Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5A - 2917 Fox Trail Nw Variance 4-14-25 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: April 14, 2025 AGENDA #: 5A PREPARED BY: PRESENTED BY: Paul Moretto, Planner Paul Moretto AGENDA ITEM: Consider a Request for a Variance on a Property Located in the R-1, Low Density Residential Zoning District and Shoreland Overlay District at 2917 Fox Trail NW DISCUSSION: Introduction Chinh Van, the applicant and owner, is requesting a variance from the zoning code for an after-the-fact approval of concrete placed for a patio and walkway. The subject prop- erty, Lot 8, Block 2 of The Wilds, is located at 2917 Fox Trail NW between Haas Lake and Mystic Lake, PID: 252970140. The requested variances are listed below: • Allow for 33.75% impervious surface exceeding the 30% maximum. (Subsec- tion 10-435). Regulation Requirement Proposed Current Variance Impervious Surface 30% 33.75% 48.23%* 3.75% *Impervious surface installed without permit. 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 lies within the Shoreland Overlay District of Haas Lake and Mystic Lake. County records show the build year as 2002. At that time the recorded impervious surface was 24.2%. A driveway permit was applied for on October 9, 2023. This plan showed a survey with an impervious surface of 24.2%. A deck plan was applied for on October 9, 2023, with an impervious surface of 24.2%. On December 19, 2023, an application for a covered porch was submitted by the owner. This plan stated an impervious surface of 24.2% with an additional 256 square feet for the porch. This would have placed the property at ~26%. Records show that on or around August 5, 2024, as the porch was under construction, the city became aware that the lot was over 30% impervious surface. Staff performed multiple on-site inspections, and it was clear there was unpermitted work. The applicant contacted the city soon after August 5, 2024 and explained they misun- derstood the application procedures and thought the process for the additional pave- ment was approved, as they had previously requested and received approval from the HOA for the pavement work. 2 The applicant submitted a new survey dated August 30, 2024 which shows 48.23% impervious surface. The applicant has agreed to remove the majority of the concrete recently added to the property but is requesting the concrete added for the rear patio be allowed to remain. Staff have been working with the applicant to reduce the impervious surface while try- ing to mitigate potential negative impacts to the home. The applicant has stated on multiple occasions that the core reason for the under-deck patio was to relieve water issues in the basement and to deter snakes from nesting. The applicant asserts that the concrete under the deck has solved the problem. Current Circumstances 2917 Fox Trail NW Current Condition Impervious 48.23% 2917 Fox Trail NW Proposed Conditions (Concrete Under Deck) Impervious 33.75% Impervious Surface: Subsection 10-435(5) states, impervious surface coverage for lots in all districts shall not exceed 30% of the lot area. Such impervious surface coverage shall be documented by a certificate of survey at the time of any zoning or building permit application. The applicant is requesting a 3.75% increase from the maximum impervious surface based on the net lot area. The request reduces the current violation from 18.23% over to 3.75%. This is an after-the-fact request for work done without prior approval. Alt- hough the impact of a 3.75% impervious surface increase is relatively minor and the situation and misunderstandings that created this issue are understandable, this would constitute a variance post construction where other means to address the applicant’s concerns would likely have been available. ISSUES: 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. The granting of the variance is not in harmony with the general purposes of the Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. The 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 Regulations (Section 10-433) state, “it is in the best interests of the public health, safety, and welfare to provide for the wise development of shoreland of public waters.” 3 2) Variances shall only be permitted when they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The granting of the variance is not consistent with the goal area of Environmental Stewardship & Recreation and related objective to protect and enhance the quality of Prior Lake’s surface waters, included as part of the City of Prior Lake’s 2040 Vision and Strategic Plan identified in Chapter 1 of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The granting of the variance is also not consistent with the Land Use Goals and Objectives identified in Chapter 3 of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which states, development shall be conducted in a manner that is sensitive to the impact upon natural features and to environmental constraints, including but not limited to surface water, wetlands, slopes, woodlands, vegetation, drainage ways, shoreland, and flood plain areas. The granting of the variance is not 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. The applicant has increased impervious surface without a reasonable practical difficulty. The practice of after-the-fact variances is not in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. 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. The Board of Adjustment cannot find practical difficulties in complying with the strict adherence to the Ordinance that relates to the use of the land. The property is a very reasonable size for a single-family residential parcel at ~10,890 square feet. The reason for the requested imperious surface would allow for the resolution of water and snake nesting issues as described by the applicant. The Board of Adjustment acknowledges that this request is after-the-fact and believes there may have been other solutions to the applicant’s problems that do not include the need for a variance for impervious surface. 4) Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations alone are not the reason for the variance request. Conclusion City Staff is empathetic to the applicant’s situation. It is unfortunate that opportunities were missed to mitigate this issue before the need to request a variance. Staff acknowledge there may have been issues related to drainage and snake nesting the applicant was dealing with and that a concrete patio may solve that issue. Staff must also follow state statute for the reasonable findings for a practical difficulty related to 4 the land. Staff does not see this as a practical difficulty related to the land. Therefore, City Staff recommends denial of the requested variance with the following comment: • Owner has until June 30, 2025 to reduce the impervious surface and provide an as-built survey to confirm the total impervious surface on the property is 30% or less. If the Board of Adjustments finds the variance warranted in this case, then the Board must make findings of fact to support the variance and direct staff to prepare a resolu- tion of approval for consideration at the next Board of Adjustment meeting. ALTERNATIVES: 1. If the Board of Adjustment finds the requested variance is not warranted in this case, a motion and a second to adopt a resolution to deny the applicant with re- quirements. 