HomeMy WebLinkAbout8A Appeal of Variance for 14354 Watersedge Trail O � PRIp
F� �
v � 4646 Dakota Street SE
Prior Lake. MN 55372
�tNNES��
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: MAY 28, 2013
AGENDA #: 8A
PREPARED BY: JEFF MATZKE, PLANNER
PRESENTED BY: JEFF MATZKE
PUBLIC HEARING: YES
AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO
APPROVE VARIANCES FROM THE MINIMUM LAKESHORE STRUCTURE
SETBACK, MINIMUM FRONT YARD, MINIMUM SUM OF THE SIDE YARD
SETBACKS, MINIMUM BUILDING SEPARATION, MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE, AND MINIMUM LOT AREA FOR A PROPERTY IN THE R-1 (LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT AT 14354 WATERSEDGE
TRAIL
DISCUSSION: Introduction
Robert Miller has appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to approve
variances for a property located at 14354 Watersedge Trail NE. The property is
located along the northeastern shores of Lower Prior Lake, west of Trunk
Highway 13, south of Rutgers Street. The site is currently vacant. The follow-
ing variances were approved by the Planning Commission:
• A 15 foot variance from the required minimum 20 foot front yard set-
back using the average front yard setbacks of the adjacent proper-
ties (Section 1102.405 (5))
• A 9. 8% variance from the 30 % maximum impervious surface re-
quirement for a residential property in the Shoreland District (Section
1104.306 & Section 1104.902 (1))
• A 13.3 foot variance from the required minimum 50 foot structure
setback from the Ordinary High Water (OHVI� elevation of Prior
Lake using the average /ake setbacks of adjacent properties (Sec-
tion 1104.308).
• A 3.4 foot variance from the minimum 15 foot separation between all
structures on the nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot. (Sec-
tion 1101.502 (7)).
• A 2.1 foot variance from the minimum 15 foot sum of the side yard
requirement (section 1101.502 (7))
• An 1, 830 square foot variance from the minimum 7, 500 square foot
lot area required for development of a nonconforming lot of record
(Section 1104.902 (1))
Histo
On April 1, 2012 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the
variance requests. At the meeting various comments were raised by both
members of the public and the Planning Commission. The Planning Commis-
sion voted to continue discussion of the item and directed the variance appli-
cant (Jason Miskowic) to provide additional information and plan alternations
regarding the following:
• Consider increasing the side yard setback width to allow for increased
storm water drainage areas and a possible reduction of impervious sur-
face
• Provide a cross-section drawing that displays elevations of the proposed
house in comparison to adjacent properties.
• Provide clarification regarding the deed of property along the lakeshore
On April 29, 2013 the Planning Commission continued discussion of the vari-
ances. Mr. Miskowic provided a revised floor plan of the house (see attach-
ment) which indicated a 2 foot reduction in width of 37 feet rather than the orig-
inal 39 foot width design. Mr. Miskowic had not yet revised the survey to reflect
this design change; however, the change would result in an increased side set-
back along the west property line from the original proposed 5.3 feet to 7.3 feet.
Mr. Miskowic also indicated he had closed the purchase of the lot since the
April 1 S ` public hearing meeting, indicating his level of commitment to the pro-
ject, and was still working with his builder to complete the revised survey and
cross section as requested.
Also, Mr. Miskowic completed a title review of the waterfront area in search of
any deed along the lakeshore and found no encumbrances regarding lakeshore
access ownership. Upon further investigation City Staff also determined this
issue to not have bearing on the specific variance requests at hand regardless
of the legal ownership determination.
At the meeting, the City Engineer presented a cross section sketch to explain
the method by which storm water drainage is typically addressed on narrow
lakeshore properties.
After further discussion (see attached minutes) the Planning Commission ap-
proved the variances as presented with the added condition that Mr. Miskowic
revises the survey to indicate a 7.3 foot side yard setback along the west prop-
erty line (this survey has since been revised accordingly and submitted to the
City).
On Monday, May 6, 2013 the City received an application from Robert Miller to
appeal the variances approval decision of the Planning Commission to the City
Council (see attached appeal letter).
Current Circumstances
The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential), and is guided R-LD (Ur-
ban Low Density) on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
Mr. Miskowic proposes to construct a new 2-story home and attached 2-car
garage onsite with a 1,948 sq. ft. footprint. The lot is low in elevation in com-
parison to the waters of Prior Lake; therefore it is not possible to add a base-
ment to the property. Mr. Miskowic proposes to raise the grade of a portion of
the property to allow the lowest floor of the proposed house to be at or above
2
an elevation of 909.9 as is required by the Floodplain Ordinance. Small retain-
ing walls will be constructed along the side property lines to allow the grade to
be elevated above the floodplain elevation of Prior Lake.
The property is 50 feet in width and 5,670 square feet in total area above the
high water mark of Prior Lake (904.0 elevation) thereby making the property a
nonconforming lot by width and area standards. Mr. Miskowic proposes a
house that is 37 feet in width at its maximum but will remain over 5 feet from
both side property lines. Also, Mr. Miskowic proposes to place the house 15
feet from the front property line and 36.7 feet from the high water mark of Prior
Lake. All of these setbacks have similarities that are within character of the
neighborhood as can be identified on the adjacent surveyed lots. The current
City Ordinance requires a maximum of 30% impervious surface per property;
the proposed impervious surface indicated for the lot is 39.8% of the total lot
area. A review of existing impervious surface amounts for other nearby proper-
ties within this neighborhood indicate estimated totals ranging from 31 %-42%
impervious surface per lot (see attached information).
While the Shoreland Ordinance does dictate a lot to be a minimum of 7,500 sq.
ft. in size and 50 feet in width for development of the property into a single fami-
ly dwelling, this property has been valued and assessed as a buildable lot for
single family dwelling purposes for many years. The result of denying a single
family dwelling use upon the property could result as a legal taking from the
property.
ISSUES: This project includes a request for six variances. 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) There are practical difficulties in complying with the strict terms of
the Ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with
the granting of a Variance, means the property owner proposes to
use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the
Zoning Ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not
constitute practical difficulties.
It appears practical difficulties exist for the applicant in this case. This
residential property has some unique characteristics including the narrow
and small size of the property. The allowed buildable area of the proper-
ty which could be utilized without approval of variances from the lake,
front, and side yard setbacks, and impervious surface maximum is ap-
proximately 875 square feet with an impervious surface area of 1,700 sq
ft. It does not appear practical to construct a reasonable lake home with-
in these limitations.
(2) The granting of the Variance is in harmony with the general
purposes and intent of the City Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances
and the Comprehensive Plan.
Two purposes of the Zoning Ordinance are to "promote the most appro-
priate and orderly development of the residential, business, industrial, pub-
lic land and public areas" and "enhance the aesthetic character and ap-
3
pearance of the City." The approval of the variances as requested would
allow the applicant to construct a reasonable residential lake home plan
on the site in an orderly fashion within the confines of the center of the
property.
(3) The granting of the Variance is necessary to permit the reasonable
use of the property involved.
The variances are necessary to use the property in a reasonable man-
ner. The 1,948 sq. ft. proposed footprint for the structure is a reasona-
ble-sized lake home given the size, shape, and lot constraints of the
property.
(4) The practical difficulty is due to circumstances unique to the
property not resulting from actions of the owners of the property
and is not a mere convenience to the property owner and applicant.
The practical difficulty does exist due to circumstances unique to the
property. This residential property has unique characteristics including a
small and narrow nonconforming lot area in which to construct a lake
home and a low elevation which would not allow a basement.
(5) The granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of
the neighborhood or be detrimental to the health and safety of the
public welfare.
The granting of the variances will not alter the existing character of the
neighborhood. As visible on the submitted survey, the proposed house is
within line of the adjacent houses on either side and has similar setbacks
and lot conditions.
(6) The granting of the Variance will not result in allowing any use of
the property that is not permitted in the zoning district where the
subject property is located.
A single family residential dwelling is an allowed use within the R-1 (Low
Density Residential) Zoning District.
(7) The granting of the Variance is necessary to alleviate an inadequate
access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.
The granting of the variances will not be necessary to alleviate any hard-
ships of the inability to use solar energy systems.
Conclusion:
City Staff believes the variances requested are warranted due to the lot con-
straints unique to the property and practical difficulties as stated above in the
findings. As of this date the applicant has not yet revised the survey plan, there-
fore the Planning Commission attached the condition that Mr. Miskowic revises
the survey to indicate a 7.3 foot side yard setback along the west property line.
