HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-017 Variance (Deck Setback to OHWM)
ADDr1'IO~AL
~A'1'ERIAL/PLA~S
A V A1LABLE 1_\
LARGE SCALE.
SEE'1'HE
PLA~_\I~G
D EP AR'1 ':y{E~'1' t'O R
ASSIS'l'A~CE A'l'
(952) 447-9810.
YEAR: ~l
APPLICA'l'lOXS
&
APPLICA'l'lO~
~A' 1 'bRLALS
L:\TEMPLATE\FILEINFO.DOC
, jIII':'j.
"
Planning Case File No.
Property Identification No.
City of Prior Lake
LAND USE APPLICATION
&/;-1917
)-:S-~/9~ '
o
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. /Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245
Type of Application:
D Rezoning, from (!'resent zoning'
to (!'ro!'osed zoning)
D Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinance
D Subdivision of Land
o Administrative Subdivision
o Conditional Use Permit
8. Variance
D Other:
Brief description of proposed project (attach additional
sheets/narrative if desired)
b i?Z.K... I\- ~ I .7<j~ i1) , (u.. sn~l ~ ~\;J
L 1\-K.i!;S Ho iIte .s~.J (\) t:' t-\-b. VS €;J i\: ~
.~ SuiWi!;'ol kN~ :b~fH:;~(" 'h~~
':i)lL.:.\.n:f:ib~h '-~.Er'14- P~I kPPL::ri:..~lllg
Applicable Ordinance Section(s):
Applicant(s): b. MAneJ'-. c..~uS €:
Address: J S'SO'7 ~ ([i A:V t& N €.
Home Phone:~.:l ~ ~- s: :l.~.3 Work Phone: t" I.J. ~o I.. ~ 13 q
Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants]:
Address:
Home Phone:
Type of Ownership: Fee
Work Phone:
Contract for Deed Purchase Agreement
;Legal Description of Property (Attach a copy ifthere is not enough space on this sheet):
:S~.~
To the best of my knowledge the information provided in this application and other material submitted is correct. In
addition, I have read the relevant sections of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand that
applications wiIInot be processed until deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee.
~-onJ CA~'i
Applicant's Signature
d2./'j /0 f
Date
~7m~.~
Fee oWner's Signature
~CJ I a l
Date
THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL
APPROVED
APPROVED
DENIED
DENIED
DATE OF HEARING
DATE OF HEARING
CONDITIONS:
t,:
Signature of Planning Director or Designee
lu-app2.doc
Date
..
Date: February 28,2001
To: Steve Horsman, Zoning Administrator
From: Mark Crouse Xr...pYI~ ~
RE: Variance Application
As per our conversation earlier today I would appreciate your
assistance in adding the impervious surface request to the initial
application for a setback variance. I greatly appreciate your
guidance and willingness to help me work through these issues.
Please let me know if there's anything else I need to do.
Original
Reports
L:\TEMPLATE\FILEINFO.DOC
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4A
CONSIDER VARIANCES TO IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
AREA AND STRUCTURE SETBACK TO THE ORDINARY
HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM) ON PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 15507 CALMUT AVENUE FOR D. MARK CROUSE,
(Case File #01-017PC)
LOT 9, AND PART OF LOT 10, NORTH GRAINWOOD
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES NO
MAY 29, 2001
The Planning Department received a variance application from D. Mark Crouse
(applicant/owner) to allow an existing deck to remain on the property located at
15507 Calmut Avenue. The deck was constructed in the year 2000 without a
required building permit. The deck is attached to an existing single family
dwelling that was constructed in 1995 after approval of setback variances to the
front yard and the ordinary high water mark. Upon processing this application
staff determined a second variance was required to permit the impervious
surface coverage area to exceed 30 percent.
On March 26, 2001, the Planning Department received an e-mail from the
applicant to request a postponement of this variance request from the scheduled
date of March 26, to April 23, 2001. On April 20, 2001, the applicant/owner
again requested the public hearing be rescheduled at the end of May due to
business commitments.
The applicant requests the following variances:
1) A 2.115 square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coveraae area
of 4.422 square feet (57.5%) rather than the permitted maximum area of
2.307 square feet (30%) [Ordinance Section 1104.306: Impervious Surface
Coverage];
L:\01files\01variances\01-017\VarRpt.DOC Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
2) A 71 foot variance to allow a structure setback of 4 feet from the ordinary hioh
water mark (OHWM) elevation of 904 feet. rather than the reauired setback of
75 feet rOrdinance Section 1104.302 (4) Setback Requirements].