2. If the Board of Adjustment finds the requested variance is warranted in this case, a motion and a second to direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact approving the variance requested for consideration at the next Board of Adjustment meeting. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: 3. If the Board of Adjustment would like additional information from the applicant about the requested variance, a motion and a second to table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. Alternative No. 1 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Narrative 3. Concept Site Plan dated 8-30-24 4. Resolution 25-03PC 5. Comments 1 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 RESOLUTION 25-03PC DENYING A VARIANCE FROM SUBSECTION 10-435 OF THE SHORELAND REGULATIONS ON A PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT AND SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT AT 2917 FOX TRAIL NW Motion By: Second By: WHEREAS, The Prior Lake Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment, conducted a public hearing on April 14, 2025 to consider a request from Chinh Van, the property owner and applicant, requesting a variance from the maximum impervious surface limits to allow a patio to remain as an after-the-fact impervious surface increase on a property located in the R-1 SD (Low Density Residential Shoreland) Zoning District at the following property: (PID 252970140) Legal Description: Lot 8, Block 2 of The Wilds, Scott County, Minnesota. Address: 2917 Fox Trail NW, 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 variance as contained in Case PDEV25-000004 and held a hearing thereon on April 14, 2025; and WHEREAS, The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Code on the applicant’s property and the impact granting the Variance will have Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Board considered the requirements of all other applicable State Statutes, the information in the application, the information in the staff report and the criteria set forth in Minn. Stat. 462.357, Subd. 6. 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 not in harmony with the general purposes of the Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to “Promote the most appropriate and orderly development of the residential, business, industrial, public land, and 2 public areas”. Furthermore, the Shoreland Regulations (Section 10-433) state, “it is in the best interests of the public health, safety, and welfare to provide for the wise development of shoreland of public waters.” b. Variances shall only be permitted when they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The granting of the variance is not consistent with the goal area of Environmental Stewardship & Recreation and related objective to protect and enhance the quality of Prior Lake’s surface waters, included as part of the City of Prior Lake’s 2040 Vision and Strategic Plan identified in Chapter 1 of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The granting of the variance is also not consistent with the Land Use Goals and Objectives identified in Chapter 3 of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which states, development shall be conducted in a manner that is sensitive to the impact upon natural features and to environmental constraints, including but not limited to surface water, wetlands, slopes, woodlands, vegetation, drainage ways, shoreland, and flood plai n areas. The granting of the variance is not 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 de sign standards, appropriate buffers, land use transitions, and high-quality design. The applicant has increased impervious surface without a reasonable practical difficulty. The practice of after- the-fact variances is not in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. 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. The Board of Adjustment cannot find practical difficulties in complying with the strict adherence to the Ordinance that relates to the use of the land. The property is a very reasonable size for a single-family residential parcel at ~10,890 square feet. The reason for the requested imperious surface would allow for the resolution of water and snake nesting issues as described by the applicant. The Board of Adjustment acknowledges that this request is after-the-fact and believes there may have been other solutions to the applicant’s problems that do not include the need for a variance for impervious surface. d. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations alone are not the reason for the variance request. 3. Based upon the findings set forth herein and withing Agenda Report 5A, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the variance with the findings of fact provided. 4. The property owner has until June 30, 2025 to reduce the impervious surface and provide an as-built survey to confirm the total impervious surface on the property is 30% or less. 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 14th DAY OF APRIL, 2025. _______________________________ Jason Tschetter, Commission Chair ATTEST: _________________________________ Casey McCabe, Community Development Director VOTE Tschetter Johnson Fenstermacher Ringstad Tennison Aye ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Nay ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Abstain ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ From: wbaumgart@nuveramail.net Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 12:40 PM To: Paul Moretto Subject: Notice for Variance 2917 Fox Trail NW Prior Lake Paul….responding to your notice on the above property, it would appear that this homeowner has been circumventing proper channels in his quest to complete his project, which includes the Wild’s HOA. My address is 2966 Fox Hollow, next cul-de-sac over, and it is possible that drainage from 2917 filters thru to the large drain in my backyard, as on occasion when there is a heavy rain the stream runs thru my neighbors back yard down to the drain in mine, so…….less impervious surface would certainly reduce the water flow. Thanks for asking……Wayne Baumgart SECURITY NOTICE: This email originated from an external sender. Exercise caution before clicking on any links or attachments and consider whether you know the sender. For more information please contact Helpdesk@PriorLakeMN.gov.