City Staff has recently received an updated survey (attached) reflecting the set-
4
back change to 7.3 feet from the west property line. City Staff and the Planning
Commission would recommend approval of the variances as presented subject
to the following conditions:
• This resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of
adoption. Proof of recording, along with the acknowledged City Assent
Form, shall be submitted to the Community & Economic Development
Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
ALTERNATIVES: 1. Uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the variances.
The attached resolution is consistent with this action and incorporates find-
ings of fact supporting the proposed action to be taken.
2. Overturn the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the variances.
In this case, the City Council should direct staff to prepare a resolution with
findings of fact denying the requested variances for consideration at the
next City Council meeting.
3. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
RECOMMENDED City Staff recommends Alternatives #1.
MOTIONS:
EXHIBITS: 1. Resolution 13-XX
2. Location Map
3. Letter,of Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision
4. Resolution 13-04PC
5. April 1, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
6. April 29, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
7. Revised Survey received 5-22-13
8. Ori inal Survey received 3-21-13
9. Revised Conceptual Floor Plans
10. Ori inal Conceptual Floor Plans
11. Neighborhood zoning information estimates
5
O4 PRip
ti
v � 4646 Dakota Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
�
RESOLUTION 13-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DECISION TO GRANT APPROVAL OF VARIANCES FROM THE MINIMUM
LAKESHORE STRUCTURE SETBACK, MINIMUM FRONT YARD, MINIMUM SUM OF THE SIDE
YARD SEBTACKS, MINIMUM BUILDING SEPARATION, MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, AND
MINIMUM LOT AREA FOR A PROPERTY IN THE R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING
DISTRICT
MOTION BY: SECOND BY:
WHEREAS, S Wold Construction Inc., on behalf of the property owner, Jason Miskowic, is requesting
variances from the minimum lake setback, minimum front yard setback, minimum sum of the
side yard setbacks, minimum building separation, minimum lot area, and maximum impervious
surface at the following location, to wit;
14354 Watersedge Trail NE, Prior Lake, MN 55372
Lot 14 BOUDIN'S MANOR, SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
(PID 25-119-010-0)
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment, reviewed the application for
variances as contained in Case #DEV2013-1008, held a public hearing thereon April 1, 2013,
and continued their discussion of the item on April 29, 2013; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission concluded the variances were consistent with the criteria set forth
in Section 1108.406 of the Zoning Ordinance, and approved the variances subject to
conditions; and
WHEREAS, Robert Miller, a property owner within 350 feet of the affected property, appealed the decision
of the Planning Commission to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the
information contained in Case #DEV2013-1008, and held a hearing thereon on May 28, 2013.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, that:
1. The above recitals are fully incorporated herein as set forth above.
2. The City Council finds that the requested variances are 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 approve the variances subject to conditions.
4. The City Council makes the following findings:
Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 / www.cityofpriorlake.com
a) The decision of the Planning Commission was properly and timely appealed in accordance with Section
1108.409 of the City Code.
b) The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information
contained in Case #DEV2013-1008, and heltl a hearing thereon on May 28, 2013.
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 variances on
the Comprehensive Plan
d) The City Council finds that practical difficulties exist for the property owner in this case. This residential
property has some unique characteristics including the narrow and small size of the property. The allowed
buildable area of the property which could be utilized without approval of variances from the lake, front, and
side yard setbacks, and impervious surface maximum is approximately 875 square feet with an impervious
surface area of 1,700 sq ft. It is not practical to construct a reasonable lake home within these limitations.
e) Two purposes of the Zoning Ordinance are to "promote the most appropriate and orderly development of the
residential, business, industrial, public land and public areas" and "enhance the aesthetic character and
appearance of the City." The approval of the variances as requested would allow the applicant to construct
a reasonable residential lake home plan on the site in an orderly fashion within the confines of the center of
the property.
fl The variances are necessary to use the property in a reasonable manner. The 1,948 sq. ft. proposed
footprint for the structure is a reasonable-sized lake home given the size, shape, and lot constraints of the
property and 875 square feet is not a reasonable area for constructing a lake home.
g) The practical difficulty does exist due to circumstances unique to the property. This residential property has
unique characteristics including a small and narrow nonconforming lot area in which to construct a lake
home and a low elevation which would not allow a basement.
h) The granting of the variances will not alter the existing character of the neighborhood. As visible on the
submitted survey, the proposed house is within line of the adjacent houses on either sitle and has similar
setbacks and lot conditions.
i) A single family residential dwelling is an allowed use within the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning
District.
2. The contents of Planning Case #DEV2013-1008 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record
and the record of decision for this case.
3. Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby approves the following variances:
a) A 15 foot variance from the required minimum 20 foot front yard setback using fhe average front yard
setbacks of the adjacenf properties (Section 1102.405 (5))
b) A 9.8% variance from the 30% maximum impervious surface requirement for a residential property in the
Shoreland District (Section 1104.306 & Section 1104.902 (1))
c) A 13.3 foot variance from fhe required minimum 50 foot structure setback from the Ordinary High Water
(OHIM elevation of Prior Lake using the average lake setbacks of adjacent properties (Secfion 1104.308J.
d) A 3.4 foot variance from the minimum 15 foot separation befween all sfructures on the nonconforming lot
and on the adjoining lot. (Section 1101.502 (7)).
e) A 2.1 foot variance from the minimum 15 foot sum of the side yard requirement (section 1101.502 (7))
t� An 1,830 square foot variance from fhe minimum 7,500 square foot lof area required for development of a
nonconforming lot of record (Section 1104.902 (1))
2
4. The variance are hereby approved subject to the following to the following conditions:
a) This resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of adoption. Proof of recording, along with the
acknowledged City Assent Form, shall be submitted to the Community & Economic Development Department prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
5. The variances are hereby approved on property legally described as follows:
Lot 14 BOUDIN'S MANOR, SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
(PID 25-119-010-0).
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 28� DAY OF MAY, 2013.
YES NO
Hedber Hedber
Keene Keene
McGuire McGuire
Morton Morton
Souku Souku
Frank Boyles, City Manager
3
Johnson Variance
_ _ --- - � �
El9 � ��—�1'�'�� ° '��� s � ������,��� � s
� a .. '� �.,�3 x 4 .�°..
Q ��� ° SUBJECT � `� �•"� p � � �;t � ���ti
°° _, PROPERTY -��, �_.��.� ; ��,� � �;, �
�
o �._�— �_ = -., � . .,
r vr i `
_ G :. _ �� �
Q a ,= � , : ,� � w ����.�'����r�
° < c _ _
` _. _� �< i.
-�" Lower Prior Lake _ , • � �� � +�"�'
n �,- � l�
_ �{ ��� ,
_._.
/` /�".___._... C� . � . r .
/ ,� y ,�'
/' J, _ / (� �-� � � �� � . � ° e �+ `a .�:
� .
/ . • � r ,_
/� � � •, :
_._. � (....---��� ` C=/' .�� .,� �'^ g , �s �
, . , .. t
__ _ _ ���
t% _l, 7 �a.. '`�C�...� � ,� ' � �
� � , � � � � � �� � �,,, �
� , � Q�BS � 8�(e -. � � '�.. `� �°� �� � �
�,1� . '�`:' .��;.._` � tt ;t ...L.. �` � * �, �" � � �' ,� ,� i � !r '
. ,-
, ,.
..
' � p �
`� �9
�ei � �: , . .b
� , ��,�'.:. � � � .. ... � �t t
.
� � _ �
. !
}
.<
.
, . , �^ � t . R t � E . � �� `
�
� � ',� � # `� . . �� � � # � e +
`,� . � � " . � ��"..+�' . � )' a �` x � d,
a - � � + �
��; � � a _ �. `� -�
�� 3�,� '� a �� '� � - �: � ' � „'� �.
.c �� � , �� `� � * � (,� ��r � � �' i • - �'� ",�' ,` .
. ,
:
�i �� � "�� `I 4° � � �#� �g�. � ; ���i .
.
A � w , r: y
�� ����'� � *�� �� ' �� 2 S' � �"' � t � ,,,,�...� + y � F k t � { .
� �'�� {y=���*q.e �)� �,�. � �� 5;. 9 e��P ;'g�' . .
{ �{{{
,jg } ' � � . � `. � � A 1`� t t p� �kr ,� �"��. .
. � �' ` � . � ��� �'� ' � � � .
