HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 08 2015 Meeting Minutes
1
PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance:
Commissioner Hite called the Tuesday, September 8, 2015 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to
order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Adam Blahnik, Bryan Fleming, Perri Hite, Wade
Larson and Mark Petersen; Community & Economic Development Director Dan Rogness, Planner Jeff
Matzke, Engineer Seng Thongvahn and Development Services Assistant Sandra Woods.
2. Approval of Agenda:
MOTION BY FLEMING, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE TUESDAY,
SEPTEMBER 08, 2015 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA.
VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Hite, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried.
3. Approval of Monday, August 17, 2015 Meeting Minutes:
MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, AUGUST 17, 2015
PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES.
VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Hite, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried.
4. Public Hearings:
A. DEV15-001015 – 16058 Eagle Creek Avenue – The Property Owner is requesting a variance
from the minimum side yard setback to allow for alterations and construction of a garage in
the (R1-SD) Low Density Residential Shoreland Zoning District. PID: 25-096033-0.
Planner Matzke introduced a request for approval of a variance from the minimum front yard setback for
a property in the R1-SD (Low Density Shoreland Residential) Zoning District. He explained the history,
current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommendations. He provided a resolution, location map,
survey dated August 6, 2015 (relined) and a picture of existing retaining walls and tress on property.
Commission Comments/Questions:
Larson asked what the redlined area defined as.
Planner Matzke explained why the survey had not been revised therefore the redlines show a five foot
setback and shifting of the garage. He stated a building permit would not be issued until the survey is
revised.
Blahnik questioned distances from the southeast corner to the right-of-way line, of the proposed garage
to the front. He asked about impervious surface issues.
Planner Matzke explained the distance from the northern corner, the other corner to the right-of-way
line, the side yard and from the front. He stated they are within the ordinance standards for the impervious
surface.
2
Fleming asked if there was any documents from the County Highway Department.
Planner Matzke replied in 2005 they did have a conceptual document showing potential concepts of the
road system with the median inside and explained the location of the frontage road. He stated they are
scaled concept drawings, not an engineered plan. He explained the outcome of the roads.
Applicant:
Luke Frazier, 16058 Eagle Creek Avenue SE.
Peterson asked is your main concern tree loss if you were to move further back. He questioned the kind
of trees there are, how many trees and how old the trees are.
Applicant Frazier replied yes, my main concern is keeping the trees. He stated the two trees are mature
trees, good shade trees but unsure of age and what kind of trees they are.
Larson asked about the paved or brick surface on lake side on the retaining wall
Applicant Frazier replied on the lake side is all grass and a skinny sidewalk, which will stay. The
retaining wall will also stay.
MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY FLEMING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:19 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Hite, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried.
Public Comment:
None.
MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:19 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Hite, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried.
Commission Comments/Questions:
Peterson commented on the right-of-way, stating it appears it is unlikely it will be that far over to have
the need to adjust the frontage road. He appreciates the trees staying and is supporting this variance
Fleming is supporting this variance. It meet our multiple prong threshold for granting variances and it
makes good sense.
Hite is supporting the variance request tonight, as there are some unique circumstances to the property.
She appreciate the fact that with this change, it is also correcting an encroachment and aligning the garage
with the property to the South is in harmony with the general surrounding areas.
Blahnik is supporting this variance as suggested by fellow Commissioners and particularly with
preserving trees. He stated the applicant does not have a lot of options and he is working well with the
options that he does have; moving from the encroachment is the best way to do this.
Larson is supportive of this variance per comments of fellow Commissioners, including comments on
lining up the garage.
3
MOTION BY FLEMING, SECONDED BY HITE TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
REQUESTED VARIANCE FOR 16058 EAGLE CREEK AVENUE SE SUBJECT TO THE LISTED
CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY CITY STAFF.
VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Hite, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried.
B. DEV15-001017 5352 Candy Cove Trail – The property owner is requesting a variance from
the minimum side yard setback to allow for alterations and construction of a gar age in the
(R1-SD) Low Density Residential Shoreland Zoning District. PID: 25-027-003-0.
Planner Matzke introduced a consideration of a request for approval of a variance from the minimum
side yard setback for a property located at 5352 Candy Cove Trail, along the southern shores of Lower
Prior Lake, south of north of Manor Road. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues,
alternatives and recommendations. He provided a resolution, location map, existing survey dated July 22,
2015 and a proposed survey dated August 19, 2015.
