Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9B 14354 Watersedge Trail Variance o� P � O �P ti � v � 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 `�IN�SO� CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JUNE 10, 2013 AGENDA #: 9B PREPARED BY: JEFF MATZKE, PLANNER PRESENTED BY: JEFF MATZKE AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION WITH RESPECT TO AN AP- PEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE VARI- ANCES FROM THE MINIMUM LAKESHORE STRUCTURE SETBACK, MINI- MUM FRONT YARD, MINIMUM SUM OF THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS, MIN- IMUM BUILDING SEPARATION, MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, AND MINIMUM LOT AREA FOR A PROPERTY IN THE R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESI- DENTIAL) 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 High- way 13, south of Rutgers Street. The site is currently vacant. The following variances were approved by the Planning Commission: I • A 15 foot variance from the required minimum 20 foot front yard set- I 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 lake setbacks of adjacent properties (Section 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)) Histor 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 applicant (Jason Miskowic) to provide additional information and plan alternations regard- ing 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 origi- nal 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 1St public hearing meeting, indicating his level of commitment to the project, and was still working with his builder to complete the revised survey and cross sec- tion 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). On May 28, 2013 the City Council held a public hearing for the appeal of the variances. After hearing concerns relating to storm water drainage, number of variances requested, and tree impacts, and setbacks, the City Council voted to table the item to a future meeting. The City Council directed Mr. Miskowic to have discussions with City Staff regarding storm water drainage mitigation techniques which could be applied to the property prior to the Council's further consideration of the variance requests to address the proposed 39% impervious surface request. Mr. Miskowic has submitted the attached letter detailing mitigation techniques he plans to incorporate into the lot design. It is the staff's belief that the tech- niques proposed do substantially address the impervious surface variance re- 2 quested. The techniques have therefore been incorporated in the approving resolution. As part of the implementation of a rain garden a maintenance agreement detailing the property owner's obligations is recommended by City Staff to ensure the long term maintenance of the storm water feature. This practice has been more typically applied on commercial properties in the past. 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 compar- ison to the waters of Prior Lake; therefore it is not possible to add a basement to the property. Mr. Miskowic proposes to raise the grade of a portion of the prop- erty to allow the lowest floor of the proposed house to be at or above an eleva- tion of 909.9 as is required by the Floodplain Ordinance. Small retaining walls will be constructed along the side property lines to allow the grade to be elevat- ed 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 3 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, public land and public areas" and "enhance the aesthetic character and appear- ance 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 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 proper- ty. (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. 4 (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- 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 as well as the addi- tional mitigation techniques desired by the city council. 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. Letter from the applicant identifying mitigation actions. 3. Resolution 13-XX 4. Location Map 5. Letter of Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision 6. Revised Survey received 5-22-13 7. Oriqinal Survey received 3-21-13 8. Revised Conceptual Floor Plans 9. Oriqinal Conceptual Floor Plans 10. Resolution 13-04PC 11. April 1, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 12. April 29, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 13. Neighborhood zoning information estimates 5 O � PRIp ti � v �''� 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 'L 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; antl 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 and continued their discussion of the item on June 10, 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 / Faa: 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 held 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 alfowed 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 side 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 fhe 30% maximum impervious surface requirement for a residential property in the Shoreland District (Secfion 1104.306 & Section 1104.902 (1)) c) A 13.3 foot variance from the required minimum 50 foot strucfure setback from the Ordinary High Water (OHI� elevation of Prior Lake using the average lake setbacks of adjacenf properties (Section 1104.308). d) A 3.4 foot variance from the minimum 15 foot separation between all sfructures on the nonconforming lot and on fhe 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)) � An 1,830 square foof variance from the minimum 7,500 square foot lot 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 foliowing conditions: a) This resolution must be recordetl 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. b) All mitigation techniques to address the 39% impervious surface approval identified by the applicant in his 6/5/2013 letter including raising of the garage elevation, gutter systems, drain tiles, and a rain garden are to be completed prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy and maintained to assure operability by the property owner in perpetuity. 