� ._ y' " .. . . �` . . .
� r '+ ,� 1 '2 ] t�+. x �.9 ' . .� � � .
y ,R + Y �k �
� � . � � p � �,.�{;� - � . . .. = � �€ Y l
' r r#� a 4V"
�� � � £t �;Au, dc .' 3 � ( � s P .
`���: ��A � � f} �}���.i�� .��.,°. . � � ". = «} � . -
� , � . � � .�-.-��`N�� � ��� ��€° �,.,` � , ,<�
� `
� �J'}�T�E� 1�, � i.1 � �� ' r �' � ; � �. _ ��,�,,
a7'� {^�� A
S � 1 'R �'�€ j� .� �f� f � t4' �
� 1. § �� r �� I i '� � � �'� � � � � • � � . i� . �
-5.- ' - � ' . '� � . � + . .
; ,� �� �1�� � , � ��. � �� ,�.;� r.
:
.�
�
� � � �
w , � P � .
� ` ,. ��' �� t,; '� � � '• � 3 � "
.
� ,. �
� � - � � � ' �� g* ` � r �
� r - ..u._ � � < <
. � •� t. '� � y,�; �� ���
�*; , . 1 � �� • � t .. I jp 5� � � `? �� . � ' � k �.
f� �.�� � . � � • 1 � l.� tt` 1�� r '� . . . y �4-�.
� � �.i f t
. �
� ,�
� 1 . n � �,{ j � c � , r t �' ���" _ - �'t� �'
r� "� ' �3€ � r . . � ,=�
�' i ',� t � �. �. .} ,, � � €� . �� : , '\ `�
, '�
. t " 1 � �; � .�,� ��.� } �� � �
7 } � t g ' � R �T: �`7 �� ��f��"�� �
�, �,�� �s J� }. '��- w
� .��.. x +�� �� ��.
__ o ,�,3—� > �
,,
.
� �., � �. � . ,s , , .
� �
� ., � . ?� �, � �
��. � '_ �_ {�� �
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
N
0 45 90 1b0
Feel
May 06, 2013
To : Prior Lake Planning Commission/Dan Rogness & Prior (ake City Council:
This an appeal regarding the variances granted April 29, 2013 to the applicants #or the Johnson property
on Watersedge Trail N.E.
I attended the April 29, 2013 Planning Commission meeting regarding the lohnson property. The
neighbors are not opposed to a home being constructed on this lot of record. However, the decisions
made regarding variances are disturbing.
1. The commission granted a 39% impervious surface variance exceeding the City ordinance by 99'0.
This is a small lot in the flood plain with small homes on either side built around 1960 when
there were no regulations regarding set-bacfcs , construction elevations from the high water
mark or impervious surface regulations.
2. Two side lot variances were granted put#ing the new home closer to the Burnham structures
than the ordinance allows. This is troubling. The proposed home is too large for the prope�ty in
my opinion and will not fit into ihe neighborhood as echoed by Commission member Jeff Phelan
who voted against the variances. He said he looked at the property. Did any other Commission
memhers look at the property before their vote?
3. In speaking with the builder and appficant at the April 1, 2013 variance request meeting, the
builder, Mr. Wold said he followed city staff guidelines as to what design Staff thought could be
approved for variances by the Planning Commission. I don't believe the City Staff shoutd be
encouraging a design before it gets to the P{anning Commission.
4. The retaining walEs and swales to control water flow from the roof and ground water seem filce �i
an inadequate solution in my opinion. Excess wa#er will probably end up in the Burnham
basement and Prior Lake. The larger impervious surface ordinance is to prevent run-off and
pollution of the lake.
5. The builder and applicant were supposed to provide the Commission with additional
information and diagrams/survey by April 29, 2013 and did not comply. The applicant stated he
did not know when these would be avaitable.
6. Larry Poppler, City Engineer presented a hand-drawn picture of the proposed structure in
relation to the existing homes and how water may currently drain from the abutting lots of the
existing homes onto the iot in question. This was not to scale as noted by Larry on the drawing.
This is a ridiculous document that provides no factual infor►nation and yet seemed to sway some
Commission members. A survey with elevations wauld be needed to show how the water drains
from the other two lots. A resident would not be allowed ta submit a hand-drawn document for
approval of a variance or building permit.
7. . I understand that lot size is not considered a hardship for variances. The applicant, builder and
City of Prior lake need to show some responsibility for the neighbors, the property and the iake.
i
�
8. Witl these Commission Variances set a precedent and (ead to future Iitigatlon by applicants who
may be turneci down in the future?
9. Why heve ordinances if you are not going to enforce them7
Thank you for your consideration o# this appeal in this matter.
Robert Miller
14359 Watersedge Trail NE
Prior Eake, MN 55372
(952) 445-4108 Home
{612) 889-4769 Cell
ti
t,/ "'C d!� /
C
O
oa �
W
O m v O
O m ° rn
0
N mm
N � a O
� � a Z
t �
uo m
am �
O m
Z ot
U mp C
W �L�N �
� o�Y
a „ �d
�
9 Z O
� � .�-O� J
�c_ r � `o ¢
u_�� �_ I �L T � 0
zT � � m a
1 L� , Yo� a
` J � J
' W T O pl W
r �n 1� m«t cn
�n � t" « cn
o�F � � � 1 W O I (�� � _ =`o E �
m �'
w � � _ '� .
` l � LL ' ' ,i�Y s�l�'� _ ' o � � � �r
4 � c � � Q
� �� � o - Y� ��. ° � 4�..- ^ s ' 1 �d� -
3 � ?-� ' �r, " �'ni / ��'�''— =.'�� 33.9 K a,�s �4
� ' � q y / ti
� �� l� G� �J � d
Y 40 �� f r�;'.: 11. 7 � r " �' O
w K u ,t`n 4' mw io _ G; " r ! �� O �
S � w �' . � ;� c % \. I 37.9_ � o ���� � N
U �� ���'��� m j " � 'Z .�0 0 � 8.�� Q , u c C .il \�� �l
�^ I� c�[ 3 . O_ 6, � 1
� 1� � �, � — N l� 96� o > �-° � `� y
W Y � 5c �. �o \� ,1 �u"' °' o ~ � � � � „'
� -u � O�d' \ ��' � 1 � �O � 4.�p � °' 7 -' �`� � j N
vJ O G- � G° D� Q a O � 'a °� oG
H- �� �; \ ; o "�'� C � X °� g ` " "3 \'� �..,> a�
Z � � _ Ts �
3 ���.
W � ° o � � .0 s �?,, � , 6 � ��_3
� 0 , � ti52.00 � � e`"' \
W � W ` � ,.�
°� °- — � � m
U 7 b� , 5.1 �� N� s o r m \ '� i'a\ 4�� x �� �' �
Q 'y sW°'„ x 117. 0 r �� 'x i� ����$ 6
J � � � , ° _ ,-. ,s,.rrr-� _ m � � �_ � �
a �� N2 °; - '�, � � � 3 , e �
G• � t
W ;; ,� 4 � w I C
.�
� ���� ��" � o �=y� w
_ �3°�. � 6� e" �-� I �= W
. O � yx � � I � �
= u I ,I J W�
jo
� Q I � Q �a�� —� Z 5
W � � " � ��? � °
� Q
� LL;� s. � _
� ��
O V G, ��' 17 O Ll
^ X =
ii s � O
O ;U �Il K
K �
� �
a c� m
00
N N
� - �
� N N
O �!1 N
� �O
0 � N N
� � �s ��
d �
a N
w �
n �
� r LL Z � 9 E m g
W W N W � F � f� � 7
Z O � li Q W � � O� � Q . 1
O U K QO J m 2li Z< F� .'�� � �
� a W r-. o 0 0 �
Q a N o zQ a� �zw �� Q ? } z Q , > �.
r� N Q 4. N CW' W� � Z Z � �� ' �— V� j� �
. w I p N W> m N7 F O W O � Z O UiN �
10 W V a H L. ] O y N (J U� a� U K n
� I S 2 ZN N � O� � � � W W� W,i� ui
z a n � ¢ °� s � = N¢ ,r n �Q Z �� c� §
W N � o a '�" `�� °wa ° a ¢ � oz� Z °;_ .�i�
�'� x � z 3 W ¢� ° ? �oo w a m� a � � �� �
O: W mN N� O LL O K N VI K � R� � ZN �
L`" �= w w F y '"' 3 a °� g ''' �¢ � v j o N.� O ¢� -' z V
��U F � W �� o °mv° �W� �N¢�N �S� II'� ¢Z �f o� Zm
�/ Z Q W Z y�j Z � � Q N (�.� � p v�i��N II ff v W d � � � NQ c�a � �
Q O w 3 Y a �� vi o=oF omNO a s �' N fn U�i zZ�
� U' J Q 1� � f W O
W� ° I g �' �� � yt'? �o�z �°zQ�a � �� � N o `v��
�' � W o W �i 9 Z��p Q�¢K �� o �(i$ �� �"� {yW 5
a� � y c � a � zF � m a� rn w a a o w� W a� �� o�¢� .`, Z��
o N<go Y � � awmo � 3 5��o V � p U� OC7�
o � w =�ry ¢ I o�o� aN��� as N.J JmU1�7d ¢ZV�
� c� z � � o ��-c a �¢ � W �3
° a m a w �� � a z� p �°� a �8
��
�
�' �
n �� �
� Z� ¢
gg¢ �
- -88
I $�: � ;
f=� .
