HomeMy WebLinkAbout4D 15402 Forsythe Road Variance PC Report
4646 Dakota Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2019
AGENDA #: 5D
PREPARED BY:
PRESENTED BY:
JEFF MATZKE, PLANNER
JEFF MATZKE
AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER A VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW A PREVIOUSLY CON-
STRUCTED DECK/LANDING TO REMAIN IN THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE ON
A PROPERTY IN THE R-1 SD (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SHORELAND)
ZONING DISTRICT
DISCUSSION: Introduction
Dan Dauffenbach owns the property at 15402 Forsythe Road NE and is requesting
a variance to allow a previously constructed deck/landing to remain in the bluff
impact zone. The property is located along the eastern shores of Lower Prior
Lake, south of Fish Point Road. The following variances are requested:
· A variance to allow a previously constructed to deck/landing to remain in the
bluff impact zone (Section 1104.303)
History
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 is
in the Shoreland Overlay District of Upper Prior Lake. The current dwelling was
constructed in 1978.
The Board of Adjustments previously reviewed multiple variance requests for this
property on April 22, 2019 and May 13, 2019, including 1) stairway and landings,
2) retaining walls, 3) shed and pavers, 4) lower level deck, and 5) upper level deck.
The April 22nd Planning Commission report provides a summary of each of the
requested variances and recommendation for each of these areas.
The language related to stairway and landings in the April 22nd report states as
follows,
“As indicated by the 1999 lake photo, a stairway and two lower level landings
were in place prior to the applicant’s renovations in the early 2000s. Accord-
ing to the applicant’s sequence of events, they reduced the size of the lower
level deck/landing in 2001-02. They also added the 3 other smaller landings
within a new stairway system. This stairway and landing system were resur-
faced in 2016-17 with composite decking and railing. Per City Code stair-
ways cannot exceed 4 feet in width and landings shall not exceed 32 square
feet. The current stairway system is 5.4 - 5.7 feet wide and the landings are
144 square feet and 70 feet respectively. In the attached sequence of events
2
the applicant has stated that the current stairway and landings will be brought
into compliance by July 31, 2019.
Conclusion: Property owner must bring stairway and landings into compli-
ance with the City Code by reducing the stairway to no more than 4 feet in
width and the landings to no more than 32 square feet each.”
Current Circumstances
On May 13, 2019, the Board of Adjustments approved a resolution related to mul-
tiple variances requested on the property within the bluff impact zone. Condition
5.c. of resolution approved by the Board of Adjustments states, the stairway from
the dwelling to the lake with landings shall be brought into compliance with the
City Code by reducing the stairway to no more than 4 feet in width and the landings
to no more than 32 square feet each after the property owner obtains a permit.
The applicant has indicated he was under the impression the lower level
deck/landing would be allowed to remain and thus never discussed the lower level
deck/landing in detail with the Board of Adjustment.
Along with the variance approval on May 13th, the Planning Commission required
that the following conditions be met:
The variance resolution shall be recorded at Scott County.
Building permits shall be obtained from the Building Department prior
to the commencement of any construction on the property.
The stairway from the dwelling to the lake with landings shall be
brought into compliance with the City Code by reducing the stair-
way to no more than 4 feet in width and the landings to no more
than 32 square feet each after the property owner obtains a per-
mit.
The retaining walls are allowed to remain as long as the property owner
applies for and obtains a permit.
The water orientated accessory structure is allowed to remain.
The patio pavers within the bluff impact zone are allowed to remain.
The smaller deck off of the garage is allowed to remain as long as the
property owner applies for and obtains a permit.
An upper level dock off of the existing patio door of no more than 15-
feet deep by 18-feet wide is allowed as long as the property owner
applies for and obtains a permit. Any upper level deck space in excess
of the 15-foot by 18-foot approved variance shall be removed.
The lower level deck of 15-feet by 18-feet is allowed to remain, as a
reduction of a previous nonconforming deck if the property owner ap-
plies for and obtains a permit. Any deck space in excess of the 15-foot
by 18-foot approved size shall be removed.
The 3-season porch shall be removed.
One of these listed conditions (in bold text above) references that the stairways
and landings be brought into compliance with the current City Code of 4 feet wide
stairs and 32 square foot maximum landings. The applicant states that he installed
a deck/landing area in the middle of the bluff area in 2002 to replace a patio area
that can be identified on the 1999 lake photo of the site prior to the applicant
3
purchasing the property. The applicant requests to be allowed to maintain the
existing 144 square foot deck/landing area rather than reduce it to 32 square feet.
Conclusion
City Staff’s previous recommendation in April and May 2019 was to reduce the
deck/landing areas to be compliant with the current City Code. Under this recom-
mendation the applicant would be required to reduce the existing 144 square foot
deck/landing area to 32 square feet. A patio area previously occupied this space
prior to the applicant installing the deck/landing area in 2002 (the 1999 lake photo
identifies the patio area).
The Planning Commission may deliberate the scale of the current deck/landing
area impact on the overall bluff. However, in the event the Planning Commission
does approve the variance request and allow the 144 square foot deck/landing
area to remain, City Staff is concerned about precedent and consistency in other
bluff variance requests.
ISSUES: This project includes a request for a variance to previously constructed deck/land-
ing to remain in the bluff impact zone. Section 1108.400 states that the Board of
Adjustment may grant a variance from the strict application of the provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance, provided that the variance meets the following criteria.
(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.
A practical difficulty for the request to maintain the current deck/landing area
does not exist. The applicant installed the deck/landing area within the bluff
impact zone without a permit. The purpose of the stairway and landing
system is to permit access up and down the bluff slope which would be
fulfilled with a maximum allowed 32 square foot area per City Code.
