HomeMy WebLinkAbout7A 14332 Watersedge Trail Variance Appeal Report
Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 / www.cityofpriorlake.com
4646 Dakota Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: JUNE 12, 2017
AGENDA #: 7A
PREPARED BY: JEFF MATZKE, PLANNER
PRESENTED BY: JEFF MATZKE
AGENDA ITEM: HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S DECISION TO DENY A VARIANCE FROM THE
MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REQUIREMENTS FOR A
PROPERTY IN THE R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING
DISTRICT WITHIN THE SHORELAND DISTRICT
DISCUSSION: Introduction
Hank and Carol Breeggemann have appealed the decision of the Planning
Commission to deny a variance from the maximum impervious surface to
allow for the construction of a new single family residential home on a
property located at 14332 Watersedge Trail NE. The property is located
along the northern shores of Lower Prior Lake, west of Trunk Hwy 13, south
of Rutgers Street NE.
History
On March 20, 2017, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
regarding the variance requests. Comments from the applicant and a
neighboring property owner were taken (see attached minutes). After
closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission tabled the decision on
the matter until the full commission would be in attendance and advised the
applicant and City Staff to continue dialog and try to find a solution related
to the impervious surface request at 14332 Watersedge Trail.
On April 17, 2017, the Planning Commission was in full attendance but at
the written request of the applicant, the Planning Commission removed the
item consideration from the meeting agenda.
On May 1, 2017 the Planning Commission continued discussion of the
variances requested (see attached minutes) and took the following actions:
14332 Watersedge Trail NE
• A 21.0-foot variance from the required minimum 50-foot structure
setback from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) elevation of Prior
Lake using the average lake setbacks of adjacent properties
(Section 1104.308). APPROVED
• A 3.7% variance from the 30% maximum impervious surface
requirement for a residential property in the Shoreland District
(Section 1104.306 & Section 1104.902 (1)) DENIED
2
• A 5,158-square foot variance from the minimum 15,000 square
foot lot area required for development of a nonconforming lot of
record (Section 1104.302 (3)) APPROVED
14342 Watersedge Trail NE
• A 16.6-foot variance from the required minimum 50-foot structure
setback from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) elevation of Prior
Lake using the average lake setbacks of adjacent properties
(Section 1104.308). APPROVED
• A 3.7% variance from the 30% maximum impervious surface
requirement for a residential property in the Shoreland District
(Section 1104.306 & Section 1104.902 (1)) APPROVED
• A 7,825-square foot variance from the minimum 15,000 square
foot lot area and 30-foot variance from the minimum 90-foot lot
width required for development of a nonconforming lot of record
(Section 1104.302 (3)) APPROVED
On May 4, 2017 Carol and Hank Breeggemann appealed the decision of the
Planning Commission to deny the impervious surface variance request at
14332 Watersedge Trail.
Current Circumstances
The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential), and is guided R-LD
(Urban Low Density) on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The
property currently contains a single-family home which was constructed in
1951. The property is 9,842 square feet in area above the 904 elevation
(ordinary high water mark of Prior Lake).
Impervious Surface: The impervious surface coverage for the 14332
Watersedge Trail lot was proposed to the Planning Commission at 33.7% of
the total lot area above the high-water mark of Prior Lake. The existing
impervious coverage for the lot is 53.0%; therefore, the applicant does
indicate a reduction in impervious surface for the lot.
Since the May 1st denial of the impervious surface variance request by the
Planning Commission, the applicant has reduced the proposed impervious
surface of the property to 32.9% of the total lot area by removing square
footage in the driveway area.
Conclusion
Per the appeal process, the City Council should review the actions by the
Planning Commission to deny the variance and decide to affirm or reverse
the decision of the Planning Commission. In addition, the City Council
should review the series of attachments to this report and judge whether the
reduction of impervious surface proposed by the applicant (to a 32.9%
maximum) which has been proposed since the Planning Commission’s
action is justified for approval of an impervious surface variance.
ISSUES: The following are the findings of fact of which the Planning Commission
determined to deny the impervious surface variance. Section 1108.400 of
3
the Zoning Ordinance states that the Board of Adjustment (Planning
Commission) 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.
In the case of the impervious surface for the larger of the lots (14332
Watersedge Trail) the size of the house (2,651 square feet) could be
reduced to allow for an impervious surface of under 30% of the total
lot area. According to the proposed survey record a reduction of 301
square feet could achieve this effort. The applicant has indicated a
reduction of the walkway impervious surface yet an impervious
surface of 33.7% of the total lot area remains. By reducing the
walkway to 3 feet in width the walkway is not included in impervious
surface calculations by ordinance. Therefore, amount of 87 feet was
eliminated leaving a need for another 215 square feet of impervious
surface to be eliminated from the site to achieve an impervious
surface of 30% of the total lot area above a 904 elevation.
(2) The granting of the Variances are in harmony with the general
purposes and intent of the City Subdivision and Zoning
Ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan.
The impervious surface for the larger lot (14332 Watersedge Trail)
could be reduced below the 30% maximum requirement and still allow
for a house footprint of at least 2,436 square feet which is a
reasonable house.
(3) 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.
A reasonable house with a footprint of at least 2,436 square feet could
be constructed within the limitation of 30% impervious surface
maximum requirement at 14332 Watersedge Trail.
(4) The granting of the variances will not alter the essential character
of the neighborhood or be detrimental to the health and safety of
the public welfare.
Another property in the neighborhood (14380 Watersedge Trail) with
a similar lot size and 3-car garage situation as 14332 Watersedge
Trail that has been recently rebuilt upon does meet the impervious
surface requirement of 30% maximum of the lot area. Therefore, a
similar lot situation in the neighborhood that was constructed under
4
the current impervious surface ordinance requirement does exist
indicating that this variance is not necessary to conform to the
neighborhood character.
(5) The granting of the Variances will not result in allowing any use
of the property that is not permitted in the zoning district where
the subject property is located.
The impervious surface variance would allow construction of a
residential dwelling which is an allowed use within the R-1 (Low
Density Residential) Zoning District.
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
The applicant seeks approval of the impervious surface variance appeal to
construct a single family residential dwelling which will add taxbase.
ALTERNATIVES: 1. Motion and a second to approve a resolution affirming the denial of the
impervious surface variance previously approved by the Planning
Commission at 14332 Watersedge Trail.
