HomeMy WebLinkAbout9A - Zoning Ordinance Variance @ 2719 Spring Lake Rd
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
.,.,:; ;::;L.F-:3
,""
~ ) ::'<. ,;:,,;.
MARCH 3, 2008
9A
JEFF MATZKE, PLANNER
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
VARIANCE FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR A DRIVEWAY
ADDITION AND AN ENTRY PATH ADDITION FOR A HOME IN AN R-1 LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Introduction
Mr. Phillip Hines has appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a
4.9% variance from the maximum impervious surface. Mr. Hines requested the
variances to allow for the construction of additions to an existing driveway and
walkways on a lot with a single family home in the R-1 (Low Density Residential)
Zoning District. The lot is located at 2719 Spring Lake Road.
History
On January 14, 2008 a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission to
discuss an application request by Phillip Hines for variances from the Zoning
Ordinance to allow for the construction of a driveway and walkway additions at the
home at 2719 Spring Lake Road. For this construction, the following variances are
required:
. A 13 foot variance from the 24 foot maximum driveway width allowed in
the R-1 district (Section 1107.205 (6)).
. A 4.9 % variance from the 30% maximum impervious surface allowed in
the R-1 District (1104.306).
At their January 14, 2008 meeting the Planning Commission approved a modified 6
foot driveway variance and denied the 4.9% impervious surface variance request.
The minutes of record from the Planning Commission meeting are attached to this
report.
On January 18, 2007, Mr. Phillip Hines appealed the Planning Commission's
decision to approve the 6 foot driveway variance and deny the 4.9% impervious
surface variance as requested. This appeal was filed in accordance with Section
1109.400 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Under Minnesota Statute 15.99, the City has 120 days in which to take a final action
on a variance application. The appeal period is included in the 120 days. In this
case, the City Council must take action on the proposed variances before April 6,
2008.
At the February 19, 2008 City Council meeting, the City Council upheld the decision
of the Planning Commission to approve a 6 foot variance from the 24 foot maximum
driveway width.
www.cityofpriorlake.com
", i::::Phg~~)~\5~.:447~9BOO:)/ Fax 952.447.4245
The City Council adopted a motion to table a resolution denying a 4.9% variance
from the 30% maximum impervious surface allowed in the R-1 District to allow for
driveway and walkway additions on a residential property until the March 3, 2008 City
Council Meeting. The City Council also directed staff to investigate possible
alternative mitigation techniques as well as review Mr. Hines mitigation process in
greater detail.
City staff has since been in contact with the DNR regarding possible mitigation
technique alternatives as part of an ordinance amendment. The DNR stated they
believe ordinances offering mitigation techniques which do not detract from the water
quality of area surface lakes, wetlands, and groundwater could be found permissible.
The DNR also stated that increased administrative review of such properties would
likely need to occur for the municipality as well as other government entities.
The Engineering Department has reviewed Mr. Hines proposed mitigation. Their
comments are attached to this report.
Current Circumstances
The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay
District), and is guided R-L/MD (Urban Low/Medium Density Residential) on the 2030
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. A single family dwelling with a three-car
garage currently occupies the lot. The house was constructed in 2003. At the time
the house was constructed, a 6 foot variance from the 20 foot front yard setback was
applied for and denied by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. The
house was subsequently constructed according to Zoning Ordinance standards at
the 20 foot front yard setback.
The paver additions to the driveway and walkway were installed on the property this
past fall without a City permit. Upon meeting with City staff the applicant informed
staff members of proposed plans to landscape and place pavers in various areas on
the property. Staff informed the applicant that the placement of these pavers would
likely be prohibited by City Ordinance requirements pertaining to setback and
impervious surface. The applicant was informed by staff that only through a
variance approval by the Planning Commission or City Council would the recently
constructed paver areas, which exceeded the impervious surface and driveway width
limitations in the Zoning Ordinance, be allowed to remain. Therefore, Mr. Hines has
submitted these variance requests.
The applicant obtained a permit from Scott County on November 16, 2007 to
conduct the work in the right-of-way of Highway 12. The permit was approved with
the condition that "all structures and vegetation are subject to removal without
replacement when the County needs the property for public use."
ISSUES:
The applicant has applied for a variance to allow for the insertion of pavers for
driveway and front walkway additions. The lot area to an elevation of 912.8 feet
(OHW) is 12,812 square feet. According to the December 3,2007, survey the
existing house is 2,945 square feet and the lot includes a 572 square foot driveway,
217 square foot boathouse, 120 square foot concrete slab, and 620 square feet of
paver areas. According to the updated survey completed on December 3,2007, the
total impervious surface prior to the addition of the paver areas is 3,854 square feet
or 30.08% of the total lot area. The total impervious surface after the addition of the
paver areas is currently 34.9% of the total lot area.
The applicant previously had constructed 3 foot wide sidewalks from the driveway to
the front doors of the house. By the definition of impervious surface (Section
1101.400) these 3 foot wide sidewalks were not included in the impervious surface
total. The applicant chose to replace these 3 foot sidewalks with a larger paver patio
area approximately 410 square feet. By definition this entire paver area is included
in the impervious surface total for the lot. The applicant also added paver areas on
the lot to each side of the driveway that total approximately 210 square feet. These
areas are also included in the impervious surface total for the lot.
A previous lot survey prepared in 2003 (at the time of the current dwelling building
permit) identified the existing boathouse at 200 square feet and did not included the
120 square foot concrete pad located north of the boathouse. Therefore, the
impervious surface totals that accompanied this previous survey were incorrectly
identified be 126 square feet below the maximum allowed 30% of the total lot area
after the construction of the proposed house. Dated aerial photographs of the lot
identify that the concrete pad and boathouse were existing at the time of the 2003
survey; therefore the actual impervious surface after the house was constructed had
reached the 30% maximum allowed on the lot.
The DNR analysis of the variance application is attached to this report. Since actions
for variance rulings are based on findings of fact that a demonstrable hardship exists,
the DNR concurs with the Planning Commission's decision to deny the impervious
surface variance.
The Planning Commission action to deny any variance to the impervious surface
requires the applicant to remove a large amount of the pavers installed without a
permit. According to City policy, a code enforcement action would occur if the removal
of pavers does not comply with the City Ordinance.
Variance Hardship Findings
Section 1108.400 states that the Board of Adjustment may grant a variance from the
strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, provided that:
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where
by reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other
extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict application
of the terms of this Ordinance would result in peculiar and practical
difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in
developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally
permissible within the Use District in which said lot is located.
The Planning Commission denied a variance from the maximum impervious
surface requirement. The applicant has already maximized the amount of
impervious surface for the lot. The lot area of 12,812 square feet is above the
minimum lot size for an R-1 low density residential lot. Approval of a variance to
allow an additional 6' of driveway width will require the applicant to remove
impervious surface in other areas on the lot. The elimination of the rear 120
concrete slab would provide the applicant with an alternative to utilize the excess
impervious surface in a small driveway addition.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the
property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to
other land or structures in the Use District in which the land is located.
The lot area of 12,812 square feet is not an uncommonly small lot, however;
therefore staff does not feel a variance from the maximum allowed impervious
surface is warranted.
3. The granting of the proposed variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
The Planning Commission and city staff believe a variance from the impervious
surface requirement is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the owner. As an alternative the applicant could
remove the existing 120 square feet of concrete slab in the rear yard for the
necessary impervious surface amount to construct the driveway addition without
the need for an impervious surface variance.
4. The granting of the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply
of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the
congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger
the public safety.
The variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or negatively impact public safety.
5. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the character
and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair
established property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way
impair the health, safety, and comfort of the area.