(2) The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of the City Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and the
Comprehensive Plan.
The granting of the variance is not in harmony with the general purposes of
the Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. A purpose of the Zoning Ordi-
nance to “Promote the most appropriate and orderly development of the
residential, business, industrial, public land, and public areas”. Further-
more, 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 larger 144 square foot
deck/landing area is an expansion of a previous legal nonconforming patio
area in the bluff impact zone.
4
(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 lot has an existing residence which pre-dates the City Code and has a
bluff feature. A deck/landing area that is larger than 32 square feet is a
mere convenience and resulted only from the property owner’s actions.
(4) The granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood or be detrimental to the health and safety of the public
welfare.
The granting of the variance for the 144 square foot deck/landing area
allows for a nonconforming landing area to remain on the site and is
detrimental to the bluff area.
(5) The granting of the variance will not result in allowing any use of the
property that is not permitted in the zoning district where the subject
property is located.
The requested variance would allow the current 144 square foot
deck/landing within the bluff impact zone. The feature is an accessory use
to a single-family residential dwelling which is an allowed use within the R-
1 SD (Low Density Residential in Shoreland) Zoning District.
ALTERNATIVES: 1. Motion and a second to approve the variance as request for 15402 Forsythe
Trail NE and instructing City Staff to prepare a draft resolution.
2. Motion and a second to table or continue discussion of the item for specific
purpose as directed by the Board of Adjustment.
3. Motion and a second to deny the variance requested because the Board of
Adjustment finds a lack of demonstrated practical difficulties under the zoning
code criteria.
RECOMMENDED
MOTIONS:
Alternative No. 3
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Denial Resolution 19PC-XX
2. Meeting Minutes – May 13, 2019 Planning Commission
3. April 22, 2019 City Staff Report for variance request
4. May 13, 2019 City Staff Report for variance request (with photo attachments)
1
4646 Dakota Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RESOLUTION 19-XXPC
DENIAL OF A VARIANCE FOR A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED DECK/LANDING TO REMAIN IN THE BLUFF
IMPACT ZONE FOR A PROPERTY IN THE R-1 SD (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SHORELAND) ZONING
DISTRICT
Motion By: Second By:
WHEREAS,
The Prior Lake Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment, conducted a public hearing on
September 9, 2019, to consider a request from Dan Dauffenbach, the property owner, to approve a
previously constructed deck/landing to remain in the bluff impact zone for a property
located in the R-1 SD (Low Density Residential Shoreland) Zoning District at the following property:
15402 Forsythe Road NE, Prior Lake, MN 55372
Legal Description:
Lot 12, Block 1, MAVES SECOND LAKE ADDITION, Scott County, Minnesota.
PID 250480120
WHEREAS,
The Property owner has installed or modified various improvements in the bluff impact zone on the
property over the last several years including a stairway from the dwelling to the lake with landings; and
WHEREAS,
Staff determined that the 144 square-foot deck/landing which had been added would need a variance to
remain; and
WHEREAS, Notice of the public hearing on the requested variance 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 variance as contained in Case #DEV19-
000008 and held a hearing thereon on September 9, 2019; and
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 OF PRIOR LAKE,
MINNESOTA as follows:
1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein.
2. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the following findings:
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
2
proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance.
Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
A practical difficulty for the request to maintain the current deck/landing area does not exist. The applicant
installed the deck/landing area within the bluff impact zone without a permit. The purpose of the stairway
and landing system is to permit access up and down the bluff slope which would be fulfilled with a
maximum allowed 32 square foot area per City Code.
b. 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 variance is not 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
development 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 larger 144 square
foot deck/landing area is an expansion of a previous legal nonconforming patio area in the bluff impact
zone.
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.
The lot has an existing residence which pre-dates the City Code and has a bluff feature. A deck/landing
area that is larger than 32 square feet is a mere convenience and resulted only from the property owner’s
actions.
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.
The granting of the variance for the 144 square foot deck/landing area allows for a nonconforming landing
area to remain on the site and is detrimental to the bluff area.
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 requested variance would allow the current 144 square foot deck/landing within the bluff impact zone.
The feature is an accessory use to a single-family residential dwelling which is an allowed use within the
R-1 SD (Low Density Residential in Shoreland) Zoning District.
3. Based upon the findings set forth herein, the Planning Commission hereby denies the following variance to
allow a previously constructed deck/landing in the R-1 SD (Low Density Residential Shoreland) Zoning
District:
a. A variance to allow a previously constructed144 square-foot deck/landing to remain in the bluff impact
zone (Section 1104.303)
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019.
_______________________________
David Tieman, Commission Vice Chair
ATTEST: _________________________________
Casey McCabe, Community Development Director
VOTE Fleming Kallberg Tschetter Ringstad Tieman
Aye ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Nay ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Absent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Abstain ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
3
MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD, TO APPROVE VARIANCES FROM THE
MINIMUM LAKE SETBACK AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE ON A
PROPERTY IN THE R-1 SD (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SHORELAND) ZONING DISTRICT.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
B. PDEV19-000008 – 15402 Forsythe Road SE - Variances – The homeowner, Daniel Dauffenbach,
is requesting a variance to allow construction in the bluff impact zone located at a property in the
R-1 SD (Low Density Residential Shoreland) Zoning District. PID: 250480120.
Planner Matzke: Introduced a public hearing to consider approval of a variance to consider a
Request to allow a previously constructed 3-season porch and upper level deck in the bluff impact
zone to remain. The property is located along the eastern shores of Lower Prior Lake, south of
Fish Point Road. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues and recommended
motion. He presented a location map, lake photo from 1999, aerial photos from 2003, 2007, 2016,
and 2018, photos of property from 2016-2018, survey dated September 25, 2018 and sequencing
of events from applicant and email from adjacent property owner.