2. Motion and a second to approve a resolution to deny or amend the
Planning Commission’s action with respect to the maximum impervious
surface at 14332 Watersedge Trail to 32.9% of the total lot area or as
determined by the City Council.
3. Motion and a second to table this item and request staff to provide
additional information as identified by the City Council.
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
As determined by the City Council.
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map
2. Draft Resolution 17-xxx (upholding the Planning Commission’s decision)
3. Existing survey dated 6-15-2015
4. Proposed survey dated 5-31-2017
5. Proposed House Renderings
6. March 20, 2017 Planning Commission minutes
7. May 1, 2017 Planning Commission Report
8. May 1, 2017 Planning Commission minutes
9. Planning Commission Resolution 17-06PC (denying impervious surface
variance)
10. Breeggemann letters and attachments
R U T G E R S S T N E
W A T E R S E D G E T R L N E
Lower Prior Lake
Scott County GIS
Ü
14332 Watersedge Trail NE Variance AppealLocation Map
LOWER PRIOR LAKEGD
(904)
PIKELAKE
NE(820.5)
Lower Prior Lake
Scott County GIS
SUBJECTPROPERTY
SUBJECTPROPERTY
4646 Dakota Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RESOLUTION 17-XXX
RESOLUTION TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A
VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REQUIREMENT AT 14332
WATERSEDGE TRAIL NE
Motion By: Second By:
WHEREAS, Copper Creek Real Estate Group, Inc., on behalf of the property owner, Hank and
Carol Breeggemann, requested a variance from the maximum impervious surface
to construct a new single family residential dwelling on a property in the R-1(Low
Density Residential) Zoning District at the following described property;
14332 Watersedge Trail NE, Prior Lake, MN 55372
All of Lot 10 and that part of Lot 11, which lies west of the East 10.00 feet thereof,
all in Boudin’s Manor, according to the recorded plat thereof, Scott County,
Minnesota.
(PID 25-119-010-0)
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment, reviewed the
application for the variance as contained in Case #DEV17-001006, held a public
hearing thereon March 20, 2017, and continued their discussion of the item on May
1, 2017; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission concluded the variance was not consistent with the
criteria set forth in Section 1108.406 of the Zoning Ordinance, and denied the
variance; and
WHEREAS, Hank and Carol Breeggemann, the property owner of the subject 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 #DEV17-001006 and #DEV17-001014, and held
a hearing thereon on June 12, 2017.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE,
MINNESOTA as follows:
1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein.
2. The City Council makes the following findings:
a. The decision of the Planning Commission was properly and timely appealed in
accordance with Section 1108.409 of the City Code.
b. In the case of the impervious surface for the larger of the lots (14332 Watersedge
Trail) the size of the house (2,651 square feet) could be reduced to allow for an
impervious surface of under 30% of the total lot area. According to the proposed
survey record a reduction of 301 square feet could achieve this effort. The
applicant has indicated a reduction of the walkway impervious surface yet an
impervious surface of 33.7% of the total lot area remains. By reducing the
walkway to 3 feet in width the walkway is not included in impervious surface
calculations by ordinance. Therefore, amount of 87 feet was eliminated leaving a
need for another 215 square feet of impervious surface to be eliminated from the
site to achieve an impervious surface of 30% of the total lot area above a 904
elevation.
c. The impervious surface for the larger lot (14332 Watersedge Trail) could be
reduced below the 30% maximum requirement and still allow for a house
footprint of at least 2,436 square feet which is a reasonable house.
d. A reasonable house with a footprint of at least 2,436 square feet could be
constructed within the limitation of 30% impervious surface maximum
requirement at 14332 Watersedge Trail.
e. Another property in the neighborhood (14380 Watersedge Trail) with a similar lot
size and 3-car garage situation as 14332 Watersedge Trail that has been
recently rebuilt upon does meet the impervious surface requirement of 30%
maximum of the lot area. Therefore, a similar lot situation in the neighborhood
that was constructed under the current impervious surface ordinance
requirement does exist indicating that this variance is not necessary to conform
to the neighborhood character.
f. The impervious surface variance would allow construction of a residential
dwelling which is an allowed use within the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning
District.
3. The contents of Planning Case #DEV17-1006 and DEV17-001014 are hereby entered
into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case.
4. Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby upholds the decision
of the Planning Commission to deny the following variance:
a. A 3.7% variance from the 30% maximum impervious surface requirement for a
residential property in the Shoreland District (Section 1104.306 & Section
1104.902 (1))
Passed and adopted by the Prior Lake City Council this 12th day of June, 2017.
VOTE Briggs McGuire Thompson Braid Burkart
Aye ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Nay ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Abstain ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Absent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
______________________________
Frank Boyles, City Manager
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
S
U
R
V
E
Y
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
S
U
R
V
E
Y
PROPOSED HOUSE RENDERING
1
PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, March 20, 2017
1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance:
Commissioner Fleming called the Monday, March 20, 2017 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to
order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Bryan Fleming, Dave Tieman, Mark Petersen,
and Dan Ringstad. Also present were Liaison Zach Braid, Planner Jeff Matzke, Project Engineer Nick
Monserud and Development Services Assistant Sandra Woods.
2. Approval of Agenda:
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, MARCH 20,
2017 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
3. Approval of Monday, March 6, 2017 Meeting Minutes:
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, MARCH 6, 2017
PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
4. Public Hearings:
A. PRV17-0001 – 14332 & 14342 Watersedge Trail NE – Variance –
Copper Creek Real Estate Group, Inc. is requesting variances regarding setbacks and impervious
surface to construct one new home on each parcel (Two Home Total) in the R1SD (Low Density
Residential Shoreland) Zoning District. PID: 251190070 & 251190080.
Planner Matzke introduced the request to consider approval of a resolution approving a variance to allow
variances form the minimum lake setback, maximum impervious surface, minimum lot width and
minimum lot area, for a property in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District. The properties are
located along the norther shores of Lower Prior Lake, west of Trunk Hwy 13, south of Rutgers Street NE.
The properties each currently contain a single-family home. He explained the history, current
circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended a motion. He presented a location map, existing
survey dated June 15, 2015, proposed survey dated March 13, 2017, proposed house renderings and
an applicant narrative dated March 16, 2017.
Commission Comments/Questions:
Fleming asked Planner Matzke if he discussed the Staff’s recommendations with the applicant and if the
applicant is willing to consider the Staff’s recommendation of reducing the square footage and the
walkway.