The granting of the variance would not impact the character and development of
the neighborhood.
6. The granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to the intent of
this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
One of the purposes of the Shoreland Ordinance is to "to provide for the wise
utilization of shoreland areas in order to preserve the quality and natural
character of these protected waters of the City." This purpose is implemented
through a required maximum impervious surface amount. In this case, staff
believes a lack of hardship for the impervious surface variance results in an
inconsistency with the purpose of this ordinance.
7. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the
applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or
difficulty.
Granting the impervious surface variance will merely serve as a convenience to
the applicant. It is not necessary to eliminate a demonstrable undue hardship. A
reasonable driveway area and a 3 foot walking path can be achieved without the
need for any impervious surface variances.
8. The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this
Ordinance to the affected property and does not result from actions of the
owners of the property.
The chosen designs of the driveway and walkway path create a hardship as
related to the impervious surface requirement. An alternatively designed
driveway addition and walkway path can be designed within the strict application
of the impervious surface ordinance requirement.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone
shall not be grounds for granting a variance.
The Planning Commission and city staff are not under the impression that
increased development or construction costs or economic hardship are the basis
of this request.
CONCLUSION
City staff has since been in contact with the DNR regarding possible mitigation
technique alternatives as part of an ordinance amendment; and, as part of the
current zoning ordinance update City staff can continue to explore the possibilities of
mitigation for an ordinance amendment. Also, the engineering department has
reviewed Mr. Hines proposed mitigation. Their comments are attached to this report.
While the applicant had currently reached the maximum impervious surface allowed
prior to construction of the paver areas, the removal of a concrete pad next to the
boathouse would allow for the construction of the driveway addition without the need
for an impervious surface variance. Also, the Planning Commission and city staff
believe construction of a smaller designed walkway path is possible to maintain a
reasonable access to the front entry. In the case of variance requests, judgments
are based on findings of fact for a demonstrable hardship. Therefore, due to lack of
demonstrable hardship the Planning Commission and city staff recommend denial of
the variance from the maximum impervious surface allowed for the lot. According to
City policy a code enforcement procedure would occur in this case following an
action to uphold the Planning Commission's decision.
ALTERNATIVES:
The City Council has the following alternatives:
1. Uphold the decisions of the Planning Commission to deny the impervious
surface variance with conditions. The attached resolutions are consistent with
this action.
2. Overturn the decision of the Planning Commission and grant the variance as
requested. In this case, the City Council should state specific findings of fact
supporting the variance and direct staff to prepare a resolution with these
findings. The resolution would be considered for approval at the next City
Council meeting.
3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
The staff recommends Alternative #1.
RECOMMENDED 1. A motion and second to deny the impervious surface variance.
MOTION:
Motion By:
Second By:
WHEREAS, Phillip Hines is requesting an impervious surface from the Zoning Ordinance to allow
for driveway and walkway additions on a residential property zoned R-1 (Low Density
Residential) at the following location, to wit;
2719 Spring Lake Road SW, Prior Lake, MN 55372
The Westerly One Half of Lot 3; and Lot 4; and the Easterly One Half of Lot 5, all in
Block 46, and a strip of land between said Lots and lying southerly thereof and the
waters edge of Spring Lake Townsite, according to the plat thereof on file and of record
in the Office of the Register of Deeds in and for Scott County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case
File 07-149, and held a public hearing thereon January 14, 2007; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission concluded the variance was not consistent with the criteria
set forth in Section 1108.406 of the Zoning Ordinance, and denied the variance subject
to conditions; and
WHEREAS, The applicant appealed the decision of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the
information contained in Case File 07-149 and Case File 08-102, and held a hearing
thereon on February 19, 2008.
WHEREAS, The City Council continued their discussion of the variance to the March 3, 2008 City
Council Meeting.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE,
MINNESOTA as follows:
1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein.
2. The City Council finds that the requested variance is consistent with the criteria set forth in Section
1108.406 of the Zoning Ordinance, subject to conditions.
3. The City Council upholds the Planning Commission's decision to deny the variance subject to
conditions.
"Ii \V\,wlntWyofp.riorlake. com
Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245
4. The City Council makes the following findings:
a) The decision of The Planning Commission was properly and timely appealed in accordance
with Section 1108.210 of the City Code.
b) The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the
information contained in Case File 07-149 and Case File 08-102, and held a hearing thereon on
February 19, 2008.
c) The City Council has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety,
and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air,
danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area
and the effect of the proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan
d) The City Council finds a variance from the maximum impervious surface requirement is
unnecessary. The applicant has already maximized the amount of impervious surface for the
lot. The lot area of 12,812 square feet is above the minimum lot size for an R-1 low density
residential lot. The elimination of the rear 120 concrete slab would provide the applicant with an
alternative to utilize the excess impervious surface in a small driveway addition.
e) The lot area of 12,812 square feet is not an uncommonly small lot, however; therefore a
variance from the maximum allowed impervious surface is not warranted.
f) A variance from the impervious surface requirement is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner. As an alternative the applicant could
remove the 120 square feet of concrete slab in the rear yard for the necessary impervious
surface amount to construct the driveway addition without the need for an impervious surface
variance.
g) Granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property
or negatively impact public safety.
h) The granting of the variance would not impact the character and development of the
neighborhood.
i) One of the purposes of the Shoreland Ordinance is to lito provide for the wise utilization of
shoreland areas in order to preserve the quality and natural character of these protected waters
of the City." This purpose is implemented through a required maximum impervious surface
amount. In this case, a lack of hardship for the impervious surface variance results in an
inconsistency with the purpose of this ordinance.
j) Granting the impervious surface variance will merely serve as a convenience to the applicant. It
is not necessary to eliminate a demonstrable undue hardship. A reasonable driveway area and
a 3 foot walking path can be achieved without the need for any impervious surface.
k) The chosen designs of the driveway and walkway path create a hardship as related to the
impervious surface requirement. An alternatively designed driveway addition and walkway path
can be designed within the strict application of the impervious surface ordinance requirement.
I) There is no evidence that increased development or construction costs or economic hardship
are the basis of this request.
5. The contents of Planning Case #07-149 and 08-102 are hereby entered into and made a part of the
public record and the record of decision for this case.
L:\08 FILES\08 APPEALS\Hines Variance\uphold denial resolution DOC
Hines Variance
Location Map (2719 Spring Lake Rd)
~
~
SPRING
LAKE
N
+
0 250 500 1,000
Feet
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, JANUARY 14,2008
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Lemke called the January 14, 2008, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Billington, Fleming, Lemke, Perez and
Ringstad, Planning Director Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator Danette Moore, Planner
Jeff Matzke and Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Billington
Fleming
Lemke
Perez
Ringstad
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Planning Commission Minutes from November 13,2007, were approved as
presented.
4.
Consent:
None
5. Public Hearings:
Commissioner Lemke read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
A. EP07-150 On-Site Engineering & Forensic Services, Inc. is requesting a
Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor storage. The site is located at 5714
Graystone Court.
Planning Coordinator Danette Moore presented the Planning Report dated January 14,
2008, on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
On-Site Engineering and Forensic Services, Inc. has applied for a Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) to allow outdoor storage on a site located at 5714 Graystone Court,
within the Deerfield Industrial Park. Currently, the site contains an 8,022 square foot
structure (6,780 sq ft. at the foundation).