Commission Comments/Questions:
Fleming: Asked staff to explain how this situation came to the City’s attention.
Planner Matzke: Explained that this was brought forward through Code Enforcement in the
summer of 2018.
Fleming: Asked staff how many permits had been requested on this property between 2002 and
tonight in 2019.
Planner Matzke: Looking at the cities building permit software there was a siding permit, but no
permits were pulled for any of this activity in the bluff area.
Fleming: Clarified that in 17 years no permits were pulled for this property.
Planner Matzke: No, not outside of minor permits or siding permits.
Kallberg: Asked if the Commission recommends removal of the porch does the deck surface
have to be made pervious because otherwise the City does not gain anything in terms of
impervious surface reduction.
Planner Matzke: Explained it would be the Planning Commissions discretion as to how they
would like to handle pervious versus impervious areas. The applicant currently remains under
30% as the property exists today. That is why the applicant is not requesting an impervious
surface variance.
Tieman: He asked for staff to clarify what was included in the impervious surface. He understood
that concrete patios are included but wondered if the paver patios were considered impervious.
Director McCabe: Explained the paver patios were considered impervious.
Ringstad: Asked when the rules and ordinances for the Bluff Impact Zone came into play.
Planner Matzke: The most recent revisions occurred in the winter of 2016.
Ringstad: Asked if it was possible to engineer a retaining wall that currently exists.
Planner Matzke: That yes it could be done. The applicant would hire a private engineer to work
with the City Engineer to work through that requirement.
Ringstad: Was a licensed contractor hired for any of the work that was done.
Planner Matzke: Added that they did hire a licensed contractor for the retaining walls, but the
City does not know exactly what was done by the licensed contractor. The applicant could answer
that question.
Tschetter: Has the city done any inspections from a code enforcement perspective on the
improvements that were made on this property and found any findings.
Planner Matzke: Explained that in regard to the walls staff has not yet determined what was or
not done to code.
The building inspectors have not done their inspections. The applicant has officially applied for a
permit and through that procedure staff will investigate those concerns.
Tschetter: Asked what the insert in the packet from Heartland Custom Builders, Inc was for. He
was under the impression that it was the contractor who might have been doing some of this work.
April 22, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
4
Planner Matzke: Explained that yes the sequencing of events was completed by the contractor
that the applicant hired to do the work. The contractor is in the audience this evening.
Tschetter: Has this contractor done other work in Prior Lake with permits.
McCabe: Clarified that yes, he believed so. He added that the contractor was in the audience and
the Commission could verify that.
Applicant
Dan Dauffenback: Residing at 15402 Forsythe Road SE, addressed the Planning Commission.
He explained that he has employed NTI Technologies to engineer his retaining walls. The porch
is a three-season porch, it does have a gas fire place. The Contractor that he used for the porch
is Randy Sleeper form Heartland Custom Builders. He is licensed and he has done numerous
projects in Prior Lake. Dan would like to address the fact that he bought this house in 2001. Edina
Reality showed it to him, and the word bluff was never mentioned. He never realized that he
bought a property in a bluff. The City asked him to get a survey and the survey came back that
he is within the bluff. The decks that were in place at the time he purchased the home were in
violation of this said bluff. The decks were falling apart at the time of purchase. Little by little he
replaced the decks over time. He decided to put a porch on the deck because the winds on the
deck are so strong that they cannot sit outside. They made an error in judgement and did not pull
a permit for the porch.
Fleming: He stated that he was extremely troubled. He’s never seen a case more egregious than
this one. Permits were never pulled for 17 years on this property. He needs to understand why
permits were not pulled for 17 years.
Dauffenback: Explained that the land in the backyard was sliding into the lake. That’s what
started the retaining walls and it was an emergency fix. He added that he is in the contracting
business himself and neither one of them thought they needed to pull permits for those walls.
Then they began replacing the decks because they were rotted out and replaced with
maintenance free materials in. An error in judgement was made.
Fleming: A onetime event is an exception; a pattern of 17 years is a trend. And, now I’ve learned
that you’re a contractor too. So, there are two contractors in the community that did not pull a
permit and wanting the Commissioner’s to believe that they did not know. He feels this is
indefensible.
Dauffenback: Explained it was an error in judgement.
Fleming: Added for 17 years. He asked to hear from the Contractor
Randy Sleeper: Resides at 20576 Jupiter Avenue. He stated he is from Heartland Custom
Builders. He addressed the Planning Commission.
Fleming: Asked the applicant if he was doing multiple projects in the Prior Lake Community.
Sleeper: Responded yes.
Fleming: Asked the applicant if he has pulled permits and followed those.
Sleeper: Responded yes.
Fleming: Asked the applicant how the City would know that.
Sleeper: Added that when he started this project, he was brand new in the business.
Improvements were made and how do you turn back and pull permits after the fact. In retrospect
he realizes he should have done so. This is not typical business on his part. An error in judgement
was made from the start. Prior to receiving this violation letter, he had never heard about the bluff.
Tschetter, Is with his Chairman on this issue. He is struggling to understand how this property
got to this point. He knows that this community is not unique. Several cities have the similar
situations and how to approach construction for your customers.
Sleeper: Explained that obviously the bluff is unique to the other areas he has done work.
Ringstad: Two comments: One, for the applicant, as the applicant mentioned a reference to value
in the property, and he wanted to state that value has nothing to do with anything the Commission
is here for tonight. And, a comment for the Contractor who admitted being new to the business,
that it would surprise the Commissioner if understanding that the need for permitting was not a
part of the approval process for contracting licensure.
