Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 12 2025 PCM PACKET Phone 952.447.9800 / PriorLakeMN.gov 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, May 12, 2025 City Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order and Pledge of Allegiance 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Consider Approval of Monday, April 14, 2025 Meeting Minutes 4. Public Hearings: A. PDEV25-000007 – 3160 Spring Lake Road Southwest– Variance – Property owner, Bui Thahn is requesting an impervious surface variance of 14.7% and a 5-foot variance to the required driveway side yard setback (PID 251330400) B. Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Consider a Recommendation for Amendment to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to Amend Chapter 3, Land Use Plan; Chapter 6, Park and Trail System Plan; Chapter 8, Wastewater; and Chapter 9, Water Supply 5. Old Business: 6. New Business: 7. Adjournment 1 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday April 14, 2025 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: Chair Tschetter called the Monday April 14, 2025 Prior Lake Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners Jason Tschetter, Dan Ringstad, Michael Tennison, Doug Johnson, Christian Fenstermacher, and Kate Yurko were present. Absent Michael Pasquarette City Council Liaison Ethan Hellier, Community Development Director Casey McCabe, and Deputy Clerk / Administrative Assistant Megan Kooiman were also present. 2. Approval of Monday April 14, 2025 Agenda: MOTION BY RINGSTAD SECONDED BY TENNISON TO APPROVE THE MONDAY APRIL 14, 2025 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Tschetter, Fenstermacher, Johnson, and Tennison. Motion carried 5-0. 3. Approval of Monday, February 24, 2024, Meeting Minutes: MOTION BY TENNISON SECONDED BY JOHNSON TO APPROVE THE MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2024, PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Tschetter, Fenstermacher, Johnson, and Tennison. Motion carried 5-0. 4. Old Business: PDEV24-000031-14535 Pine RD NE – Resolution Denying a Variance Request- Approval of a resolution to deny a variance request at 14535 Pine Road NE Planner Moretto: Gave a brief introduction to the variance request. Moretto provided an overview of the previous variance request on the subject property and the previous Board of Adjustments action to deny the variance request in December 2024. Mr. Moretto summarized the proposed action tonight is to formally approve a resolution of denial. Staff recommends approval of the resolution to deny the variance. Commissioner Questions and Comments: None. MOTION BY TENNISON, SECONDED BY JOHNSON TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION TO DENY THE VARIANCES REQUESTED BECAUSE THE BOARD OF AJUSTMENTS FINDS A LACK OF DEMOSTRATED PRACTICAL DIFFCULTIES UNDER THE ZONING CODE CRITERIA VOTE: Ayes by Tschetter, Fenstermacher, Johnson, and Tennison. Nays: Ringstad Motion carried 4-1. 5. Public Hearing A. PDEV24-000004 – 2917 Fox TRL NW –Variance – Property Owner, Chinh Van is Requesting an Impervious surface variance of 3.75% (PID 252970140) Planner Moretto: Introduced the planning item to request a public hearing to consider a request for an after-the-fact variance to allow the property owner to maintain an additional 3.75% of impervious surface. Moretto explained the current circumstances, physical site characteristics, and the variance criteria. City staff is recommending denial of the variance due to a lack of practical difficulty related to the land and the condition being created by the homeowner. 2 Commissioner Comments and Questions: Johnson: Asked if poly plastic is considered an impervious surface or if one sheet of plastic is considered pervious. Moretto: One layer of poly is considered pervious per city code. Ringstad: Acknowledged an anonymous comment letter was received from the public and asked if we accept anonymous comment letters. Questioned how many square feet 3.75% over the 30% represents. Moretto: We do acknowledge anonymous letters for consideration. However, it is hard to quantify its value because we cannot verify their relation to the project. In this case ten percent would be one thousand one hundred square feet, so one-third of that would be about 350 square feet. Tschetter: Questioned the removal of the deck and if the city has any guidance on how wet basements should be solved. Do we have a clear picture of what changes are needed to get under 30%. Moretto: No, the deck doesn’t need to be removed. We have multiple sources to help with wet basements but no specific recommendations for wet basements. If they removed the concrete area under the patio, we do think it would be enough to get to the solution (under 30%) we are looking for. Applicant: Chinh Van: Wanted to thank the commissioners for having him here tonight. Gave a brief timeline on when he bought the house and different issues they have run into without that patio under the deck such as mold and animal nesting. Explained the confusion over permits and his understanding that the HOA approval he received was all that was needed. He was unaware of the permitting