Commission Comments/Questions:
Blahnik asked how are they reducing the impervious surface and questioned how they are in compliance.
Planner Matzke explained the reduction of impervious surface and stated they are reducing 2.5 feet off
of their house to be in compliance.
Applicant
Dana Krakowski, 5352 Candy Cove Trail.
MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:29 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Hite, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried.
Public Comment:
None.
MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:30 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Hite, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried.
Commission Comments/Questions:
Petersen stated it seems fairly straight forward and is a reasonable request for a variance. He stated he is
in support of this variance.
Fleming stated he will be supporting this very reasonable and straight forward request. He said it meets
all conditions of our threshold for granting of a variance.
Hite stated she will in support of the variance request of 1.2 feet and pointed out the years of the buildings
for the variances tonight. She mentioned she appreciates the fact that with the construction of a new
garage that we need to address the existing non-conformity.
Blahnik stated he is in support of this variance. He said this application is the definition of practical
difficulty due to the house already being non-conforming and the construction of the garage with the fact
that the impervious surface is being reduced. He said the variance is requested is a minimal 1.2 feet.
4
Larson will be support of this variance.
MOTION BY BLAHNIK SECONDED BY HITE, TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
REQUESTED VARIANCE FOR 5352 CANDY COVE TRAIL AS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT
SUBJECT TO THE VARIANCES OR CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY STAFF.
VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Hite, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried.
C. DEV15-001019 3456 Twin Island Circle – The property owner is requesting a variance from
the minimum lake setback to construct a seasonal dwelling in the (R1-SD) Low Density
Residential Shoreland District. PID: 25-100-018-0.
Planner Matzke introduced a consideration of a request for approval of a variance from the minimum
lake setback on property located at 3456 Twin Island Circle, located along the northeastern shore of Twin
Island on Upper Prior Lake. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and
recommendations. He provided a resolution, location map, survey dated June 16, 2015 and an applicant
narrative stamp dated August 14, 2015.
Commission Comments/Questions:
Petersen asked why the difference between the main land being 100 feet or the average of the two
neighboring properties versus the island.
Planner Matzke explained the reasoning being to keep the island in more of a seasonal/natural state and
DNR decisions on ordinances.
Fleming asked why the properties to the west are so close; were they granted variances previously. He
questioned the practical difficulty that the property owner is proposing.
Planner Matzke explained there have not been variances in recent years due to pre 90’s construction. He
said they are non-conformities to the ordinance rather than variances and possibly granted variances for
additions or remodeling’s. He stated the original cabins may have already been that close to the lake. He
explained the practical difficulty is saving natural vegetation and natural state/features of the property.
Blahnik stated the septic tank and site is a County issue, but is the ten feet from the septic site to boundary
property line is that the within the requirement. He asked if this house as far south as it can go.
Planner Matzke replied yes he believes it is within the requirements and stated yes this is far as the house
can go without changing any other features with the septic tank.
Applicant:
Dale Chard, 3456 Twin Island Circle.
Blahnik asked about the septic tank and septic site and asked what his understanding of his options.
Applicant Chard explained the reasoning of the septic tank and septic site location, clarified the
separations and stated the clearance needed from the 904. He said elevations were taken into consideration
as well.
5
Hite stated the applicant’s statement helped with topography which is a driving force also with regards to
the placement of the septic and the placement of the septic is driving the placement of the home.
Applicant Chard replied correct and explained the pump system into the holding tank.
MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY FLEMING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:47P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Hite, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried.
Public Comment:
None.
MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:48 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Fleming, Hite, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried.
Commission Comments/Questions:
Hite stated she is in support of the grant of the variance for the lake setback as practical difficulties do
exist based on the topography of the existing site. She understands the location of the lake home would
be consistent and in harmony with existing structures on the Island.
Larson stated he is in support of the variance and asked if there is a landing pad for cars to park on this
property.
Planner Matzke replied not currently and explained the driveway area and the streets on the Island.
Blahnik stated he is in supporting this variance due to practical difficulties, the applicant being modest
with a cabin at 672 square foot footprint and also needing to squeeze in the septic tank and site. He stated
he is doing best with what he has given the topography of the land.
MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY HITE to approve a resolution approving the requested
variance for 3456 Twin Island subject to the conditions from the City Staff that the resolution be recorded
at Scott County and acknowledged City Assent Form be summited to the community and economic
development department prior to issuance of a building permit.
VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried.
D. DEV15-001018 6364 Conroy Street NE – Quigley Architects on behalf of the property owner
is requesting variances from the minimum front yard, side yard, and lakeshore setbacks, and
impervious surface to construct a single family dwelling in the (R1-SD) Low Density
Residential Shoreland Zoning District. PID: 25-114-005-0.
Planner Matzke introduced a consideration of a request for approval of a variance from the minimum
lakeshore structure setback, minimum front yard, minimum side yard setback, and maximum impervious
surface for a property in the R1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District. He explained the history,
current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommendations. He provided a resolution, location map,
survey dated August 12, 2015, Conceptual Building Plans dated August 7, 2015, Applicant Narrative
dated August 7, 2015 and Adjacent Neighbor Letter dated August 8, 2015.
Commission Comments/Questions:
6
Hite asked who owns the land that they are maintaining, but is not theirs. She questioned the proposed
size and consistency of this home with the rest of the homes in the area.
Planner Matzke replied it is an Outlot and explained the maintenance, adverse possession/title claims
and ownership rights versus private property rights. He explained the proposed house in relationship with
the other houses and spoke of the flood plain and basements.
Petersen asked if the waterfront area was part of the actual property, the only issue would be the northern
overhang is a foot or two too far and the west side is a little bit close to the elevation.
Planner Matzke replied they wouldn’t have the impervious surface variance concern; it would still be
proximity to lakeshore setback, they are trying to take this property and push it as much as they can
towards the driveway features, so increasing their setbacks to the lake, which is something we do
recommend as long as they have parking area on their driveway.
Fleming asked verification of how many variances are being applied for.
Planner Matzke replied four, and explained during our review some of our ordinances get very detailed.
Blahnik asked what the current percentage of impervious surface is and is the current structure in
compliance with the side yard setback.
Planner Matzke replied they are maintaining the prior existing impervious surface and explained the
calculations. He said the current structure has a garage and explained the setbacks.
Larson questioned if the area that is the exception of lot 39 is dead land. He stated it looks like there is a
lot of land between the two properties.
Planner Matzke explained it is owned by the neighbors north due to a re-plat/realignment that happened
many years ago and stated there is at least 20-25 feet of separation.
Applicant
Tim Quigley, Architect in Minneapolis and resides at 275 Market Street, Minneapolis. He said he has
had the opportunity to build 4 projects on the lake and would like to build a fifth one. He gave reasons
for the house being built, including the length of the house and reasons why they would not be able to
build a three story. He mentioned this property is a unique parcel and with practical difficulties. He stated
improvements to meet the five prong criteria with being reasonable to build on a constrained site.
Blahnik questioned the side yard setback being 2.3; asking did you attempt to get within the five feet and
how big the proposed garage is.
Applicant Quigley replied we have, but it would make for a smaller garage space then is desirable. We
already shaved back the overhangs on that side of the house. He stated the proposed garage is 980 feet
but also has a workshop area.
Hite asked if the garage’s additional footage is in the width or the depth and could this be adjusted.
7
Applicant Quigley replied the additional footage is in the width and stated they are up against all
variances. He mentioned meetings with Planner Matzke to understand this site and build with compliance.
MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY LARSON TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:12 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried.
Public Comment:
None.
MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY LARSON TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:13 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried.
Commission Comments/Questions:
Petersen stated part of the difficulty is the water front area and this is beyond the control of the
homeowners. He said he understands the need for no basement due to flood plain issues and with the
other building being a ways back with an overhang that is taking up a good portion and given the fact that
they could move up another level but took the neighbors into consideration; as well as there are no
neighbors here complaining, rather they are in 40 that the neighbor is in support; he is in support of this
variance too.
Fleming stated he is supporting this variance; he is a little concerned about the 2.7 feet but is compelled
by Mr. Quigley that all of those tints have been exhausted that the property is frapped with practical
difficulties and believe Mr. Quigley and his firm in concert with the homeowners have done a really great
job in mitigating these practical difficulties.