Sleeper: Added that he was young and naive in the business.
April 22, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
5
Tieman: Felt that the other Commissioners had done a great job asking questions. He asked for
detail on how this screen porch was constructed.
Sleeper: Said there are footings that support the lower deck and point loads that support the
upper deck. There is a water drainage system that is connected and tied into a gutter system.
Tieman: Asked who came up with this extensive design.
Sleeper: Stated that he and the applicant created it. The sizing of the beams was done by the
building supplier regarding the loads.
Kallberg: Asked what type of contractor’s license they are licensed to do and are they insured.
Sleeper: Stated that he is licensed through the State as a General Residential Building
Contractor.
Dauffenback: Stated he owns Northland Paving out of Lakeville which is a Commercial asphalt
paving company and is Licensed with the State and insured.
Kallberg: asked for clarification as to why the porch is not allowed.
Planner Matzke: Explained that a site photo from the summer of 1999 indicates what was in
place on the site prior to the applicant’s site modifications from 2002-2018. Going forward the City
looked at the applicant’s improvements since then. The City would allow for exact replacement of
a deck as an existing non-comforting use. The City would allow for exact replacement or
reductions within a bluff zone because it would be a reduction of a legal non-conforming use. To
enclose a deck into a porch is an expansion of a non-conforming use. The expansion requires a
variance from the Planning Commission.
MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY TIEMAN, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA
ITEM 4B AT 7:13 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
Public Comment:
No comments from the public.
MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM
4B AT 7:14 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
Commission Comments/Questions:
Tschetter: He echoed the Chairman’s sentiments earlier. This is an extremely disappointing
situation. The residents look to contractors to guide them through the construction process and
to maintain healthy relationships with the community leadership. He is extremely disappointed
that a local contractor would ignore the code requirements knowing the ramifications of that and
what it means for public safety and the value of what was built.
Ringstad: Echoed Commissioners Tschetters thoughts. Looking at the staff report he thinks the
commissioners should discuss these items one by one. He thought the staff report was excellent
and commended staff for walking the Commissioners through this difficult discussion. Thanked
staff for putting together an excellent report to help the commissioners navigate this difficult
discussion.
Fleming: Stated that it was his intent to walk through the conclusions as well, he had not thought
about the sub categories. He thought that was a great idea.
Tieman: Would agree that the Commissioners should go through the items one at a time.
Kallberg: Asked staff to pull the items from the report up on the screen for the viewing audience.
Staff Findings:
1) The stairway from the dwelling to the lake with landings be brought into compliance with the
City Code by reducing the stairway to no more than 4 feet in width and the landings to no
more than 32 square feet each after the property owner obtains a permit.
April 22, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
6
MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD, TO APPROVE STAFF’S
RECOMMENDATION FOR FINDING ONE AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND TO
INCLUDE IN A RESOLUTION AND BRING IT BACK AT FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
2) The retaining walls be allowed to remain if the property owner applies for and obtains a permit.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY TIEMAN, TO ALLOW THE RETAINING WALLS TO REMAIN
AS LONG AS THE PROPERTY OWNER OBTAINS A PERMIT.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
3A) The water oriented accessory structure be allowed to remain as is.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY KALLBERG, TO ALLOW THE WATER ORIENTED
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO REMAIN AS IS.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
3B) The Board of Adjustment provide direction regarding whether the patio pavers within the
bluff impact zone should be allowed to remain.
MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD, TO ALLOW THE PATIO PAVERS WITHIN
THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE TO REMAIN.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
4A) A smaller lower deck off the garage be allowed to remain, in an appropriate size as
determined by the Planning Commission, as a reduction of a previous nonconforming deck if
the property owner applies for and obtains a permit.
MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD, TO TABLE THIS ITEM AND ENCOURAGED
THE APPLICANT TO BRING BACK ANOTHER PLAN SHOWING A REDUCTION IN THE FOOTPRINT
AND BRING BACK TO A FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR APPROVAL.
Ringstad: Could we strike item 4A from tonight’s approvals so that the PC could have some
time to revisit this plan.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
4B) The variance request for the 3-season porch be denied.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY KALLBERG, TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR
THE THREE-SEASON PORCH.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
5A) The smaller deck off the garage be allowed to remain as the reduction of a previous
nonconforming deck if the property owner applies for and obtains a permit.
MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY KALLBERG, TO ALLOW THE SMALLER DECK OFF THE
GARAGE TO REMAIN AS THE REDUCTION OF A PREVIOUS NONCONFORMING DECK IF THE
PROPERTY OWNER APPLIES FOR A PERMIT.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
April 22, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
7
5B) The board of Adjustment provide direction regarding the approval or denial of a variance for
the upper level deck from the patio door.
MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD, TO TABLE THIS ITEM TO A FUTURE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND ENCOURAGED THE APPLICANT TO BRING BACK
ANOTHER PLAN.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
C. Amendments – City Code Section 1108 of the Prior Lake City Code – Consider certain
amendments to the Prior Lake City Code Section 1108 of the Prior Lake City Code relating to the
voting requirements for zoning changes.
Director McCabe: Introduced a public hearing to consider recommending amendments to
subsection 1108 of the Prior Lake City Code. The proposed amendments would require a two-
thirds supermajority vote of all members of the City Council for adoption of amendment to any
part of the zoning ordinance that changes all or part of the existing classification of a zoning use
district from a residential designation to either commercial or industrial designation. He explained
the history, current circumstances, issues and recommended a motion. He presented a proposed
ordinance amendment.