process at the city and the impervious coverage requirements. Tschetter: Question if he has explored any options or consulted contractors about the water in the basement and if the contractor that put in the slab mentioned a need for City permits. Van: Stated that he has not looked for contractors for resolving the wet basement issue. Also explained that the contractor that put in the concrete never mentioned city permits. Tschetter: Question if there was any conversation between neighbors or the HOA about drainage. Van: Mentioned he did speak with the neighbor. Also noted that his property is the lowest in the neighborhood. Explained different ways he tried to get the water under control. Tschetter: Do the neighbors have concerns with the concrete slab. Van: Spoke to the neighbors to the side and they are okay with the concrete slab. Tschetter: Expressed his sympathy for the confusion. Surprised that the contractor didn’t mention city requirements or reviews. MOTION BY FENSTERMACHER, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4A AT 6:25 P.M. VOTE: Ayes, Ringstad, Johnson, Fenstermacher, Tschetter, and Tennison. Motion carried 5-0. Public Comment: None. MOTION BY JOHNSON, SECONDED BY TENNISON TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4A AT 6:26 P.M. VOTE: Ayes, Ringstad, Johnson, Fenstermacher, Tschetter, and Tennison Commissioner Comments: Tschetter: I am sympathetic to the situation that Mr. Van is in. Impervious surface creates a number of challenges with water quality risks and impacts to our community. I will have to vote to deny this. 3 Ringstad: Explained how if they approved of this variance then it sets a precedent for other citizens asking for forgiveness after already doing the project. I will also be voting to deny this project. Tennison: I agree with the comments that have been made and do think there are other mitigations and techniques to use. There are companies that can help support these types of issues and I intend to deny it as well. MOTION BY FENSTERMACHER, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO DENY A VARIANCE FROM SUBSECTION 10 – 435 OF THE SHORELAND REGULATIONS ON A PROPRTTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT AND SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT AT 2917 FOX TRAIL NE VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Tschetter, Fenstermacher, Johnson, and Tennison. Motion carried 5-0. B. PDEV25-000005 – 14535 Pine Road NE – Variance – Property owner, KJ Walk Inc. is requesting variances related to impervious surface coverage, side yard setback, front yard setback, ordinary high water level setback, and adjacent primary structure setback (PID 25040060) Planner Moretto: Introduced the public hearing to consider a recommendation of approval for a variance. Moretto explained the history, current circumstances, physical site characteristics, and proposed plan. City Staff is recommended approval of the request variance with conditions. Commissioner Comments and Questions: Yurko: Asked if the survey verified to confirm the accurate lot dimensions and elevation. Commented on the characteristics of the lot and questioned the timeline for the hardship of this lot. Asked if there was a reduction in square footage from the previous request. Moretto: Explained the survey was taken by a registered land surveyor and that was the current survey. Gave a timeline of event and stated it is up to the Board of Adjustment to decide if this is a reasonable ask for the property. Fenstermacher: Questioned if there was a slide showing what the property owner would have to build within under standard setbacks and requirements. It would be helpful to show what the owner is dealing with. Johnson: Is it possible to provide a summary of all the changes that have been made. How much has the square footage gone down. Did the foundation size change. Moretto: Provided the proposed reductions. Yurko: Commented the garage size was deceased but the driveway took its place so we aren’t seeing a decrease in impervious surface, rather just a decrease in building square footage. Moretto: Correct. Tennison: Questioned if the retaining wall is counted in the impervious surface as well. Moretto: It doesn’t count toward the impervious surface total. Tschetter: Questioned if this was posted and if there were any comments from the neighbors and what the comments were. The house size is a substantial reduction from the previous variance. Questioned about the wall on the side of the property and if the retaining wall is a structure for setbacks purposes and when that would be determined. Moretto: We did receive a comment from one neighbor. Impervious surface was the main issue for that one neighbor. 