Planner Matzke replied he had discussed a couple of times, with the applicant, these recommendations
base around the impervious surface. He commented on the applicant’s response stating they wanted
the opinions of the Planning Commission, as they feel the impervious surface variance is justified. He
suggested asking the applicant if they are open to that decision.
Fleming explained his reasoning of asking stating it would have a bearing on opening the public hearing
due to resistivity of the applicant to rework the plan. He commented on Tabling the agenda item, but
March 20, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
2
decided to move and decide whether to open the public hearing , dependent on the response of the
applicant.
Planner Matzke replied it is up to the Planning Commission.
Applicant:
Greg Schweich, (14198 Commerce Avenue, Prior Lake, MN) He stated his occupation as the managing
partner with Copper Creek. He commented on just recently getting the information prior to the meeting,
several meeting with Planner Matzke and Director Rogness as well as City Staff and starting with the
DNR’s verbal approval. He said He said he doesn’t recall suggestions to redo his plan and commented
on Director Rogness no longer working with the City of Prior Lake. He commented on the synopsis of
the packet, reduction of the impervious surface including the sidewalk, improvement of the project,
bringing structures back from the lake, setbacks and setback allowances. He explained his research of
impervious surface and variances in the last four years and commented on working with the City most of
his life. He commented on how he thought the meeting was going to happen tonight and asked the
Commissioners if we could continue. He stated he would be open for questions and other solutions if
necessary to move the project forward.
Fleming explained the appreciation for having all the context and the consistency in all the years he has
been on the Planning Commission. He commented on placing high confidence in the recommendations
of Staff.
Petersen asked about the proposed house on the property; is that footprint what you intend to build.
Schweich replied yes that is what we proposed to build, correct.
Petersen said in subtracting the sidewalk, reduces it down to thirty-three-point seven percent.
Schweich replied yes.
Petersen asked about both porches and when they would be built. He said it is unfortunate that the
information got to him late and understands this puts him in a bind; however, felt it would be adaptable
to remove a couple hundred square feet. He commented on Mr. Schweich’s research in impervious
surface and variances around the area and said the total square footage was not listed.
Schweich commented on the outcome of a rain garden two doors down to reduce impervious surface
and suggested his discussions with and engineer to do a raingarden on this property. He explained the
rain garden, gutters, controlled runoff, and the final plans to the City.
Petersen asked Planner Matzke if that is an option.
Planner Matzke said that he would like to have our engineering staff, Project Engineer Monesrud answer
in on this and the long-term monitoring and maintenance of these situations. He explained the historical
perspective approved by the City Council that Mr. Schweich commented on the house a few doors down
and the constraints/issues of this raingarden.
Project Engineer Monserud stated regarding a raingarden and additional impervious areas doesn’t
reduce the impervious area, the area is still there; it merely treats it. He said rain gardens are high
maintenance and likely the City would have to maintain it, so it is an additional piece of maintenance that
our public works staff would have to do and we would like to avoid this.
Planner Matzke commented on a maintenance agreement prior to Project Engineer Monserud employed
with the City of Prior Lake. He explained raingardens are typically more common with commercial
projects and explained the differences between commercial and private, reports, maintenance
agreements, city involvement and explained how monitoring would be complex if this became the practice
throughout Prior Lake.
Petersen asked Mr. Schweich if there is a convincing hardship for the need of the extra footage; is there
something significant that would be lost, that would really change the structure or feel of this home.
Schweich said it would reduce the garage.
Ringstad asked for more follow up for the Project Engineer Monserud and Planner Matzke regarding the
findings/opinions for the City Council and their approval for this to be a potential solution to an impervious
surface exceeding impervious surface when now he is hearing that it truly doesn’t have a solution long
term for exceeding an impervious surface requirement.
Planner Matzke explained the prior project, the one highlighted in the packet, stating a list of conditions
regarding short side yard setbacks and seven variances or more; all leading to issues with drainage,
March 20, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
3
which lead to discussion about stormwater drainage, lot flowage, gutters, direction of water, rain gardens
or basin as part of the impervious surface variance. He commented on how the City Council came to
those terms with grouping of those variances.
Fleming asked if Copper Creek would like to share any additional information before he proceeds with
the public hearing.
Schweich said they would like to proceed with the public hearing and he commented on the raingardens,
neighborhood City projects appears to work, but not private property.
Fleming said he will redirect and asked Mr. Schweich to stay at the podium and stated we have not made
any decisions yet, and he would like this entered into the public record; we are having a conversation,
then stated he will open the public hearing.
Shweich asked if he could submit this packet of all the resolution to the Planning Commission for Public
Record.
Fleming said you may.
Schweich gave Sandra Woods the packet.
MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 4A AT
6:40 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
Public Comment:
Henry Breeggeman, located in Scottsdale Arizona. He explained he was a Minnesota resident, currently
reside in Arizona but would like to move back to the area. He said he is working with Copper Creek on
this property at 14332. He commented on being involved in conservation, grew up in a farming
community, understands land and how valuable it is, understands prevent runoff, making improvements
to the property, impervious surface, removing sidewalks, improvement of both lots, design of the home,
shrinking it down and the struggle of the current footprint. He explained working with the driveway and
other area; moving the house closer would not be the right thing to do. He commented on the footprint of
the house being long term; no expansions. He thanked the Commissioners and Staff and reiterated the
dramatic improvements to both pieces of property.
Bill Maynard, 14294 Watersedge Trail. He asked if the driveway setback from the road was to be twenty-
five feet and if so, would there be a request for a variance on this.
Planner Matzke explained the averaging of two properties within 150 feet of the proposed property down
to twenty feet; therefore, it does fit under our ordinance to allow an averaging. He commented on how
steep the driveway is already coming off the road.
Maynard asked about the larger property on the setback from the west side and the house being at ten
feet, but the deck gets down to eight point eight two. He stated he doesn’t see a variance on that either.
Planner Matzke said it is ten feet from the lot line and clarified the applicant had the original drawing
which was sent with the public hearing notices; however, the applicant did revise their drawing within the
last week and was changed to meet that setback.
Maynard asked about the setbacks on the smaller property from the two sides being seven point five
feet on both east and west side.