Commission Comments/Questions:
Tschetter: Asked staff to clarify the change. He wondered if staff was recommending making it
reciprocal if converted to either direction for rezoning it would require a simple majority.
Planner McCabe: Stated that was correct.
MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY TIELMAN, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA
ITEM 4C AT 7:42 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
Public Comment:
No comments from the public.
MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM
4C AT 7:43 P.M.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
Commission Comments/Questions:
No comments
MOTION BY TSCHETTER, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD, TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1108 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE RELATING TO THE
VOTING REQUIREMENTS FOR ZONING CHANGES AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE
SECTION 104; WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAINS PENTALY PROVISIONS.
VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Tieman, Kallberg, Tschetter and Ringstad. The Motion carried.
5. Old Business:
A. PDEV19-000007 – 3800 Green Heights Trail SW – Variance Resolution Denial – The Planning
Commission considered a request for variances from the minimum rear setback and maximum
impervious surface requirements in the R1-SD, Low Density Residential Shoreland Zoning District
on March 25, 2019. City Staff was directed to prepare a resolution of denial to be reviewed by
the Planning Commission. PID 250940030.
Planner Matzke: Introduced the consideration for denial of a variance from the minimum rear
yard setback and maximum impervious surface requirement. The home owner, Scott Thielen is
April 22, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
4646 Dakota Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: APRIL 22, 2019
AGENDA #: 4B
PREPARED BY:
PRESENTED BY:
JEFF MATZKE, PLANNER
JEFF MATZKE
AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW CON-
STRUCTION WITHIN THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE ON A PROPERTY IN THE
R-1 SD (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SHORELAND) ZONING DISTRICT
DISCUSSION: Introduction
Dan Dauffenbach owns the property at 15402 Forsythe Road NE and is request-
ing a variance to allow a previously constructed 3-season porch and upper level
deck in the bluff impact zone to remain. The property is located along the eastern
shores of Lower Prior Lake, south of Fish Point Road. The following variances
are requested:
• A variance to allow a previously constructed 3-season porch and upper level
deck in the bluff impact zone to remain (Section 1104.303)
History
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 is
in the Shoreland Overlay District of Upper Prior Lake. The current dwelling was
constructed in 1978.
Current Circumstances
The property is 16,155 square feet above the 904’ elevation with a single-family
residence. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a previously con-
structed 3-season porch and upper level deck to remain within the bluff impact
zone. The top of the bluff is identified by the 944-contour elevation on the at-
tached survey.
A sequencing of events which have occurred on the property since 2001 has
been submitted by the applicant as part of the variance request. City Staff has
verified most of the event sequencing using site and aerial photos. As explained
in the sequencing of events, the applicant began remodeling the existing stair-
way, retaining walls, and deck features in 2002 (following purchase of the prop-
erty in 2001). A site photo from 1999 identifies some, but not all, of the current
improvements.
Several of the improvements in the bluff area would not be permitted if newly
constructed today. However, because they were constructed prior to 1999 the
improvements may be considered legal nonconforming and allowed to remain.
APRIL 22, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
2
In addition, the City does allow reductions in legal nonconformities. However, any
expansion of a nonconformity would not be allowed absent a variance.
Various features within the bluff area have been remodeled or added since the
1999 photo was taken. The following is an itemization of the changes within the
bluff area: 1) stairway from the dwelling to the lake with landings; 2) retaining
walls 3) storage shed and pavers; 4) lower level deck on house; and 5) upper
level deck on house. The following contains a description of each item, its status
as allowed, nonconforming or requiring a variance, and staff’s recommendation
relating to the item.
1) Stairway and Landings
As indicated by the 1999 lake photo, a stairway and two lower level landings were
in place prior to the applicant’s renovations in the early 2000s. According to the
applicant’s sequence of events, they reduced the size of the lower level
deck/landing in 2001-02. They also added the 3 other smaller landings within a
new stairway system. The stairway and landing system were resurfaced in 2016-
17 with composite decking and railing. Per City Code, stairways cannot exceed
4 feet in width and landings shall not exceed 32 square feet. The current stairway
system is 5.4 - 5.7 feet wide and the landings are 144 square feet and 70 feet
respectively. In the attached sequence of events the applicant has stated that
the current stairway and landings will be brought into compliance by July 31,
2019.
Conclusion: Property owner must bring stairway and landings into compliance
with the City Code by reducing the stairway to no more than 4 feet in width and
the landings to no more than 32 square feet each.
2) Retaining Walls
Only a few retaining walls existed on the property in 1999 and those that did were
of a timber wall (railroad tie) wood construction. According to the applicant’s se-
quence of events the upper timber wall closest to the home was replaced in 2001-
02 along with the addition of other walls using Keystone retaining wall block. In
2006 additional small retaining walls were constructed near the lakeside landing
with Keystone block. In 2016 and 2018 these walls were reconstructed again
using a landscape block.
Previous to 2016, the City Code did not allow for the addition of walls within the
bluff zone; only replacement of existing walls. Following a 2016 Code revision,
the installed retaining walls would likely have been allowed with a permit under
the following requirement (Sec 1104.303), however, no permit was submitted for
the construction:
1104.303 (2) Retaining walls shall not be permitted in the bluff impact zone or
bluff setback except for the following:
(a) Construction on an existing retaining wall that consists of the repair or
exact replacement of the existing wall, provided the grade of the land
within the bluff impact zone or bluff setback and the location and size
of the retaining wall do not change and the new retaining wall will create
no more impact in the bluff impact zone or bluff setback than was
caused by the existing retaining wall.