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 10th DAY OF JUNE, 2013. YES NO Hedber Hedber Keene Keene McGuire McGuire Morton Morton Souku Souku Frank Boyles, City Manager 3 i ► i � ; I ; 06/04/2013 I � i � Dear City Council Members: � In response to the meeting on 5/28/13 my wife and I have met with the city and are proposing the i following changes as requested bythe council. I i I 1. Raise the elevation to a 912.3 where the driveway meets the garage thus allowing the water to from that point to run towards #he street. 2. Put a high end maintenance free gutter system on the entire home and control where rain water goes off the house. Run all rain water through the gutters to either the front of the home facing the lake or to the bacic of the home facing the road thus keeping all runoff from the house off of the side yards. 3. Put a drain tiles in the swales to further control and maintain where the water goes. 4. Put a 10p square foot rain garden in the front right side of the lot along the street. The rain garden could effectively handle aIl runoff from all impervious house square footage. This will be professionally designed and will look like many other rain gardens in the area. This would comply with water management requirements of Ya" of runoff per all impervious surface. 5. Split the house in half and run the runofF from the right side of the home towards the road and rain garden and run the left side of the house towards the lake. Thanks for your time and consideration, lason and Amanda Miskowic , Johnson Variance � �� �� �� ���t r�, o � �-� d � �� . � �� �� ���,�; \?J � O r � t � �`� r �F � j ['�RSd�'��� �� �+.. � °�� ° SUBJECT � ' � � ��� �� � ��� '��{ �. -a _� PROPERTY �� `-'��. �� � � ° � � � ���'� � . � ` :. � ' � v �r � .� �' � . Q q � r : �\ 4 J �_:? ' " ��.� �� . � Lower Prior Lake . � � -�_ ---� � ��� ��� , � "� a: � �. w ___ . �� f � � `Z�✓� � �. � ��t���� ='a� �_ �, o � T ' h ,, �--•- -- �-. �--� c,,-� j ,��� r, �° � �' _ � _ � � . � �� � � , , ., y " ' � . ; . .. , �-�' � � <s � �� ��' � ` Y , } .. � r , , � , , ates lake ,_ ", i� „' f�` �'. � � ` � � ; � `� � .. �" � ,� �,� � '�� �� . �F . � � ,� , ` � �. �� . r � � � !��,., � ,�q � � � � .,,� . . � .,,„,,;�;�' ��t :� 4 a '� y s . r € � �' �S 6 v� # " } s .a , t' -�*"' � ����.� t � � �� �, � z � � � �� �, �. � �� f � �^" ��� f� ` �,�" P � { r & � 7 � it � ` � t � �, �}� ::�-� �� �.K�� � " a. �. � � s � � ,p"# .}i, _ ' t , " , , �. ���'�' t' . " } . f � � t �`^ " fi a*� . . i. . . �' °� � * , �� �'.� e2 ��, � . ���:. � d{ s' `,! � i e ` �: � ;` � ' ' � � } #,,� z �f' -y � �fr ,� ��. & �;.�� . _ . � � ' �� � � t `i�; 1 Z ° � �, � �' . ', - , ,�. � �.,s"""` : " . . �`�ri' �„ z �`� ' r � � ��` ,� �,".I�' h` ��,,,,," . _ � . �, ro '�3& c � �z _ '�� � : � � . � , � ,� �' �, ; a ' � `:� � t ! .�< u3 , l � • '�q� y t � ` t ' '�'� � -...�...., � . � � '�! � � �. � ,� ' �'+ � ° . �`.f �. ° : ' '"`--- _ , -, ;; r .. {' -r , s �e � +5# : r * ,<m �� �,�.!' .+ � J k .. . 1w .� ;' ,. � Ne � ,... . . -r ���.{�!"''i .: , i i .~ l� ' �1';."3's& ;t .��,. d'. s�.: .. .- „,.. ._,.....�,.a,�„� . � ; c�~"I,.�G�''14 a ' i ,�, �� ���'°��� `� w `' y,'� � �r�'y���� F � '� I � e � ^ :� R �� �. � ;�� � " � }�"''.'''�"'� �r � � t �� ' � . b 1k,.'>! { � o f � f � �� `,� �4 � T ' p{ 3 � � � ID: ' 1 '� �`� i �}� F i ( �� � � { ' Y t 7 ���� �* . � 3 � 3 .� � �+ ��'. s�+�. s . % �. r �, � f� 4 .r ,.�. . � � ` � i . ° �' F �+,.� _ ',' � + $ �� , ��. ,. � �� i � f � . .e. � I, � ���� � � jni ����� � � � x � � � , . . I , r . �� � t � �� � TY � ' �: � � ���� �� � / �f �` i ti'.� �t ���`• !�' E � �"� s ���� ` � �,a� „� � i � �� , ���# ,���� � `,� . � , _ � r.� ��.��°' - 1 ti � a �, �, ��e; �, ,�s ., 1i _,,, s' , � f . {_` ,�` - `r T'� +�#�' ;; ;�3 ' � . � � �' . ;,�'.,� r«�n . ., . ._I � �. . . . ��� .;.. . .___. .__. . �; " SUBJECT PROPERTY N 0 45 90 180 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 for the Johnson property on Watersedge Trail N.E. f attended the April 29, 2013 Planning Commission meeting regarding the lohnson praperty. The neighbors are not opposed to a home being constructed on #his 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 9%. This is a smal) lot in the fiood plain with small homes on either side buil# around 1960 when there were no regulations regarding set-backs , construction elevations from the high water mark or imperviaus surface regulations. 2. Two side lot variances were granted putting the new home closer to the Burnham structures than the ordinance allows. 7his is traubling. The proposed home is too large for the property in my opinion and wil{ not fit into the neighborhood as echoed by Commission member Jeff Phelan who voted against the variances. He said he looked at the property. Did any other Commission members look at the property before their vote? 3. In speaking with the builder and applicant 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 sE�ould be encouraging a design before it gets to the Ptanning Commissian. 4. The retaining walis and swales to control water flow from the roaf and ground water seem like an inadequate solution in my opinion. Excess water will probably end up in the Burnham basement and Prior Lake. The larger imperviaus surface ordinance is to prevent run-off and poliution o�the lalce. 5. The builder and appiicant were supposed to provide the Commission with additional information and diagrams/survey by Apri129, 2013 and did not comply. The applicant stated he did not know when these would be avaifable. 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 lot in question. This was not to scale as noted by Larry on the drawing. This is a ridiculous document that provides no factual information and yet seemed to sway some Commission mernbers. A survey with elevations wauld be needed to show how the water drains from the other two lots. A resident would not be allowed to submit a hand-drawn document #or approval of a variance or building permit. 7. . I understand that lot size is not considered a hardship for variances. The applieant, builder and City of Prior Lake need to show some responsibility for the neighbors, the property and the lake. i � i 8. Will these Commission Variances set a precedent and lead to future litigation by applicants who may be turned down in the future? 9. Why have ordinances if you are not going to enforce them? Thank you for your consideration of this appeai in this matter. Robert Miffer 14359 Watersedge Trail NE Prior lake, MN 55372 (952) 445-4108 Home {612} 889-4769 Cefi ti (,/ "C 6��� C O oa � c O o m rn d: o N mm � � c' O m¢ Z U O d O � y �'' Z p t � C U m m p C W ��N � � � Y � ?