Planner Matzke explained when we have properties that are less than ninety feet wide; which this one
is, the side yard setbacks that are allowed are not our typical ten foot setbacks but a combined setback
of fifteen total feet between the two and so the combined feet of one is seven point five and the other
eight; combined is over fifteen and the reasoning is our ordinance does allow that without a variance, on
those properties that are seen as non-conforming less than ninety feet wide.
MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 4A AT
6:49 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
Commission Comments/Questions:
March 20, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
4
Ringstad said the proposed improvements with what you are doing on the lots; changing one from one
hundred to ninety and the other from fifty to sixty, is a terrific idea and can support that as he can support
all the proposed variances except for the impervious surface on the larger lot, that is three point seven
over the sidewalk change, a reasonable house can be built. He said he realizes it is not what everybody
is hopeful for or anybody may want, but based on some of the examples that Planner Matzke showed
tonight, he believes a reasonable house can be built on that lot while staying within the thirty percent
impervious surface ordinance. He will not be supporting that and is unsure if we are tabling or if we are
voting but whether it is tonight he can support the others that were in the report.
Petersen said he concurs with his fellow commissioner about everything being done out there is great
and he likes that the reducing from over fifty, down close to thirty. He said what is frustrating about all
you listed, all the other properties and the variances is they are all unique situations and this is as well a
unique situation. He stated it is hard to go against Staff’s recommendations and hard to go over thirty
percent impervious because what happens is the next time someone comes in and says well they got it
and we didn’t; however, in this case, by the lot being reduced ten feet this house would fit on this lot and
it is a big consideration of reducing the sidewalk and with the considerations it is fair that you get
something in return. He said given all the information that we have his is in favor.
Tieman stated he agrees as this is a good improvement on the area; getting the impervious down and
looking at this to what would it take to get this down to the thirty percent, he said they would be down to
losing the third car garage and that is a big thing for people. He said having a three-car garage is
reasonable in this area with a lot this size. He said with the overall changes that have been made and
the improvements made he is in support as is.
Fleming said this is a complicated one for him. He supports all variances but not the impervious surface
and he would like to see a reconsideration brought to the Planning Staff and then back to the
Commissioners. He asked his fellow Commissioners for comment; we can consider alternative one as
in the staff report which will result in a two to two tie or we can consider alternative number two which is
to Table or we can do both.
Petersen said we have never had a tie; what happens in a tie?
Fleming said the agenda items gets Tabled.
Petersen asked if there was a benefit one way or the other as far as procedural.
Planner Matzke said he doesn’t recall Commissioner Kallberg’s schedule, he believes he may be back
for the April meeting, so then there would be five Commissioners.
Petersen said I will be out; I will be missing that meeting.
Planner Matzke explained the reason mentioning Tabling this item; leaving an odd number of
Commissioner votes resulting in not having a tie; therefore, the option could be to table to a meeting
where all five are present, without that some type of a motion has to be made whether it be approved,
tabled or denied of a three fourth majority tonight.
Fleming said that is right and let me just offer this for the record; so tabling gives the applicant and the
owner some time to consider all of our concerns and comments as well as gives us some time to consider
everything that was mentioned tonight. He said he is never in favor of making quick hasty decisions as
and explained a handed down lesson from his wise grandmother decision making; therefore he would
like to consider a motion and a second to table the discussion of the item for this specific purpose which
it is for consideration of the design of the home or any elements of the design of the lot as directed by us
and he would like to table that discussion to a meeting where we have full attendance by our planning
commissioners. He asked for Commissioner comments on this thought.
Petersen asked if we need to continue the public hearing or we cannot as it has been closed, correct.
Fleming replied that is correct.
Planner Matzke said if you feel that you have the just of the public hearing comments tonight that is of
the option of the Planning Commission; however, you can still ask the applicant at a future meeting to
comment on things, the Planning Commission just needs to direct them to approach the podium.
Fleming said to Mr. Schweich that he will still have the opportunity to approach.
Schweich (in the audience, no microphone) said can I approach now.
Fleming said not at this time.
March 20, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
5
Ringstad asked Planner Matzke if with a Table decision, the applicant could continue with your dialog
and try to find a solution that may result in a something positive before this comes back to us at a future
meeting.
Planner Matzke said City Staff is certainly open to continuing conversation, always.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO TABLE THIS DISCUSSION TO A MEETING
WHEN WE WILL HAVE OF FULL ATTENDENCE OF ALL COMMISSIONERS AT 6:56 P.M.
REGARDING ITEM 4A
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
Schweich (in the audience, without mic) said until December, October?
Fleming mentioned that his commentary isn’t helpful.
Schweich said what is that?
Fleming repeated that is not helpful.
Schweich (in the audience, without mic) Well it is obvious….
Fleming said that is not helpful at all; not helpful at all.
5.Old Business:
No Old Business.
6.New Business:
No New Business.
7.Adjournment:
Fleming asked thoughts about convening for the Comp Plan discussion.
Planner Matzke said it was solely up to the Commissioners on discussion tonight. He offered some
information handed out to be discussed at the next meeting, otherwise a work session on the 3rd of April.
He explained what the discussion would be about and the deadlines for these discussions. He mentioned
emailing information to the Commissioners for studying.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO ADJORN THE MONDAY, MARCH 20, 2017
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:00 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant
March 20, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
4646 Dakota Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: MAY 1, 2017
AGENDA #: 5A
PREPARED BY:
PRESENTED BY:
JEFF MATZKE, PLANNER
JEFF MATZKE
AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF VARIANCES FROM THE MINIMUM LAKE SET-
BACK, MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, AND
MINIMUM LOT AREA, FOR A PROPERTY IN THE R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESI-
DENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT
DISCUSSION: Introduction
Copper Creek Real Estate Group, is requesting variances to allow for the con-
struction of new homes on properties located at 14332 & 14342 Watersedge Trail
NE. The properties are located along the northern shores of Lower Prior Lake,
west of Trunk Hwy 13, south of Rutgers Street NE. The properties each currently
contain a single family home. The following variances are requested with the
proposed survey:
14332 Watersedge Trail NE
A 21.0-foot variance from the required minimum 50-foot structure set-
back from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) elevation of Prior Lake us-
ing the average lake setbacks of adjacent properties ( Section
1104.308).
