Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-05-08 Planning Commission Meeting Packet PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Thursday, May 8, 2025 6:00 P.M. I. Call to Order / Pledge of Allegiance II. Approval of Agenda III. Approve March 13, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (1) IV. Department / Commission Liaison / Other Reports V. Visitors/Public Comment This is an opportunity for the public to address the Commission with questions or comments on issues that are or are not part of the regular Agenda. Please limit comments to three minutes in length. VI. Public Hearings A. Nguyen Short Term Rental/Transient Lodging CUP – 5702 Penrose Ave. N.: Review and consider an application from Trung Nguyen for a Conditional Use Permit to allow short term rental/transient lodging at 5702 Penrose Ave. N. (2) B. Hatalla Detached Garage CUP – 15117 65th St. N.: Review and consider an application from Douglas Hatalla for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a detached garage in the front yard setback and to allow a reduction to the setback requirements at 15117 65th St. N. (3) VII. New Business VIII. Old Business IX. Informational X. Adjourn. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Thursday, March 13, 2025 I. Call to Order/Pledge of Allegiance: Chair Van Denburgh called the meeting to order. Present: Commissioners Van Denburgh, Husby, Kremer, Nelson, and Van Dyke; City Administrator Rife, City Planner Richards and City Councilmember Liaison Representative Liljegren. II. Approval of Agenda: Chair Van Denburgh stated that he would like to add a conversation about the Bylaw to New Business on the Agenda. Commissioner Husby, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, moved to approve adding Bylaws Conversation to the Agenda under New Business. Carried 5-0. Commissioner Kremer, seconded by Commissioner Van Dyke, moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Carried 5-0. III. Approval of November 24, 2024 Meeting Minutes: Commissioner Husby, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, moved to approve the Minutes as presented. Carried 5-0. IV. Department / Commission Liaison / Other Reports: City Administrator Rife passed along the Mayor’s message that she had surgery recently and is doing well. City Councilmember Liaison Representative Liljegren noted that he and City Administrator Rife met with the Fire Advisory Committee, which includes the City of Bayport and the Townships of West Lakeland and Baytown. Liljegren and Rife discussed activity on PFAS, noting that the City is currently within the Federal guidelines but exceed the State’s health based guidelines. Liljegren testified in front of the House Investment Committee seeking bonding funds for the design and construction of water facilities to assist in addressing the PFAS and sustaining the City’s water quality. Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2025 Page 2 of 5 Rife provided an update on the Well 3 project at Memorial Ave. N. Construction is anticipated to occur in late May, early June this year, with the well and pump house to both be completed by Summer of 2026. V. Visitor / Public Comment: None. VI. Public Hearings: A. JACC Capital Holdings LLC – 5846 Stagecoach Trail N: Review and consider an application for Conditional Use Permit for building parking for a proposed 6-unit condominium building. City Planner Richards reviewed the February 6, 2025 Planning Report, discussing previous activity to the property, changes made to the plan and noted that the request before the Commission was a conditional use permit to exceed the number of parking spaces required by City Ordinance. Brief discussion as to the changes made to the building interior to comply with density requirements and conditions within the planning report being applicable due to the nature of the request being a conditional use permit. Commissioner Van Dyke, seconded by Commissioner Husby moved to open the public hearing at 6:21 p.m. Carried 5 -0. Chair Van Denburgh invited public comment, noting that three letters of public comment had been received; those being from Steve Paulson, Carissa Stimpfel, and Brenda Paulson. He added that each has been reviewed and will be considered as part of the public comment and will also be forwarded to the City Council. Carissa Stimpfel – 5856 Stagecoach Trail N. opposes the request. She feels that the parking remains insufficient for residents and visitors to a building of the proposed size. Her concerns for increased traffic and residential neighborhood parking remain and asks that a traffic study be required prior to any parking increase approval. Chris Grubb – 5870 Stagecoach Trail N. opposes the request. He stated that he agrees with many of the concerns expressed by Carissa. Mr. Grubb expressed his concern that the blind curve at Stagecoach is dangerous, that there would be a lack of places for construction vehicles to park should the building