40.7% net, but gross was 37.03%, existing at 51.12% per survey that was provided. The wall holds back the hill and foundation. It is not considered in the setback variance today. This variance request is just for the home itself. McCabe: Noted the wall is included on the plan so the Board of Adjustments is aware. Portions of the wall will be greater than 4 ft., which is considered a structure in city code. 4 Applicant: Warren Israelson: Gave a brief description of his history in Prior Lake. Explained the changes he has made to the house since the last request. One major change was removing the entire second story. He thanked the commissioners for their consideration. Tschetter: What is the total square footage of the entire house. Israelson: Unsure of the exact number of the square footage. Explained that it is a rambler with a walkout basement. Yurko: Questioned if the finished attic is considered a second story. Questioned if this was still a two- story with walkout vs a rambler with a walk out. Israelson: Stated it is a two-story, if you consider the attic a story. Explained how he does not consider the attic a story from a builder’s standpoint. Tschetter: Questioned if there was any discussion with the neighbors. Israelson: Hosted a neighborhood meeting and only one neighbor came. Only concern was whether he was going to plant trees or not. MOTION BY TENNISON, SECONDED BY RINGSTAD TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4A AT 6:55 P.M. VOTE: Ayes, Ringstad, Johnson, Fenstermacher, Tschetter, and Johnson. Motion carried 5-0. Public Comment: None. MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECONDED BY FENSTERMACHER TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 4B AT 6:56 P.M. VOTE: Ayes, Ringstad, Johnson, Fenstermacher, Tschetter, and Johnson. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner and Comments: Fenstermacher: Appreciates the changes that have been made. Thinks it’s a great use of the lot. Will supports this as he has done in the past. Tennison: Appreciate the reduction of the impervious surface. I will be voting in favor of this project. Johnson: Echo fellow commissioners and thanked the applicant for working with city staff to revise plans for something that will be better suited for the lot size. Overall, will be a nice improvement. Ringstad: I too will be in favor of the 14% impervious surface reduction, which is huge. This is a challenging lot. Thanked the owner for his efforts. Tschetter: You created the harmony we were looking for in the neighborhood. This is a challenging lot, and we appreciate your efforts to make the most of it. MOTION BY JOHNSON, SECONDED BY FENSTERMACHER TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FROM FRONTYARD AND CORNER SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND IMPEVIOUS SURFACE MAXIMUM RO ALLOW A SINGLE – FAMILY HOME ON A PROPERTY IN THE R-1 SD (LOW DENISTY RESIDENTIAL SHORELINE) ZONING DISTRICT AT 14535 PINE ROAD NE VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Tschetter, Fenstermacher, Johnson, and Tennison. Motion carried 5-0. 6. New Business: None. 7. Announcements & Adjournment: 5 Announcements: There will be no Planning Commission Meeting on April 28th. MOTION BY FENSTERMACHER, SECONDED BY TENNISON TO ADJOURN THE MONDAY APRIL 14, 2025, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 6:59 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Ringstad, Tschetter, Fenstermacher, Johnson, and Tennison. Motion carried 5-0. Respectfully submitted, Megan Kooiman, Deputy Clerk / Administrative Assistant 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: May 12, 2025 AGENDA #: 4A PREPARED BY: PRESENTED BY: PAUL MORETTO, PLANNER PAUL MORETTO AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FROM THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A DRIVEWAY AND IMPERVI- OUS SURFACE ON A PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESI- DENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT AND SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT AT LOT 11, BLOCK 32 SPRING LAKE TOWNSITE, 3160 SPRING LAKE ROAD SW DISCUSSION: Introduction Bui Thahn, the property owner, is requesting variances from the zoning code for the construction of a detached, double-stall garage. The subject property, Lot 11, Block 32 of Spring Lake Townsite, is located at 3160 Spring Lake Road SW. This is a non- riparian lot. The requested variances are listed below: • A 5-foot variance from the required minimum side yard setbacks for driveways on a nonconforming lot. (Subsection 10-766 (b)) • A variance to allow 44.7% impervious surface; currently 50.2%. (Subsection 10- 435(5)) Regulation Requirement Proposed Variance Side Yard Driveway Setbacks* 5 ft. 0 ft. 5 ft. Impervious Surface* 30% 44.7% 14.7% * Replacing existing gravel driveway. Current impervious is 50.2%. History The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and is guided R-LD (Urban Low Density) on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The property is in the Shoreland Overlay District of Prior Lake. The existing house was originally constructed in 1980 according to Scott County. Aerial images show structures on or near this prop- erty prior to 1964. Current Circumstances 3160 Spring Lake Road SW Current Condition Side Yard Front Yard Impervious Driveway Location Adjacent Dwelling Lot Width 9.9 ft / 15.5 ft 35.3 ft. 50.2% 0 ft. 22.1 ft. 49.8 ft. 3160 Spring Lake Road SW Proposed Condition (Garage) Side Yard Front Yard Impervious Driveway Location Adjacent Dwelling Lot Width 9.9 ft / 15.5 ft 35.3 ft. 44.7% 0 ft. 22.1 ft. 49.8 ft. 2 The property owner proposes to