A 4.6% variance from the 30% maximum impervious surface require-
ment for a residential property in the Shoreland District (Section
1104.306 & Section 1104.902 (1))
A 5,158-square foot variance from the minimum 15,000 square foot
lot area required for development of a nonconforming lot of record
Section 1104.302 (3))
14342 Watersedge Trail NE
A 16.6-foot variance from the required minimum 50-foot structure set-
back from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) elevation of Prior Lake us-
ing the average lake setbacks of adjacent properties ( Section
1104.308).
A 3.7% variance from the 30% maximum impervious surface require-
ment for a residential property in the Shoreland District ( Section
1104.306 & Section 1104.902 (1))
A 7,825-square foot variance from the minimum 15,000 square foot
lot area and 30-foot variance from the minimum 90-foot lot width re-
quired for development of a nonconforming lot of record (Section
1104.302 (3))
May 1, 2017 Staff Report to Planning Commission
2
Regulation Minimum Proposed Variance
14332 Watersedge Trail
Lake Setback 50’ 29’ 21’
Impervious Surface Maximum 30.0% max. 34.6% 4.6%
Lot Area 15,000 sq. ft. 9,842 sq. ft. 5,158 sq. ft
14342 Watersedge Trail
Lake Setback 50’ 33.4’ 16.6’
Impervious Surface Maximum 30.0% max. 33.7% 3.7%
Lot Area 15,000 sq. ft. 7,175 sq. ft. 7,825 sq. ft.
Lot Width 90’ 60’ 30’
History
On March 20, 2017, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding
the variance requests. Comments from the applicant, his client, and a neighbor-
ing property owner were taken (see attached minutes). After closing the public
hearing, the Planning Commission tabled the decision on the matter until the full
commission would be in attendance and advised the applicant and City Staff to
continue dialog and try to find a solution related to the impervious surface request
at 14332 Watersedge Trail.
On April 17, 2017, the Planning Commission was in full attendance but at the
written request of the applicant, the Planning Commission removed the item con-
sideration from the meeting agenda.
Since March 20th City Staff has had a few conversations with the Breeggemann’s
future home buyer for 14332 Watersedge Trail). City Staff identified possible
areas of impervious removal for consideration in the driveway, porch, garage, or
house area to reach the 30% maximum ordinance limit. The Breeggemann’s
restated they would be willing to reduce the sidewalk area to 3 feet in width to
eliminate 87 square feet. This would result in an approximate proposed 33.6%
impervious surface maximum and a variance request of 3.6% over the 30% ordi-
nance requirement. Also, on Thursday, April 27th, City Staff received a letter and
attachments from the Breeggemanns which are attached to this report. These
attachments highlight variance approvals for applications in previous years on
other lakeshore properties. City Staff can answer any questions the Planning
Commission may have regarding these other variance applications at the meet-
ing.
City Staff does maintain a recommendation of denial of the impervious surface
request for 14332 Watersedge Trail. The reason for this recommendation of de-
nial and suggested findings of fact can be found in the Conclusion and Issues
sections of this report.
Current Circumstances
The properties are zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential), and are guided R-LD
Urban Low Density) onthe 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land UseMap. The prop-
erties currently contain single family homes which were constructed in 1951-52.
The properties are 9,842 square feet (14332 Watersedge Trail) and 7,175 square
feet (1442 Watersedge Trail) respectively. For both properties, the applicant
seeks variances from the lake setback, impervious surface, lot area, (and lot
width for 14342 Watersedge Trail).
May 1, 2017 Staff Report to Planning Commission
3
Lake Setbacks: The properties are 105-120 feet in depth and are nonconforming
lots by area standards. The applicant proposes houses that are 29.0 feet and
33.4 feet from the lake respectively. The existing setbacks of the current dwell-
ings are 3 feet and 29 feet respectively. Many properties along the block have
very similar situations for lake setbacks. Other nearbypropertysetbacks average
approximately 32.0 feet based on past survey records of the neighborhood.
Impervious Surface: The impervious surface coverage for the proposed lots are
34.6% and 33.7% of the total lot areas above a 904 elevation respectively. The
existing impervious coverage for the lots are 53.0% and 35.2% respectively;
therefore, the applicant does indicate a reduction in impervious surface for each
lot.
Lot Area/Width: The properties are currently nonconforming in nature as they
are below the 15,000 square feet requirement of area. The applicant does pro-
pose to add 10 feet in width of land to the smaller existing property (currently 50
feet) to create a larger 60-foot-wide property therefore creating a more desirable
building pad. The corresponding reduction of 10 feet in lot width from the larger
lot (currently 100 feet in width) will not reduce its lot width below the required 90-
foot minimum width.
Conclusion
The City Staff believes the majority of the variances requested are warranted due
to the lot constraints unique to the property and practical difficulties as stated in
the findings in this report. Therefore, City Staff recommends approval of the lake
setback variances and lot area for both properties and approval of the lot width
and the impervious surface variances for the smaller lot (14342 Watersedge
Trail).
In the case of the impervious surface for the larger lot (14332 Watersedge Trail)
City Staff believes the size of the house (2,651 square feet) could be reduced to
allow for an impervious surface of under 30%. A reduction of 301 square feet
could achieve this effort. By reducing the walkway to 3 feet in width (the walkway
would then not be included in impervious surface calculations by ordinance) an
amount of 87feet could be eliminated leaving only a need for another 215 square
feet to be eliminated from the house footprint to allow for a reasonable 2,436
square foot house. Another property in the neighborhood with similar lot size and
3-car garage located at 14380 Watersedge Trail (approx. 10,500 square feet in
lot area) that has been recently rebuilt does meet the impervious surface require-
ment of 30% maximum of the total lot area.
At the March 20th Planning Commission Meeting, Hank Breeggemann indicated
that the sidewalk reduction to 3 feet was a possibility, thereby reducing the im-
pervious surface by 87 square feet to an approximate proposed 33.7% impervi-
ous surface maximum (to be verified by an updated survey).
City Staff believes an opportunity exists to remove more impervious surface in
the driveway or housing pad to achieve a 30% maximum impervious surface
amount and thereby eliminate this request for variance. Therefore, City Staff rec-
ommends denial of the impervious surface request for 14332 Watersedge Trail
based upon the findings of fact outlined in the Issues section of this report. Draft
approval resolutions (one for each property) and a denial resolution (for 14332
Watersedge Trail impervious surface variance request) consistent with City
May 1, 2017 Staff Report to Planning Commission
4
Staff’s recommendations are attached to this report. The Planning Commission
may alter/eliminate these resolutions as they see fit per their ultimate decision.