�v< a mc � _ Z O y '�-' � � J W � ' - � w + C �r Q �� - I �t T � � tm I � o � _i� � a �° a � ' r Ul �� � T � � � �fl � {'_� m .�'�- (n m�' �—� I wO I 1� i� _ L`oE � w u� �? ': I � C I ' I;' ° z. `. I J, _ �S u_c �'� � r '� u� t9 ��. ' '''' °�:� °,jt .� og� �,'/,,� 30 °'� N �` 1?�y / '� � � 33.9° """6 F� Z � ,., � ` �.r� /o � � : ��. 114a.7 °' �^ � X �l � c �O � �� ' i�"' �9 % ' �oi.� p C w a: 1 � ' -.. ��. c . nr �9 � W u ; �'`� � . N 7ai� � � 1. 37.9 � :f .\, ° � N V q� �' _ J `` ,e � ro � ' `' 2�4.00 � J\ 8.00 O '� o p 6 ��\� p a' o � I O,. �: � � 1 � 6 � O l �� / � y W �1 � N � <' y 0 �� N � ':� � ` �9 3 � � � �� y u� � `r� � o� \ `-�^ ° � j �a' � �t.op ° �_ � �' � ; N � Q- �, �Y�. o � � � � � � � � u� Q o ^, � �. c� � I x o S ` x �3 '' �°` �� r: Z .00 J a -� � \ s � ,�� � � W � Q � __ C s° � X � X 6}` ��3 � oo � � Vc 2.00 ` �' � - o�". � � � � � m. � ` 6: �'\ `� ti� ti� \ � U � � j0 0 0 ° � � � � r� q� ° � ` � . . 15.1 ��.v � � ,m O _ r p x G' ;:- �z Q � �� T 117. r � ��iS .,�� o� \` J � ,� _• r j LL � 'l` OJ � % J `ic, \ �, «� a �c r l;.i'" m o� 6i o= ;0 3` 8 �- � c � �. a� z �-, W ' „� � w I r _ � .� ::..; . s , �' i l � � (` a � �� J � s` I � ' �a+ � � c. w L � O ,,�.._ y"�— W � , � � � 0 � �h � o� _ �— � � Q W ' �, z W � 'sJ• � d o 4 w ¢ O ,. , ';�� 17.1 � � � y ���;�.. p a a x = o �z w p O �U N � /�/ r� � O Y� � a a m m 0 0 N N � i 8 N N V1 N mm pp p� NN w � �� a�� Z ci o N � w � > � N O � K � z � II W W N � �� q O w s p Q� H 6 N K 5 U p 7'j Z r O � li 6 m W � � O� � Q � � p U � 60 � m � Z Q �o 'm� � . � n- w � � o o �- r. H W (7 F- W N U' W � n a N O � N � W � � � Z � � W . Q ? � �} m Z F u W . � � i O N W W m N= F Q W O O Z � � R � = 1p W U Q f. 1� � O N � V! 3 U � LLJa O y�j O �S (� J � N d Z N 7� � K 0 2 '_ S W �1.� � W W Z � z ¢n� ¢°� �� =N 'n oc� Z�� zg �il K Q � li 7 6 r <� 2 W�� o a c' P.Ni� `�.3' � ow� rn a � o�� Z w W9 � � g x � Z 3 w¢ o z �oo w y rn� g�� �`o �+O W O O W v m N V1 � O� � Q 0 N� C � � ZN = W F Y 3 6 �[.�� � jn vN> �.Q O Q� Jg � (n N ¢ g Z = t F i�i = `� N 7 o N Z } z z V Q. W > Gi o o d c� � d o � F- O � i iz w: U O � � U' ~� O m N � W= N 3 1 � N � S F- �� L a Z �� p g Z m � z Q w � �? ° oQ �`'��a r^° oo�' n on�'o U ���o �a .V g Qp w 3 W a w� � N oxoF omNO a aN � O u z}� dY o Yv� g i` ��i? '��>�° m�o�� ��° �� � V�m �=Z � � Vl S �� a � � v' '�' 9 �°�.Z�- uS a z Q a i° o� 0 � Z � o `u � a � Y W�O � N O W � 2 j W O W a W fn � 17 J (js Q � y,� � W � (/j a Y O Y I � � � m j W 01 Q W Q Q Q O W� N U� E O O w i � Z O� o Q � �� j a z � w '�i °o m a �°, � a v � c W ¢ X a � J � m (�!I �� ¢ z V y 25 o z� w � o ¢ o o o'o�o a o< �o °¢ m a w v � s vi z�rn m a �xoa � �� a 'i � . �� � II j= £ � i� 3�� � I 8i� ��t � i I�; � . I . . $, ,....r'.: J . . _ -. -. 4' � � o - I I -� m � w � � _-- I �� L , �� ' i i —_' � I ' � o i '�� �� � � sI � � �m � � nh� � I o I � -- 4 g� `.�- I�mu�� � oi � �" a , g� v� 8 . 30 � i I g� �_ _��x_ _� � sa.s Y r W i ��� � � //'�� � �'' / �% �F �� � �� R6 � / " . � � � �I5A M � u 095) � �08. { �✓ Z / � . (yoe.s � � � a.e� \�., p < � �( 103) j �( 3'/. �� W �. -7 ,�.�� � I � �' N � � tY - r+c3 g.. : ° t�' _ �' 1 \ . u � � . . ai p ~ ,1` � � ; .\ �I 1 , ° ���° n �//�) W w ` W n � ��' � 96 � � G. 7 rI / Q Q �E 5 k A �. � � I� � � 4. ��08. � � �1 7 � U LL 1i� � �C 5� « �� i � � 1 � �w �`\� � N J W . � �„ i � � ; � � _ +g "s. \O � �. � �, � _ v - � \ . ---- �--� g � � � � � r 3dsw.o � \1� Q = � w �=. �`� • �\ , o ��; \ �s��o 6 }�� 3�= - Z � � � � � 1 � , 32. � (90� 3 � � A � $ 1) 03.fi) tA� �09.21� / � � � \ 10 \°.1 zo.00 .e)x �� o Y \ b \\� � �5.0 z _ 6 � �� o r ��� \ �m Q ai.o 4 �. : - a �. �� 7.00 . \ � — 0 . 6 1� �+. _ : 6 " so � e�� 1 � � __' "sm \� LL � ; 1 R a�r \, . O �,m � � F ' r- F . .9 I r. c�"i� V — � ' � — � I N p � �- ;.;. ra % 1— --- I � 'u5 s 1 C ��. I � � I �_ .s�;x,� � � � I I —, �.��,. � � :rt',�:� � � i$�_--- _. n.� — — --J Y ' �ti , ' . . . . . ' � . . ' . ' . . 1 �.�; ;..:. . . . $ . . . . �$ . .. . . � <�� k �� � �� �� � �� ��. . , ��� ��� �s� �� $ � 5 �� �� � Sa ��� � B $ @ 4 a e�� �� �7 � ! _ �� ������� i�� ���� �q� g ��3, �� b � $��5� 6 ��i ��� ���� ����� ��� � ��� � =g '� $ oa �, � : _ � . � ��� . '. �� �, �B� . ..�... .� :':i � + ��� a� ..� � � ��� ��� ���� � Q - c�� o� ! , = f �� � � � � _ � �� �� �� 3 I ' i �€ 'D 3 � � .. � 3 m � ,..� e< ¢ . ___. .. ._._ � . ._. _ _. .. ....... ...._. /� � �� i � O � �� I� \\ v� ag � q § I _��d i , v � Vi � � i � � �. .a d�S : ---------------- � � ;......._.._- - � i � i� ` a ! � � � � ; � � i : .�..., � e � � � � � - c � � � �� 05 � 3 d � � � � �____' T � �� .� ' : 2 �\ y I �_________� i s Y/ �� ��° g Z i i �� � � ��� �� f � � a � � ��� i i � � � i t � i . � �€ + � ` O i� ;� �°�a � J ` I i �� � mr a w� � � r � , � "��a �� � W � � __ __ k a _ o - � � - O .. -- °a .. .. �a O .. J L.L � . o. , W ----_ � � ----=- _ _ � � � � ��,. ; ._ „< � U3 � � �:.:: �� � � , , � ;��..�. � > �,��,,, � _ $ . -- �; , � : s� w� . W � � �t � Ei LL _ ��i � � " � � d _ __. _ . „, � ..,y.��. � � ��� z� � � O � -- — d �-------- _ / : _�____________________ �vmvaee a I C I 0 s � � ___________ __________ y � � l �� � � � �G C � � Z B g� '�' a` �� � i � � a y �. ��i C SI �' � 5 R' �� � q � Ii E � � tLL : 8 � �� i ' j G ��� � ' w - . : �- � � : � --- �� �-------- z 1 I --' g z� . ... _.. . . . _. . _.. . . .. . . M f - �� - � � �� � � � � `p (�C�OdC�� � , — d„�� — , � ��� � � FEB 2 8 2013 �� ; � � � � � � � � � , � � L____________________J �axaaoxa� R e @tfRY � e p R � 6�6s. � env.v� . xa� FR - -- � � � g sir wa re r � rmo 0 � � t ' � � � � � i � ppMRY � `—�i � 0 ac�weKVl. i `� � -- ---- aus � s „ O � x���rw—,F � aruer � � � � � ;; °'-` � � �a " � � .� � i i auw�mee�» � � �i 4� �� 6I�AT RDOM � F i m �� � ii ii F $ � � ii ii �� ii � r `� .� a9vrw. � � � � m+�n� � �ao ]�50 I MAQ� �[�. �0 $�. M 44 'M1? fi1C . - � �y.�p 74 dQ R4 T-0 91FEf 3F0' �5 xo �asatu cw e-x a�r ss ma r� 0 p C�(�L�L1�J(� � � �°° � ° � FEB 2 S 2013 '� � * � � ey �� t t � � �� � p�� � tr � � � �� � o� � h � A � � -_-- o r t u�r T � � � ' � � § ° � � L � B � j D A N j § ____ _ I __J ~ � {dG � � sr so i u i i � i i p w�t� i ---------------� k ; O O '� rrsa�cr y� � i �i B i � HASiHt�JAIE p � . � B �+re �o � i O ntsn�aw i � � o0 i i ' � � � � m9 Id ]tL0 5Ci ]HD /KIIATE 1 ��t��$�. 