� ��;
� €�i � �
I
. 9^ `....�'�� J —.... _ ._.. ..
�— — � � � '
I � �_a
I
I F N �__ ��
� —1 � �� � �
I 1 � 1 � �� o j ��!; —i �
' � � Y i ^I �n __ i g �3
`� � �mu'S� (-1 I ► f _ v b °z �
W 30 i i� • �� �� / 3ae �
s }6 �
� - � q 6 � � � 7 ^+ \� " .
� s � .�'o °•'4 09.� r ��� � ��
� � „% � � 9.0� \ \1 `
� � � 10.� �� ` ,y q.� ': � I 3�.9 A,eE p �19.
y � $ . v.l� o � l $• � C V O
� Q � - ` N I .� ^� ` O \��T�� . ..
i - � d 1�
� f1 w 11� �W „ � \ �' 1 �` l � �(' `� 7
L/� t p � s 'cx a�� � � I �i \tf'1 j <ao �poaa)x � n �\� j�
J �- w f �,�. Q� ; � � o � � > , �, � N
� a � � 1 �� 18 � \� � �a� �
W u� �x ���. _�--� �-. �-.. �" �o ���, Q=
� � � 1— � �,� � ---- �� �° � � �- \� ,�_J °. J€o S 6. � �� 3
. �
` r � 1 � , 32. �� $
�1 05 �- Qp $ t) 09.8) m �y't �`
� � \ 10 \?� zo. .e)x � � o tl � � \ 4
� is.o x oa6 — _ \ 6 � _ o �}
� � y m \� 41. � \
Y .� VH�� 7.� 0 � r �S � a o
oj�) �e S ��
�, � , 1 a 4� ' � I � -- ` -
O �� 0. � `� (� � �°
I
� • � ,..� I I � � F �--1
� as �___— I ' �o II P
;��; � � I � � �
,y�-`�,..; � ,t o � � G. — — � �
'-`y�a'�k=,:; . � u'S � 1 �� � ,.
i�� I -- ��
`s, -."
i
p. . 4 .
. ' � . . ap . . . � � 1
� `#e � �� "I
. � �� g . e�� �� , . - .. . � . . .
� ��� �a� s�� a � . �� • �� �
_ � ������� ffi � ��� g.� ? �� . �� � i. j
_ �� ���a��� i�� ��g� ��'a� ��� .. � �. a ��
g �_ '��� ��8 � ��3 %� b a g �a�e
nN ��� ��� 5�@� ��Sm� 5�3 � 5�� .; _ €g ' ° a
4F � � �, `�'g . .
` � ��� �� ��� � � �—
• ��� ��� ���� w Q
� r�� �� � _ t "� � �
I , � _ � ��
��� _ �� -
i� ��� :. °� ..,, >, ;
� � .� .
' .__ . _ �
i = _�� ` ��°� � �� � � : � .
,
. � �i M, ., ��g
y i .,�
�8� -
� --------------- . .. .
" i E .............
� tt iT__ • � :
� � i �
� � � � � i �x � N �� �� � ��
¢ � � �— -- � � ��� � a
4 ' �_________� � � � 2 �
I 1 I I � � �
� a
; � ��� ; ; ��� � g� i� � g
4 i I � i � �� � � � �
_ � > �
� � � i < �� �r g g t � t �
� r -_ " �� �0 � — � ff$ g! a � �
� 3 �S
. O
» �. ` .. M � ,�� O
.. J
�
� -
.. § W
_Y M .,, � (I�
--- _ _ _ — —_ �� _ _
----�.. . i e-i ..ac.... / i i i � � � .e.mw w � `
• � r�sn i I�I I I I 1 I � g � p /
� �� __ - E �€ � �� � � W
• ,�/ ws � � i �
w � 1 ig �
❑ � II �
� u��. II
' VK= ..,
� A � € . .. . _... . . .. . . ... . ..
vrmpm�a
: � ��� �� � �`
� R �
d r '_______
1 �� � S
' & ---------- ---------- ;
--- ----- I .
g----- � �
�� � '
_ � �� e ' � �
�, � �
R g �� � � i � �
e �; � • �� z) I � O
_ — 1 � t � IL
ppp J
.; � '
' a�� k �Z a �_"'__" e Z
I � --- --- � �
e
- �
- x4
� �
� � � �
n '���d� , — m��� — , �
� ��� � � �
E FEB 2 S 2013 ' �
� �
� , �
� �
� �
'---------------------'
� � $ wczevaiae
� � � � �
� s�ssF.
� �nRwns _
xo�
- - � O � Y �
se wr te �
0
z-mo �
� "� i
§� x t � i� PMliR'( Y � �
0 t uf�.� i �
- s�vs
� az
� O � �
xi.etm� ,� pTGBr �
� � gj I' � �1 p � A
II
� II f
� � � II . flNf�H/L
€ � 11 �T
F g g �AT � �% I I� ��i
w aY
" II
II
II
� Q � II
X � II � f
� F �791QML
� �� � � �
d9VL1a
gD ]fi�
{q 4P T-2 fiM � '
I f� ��'a ��. � � Rd S4 9EEf
9 YRFO'
�Q
�5
pnvau
xa
ew ex e�r ra ar aa�
p � � �5 � d � ---- '�°° � � 'm' �
� � „� �
FEB 2 � 2013 '� �
�n e�n �
sy
� � ' �, t �,, �
� ' �
� � � t � �+ �
= � 0 �
_ � � �
Q A �
O
? --_= t LM7fC( T 3
§ i � i � 4 0
. � § � �
n �
r--ir--i - �
I D p N I � I
L_ I
� �� � �
a A4 AP I T4 1
� I �
� _______________
� �YIF 1.97�
� O O 119 4 PRO.ECf
Y � 4
1�
I
�I B
I
� ��� t �
' B ae�im m �
� nt�auro
i �
i
i �
i
1 P.
� ow � �u. � �
am �mo
/87.E
I ��Z ��'S $F. � 4O SO 47 F7 �%'
9EEf
µ l4'M M �
�5
ORIG�NAL FLOOR PLANS
i
0 4 Pnlp�,
tY � � 4646 Dakota Street SE
P�•ior Lake, MN 55372
`�INNfiso�
RESOLUTION 13-04PC
APPROVAL OF VARIAfVCES FROM THE MINIMUM LAKESHORE STRUCTURE SETBACK,
MINIMUM FRONT YARD, MINIMUM SUM OF THE SIDE YARD SEBTACKS, MItVIMUM BUILDING
SEPARA'TIOfV, MAXfMUM 1MPERVIOUS SURFACE, AND MINIMUM LOT AREA FOR A PROPERTY
IN THE R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.) ZONING DISTRIC7
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FlNDINGS
1. S Wold Construction Inc. is requesting variances from the minimum lake setback, minimum front
yard setback, minimum sum of the side yard setbacks, minimum building separation, minimum lot ',
area, and maximum impervious surFace at fhe fallowing location, to wit;
14354 Watersedge Trail NE, Prior Lake, MN 55372
Lot 94 BOUDIN'S MANOR, SCOTT C�UNTY, MINNESOTA
(PID 25-119-01Q-0)
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case #DEV-
2013-'l008 and held a hearing thereon on April 'E, 2013.
_.._. .
3. The Board of Adjus#ment continued their discussion of the variances on April 29, 2013.
4. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health,
safety, and weffare of the commun9ty, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air,
cianger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in fhe surrounding area and the
effecf of the proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan.