be constructed and his concern of density increase regardless of how the rooms in the units are shown. Julie Nottingham – 5838 Stagecoach Trail N. opposes the request. She noted that she lives directly across the street and expressed that the building is too large, that 13 parking spaces would not be adequate, and parking would overflow to the neighborhood streets, where pedestrians would need to cross Stagecoach Trail to visit the building, which would be dangerous. She expressed concerns about light and noise pollution from the site, lack of Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2025 Page 3 of 5 green space and privacy. She asked the Commission to vote no and provided her written comments to Chair Van Denburgh. Brenda Paulson – 5718 Stagecoach Trail N. noted that she had provided written comment, she opposes the request and does not feel that the parking will be adequate, adding that she lives on a narrow road and would not want to be blocked in by parking that overflowed to the neighborhood. Pam Patrick – 15365 58th St. N. opposes the request. She is concerned about the speed, traffic safety and parking situation. She asked if parking was permitted on Stagecoach Trail. Discussion was held as to the roadway being a County road and that there are no signs posted restricting parking on the roadway. Chair Van Denburgh suggested she discuss her concerns with parking on Stagecoach with the County as the City cannot speak to that. Shari Ahrens – Westwood Professional Services introduced herself as the civil engineer on the project, working with CJ Randazzo and that she was present to respond to questions regarding request for additional onsite parking to provide adequate parking for the residents and guests beyond the required six spaces. Commission discussion with the applicant representative was had, where it was clarified that the interior and exterior total number of parking spaces is 13 being requested. There being no additional public comment, Commissioner Van Dyke, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, moved to close the public hearing at 6:34 p.m. Carried 5-0. Commission discussion was held as to the request for additional parking and the feeling that the building and its parking needs cannot be separated and that the criteria for a conditional use permit were not being met. The former A-1 Maintenance building operation and poor condition building, which was demolished after roof failure, was discussed in relation to whether the proposed use will tend to depreciate the area or add value. It was noted that the project could be done without an increase in parking and that the request for the parking increase is an attempt to meet public hearing concerns expressed with regarding to parking and overflow. Commissioner Kremer, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to deny the request. Chair Van Denburgh asked for a roll call vote to “yes” deny the request, “nay” to not deny the request. Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2025 Page 4 of 5 Roll Call: Commissioner Husby – Nay Commissioner Kremer – Yes Commissioner Nelson – Yes Commissioner Van Dyke – Yes Commissioner Van Denburgh – Nay Motion for denial carried 3-2. Chair Van Denburgh called for a 5-minute recess and recalled the meeting to order at 6:56 p.m. VII. New Business: A. Annual Meeting: Commissioner Terms & Election of Officers Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Husby, moved to recommend City Council appoint Jennifer Van Dyke to an extended one-year appointment, culminating May 31, 2026. Carried 4-0-1, Van Dyke abstained. Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Kremer, moved to elect Commissioner Van Denburgh as Chair and Commissioner Husby as Vice-Chair to two-years terms, culminating at the Annual Meeting in 2027. Carried 3-0-2, Van Denburgh and Husby abstained. B. Review 2025 Meeting & Council Representative Schedules: Discussion was held as to whether it being necessary to have a schedule for a Planning Commission representative at the City Council meetings. Commissioner Kremer stated that when the schedule was put in place it was to have a body present and be available for questions if needed. It was noted that Commission members are always welcome at the meetings and if there is a topic that the Commission feels they should have a representative attend, which can be determined at their meeting. Commissioner Van Denburgh, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, moved to end the prescribed Commission Liaison schedule for City Council meetings and to implement attendance designation as desired at their meetings on a topic. Carried 4-1, Kremer nay. Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2025 Page 5 of 5 C. Bylaws: Chair Van Denburgh noted that the Bylaws need to be reviewed and updated for current policy and practices and asked the Commission for a motion to direct staff to review them for updating. Commissioner Kremer, seconded by Commissioner Husby, moved to direct staff to review the Planning Commission Bylaws for amendment and bring them back to the Planning Commission for their review and approval. D. Schedule Commissioner Interviews: City Administrator Rife updated the Commission as to no new applications have been yet received and confirmed that we will be moving forward with the recommendation for a one- year appointment for Commissioner Van Dyke. Rife advised the Commission that the application process has been updated for both Parks and Planning Commissions. Applications will be accepted on an ongoing basis, which will be held if there are no current vacancies at the time of receipt, for when there are future vacancies. Commissioner Kremer stated that there may be a vacancy in the future and that he plans to resign whenever there is a replacement available. There is no need to schedule interviews at this time; when applications are received, staff will communicate to the Commission and interviews will be held prior to a regular Planning Commission meeting. VIII. Old Business: None. IX. Informational: A. Upcoming Meetings: Provided meeting list receipt acknowledged. B. Council Representative: There is no longer a scheduled Council Representative; however, Chair Van Denburgh stated that it would be good to have someone present at the March 25, 2025 City Council meeting. Commissioner Kremer will attend. X. Adjourn. Commissioner Kremer, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, moved to adjourn at 7:07 p.m. Carried 5-0. Respectfully submitted, Julie Hultman Building Official Enclosure 2 Exhibit 1 Project Narrative: I propose for the property at 5702 Penrose Ave N to be utilized as a short-term rental in Spring, Summer, and Fall months. The accommodations will be listed on AirBNB and VRBO (websites) to attract people interested in the area. I believe bringing people from the metro and surrounding areas to our city is beneficial because those same people are going to spend money at our businesses and restaurants. We get to showcase how beautiful our city is. Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Pictures: 15033 65th St. N 6337 Paris Ave N 6396 Lookout Trail 6315 Peacan Ave N 15330 58th St N 13891 56th St N Air BnB's in Oak Park Heights -2025 500' Buffer around AirBnB Property ¹ Proposed: 5702 Penrose Ave N Exhibit 4 680.008 Feet 5664 5421 15125 15330 15366 5662 5655 15336 5646 5870 5670 15374 5856 5845 15417 5732 5650 5730 5844 5704 15471 5653 15433 5718 15431 15405 5702 5705 15329 15584 5728 5714 5674 5836 5866 5698 5855 5835 5827 5598 15451 5680 5711 15430 153651535715331 5705 5716 5838 5636 15463 15597 15325 This map is for reference use only. The print is not an engineered plan. Distance from SE corner of 15366 58th St Nto SE corner of 5702 Penrose Ave N ¹ Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Enclosure 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Jacob Rife FROM: Scott Richards DATE: May 1, 2025 RE: Oak Park Heights – Conditional Use Permit for Construction of a Garage in the Front Yard and for Setback – 15117 65th Street North TPC FILE: 236.05 – 25.02 BACKGROUND Douglas Hatalla has submitted an application for Conditional Use Permits (CUP) to allow for construction of a garage at 15117 65th Street North. The application is for two Conditional Use Permits, one to allow for placement of the structure in a front yard and the second for a setback of 9 feet where 30 feet is required from 65th Street North. The property is a corner lot and has two frontages/front yards, on Paris Avenue North and on 65th Street North. The proposed accessory building is 28 feet x 40 feet square feet for a total of 1,120 square feet. The property is zoned R-2 Low and Medium Density Residential District. EXHIBITS The review is based upon the following submittals: Exhibit 1: Project Narrative Exhibit 2: Location Map Exhibit 3: Survey/Site Plan Exhibit 4: Proposed Building Elevation Exhibit 5: Garage Floor Plan Exhibit 6: Site Photos PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project description and justification for the CUPs from Douglas Hatalla is found as Exhibit 1. 2 ISSUES ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan The property is designated as low density residential in the Comprehensive Plan Proposed Land Use Map. The request for the new accessory building is consistent with the Comprehensive policies related to low density land use. Zoning The property is zoned R-2 Low and Medium Density Residential District. The accessory building requirements in Section 401.15.D of the Zoning Ordinance require that the structures be in a rear yard, be five or more feet from side lot lines, eight feet from the rear lot line and six feet from any other structure on the same lot, unless requirements of the Building Code are addressed. The size limit for attached and detached accessory building size on a lot is 1,200 square feet and the accessory buildings cannot exceed 