DISCUSSION:
Lot 9, and part of Lot 10, North Grainwood, was platted in 1947. The subject lot
is riparian and located within the R-1 (Low Density Residential) and the SD
(Shoreland Overlay) Districts. The lot dimensions are approximately 62 ft. by
107.5 ft. for a total lot area of 7,689 square feet (Attachment 1 Certificate of
Survey). The lot is considered a substandard nonconforming platted lot of
record.
The first variance request is for 2,115 square feet to allow an existing impervious
surface coverage area of 4,422 square feet for 57.5 % of the total lot area. A
break down of the area shows a structure coverage area of 2,152 sq. ft., and
concrete driveway and patio area of 2,270 square feet (Attachment 2
Impervious Surface Calculations). This is an existing condition; however. the
imoervious surface area was created subseauent to aooroval for a buildina
permit to construct the new house addition in 1995. One of the conditions for
aooroval of the oermit was to not exceed the allowable imoervious surface
coveraae area [Attachment 3 Department Checklist-Building Permit 95-279
(3 pages)].
The second variance request is for 71 feet, to permit a structure setback of 4 feet
from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The applicant/owner submitted a
building permit application for the deck as a result of notification from the City of
an ordinance violation for constructing a deck without an approved permit. Upon
review of the certificate of survey submitted with the application, the City
determined two variances shall be required to further process the deck permit.
Research for this report discovered a previous owner of the subject lot made two
variance requests that were approved on April 6, 1978; one was a 63 foot
variance to permit a 12 foot structure setback to the ordinary high water mark
(904' elevation), and the other was an 8 foot variance to permit a 17 foot front
yard setback. The variances were approved to allow the construction of a year
round dwelling to replace a seasonal cabin on the substandard lot [Attachment
4 Variance 78-05: A 63 foot setback variance to the OHWM (4 pages)].
On January 31,1995, the builder, Trim Tech Inc., submitted a building permit
application for the owner, D. Mark Crouse, for the house and garage addition.
According to the survey submitted with the permit in 1995, the house was
located 13 feet from the OHWM, and 22.6 feet from the front lot line. This
building location is within the variance parameters approved in 1978, but by
moving the house location to within 1 foot of the required minimum 12 foot
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\ VarRpt.DOC
Page 2
setback from the OHWM, this only allows for a 1 foot deck extension from the
principal structure (Attachment 5 Survey-Building Permit 95-27).
The existing deck structure serves as access to the main level and the deck's
dimensions are 10 feet deep by 26 feet long to a step down level 9 feet by 7 feet
with 3 foot wide stairs that wrap around to the ground level. Under the deck is a
concrete patio area for the lower level walkout basement. Also, noted on the
survey is a ground level 12' x 14' wood deck/platform area adjacent to the
sidewalk and is not attached to the principal structure.
The City Engineering Department has submitted comments for this report. In
essence, engineering recommends denial of the variance requests because
approval would encourage the following: 1) Promote "lake creep", the
encroachment of buildings and impervious areas toward the lakeshore; 2)
Increase impervious area adjacent to the lake, thus reducing the infiltration/buffer
strip, which help in removing pollutants before they reach the lake; 3) Increase
the potential for shoreline erosion with additional upland runoff; 4) Go against the
Land Use Practices and the Comprehensive Lake Management Plan, which is
to, minimize the transport of nutrients, sediment and runoff from city streets and
lands which impact the Prior Lake watershed.
The Department of Natural Resources submitted comments on this request
dated 3/21/01. In essence, the main concern is the existing impervious surface
coverage area of approximately 60% that poses a problem regarding storm
water runoff and lake water quality. The DNR recommends bringing the
impervious coverage area into compliance. In addition, the DNR is not
supportive of issuing an atter-the-fact variance for the deck setback.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by
reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary
and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict application of the terms of
this Ordinance would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional
or undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot
in a manner customary and legally permissible within the Use District in which
said lot is located.