5. If appears practical difficuities exist for the applicant in this case. This residential property has
some unique characteristics including the narrow and small size of the proparty. The allowed
buildable area of the praperty which could be utilized without approval of variances from the lake,
front, and side yard setbacks, and impervious surface maximum is approximate{y 875 square feet
with an impervious surface area of 1,700 sq ft. It does not appear practical to canstruct a
reasonable lake home within these limitations.
6. Two purpases of the Zoning Ordinance are to "promote the most appropriate and orderly
develapment of the residentia(, business, industrial, public land and pubfic areas" and "enhance the
aesfhetic charac#er and appearance of the City. The approval of the variances as requested would
„
allow fhe applicant to construc# a reasonable residential lake home plan on the site in an orderly
fashion within the confines of the center of the property.
Plione 952.447.9800 / Pa� 952.A47.4245 / ����ti��+�.cityofpriorlat:e.com
7. The variances are necessary to use the property in a reasonabEe manner. The 1,948 sq. ft.
proposed footprint for the structure is a reasonable-sized lake home given t�e size, shape, and lot
constraints of the property.
8. The practical difficulfy does exist due to circumstances unique to fhe property. This residentia!
property has unique characteristics including a small and narrow nonconforming lot area in which to
construct a lake home and a low elevatRon which would not allow a basement.
9. The granting of the variances will not alter tt�e existing character of the neighborhood. As visible on
the submitted survey, the proposed house is within line of the adjacent houses on either side and
has similar setbacks and lof conditions.
10. A single family residential �welling is an allowed use within the R-1 (Low Density Residential)
Zoning District.
11. The granting of the variances will not be necessary #o alleviate any hardships of the inability to use
solar energy systeins.
12. The contents of Planning Case #DEV2093-1008 are hereby entered into and made a part of the
public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSiON
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves the fo[lowing
variances:
• A 95 foot variance from fhe required minimum 20 foot iront yard sef6ack using the average
fronf yard setbacks of the adjacenf properties {Secfion 9102.405 (5)) �
• A 9.8% variance from fhe 30% maximum impervious surface requiremenf for a residential I�
property in fhe Shoreland District {Section � 104.306 & Section 9 904.902 (9})
• A 13.3 foof variance from the required minimum 50 foot strucfure setback from the Ordinary
High Water (OHV1� elevation of Prior Lake using fhe average /ake setbacks of adjacenf
properties (Secfian 1904.308).
• A 3.4 foof varlance from the minimum 95 foot separafion between all sfructures on fhe
nonconforming lot and on fhe adjoining lot. (Section 1101.502 (7)).
• A 2.9 foot variance from the minimum 95 foot sum of fhe side yard requirement (section
9909.5Q2 (7)}
� An 9,830 squars foot variance from fhe minimum 7,500 square foof lot area required for
development of a nonconforming lot of record (Section 1104.902 (1))
Tl�e variance is subject to the following conditions:
1. The survey must be revised to indicate a 7.3 foot side yard setback afong fhe west prope�ty line.
2. This resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 6� days of adoption. Proof of
recording, along with the acEcnowledged City Assent Form, shall be submitted to the Planning
Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Adopted by the Board of Adjusfinent on April 29, 2093.
�
f � a ommission Chair
�� ' �
Dan Rogness, Co ify & Econamic Development Director
I
€
PRIOR L.AKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, April 1, 2013
1. Calf to Order:
Acting Chairman Roszak called the April 1, 20'!3 Pianning Commission meeting to order at
6:00 p.m. Those presen# were Commissioners Hite, Roszak, B[ahnik, Planner Jeff Matzke,
Public Works Director Katy Gehler, and Community Development Assistant Peter Aldritt.
Z, Approval of Agenda:
MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO APPROVE THE APRIL 1, 2013 MEETING
AGENDA AS PRESENTED.
VOTE: Ayes, Blahnik, Roszak and Hite. The Motion carried.
3. Consider Approval of March 18, 2013 Meeting Minutes:
MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY HITE T4 APPR4VE THE MARCH 18, 20'f3
MEETING MINUTES.
VOTE: Ayes, Hite, Blahnik, and Roszak. The Motion carried.
4. Public Hearings: '
A. DEV-2013-9008 14354 Watersedge Trai! Variance. Sco#t Wold, on behalf of
Robert Johnson, is requesting variances from the minimum impervious surface requirement
and lot setbacks on Prior Lake. The property is located on the narth end of Lower Prior Lake
along Watersedge Trail.
Planner Matzke presented that S. Wo[d Construction Inc., on behalf of the owner, is
requesting variances from the minimum lalce setback, minimum front yard setback, minimum
sum of the side yard setbacks, minimum building separation, minimum !ot area, and maximum
impervious surface on property located at 14354 Watersedge Trail NE. The site is currently
vacant. The homeowner plans to build a residential home, hence the need for the variances.
The exact var[ances that are needed include: (1) a 15 foot variance from the required
minimum 20 foot front yard setback using fhe average front yard setbacks of the adjacent
properties; (2) a 10.5% variance from the 30% maximum impervious surface requirement for a
residential property in the Shoreland District; (3) a'i3.3 foot variance from the required
minimum 50 foot structure setback from the Ordinary High Water {OHW) elevation of Prior
Lake using the average lake setbacks of adjacent properties; (4) a 3.4 foot variance fram the
minimum '15 foot separation befirveen a11 structures on the nonconforming lot and on the
adjoining lot; (5) a 4.4 foot variance from the minimum 15 foof sum of the side yard
raquirement; and (6} a't,830 square foot variance from the minimum 7,500 square foot lot area i
required for development of a nonconforming lot of record. There would no# be a lower level to �
this hause because it is located in #he fload plain. The house will need to be built above #he
910' regulatory flood protection elevation.
1 �
I
�
Commissioner Questions: ,
Blahnik asked whether the two adjacenf homes are built below the flood protection elevation?
Planner Matzke responded yes; the flood plain regulations did not come into effect until the
late 1984s.
Blahnik asked about the approximate impervious surface of the adjacent properties.
Planner Matzke responded that he did not know the neighboring properties' impervious
surtace; however, the aerial photo shows that they appear to look similar to what the proposed
development will be on the applicant's property.
Blahnik asked for a reason why the praposed house is proposed to be closer to fhe street?
Planner Matrke respanded that the applicant can answer that question better, but part of that
is to match the other homes in the neigh�orhood and keep it further from the lake.
Roszak asked whether the proposed 3.5 foot wall will be 3.5 feet taller than the neighbors'
property on both sides?
Planner Matzke res�onded yes because of the flood plain regulation.
Blahnik asked whether raising this home's elevation will create any drainage issues on the
neighboring properties?
Planner Matzke responded that through the building permit review process, the drainage is
reviewed and approved; the arrows on the survey show the drainage flowing to swales along
the property and being directed to the lake and the street.
Roszak asked about the proposed building height in comparison to neighboring homes.
Planner Matzke responded that this home is proposed to be two-story; the neighboring
properties are single level rambfer styles.
Hite expressed concern about having all the drainage go to the lake and the potential creation
of drainage problems for the neighboring properties.
Planner Matzke responded that they try to create drainage swales to direct water to the front
and back of the lot. The front half of the property is usually pitched ta ga to the street, and the
back of the lot is directed to the lake.
Roszak asked about recent storm sewer projects in this area and where that water is directed.
Planner Matzke responded that fhere was a recent city project for this area; the sform water is
directed to ponds andlor rain gardens, treated and then drained to the lake.
2
MOTION BY ROSZAK, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO OPEN THE PUBLlC HEARING AT 6:56
PM.
VOTE: Ayes, Hite, Blahnik, and, Roszak. The mationed carr'ted.
ApplicantlContractor S. Wold �9457 State Hwy 10 Ramsey MN) discussed the drainage and
requested variances. The drainage wiil be directed by swales to the iake and street. The
re#aining walls will not be encroaching over the lot lines.
Blahnik asked why the house be moved closer to the street?
Applicant Wold responded that the house was pushed further from the lake to a setback that
conforms with ofher properties in the area.
Blahnik asked about the finished square footage of the hause.
Applicant responded that there is about 1,310 square feet for the house and 646 square feet '�
for the garage.
Hite asked about construction of the retaining walls to allow for drainage.
Applicant Wold responded that they wiil be keystone with a rock base and gravel behind to
drain along the wall.