Larson stated he supports his fellow Commissioners in supporting these variances. He said in the
waterfront area having the extra land and coverages on either side of the lot protects the lot owners on the
north side.
Blahnik said there are practical difficulties and he appreciate what the applicant has done with increasing
the setbacks from the lake and front yard to address the planning concerns. He commented on impervious
surface being at a good standing and stated his reservations about practical difficulties on the side yard
setback. He is in support of the variance request with the exception of the side yard setback.
Fleming stated per Commissioner Blahnik’s comment he would like to ask Planner Matzke what the depth
of the home.
Planner Matzke replied it is 32 square feet is the depth of the home from the front, face of garage, to the
back of the home.
Fleming asked 32 minus 2.7 feet?
Planner Matzke replied correct if they were to take 2.7 feet off the end and make the corner overhang in
compliance and took it off the whole depth and didn’t have the corner out in the garage and took off the
end of the garage they would take 2.7 feet off of the 32.
8
Hite stated there are practical difficulties that do exist with the configuration of the lot. This is the first
time she has heard a variance request when we are considering land that is not part of the subject property
and the subject application to be used to offset some of the ordnance compliance perspectives. She
appreciates the fact that they are improving the existing out-of-compliance condition relating to the front
yard setback which is an improvement in this application. Pulling the house further from the lake is an
improvement. The impervious is an improvement, too, in so far as they can include in that calculation the
additional lake frontage of land that is technically not part of their lot. She feels there is an opportunity to
reduce the footprint of the home to mitigate the side-yard condition, whether it is reducing the overhang.
With that, she is in favor of granting the front yard setback, the lake setback and the impervious surface,
but would not be in support of the minimum side yard setbacks.
MOTION BY BLAHNIK, SECONDED BY HITE TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION APPROVING
THREE REQUESTED VARIANCES FOR 6364 CONROY STREET WHICH INCLUDE A 13.2 FOOT
VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED MINIMUM 20 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK; 18.4
VARIANCE FROM THE 30 MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REQUIREMENT; AND A 20
FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 50 FOOT STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM THE
ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK AS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT SUBJECT TO THE
CONDITIONS FROM CITY STAFF.
VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried.
Applicant Quigley requested a comment of miscommunication clarifying a comment relevant to the
fourth variance on the side yard setback being misconstrued. He mentioned Commissioner Fleming
brought up the point regarding the 2.75 feet times the entire length of the garage. It is only a little corner
that is 2.75 feet. It is not the entire house. The property line is not parallel.
Fleming said he was wondering how the total square footage would reduce the foot print of the entire
home. He asked Mr. Quigley if he is verifying that it is not 86.4 square feet.
Applicant Quigley replied right it is truly a sliver.
Hite asked is this sliver structure or overhang.
Applicant Quigley replied it is just overhang.
Petersen questioned if it is a cantilever and asked how big the soffits are.
Applicant Quigley replied yes the roof overhangs which is a cantilever. He explained the soffit sizes.
Blahnik asked from the ground level is there 5 feet from the house to the property line.
Planner Matzke explained the house is 5.5 - 5.8 feet away and the overhang line is 2.3 feet at the corner.
Applicant Quigley stated and that is the only non-confining piece.
Blahnik asked if there would be gutters.
Applicant Quigley suspects there will be gutters.
9
Hite stated this information was influential for her and misinterpreted and understood there to be a
structure and larger foot print of the building that would have fallen within this dimension, considering
the fact as she now understands that there is no home building, rather an overhang that is non-compliance;
she would be in favor of supporting the request for the variance for the minimum side yard of 2.7 feet.
Blahnik stated he concurs as it is just an overhang on a single corner.
MOTION BY HITE TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REQUESTED 2.7 foot
variance for 6364 Conroy Street.
VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried.
E. DEV15-001016 14640 Oakland Beach Avenue – Highmark Builders, on behalf of the owner,
Chris Dahl, is requesting a variance from the minimum lake setback to allow construction
of a single family dwelling on a property in the (R1-SD) Low Density Residential Shoreland
District. PID: 25-930-112-0, 25-930-115-0, 25-118-008-0.