40 9W` 3P 47 $7 � 9-0' M YH4 yp p.p ryy �� �5 ORIG�NAL FLOOR PLANS i O 4 PRIp� h � � 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 ��NNeso'� RESOLUTION 93-04PC APPROVAL OF VARfA1VCES FROM THE MINIMUM LAKESHORE STRUCTURE SETBACK, MINIMUM FROW7 YARD, MINIMUM SUM OF THE SIDE YARD S�sTACKS, MIIVIMUM BUILDING SEPARATIOfV, MAXIMUM 1MPERVIOUS SURFACE, AND MINIMUM LOT AREA FOR A PROPERTY IN THE R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDEN7IAL.) ZONING DIS'fRICT 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, rr►inimum building separation, minimum lot area, and maximum impervious surFace a# the following location, to wit; 14354 Wafersedge Traif NE, l�rior �ake, MN 55372 Lot 14 BOUDIN'S MANOR, SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA {PID 25-119-010-0) 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case #DEV- 2013-90Q8 and held a hearing thereon an April 1, 2093. _ __ _ __ . 3. The 8oard of Adjustment continued their discussion ofi the variances on Apri129, 2013. 4. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of fhe community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, cianger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposec! variance on the Comprehens9ve Plan. 5. ft appears practica[ difficui#ies exist far the applicant in this case. This residential property has same unique characteristics including the narrow and small size of the property. The allowed buildable area of the properfy which could be utilized without approval of variances from the lake, front, and side yard setbacks, and impervious surtace rr�aximum is approximatefy 875 square feet wifh an impervious surFace area of 1,740 sq ft. It does not appear practical to construct a reasonable lake home within these limitations. 6. Two purposes of the Zoning Ordinance are to "promote the most appro�riate and orderly deveiopment of the resicientiaf, business, industrial, public land and pubfic areas" and "enhance the aesfhetic character and appearance of the City." The approval of the variances as requested would a11ow 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. Phone 952.447.9800 / P�.� 952.Aa7.4245 / �v�+��+tcityo€priorlai:e.com i I 7. The variances are necessary to use the property in a reasonabEe manner, The 1,948 sq. ft. proposed footprint for the sfructure is a reasonable-sized lake home given fhe size, shape, and lat consfraints of #he property. 8. The practical difficulty does exist due to circumsfances unique to the property. This residentiaf property has unique characteristics including a small and narrow nonconforming lot area in which to construc# a lake home and a low elevation which would not allow a basement. 9. The granting of the variances wiEl not aiter 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. 10. A single fami(y resictential dwelling is an al[owed use within the R-1 (Low Density Residential} Zoning District. 9 9. The granting of the variances will not be necessary to alleviate any hardships of the inability to use solar energy systems. 12. The contents of Planning Case #DEV2013-1008 are hereby entered into and made a part of fhe 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 following variances: • A 95 foat variance from the required minimum 20 foot front yard setback using the average front yard sefbacks of the adjacenf properties {Secfion 9102.405 (5J) • A 9.8% variance from the 30% maximum impervious surface requiremenf for a residential proper�yin fhe Shoreland Districf (Section 7104.306 & Section 9904.902 (9)) • A 13.3 foof variance from the required minimum 50 foot sfrucfure setback from the Ordinary High Wafer (OHLN} elevation of Prior Lake using fhe average lake setbacks of adjacent properties (Section 9 904.308). • A 3.4 foot variance from fhe minimum 15 foot separation hetween all sfructures on fhe nonconforming lof and on the adjoining lot. (Section 19�1.502 (7)). • A 2.1 foot variance from the minimum 15 foot sum of fhe side yard requirement (section 9109.502 (7)) • An 9,83D square foot variance from fhe minimum 7,500 square foof lof area required for I developmenf of a nonconforming lot of record (Secfion 7 904.902 (9)) The variance is subject to the following conditions: 1. 7he survey must be revised fo indicate a 7.3 foot side yard setback along fhe west property line. 2. 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 Pfanning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on Apri! 29, 2013. � � f � la ommiss�on Chair � � Dan Rogness, Co ity & Economic Development Director ; 3 � PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, April 9, 2013 1. Call to Order; Acting Chairman Roszak called the April 'i, 2093 Planning Commission meeting fo order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Hite, Roszak, Blahn9k, Planner Jeff Matzke, Public Works Director Katy Gehler, and Communify Development Assistant Peter Aldritt. 2. Approva( 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, SEC4NDED BY H{TE TO APPROVE THE MARCH 18, 2013 M�ETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes, Hite, Bfahnik, and Roszak. The Motion carried. 4. Public Hearings; A. DEV-2093-9008 14354 Watersedge Trail Variance. Scott Wold, on behalf of � Rflbert Johnson, is requesting variances from the minimum impervious surface requirement and !ot setbacks on Prior Lake. The property is located on the north end of Lower Prior Lake along Watersedge Trail. Planner Matzke presented that S. Wofd Construction Inc., on behalf of the owner, is requesting variances from the minimum la[ce setback, minimum front yard setback, minimum sum of the side yard setbacks, minimum building separa#ion, minimum lot area, and maximum impervious surface on property Iocated at 14354 Watersedge Trail NE. The si#e is currently vacant. The homeowner plans to build a residential home, hence the need for the variances. The exact variances fhat are needed include: {1} a 15 faot variance from the required minimum 20 foot front yard setback using the average front yard setbacks of the adjacent properties; (2) a 10.5% variance from the 30% maximum impervious surface requirement for a E residential properiy in the Shoreland District; (3) a 93.3 foot variance from the required minimum 50 foot structure setback from the Ordinary High Water {OHW) elevafion of Prior Lake using the average lake setbacks of adjacent properties; (4) a 3.4 foot variance from fhe minimum '15 foot separation between all strucfures on the nonconforming lot and on the adjoining lot; (5) a 4.4 foot variance from the minimum 15 foot sum of the side yard requirement; and (6) a 1,830 square foot variance from the minimum 7,5Q0 square foot lot area i required for development of a nonconforming lot of record. There would not be a lower level to this house because it is located in the flood plain. The house will need to be built above the 910' regulatory flood protection efevation. 