Regarding variance request number 1, and 2, the subject property is a
nonconforming platted lot of record, but was developed under the current ownership
and they did not meet the conditions spelled out in the building permit for the
principal structure. Therefore, staff has determined the requests do not meet the
hardship criteria as a legal alternative building site existed that allowed for
development of the subject lot with the originally approved setback variances.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\VarRpt.DOC
Page 3
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the
property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to
other land or structures in the Use District in which the land is located.
The existing conditions of the lot area and dimensions are peculiar to the property,
and generally do not apply to most other lots within the Shoreland District. However,
when all required setbacks are applied, there was a buildable area on this lot.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
The approved legal site precluded the need for the additional variance requests.
The hardship has been created by the builder and owner when the decision was
made on the building dimensions and location of the structure, as well as, the
excessive paving of the subject lot.
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of
light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in
the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
The granting of the requested variances will not impair light and air to adjacent
properties or increase congestion, danger of fire or endanger public safety.
5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the character
and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair
established property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way
impair the health safety, and comfort of the area.
The granting of the variances will adversely affect the above stated values by
increasing structure encroachments upon the lakeshore and thereby affecting the
adjacent properties and the intent of the setback averaging regulations.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of this
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
The granting of the variances is contrary to the intent of the Ordinance or the
Comprehensive Plan by allowing increasing encroachment setbacks and excessive
impervious surface conditions than was originally approved by the City.
7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the
applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or
difficulty.
The granting of the variance requests appears to serve as a convenience to the
applicant.
8. The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this Ordinance
to the affected property and does not result from actions of the owners of the
property .
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\VarRpt.DOC
Page 4
The hardship results from the actions of the property owner when he constructed the
dwelling in 1995.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone
shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Financial considerations alone shall not be grounds for granting this variance
request. The property owner helped to create the need for these variance requests
by not following the approved conditions for the original building permit.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff has concluded that all of the required variance hardship criteria have
not been met, and that the hardship was created by the owner when the principal
structure was constructed in violation of the building permit conditions, and by
constructing the deck addition without an approved building permit. Staff
therefore recommends denial of the two variance requests.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve all the variances requested by the applicant. In this case, the
Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings
approving the Variance requests.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Staff recommends alternative #3.
1. Motion and second adopting Resolution 01-008PC, denying a 2,115
square foot variance to permit an impervious surface area of 4,422 square
feet (57.5%), and deny a 71 foot variance to permit a structure setback of
4 feet, rather than the required 75 feet setback to the OHWM of 904 feet.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\VarRpt.DOC
Page 5
RESOLUTION 01-008PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 71 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT
STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM Tl1E ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK, AND
DENYING A 2,115 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE COVERAGE AREA OF 4,422 SQUARE FEET (57.5%)
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. D. Mark Crouse (applicant/owner) has applied for variances fiv.lH the Zoning
Ordinance in order to permit the construction of an attached deck and paved parking
and patio area to a single family residence on property located in the R-1 (Low
Density Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following
location, to wit;
15507 Calmut Avenue NE, legally described as Lot 9, and that part of Lot 10,
North Grainwood, Scott County, MN.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #01-017PC and held hearings thereon on May 29,2001.
3. 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.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, the
proposed variance will result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air
to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase
the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair
health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning
Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
5. A legal building envelope exists that meets the required setback for the structure on
the subject lot. The applicant was directed by previous variance and building permit
conditions as to the amount of impervious surface area, such that the hardship created
1:\01 fiIes\O 1 variances\O 1-0 17\dnyres.doc
1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
has been created by the applicant. Reasonable use of the property exists without the
requested variances.
6. There is no justifiable hardship caused by the required lakeshore setback as
reasonable use of the property exists without the granting of the variance.
7. The granting of the variance's, as originally requested, is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The
variance will serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to
alleviate demonstrable hardship. The factors above allow for an alternative structure
to be permitted with a reduced variance or none at all.
8. The contents of Planning Case 00-017PC are hereby entered into and made a part of
the public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the
following variance's for an attached deck to an existing single family dwelling and
impervious surface area greater than 30% of the lot area, as shown in Attachment 1
Survey;
1. A 2,115 square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of 4,422
square feet (57.5%), rather than the allowed maximum area of 2,307 square feet
(30%).
2. A 71 foot variance to permit a structure setback of 4 feet from the ordinary high water
mark of904 feet, rather than the required 75 foot structure setback.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on May 29,2001.