APRIL 22, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
3
(b) Construction of a new retaining wall that does not exceed four feet in
height, construction that consists of an addition to an existing retaining
wall that does not increase the height of the wall above four feet, or
construction that decreases the height of an existing retaining wall;
provided the proposed drainage patterns and/or erosion control
methods are an improvement over the existing conditions on the site
as determined by the City.
Construction of retaining walls under provisions (a) and (b) above shall
require a grading and filling permit as well as engineering reports as
required by subsection 1104.305.
Conclusion: Because the retaining walls would currently be allowed if a permit
was obtained, staff recommends the walls be allowed to remain as long as the
property owner applies for and obtains a permit (including all required fees and
engineered plans) and complies with all conditions the City imposes on the
permit.
3) Shed and Pavers
As stated in the applicant’s sequence of events the paver areas and the 56
square foot shed were installed in the years 2003 -2006. The City Code does
allow a maximum 120 square foot water oriented accessory structure to be placed
on a steep lakeshore property with a minimum 10-foot lake setback in an
inconspicuous location on the property (Sec 1104.308 (4)). The City Code
doesn’t specifically address pavers within a bluff impact zone, however, it states
“Grading, filling and excavation, including the import or export of materials, is not
permitted within the bluff impact zone. However, the movement or grading of
existing materials within the bluff impact zone may be permitted subject to
approval of a grading and filling permit. (Sec 1104.402)”
Conclusion: Because a water orientated accessory structure is allowed on a
steep lakeshore property, staff recommends the shed be allowed to remain.
Staff is requesting direction from the Board of Adjustment related to the pavers
that have been installed within the bluff impact zone. In staff’s opinion, the intent
of the stairway, landing and retaining wall language in the ordinance is to allow
for access to/from the top and bottom of the bluff. Improvements, such as patio
pavers, within the bluff impact zone made possible by retaining walls were not
contemplated when the ordinance was drafted; however, it is understandable
property owners may wish to add patio space to newly created flat portions of
their property. When the applicant purchased this property, two pervious patio
areas existed within the bluff impact zone.
4) Lower level deck
The lake photo from 1999 and the property owner sequencing identifies a multi-
tiered deck system of approximately 494 square feet total off the lower level of
the house. The applicant’s sequence of events explains that the deck areas were
removed in 2001 and replaced in 2002 one smaller deck area. An upper level
deck was also added and is discussed later in this report. The lower level deck
area was resurfaced in 2016 with composite decking. The applicant’s sequence
of events states that in 2017 the walls around the lower level deck were enclosed
APRIL 22, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
4
to create a 3-season porch. A smaller lower level deck would be allowed at the
current time pursuant to a building permit as the reduction of the larger
nonconforming deck. The closing in of the lower level deck to create a 3-season
porch would not be allowed absent a variance. Decking is often considered
pervious surface because it allows rainwater to reach the ground. However, by
closing off a deck to create a 3-season porch the deck becomes an impervious
surface. The change to a 3-season porch would be considered an increase in the
existing nonconformity and would not be allowed absent a variance.
Conclusion: City Staff recommends that a smaller lower level deck be allowed to
remain as the reduction of a nonconformity as long as the property owner applies
for and obtains a permit (including all required fees and engineered plans) and
complies with all conditions the City imposes on the permit. City Staff recom-
mends denial of the variance request for a 3-season porch and recommends the
lower level deck be returned to an open-air deck as was previously installed. Staff
requests direction from the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjust-
ment, regarding whether such a deck should be allowed in this instance and if so
the allowable size of the deck.
5) Upper level deck
The lake photo from 1999 identifies an upper level deck off the garage and an
upper level patio door without a deck. The applicant’s sequence of events
explains that the upper level deck off of the garage was removed in 2001 and
replaced in 2002 with a smaller deck area. Also, as part of the 2002 replacement
the applicant installed an upper level deck (18’ x 10’) outside of the patio door.
These deck areas were resurfaced in 2016 with composite decking and the upper
level deck installed in 2002 was increased in size to 18’ x 15’ to match the footprint
of the lower level deck below. The upper level deck was installed as an
impervious surface deck in conjunction with closing off the lower deck to become
a 3-season porch.
A smaller deck area off the garage would have been allowed at the time it was
constructed, pursuant to a building permit, as the reduction of the larger
nonconforming deck. The addition of a new deck off the patio door would not be
allowed absent a variance.
Conclusion: City Staff recommends that the smaller deck off of the garage be
allowed to remain as the reduction of a nonconformity as long as the property
owner applies for and obtains a permit (including all required fees and engineered
plans) and complies with all conditions the City imposes on the permit. City Staff
does not have a recommendation in regard to the requested variance for the new
upper level deck off of the patio door. The Board of Adjustment has previously
allowed smaller decks to be installed off of pre-existing patio doors because it
has been considered reasonable for a property owner to assume when purchas-
ing a property with a patio door that a deck can be installed. However, in this
instance, a very large, impervious surface deck was installed. In the past, the
Board of Adjustment has allowed smaller (such as 10 x 10) pervious decks to be
installed off a pre-existing patio door. Staff requests direction from the Board of
Adjustment regarding whether such a deck should be allowed in this instance and
if so, the allowable size of the deck.
APRIL 22, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
5
Conclusion
Utilizing site and aerial photos, City Staff has verified most events sequencing as
stated in the applicant’s sequence of events narrative. The applicant did not sub-
mit any grading or building permits for any of the work in question dating back to
2001; however, under the current City Code some of these features would be
allowed with permits while others would require a variance. Staff recommends
the following:
1) The stairway from the dwelling to the lake with landings be brought into com-
pliance with the City Code by reducing the stairway to no more than 4 feet in
width and the landings to no more than 32 square feet each after the property
owner obtains a permit.