The property is zoned C-5 (Business Park). Outdoor Storage is permitted with a
Conditional Use Permit in the C-5 district, subject to the following condition:
1102.1403(2) Outdoor Storage. Condition:
a. Such use occupies an area no larger than 50% of the floor area of the principal
structure and provided it is screened from view of adjacent residential property
L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MNOI1408.doc
1
Planlling Commissioll Meeting
Jalluary 14, 2008
and public streets in accordance with the City's landscaping and screening
Ordinance.
In April of2005, the applicant applied for approval of the current On-Site Engineering
and Forensic Services, Inc. site layout. At that time (May 6,2005), City staff inquired as
to if any outdoor storage would be necessary. On May 12,2005, the City was informed
there would be no outdoor storage on the site. Since the construction of the applicant's
building (summer of2005), the City Code Enforcement Officer has worked with the
applicant on several instances to reconcile outdoor storage issues. The CUP application
before the Planning Commission would bring the current outdoor storage into
compliance.
On-Site Engineering and Forensic Services, Inc. conducts investigative work requiring
the applicant to maintain evidence for a specific time period before disposing of the
items. This fact, along with the need to keep trailers on the premises for maneuvering
items in and out of the building, the applicant is asking for approval of a CUP to allow
3,150 square feet (45 foot X 70 foot) of outdoor storage. The outdoor storage area is
proposed to be enclosed on three sides (by the existing building, a 45 foot extension of
chain link fencing, and a 6 foot high board on board fence). A six-foot high board on
board wooden fence is proposed on the west and southwest rear yard perimeter of the
property, to provide screening. In addition, the applicant has planted five additional blue
spruce trees in access of what was originally shown as part of the site plan to provide
screemng.
The 3,150 square foot outdoor storage area is proposed to be enclosed on three sides.
The eastern side of the proposed storage area will be enclosed by the existing building.
The remaining two sides through the use of fencing (a 45 foot long chain link fence that
projects out from the southwestern property boundary and a 6 foot tall board on board
fence that extends along a portion of the western and southwestern property boundaries).
The City Code allows fences to be placed up to the property line. However, according to
Subsection 1102.1300(8) of the Code: "No storage, display, or parking of vehicles shall
be allowed in any of the required yards or landscaped areas." For that reason, the outdoor
storage area should be reconfigured to not project out beyond the side yard established by
the existing structure.
Overall, staff believes the outdoor storage is consistent with the intent of the C-5 Use
District provided conditions of approval are met. Based upon the findings set forth in this
report, staff recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit. In order to meet the
above-listed criteria, the Planning staff recommended the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall reconfigure the outdoor storage site plan to show the outdoor
storage area not projecting out beyond the side yard set back of the existing building
(not to exceed 3,150 square feet).
2. The applicant shall only place outdoor storage within the confines (cross hatched
area) of the approved site plan (attached as Exhibit A). No component of the outdoor
L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MNOI1408.doc
2
Planning Commission Meeting
January 14, 2008
storage may project out beyond the northern chain link boundary of the outdoor
storage area and that area directly across from it along the wall of the building.
3. The applicant shall record the Conditional Use Permit at Scott County no later than
60 days after Planning Commission approval (including Exhibit A).
4. The plan must be revised to show the outdoor storage ground surfaces as paved
(additional northern portion) and must be submitted to the Assistant City Engineer for
approval no later than 60 days after Planning Commission approval.
5. The necessary additional paving and fencing must be constructed no later than May
15,2008.
6. All conditions listed in Section 1102.1403(2) of the Zoning Ordinance shall be met.
Fleming asked staff to address the nature of the code enforcement issues. Moore
explained the applicant did not originally anticipate the use of outdoor storage however
since that time they do need it and are trying to correct it. The problem is the lag time
between the time they are finished with an item and the time it is picked up for disposal.
Having an outside storage area will allow an area for the item to be stored.
Fleming asked the applicant to describe the outdoor items stored on site.
Comments from the Public:
Michelle Choudek, one of the building owners responded they collect evidence from
electrical failures many resulting in fires. Their warehouse is two-thirds of their building
and retains evidence from ongoing cases. When a case is closed the item may have to be
disposed in a different way. An example may be a burned oven. The materials are not
stored outside. All evidence is stored within the warehouse. They use the outside as a
staging area until it is properly disposed of.
Fleming asked if any of the items were hazardous or combustible. Choudek replied "No,
they are not."
Billington asked what type of fence would be used. Choudek explained it would be a
Trex fence - a composite material, six foot high solid composite.
Lemke asked Choudek if there was anything else she wanted the Commissioners to know
about her application. Choudek said "No."
There were no other comments from the public and the public hearing was closed at 6: 15
p.m.
L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MNOI1408.doc
3
Plml1lillg Commission Meeting
January 14, 2008
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
. I am agreeing with all of staffs recommendation and the 6 conditions.
. Will vote to approve.
Billington:
. Support staffs recommendation - I see no problem with this.
Perez:
. Agree with staff and fellow Commissioners - support.
Fleming:
. I concur with everything said and will also support the Resolution.
Lemke:
. Agree with staff and the conditions.
MOTION BY BILLINGTON, SECOND BY FLEMING, ADOPTING RESOLUTION
08-01PC APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OUTDOOR
STORAGE IN THE C-5 ZONING DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE LISTED
CONDITIONS.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. EP07-149 Phillip Hines is requesting a variance from the maximum allowed
driveway width and a variance from the maximum allowed impervious surface
requirement to allow for a driveway addition and entry path addition for his home
located at 2719 Spring Lake Road.
Planner Jeff Matzke presented the Planning Report dated January 14, 2008, on file in the
office of the City Planning Department.
Property owner Phil Hines is requesting variances to allow for the constmction of
driveway and walkway additions on a property located at 2719 Spring Lake Road. For
this constmction, the following variances are required:
. A 13 foot variance from the 24 foot maximum driveway width allowed in the
R-1 district (Section 1107.205 (6)).
. A 4.9% variance from the 30% maximum impervious surface allowed in the
R-1 district (Section 1104.306).
The property is zoned R-l (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland Overlay
District). A single family dwelling with a three-car garage currently occupies the lot. The
house was constmcted in 2003. At the time of the house constmction a 6 foot variance
L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MNOI1408.doc
4
Plall1lillg Commissioll Meetillg
Jallllary 14, 2008
from the 20 foot front yard setback was applied for and denied by both the Planning
Commission and the City Council. The house was subsequently constructed according to
ordinance at the 20 foot front yard setback.
The paver additions to the driveway and walkway were installed on the property this past
fall without a City permit. The applicant was informed by staff that only through a
variance approval by the Planning Commission would the paver areas which exceeded
the ordinance requirements be allowed to remain. Therefore, Mr. Hines has submitted
these variance requests.
The applicant has applied for variances to allow for the insertion of pavers for driveway
and front walkway additions. The lot area to an elevation of9l2.8 feet (OHW) is 12,812
square feet. According to the December 3,2007 survey the existing house is 2,945
square feet and the lot includes a 572 square foot driveway, 217 square foot boathouse,
120 square foot concrete slab, and 620 square feet of paver areas. The total impervious
surface prior to the addition of the paver areas is 3,854 square feet or 30.08% of the total
lot area.
The strict application of the driveway width requirement does create a hardship for the
property owner by limiting the turning radius for the easternmost stall of the garage.
Staff believes a driveway width of no more than 30 feet would be necessary; therefore,
staff recommends a driveway width variance of no more than 6 feet. While the applicant
had currently reached the maximum impervious surface allowed prior to construction of
the paver areas, the removal of a concrete pad next to the boathouse would allow for the
construction of the driveway addition without the need for an impervious surface
variance. Also, staff believes construction of a smaller designed walkway path is
possible to maintain a reasonable access to the front entry. Therefore, staff recommends
denial of the variance from the maximum impervious surface allowed for the lot.