Planner Matzke introduced a consideration of a request for approval of a variance from the minimum
lake setback on a property at 14640 Oakland Beach Avenue located along the Shore of Lower Prior Lake,
north of Seven Acres Street in the (R1-SD) Low Density Residential Shoreland District. He explained
the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommendations. He provided a resolution,
location map, survey dated August 12, 2015 and Conceptual Building Plans dated August 7, 2015.
Commission Comments/Questions:
Hite asked if there are any structures on the land today.
Planner Matzke replied currently it is a vacant site.
Larson asked if the government lot was acquired and questioned the fill of the lot behind the lot on Upper
Prior Lake. He asked about waterway creating water to raise in the pond.
Planner Matzke replied the government lot is a stipulation is means of a legal description. He explained
platting terms from years ago, stating it is privately owned. He explained over time it has been filled, with
jurisdiction from the DNR, stating the City has no approval of jurisdiction below the 904 elevation. He
stated he doesn’t have the information on the depth of this area of the pond to know the elevation.
Blahnik asked what the DNR’s current position on this.
Planner Matzke replied the DNR request was in support of this request for the setback variance because
they felt that it was 75 feet from the 904.
Blahnik questioned if the DNR was initially support of this variance.
Planner Matzke stated the DNR always indicated support of this variance. He explained the reasoning
that the applicant sought the DNR first and throughout the application the DNR did support this variance
request.
Fleming asked if the DNR suggest any specific measurement for the variance.
10
Planner Matzke responded stating they did not specifically give a restriction or agreement, but the area
hydrologist did agree with this requirement, due to previous discussion with the applicant being in
compliance with a practical difficulty and felt that they met that requirement.
Fleming stated the Planning Commissioners received a letter from a law firm and asked based on this
communication, how does the city reconcile its findings of fact with the findings of fact that are presented
by this law firm.
Planner Matzke responded on the comments in the letter from the law firm, detailing some of the aspects
in the letter are referring to the area that is below a 904 elevation. He explained the difference between
the areas explained in the letter below the 904 elevation and is a different area than the variance request
details.
Fleming stated he would like more context around the shoreland management and would like to see some
formal communication from the DNR on letter head after they have had the chance to review this
communication.
Petersen asked if the DNR saw this particular plan that we are view today.
Planner Matzke replied yes they did.
Petersen asked if this was to go through a lot of fill would come in from off site and do we monitor
limitation of what kind of fill can be brought in.
Planner Matzke replied referring this question to the applicant or contractor may give us more accurate
measures.
Hite stated there is new information that effects the Planning Commission. She said she appreciates the
applicant reaching out to the DNR first, however the letter from the law office needs to be shown to the
DNR before an approval can be made.
Applicant
Applicant Morse, 12237 Nicollet Avenue South, Burnsville, MN, works for Highmark Builders and is
here tonight representing Mr. and Mrs. Dahl. He stated Highmark Builders along with Jeff Church
Architecture has been working with the property on Oakland Beach for a couple years now designing a
home for this unique site. He explained the difficulties with this site and said it led them to contact the
DNR, along with meetings with City Staff and 4-5 different designs to find a good fit for this site. He
mentioned the only areas impacted are above the 904 and shared concerns with the letter from the law
office, stating with a 75 foot setback requirement make this an unbuildable lot.
Chris Dahl, 15259 Wilds Parkway NW, stated his family has lived for 17 years and had a desire to move
to the lake. He commented on the late delivery of the letter from the law office and commen ted on the
neighboring house that contacted the law office. He stated no steps were taken without working with the
DNR, City Staff, US Army Corp of Engineers, Scott County and Watershed District to ensure that if there
is any questions, they are addressed immediately and to make sure everything is in compliance to not
waste anyone’s time. He stated the two questions asked tonight included above and below the 904 foot
11
elevation. He explained the depth of the pond, the distance between the lake and the pon d and asked if
this is a buildable lot or not?
Fleming stated he appreciates and understands all of what goes into the steps including anxiety, money
and etc., however he stated his concern stating that he doesn’t have a formal response in writing from the
DNR affirming the claims of Mr. Dahl and an affirmative response of the law office letter. He commented
on the timing of the letter but still would like a response from the DNR so the applicant can keep moving
forward.
Larson is there a water way that leads into this pond.
Dahl stated there has never been a water way connecting to this pond as long as they have been there. He
explained how the water fills in the pond and the requested 903.5 foot elevation swale. He commented
on how the pond would stay filled, as they don’t want it to go dry; they support the 903.5 swale also.