Thomas E. V oOOof, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1-0 17\dnyres.doc
2
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4A
CONSIDER VARIANCES TO IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
AREA AND STRUCTURE SETBACK TO THE ORDINARY
HIGH WATER MARK (OHWM) ON PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 15507 CALMUT AVENUE FOR D. MARK CROUSE,
(Case File #01-017PC)
LOT 9, AND PART OF LOT 10, NORTH GRAINWOOD
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES NO
JUNE 25, 2001
On February 23, 2001, the Planning Department received a variance application
from D. Mark Crouse (applicanUowner) to allow an existing deck to remain on the
property located at 15507 Calmut Avenue. The deck was constructed in the
year 2000 without a required building permit. The deck is attached to an
existing single family dwelling that was constructed in 1995 after approval of
setback variances to the front yard and the ordinary high water mark. Upon
processing this application staff determined a second variance was required to
permit the impervious surface coverage area to exceed 30 percent.
On March 26, 2001, the Planning Department received an e-mail from the
applicant to request a postponement of this variance request from the scheduled
date of March 26, to April 23, 2001. On April 20, 2001, the'applicanUowner
again requested the public hearing be rescheduled to the end of May due to
business commitments. On May 29,2001, the applicant requested the 3rd
postponement of this agenda item for the June 25, 2001, meeting due to
business travel.
The applicant requests the following variances:
1) A 2.115 sauare foot variance to oermit an imoervious surface coveraae area
of 4.422 sauare feet (57.5%) rather than the oermitted maximum area of
2.307 sauare feet (30%) [Ordinance Section 1104.306: Impervious Surface
Coverage];
L:\01files\01variances\01-017\VarRpt.DOC Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
2) A 71 foot variance to allow a structure setback of 4 feet from the ordinarv hiah
water mark (OHWM) elevation of 904 feet rather than the reauired setback of
75 feet rOrdinance Section 1104.302 (4) Setback Requirements].
DISCUSSION:
Lot 9, and part of Lot 10, North Grainwood, was platted in 1947. The subject lot
is riparian and located within the R-1 (Low Density Residential) and the SD
(Shoreland Overlay) Districts. The lot dimensions are approximately 62 ft. by
107.5 ft. for a total lot area of 7,689 square feet (Attachment 1 Certificate of
Survey). The lot is considered a substandard nonconforming platted lot of
record. The applicant/owner does not own the adjacent properties to the subject
lot.
The first variance request is for 2,115 square feet to allow an existing impervious
surface coverage area of 4,422 square feet for 57.5 % of the total lot area. A
break down of the area shows a structure coverage area of 2,152 sq. ft., and
concrete driveway and patio area of 2,270 square feet (Attachment 2
Impervious Surface Calculations). This is an existing condition; however. the
imoervious surface area was created subseauent to aooroval for a buildina
permit to construct the new house addition in 1995. One of the conditions for
aooroval of the oermit was to not exceed the allowable imoervious surface
coveraae area [Attachment 3 Department Checklist-Building Permit 95-279
(3 pages)].
The second variance request is for 71 feet, to permit a structure setback of 4 feet
from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The applicant/owner submitted a
building permit application for the deck as a result of notification from the City of
an ordinance violation for constructing a deck without an approved permit. Upon
review of the certificate of survey submitted with the application, the City
determined two variances shall be required to further process the deck permit.
Research for this report discovered a previous owner of the subject lot made two
variance requests that were approved on April 6, 1978; one was a 63 foot
variance to permit a 12 foot structure setback to the ordinary high water mark
(904' elevation), and the other was an 8 foot variance to permit a 17 foot front
yard setback. The variances were approved to allow the construction of a year
round dwelling to replace a seasonal cabin on the substandard lot [Attachment
4 Variance 78-05: A 63 foot setback variance to the OHWM (4 pages)].
On January 31, 1995, the builder, Trim Tech Inc., submitted a building permit
application for the owner, D. Mark Crouse, for the house and garage addition.
According to the survey submitted with the permit in 1995, the house was
located 13 feet from the OHWM, and 22.6 feet from the front lot line. This
building location is within the variance parameters approved in 1978, but by
L:\01 files\01 varlances\01-017\VarRpt.DOC
Page 2
moving the house location to within 1 foot of the required minimum 12 foot
setback from the OHWM, this only allows for a 1 foot deck extension from the
principal structure (Attachment 5 Survey-Building Permit 95-27).