Hite asked how close wiEl the retaining walls be placed to the neighboring praperties?
Ap�ficant Wold responded that it wil( be consfructed a few inches within the property line.
Hite asked whether there is any vegetation on the neighboring properties that could be
impaired by the construction of the walls?
Applicant Wold responded fhat they wiil do everything possible not to impact vegetation along '
fhe property lines, but that rnay not be avoidable.
Hite asked whether mitigating the drainage from entering the lake is possible considering the
amounf of impervious surface?
Applicant Wafd responded that the sail wiil be sloped to encourage permeation on the
property before it sheet drains to the lake or street; grading will also help contain the water on
the property to be absorbed as much as p�ssibls.
Hite asked if fhe applicant had a cut/profile sheet af the slopes and the retaining walls?
Applicant Wold responded no, not but the survey does show elevations.
Hite asked whether a cu�/prafile she�t could be provided?
3 �
i
�
Appticant Wold responded that it would be easier to show other properties in the area that �
have done similar grading with retaining walls. !
Hite asked if the applicant had been working with the city engineer on the grading and
drainage plan?
Appficant Wold responded yes; he has been woricing with staff through the entire process.
Roszak asked whether the refaining wafls will be constructed without going on the neighbor's
property?
Applicant Wold responded that a smafl back hoe will be used with access fo the site through
the center of the lot; the work will be done from the inside out.
Cherry Burnhaman, 14360 Watersedge Trail stated she is concerned about the drainage of
the property, the increased drainage to the lake. The area is low and any additional runoff
needs to be handled very carefully. �
Maric Danes spoke on behalf of Betfy Burnham on lot 'f 5 the adjacent lot. He was concerned
wi#h the drainage. The neighboring property has a basement and currently has water issues.
The height of the proposed house was also a concern.
Kay Minnich,14390 Watersedge Trail stated she has a lot about the same size as the
applicant. They built a new home recently and the foot print was able to fit on the lot without
variances. A 1,900 square foot house is not a modest house in her mind. The house foot print
should be sized down fo fit on the lot.
Ike Iverson, '14329 Rutgers St. stated the waterfrant is for the association of Boudins Mannor.
Other homes in the area have been rebuilt larger, but combined on two lots to have more area.
Bev Lundgren, 14325 Rutgers St. stated she buift a home across from the proposed lot. The
proposed home is #oo large for the lot, and it will negatively affect the neighborhood.
Annette Thompson, '14349 Watersedge Trail sta�ed she wanted to build a cement patio for a
hot tub but was not allowed for impervious reasons. She asked whether the requested
impervious surface variance is 40 percent?
Roszak responded that it is a 10.5 percent variance for the impervious surFace.
Blahnik asked Thompson i# she knows her iot's impervious surface percentag�?
Thompson responded no.
Bob Miller, 94359 Watersedge Trail stated that the majority of the homes in that area were
buitt in the 1950s, and most probably have a fowest floor elevation of 906 or 905 feet. There
have always been water issues in the neighborhood. It is an old neighborhood that has a!ot of
issues. When something new is to be built, it should conform with the rules in place. The
4
i
regulatians are �here to protect the area and fhe lake. A more reasonable house should be
built to better fit within the requirements.
Linda Burnham, 14306 Watersedge Trail. Stated her concerns of impervious surface, the
aesthetics of the neighborhood, and that the home will be buiit from the street to the lake.
There are three trees that are along the property that will likely be affected.
Earl Drangstveit, 14279 Rutgers asked abaut current standard setbacks for the lot.
Planner Matzke responded that a normal lot re�{uires 10 fee# for the sides, 75 feef from the
ordinary high water mark, and 25 feet fram #he street. On a non- conforming lot, the side yards
can total 15 feet as well as setback averaging from the ordinary high water mark up to 50 feet.
Drangstveit asked if there are any fire issues for a house that close to a neighbaring property?
Planner Matzke responded not in this case no, the praposed building meets the fire code.
Drangs#veit stated tha# since 1983, he has fived in the neighborhood and has seen the water
levels be very high. His has concerns about impervious surface, ar�d he stated that the home
owners in Boudins Manor have deeded access to the lake, and the access runs alf the way
afong the shoreline in front of the subject property.
Hite asked if there is an associa#ron for this property and if anyone is presenf that represents �
this group?
Drangstveit responded that there is nat a specific association for that area, but rather, he read �
language from the deed that described the area along the shore.
Roszak asked for further information about the waterfront? '�
Bob Miller responded that it is the waterfronf in front of a!1 the homes on the bay.
Mary Miller stated she is a realtor and that some properties have lots that go out into the lake
and some go to the shoreline. Some lots have a platfed area as pubiic between the property
and the shoreline.
Ehtian stated his concern with the rock wall and the drainage. He was also concerned with the
old #rees along the property because it will be very difficu(t to not damage those trees. He
stated he is a builder, and he has never been aflowed to go over the maximum impervious
surface percentage.
Blahnik asked whaf his impervious surface area is for Lot 'i5, the square footage of h�s house,
and whether he has a basement?
Eh#ain responded that he did not know the impervious area or square footage, and he does
have a basement.
5
�
1
Mike Von Arx, 94346 Rutgers asked if gutters wil! be installed on the home since it is
important to have gutters to keep the runoff on the property.
Judith Paine, 14424 Watersedge Trail sfated she has a 40 foot lot. It is difficuft to clean the
side of the house. Her home is a tight fit on the lot, and she felt that the proposed house would
not fit well an the io#.
MOTION BY ROSZAK SECOND BY BLAHNfK TO CLOSE THE PUBL.IC HEARING AT 7:12
P.M.
VOTE: Ayes, Hite, Blahnik, and, Roszak. The motioned carried.
Commissioner Comments and Questions:
Hite stated she appreciates all the residents coming out and vaicing their opinions. This is a
nan-conforming lot, and it is evaluated different than a conforming lot. It has been assessed
as a buifdable lot. She said it is hard to see change, but it is a buildable lot and at some point
somebody will want to build on it. She felt there was nof enough information to make a
decision tonight. She would like to have staff, specifically the city engineer, answer storm
water concerns. She also would like more informafion on the deed wifh the association as wefl
as a cut/pofile sheet that shows the elevations of the proposed house and retaining walls. Her
recommendation is to table the variance application.
Biahnik stated #haf six variances are numerous for this lot. He is concerned with the side yard
setbacks and the runoff leaving the subject property and going onto the neighbaring property.
He agrees with the front yard setback to increase the rear yard setback to the lake. This hame
does seem consistent with the neighboring properties. His concerns are with the side yard
variances. Blahnik asked if the side yard setback variances were eliminated, would it
eliminate the building to building se#back variance?
Planner Matzke responded that if the building to building was eliminated on the garage side
then in might not be possible to eliminate fhe side yard setback variance.
Blahnik stated he supports all variances but #he side yard variance. Although it is a narrow
lot, he felt it is possible to eliminate the side yard setback.
Roszak stated the variances in general are in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. He has
concerns with impervious surface and where the water will go. He feft he needed more
information and would like to table this to another meeting.
Pfanner Matzke asked commissioners to clearly list the requests for the applicant to bring to
the next meeting.
Hite stated she would like fo see a cut sheet showing the elevations, information about the
deed of the piece of property along the lake, and to have fhe city engineer present to discuss
stormwafer.
Blahnik stated he would like to see a rendering af a reduced house footprint by 4.4 feet to
meet the side yard setback and to reduce impervious surface.
6
MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY HITE TO TABLE THE REQUESTED VARIANCES
TO THE NEXT MEETING WlTH RESPONSES NEEDED T� THE FEEDBACK FROM
COMMISSIONERS.
VOTE: Ayes Blahnik, Hite, Roszak. The motion carried.
Planner Matzke stated the next anticipated planning commission meeting is Aprif 29��'. The
public hearing has been closed so the public will not be notified of the meeting; however, the
agenda will be posted on fhe City's website and in the Prior Lake American prior to the
meeting.
B. DEV-2013-1010 Welcome Avenue Stormwater Pond Variance. The City of Prior Lake is
requesting a variance to allow grading and vegeta#ion removal within a bluff impact zone for
cvnstruction of a storm water pond in the I-1 (General Industrial) Zoning Distric#. The subject
property is focated north of CASH 21 at the end of Welcome Avenue.