DNR Hydrologist Janell Miersch recommended in her email dated December 21,2007
there were no hardships and the requested variance should be denied.
The staff recommended approval of a 6 foot variance from the driveway width
requirement and denial of a 4.9% variance from the impervious surface requirement.
Questions from the Commissioners:
Perez questioned staff on the 6 foot variance approval- is there a standard? Matzke
explained the driveway extension to the property line would allow the applicant to fill in
the area with pavers making the radius turn easier. The County is allowing the applicant
space in the right-of-way to be maintained for the time being. That's where staff came up
with the 6 feet.
Lemke questioned the pavers in the County right-of-way. Matzke explained the applicant
obtained a County permit to keep the pavers in the right-of-way until the County
reconstructs the road in 2010. That area is not included in the variance.
L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MNOI1408.doc
5
Plalllling Commissioll Meetillg
Ja""ary 14, 2008
Comments from the Public:
Applicant Phil Hines, 2719 Spring Lake Road, said this project was undertaken to solve a
few issues with access to his house and went on to explain the sidewalk and steep grades
in the front of his property. The sidewalk was never intended to be extended as part of
the driveway, it was for walking purposes only. The same problem exists with the east
sidewalk along the garage area. Staff and the applicant discussed different ways to
improve the impervious surface. Hines felt the pavers would be better than just concrete.
He hired a landscaping architect and landscaping company to do the work and did not
intend to circumvent the ordinance and felt he was in compliance with the ordinance. An
older survey indicated there was left over impervious surface and so he subtracted it out
of the area to remove the sidewalk.
A city inspector came to the property with a Stop Work Order when we were doing work
in the right-of-way. That is where this all started. Hines stated he was frustrated with the
process trying to make his property aesthetically pleasing. He felt the ordinances are not
equally being applied throughout the City. Hines pointed out one neighbor's driveway
exceeds the 24 foot width and the other's impervious surface well exceeds the
requirements.
Hines went on to say another neighbor constructed a larger driveway and did not have to
go through this process. He called the City of the violation but did not want to file a
complaint. After the work the neighbor's work was completed he was still trying to work
out something with staff on the impervious surface. Hines questioned why this ordinance
was being enforced on him and not the neighbors. He would like equal protection of the
law.
Hines continued to explain his retaining walls and the nmoff on his property. (Hines
presented pictures to show the landscape and driveway.) He did not want to go back and
pull out sections of the pavers because they are woven in and would be difficult to take
out a section. Hines spoke on the driveway and open 12 inch separation for runoff. Not
sure the ordinance would allow it. He said he would be willing to have a civil engineer
go back and design the nmoff. It does not address the strict code regulation. Hines felt
the County road right-of-way will never be used. The sidewalks will go in just at the
bottom of his hedges. There will always be the green space (right-of-way) to absorb the
runoff. Hines said he would be willing to make modifications to the catch basin on the
left side of the driveway. He would go back and have the civil engineer draw up a new
plan and create the same kind of catch basin in and around the hedges so none of the
water on any part of the front property will run into the street.
Hines said it obviously does not address the strict adherence to the code regarding the
impervious surface by creating more runoff.
Hines again stated he did intend to violate any part of the ordinance, he only became
aware of it after the fact. He fully expected the architect and landscaper to pull the
L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MNOl 1408.doc
6
Planning Commission Meeting
January 14, 2008
required permits and notifications before they started the work. Hines stated, "Now the
work on either side of my property - driveways and extensions of my driveway were not
done under permit either. It did not necessarily create a flag for me that they did not get a
permit because nobody else got a permit that I was aware of."
Fleming asked staff the disposition of the code and permitting enforcement on the
surrounding properties as it sounds like its getting out of hand. Kansier said she cannot
speak on Mr. Hines' situation or what is happening on the adjacent properties or the patio
he spoke of. "1 can tell you we've hired a full time code enforcement office this summer
with the intent of evening that out. This enforcement is based on a complaint basis. As
far as the adjacent driveways - the majority of one ofthe neighbor's driveway is in the
County right-of-way." Kansier presented a survey of Hines first permit where most of
the driveway is on the neighbor's property and the rest in the County right-of-way.
Kansier continued "As far as the second driveway - at the time Mr. Hines first applied,
they had a shared driveway and looks like they split it and the driveway was moved and
impervious surface removed. It looks like an equalizing, which is allowable."
Fleming asked Hines why would he allow his architect and landscape company to work
without a permit. Hines replied he did realize they did not get a permit.
Hines said he has gone back and forth with staff and is now asking for direction from the
Commissioners. Regarding the spacing between the sidewalks and driveway - What
would the Commissioners allow for a small green space? Hines asked if there is an
appropriate way for him to keep the exiting pavers (along the sidewalk). He would happy
to go with any direction.
There were no other comments from the public and the public hearing was closed at 6:45
p.m.
Questions from Commissioners:
Perez asked staff what they thought of Hines' idea of creating pervious spacing. Matzke
said they had been discussing spacing alternatives and went on to explain the minimum
spacing of 3 foot sidewalks and runoff and what is allowed in the code. A one foot
spacing is very small and will not alleviate the problem of runoff.
Lemke asked staff if there are any ordinance credits for catch basins. Matzke said there
were no credits based on catch basin usage. It is similar with pavers.
Lemke noted the importance of maintenance with impervious pavers or they will not
work. The intent of the ordinance is to cut down on the impervious surface and runoff.
Do catch basins require the same maintenance as pervious pavers to keep working?
Kansier explained catch basins drain into the storm sewer. She said she is not sure how
Mr. Hines is using the tenn "catch basin". It is not the same as the City. When the City
uses catch basins to catch nmoff it goes from surface to below ground. Rain gardens are
L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MNOI1408.doc
7
Planning Commission Meeting
January 14, 2008
used to treat water before it goes into the system. We do not give residents credit for
creating rain gardens for impervious surface."
Fleming asked staff what area of the existing pavers is represented by the 4.9% variance.
What portion of the completed area would have to be removed? Matzke responded the
added pavers are at the 4.9% impervious surface. Again, this is just the area on Hines'
property. Matzke pointed out the area and in order to stay at the 30% impervious surface
lot area, the applicant would have to go back to the original 3 foot walkways and a
removal of hard surface somewhere else on the property to maintain the requirement.
Fleming questioned if the landscape company obtained the permits would the owner be
aware of the impervious surface. Matzke said it would. Staff would check the
impervious surface calculations. In some cases, the City requires the applicant to get a
new survey.
Fleming asked staff if there is any past practice or precedent when a landscape company,
architect or landowner has not gotten a permit and found to be in violation - who bears
the cost when that dispute arises? Kansier replied from a City's perspective it is the
property owner's responsibility to go back and correct the situation. Kansier explained a
recent similar situation. The property owner is ultimately responsible from a City's
perspective.
Hines said he spoke with the DNR at length regarding the impervious pavers and the
issue of maintenance did not come up. The concerns that came up repeatedly were
whether it was impervious or not - it's a hard surface and people put impervious things on
top of it. Hines said he was frustrated with the DNR as he did not feel they had a
legitimate argument. He asked the gentleman from the DNR to review his paver
infomlation and he did not want to because he was not interested.
Hines second comment was on the green space separation and it would not alleviate any
runoff in that small area. During one of the City's discussions, the City Engineer agreed
if the hard surface is running in the direction of the grade it wouldn't matter ifit was a
foot of space or 3 feet of space the same amount of water would run down into the street.
Ifit's perpendicular to the grade it could in fact have a significant decrease.