Any approval decision of variances shall be conditioned on approval of a plat
waiver by the City Council to shift the current dividing property line which sepa-
rates the two subject properties.
ISSUES: This project includes requests for variances. Section 1108.400 states that the
Board of Adjustment may grant a variance from the strict application of the provi-
sions 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.
There are practical difficulties in complying with the strict terms of the Or-
dinance. This residential property has some unique characteristics includ-
ing the small size of the properties. Due to the required setbacks and im-
pervious surface limitation, there would be very little allowable buildable
area of the properties without approval of variances from the lake setback.
In the case of the impervious surface for the larger of the lots (14332
Watersedge Trail) the size of the house (2,651 square feet) could be re-
duced to allow for an impervious surface of under 30% of the total lot area.
According to the proposed survey record a reduction of 301 square feet
could achieve this effort. By reducing the walkway to 3 feet in width (the
walkway would then not be needed in impervious surface calculations by
ordinance) an amount of 87 feet could be eliminated leaving only a need
for another 215 square feet of impervious surface to be eliminated from the
site to achieve an impervious surface of 30% of the total lot area above a
904 elevation.
2) The granting of the Variances are in harmony with the general
purposes and intent of the City Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances
and the Comprehensive Plan.
The granting of the variances appears to be in harmony with the general
purposes of the Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. A purpose of the
Zoning Ordinance to “Promote the most appropriate and orderly develop-
ment of the residential, business, industrial, public land, and public areas”.
Furthermore, the Shoreland Ordinance (Section 1104) policy’s intent is “in
the best interests of the public health, safety, and welfare to provide for the
wise development of shoreland of public waters.” The reasonable lot size
and lake setbacks are in harmony with these purposes and policies. The
impervious surface for the larger lot could be reduced below the 30% max-
imum requirement and still allow for a house footprint of at least 2,436
square feet which is a reasonable house.
May 1, 2017 Staff Report to Planning Commission
5
3) 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 presence of small lot sizes creates a practical difficulty for the property
owner to create a reasonable house without the requested variances for
the smaller lot (14342 Watersedge Trail) however, a reasonable house
could be constructed within the limitation of 30% impervious surface re-
quirement on the larger lot (14332 Watersedge Trail).
4) The granting of the variances will not alter the essential character of
the neighborhood or be detrimental to the health and safety of the
public welfare.
The granting of most the variances will not alter the essential character of
the Watersedge Trail neighborhood. There are other riparian properties in
this corridor with lot sizes, widths, and lake setbacks. Another property in
the neighborhood (14380 Watersedge Trail) with a similar lot size and 3-
car garage situation as 14332 Watersedge Trail that has been recently re-
built upon doesmeet the impervious surface requirement of30% maximum
of the lot area. Therefore, a similar lot situation in the neighborhood that
was constructed under the current impervious surface ordinance require-
ment does exist indicating that this variance is not necessary to conform
to the neighborhood character.
5) The granting of the Variances will not result in allowing anyuse of the
property that is not permitted in the zoning district where the subject
property is located.
The requested variances would allow construction of a residential dwelling
which is an allowed use within the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning
District.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Motion and a second to approve a resolution approving a specific variance
with the listed conditions, or approve any variance the Planning Commission
deems appropriate in the circumstances.
2. Motion and a second to table or continue discussion of the item for specific
purpose as directed by the Planning Commission.
3. Motion and a second to deny a specific variance request because the Plan-
ning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated practical difficulties under the
zoning code criteria.
RECOMMENDED
MOTIONS:
3 Separate Motions:
1. Motion and a second to approve a resolution approving the lake setback
variance and lot area variance requested for 14332 Watersedge Trail with
May 1, 2017 Staff Report to Planning Commission
6
the listed conditions, or approve any variance the Planning Commission
deems appropriate in the circumstances.
2. Motion and a second to approve a resolution approving the lake setback
variance, impervious surface variance, and lot area and lot width variance
requested for 14342 Watersedge Trail with the listed conditions, or ap-
prove any variance the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the
circumstances.
3. Motion and a second to approve a resolution denying the impervious sur-
face variance requested for 14332 Watersedge Trail because the Plan-
ning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated practical difficulties under
the zoning code criteria.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map
2. Existing survey dated 6-15-2015
3. Proposed survey dated 3-13-2017
4. Proposed House Renderings
5. Breeggemann letter with attachments
May 1, 2017 Staff Report to Planning Commission
12
Kallberg said he has no further comments and does support this agenda item.
Tieman stated he has no concerns.
Petersen said he does have a concern about the license; the fence makes sense, but the license could
possibly be accomplished with different wording; examples would be the fish house scenario and
questioned in a college student had a car in his parent’s driveway and would need tabs even though it is
not driven for a year, but mentioned he feels the fish house would be more likely; not in support of that
particular language.
Ringstad said he will be in support; the comment on Commissioner Petersen concern he said largely
while this may not solve every issue but will take the junk cars that are cluttering up the yards and give
the code enforcement officer some immediate power to deal with it. He said it might not be perfect one-
hundred percent, but ninety-eight to ninety-nine percent of the time.
Fleming stated he is in support of the recommendation to move on this agenda item on to the City
Council.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO RECOMMEND TO OUR CITY COUNCIL TO
APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO SUBSECTION 1102.700 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AT 8:05 P.M.
REGARDING ITEM 4C.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Ringstad and Kallberg
Nay by Petersen. The Motion carried
5. Old Business:
A. PVR17-0001 - 14332 & 14342 Watersedge Trail NE - Variance – Copper Creek Real Estate
Group, Inc. is requesting variances regarding setbacks and impervious surface to construct one
new home on each parcel (Two Homes Total) in the R1SD (Low Density Residential Shoreland)
Zoning District. PID’s: 251190070 & 251190080.
Planner Matzke reintroduced the request of variances from the minimum lake setback, maximum
imperious surface, minimum lot width, and minimum lot area for a property located along the northern
shores of Lower Prior lake, west of Trunk Hwy 13, south of Rutgers Street NE. the properties each
currently contain a single-family home. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues,
alternatives and recommended a motion. He presented a location map, existing survey dated June 15,
2015, proposed survey dated march 13, 2017, proposed house rendering and Breeggeman letter with
attachments.