2) The retaining walls be allowed to remain as long as the property owner applies
for and obtains a permit.
3A) The water orientated accessory structure be allowed to remain as is.
3B) The Board of Adjustment provide direction regarding whether the patio pac-
ers within the bluff impact zone should be allowed to remain.
4A) A smaller lower level deck be allowed to remain, in an appropriate size as
determined by the Planning Commission, as a reduction of a previous noncon-
forming deck if the property owner applies for and obtains a permit.
4B) The variance request for the 3-season porch be denied.
5A) The smaller deck off the garage be allowed to remain as the reduction of a
previous nonconforming deck if the property owner applies for and obtains a per-
mit.
5B) The Board of Adjustment provide direction regarding the approval or denial
of a variance for the upper level deck off of the patio door.
For each permit required (stairs and landing, retaining walls, pavers, lower level
deck, small deck off of the garage, and deck off of the upper level patio door if
allowed) the property owner shall obtain permits, complt with all conditions the
City imposes on the permit, provide engineered plans and specifications, pay all
City fees including double permit fees as is standard for after the fact permits,
and follow City permit procedures.
The City Staff is prepared to draft a resolution for approval/denial of the Staff’s
recommendations and the requested variances based on the findings of the Plan-
ning Commission. Staff requests that the Board of Adjustment make verbal find-
ings on each item. The Staff will incorporate the findings into a Resolution to bring
back to the Board of Adjustment for review and revision and/or ratification. If any
approval of any variance is given the City Staff recommends the following condi-
tions be met:
The variance resolution shall be recorded at Scott County.
The stairway and landings shall be reduced to meet the City Code.
Prior to any work, the property owner obtains permits for all work including
the stairs and landing, retaining walls, pavers, small lower level deck, small
APRIL 22, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
6
deck off the garage, and deck off of the patio door if allowed. That the property
owner shall provide engineered plans and specifications, pay all City fees in-
cluding double permit fees for after the fact permits, and follow City permit
procedures. That the property owner complies with the permits and with any
conditions the City imposes on the permits.
ISSUES: This project includes a request for variances to allow a previously constructed 3-
season porch and upper level deck off the patio doors to remain in a bluff impact
zone. Section 1108.400 states that the Board of Adjustment may grant a variance
from the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, provided that
the variance meets the following criteria. Staff has provided proposed findings for
denial of the variance for the 3-season porch. Staff is seeking direction and find-
ings from the Board of Adjustment for the variance for the upper level deck
(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.
Practical difficulties do not exist for increasing the nonconformity of the
lower level deck area to a 3-season porch. The existing deck areas from
1999 were legal nonconforming structures therefore only exact replace-
ment or reduction of these features would be allowed by the City Code.
The property owner has shown no practical difficulties in not being allowed
to improve the nonconformity to a 3-season porch.
(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 variance is to allow a 3-season porch is not in harmony
with the general purposes of the Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. A
purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to “Promote the most appropriate and
orderly development 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 wel-
fare to provide for the wise development of shoreland of public waters”.
(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 practical difficulty is due to the actions of the property owner installing
the 3-season porch and completing other work within the bluff impact zone
without submitting applicable permits. The porch does not conform to the
City Code requirements for features in a bluff area. The bluff area is not
unique to this property.
APRIL 22, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
7
(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 intent of the City’s bluff setback ordinance is to limit improvements and
impervious surface in the bluff area to protect the bluff and the abutting
lake. The addition of a 3-season porch and additional impervious surface
is detrimental to the health of the bluff and therefore the lake and abutting
properties.
(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 requested variances would allow uses which are allowed accessory
uses within the R-1 SD (Low Density Residential in Shoreland) Zoning
District.
ALTERNATIVES: 1. Motion and a second to approve the variances requested for 15402 Forsythe
Trail NE with conditions deemed appropriate.
2. Motion and a second to table or continue discussion of the item for specific
purpose as directed by the Board of Adjustment.
3. Motion and a second to approve Staff’s recommendations and deny the vari-
ances requested because the Board of Adjustment finds a lack of demon-
strated practical difficulties under the zoning code criteria.
4. Motion and a second to approve in part and deny in part Staff’s recommen-
dations and the variances requested.
RECOMMENDED
MOTIONS:
Alternative No. 3
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map
2. Lake photo from 1999
3. Aerial photos from 2003, 2007, 2016, 2018
4. Photos of property from 2016 - 2018
5. Survey Dated 9-25-2018
6. Sequencing of Events from Applicant
APRIL 22, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
4646 Dakota Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: MAY 13, 2019
AGENDA #: 5A
PREPARED BY:
PRESENTED BY:
JEFF MATZKE, PLANNER
JEFF MATZKE
AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER A VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION WITHIN
THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE ON A PROPERTY IN THE R-1 SD (LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL SHORELAND) ZONING DISTRICT
DISCUSSION: Introduction
Dan Dauffenbach owns the property at 15402 Forsythe Road NE and is request-
ing a variance to allow a previously constructed 3-season porch and upper level
deck in the bluff impact zone to remain. The property is located along the eastern
shores of Lower Prior Lake, south of Fish Point Road. The following variances
are requested:
• A variance to allow a previously constructed 3-season porch and upper level
deck in the bluff impact zone to remain (Section 1104.303)
History
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 is
in the Shoreland Overlay District of Upper Prior Lake. The current dwelling was
constructed in 1978.
On April 22, 2019 the Planning Commission held a public hearing at which only
the applicant and his building contractor provided comments. After discussion
the Planning Commission directed the applicant to consider revisions to the upper
level deck area, lower level deck area, and eliminate the 3-season porch surround
from the property. The Planning Commission also indicated acceptance of other
features (pavers, other deck areas, water-oriented accessory structure, stairways
and landings, and retaining walls) if the applicant obtains permits for the features.