Public Works Director Gehler presented information that the city is proposing to construct a
stormwater pond to manage stormwater runoff from the planned Welcome Avenue Industrial
Development. The stormwater pond serves to protect Markley Lake from direct starmwater
runoff and associated water pollution �isks; it is designed ta meet current City design standards
that are protective of surface waters. The s#ormwater pond also incorporates approximately
41 % of the campensatory flood storage volume that the City wil{ create as a result of the
Markley Lake Study. The current City Ordinance prohibits intensive vegetation clearing within
the shore and bluff impact zones on steep slopes: the proposed stormwater pond would result
in intensive vegetation clearing within these regulated areas.
Planner Matzke presented the variance criteria on which variances are evaluated by the
Planning Commission.
Commissioner Questions:
Hite asked how yau measure intensive vegetation ciearing?
Planner Matzke responded that it is somewhat subjact[ve. The city looks at how much
grading will take place with 50% to 75% or more seen to be intensive.
Hite asfced what new grasses that will be planfed to mimic 1937 grasses, and why was 1937
picked?
Director Gehfer responded that starting in 1937, the mining operations began to remove
native grasses and plant life. The goal is #o have the oak savanna look that matches the other
natura[ areas nearby.
Blahnik stated his support; it is necessary to re-grade the pro�erty and native vegetation will
be reinstalfed
Roszak sfated his support; it makes sense fo restore to natural plantings, and it is important
for water quality,
7
I
i
PRIOR LAKE PLANNiNG COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, April 29, 2U13
1. Catl to Order:
Chairman Phe[an called fhe April 29, 2013 Pfanning Commission meeting to order af 6:00 p.m.
Those present were Commissioners Hite, Roszak, Blahni#c, Phelan, Spieler Planner Jeff
Matzke, Engineering and lnspections Director Larry Poppler and Community Development
Assistanf Peter Aldritt.
2. Approval of Agenda:
MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO APPROVE THE APRIL 29, 2013 MEETING
AGENDA AS PRESENTED.
VOTE: Ayes, Blahnik, Phelan, Spieler, Roszak and Hite. The Mo#ion carried.
3. Consider Approval of April 1, 2093 Meeting Minutes:
MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY HITE TO APPROVE THE APR1L 1, 2013 MEETING
MINUTES.
VOTE: Ayes, Hite, Blahnik, and Roszak. The Mofion carried.
4. Public Hearings:
A. EP# 13-103 Markley Lake Woods Variance. Peter Knaeble is requesting a variance
from the minimum lot width requirements for Lots 'i0, 11, 12, Block 1 of the proposed Markley
Lake Woods Pfat.
Planner Matzke Peter Knaeble, owner and developer of the proposed Markley Lake Woods
residential subdivision is requesting variances #rom the required minimum fot width for three
proposed residentiaf lots. The property is iocated on a 23.5 acre site located northeasf of the
intersection of CSAH 21 and Fish Point Road, south of the Cardinaf Ridge residential
development area, east of the proposed Eagle Creek Estates Plat. The variances requested
are Lot 10, Block 1, A 54 foot variance from the required minimum 86 foot lot width for a
property in the R-1, Low Density Residentia[ zoning district Lot 11, Block 1, A 3$ foot variance
fram the required minimum 86 #oot lot width for a property in the R-1, Low Density Residential
Zoning District. Lot 12, Block 9, A 12 foot variance from the required minimum 86 #oot fot width
for a property in the R-1, Low Density Residentiai Zoning District.
Commissioner Questions
None
MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY SPIELER TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:09
PM.
VOTE: Ayes, Hite, Phelan, Spieler, Blahnik, and, Roszak. The motioned carried.
1
I
Appficant Peter Knaeble stafed the portion of the lots where the �uilding pads will be are not
going to be narrow. It is just towards ta street #hat the lots wifl be narrower. This will alfow for
three significant oak trees to be saved. When ffrst working through #he plans, city staff
recommended that the cul-de-sac be shortened to save some trees and decrease impervious
surface.
Commissioner Questions:
None
M�TION BY PHE�AN SECOND BY SPIELER TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:12
P.M.
VOTE: Ayes, Hite, Phelan, Spieler, Blahnik, and Roszak The motioned carried.
Commissioner Comments and Questions:
Phelan stated his support. The design wiEl save some trees. The lots sizes are consistent
with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Spielsr started his support there are advantages to this. It decreases impervious surFace,
saves space and is better for the community.
Roszak stated support for the variance.
Hite s#ated her supporf, granting of the variances is in general harmony af the City's zoning
ordinances. It is good to see the decrease of impervious surface coverage and there is not any
adverse impacts to the adjacent homeawners.
Blahnik stated support of fhe variance. The variances seem large at first glance however
since they are not afFecting the building pad portion of the lot they have [ess of an impact.
There are benefits to allowing the different !ot sizes.
MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY HITE TO APPROVE THE VARIACNE EP# 13-903
�'ROM THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS FOR LOTS 90, 11, '12, BLOCK 1 OF
THE PROPOSED MARKLEY LAKE WOODS PLAT.
VOTE: Ayes Blahnik, Phelan, Spie[er, Hite, Roszak. The mation carried. �
5. Old Business:
A DEV-2013-1008 14354 Watersedge Trail Variance. Scott Wold on behalf of Jason
Miskowic is requesting variances from #he minimum impervious surface requirement and lot
setbacks on Prior Lake. The property is located on the north end ofi Lower Prior Lake off of
Watersedge Traii.
�
Planner Matzke reviewed the requested variances and presented changes that the applicant j
had made to the building plans.
i
2
;
i
I
Director Poppler presented on the drainage of the lot. This type of drainage plan is typical of
these 50 foot Iots. The older lots do not have drainage easements in place. A swale is
created on the property to direct the water forward and aft of the lot.
Commissioner Questions:
Hite asked are the neighboring properties sloped towards the subject property? Could it be
argued that some oF the neighbors drainage is going on to the subjects property?
Engineer Poppler responded yes it does look like the contaurs slope in the direction of the
subjects property.
Hite sfated it is arguably shown that some of the neighbors drainage was going onto the
subject property in her opinion with the new home going up it is #ixing a drainage problem.
Spieler asked what would the foot print look Iike if there not any variances granted.
Planner Matzke responded in the report under the findings of fac# section it identifies an area
of about 875 square feet if all the setbacks are met. if just the impen►ious surface requirement
was met it allows for about 1,700 square foot pad. The applicant is proposing abaut a 1,948
square foot pad. Since it is a smaller lot the percentage is �arger than were as the square
footage is only over by a couple.
Blahnik asked on similar lots of this size, do they have the raised elevafion?
Engineer Poppler responded yes, there have been a number of properties that have had ta
do just what this property is doing.
Blahnik asked does the measured setback take into account the roof overhang?
Planner Matzke responded if does not take into account the eve but #hey are allowed a 6 inch
eve because that is the standard minimum eve.
Blahnik asked what is the maximum?
Planner Matzke responded 6 inches is the maximum in this case because they are within 5
feet of the setback line.
Phelan asked there was a list items from the previous meeting on this topic that was asked #o ;
specifically be discussed tonight. Have these items been addressed. �
Planner Matzke responded the applicant is here he can explain on some of those items. The
cut sheet is what the City Engineer discussed earlier. The deed is more of a private matter. !t
is nof relevant to the variances being requested. We do not have an updated survey af this �
time but the applicant is working on it. It is up to the Planning Commission to decide if the f
information is met and could be approved tonight or needs to be continued on. The Planning
Commission could put conditions on that approval is cont�ngent on the submittal of a survey.
3 f
I
Hite stated the cut sheet provided by the City Engineer did sufficiently shaw the drainage,
elevation and the retaining wall on the fot.
Hite asked what is the timing that a survey could be provided?
Applicant Jason Miskowic responded the plan was to have it by today. !t has been difficult
to get all the necessary people in line. He planned on getting the survey done as soon as
passible.
Commissioner Comments:
Hife stated the subject [ot is an oddly configured kof which in order to build a reasonable house
does require variances. She is in support of the variances being requested. The appficant did
change his plans to ciecrease the side of the home which decreased the impervious surface.
Building on this lot is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan it was intended to be built on
and it does not detrac# from the neighborhood. She conditioned the appraval on getting the
updafed survey showing the changes made to the house size.
Spieler stated this is a unique lot and is very sma11. There are a lot of variances being
requested which is a concern. He did nat want to set a precedent that numerous variances are
always granted. He supports the variances, the applicant revised his plan to shrink his fovt
print per the Planning Commission's reques#s. He supparted the variances on the condition
that a revised survey is submitted.