25 percent of the total area of the rear yard. Exceptions to these provisions can be made by Conditional Use Permit. The subject property is a corner lot, with the front lot line being Paris Avenue and the side yard being 65th Street North. In that the lot is on the corner, the front yard setback of 30 feet applies to both frontages. Accessory buildings are required to be in the rear yard and no front yard setback is specified in the ordinance. In this case, the required setback from Paris Avenue would need to comply with the principal building front yard setback of 30 feet. The proposed structure will be set back 30 feet from Paris Avenue, and nine feet from 65th Street North, consistent with the setback of the house from 65th Street North. A Conditional Use Permit would be required for the setback to 65th Street and required in that the proposed structure is in the front yard. The proposed structure is 1,120 square feet. The ordinance allows for a maximum of 1,200 square feet of the combined size of attached and detached garages and sheds. There is an existing 8 feet x 10 feet storage shed on the property. The total square feet of detached structures will be 1,200 square feet. While the size of the structure is consistent with the ordinance, the Applicants are asking for a setback of 9 feet which is 21 feet within the required side yard. The footprint of the house is 1,064 square feet. A standard two stall garage is 24 feet x 24 feet or 576 square feet, and a three stall garage is 24 feet x 36 feet or 864 square feet. The Planning Commission should discuss whether a structure of this size is warranted. Is it reasonable to allow a garage of this size and is it an issue for mass and scale in the neighborhood? The length of the garage could be reduced from the 40 feet as proposed to increase the setback to 65th Street North. 3 Drainage/Utilities The City Engineer will review the drainage for the site. The final grading for the proposed structure shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. Criteria for Reduced Setback Section 401.15.C.1.e.5) of the Zoning Ordinance specifies criteria for the reduction of a setback by Conditional Use Permit: 5) A required yard on a lot may be reduced by a conditional use permit if the following conditions are met: a) The reduction of setback requirements is based upon a specific need or circumstance which is unique to the property in question and which, if approved, will not set a precedent which is contrary to the intent of this Ordinance. Comment: The lot is unique in that there is no rear yard. The garage size could be reduced so that the setback from 65th Avenue could be increased. b) Property line drainage and utility easements as required by the City’s Subdivision Ordinance are provided and no building will occur upon this reserved space. Comment: The City Engineer will review the drainage. No easements are impacted. c) The reduction will work toward the preservation of trees or unique physical features of the lot or area. Comment: The setback of the proposed structure would be consistent with the existing setback of the house. d) If affecting a north lot line, the reduction will not restrict sun access from the abutting lots. Comment: The proposed structure should not create any sun access issues. e) The reduction will not obstruct traffic visibility, cause a public safety problem and complies with Section 401.15.B.6 of this Ordinance. Comment: The proposed structure should not create any visibility or safety issues. 4 f) The conditions of Section 401.03.A.8 of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. Comment: The conditions are reviewed in this report. Garage Standards Section 401.15.C.1.8.e of the Zoning Ordinance establishes standards for residential dwellings and accessory structures. The standard that applies to this proposed accessory structure is as follows: e. Single Family and Multiple Family Containing Up to Five (5) Units to Include Only New Construction: 3) Garage Doors/Building Design for Attached or Detached Garages. Garage doors may be located on another side of the dwelling ("side or rear loaded") provided that the side of the garage facing the front public or private street has windows and other architectural details that mimic the features of the living portion of the dwelling. The proposed garage doors will face to the west and not front either Paris Avenue or 65th Street North. The building indicates windows on both sides of the garage facing the right of way. Accessory Building Requirements Section 401.15.D provides a list of requirements for construction of an accessory building on a property. Please find a review of those criteria: 1. Connection with Principal Building. An accessory building shall be considered an integral part of the principal building if it is connected to the principal building by a covered passageway. Comment: The house and garage will not be attached. 