Fleming asked Mr. Hines when he contacted the landscaper about not receiving any
permits and was in violation, what response did they give? Hines stated he thought they
contacted the City and had some conversations. He had a few feet left and Hines asked
him to finish it into the County right-of-way. We're still at odds on how we're going to
resolve this. He was hoping it is not the case where he has to remove the pavers.
Lemke said "There have been meetings and discussions - at this point there doesn't
appear to have been any removal of the boathouse or concrete pad that would get the
impervious surface down to 30%."
L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MNOI 1408.doc
8
Planning Commission Meeting
Janllary 14, 2008
Matzke explained the removal of the pad of pavers in the back yard, the applicant has to
remove or provide some kind of adequate spacing similar to the original plan to be
identified as a sidewalk not to be included in the impervious surface. Sidewalks were on
the original plan, now the sidewalks and surrounding areas are filled in which became an
impervious surface pad. It would take more than just removing the pad in the back, the
patio and boathouse to come under the requirements. There is driveway area that could
easily be removed.
Hines stated there was a considerable amount of hard surface (near the home) but it is not
all hard surface. The area near the home has plantings. There is a fairly significant
amount of green space to create a separation, although it is smaller than what is required
by ordinance, then that area would no longer be involved in the impervious area. Hines
agreed Matzke was correct that he probably couldn't get down to an exact 30% but would
be within a percent or so, assuming he would remove the slab in the back.
Fleming pointed out there is a report from the DNR hydrologist reminding us again that
"Prior Lake is already over 5% of the State guidelines for impervious surface. A percent
or so to the applicant, in my mind is 6% or 7%. We're trying to be balanced and fair but
would ask you to keep that in mind as well."
Fleming said he plans to go on record later with staffto increase its scmtiny of this
particular landscape and architect. "We need to have them under the microscope for any
future projects they desire to commence in the City of Prior Lake, because it puts you
(the applicant) in a horrible position and I am very disturbed by that."
Close the public hearing at 7:03 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Perez:
. Empathize with Mr. Hines. It's difficult for everyone involved.
. Agree with staff's findings as far as hardships and support their recommendations.
. Approve the 6 foot driveway variance and deny the second request for increased
impervious surface.
. There is a report from the DNR with their comments.
Billington:
. Somewhat empathetic to Mr. Hines' plight.
. I will endorse Commissioner Fleming's remarks. He (the applicant) relied on the
expertise of an architect and landscaping contractor and expected them to rely on
their expertise regarding the codes in the City they are working in. They let you
down.
. I don't know the status of your contract with these parties but certainly have a
cause of action against them for dan1ages. Without question. I am not a lawyer by
education but I don't think you have to be to make a statement under these
circumstances. They should have known that a pem1it is required to do this work.
L:\08 F1LES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MNOI1408.doc
9
Planning Commissi01I Meeting
January 14, 2008
They should have known what the mles are regarding impervious surface within
the City of Prior Lake. That's there business to know that.
. You have a good cause of action against the landscaper and the architect. Again,
I do not know the nature of your agreements with them but seems to me you'll
find grounds.
. I believe it would be a good time to corral your architect and landscaper get them
in front of the City Planning department for openers and figure this out to your
best interest. They owe that to you.
. Support the staffs recommendation. I do not think we can do anything else. I
support their position.
Ringstad:
. Not to be redundant in some of the last comments, however in my 6 years on the
Planning Commission, I honestly don't think we have gone beyond 30%
impervious surface. It's been very sacred.
. When you (the applicant) are asking for equal application, although it may not
feel good, it is equal application. There have been several others in the past who
have been in the same situation and had to make corrections.
. We have always felt a two car garage was very warranted in Minnesota. We've
issued variances to accommodate that. This isn't a garage, it is a driveway
modification for a third stall garage.
. Support staff recommendations.
Fleming:
. This is difficult and without being redundant will support the motion adopting the
driveway Resolution.
. Cmmot in good faith support the impervious surface request.
. (Speaking to the applicant) Strongly urge you to retain the best legal counsel
attorney you can to make sure your property interests are protected. You report
your investment is in excess of$38,000. Make sure whatever portion of that
amount is recouped.
. I would also like to reiterate to staff that we have the ability to identify this
particular landscape and architect who performed the work at Mr. Hines'
residence that we keep them in our files and flag it for future reference.
Lemke:
. I too am troubled, this is a very uncomfortable.
. It appears the applicant made a good faith effort to improve his property.
. Prior Lake's 30% impervious surface is above the State average. The DNR would
like to see us at 25%. The only time in the 7 years I have been on the
Commission, we may have gone over 30% was when a lot was so small it barely
fit a small house and garage with a driveway. That would not be a 3,000 square
foot house with a 3 car garage.
. Support staff and fellow Commissioners - the 6 foot driveway variance is
warranted but just barely. I cannot support the impervious surface change from
the 30%.
L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MTNUTES\MNOI 1408.doc
10
Planning Commission Meeting
January 14, 2008
MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, APPROVING RESOLUTION
08-02PC APPROVING A 6 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 24 FOOT
MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY WIDTH ALLOWED IN THE R-l DISTRICT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY PEREZ, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, APPROVING RESOLUTION
08-03PC DENYING A 4.9% VARIANCE FROM THE 30% MAXIMUM
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ALLOWED IN THE R-l DISTRICT.
V ote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Lemke explained the 5 day appeal process.
Hines felt out the 6 foot variance will put him over the 30% impervious surface and
without the impervious surface variance approved he would not be able to continue.
Matzke explained the driveway Resolution with the conditions of removal of other
impervious surface to maintain the 30%. The variance is approved based on that
condition.
6.
Old Business:
None
7.
New Business:
None
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
Reminder of the joint City Council-Plalming Commission workshop on Monday,
February 4, at 4:30 p.m. in the Parkview Room. An agenda will be sent out.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\08 FILES\08 PLANNING COMMISSION\08 PC MINUTES\MNOI1408.doc
11
ASBU/lJ' SUlWSr PRSPARS.D FOR:
PH/L HINES
2719 SPRfHC lAKK ROA.o SlY
PRIOR lAKE. KH $$372
~~, Valley Surveying
~ I Phon. (952) 447-2570
\J ~::n:::veycrs Fox (952) 447-2571
Co., P.A.
SlJit~ 2JO
16670 Franklin Troll S.E.
Prior Laktt, Mjnntt~otQ 55372
EXISTING SITE DA TA
Existing Property Area = 12,812 sq. ft.
(to elevation 912.8)
Existing Dwelling/porch = 2.945 sq. ft.
Existing Boathouse .... 217 sq. ft.
Exist/ng Concrefe DriVtJwoy = 572 sq. ft.
Existing Paver Areas '= 620 sq. ft.
Existing Concr(ft~ Slab :<2 120 sq, ft.
B
CO~#~ - - -- _ _ _
r ..-f'OA..? #0 - - - _
,;, .?.,? r.sp..-f'/#r - ~ - -_
- "" M.;fL
- ~ :;r ..-f'OA..?
,."., V
Existing Impervious Surfoce
Coverog" - 4.474 sq. ft. (34.9X)
Maximum coverage allowed 3.844 sq. ft. (JOX)
---
-,
------
~
~
--- :,
-----.. "
""~"'--~~:~:-
.9/0, Ii
.: A
<f'".1'
I
!
/~
B'~.'/
."--<.~
, -~
~-,'-----..
,,~'--
-,
:/
\~'':
.s
0&/0
.5"/0.5'
LEGAL DESCRIPnON AS PROVIDED:
LSCS/v.f}
GJ~ ASH TREE (O/A.)