1 � I i Commissioner Questions: � Blahnik asked whether the finro adjacenf homes are built below the flood protection efevation? Planner Matzke responded yes; the flood plain regulations did not come info effect until the late 1980s. Blahnik asked about the approximate impervious surtace 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 proposed house is proposed to be closer to the street? Planner Mafzke responded that the applican# can answer that question better, but part of that is to match the other homes in the neighborhood and keep it further from fhe lake. Roszak asked whether the proposed 3.5 foot wall will be 3.5 feet taller than the neighbors` property on both sides? P[anner Matzke responded yes because of the floo� plain regulation. Blahnik asked whether raising this home's elevation will create any drainage issues on the neighboring properties? Planner Matzke responded that fhrough the building permit review process, the drainage is reviewed and approved; the arraws 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 pro�osed buifding height in cflmparison to neighboring homes. Planner Mafzke responded tha# this home is proposed to be two-story; the neighboring properties are sing[e level rambler styles. Hite expressed concern about having all the drainage go to the lake and the potential creation of drainage problems far fhe neighboring properties. Planner Matzke respanded that they try #o create drainage swales ta direct water to the front and back of the lot. The front half of the property is usually pitched ta ga to #he street, and the back of the lo# is directed to the lake. Roszak asked about recent storm sewer projects in this area and where that wafer is direeted. Planner Matzke responded thaf there was a recent city project for this area; the sform water is directed to ponds andlor rain gardens, treated and then drained to #he lake. 2 MOTION BY ROSZAK, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK T� OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:56 PM. VOTE: Ayes, Hi#e, Blahnik, and, Roszak. The mationed carried. Applicant/Contractor S. Wold (9457 State Hwy 9Q Ramsey MN) discussed the drainage and requesfed variances. The drainage will be directed by swafes to the lake and street. The retaining walls wilf 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 fhat conforms wifh other properties in the area. Blahnik asked about the finished square footage of the house. Applicant responded that there is about 1,310 square feet #or the house and 646 square feet for the garage. Hite asked about construction of the retaining walls to aUow for drainage. Applicant Wolcf responded that they wilf be keystone with a rock base and gravel beh9nd to drain along the wall. Hite asked how close wifl the retaining walls be pfaced to the neighboring praperties? Applicant Wold responded that it will be constcucted a few inches within the property line. Hite asked whether there is any vegetation on the neighboring properties thaf could be impaired by the construction of the wafis? Applicant Wold responded that they will do everything possible not #o impact vegetation along the property lines, but that may not be avoidable. Hite asked whether mitigating the drainage from entering the lake is possibEe considering the amount of impervious surFace? Applicant Wold responded that the soil will 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 possible. Hite aslced if the applicant had a cut/profile sheet af the slopes and the retaining walfs? Applicant Wold responded no, not but the survey does show elevations. Hite asked whether a cutlprofile sheet could be provided? 3 ' � I Appticant Wold responded that it would be easier to show other properties in the area fhat � have done similar grading with retaining walls. 1 Hite asked if the applicant had been working with the city engineer on the grading and drainage plan? Applicant Wold responded yes; he has been working with staff through fhe entire process. Roszak asked whether the refaining walls will be constructed without going on the neighbor's property? Applicant Wold responded thaf a smafi back hoe will be used with access to the site through the center of the lot; the wark will be done from the inside out. Cherry Burnhaman, 14360 Watersedge Trail stated she is concerned abouf 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. ' Mark Danes spolce on behalf of Betty Burnham on Eof 15 the adjacent lot. He was concerned with #he drainage. The neighboring property has a basement and currently has water issues. The height of the propased house was also a concern. Kay Minnich, '1439fl Watersedge Trail stated she has a lot about the same size as the applicant. They �uilt a new hame recently and the foot print was able to fit on the lot without variances. A 1,900 square foo# house is not a modest house in her mind. The house foot print should be sized down fo fit on the lot. Ike lverson, 14329 Rutgers St. sfafed 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 praposed lot. The proposed home is too large for the lot, and it wi11 negatively affect the neighborhood. Annette Thompson,14349 Watersedge Trail stated she wanfed to build a cemenf patio for a hot tub but was not allowed for impervious reasons. She asked whether the requested imperviaus surFace variance is 40 percenf? Roszak responded that it is a 1Q.5 percent variance #or the impervious surface. Blahnik asked Thompson if she knows her lot's impervious surface percentage? Thompsan responded no. Bob Miller, 94359 Watersedge Trail stated that the majority of the homes in that area were built [n the 1950s, and most probably have a iowest floor elevation of 906 or 905 feet. There have always been water issues in the neighborhood. ft is an ofd neighbarhood thaf has a lot of issues. Whert something new is to be built, it should