Hite asked about a submittal to the DNR to modify the Swale.
Dahl replied we made a submittal to the DNR to put in rip-rap and part of the rip-rap plan is to ensure
there is a swale, which was verified as well.
Hite stated then there should be a record of your submittal and the DNR approving this submittal, which
should include the work that you did that is compliant of the DNR permit to add the rip-rap and do the
swale.
Dahl replied yes, maybe a record even at the City.
Planner Matzke added he did speak with Pete Young, the Cit y’s Water Resource Engineer, prior to this
meeting and he has a permit which was issued by the DNR for Mr. Dahl’s for rip-rap material and was in
May of 2014.
Hite asked if this is something the DNR would come and inspect to make sure it is in compliance with the
plan.
Dahl replied yes.
Blahnik asked the ETA on the project right now.
Dahl stated he understands Commissioner Fleming’s comments and does respect the waiting. He
explained his reasoning for wanting to rush the project along, but understands the concerns.
Planner Matzke asked to add a comment regarding an email response from the DNR Hydrologist, Jennie
Skanke; he read this response, stating it is not a letterhead response, however he would like the Planning
Commissioners to have the entire information as it is a statement stating the DNR support this variance.
Fleming commented on Planner Matzke’s comment stating he is not here to discourage families to build
and dream, but would still like a formal communication from the DNR after their legal team has had a
chance to review points raised by the law firm.
12
MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY LARSON TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:02 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried
Anton Cheskis, Huemoller Bates & Gontarek, 16670 Franklin Trail, apologized for the late letter, as they
received notice of this last week. He explained who owns Outlot A and stated this is not a pond, rather a
bay of Prior Lake; he explained the reasoning behind why this is a bay rather than a pond. He read a letter
that Jennie Skanke, DNR Specialist wrote to Mr. Dahl in 2013, stating the ridge was formed illegally.
Hite asked for direction of where the ridge is and where the fill was added. She also asked how the ridge
is different than the rip-rap that Mr. Dahl was speaking of earlier.
Planner Matzke responded pointing out where the area is.
Cheskis stated there is a land ridge; is unsure of the dimensions of this ridge, that separates what is shown
on the survey as a pond between Prior Lake which is not historically there and he has some photographs
that go back to the 40’s through the 80’s showing a continuous water flowing into this bay. He stated
concerns of illegal ridge creation and now asking for a variance to use the property in a reasonable manner.
Petersen stated the ridge and the building site question are two separate issues.
Cheskis replied they are and they are not. He explained reasons of why the ridge and building are
connected as the property is not being used legally.
Petersen stated he understands the motivation and asked Planner Matzke if the ridge went away and water
flowed into this pond would that change this building site; Would the DNR say that this building site is
not an option.
Planner Matzke replied that would be a question for the DNR, however looking at a setback perspective,
the requested variance would remain the same.
Petersen said if it was open the DNR would look at it very similar because they are saying it already
connected right now.
Cheskis said the DNR would look at the actual setback the same, but would treat it as it was a main part
of Prior Lake and stated that would be looked at very differently. He said Commissioner Larson is looking
at the depth of the pond, a 2011 wetland delineation was done and at this point it is at 893.
Petersen asked why the DNR would approve permission to install rip-rap.
Cheskis replied any DNR permit is contingent upon the owner applying with applicable law. He stated
he has not seen application or the variance, but does knows in 2013 they were told to not put any rip-rap
in without our permission. He stated the law offices position to okay the variance request.
Hite asked Mr. Cheskis if he could clarify where Outlot A is in relation to the applicant’s property.
Planner Matzke offered to help identify the area using an aerial photo.
13
Cheskis concurred with Planner Matzke, stating it is the southern half of the pond and then extends into
the land below and if you review the packet submitted by the Law Firm there is a plat for Outlot A from
78 that specifically defines this as Prior Lake and no mention of this being a pond, rather a bay of Prior
Lake.
Hite asked Mr. Cheskis if he and his client have been working with DNR outside of tonight’s application.
Cheskis replied the last communication was December 13, when we trying to determine if this was a pond
or part of Prior Lake and this is when all this information came from at that time.