8 BIRCH TREE (OIA.)
8" BOXWJER TREE (OIA.)
0~ MAPLE TREE (OIA)
~'" Sfflt/CE TREE (HGT.)
~ ROCK WALL
--- FENCE
C2d CONCRETE SURFACE
~ BRICK PAtre"R SURFACE'
Thtl westttrly an" Half of Lot J,. and Leu 4,' and thll Eostttrly On. HoIf of Lot 5. all in 8Iock 46.
and a strip of lond btltWHfl saki Lob ,'nd Jylng southerly th~f and thtl waters ttdge 01 Spring
Lok~. in Spring LaQ Townsite. Q(;CorrJin" to th" plat thl1rflof on fiJ. and of r(ICord in lh. Offi~ of
th" R~/strar olOHds In and for sold ~;cott County. Mlnntlsoto. including any port Dr pDrtfon of
any strtt"t or Of/Ill' Q/)utting said prttmig"s vocat"d Of' to bfl vtICatfld. Scott County. Uinnllsoto,
Also showing of/ Vlslbl" ImproVfJmfJnts of'd "ncroachmtNIts on to or off from said property if any.
as located tllis 15th dol' of NOv-mlb",-, ,?OO7.
NOTES: 8~chmark Eltlvation 9Ja 18 T.N.H. north~ost.,-/y of th" northtlOst proplN"ty com.r.
so ALE
IN
FEET
I hrMJY c.flrlify that this Asbuilt Suf'Vlly WO'S preporfld
by m. or und.,. my dirKt SlJpNVt~ and that I om
o duly Licfll'lHr.l Land SurVflyot' lIndr th" 1011I$ of th~
_ ~ ~lnn..oto/ ___
~~t2309
Oat"d this ~~ day of ,;..i:~2007
20 0 10 20
~-...~
. DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND
o DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET AND
MARKED BY LICENSE NO. 42309
FILE l'iv, ~ BOOK--2.iQ...
PAGE ...1.:L
CREG C./lJWGS/J05J8-Asblt.DWC
Variance Application
November 30, 2007
NUV
c~ I
:: '-
iOCi7
Phil Hines
2719 Spring Lake Road SW
Prior Lake, MN 55372
DescriDtion of variance reauest:
Driveway:
My single-family residential property is located in the R-1 district on Spring Lake Road.
My lot includes lakeshore on Spring Lake and is in the shoreland overlay district. My
house was built in 2004 and my wife and I have lived there for almost four years. Prior to
building our house in 2004, we lived on this same lot in the previously-existing house for
ten years.
A copy of a survey for my property is attached. My property is unique. As you can see,
my lot does not extend all of the way to Spring Lake Road. The dark black line that cuts
perpendicular !prough my driveway is my actual lot line. Between my lot line and Spring
Lake Road is?,.t.(-#~ feet of open space. This open space is within the Scott County right-
of-way for Spring Lake Road.
My lot is 114 feet deep. Because of the unique situation with the large County right-of-
way, my garage is only 20 feet from the right-of-way line. According to Section
1107.205(6) of the Prior Lake Zoning Code, the width of my driveway may not exceed
24 feet at that right-of-way line.
My garage has three stalls, and I use all of them. Like many property owners in the area, I
use my third garage stall for storing my boat. My boat is 20 feet long, 24 feet long with
the trailer. Because the code states my driveway may only be 24 feet wide, my driveway
flares from 24 feet wide to 32 feet wide in this short distance. That flare, though, is not
helpful when trying to maneuver my boat and trailer into this third stall. Even the average
sized car or truck would have difficulty. I am forced to drive on the grass, causing
damage and unsightly wear and tear on the lawn. This damage diminishes the appearance
of my property and the entire neighborhood when grass does not grow back and rains
create mud and puddles.
Besides the fact that I have a short driveway, my driveway is also located on an incline.
The slope of my driveway is approximately three feet from the garage to the road.
I am sure you can appreciate the difficulty I have had trying to park my boat in this
sharply angled area and on an incline.
Added to all of this is the drop-off located along the side of my driveway. On the side of
my driveway opposite of the third garage stall, the land drops away at a slope of 2 V2 feet
in a span of 10 feet. If a car is parked on this side of the driveway, and a passenger
attempts to exist from the passenger-side door, the passenger must step down the slope
and is put in a precarious position.
Many property owners can accommodate these conditions by flaring their driveways
from 24 feet wide at the street to a wider expanse at the garage doors. But because I only
have 20 feet of driveway to work with before I hit the right-of-way line, I cannot modify
my driveway like most property owners can.
In 2007 I consulted with Outdoor Environments regarding possible improvements to my
property. We discussed how I could improve the appearance and function of my
driveway. I did not want to drive on my lawn to park in my third garage stall, yet I didn't
want to simply cement over an area of my land (like so many of my neighbors have
chosen).
I selected a paving brick and the contractor installed the pavers in herringbone and
basket weave patterns. One section extends from the third stall of my garage door and
runs adjacent to my existing concrete driveway. It is approximately five feet wide. Please
see the survey for a depiction of the work performed. The contractor also built-up the
land along the side of the driveway and installed pavers so as to alleviate the drop-off at
the cement line. Again, please see the survey for a depiction of the work performed.
I was not aware of the 24 foot width restriction for residential driveways. I make this
variance application now after learning of this restriction from City staff and after
receiving an updated and accurate survey for my property. With the pavers, my driveway
at the lot line is approximately 33 feet wide including the walk ways on both sides.
I was already done with all of the work on my property when I was approached by City
staff. The only work being done at that time was within the County's right-of-way. I was
told by City Staff that once a code violation occurs the City doesn't force the property
owner to tear out all of the expensive improvements made. I was told that is why my
neighbors haven't been asked to rip out their very large cement slabs (see survey). I hope
the same applies to my property and my exceedingly more attractive and expensive
pavers.
I contacted Scott County regarding any problems with the pavers installed in the large
right-of-way area. On October 2,2007 I received a permit from Scott County, allowing
the pavers in the right-of-way. I do not have any outstanding issues with Scott County.
My neighbors have not complained about the width of my driveway. I invested just over
$38,000.00 dollars in the project and I have received many compliments on the
appearance of my home. I am happy with how it looks and functions. My driveway is
consistent with the appearance of the neighborhood and in keeping with the character of
development. The pavers are attractive and do not diminish property values.
Please consider the exceptional topography of my lot and the unique and extraordinary
condition of my lot line and short, steep driveway. Without this driveway variance my lot
will be unduly burdened by topography and lot restrictions beyond my control. I know
this because I was burdened with that narrow driveway for almost four years.
Impervious:
My single-family residential property is located in the R-1 district on Spring Lake Road.
My lot includes lakeshore on Spring Lake and is in the shoreland overlay district. My
house was built in 2004 and my wife and I have lived in this house for almost four years.
Prior to building this house, we lived in the house that used to be located on this lot for
ten years.
A copy of a survey for my property is attached. My property is unique. As stated in my
application for a driveway variance, my front lot line is unusually close to my garage. My
lot does not extend all of the way to Spring Lake Road. Between my lot line and Spring
Lake Road is1ilt#) feet of open space. This open space is within the Scott County right-
of-way for Spring Lake Road. My lot is 114 feet deep. Because of the unique situation
with the large County right-of-way, my garage is only 20 feet from the right-of-way line.
According to Prior Lake City Code, my driveway may not exceed 24 feet in width
without a variance. My concrete driveway is 24 feet wide at the right-of-way line and
then flares out to meet the third stall of my garage. Whereas most property owners can
start with a 24 foot wide driveway at the right-of-way line and then flare out their
driveway over the course of 30-40 feet to meet the third garage stall, I only have 20 feet
to work with. Any boat, trailer, car or truck to be parked in the third stall must negotiate a
difficult turn and even then the lawn is almost always damaged by a vehicle traversing
off of the cemented area.