conform wifh the rules in place. The 4 � regulations are #here ta protect the area and the lake. A more reasonable house should be buift to better fit within the re�uirements. Linda Burnham, 94306 Watersedge Trail. Stated her concerns of impervious surface, the aesthetics of the neighborhood, and that the home will be built from the street to the fake. There are three trees that are along the property that will likely be affected. Earl Drangstveit,14279 Rutgers asked abaut current standard setbacks for fhe fot. Planner Matzke responded that a normal lot requires 10 feet for the sides, 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark, and 25 feet from the street. On a non- conforming lot, the side yards can total 15 feet as well as setback averaging from #he ordinary high water mark up to 50 feet. Drangstveit asked if there are any fire issues for a house that close to a neighboring property? Planner Matzke responded not in fhis case no, the proposed buiiding meets the fire code. Drangsiveit stated that since 1983, he has fived in the neighborhood and has seen the water levels be very high. His has concerns about impervious surface, and he stated that the home owners in Boudins Manor have deeded access to the lake, and the access runs all the way along the shoreline in front of the subject property. Hite asked if there is an association for this property and if anyone is present 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 waterfront in front of all 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 iots have a platted area as public befween the property and the shoreline. Ehtian stated his concern wifh the rock wall and the drainage. He was also concerned with the old #rees along the property because it will be very difficult to not damage those trees. He stated he is a builder, and he has never been allowed to ga over the maximum impervious surface percentage. � � Blahnik asked what his impervious surface area is for Lot 'f 5, the square footage a# his house, i and whether he has a basement? Ehtain responded that he did not know the impervious area or square #ootage, and he does have a basement. 5 � ; i Mike Von Arx, 94346 Rutgers asked if gutters will be installed on the home since it is important to have gutters to keep the runoff on the proper�y. Judith Paine, 14424 Watersedge Trail sfated she has a 40 #oot lot. lt is difficult 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 on the lot. MUTION BY ROSZAK SECOND BY BLAHNIK TO CLOSE THE PUBL.IC HEARING AT 7:12 P.M. VOTE: Ayes, Hite, Blahnik, ar�d, Roszak. The motioned carried. Commissioner Comments and Questions; Hite sfafed she appreciates all the residents coming out and voicing fheir opinions. This is a non-conforming lot, and it is evaluated different than a conforming [ot. It has been assessed as a buildable 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 not enough information to make a decision tonight, She wauld like to have staff, specifically the city engineer, answer storm water concerns. She also would like more informafion on the deed with the association as well as a cut/pofile sheet that shows the elevations of the proposed house and retaining wa11s. Her recommendation is #o table the variance application. Blahnik stated that six variances are numeraus for fhis lat. 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 home 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 setback variance? Planner Matzke responded that if the buiiding to building was eliminated on the garage side then in might not be passible to eliminate the side yard setback variance. Blahnik stated he supporfs all variances but #he side yard variance. Aithough it is a narrow lot, he felt it is possibfe 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 felt he needed more information and would lifce to table this to another meeting. Pfanner Matzke asked commissioners fo clearly lss# the requests for the applicant to bring to the next meeting. Hite stated she would like to 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 presenf to discuss stormwafer. Blahnik stated he would fike to see a rendering of a reduced house footprint by 4.4 feet to meet the side yard setback and to reduce impervious surface. 6 I MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY HITE TO TABLE THE REQUESTED VARIANCES T� THE NEXT MEETING WlTH RESPONSES NEEDED TO THE FEEDBACK FR�M COMMISSIONERS. VOTE: Ayes Blahnik, Hite, Roszak. The motion carried. Planner Matzke stated the next anticipated planning commission meeting is April 29� The public hearing has been closed so the public will nof be no#ified of the meeting; however, the agenda will be posted on the 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 a11ow grading and vegetation removal within a bluff impact zone for construction of a storm water pond in the I-1 {General Indus#rial} Zoning District. The subject property is located north of CASH 21 at the end of Welcome Avenue. Public Works Director Gehler presented information that the city is proposing to construct a stormwa#er pond to manage stormwater runoff from the planned Welcome Avenue Industrial Development. The stormwater pond serves to pratect Markley Lake from direct stormwafer runoff and assaciated water polfution risks; if is designed to meet current City design standards that are protective of surface waters. The stormwater pond also incarporates approximately 41 % of the compensatory ffood storage volume that the City will create as a result of the Markley Lake Study. The currenf City Ordinance prohibits intensive vegetation clearing within the shore and bluff impacf zones on steep sfopes: the proposecf starmwater pond would resulf in intensive vegetation clearing within these regulafed areas. Planner Matzke presented the variance criteria an which variances are evaluated by the Planning Commission. Cammissioner Questians: Hite asked how you measure intensive vegetation clearing? Pfanner Matzke responded that it is somewhat subjective. The city looks at �ow much grading will #ake place wit�t 50% to 75% or more seen #o be intensive. Hite asked what new grasses that will be planted #o mimic 9937 grasses, and why was 193? picked? � Director Gehfer responded that starting in 1937, fhe 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 supporf; it is necessary to re-grade the property and native vegetation will be reinstalled Roszak sfafed his support; it makes sense to restore to natural plantings, and it is important for wafer quality, 7 E i � PRIOR LAKE PLANN[NG COMMISSION MINUTES MC}NDAY, April 29 2013 1. Ca[I to Order: Chairman Phelan called the April 29, 2013 Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissianers Hite, Roszak, Blahnik, Phefan, Spieler Planner Jef# Matzke, Engineering and lnspections Director l.arry Poppler and Communify Development Assistanf Peter Aldritt. 