2. Location. No accessory buildings shall be erected or located within any required yard other than the rear yard except by approval of a conditional use permit according to the provisions of Section 401.03 and Section 401.15.D.13 of this Ordinance. Comment: A Conditional Use Permit has been requested to allow the garage structure in the front yard setback area. 3. Height/Setbacks. Accessory buildings shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height or exceed the height of the principal structure on the lot. Accessory buildings shall be five (5) feet or more from side lot lines, eight (8) feet from the rear lot line and shall be six (6) feet or more from any other building or structures 5 providing the requirements of the Building Code are met. Accessory buildings shall not be located within a utility and/or drainage easement unless written approval is obtained from the easement holder. The setback and height requirements under this provision may be varied by approval of a conditional use permit as provided for in Section 401.03 and Section 401.15.D.13 of this Ordinance. Comment: A Conditional Use Permit has been requested for the 9 foot setback from 65th Street North. All other setback and height requirements will be met. 4. Lot Coverage. No accessory building or detached garage or combination thereof within a residential district shall occupy more than twenty-five (25) percent of the area of the rear yard except by approval of a conditional use permit according to the provisions of Section 401.03 and Section 401.15.D.13 of this Ordinance. Comment: The garage will occupy 19 percent of the front yard area. 5. Number of Structures. No building permit shall be issued for the construction of more than one (1) private garage or storage structure for each detached single family dwelling, commercial, industrial, public or institutional building except by approval of a conditional use permit according to the provisions of Section 401.03 and 401.15.D.13 of this Ordinance. Every detached single-family dwelling unit erected after the effective date of this Ordinance shall be so located on the lot so that at least a two (2) car garage, either attached or detached, can be located on said lot. Comment: There is an existing storage shed. In that it is less than 120 square feet it is exempt from the allowed number of structures. (See # 7 below) 6. Size. No accessory building for single family dwellings or combination of attached and detached accessory buildings shall exceed one thousand, two hundred (1,200) square feet of floor area, except by conditional use permit as provided for in Section 401.03 and Section 401.15.D.13 of this Ordinance. Comment: The total area of the two detached structures will be 1,200 square feet. 7. Administrative Approvals. Storage buildings one hundred twenty (120) square feet or less and in conformance with the provisions of this Ordinance may be approved by the Building Official without a building permit and may be in excess of the number of structures allowable in Section 401.15.D.5. above. Comment: Not applicable. 8. Building Permit. No building permit shall be issued for the construction of an accessory building in a residential district when an existing detached garage or 6 other accessory building is located on the same lot, except by conditional use permit as provided for in Section 401.03 and Section 401.15.D.13 of this Ordinance. Comment: Only one detached structure is proposed and the existing structure is less than 120 square feet. 9. Accessory Uses. No accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling structures or condensers, swimming pools, and the like which generate noise may be located in a side yard except for side yards abutting streets where equipment is fully screened from view. Comment: Any exterior mechanical equipment associated with the garage will need to be screened. 10. Compatibility. The same or similar quality exterior material shall be used in the accessory building and in the principal building. All accessory buildings shall also be compatible with the principal building on the lot. “Compatible” means that the exterior appearance of the accessory building including roof pitch and style is not at variance with the principal building from an aesthetic and architectural standpoint. Comment: The exterior of the garage has been designed to complement the current principal building exterior. Conditional Use Permits The conditional use permit criteria, found in Section 401.03.A.7 of the Zoning Ordinance, are found as follows: 1. Relationship to the specific policies and provisions of the municipal comprehensive plan. 2. The conformity with present and future land uses in the area. 3. The environmental issues and geographic area involved. 4. Whether the use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. 5. The impact on character of the surrounding area. 6. The demonstrated need for such use. 7. Traffic generation by the use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. 