Add to this the steep slope of my driveway. The slope of my driveway is 3 feet from my
garage to the road. And along the side of my driveway (the side opposite the third stall)
my property drops away 2.5 feet to the side lod line.
Because of my uniquely short, narrow driveway, and the topography of my lot, I
consulted with Outdoor Environments regarding possible improvements to my property.
Outdoor Environments is a reputable business and is known for designing and creating
beautiful property improvements. At that time I had a survey for my property. I reviewed
the survey with Outdoor Environments. Outdoor Environments concluded, based upon
that survey, the impervious surface on my lot was just under 30%. I had a 120 square foot
cement slab on the property. If I removed the slab the impervious surface would be
reduced further. Outdoor Environments designed a brick paver addition to each side of
my driveway and a brick paver walkway leading from the driveway to my front door.
With all of these additions, Outdoor Environments concluded the final impervious
surface would be 30% or less. According to Section 1104.306 of the Prior Lake
Subdivision Code, impervious surface in all use districts may not exceed 30% of the lot
area.
I had no reason to doubt the accuracy of that survey. The survey was created by Valley
Surveying Co. in 2004. I relied on the survey in good faith. It was the same survey that I
submitted to the City, and was accepted by the City, when I built my house in 2004.
Outdoor Environments reviewed the survey and the City Code and told me, based upon
the survey, the 30% impervious surface limit of the City Code would be met.
Outdoor Environments represented to me that they would do all of the work for the
project. I did not realize a permit was needed for the project. I did not realize Outdoor
Environments may be wrong to begin work without such a permit. I relied on my
contractor in good faith.
Mter work began on the project I learned that the City may not necessarily agree with
survey I was working off of. I didn't think that my survey was inaccurate, but I ordered
another survey at the insistence of the City. I was surprised to learn that the original
survey was inaccurate. My property actually now has 34.9% impervious surface.
The driveway addition adds approximately 180 square feet of impervious surface. The
unique topography of my lot and the location of the right-of-way, over which I have no
control, create an undue hardship for me and the increased driveway space alleviates that
burden.
The walkway addition to my front door adds approximately 440 square feet of
impervious surface. The walkway skirts the drop off that affects the driveway and adds
safe passage for my wife and me and our guests. My wife and I have some elderly
relatives and we welcome them into our home for family celebrations and events. Before
the pavers were added, the narrow walkway from the driveway to our front stoop had a
12 inch incline. The three foot wide sidewalk, going up this incline, was situated as the
top of the drop off located on this side of our property. At a family event, my elderly aunt
and uncle fell on this sidewalk because of the difficulty negotiating the narrow sidewalk
on the sloped terrain. The pavers now create a wider sidewalk in this area, and I flattened
the terrain and added a step at my stoop so that guests may walk on wide, flat surfaces.
The topography of my lot necessitated this change.
My neighbors have not complained about the width of my driveway or walkways. I
invested $38,000.00 dollars in the project and I have received many compliments on the
appearance of my home. I am happy with how it looks and functions. My driveway and
walkway are consistent with the appearance of the neighborhood and in keeping with the
character of the development. The pavers are attractive and do not diminish property
values.
Please consider the exceptional topography of my lot, the unique and extraordinary
condition of my lot line, and my short, steep driveway. Without this variance my lot will
be unduly burdened by topography and lot restrictions beyond my control.
I selected a _paving brick for this project. In some cities, these pavers are considered
pervious because of their unique qualities. Pavers are unique in that they can be
rearranged. My first request is to be granted a variance. If the City insists that a variance
will not be allowed, I am willing to work with City staff and increase the space between
the pavers or otherwise increase the pervious surface surrounding the pavers. However,
since the pavers are installed in intricate patterns, haphazard removal will affect the
design and appearance of the entire property. City staff represented to me that a directive
from the planning commission is preferred before undertaking such actions.
Th a"n, k,y~~,~ for; r~PYim, e.
,', /. - :~/V
... ' - --------.
(:;r {/ ,~., " , .
Phillip Hines
@
'"
t
~
Jeff Matzke
Frolt1:
sent:
To:
Subject:
Janell MJ13!13cfr [.JanE~ILMiersch@dnr,state.mn.us]
Friday, Decemher 21; 20.07 9:.04 AM '
Jeff Matzke
,,'[)!\I~~~y6'mmellt Qh Variance request for 2719 Spring Lake Road SW
Dear Jeff,
'J.'hEl Department of N';3:1;ur~l Re$Qul;"ces hasrE;yie!4ed the information received on December 12,
2007 tel.ative to the variance reguest for impervious su:r;'face in eXCesS pf'.)O% lot
co.verage.
Witl::!: resp~ct to the varia-neEl' we did not see any hardship tQaJ,low the ;;lclqi.,tJqnal 4.9
PetCel1t Qver the 30 percent im:pe;l:"vJ',pus CQveraige plloweq ipl::l:i;~. ciJrrent, Pt.i.6r ,~~Ke
ShorelandOrainance 1104,3.06. Ble.ase note, that the..Minnesota standard for im~ervious
su:r:f:cicgqqve:ca(;lE! of lots "must not exceed 25 percent of thj:! lot area", SQ E:r:i;or lra](;e is
already ijrpove: the recommended imperviousecoverage.~' Tha.t being said, we would ;reCionunehti.
this variancereque,st pe denied. Fp.i;'l;;b~rrnore,we ;recommend that;, , the propert1( at 2719
Spring Lake ROcl.d, ~W should be at or below the 30% ?impervious cove:r;"ageallOlo/ed by th~ €ii.:ty
of Prior Lake.
Thank you for the opport:;tlnit,Y to. comment on this variaI;lCe request. If Yc)1.l; l)ave any
gj:.Ji!stions or comments regardln;g qur recoJnl.llenaatton" PJ..eq,~:e contact me.
$i.n:QgrelY,
Ja;tie:l1 Miersch
Jan~l,l ~~l;)r$ch, South Metro Area Hydrologist Metro.' DNR Wat.~:s; l~OQ Warner Rg $t.. 1;I.<1u1, ~N
$5106
J:)ireQt:;fjSl-~$~"':J776
M~in metrp Waters~ 651-259-5845
Fax:6S1=71Z...1977
I
1
- Ensin~~rins Solutions for an ljnstahk Wodd-
\.!,'cke'Y Engineering e" Consulting, LLC
14441 Village Woods Drive. Eden Prairie, MN 55347
Phone: 952-465-8272 Fax: 952-426-1971
WNW. vickeryeng.com
Water Retention Basin Calculations - Hines Residence
2719 Spring Lake Road SW
Prior Lake, Minnesota
Project VEC OS-OIl
Assumptions:
1. 'Water retention basin" area must contain all water from the rain event until it can
seep into the underlying soils.
2. The rain event consists of a 24 hour rainfall of 3 inches.
3. Areas 1 through 3 are used to catch runoff for the 3 areas paved with pavers.
4. All of the contributing area (paver surface) sheds water to the catch basin area,
and none of tbe water enters the soils from between the paver joints.
5. The catch basin will be constructed with 57-stone wrapped in a filter fabric which
allows water to enter the catch basin but not soil.
