Mr. Maddy mentioned permitted use, meeting certain characteristics such as
looking like a single family home, consistency of footage along the shore, reasonable use isnt felt
to be there if not approved, the information of DNR setting statutes for city and for county.
Hardship: reasonable, unique, essential character of the local.
Mr. Maddy defined reasonable use, uniqueness and essential character of the local as follows:
Reasonable Use - there had been errors in record, however, overall use should still be there. Aerial
photos of 1/200 were viewed and researched of which 75% found to be close to shoreland, with
only 4 were greater than 50' from the shoreline. The property immediately south of this property
is 25' from shoreline. Uniqueness - having water around three sides is unique. Essential character
of the local: the proposed two family dwelling wont change the character of the
neighborhood/local. New buildings are replacing old buildings which were in need of
repair/replacement. Mr. Maddy ended by saying he and the applicant respect the staff 20'
recommendation but ask for more.
Discussion: Questions were brought up by Commissioners regarding whether the City Council
didnt know the set back wasnt enough, whether the architectural drawing is consistent with the
3
1/10/06 PC Mtg

neighborhood, what about elevations, architectural style, garages, a question of true square
footage, not being able to fill in with so much of the owned land under water, etc. Mr. Maddy
replied there is a cupola at the top, but a height variance isnt being asked for, there are tuckunder
garages, the dwelling could be built out to the point of navigation, which is where the DNR gets
involved. Mr. Maddy made the comment he was unaware of any recent permits to allow such fill
situations, to which Jim Mohn made the comment that one permit was issued in the past 20 years,
for the motel next to the slip.
Further questions regarding measurement delineation, question of 3 story fitting in with character
of local, has the development corporation/applicant owned the property for a long time, etc.. Mr.
Maddy responded that the surveyor had noted 103' to 102' along backside, height will be within
code and plans werent included to the Planning Commission because City Council already
approved structure/height, etc. and the developer, who lives in St. Cloud, had another
commitment so couldnt attend. Mr. Maddy added that the current owner bought the property
over one year ago with the intention of redevelopment.
Public Testimony:
Joel Anderson, 3134 Minnesota Avenue, spoke against: Mr. Anderson expressed concern about
the size of the structure and parking issues.
Keith McLaughlin 3123 Minnesota Avenue, spoke against: Mr. McLaughlin expressed concern
regarding the size of the structure, the fact it would be a duplex, parking issues, errors and
inaccuracies in submittals, setback issues and that in his opinion a single family home is felt to be a
more reasonable use.
Debra McLaughlin, 3123 Minnesota Avenue, spoke against: Ms. McLaughlin expressed
concerning about the setbacks, City Council not receiving enough information, impervious surface,
size of structure.
Bruce Rutherford, 3205 Minnesota Avenue, spoke against: Mr. Rutherford concurs with the
McLaughlins. He also expressed concerns of height, parking, etc. and would like to see
clarification regarding DNR regulations.
Mary Vanderford , 3229 Minnesota Avenue, spoke against: Ms. Vanderford expressed concern
regarding 15' from one side from the water, and fitting into the character of the neighborhood and
the fact at the time of the City Council meeting, it most likely wasnt known the land was tighter
than they thought.
Dawn Buck, 3105 Minnesota Avenue, spoke against: Ms. Buck expressed concern as to the size
and the height.
Jim Mohn offered the comment that going into the bay and lake is a DNR issue as they have
jurisdiction over that specific.
Ted Buck, 3105 Minnesota Avenue, spoke against: Mr. Buck expressed concern with a duplex
when there is already a triplex directly across the street and parking issues.
When Mr. Froseth offered the comment he didnt know why a permit would be issued if a duplex
wasnt allowed with a triplex nearby, Ms. Lutterman offered the information that there are
situations at time whereby a previous owner could have altered a structure in the past as an illegal
duplex or triplex, with the structure possibly being created without benefit of permit.
4
1/10/06 PC Mtg

Mr. Maddy added the comment that if court decisions in Minnesota are looked at and the fact City
Council had drawings in front of them, and the McLaughlin property received a variance of 25'
feet back, he doesnt find the current situation inconsistent with what is common for the area.
Further discussion amongst Commissioners, staff and legal counsel ensued as to the size of the
building, reasonable use, uniqueness of character, height concerns, putting a duplex in an area of
triplex, R1 zone so 2 family would be allowed (Mr. Mohn read from the Zoning Code into record)
within 300' of another duplex or multi within the same block so across the street is considered a
different block.
Commission Swing who is the Planning Commissions representative to the Board of Zoning
Appeals said the BZA rejected the variance because hardship wasnt found and that a building
60'x30' by 35' high was of great concern.
Further discussion concerning what it is Planning Commission looks at such as standard code,
allowable uses, what it is Council looks at, meeting duplex restrictions, impervious surface issues,
the fact the applicant did have a grandfathered use previously, the possibility of a smaller
structure, distance from water being a critical issue, view sheds, protection of the lake, aesthetics
were considered by Board of Zoning Appeals.
MOTION: Vigen/Appold - To deny an application by Daniel Maddy on behalf of Marick
Development Inc. for WRMO variance request for a reduced Setback of 20' front yard and 15' one
sideyard and 20' the other sideyard from the Ordinary Highwater Mark of Superior Bay for a
property located at 3129 Minnesota Avenue
Motion carried, 1 opposed (Widen).
Commissioner Eaton stated she would like to suggest staff do a position paper to Council if taken
to council for appeal as they should understand what the Planning Commission has gone through
and the reason for the Commissions decision.
IV. Consideration of minutes - December 13, 2005
Motion: Eaton/Swing to approve as written.
Approval of minutes was unanimous.
V. Communications
President Rand offered the information that the League of Women Voters would have a forum
meeting on January 11, 2006 Comprehensive Plan, Wed. And then again in a couple of weeks.
VI.
Old Business
A. FN 03123 Street Vacation Petition by DeGrio and Willoughby for Sumac Avenue
between Page Street and Osage Street. JEM ND 4 Tabled 08/10/04
Motion: Vigen/Beaulier - to bring off table. Unanimous to motion.
Staff Recommendation to Planning Commission by Jim Mohn: The petition, table August 10,
2004, has gone through modifications, property owner changes, etc. which have led to
reappearance before the Planning Commission at this point in time. Title needs to be cleared and
5
1/10/06 PC Mtg