construct a detached, 26 ft. X 24 ft. (624 sq. ft.) double- stall garage on the northeast portion of the rear yard. The rectangular lot is 50 feet wide and approximately 7,094 square feet; the lot is considered nonconforming as it is sub- standard for the shoreland district in both lot width and area. The lot does not have a garage currently and all vehicles are stored outside. The rear yard of the subject property abuts an unimproved alley. Staff and the applicant explored the possibility of improving the alley to facilitate garage access and avoid the need for a variance. An initial review by engineering and planning staff resulted in a recommendation not to improve the alley due to complications related to grading near Monroe Avenue SW and a substantial amount of impervious surface would need to be added to the alley to make the use feasible. This would result in no net benefit to the impervious surface condition of the immediate area. Staff and the applicant also explored measures to reduce the amount of impervious surface coverage, including moving the garage closer to the home and further from the rear property line; staff will share a site plan showing this alternative at the May 12 th meeting. The property owner is willing to move the garage forward to reduce the length of the driveway, thus reducing the impervious surface; however, this option may create some difficulty and the impervious coverage is somewhat negligible. This option may eliminate the property owner’s ability to turn the vehicle around on their property and require them to back out of a long driveway onto Spring Lake Road, opposed to ac- cessing Spring Lake Road driving forward. A site visit was conducted on May 5, 2025. It was observed that many single-family homes near the subject property had at least a double-stall garage. Side Setback for Driveways: Subsection 10-766 (b) states, Driveways shall be set back at least five feet from the side yard property line. The current condition will be maintained as there is a driveway in the proposed location currently. The front door landing location for the existing home limits the applicant’s ability to place the driveway further from the property line. Prior Lake City Code requires a minimum 8-foot driveway width. Impervious Surface: Subsection 10-435(5) states, Impervious surface coverage for lots in all Use Districts shall not exceed 30% of the lot area. The subject lot currently contains 50.2% impervious surface. The applicant proposes to reduce their impervious surface to 44.7% which is composed of the existing dwelling, the proposed garage, and a driveway for the garage. ISSUES: City staff struggled with their recommendation of approval as the request for a de- tached garage appears reasonable with no garage currently located on the property; however, a zero (0) foot driveway setback and a 44.7% impervious surface variance are more extensive than generally approved by the Board of Adjustment. If the Board of Adjustment does not support approving the variances as requested by the applicant, staff would welcome a discussion with the Board of Adjustment on a reasonable size for the detached accessory structure and reasonable impervious surface coverage and recommend this item be tabled to allow time for the applicant to revise their request. This project includes a request for a variance. Section 10-906 states that the Board of Adjustment may grant a variance from the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, provided that: 1) Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Code. 3 The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes of the Zoning Code. The purpose of the Zoning Code is to “Promote the most appropriate and orderly development of the residential, business, industrial, public land, and public areas”. The Prior Lake Zoning Code permits detached accessory structures to be constructed in the side or rear of a principal structure in residential districts. 2) Variances shall only be permitted when they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The granting of the variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and its goal to maintain and improve physical character and identity. This is accomplished by achieving compatible relationships between different types of land uses by utilizing design standards, appropriate buffers, land use transitions, and high-quality design. 3) Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Code. “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 Code, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Substandard Lot Width and Area: The lot is only 50 feet wide and 7,094 square feet in area, both of which are below the minimum standards for the Shoreland Overlay District. This narrow lot width creates an unusually constrained buildable area, especially when factoring in required setbacks and existing building footprint. Existing Development Constraints: The home’s placement and the required landing at the front entrance restrict the ability to locate a driveway or garage in a code-compliant manner without encroaching on setbacks. Additionally, the driveway already exists in the proposed location and is not being expanded beyond the current footprint, mitigating any further impact to the side yard area. Reasonable Use Consistent with Neighborhood: The applicant is seeking to construct a detached, double-stall garage - a common and reasonable residential improvement that is found on many nearby lots. Most homes in the surrounding neighborhood have at least a double-stall garage. Reduction in Existing Impervious Surface: Although the requested impervious surface exceeds the 30% maximum, the proposed plan would reduce the current impervious surface coverage from 50.2% to 44.7%, moving the property closer to compliance. Alternative options such as use of the rear alley were reviewed and deemed infeasible due to grading, drainage, and engineering concerns. Not Self-Created: The unique constraints of the property, including the lot size and width, and location of the existing home were not created by the applicant and predate their ownership. These factors result from historic platting and development patterns that do not align with current zoning standards. No Alteration to Neighborhood Character: The proposed garage would be located in the rear yard and accessed via an existing driveway, minimizing visual or spatial impact. The structure is consistent with the residential character and scale of surrounding properties, and it would not alter the essential character of the locality. 4 4) Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations alone are not the reason for the variance request. Conclusion City Staff believes these variances are warranted and necessary to allow for construc- tion of a detached, double-stall garage due to the narrowness of the lot width (50 feet), substandard lot size (7,094 square feet), and location of an existing home and landing. Other neighborhood homes surrounding the subject property have similar side yard setbacks on narrow lots and most homes in this neighborhood have a garage. If the Board of Adjustments finds the applicant has met all necessary criteria and sup- ports approval of the variance, then staff recommends the following conditions: ➢ The applicant shall provide a grading plan confirming all stormwater drainage from the driveway will be managed on their property and no driveway stormwater drain- age shall be directed to the parcel to the east. ➢ The variance resolution shall be recorded at Scott County. ➢ Building Permit shall be obtained from the Building Department prior to the com- mencement of construction. If the Board of Adjustments finds the applicant has not met all necessary criteria and would like to see further revisions to reduce the impervious surface, staff recommends providing direction to the applicant related to reasonable detached garage size and reasonable impervious surface coverage and table the item for consideration at a future meeting. ALTERNATIVES: 1. If the Board of Adjustment finds the requested variances are warranted in this case, a motion and a second to adopt a resolution approving the variances requested for 3160 Spring Lake Road SW with the listed conditions, or approve any variance the Board of Adjustment deems appropriate in the circumstances. 2. If the Board of Adjustment finds the requested variances are not warranted in this case, a 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 and direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for consideration at the next Board of Adjustment meeting. 3. If the Board of Adjustment would like additional information from the applicant about the requested variances or would like to see further plan revisions to decrease the variance requests, a motion and a second to table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose as directed by the Board of Adjustment. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: Alternative No.1 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Applicant Narrative 3. Survey 4. Resolution 25-05PC Spring Lake 1 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 RESOLUTION 25-05PC VARIANCES FROM THE MINIMUM DRIVEWAY SIDE YARD SETBACK AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE TO ALLOW FOR A DETACHED GARAGE ON A PROPERTY IN THE R-1 SD (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SHORELAND) ZONING DISTRICT WHEREAS, The Prior Lake Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment, conducted a public hearing on May 12, 2025, to consider a request from Bui Thahn, the property owner, requesting a variance from the minimum driveway side yard setback and maximum impervious surface to allow construction of a double-stall garage on a property located in the R-1 SD (Low Density Residential Shoreland) Zoning District at the following property, legally described as: Lot 11, Block 32, Spring Lake Townsite, Scott County, Minnesota. (PID 251330400) Address: 3160 Spring Lake Road SW, Prior Lake, MN 55372; and WHEREAS, Notice of the public hearing on said variance request was duly published in accordance with the applicable Prior Lake Ordinances; and WHEREAS, The Board of Adjustment 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 Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for the variances as contained in Case #DEV25-000007 and held a hearing thereon on May 12, 2025; and WHEREAS, The Board of Adjustment 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 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA as follows: 1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein. 2. The Board of Adjustment hereby adopts the following findings: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Code. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes of the Zoning Code. The purpose of the Zoning Code is to “Promote the most appropriate and orderly development of the residential, business, industrial, public land, and public areas”. The Prior Lake Zoning Code permits detached accessory structures to be constructed in the side or rear of a principal structure in residential districts. 2 b. Variances shall only be permitted when they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The granting of the variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and its goal to maintain and improve physical character and identity. This is accomplished by achieving compatible relationships between different types of land uses by utilizing design standards, appropriate buffers, land use transitions, and high-quality design. c. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Code. “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 Code, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Substandard Lot Width and Area: The lot is only 50 feet wide and 7,094 square feet in area, both of which are below the minimum standards for the Shoreland Overlay District. This narrow lot width creates an unusually constrained buildable area, especially when factoring in required setbacks and existing building footprint. Existing Development Constraints: The home’s placement and the required landing at the front entrance restrict the ability to locate a driveway or garage in a code-compliant manner without encroaching on setbacks. Additionally, the driveway already exists in the proposed location and is not being expanded beyond the current footprint, mitigating any further impact to the side yard area. Reasonable Use Consistent with Neighborhood: The applicant is seeking to construct a detached, double-stall garage - a common and reasonable residential improvement that is found on many nearby lots. Most homes in the surrounding neighborhood have at least a double-stall garage. Reduction in Existing Impervious Surface: Although the requested impervious surface exceeds the 30% maximum, the proposed plan would reduce the current impervious surface coverage from 50.2% to 44.7%, moving the property closer to compliance. Alternative options such as use of the rear alley were reviewed and deemed infeasible due to grading, drainage, and engineering concerns. Not Self-Created: The unique constraints of the property, including the lot size and width, and location of the existing home were not created by the applicant and predate their ownership. These factors result from historic platting and development patterns that do not align with current zoning standards. No Alteration to Neighborhood Character: The proposed garage would be located in the rear yard and accessed via an existing driveway, minimizing visual or spatial impact. The structure is consistent with the residential character and scale of surrounding properties, and it would not alter the essential character of the locality. d. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations alone are not the reason for the variance request. 3 3. Based upon the findings set forth herein, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves the following variances to allow the construction of a garage per the proposed survey in the R-1 SD (Low Density Residential Shoreland) Zoning District: a. A 5-foot variance from the required minimum driveway side yard setback. (Subsection 10- 766(b)) b. A variance for impervious surface from 30% to 44.7%. (Subsection 10-435(5)) 4. The variances are subject to the following conditions of approval: a. The applicant shall provide a grading plan confirming all stormwater drainage from the driveway will be managed on their property and no driveway stormwater drainage shall be directed to the parcel to the east. b. The variance resolution shall be recorded at Scott County. c. Building Permit shall be obtained from the Building Department prior to the commencement of construction. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF MAY 2025. _______________________________ Jason Tschetter, Commission Chair ATTEST: _________________________________ Casey McCabe, Community Development Director VOTE Tschetter Johnson Fenstermacher Tennison Ringstad Aye ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Nay ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Abstain ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: May 12, 2025 AGENDA #: 4B PREPARED BY: Casey McCabe, Community Development Director PRESENTED BY: Casey McCabe AGENDA ITEM: Consider a Recommendation for an Amendment to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to Amend Chapter 3, Land Use Plan; Chapter 6, Park and Trail System Plan; Chapter 8, Wastewater; and Chapter 9, Water Supply DISCUSSION: Introduction The purpose of this public hearing is to consider a request from City staff to amend the City of Prior Lake 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Background Minnesota Statutes section 473.864 requires each local governmental unit to review and, if necessary, amend its entire comprehensive plan and its fiscal devices and official controls at least once every ten years to ensure its comprehensive plan conforms to metropolitan system plans and ensure its fiscal devices and official controls do not conflict with the comprehensive plan or permit activities that conflict with metropolitan system plans. The City Council adopted the 2040 Comprehensive Plan on June 1, 2020. The Comprehensive Plan is a compilation of policy statements, goals, standards, and maps for guiding the physical, social, and economic development, both private and public, of the city. Current Circumstances On September 10, 2024, the City Council approved a new Orderly Annexation Agreement Spring Lake Township. The new Orderly Annexation Agreement removed a large number of residential parcels located in the Shore Trail and Vergus Avenue neighborhoods south of Spring Lake from the annexation area (hereinafter the “Subject Property”), meaning these Spring Lake Township parcels area is no longer eligible for annexation into the City. The Subject Property was previously identified as areas 24.1, 24.2 and 24.3 in a 2003 Orderly Annexation Agreement between the City and Township. With the Subject Property no longer eligible for annexation, an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is needed to remove these areas as the city will no longer be planning for the future land use, parks and trails. The purpose of this agenda item is to consider a recommendation to the City Council for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to remove references to the Subject Property from the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, including: Chapter 3, Land Use Plan All references to the Subject Property located in Spring Lake Township shall be removed from the Land Use Plan, including but not limited to: • Figure 3.2: Future Land Use Map 2 • Figure 3.3: Developable Land by Future Land Use Category • Figure 3.4: Development Staging Plan The removal of the Subject Property from the above Figures will not have a significant impact on the overall future development of the city. As such, the Tables within Chapter 3, including, Forecasted Population, Housing & Employment; Future Land Use Characteristics; Planned Land Use Characteristics; Density Calculations; and Future Land Use Units/Jobs/Acres are not proposed to be amended. Chapter 6, Park and Trail System Plan Two former city parks, Raymond Park and South Shore Park, are located within the Subject Property. These parcels have recently been reconveyed from the City of Prior Lake to the State of Minnesota, and they will ultimately be conveyed to Spring Lake Township to continue operation as public parks under the ownership and maintenance of the Township. This amendment will remove all references to Raymond Park and South Shore Park from the Park and Trail System Plan. Chapter 8, Wastewater The Subject Property shall be removed from Figure 8.2: 2040 Future Land Use Map in Chapter 8, Wastewater. The City will continue to provide municipal wastewater services to this area, so the remainder of Chapter 8 shall not be amended to remove references to the Subject Property. Chapter 9, Water Supply The Subject Property shall be removed from the Future Land Use Map in the Appendix of Chapter 9, Water Supply. The City will continue to provide municipal water services to this area, so the remainder of Chapter 9 shall not be revised to remove references to the Subject Property. Conclusion Section 10-933 of Prior Lake City Code requires a public hearing to be held before any amendment to the comprehensive plan is adopted. The proposed amendments shall be submitted to the planning commission for its consideration; the planning commission shall consider the testimony received at the public hearing, the staff report, and other material deemed pertinent and shall report its findings and recommendations to the city council. City staff is recommending the Planning Commission approve a motion recommending City Council approval of 2040 Comprehensive Plan amendment to remove references to the Subject Property as identified above. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Motion and a second to recommend approval of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan amendment to amend Chapter 3, Land Use Plan; Chapter 6, Park and Trail System Plan; Chapter 8, Wastewater; and Chapter 9, Water Supply. 2. Provide direction to staff and continue discussion at a future meeting. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Alternative No. 1. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Figure 3.2: Future Land Use Map 2. Figure 3.3: Developable Land by Future Land Use Category 3. Figure 3.4: Development Staging Plan 3 Su b j e c t P r o p e r t y 4 Su b j e c t P r o p e r t y 5 Su b j e c t P r o p e r t y