6. The 57-stone has a void ratio of 40%, or 0.4.
Paver Runoff Catch Basin Calculations - Area 1
Contributing area = \4 of a 30' radius circle = 1t 1/4::: 3.1415 * 30 * 30/4 = 707 sf
Storage area = ~ of a circular arc with an inside radius of 30' and an outside radius of 35'
= (3.1415 * 35 * 35/4) -707 = %2 -707 = 255 sf
From ICPI Publication "Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavements", page 21, Figure
24, NRCS Chart for finding runoff depth for various curve numbers. a 3" 24-hour rainfall
will produce a runoff depth of 3".
Therefore, the volume of water required to contain from Area 1 is 707*.25 = 177 cu. ft.
The storage area consists of an area of 255 sf. A volume of 177 cu. ft. is required.
The depth required, using 57-Stone is: D = (177/255) / 0.4 = .694/ .4 = 1.73 ft. = 20.8"
Paver Runoff Catcb Basin Calculations - Area 2
Contributing area = 53' * 3.33' == 176.5 sf
Storage area = (12' * 15.5') - (6' * 5') = 186 - 30 = 156 sf
From ICPI Publication "Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavements", page 21, Figure
24, NRCS Chart for finding runoff depth for various curve numbers, a 3" 24-hour rainfall
will produce a runoff depth of 3".
- Enginc~ring Solutions for an Unstable World-
V'ickery Engineering 5> Consu/tin~ LLC
14441 Village Woods Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55347
Phone: 952-465-8272 Fax: 952-426-1971
www.vickeryeng.com
Therefore, the volume of water required to contain from Area 1 is 176.5*.25 ;;; 45 cu. ft.
The storage area consists of an area of 156 sf. A volume of 45 cf is required.
The depth required, using 57-Stone is: D;;; (45/156) /0.4 = .288/ .4 = .72 ft. = 8.7"
Paver Runoff Catch Basin Calculations - Area 3
Contributing area = 60' * 12' = 720 sf
Storage area = (22' * 13') - (8' * 5') = 286 - 40 = 246 sf
From ICPI Publication "Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavements", page 21, Figure
24, NRCS Chart for fmding runoff depth for various curve numbers, a 3" 24-hour rainfall
will produce a runoff depth of 3".
Therefore, the volume of water required to contain from Area 1 is 720* .25 = 180 cu. ft
The storage area consists of an area of 246 sf. A volume of 180 cf is required.
The depth required, using 57-Stone is: D = (180/246) / 0.4 = .731/.4 = 1.83 ft. = 22"
Please refer to the cross-section (attached) for additional details on catch basin
construction. Please note the cross-section is for the largest depth. The smaller depth
catch basin should use the same techniques for construction.
I hereby certify that this plan, specification,
or report was prepared under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly Registered
Professional Engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
Ronald W. Vickery, PE
President & CEO
Registration Number: 24065
February 4, 2008
Vicker.9 Engineering & Consulting, LLC hereby certify that this plan, specifications, or report was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered
Professional En . d the laws of te of . esota.
144-+1 Village Woods Drive
Eden frairie, MN 55,47
phone: 952-+65-8272
tax: 952-426-1971
vicker!:Jen 51 neering@comcast.net
Ronald
2/4/08
Vickery, PE
Reg. No.: 24065
Dote:
I:) 2.007 Vicker!:! E.ngineering /iY Con.ulling. LLC
VEC Project No: VEC 08-011
Description: DETAIL FOR BASIN CONSTRUCTION
Date: 2/4/08
BELOW-GRADE WATER RETENTION BASINS
HINES RESIDENCE, 2719 SPRING LAKE ROAD SW
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA
1
::.'. :,-;:', , 6' MI ,e".';:.;..:,
}';r, "''':'-;..;,' - - -- - --1-- -- - -j.;',:'.,':',
a"' .":- .-~'.~'" :'l-~,"" "'. ~
:'~.:,/);,/.~' ).,.:t: ~'-~.:' :,~.~~~.
'.:.~'. ':. '. ' 22' MIN '.,.;.i...:,:.:,..:...;.:<,..':..,;,...,.:,..,..
. ~.;..~.~r;~"~'f:_
1,;;"h~,11;;:~~'l1):i:;jfrc:::i?:~~@fJi:,~:;'
STEP I: EXCAVATE TO REQUIRED DEPTH, ALLOWING AN
ADDITIONAL 6 INCHES FOR PLACEMENT OF MULCH,
DECORATIVE ROCK, ETC...
LIGHTWEIGHT
FILTER FABRIC
STEP 2: LINE THE EXCAVATION WITH A LIGHTWEIGHT
FILTER FABRIC AND FILL WITH ASTM 57-STONE. USE
ONE PIECE OF FILTER FABRIC FOR THE EXCAVATION
AND PLACING OVER THE TOP OF THE 57-STONE, WITH
AN OVERLAP OF 6-INCHES.
MULCH OR
DECORATIVE
ROCK
STEP 3: PLACE MULCH OR DECORATIVE ROCK OVER
THE FILTER FABRIC-WRAPPED 57-STONE.
::J
:;:J
. ,)
N
\
..
\
) \\it
\ <t\
I !,,,.
~
D P-
I 0
0
'^ fl
"-J '-...)
\ <-\
J~
-<:1.
:l:J .6) 1
8-3
.;r:,)
::.-
Cl
:7
\Sl
::>-
r:1
P
\
~ \!l 7
.:l. "> i:Z
" ..{ ~
'" \\l ~
d),~Q.-
nEJ>
II \ \
c-l
~\\l
- '"
Si
J.J
DATE: February 15, 2008
TO: Jane Kansier, Planning Director
FROM: Larry Poppler, Asst. City Engineer
cc: Steve Albrecht, Public Works Director/City Engineer
RE: Hines Variance
The City Council must focus their discussion on hardship for the Hines Variance. The
water retention basin is not part of the City Ordinance to mitigate impervious surface. If
an Ordinance were created it must detail allowable BMPs, specify the storm event that
must be mitigated, be approved by the DNR, and must include a monitoring and
maintenance plan. This will add addition City staff time for design review, monitoring
and maintenance inspection. A simple variance request could be become much more
complicated by this approach.
If the City Council does allow water volume mitigation for addressing impervious surface
in this case, I do have the following concerns regarding the engineering report submitted
by Mr. Hines.
Response to the Vickery Engineering Design:
1. Two of the three wet basins are proposed at the end of the driveway near CR 12 in
County right of way. These two wet basins will likely be wiped out by CR 12
construction in 2010.
2. The wet basin design does not show how water will recede once it enters the wet
basin. The design shows impermeable filter fabric. Even if the filter fabric were
permeable, the design does not show the infiltration characteristics of the soil in this area.
In short the water has no where to go.
3. If the applicant is attempting to address volume control for the new impervious,
the volume control BMP should provide volume for 0.5" of runoff rather than 0.25".
However, if an ordinance were proposed, the ordinance should include the volume
control requirements.
4. The design should also include the area of the wet basin, especially since the
water has no outlet. Therefore this basin will add impervious surface.
L:\08 FILES\08 APPEALS\Hines Variance\Eng Mitigation Review 021508.DOC
5. Since the rock for the wet basin is wrapped with impermeable filter fabric, it will
not allow water to enter the basin.
I In short the design submitted will not function to reduce water volume for the impervious
surface and will ultimately add to the issue.
I Other things to consider:
In the past the DNR has not recognized permeable pavers as an acceptable mitigation of
impervious surface. They have stated a number of reasons for this position. A volume
control feature such as this acts the same as permeable pavers and will likely not be
acceptable to the DNR.
Allowing Mr. Hines to provide volume mitigation for addressing impervious surface
would potentially mean many other applicants would be allowed to do the same. The
City stafftime to review these types of applications should be considered before the City
Council makes the decision to allow this approach.
2