2. ApprovaE 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, 2013 Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SEC�NDED BY HITE TO APPROVE THE APR1L 1, 2013 MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes, Hite, Blahnik, and Roszak. The Motion carried. 4. Pubfic Hearings: A. EP# '13-103 Markley Lake Woods Variance. Peter Knaeble is requesting a variance from the minimum lot width requirements for Lots '[0, 11, 12, Block 1 of the proposed Mark(ey Lake Woods Plat. Pianner Matzke Peter Knaeble, owner and developer o# the propvsed Markley Lake Woods residential subdivision is requesting variances from the required minimum fQt width for three proposed residentia[ lots. The property is iocated on a 23.5 acre site loca#ed nartheast of the intersection of CSAH 2'f and Fish Point Road, south of the Cardinal Ridge residential deveiopment area, east of the proposed Eag(e Creek Estates Piat. The variances requested are Lot 10, Black 1, A 5�4 foof variance from the required minimum 86 foot lot width for a property in the R-1, Low Density Residential zoning district Lot 11, Block 1, A 38 foot variance from #he required minimum 86 foot 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 foot lot width for a proper�y in the R-'i, Low Density Residential Zoning District. Commissioner Questions None MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY SPfELER TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:�9 PM. VOTE: Ayes, Hite, Phelan, Spiefer, Blahnik, and, Roszak. The motioned carried. 1 � f Appticant Peter Knaeble stated the portion of the lots where the building pads will be are not going to be narrow. It is just fowards to street that the lots will be narrower. This wil{ allow for three significant oak trees to be saved. When firsf working through the plans, city staff recommended that the cul-de-sac be shortened to save some trees and decrease impervious surface. Commissioner Questions: None MOTION BY PHELAN 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 will save some trees. The lots sizes are consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Spielsr started his supporE there are advantages to this. It decreases impervious surface, saves space and is better for #he community. Roszak stated support far the variance. Hite stated her support, granting of the variances is in genera! harmony of the City's zoning ordinances. It is good to see fhe decrease of impervious surFace coverage and there is nof any adverse impacts to the adjacent hameowners. Bfahnik stated support of the variance. The variances seem large at first glance however since they are not affecting fhe building pad portion of the lot they have [ess of an impact. Ti�ere are benefits to allowing the different !ot sizes. MOTION BY PHELAN, SECONDED BY HITE TO APPROVE THE VARIACNE EP# 13-103 FROM THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS FOR LOTS 10, 11, '12, BL.00K 1 OF THE PROPOSED MARKLEY LAKE WOODS PLAT. VOTE: Ayes Blahnik, Phelan, Spieler, Hite, Roszak. The motion carried. � 5. Old Business: A. DEV-20'13-1008 14354 Watersedqe Trail Variance. Scott Wo[d on behaff of Jason f Miskawic is requesting variances from the minimum impervious surface requirement and fot � setbacks on Prior Lake. The proper�y is located on the n�rth end of Lower Prior Lake off of Watersedge Traif. � Planner Matzke reviewed the requested variances and presented changes that the applicant j had made to the building p{ans. � 2 I 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 Iots do not have drainage easements in place. A swafe is created on the property to direct the water forward and aft of the lot. Commissioner Questions: Hite asked are the neighboring properties s(oped 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 loak like the contours slope in the direc#ion of the subjects property. Hite stated 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 fixing a drainage problem. Spieler asked what would the foot print look like if there not any variances granted. Planner Matzke responded in the repor� under the findings of fact section it identifies an area of about 875 square feet if all the setbacks are met. If just the impervious surtace requirement was met it allows for about 1,700 square foot pad. The applicant is proposing about a 1,948 square foot pad. Since it is a smaller lot the percentage is larger 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 elevation? Engineer Poppler responded yes, there have been a number of properties that have had to do just what this proper#y is doing. Blahnik asked does the measured setback take into accaunt fhe roof overhang? Planner Matzke responded if does not take into account the eve but they are allowed a 6 inch eve because that is the standard minimum eve. Btahnik asked what is the maximum? Pianner Matzke responded 6 inches is the maximum in this case because they are within 5 feet of the setback (ine. Phelan asked there was a list items from the previous meeting on this topic that was asked to E specifically be discussed tonight. Have these items been addressed. � Planner Matzke responded the applican# is here he can explain on some of those items. The I cut sheet is what the City Engineer discussed earlier. The deed is more of a private matter. It is nof relevattt to the variances being requestecl. We do not have an updated survey at this , time but the applicant is working on it. It is up to the Planning Commission to decide if the ! information is met and could be approved tonight or needs to be continuad on. The P[anning � Commission could put conditions on that approval is contingenf on the submittal of a survey. 