Roszak stated his support pending the updated survey.
Blahnik stated his support, he appreciates the applicants wiliness to amend his building to fit
better within the standards. The side yards are small and it is tight but this is a small lot and it
does seem to fit within the neighborhood and is in accardance with the Comprehensive Plan.
He stated his support confingent on the survey getting updated.
Phelan stated this is a unique Iot and appreciated the applicant's commentary. Six variances
is a lot and some of them are quite significant #or impervious and square footage. This design
does not seem to fit with the neighborhood and he has serious concerns with drainage and wifl
not be supporting the variance,
MOTION BY HITE SECOND BY BLAHNIK TO APPROVE THE REQUESTED VARIANCES
FROM THE MINIMUM LAKESHORE STRUCTURE SETBACK, MINIMUM FRONT YARD,
M1NIMUM SUM OF THE SIDE YARD SEBTACKS, MINIMUM BUILDING SEPARATION,
MAXIMUM IMPERVI�US SURFACE, AND MINIMUM LOT AREA FOR A PROPERTY IN THE
R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZOMNG DISTRICT.
VOTE: Ayes, Blahnik, Spieler, Hite and Raszak. Nays Phelan. The motion carried 4-1
4
NEIGHBORH04D
ZONING INFORMATION ESTIMATES
14360 Watenee�e
lake Setb�ck: i5.3 feet
Side setbsck: S feet and 7 feet
Front setback:l2 f�et
House 541514ft Garase with driveway 797sqft
Total howse: 2311 sqft
� lot siz� 55b9 sqft
Impervious surface: 41.4 percent
� 1�34� Watersadge
lk sctback: 28 ft
Side setback 5 feet, 7 feet
Front setback 10 feet
House sqft:1506 garage with driveway sq. 788
Total sqfootage: 2294
Lot size: 6196 sqft
Impervious: 3796 �
14342 W�tersedge
lk setback: 27 ft
Side setback: 2ft,18 ft,
Building to bwilding 11.5 ft, 20 ft
Front setback: i ft
House sq k: 834sqft, Garages and Driveway: 1098sqft
Total squarefootsge:1922sqft
lot stze: 5601sqR
Impervious surface: 3496
14359 Watersed�e Trsil
Front setback: 31 h
Rear setback :11 ft
Side setback: 2ft,17ft
Building to building:l2ft, 30ft
House squa�efootage: 2,116sqR, garage and driveway 1,182aqft
Tot�l sqft: 3298sqft
Lot site:10,072sqft
Impervious: 319G
14349 W�tersed`e Trail
Front setback: 26.5ft
Resr setback: 27.5 ft
Side sEtback:l3ft, lOR
Building to Building 11.4 ft
Hous� squarefootage: 1,776sqft Garage and driveway: 2396
Total: sqft 4,172 sqR
Lot size: 9,587 sqft
Impervious Surface: 4296
Scatt County, MN
°"{� ¢ �j /�� �` T � S�t��7�� ''. Yt j ,� t . ��,�,{�,� :� �� ��
� 1 � a � �` .
� � ' � .r . s � � i=29]
- 3 �� ��5 -1_[7.� i i � +�� �.9 ���� '�
'. y `•, � 4 ���{k. g ' - � q . .,� � �' .�. - _��� .'Y
C��� ;r � '� _ ���.��51R ).¢ `�c`i _ f; f ` _ _ . . �
' 1 � � ; s �� j �. �"" . .�� * ; p
a's< ��`' #�. � ', s � � ' � � �,
� �'a���� ,, , ., � i �"�;� ; g
�i�� �.� y� ; -�, � STi1£ . � �� nr. -. ,t ,���"� ��, ,
I:li . �„„J,r� �� ����' ,«�. �' � � a` �.{ x Z Ti 's� � f �i ��e.r. T�.
' ; �T �< � fx 3r�'��� �','? "��
i
� .�- �" � Z= �t''�it � ae �t
'�'� '" � � � - �r�� r �.�' � °i,
,� r� e �#_ . x •,. b •�`yr' 4 t J .: �R:
� �� 1 ` � s�� �._ .�` � t�` « i
t .'�� . ; � `2`c i Y :: ,��:. `R S � ; k .�i
, ,�� � y ' t �( �,' - \ �'{'�y � � 1 � �;y}� 9 �rk � ��..:
� � ',r� `� ( ±q,,"� i � � x . � y '° 4 `a a� +f R._� a 1 175 �,�5
. +
, -
.
, �,� t'` ���`' , � � ' ` �'�''+� , ', �°� � �, � L , `� ; `$ .t7'.' } �i,
� ��. � `; � � � i; „s
� � �
+'� :,� �{+ � s��' �L ��' � � ��� � 4 � r$ � ��:�
�, t n 1 • :):v ; '� a,' V '`�'� +. �`�v.. �,"., t , ♦ d � .. z �
� � �
� 4 � ` '. �` �.' 7 , .� ' �' t '� �+� .� . � lt � k �� , . � � -,.i
r+ . r � . � r � } L �,� ;: � � ` � �� � � i
p j
Fw' I 2 3 i . �,. .. h � .' � �S (4 � � 7U' JG-� . � , " , I.. E
� � � r � _ 'r" � � �� � �y#% Ha � r'S � ---;--�—, '..sy�� ,� :� �� /) r�� .i
. t 7 { '� 1 f � . �,� q / �a
� { ; _ J
�:t� -_. 'i �" t � y o'�t'�€}i ts��"g�� j �__ .. _ '! f E'
Y � ° � _
+ - � �'.= . t ,� � �.:�
z .,' <
�� 1 t' 1 t�� t; c t „ t> �-... N r5 k_ x. ��„ �� � _ � r . 1 .
• � . �, ,., `: ` , .
� .. , .
� . ' a . � r� -- �T �
4 � � . .�� e�r � �` __ �� � b �� � ��r ;,tye-,r—" ° � � �.. °� .
a � � d : , �r-� � i
i� � �— F . . � � �� y �� � �. ! s i �. ,Y � �� � , _
� � � ���' � � ; `�; h " S �4 e� � . f,
. q � ;:} . �° y�� �.- �+ ih" � � � , rc, � �..�'S
= f �� ��� ���.� F�1 4 'e & i: t � 1 J ~� t
'��„�..- - �� x � � �� . r a z �. �s � , ,� ` :�;� ,� ��;
�
l "°s
w � � , � � � �' - � + [ ' � � � � � � >-��
� '° � r � ,� � � � �+ `,� �- r M 4 ' h- I � a V`� -�
'� �y^�. .� �� $ 1 �1� r �F� � �- � # :' �, �"1� > � �"` �1��
�, f��� � i� � ,'�. j $t 2 1 � � :Y` T3 ��1�� t
y ��.� t 4 Y� � y ' . %-
• .,� � n . �'�1 . 1-S ] �t� � � ' i� � _.`� J � � . • � . �i
. - i r' { :� _ • i � { � ry�j� ���¢::�� T" cl t i��L - -i�� 3 .
� � ' F.
f� � '� LL l' � �� J� r .� ���� � 4 X [
� t i1 . 1 � r �� rl�+'� �': � .�f , i'< � � `� �..
�' �� � ��� a 2 �� ���= c �' �� ��� !�� �� �' � � ,' , ;.�' _b� v� f
r� y � r
�.+� ��.�, Y r � <+ i�"
Y� � a.���� ,a f �' � (��, i S , � � ,� : �
{ �Y ii� i � ryv�.€y � � 7 � °'"� �' � -�-"� ' "�`^ 1 \
� �' =7 � � :� z ��g n •
t _l�i'
� � �� �?, �- � �=' j� �
r11� i.
S f � 4
' �
1=J)3
\•
i::12.'
1L:Id
TNSdrmugisneilheralegaGy�ecordadmapnoraturveyand'u�ol Map Seala N
iNendeo to be ufed sf ine. This drexinp ts a compJation ot recorde,
in(orms�on, and dats buted in various uty, caunly, ard state olfices, ind 1 ineh = 7Q fBG�
othar souru: WfeU��g the xea shas•n, snd is lo M usad fw refare�c.a
Aurposes oNy. Scot� Cauny ia ral respo�iWe kr �ny InaccunGe� hercin W E 1 ��'
conta'ned. It OiscrepanGas are Pound, please conlact Ihe Swtt County Map Date �
sww ort�. 5/16/2013 5 ������