Ted McWilliams, 18303 Key West Court, Lakeville, MN, stated he hoped to be moving back to Prior
Lake in Jeffers Waterfront. He stated he is the owner of Outlot A. He is hopeful that the applicant can
build on the lot. He stated his feelings and concerns on this location. He gave history on Oakland Beach
and this land. He stated the pond is not a pond, rather Prior Lake with a sand filled bottom and has been
this way for a long time. He said this area has been mechanically filled, over time. He shared concerns
on how a permit could have been issued to build a retaining wall from the DNR and concerns on why the
wall is there. He said he was in support of giving a variance, with conditions that the channel be restored
back to the way it was. He read a letter from 1977 that the DNR wrote regarding sending o ut a crew to
investigate a filling violation. He talked about the water level of the lake and the water level of the water
area under question. He said he has riparian rights and he would like them restored. He said the top of the
retaining wall is at 905. He stated Prior Lake should take a stand and figure out if this is part of the lake
or not. He stated he has old and current photographs and surveys that shows the 904 contour wraps in,
some being DNR surveys and emails from the DNR to the owners stating they are filling illegally.
Steve Vespested, 14662 Lyndale Avenue SE, property owner across Oakland Beach Avenue, stated he is
not opposed to anyone building there and has seen this property change hands many times in 16 years.
He feels the land is not buildable and should be dedicated back to the city for parkland. He has been
designing homes for the last 35 years all over the upper Midwest and in this situation design something
that fits or don’t do anything. He said owning a lot doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want. Do your
homework and get things done right and in compliance. Was surprised that Ted was not notified. There
is a wall effecting the shoreline. Unsure if they are doing a basement but it would need to be six feet
above and would need a lot of fill to. He shared his concerns about fill.
Applicant Morse stated there are two clarifications he would like to mention; one being the statement of
a wall being built. He explained the purpose of rip-rap, stating it is there to protect the shore line and keep
erosion from happening, it is not called a wall. He understands what Ted was saying regarding above and
below the 904, but the requested variance is above the 904 which is the standard that the whole process
has gone with and that is why they are looking at the 25 foot setback. They are taking the more restricted
of the two.
MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY LARSON TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:26 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried.
Larson asked for verification on the notification process and where a loop hole could have happened in
the mailing.
Planner Matzke explained the mailing/notification procedures and stated the address to which BNT was
sent a notification letter to.
14
Blahnik asked do you know when these lots were established and if there is legal descriptions.
Planner Matzke stated he could look it up the plat, however the lower area is Lot 9, part of the Seven
Acres Plat, which also includes the area of Outlot A and other areas below this area. Mr. Williams may
have this information. He commented on the Government Lot 6, which are previous to platting years.
Blahnik stated if the DNR is in support of this and this body of water is hydrologically connected and this
is a bay, however he agrees with Commissioner Fleming that it would be good to see the paper trail from
the last couple decades and without this information, he is in support of tabling this variance.
Petersen said at first glance he felt that if the DNR is in support of this then he feels that he wo uld also
be in support of this due to the DNR thorough investigations, however with the additional information
coming in without support he feels this should be tabled.
Fleming asked for additional information from the DNR with respect to the September 8th communication.
Petersen added it appears to be two different issues. He would like to treat these as two separate issues.
Fleming sees it more connected as there were considerable amount of information raised that makes them
as one. He would feel comfortable with a rigorous statement from the DNR. He stated the DNR should
have some pointed conversations with Mr. Williams and the Dahl family; then get this information to us.
Hite stated she agrees with Commission Fleming sediments. She stated Mr. Dahl has obtained permits to
add rip-rap, build walls and have done these things and the DNR has inspected it and has complied; Mr.
Dahl does not have any issues. She said Mr. Dahl is not responsible for prior landowners may or may not
have done without approval, however there are some open issues still. She would be more comfortable
with more robust information from the DNR. She is in support of tabling this variance. Would like more
history from the DNR. Mr. Dahl is doing a sizeable investment and we would like to let him execute his
plan, but would like to take the DNR as a partner and get comfortable with new data.
MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO TABLE TO NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION
ON CONDITION THAT WE HAVE THE DNR BE PRESENT, AND PROVIDE A FORMAL
WRITTEN OPINION FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS TO THE HISTORY OF THIS BODY
OF WATER AND ITS CONNECTIVITY TO PRIOR LAKE.
VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried.
5. Old Business:
A. DEV15-001013 – 6430 Conroy Street NE – Behr Design on behalf of the property owner is
requesting variance from the front, side yard and lake setbacks and maximum impervious surface
to construct a new home. PID: 25-114-012-0.
Director Rogness introduced a request for approval of seven 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. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and
recommendations. He provided a resolution, location map, survey dated July 31, 2015, conceptual
15
building plans stamp dated July 24, 2015, examples of narrow lakefront homes and 6436 Conroy
survey/pictures and a letter from applicant dated September 3, 2015.
Petersen asked staff’s opinion of if there is enough room for water to drain by without pushing it over to
the neighbor’s yard by the egress.
Director Rogness replied standard for building new is five feet for drainage purposes. He explained some
of the grading necessities.
Planner Matzke added when the building department is looking at building permits, they try to address
the grading plans for individual sites to maintain the drainage within their sites not drain on to other
adjacent property, thereby trading any drainage issues for adjacent property. When we get a new site, we
try to keep them front to back on property lines. He explained old plats versus new on plats and explained
the differences in drainage. He stated this is a rare case, but the adjacent property owner is the applicant.
Blahnik asked is the side yard setbacks from the exterior wall or the soffit.
Director Rogness replied it is from the wall.
Blahnik questioned if there will be stairs on the deck, if so would they come into play for the setback and
could stairs be added in the future.
Director Rogness replied they are not required, however they could have them added but still would have
to meet the setback. He shared some options
Planner Matkze added the applicant typically has it on the plan now if they attend to have stairs later on.
Larson asked the applicant if they are looking to put a stair case on the deck and if not, why.
Robert Welsh, 6424 Conroy Street NE, replied immediately next door is no stairs on the deck. This
plan will also have no staircase.
Petersen stated he understands the concerns of the owner, but feels it could be narrowed a bit.
Fleming asked if the process for applying for an expanding egress window well.
Director Rogness explained the ordinance states that there are some things that can encroach into side
yards and egress is one with one exception. He explained the exceptions.
Blahnik stated there are practical difficulties but has the same comments that this is a very small lot and
this needs a very small house. There are ordinances put into effect and he underst ands wanting to build
on this property, however this is still a small lot. He stated the setbacks and impervious surface requests
that he is comfortable with, but still has issues with the sides of the structure. He commented on the
applicant not working with the Commissioner’s comments.
Larson replied there are other homes in the lake community that are smaller. He feels the window well
needs space for drainage for future homeowners. He said his decision is undecided at this time.
16
Hite stated the commissioners asked for some design changes; however, the applicant decided they did
not want to work with the Commissioners to show any effort of change. She stated concerns in the
applicant letter and she responded to this concern stating the width of the garage could stay the same to
make it appealing. She understands that there are other homes that may be similar situated with front yard
and rear yard setback; however, we are still looking at a 4,402 square lot and this house is too tight for
this lot. She is not supporting the application.
MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION APPROVING
THE REQUESTED SEVEN POTENTIALLY 8 VARIANCES FOR 6430 CONROY STREET.
VOTE: Ayes None.
Nay by Blahnik, Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion denied.
MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY FLEMING TO DENY THE VARIANCES SOUGHT FOR 6430
CONROY STREET FINDING LATHE OF DEMONSTRATED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES UNDER
THE ZONING CODE CRITERIA.
VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The denial carried.
Director Rogness commented on the appeal on the Planning Commission’s decision denial, stating an
appeal would need to be made to the City Council but requires a written request to Director Rogness
within 5 business days and the suggested fee.
6. New Business:
No New Business.
7. Announcements / City Council Updates:
August 24, 2015 Meeting
Approval of the Jeffers Pond Eight Addition.
Approved a Resolution extending the statutory time limit for the consideration for
the Jeffers Pond PUD amendment related to the Super America.
Thank you’s to Perri Hite for her years on the Planning Commission.
8. Adjournment:
MOTION BY HITE, SECONDED BY BLAHNIK TO ADJORN THE SEPTEMBER 8, 2015
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
VOTE: Ayes by Blahnik, Hite, Fleming, Larson and Petersen. The Motion carried.
The meeting adjourned at 9:13 p.m.
Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant