Planning commission hears variance request at 29755 Veil Avenue; staff recommends denial

The Lindstrom Planning Commission held a public hearing on a variance request to increase impervious coverage at 29755 Veil Avenue from the 25% limit to 32.5% to accommodate a pool, surrounding patio and retaining walls. Planning staff said the lot is about 19,000 square feet and current impervious coverage is just under 4,600 square feet (roughly 24%), and that the applicants propose to exceed the allowed maximum by roughly 1,400 square feet.

Carolyn, planning staff, described the mitigation the applicants proposed and the city-engineer review: "the applicants are requesting a variance to exceed the impervious surface threshold of 25% at 32.5%" and staff said the city engineer concluded the proposed stormwater infiltration trench "would effectively mitigate all of the extra stormwater runoff generated by the impervious surface." She also told the commission that the DNR flagged the ordinary high-water mark on the original site plan and staff had the applicants submit a corrected plan.

Designer Dan Myra, representing the applicants, said the primary challenge is the hardcover area around the pool rather than the water area itself and described design choices and alternatives such as pervious pavers and a front-yard rock trench to capture roof and driveway runoff. "I don't think the practical issue is the pool itself. It's the hardcover," Dan said, and he told commissioners the applicants were prepared to revise plans if required.

Neighbor Lorraine, who filed written comments and was on the record at the hearing, asked how damage to large pine trees would be resolved if excavation for the trench harmed root systems. Lorraine said the neighbors had provided photographs and wanted a clear record of how any damage or compensation would be handled. Carolyn replied that a recommended condition would require "reasonable precautions during trench construction" and stated that any damage "shall be addressed between the property owners," and further noted that soil-boring results are a condition of approval: if a soil test does not verify permeability for the trench, the approval contingent on the trench would be void.

Commissioners raised practical-difficulty concerns because the recent addition and the shed on the property were built by the current owner in the past year, and several members suggested alternatives such as reducing patio size or removing the shed to stay within the 25% threshold. Given outstanding technical items (soil borings, grading and retaining-wall plans, tree-preservation measures, erosion-control plans and a recorded maintenance agreement), the commission voted to table the application and asked staff and the applicants to return with the requested engineering and documentation.