3 I i Hite stated the cut sheet provided by the City Engineer did sufficiently shaw the drainage, elevation and the reta'sning wali on the lot. Hite asked what is the timing that a survey could be pravided? Appficant 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 i possible. Commissioner Comments: Hife stated the subject Iot [s an oddly configured lot which in order to build a reasonable house does require variances. She is in support of the variances being reques#ed. 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 detract from the neighborhood. She conditioned the approval on getfing the updated survey showing the changes made to the house size. Spieler stated this is a unique lot and is very small. There are a lot of variances being requested which is a concern. He dicf nat want to set a precedent that numerous variances are a(ways granted. He supports the variances, the applicant revised his plan ta shrink h9s foat print per the Planning Commission's requests. He supported #he variances on the condition that a revised survey is submitted. I Roszak stated his support pending the updated survey. Blahnik stated his support, he appreciates the applicants wiliness to amend his building to fit better wifhin the standards. The side yards are small and it is tight but this is a small lof and it does seem to fit within the neighbarhood and is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated his support contingent on the survey getfing updated. Phelan stated this is a unique lot and appreciated the applicant's cammentary. Six variances � �s a lot and some of them are quite significant for impervious and square footage. This design does not seem to fit with the neighborhood and he has serious concerns with drainage and will � not be supporting the variance. � MOTION BY H{TE SECOND BY BLAHNIK TO APPR4VE THE REQUESTED 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 1N THE R-1 (L.4W DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT. VOTE: Ayes, Blahnik, Spieler, Hite and Roszak. Nays Phelan. The motion carried 4-1 � i I I 4 � �E�GHBORHOOo Z�NING INFORMATI�N ESTIMATES ia�cc, watersee#�e lake S�tback:15.3 feet Side setbadc: 5 fe�t and 7 feet Front sctbatk:l2 feet Hous� SQ 1�14#t Gar�ge wi2h driveway 797sq#t Tot�l house: 3311 sqft lot size 5569 sqft Impenricws surface: 41.4 percent 1434i Watersedge lk setback: 2H ft Side setback 5 feet, 7 feet Front setback 10 feet Hous� sqft:1506 garage with driveway sq. 788 Tot�l sqfootag�: 2294 Lot size: 6196 sqft Impervioua: 3796 - 14�42 Waterted$e Lk setb�ck: 27 �t Side setback: 2ft,18 ft, Bwilding to building 11.5 ft, 20 ft Front setback: 1 ft House sq ft: 824sqft, Garages �nd Driveway: 10�8sqft Total squarefootage:1922sqft Lot siz�: �601sqft Impervious su�face: �4% 14359 Waterssclge Trai) Front utback: 31 ft Rear setback :11 ft Sid� setback: 2ft,17ft Building to building:l3ft, �Oft House squa�fc>otage: 2,116sqft, garage and driveway 1,182sqft Total sqft: 329�sqft Lot size:10,072sqft Impervious: 3196 14349 Waterssdge Tra1i Front setback: 26.5k Rear setback: 37.5 ft Side setback:l3ft,10f� B�kling to �uilding 11.4 ft House squarefootage: 1,776sqft Garage and driveway: 2396 Totai: sqft 4,172 sqft Lot size: 9,887 sqft Impervious Surface: 42% Scott County, MN _� � �,.,� � � � � ��� � �r �d ' : s��y �,.s�`� fi'����`�. �'?"i�'� �, <, � ',+ �'1 �' ;'a 4�°' �"'1 , �` `^� ; �' `' S F ° x . f • '4 u., s a k � � .� . . �'� . t 1 }'� � < r � �' _.. 9 � � �.: � � t � 1 1 a 3 � � � 1 1 `r] t +`. .a�, . 1� � � � t .; 1-[7� � ��` � a''i'�a � i�,.� -r � . �@ � t � t a � �. �' sii' � . -» ! j'� y ya, i G� , x, . �`i .� ., .�7 9�i ` - xa ° � � +c; � - e > r p�y �. � •.�� ��a� { X ,��r�� ti '.� �o. , :. ' ` � ,�� ^c "�1 �, �� �, '°. , . �� � iae . 1 �'` , ' � `� � � � r � � � : r ti , } 1 .t:i � Ctl)� � ..» • j .. i i . s�.- �"�'+��. t � � s�' �� .� �� ��t � S �� ��l � p . y ,t � � }, e w ! � i�� � �d� a( � �. � �� ��7�, r � �, � � � ~ t�� �� r } � -,-" ' � , �Sf4 � ' ��Y�'.. �.? 1\ ��� � J�,, q i '.. `t�'{ M j � "p K l�'� � ;a� � ° + w t r `�$'�� � t v �+ � , �4�ti v Z �� � � -- � - �1 =.' �� , � S � 3 ? �"e�.� i � � �'� I �7R. .��,m�+l�y� , ��^ ' , �"� �� ��"� �a : � � i :<. � �� i. ��.�.: ��ty ��'� 6 .`?:� �-� -��� � ���. i _ ,� � p � � �h �A r �., �' � ,� �' !4 �� � . ���� � � �. ��� � z� i �. 1 .L .�� .. � ' f{ 1 j � • _ z' 4 139�� �o-�� 4 ' ��` r� Sp�n , T q� ��,s 'v1� �• 7�ip� ',A � . �'� `?x �' : ,�s*"��, ���' c ���,'�4'�� i �t ' a� � T � � ��1 23 t ' - + � 4'tai I � KZ� :.q7A- ^. � , F ..: � y� �-. � � `�-.� � � s � � . � � t ��� . � �.��. a , '- -- 'w`-�:. 4 _' l y' � +. � ��� � " e k � � � 1 -�- � _ �-�'_' :'^- � •�r ''� �IGi2� P .� �'„,a -� � L � �.;� � � t �jk a��: �. ..=-�"-_.," ; .. .<i' s j � t�, � ,� �� i �gyT ' i #,� �� xA� ��, e `s�E � 1 � 9 1 `��,��.� fi t�Ca��+,�' tSC . _ i' C t ,`: t �+� � �, y �~." 1��t "` � d �` `'-�`� : t � � `i,'�{� � � F �� }4 � � � V R ����� � � , 4 � ^ k . j� �,_ � s ;n "�� s� 3 . + � y � ,� . �h'"x — � ��� ' � � . E j( � 4 ���� } L f�r E . � # �' " 1 '#[ 1 i � • �'' j �1 '': y � 1 � � �`' �IW ' t �` � °�E :. � S �i f � '' S � .;�•` '.5,�.�� �� $ i �� 6 t > ;� � r�.` � __.' t,eti4 �.,i t a � ry : �� s ,`*�,��' �� � � �� 4� �_, � ��` 4 t �� � c i � � + r � u � .'�� � ,`� , f� i a i i t �� I 4= �� [ r � �� � i � t �,� L���� �� 1_1) `i�£ � �. � � �i+v �� f� � , ; � � f :: # � ( k •r°�i � � � �SY)� � i �;� e - � � ; 'li - . � �' a 1 ' a k ♦ � _� i ( �� �r I a � i � i ' .� p, a � � �i . .(` k� ; _Jt3-] j � �. .� � a� � . � .: I t � ' �� 4 { ��1� � p :R. �: � 1.• �ls�l�-�� :.�'3g� �':� � � � i , d � ``,'�$�;�.�lat � € ��r � °�, s5 • '=,�` ti " �� � t � ' ax ` q s, t �� 1 � � ��� ° � - � 3� � ' ' � ��t !'«�'§' Y , � ' r � +{� 4 r f ,�� � � y � `k y� ��< � �� i'..�,'� ti. '� � '+ � 'S3=°,_ , < � � s . �� � � � � �� � ��� �•�'� ' ,;{+'„�„�` �r � � " � s � _ ,� � � � � , ; . �* .�, ��� � ti '- �t �� ,,` C�+}r�c �- ..� �-,,, �., ��, � �,:, „y ' � � z�w , r � t c. '�:. � � -a„', � .- s � � ` �� t � "� � � i 1,� - �`�� : ,� f "t ��,,.. f��� 1sid3` S' 1::12 �i:ig ihlsdraxugisneilheralaqaRyacordMmaprwraaurveyendbrwl Map Scale N iMenCeC to ba usad es one. T��a drr.vir�g is e tamp9ation ot recorde, � If1C�1 = 7� f@@� iMOrmatio�, and data Mcated in various city camly and state oMces, ard other :ources atteu�rg the area shaxn, and Is to be used fw rNen�ce � E ,� ��1. purposes ady. Scoe Cwny Is ml retpens�We b� any tnacuuacies herdn �a Date jr .//../.�, conta �ed. It disaepanc�es erc lound, pkase conlacl lhe Swlt Counly 5/16(2013 ` J���VV Survs ors Olfiu.