Commission Comments/Questions:
Fleming said he would like to post questions to staff and if the developer/applicant would like to present
anything new; i.e. anything we have not considered beyond the submissions emailed last week. He said
on march 20th we spoke about modification to the sidewalk dimensions and a rain garden is that correct?
Planner Matzke said that is correct.
Fleming asked Planner Matzke how many conversations took place, not including email exchanges,
between March 20, 2017 and today.
Planner Matzke replied between March 20, 2017 and April 17, 2017 he believes he had a conversation
with Mr. and Mrs. Breeggemann on separate occasions on the phone. He said he highlighted in the
report a conversation with Mr. Schweich on April 27, 2017 and today he said he had a conversation with
Mr. Breeggemann.
Kallberg said he confused about lot dimensions; it appears that the original platting was three fifty foot
lots and Parcel A had two of them and Parcel B had one of them and so the measurements that are
shown on the proposed show that there is going to be a sixty-foot lot and a ninety-foot lot, but we are
taking ten feet away from the one-hundred-foot Lot making it ninety and the fifty becomes sixty but on
the… he said he was trying to reconcile the seventy-five and seventy-five. He said he guesses that is
measurements to the middle of the middle lot.
May 1, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
13
Planner Matzke explained the history of the survey’s lot lines, what the applicant is proposing and the
conditions of the homes already on the properties. He pointed out the existing Lot line and how they are
going to shift that. He stated one of the conditions would be a plat waiver.
Kallberg said additionally there was recommendation earlier during the staff report to gain by eliminating
the four-foot sidewalk and suggested a reduced footprint to gain some other impervious surface and
sidewalk. Does the rain garden as proposed equal that 200 or so square feet of impervious surface and
secondly is the raingarden that small and desirable to the City; who has to operate it and maintain it and
if the City is expected to maintain it then they would have to provide an easement for access because
those things need to be dredged out every so many years by some schedule that is followed and he said
his conversations with Pete Young our Water Resource Engineer, they don’t really like small raingardens
as they are too much bother and they aren’t properly maintained and they become useless in time.
Project Engineer Monserud said he would like to shed a little light on this subject; he briefly looked at
the calculations that were submitted today and on a real general consensus it looks like something would
fit; as mentioned by Commissioner Kallberg, we do discourage these small raingardens whether they are
publicly or privately maintained, as it typically falls on the city to keep them forever and it is a great
maintenance; therefore, it is our preference that they not put in a raingarden. He said the way it is shown
on the property line there would also need to be some form of a Home Owners Association to make sure
both property owners are contributing to the maintenance of that.
Tieman asked if there were any other raingardens on the property line anywhere else in the city.
Project Engineer Monserud said we have; there are two places that have raingarden, both driven by
there is nothing on the site so they added more than thirty-five hundred square feet of impervious area
which kicks them into our small site storm water requirements so they had to provide something and they
do have a home owners association.
Applicant
Gregg Schweich, (Copper Creek – 14198 Commerce Avenue NE) He explained he has researched
some of the past variance and information that he would like to share with the Commissioners. He
commented on the March 20, 2017 Commissioner Hearing; there was no public or neighborhood
opposition and we also received a letter over the weekend from a neighboring property owner supporting
the variance.
Fleming asked about the letter and if it met the deadline of Friday.
Schweich said no it did not.
Fleming said then we do not have it and said it was just one letter.
Schweich reference the property 14354 Watersedge and explained the raingarden that was installed
and the process it went through with Staff, Planning Commission and City Council; then approved. He
referenced an additional property; 6364 Conroy Street and its impervious surface issue and explained
how that was mitigated. He explained the redeveloping of the two properties and their improvements and
commented on the improvement to the neighborhood and asked for approval as other City of Prior Lake
Commissioners have done in the past, including his two examples he outlined tonight and said the
proximity of our properties are in our opinion have very similar circumstances. He commented on their
engineering firms calculations, the raingarden as an option for approving the variance request and the
City Engineers comments.
Kallberg stated he doesn’t have any issues with the side yard setbacks but is puzzled to why the house
is not squared up with the property line and equalize the side yard setbacks rather than skewing, as if
you square them up it would increase the side yard setback on both sides on both properties. He doesn’t
think he can accept the raingarden as substitute for reduced impervious surface.
Hank Breggemann commented on a letter sent to the Commissioners, purchase of the property, lacking
current setbacks, high impervious surface percentage, mitigation, reducing and improving setbacks. He
explained the turning of the homes; being the view out to the lake. He compared their lot and home size
with the Lot and home size down the street; 14380 stating they are similar.
Fleming asked for additional comments from staff and for Planner Matzke to add/offer for clarification for
the consideration for 14380 Watersedge Trail.
May 1, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
14
Planner Matzke explained the property down the road that was stated to be similar to the current
proposed property; stating there was a variance request that came before the Planning Commissioners
in 2015 and explained the differences in the lots, stating that it is a little wider across the front of the
property and similar and maybe even a little smaller in the building pad area; the other comment he said
he would make is the proposed building area for this proposed property, square footage for the home is
two thousand four hundred and twenty five square feet and the building pad proposed for the lot in
question is two thousand six hundred and fifty one square feet leaving the proposed property house
footage larger even though this lot is a smaller lot. He said he understands the reasonableness which is
the Planning Commission’s decision to make. He gave the reasoning why the comparison. He said the
applicant is correct that this property is approximately seven hundred square feet larger.
Fleming asked about the square footage of 14380 Watersedge.
Planner Matzke said two thousand four hundred and twenty-five square feet.
Fleming said and the proposed.
Planner Matzke replied two thousand six hundred and fifty-one feet.
Commission comments
Ringstad said a few weeks ago he voted to decline this variance request as he will be doing tonight.
The raingarden options that we heard about, doesn’t believe long term is a good solution; what it is going
to do is put the burden on the City and the City Staff to constantly check and maintain and to be honest
planting raingarden after raingarden to avoid impervious surface requirements is a long-term solution for
this City. He said these lots are being developed and the proposed development shows impervious
surface dropping significantly which it; redevelopment is an opportunity to hit the compliance of thirty
percent and a smaller house albeit, the applicant and the homeowner not wanting to do so is an option,
smaller house could be built to get within that thirty-percent. He said reducing it from a high number that
is three point seven percent above what the thirty percent is something he cannot support tonight; again
as he did on March 20, 2017.