(See draft meeting minutes as Attachment 2.)
The applicant has prepared a narrative (Attachment 3) of his desire to maintain
the current deck and porch features as they are constructed or, at a minimum,
remove the 3-season porch surround from the deck area.
Conclusion
The City Staff has prepared a resolution from the findings identified by the Board
of Adjustment at the April 22, 2019 meeting. City Staff recommends a lower level
deck size of 10-feet deep by 18-feet wide be approved in accordance with the
previously existing lower level deck size from 2001 as identified in the applicant’s
sequence of events. This lower level deck size would not require a variance as
MAY 13, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
2
it is an exact replacement of a previous legal nonconforming deck. The City Staff
recommends a 10-feet deep by 18-feet wide upper level deck outside of the ex-
isting patio door. A 10-foot deep deck size has been deemed a reasonable deck
size by the Planning Commission in past variance requests.
Based on the variance criteria and findings of fact outlined in this report. City Staff
recommends the following conditions be met with an approval of a 10-feet deep
by 18-feet wide upper level deck:
The variance resolution shall be recorded at Scott County.
Building permits shall be obtained from the Building Department prior
to the commencement of any construction on the property.
The stairway from the dwelling to the lake with landings shall be
brought into compliance with the City Code by reducing the stairway
to no more than 4 feet in width and the landings to no more than 32
square feet each after the property owner obtains a permit.
The retaining walls are allowed to remain as long as the property
owner applies for and obtains a permit.
The water orientated accessory structure is allowed to remain.
The patio pavers within the bluff impact zone are allowed to remain.
The smaller deck off of the garage is allowed to remain as long as the
property owner applies for and obtains a permit.
An upper level dock off of the existing patio door of no more than 10-
feet deep by 18-feet wide is allowed as long as the property owner
applies for and obtains a permit. Any upper level deck space in excess
of the 10-foot by 18-foot approved variance shall be removed.
The lower level deck of 10-feet deep by 18-feet wide is allowed to
remain as an exact replacement of a previous nonconforming deck if
the property owner applies for and obtains a permit. Any deck space
in excess of the 10-foot by 18-foot approved size shall be removed.
The 3-season porch shall be removed.
ISSUES: This project includes a request for variances to allow a previously constructed 3-
season porch and upper level deck off the patio doors to remain in a bluff impact
zone. Section 1108.400 states that the Board of Adjustment may grant a variance
from the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, provided that
the variance meets the following criteria.
(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 in regard to the originally installed 10-feet deep by 18-feet wide
upper level deck, because a patio door exists on the upper level on the
dwelling and not permitting any deck would prevent any use of the patio
door. A practical difficulty does not exist, however, for the recent expan-
sion of the upper level deck to 15-feet by 18-feet. A practical difficulty also
does not exist for the expansion of the lower level deck or the conversion
of the lower level deck into a 3-season porch.
MAY 13, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
3
(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 variance for a 10-feet deep by 18-feet wide upper level
deck 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 development of the residential, business,
industrial, public land, and public areas”. Furthermore, the Shoreland Or-
dinance (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 expanded upper deck, expanded lower
deck, and 3-season porch feature are not in harmony with the intent of the
City Ordinances and Comprehensive Plan as they are expansions of a le-
gal nonconforming deck area and increase the impervious surface in the
bluff impact zone.
(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 lot has an existing residence which pre-dates the City Code and has
a bluff feature. A 10-feet deep by 18-feet wide upper level deck is reason-
able for an upper level sitting area off of a pre-existing patio door. A larger
upper level deck, an expanded lower level deck and a 3-season porch are
a mere convenience and resulted only from the property owner’s actions.
(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 the variance for a 10-feet deep by 18-feet wide upper level
deck will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood nor be
detrimental to the health and safety of the public welfare. This deck size is
a reasonable for the property. A larger upper level deck, an expanded
lower level deck and a 3-season porch feature are larger than reasonable
and are an expansion of a legal nonconforming deck area that is
detrimental to the bluff areas common to the neighborhood.
(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 requested variance would allow the replacement and reconfiguration
of features within the bluff impact zone. The features are accessory uses
to a single-family residential dwelling which is an allowed use within the R-
1 SD (Low Density Residential in Shoreland) Zoning District.
ALTERNATIVES: 1. Motion and a second to approve the draft resolution attached to this report for
15402 Forsythe Trail NE with conditions.
MAY 13, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
4
2. Motion and a second to table or continue discussion of the item for specific
purpose as directed by the Board of Adjustment.
3. Motion and a second to deny the variances requested because the Board of
Adjustment finds a lack of demonstrated practical difficulties under the zoning
code criteria.
4. Motion and a second to approve in part and deny in part the variances re-
quested with conditions deemed appropriate.
RECOMMENDED
MOTIONS:
Alternative No. 1
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution 19PC-XX
2. Draft Meeting Minutes – April 22, 2019 Planning Commission
3. Applicant Narrative received by City Staff on May 3, 2019
4. April 22, 2019 City Staff Report for variance request (entire report with attach-
ments)
MAY 13, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
HIGHW
AY
13FISHPOINTRDSEFORSYTHERD
SELower Prior Lake
Scott
County GIS Ü 15402Forsythe
Road SE
Variance Location Map
UPPER
PRIOR
LAKE GD(904)LOWER
PRIO
R
LAKE
GD(
904)ARTIC
LAKENE 906.7)
Lower Prior Lake
Upper Prior Lake
Scott
County