8. The impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks, schools, streets, and utilities, and the City’s service capacity. 9. The proposed use’s conformity with all performance standards contained herein (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.). Comment: The Planning Commission should comment if any of these criteria will be at odds with the Conditional Use Permits proposed for the site. The lot is unique in that the house placement does not provide a back yard for the property and as a corner lot with double street frontages there is a practical difficulty for placing an accessory building on the property. The garage size could be reduced to allow for additional setback to 65th Street North. 7 CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION Upon review of the request for the Conditional Use Permits, the Planning Commission should consider the application to allow for construction of a garage at 15117 65th Street North. The request for construction in the front yard is reasonable but the garage size and setbacks should be considered by the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission is favorable to the request it should consider the following conditions: 1. The City Engineer will review the drainage for the site. The final grading for the proposed structure shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. 2. Any exterior mechanical equipment associated with the garage shall be screened. 3. The exterior of the proposed garage shall be finished with siding and in a color to match the current principal building exterior. 4. No kitchens or bathrooms shall be allowed in the proposed garage. 5. The applicant shall apply for and receive a building permit for the structure. All applicable Building Code requirements shall be met. PC: Julie Hultman ATTN: Julie Hultman, Building Official Planning & Code Enforcement Narrative for conditional use permit on the property at 15117 65th Street N To Whom It May Concern: The owners of the property at 15117 65th Street N in Oak Park Heights, Minnesota (Douglas and Meghan Hatalla) have applied for a special use permit to build a garage on their property. Due to the nature of the property – situated on a corner, with the house at the far west side of the lot and the driveway running the entire southern side of the property– the only viable space for this project is the side yard on the east. However, Oak Park Heights interprets this side yard as a front yard (and, indeed, by that logic, it’s also our side yard and back yard!), necessitating the need for a conditional use permit. As fellow residents of Minnesota, we know those reading this narrative can understand the hardship posed by not having a garage. Our desire for this structure is predicated on several factors: the need for storage, protecting our property and vehicles, enhancing the neighborhood aesthetic, and safety. We understand that we are asking for certain variance from the 30-foot setback as well. Storage: when we moved to Oak Park Heights, the property had an 8x10 shed in the corner of the lot. As a family of three (7, if we include our dogs and cats!) we quickly filled this space, and, predictively, are spilling out of it. Our bikes are tied along the roof; we swap out the lawnmower and snowblower with the season. Douglas, a millwright by trade, has a large collection of tools that save us from hiring out for certain projects, but multiple heavy chests take up floor space. And, as five-year-olds do, our daughter has accumulated her share of summer toys from a picnic table, fairy garden sets, and more. If you walk into the shed, there is just enough room for someone to take a step in and turn around (watching their head). A garage would give us some very literal breathing room. We would be able to access our bikes more easily and give our daughter easier access to her outdoor toys. We 1 Exhibit 1 would be able to store our recycling, garbage and compost bins inside as well, removing the eyesore of having them visible to the neighborhood. Page 6 shows how we intend to use the space. Protection of property: A garage will allow us to park our vehicles inside a structure. This keeps them safer (or at least presents a deterrent) to would-be criminals looking for an unlocked door, catalytic converter theft, or some other activity. It also protects our vehicles and batteries from the wear of winter weather, and the potential for damage during hailstorms or other extreme weather events. The garage also offers a safe space for toys and bikes that are often left outside in the summer months due to lack of access to the shed. Enhancing neighborhood aesthetic: In our four years in Oak Park Heights, we’ve demonstrated our dedication to creating a beautiful space on our little corner. We take great pride in landscaping and gardening. We love creating eclectic outdoor spaces giving preference to local pollinator plants as well as balancing