Petersen said he was in favor of the variance last time and is again not based on comparisons from other
pieces of property as that is not the way to go because it is a bad president as each one is completely
different. He said he does appreciate and it is worth noting that it went from well over fifty to close to
thirty and he believes that is worth consideration. He said splitting the lot making a large and a small lot
into two more medium sized lots does help the neighborhood and is worth some consideration of the
three point seven variances. He said he will be supporting.
Tieman said he supported the variance last time and will continue to support it; he does think there has
been good faith there trying to reduce the impervious surface and meet all the setback requirements. He
said he doesn’t support the raingarden idea; it was fine as it was prior with the impervious at three point
six.
Kallberg stated he agrees with Commissioner Ringstad the raingarden is not the solution and we need
on that big of a house on that size of a lot.
Fleming said thank you to Staff for your updates and comments. He said he hoped that we would be
further along in the reduction of the impervious surface and he we are not substantially; therefore, he
cannot and will not be supporting the variance for impervious surface and will be finding of facts that the
Staff laid out in 1108.400 Subsection 4 to be included in the record. He stated there are three resolution
tonight.
Resolution Number 2
MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
LAKE SETBACK VARIANCE, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE VARIANCE, LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH
VARIANCE REQUESTED FOR 14342 WATERSEDGE TRAIL.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried
Resolution Number 1
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
LAKE SETBACK VARIANCE, LOT AREA VARIANCE REQUESTED FOR 14332 WATERSEDGE TRAIL.
May 1, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
15
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried
Resolution Number 3
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION DENYING THE
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE VARIANCE REQUEST AT 14332 WATERSEDGE TRAIL.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Kallberg and Ringstad.
Nayes by Tieman and Petersen. The Motion carried.
6. New Business:
No New Business.
Planner Matzke updated the Commissioners about the next meeting, May 15, 2017 and a
discussion regarding the 2040 Comp Plan.
7. Adjournment:
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN TO ADJORN THE MONDAY, MAY 1, 2017
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 8:43 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Petersen, Kallberg and Ringstad. The Motion carried
Sandra Woods, Development Services Assistant
May 1, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
1
4646 Dakota Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RESOLUTION 17-08PC
DENIAL OF A VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REQUIREMENT
TO CONSTUCT A NEW HOME IN THE R1-SD (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SHORELAND)
ZONING DISTRICT
Motion By: Ringstad Second By: Kallberg
WHEREAS, The Prior Lake Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment conducted
a public hearing on March 20, 2017 to consider a variance request from Copper
Creek Real Estate Group, Inc. to allow construction of a single family dwelling on a
property in the R1-SD (Low Density Residential Shoreland) Zoning District at the
following property:
14332 Watersedge Trail NE, Prior Lake, MN 55372
All of Lot 10 and that part of Lot 11, which lies west of the East 10.00 feet thereof,
all in Boudin’s Manor, according to the recorded plat thereof, Scott County,
Minnesota.
(PID 25-119-007-0)
WHEREAS, Notice of the public hearing on said variance request was duly published in
accordance with the applicable Prior Lake Ordinances; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission proceeded to hear all persons interested in this variance
request, and persons interested were afforded the opportunity to present their views
and objections related to the variance request; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the application for the variances as
contained in Case #DEV17-001006 and held a hearing thereon on March 20, 2017;
and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission continued discussion of the variance requests at a
meeting on May 1, 2017.
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has considered the effect of the proposed variance
upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated
traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on
property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on
the Comprehensive Plan
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION,
ACTING AS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA as follows:
1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein.
2. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the following findings:
17-06PC Denial Resolution of the Planning Commission
2
a. 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.
In the case of the impervious surface for the larger of the lots (14332 Watersedge
Trail) the size of the house (2,651 square feet) could be reduced to allow for an
impervious surface of under 30% of the total lot area. According to the proposed
survey record a reduction of 301 square feet could achieve this effort. The applicant
has indicated a reduction of the walkway impervious surface yet an impervious
surface of 33.6% of the total lot area would remain. By reducing the walkway to 3
feet in width (the walkway would then not be needed in impervious surface
calculations by ordinance) an amount of 87 feet could be eliminated leaving only a
need for another 215 square feet of impervious surface to be eliminated from the site
to achieve an impervious surface of 30% of the total lot area above a 904 elevation.
b. The granting of the Variances is in harmony with the general purposes and
intent of the City Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and the Comprehensive
Plan.
The impervious surface for the larger lot could be reduced below the 30% maximum
requirement and still allow for a house footprint of at least 2,436 square feet which is
a reasonable house.
c. 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.
A reasonable house with a footprint of at least 2,436 square feet could be
constructed within the limitation of 30% impervious surface maximum requirement at
14332 Watersedge Trail.
d. The granting of the variances will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood or be detrimental to the health and safety of the public welfare.
Another property in the neighborhood (14380 Watersedge Trail) with a similar lot size
and 3-car garage situation as 14332 Watersedge Trail that has been recently rebuilt
upon does meet the impervious surface requirement of 30% maximum of the lot area.
Therefore, a similar lot situation in the neighborhood that was constructed under the
current impervious surface ordinance requirement does exist indicating that this
variance is not necessary to conform to the neighborhood character.
e. The granting of the Variances will not result in allowing any use of the property
that is not permitted in the zoning district where the subject property is located.
The impervious surface variance would allow construction of a residential dwelling
which is an allowed use within the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District.
17-06PC Denial Resolution of the Planning Commission
3
3. Based upon the findings set forth herein, the Planning Commission hereby denies the
following variance based on the above findings to allow a construction of a single-family
dwelling in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District:
a. A 3.6% variance from the 30% maximum impervious surface requirement for a
residential property in the Shoreland District (Section 1104.306 & Section 1104.902
(1).
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 1ST DAY OF MAY, 2017.
_______________________________ Bryan Fleming, Commission Chair
ATTEST: _________________________________
Jeff Matzke, Planner
VOTE Fleming Tieman Petersen Kallberg Ringstad
Aye ☒ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☒
Nay ☐ ☒ ☒ ☐ ☐
Absent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Abstain ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
17-06PC Denial Resolution of the Planning Commission
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
BREEGGEMANN ATTACHMENTS
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
BREEGGEMANN ATTACHMENTS
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
BREEGGEMANN ATTACHMENTS
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
BREEGGEMANN ATTACHMENTS
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S
B
R
E
E
G
G
E
M
A
N
N
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
S