enough footage allowed for a new septic system. The conclusion has been reached that a future
need of right of way wont occur and it can be found to be useless. Mr. Mohn was of the opinion it
was appropriate to recommend vacation at this time and that there wouldnt be a use.
Applicant, Ron DeGrio 1415 West Page Street, came forward to address the Commission, in favor:
He said thank you and that it had been an emotional issue as one property was his parents.
MOTION: Eaton/Vigen - To approve a street vacation petition by DeGrio and Willoughby for
Sumac Avenue between Page Street and Osage Street.
Motion carried unanimously.
B. FN 05117 A Concurrent Use Permit request from Eric and Deborah Ringsred to assume
ownership and occupancy of the abandoned DTA shelter located in the public sidewalk
near the alley on the east side of 2 nd Avenue E. The purpose is to utilize the shelter for
the storage of materials from the Norshor Theater. ND 5 JEM Tabled 12/10/05
Staff Recommendation by Jim Mohn: Leave on Table.
C. FN 05121 A C5 Plan Review Request from Steve Filipovich for a 6,000 sq.ft. retail
building to be located at 801 West Central Entrance, in the southeast corner of the
Shopko parking lot. ND 4 JEM Tabled 12/10/05
Staff Recommendation by Jim Mohn: A request by appellant/petitioner to leave on Table.
VII.
Reports of Officers and Committees
Commission Swing reported that at the November Board of Zoning Appeals meeting that
action of note was to reduce parking requirements at 2102 E Superior Street, which had
been a difficult property for neighbors. The BZA unanimously agreed to reduce parking
requirements.
A. FN 06005 Review of the December 14, 2005 list of tax forfeited lands reclassified to
Non-Conservation status by the County Board. KD
President Rand reported that the Tax Forfeit Committee (Appold, Wedin, Rand, Harries) had met
at 4:00 p.m. with Kyle Deming and unanimously concurred with staffs recommendation.
Tract #: Reason for objection to reclassification:
Tracts #1 &2 Needed to protect steep slope down to Keene Creek (a trout stream).
Tract #3
Tract #5
Tract #8
This parcel when combined with TF land to the south makes 10 acres that may
have an important public purpose as a result of the Comprehensive Plan. There is a
lack of park land in this part of Duluth Heights and we may need it for such.
East Branch of Chester Creek (a trout stream) flows through this parcel (stream
protection) and this may be a future park/trail area along the creek.
Retain Lots 26-28 (the south lots) to protect Stewart Creek (a trout stream) that
flows through the lots. Also, a sanitary sewer crosses these lots. Allow the
reclassification of Lot 23 (the north lot).
6
1/10/06 PC Mtg

Tracts #11 The area south of Burning Tree Road needs to be studied to
13, 14, 15 determine future land uses, utility and road corridors to insure orderly
development. Will likely need to dedicate an east-west road corridor through this area.
Tract #12
Retain the part east of Getchell Road to protect Keene Creek (a trout stream) and
its associated wetlands and tributary. WLSSD sanitary sewer interceptor crosses the
east part. Allow the reclassification of the part west of Getchell Road.
MOTION: Eaton/Beaulier - to accept review of the December 14, 2005 list of tax forfeited lands
reclassified to Non-Conservation status by the County Board.
Motion carried unanimously.
VIII.
New Business
Ruth Ann Eaton and Heather Rand will be recommended by Mayor Bergson for reappointment
and there may be a new appointee after the Council meeting of
January 23, 2006 as replacement of the empty slot left when Jeanne Koneczny resigned.
IX.
Other Business
President Rand: Housekeeping issue - WEB site member list contact information - a few need to
report their wishes yet.
Alison Lutterman: Discussion was had with Dan Maddy regarding the tabled issue of FN 05121,
(Steve Filipovich) and the applicant if in favor of the table and the time line. Ms. Lutterman
explained that as of January 10, 2006 the counting of days will stop and the Planning Commission
has it back on the agenda, the matter will be back on the clock for time line from that point on.
Ms. Lutterman also reminded the Commission they have an organizational meeting in February
per their Bylaws and may wish to develop a Nominating Committee. When Jim Mohn informed
the Commission there were no matters to be heard at the January 25, 2006 meeting, a Nominating
Committee of Commissioners Appold, Beaulier and Eaton was formed.
Commissioners expressed interest in Brown Bag discussion regarding concern of same issues
coming up over the years, aesthetics and view corridors through Comp Plan Committee, giving
specific reasons to City Council as to why the Commission did what they did by presenting
detailed reports/resolutions/ordinances to Council, sign ordinance, etc.
X. Adjournment.
President Rand adjourned the January 10, 2006 regular meeting of the Planning Commission at
7:30 p.m.
Sincerely,
7
1/10/06 PC Mtg

Robert J. Bruce
Secretary
Jim Mohn
Senior Planner
RJB: JEM:cm
8
1/10/06 PC Mtg