scents, colors and other considerations. On the final page of this narrative, we’ve included screenshots of the lot as it looked when we moved in (images are taken from Google Streetview, please excuse the quality!). We’ve spent time every season since moving in battling the invasive buckthorn and honeysuckle that ringed the property previously. We also removed the dying black walnut tree out of our own pocket. We can guarantee that our garage will not be eyesore. As noted above, we’ll be able to store our waste containers inside. We also plan to add trellises to the sides to grow morning glories (which will thrive with that eastern morning light!) and other plants. Safety: Our garage will not hamper visibility for vehicles arriving at the corner of Paris/65th Street. We think it will make the corner safer, actually! This corner has long been a source of consternation for us, as well as our neighbors with growing families. Between just four families on the corner (not to mention the friends and family who come to play between the yards as well), there are over 10 kids under the age of 8. These kids are learning to ride bikes, running between homes, 2 accidentally throwing/kicking balls into the street, and more. It’s also a popular walking route for people and dogs. The high level of pedestrians necessitates some review of the traffic patterns in the area… But that is not the point of this narrative =] One of our hopes is that our garage will force people to actually stop at the stop sign at Paris/65th street. One could sit for a week and count the number of cars that stop without rolling through the intersection on one hand. With our garage, they will need to pause at the corner, actually look to their right (and not just to the left to see if cars are coming), and make an informed decision to turn right. Another factor for safety is creating a confined space for our daughter and neighbors to play. The garage on the eastern side of the property, bounded by the house on the western side, creates a natural space that is away from the roads and keeps them in sight from just about anywhere in the house. Request for Variance: As noted and demonstrated in the opening paragraph, we truly only have one space on our lot where a garage could feasibly be built. As I researched the primary causation for 30 foot setbacks—the “why,” if you will—it seems to come down to a few factors and our garage will not interfere with any of them. The first is for safety, and to ensure that emergency vehicles have access and structures aren’t too close to roads or utilities. Our garage won’t interfere with that. The second is for privacy, to create space between buildings and avoid overcrowding. By placing our garage closer to the corner, and further from the house, we are avoiding overcrowding. Aesthetics are another reason. We’ve included an AI rendering (pg 5) of how we imagine our garage to look, and are certain it will be an aesthically-pleasing addition to the corner (especially compared to what was there previously (pg 4). The final reason is zoning compliance – to ensure that residential, commercial, and industrial areas are separated appropriately. We aren’t building any kind of commercial or industrial structure. Thank you for your time and consideration. We can be reached by phone or email to address any further questions, considerations or concerns. 3 Meghan Hatalla: 651 278 6383, meghatalla@gmail.com Douglas Hatalla: 715 441 3003, dhatalla@gmail.com 4 Exhibit 2 65TH STREET NORTH PA R I S A V E N U E N . N O R T H 28.00 40 . 0 0 28.00 40 . 0 0 PR O P O S E D G A R A G E 9' 30' 18 . 5 ' 27.8' X 1025.0 0 NORTH 20 40 ZZ20644 LAND SURVEYING, INC. CORNERSTONE Suite #200 1970 Northwestern Ave Stillwater, MN 55082 Phone 651.275.8969 Fax 651.275.8976 dan@ cssurvey .net PROJECT NO. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me, or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA. DANIEL L. THURMES License No. 25718 Date: PROPOSED AREAS AREA OF PARCEL = 8,116 SQ. FT. IMPROVEMENTS TO REMAIN HOUSE =1,064 SQ. FT. GRAVEL DRIVEWAY = 915 SQ. FT. FRONT PORCH = 126 SQ. FT. CONCRETE = 272 SQ. FT. DECK = 49 SQ. FT. TOTAL = 2,426 SQ. FT. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS GARAGE = 1120 SQ.FT CONC. PADS = 41 SQ.FT. ADDITIONAL GRAVEL DRIVEWAY = 147 SQ.FT. TOTAL = 1,308 SQ.FT. TOTAL EXISTING TO REMAIN & PROPOSED = 3,734 SQ.FT. % IMPROVED = 46.0% SITE PLAN FOR: Meghan Hatalla meghatalla@gmail.com PROJECT LOCATION: 15117 65TH STREET NORTH OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MN 4-14-25 SEE SURVEY BY CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC. DATED 10-5-2020 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS: GARAGE INFO Building height - 10 feet Ceiling height - 10 feet 4 inches Peak height - 15 feet 4 inches 4-27-25 Exhibit 3 Ex h i b i t 3 AI renderings of possible look Ex h i b i t 4 Idea of use for space Ex h i b i t 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 6