The existing deck structure serves as access to the main I~vel and the deck's
dimensions are 10 feet deep by 26 feet long to a step down level 9 feet by 7 feet
with 3 foot wide stairs that wrap around to the ground level. Under the deck is a
concrete patio area for the lower level walkout basement. Also, noted on the
survey is a ground level 12' x 14' wood deck/platform area adjacent to the
sidewalk that is not attached to the principal structure.
The City Engineering Department has submitted comments for this report. In
essence, engineering recommends denial of the variance requests because
approval would encourage the following: 1) Promote "lake creep", the
encroachment of buildings and impervious areas toward the lakeshore; 2)
Increase impervious area adjacent to the lake, thus reducing the infiltration/buffer
strip, which help in removing pollutants before they reach the lake; 3) Increase
the potential for shoreline erosion with additional upland runoff; 4) Go against the
Land Use Practices and the Comprehensive Lake Management Plan, which is
to, minimize the transport of nutrients, sediment and runoff from city streets and
lands which impact the Prior Lake watershed.
The Department of Natural Resources submitted comments on this request
dated 3/21/01. In essence, the main concern is the existing impervious surface
coverage area of approximately 60% that poses a problem regarding storm
water runoff and lake water quality. The DNR recommends bringing the
impervious coverage area into compliance. In addition, the DNR is not
supportive of issuing an after-the-fact variance for the deck setback.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by
reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary
and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict application of the terms of
this Ordinance would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional
or undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot
in a manner customary and legally permissible within the Use District in which
said lot is located.
Regarding variance request number 1, and 2, the subject property is a
nonconforming platted lot of record, but was developed under the current ownership
and they did not meet the conditions spelled out in the building permit for the
principal structure. Therefore, staff has determined the requ~sts do not meet the
hardship criteria as a legal alternative building site existed that allowed for
development of the subject lot with the originally approved setback variances.
L:\01 f1les\01 varlances\01-017\ VarRpt.DOC
Page 3
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the
property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to
other land or structures in the Use District in which the land is located.
The existing conditions of the lot area and dimensions are peculiar to the property,
and generally do not apply to most other lots within the Shoreland District. However,
when all required setbacks are applied, there was a buildable area on this lot.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
The approved legal site precluded the need for the additional variance requests.
The hardship has been created by the builder and owner when the decision was
made on the building dimensions and location of the structure, as well as, the
excessive paving of the SUbject lot.
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of
light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in
the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
The granting of the requested variances will not impair light and air to adjacent
properties or increase congestion, danger of fire or endanger public safety.
5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the character
and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair
established property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way
impair the health safety, and comfort of the area.
The granting of the variances will adversely affect the above stated values by
increasing structure encroachments upon the lakeshore and thereby affecting the
adjacent properties and the intent of the setback averaging regulations.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of this
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
The granting of the variances is contrary to the intent of the Ordinance or the
Comprehensive Plan by allowing increasing encroachment setbacks and excessive
impervious surface conditions than was originally approved by the City.
7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the
applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or
difficulty.
The granting of the variance requests appears to serve as a convenience to the
applicant.
L:\01 files\01 varlances\01-017\VarRpt.DOC
Page 4
8. The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this Ordinance
to the affected property and does not result from actions of the owners of the
property.
The hardship results from the actions of the property owner when he constructed the
dwelling in 1995.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone
shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Financial considerations alone shall not be grounds for granting this variance
request. The property owner helped to create the need for these variance requests
by not following the approved conditions for the original building permit.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff has concluded that all of the required variance hardship criteria have
not been met, and that the hardship was created by the owner when the principal
structure was constructed in violation of the building permit conditions, and by
constructing the deck addition without an approved building permit. Staff
therefore recommends denial of the two variance requests.
AL TERNA TIVES:
1. Approve all the variances requested by the applicant. In this case, the
Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings
approving the Variance requests.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Staff recommends alternative #3.
1. Motion and second adopting Resolution 01-008PC, denying a 2,115
square foot variance to permit an impervious surface area of 4,422 square
feet (57.5%), and deny a 71 foot variance to permit a structure setback of
4 feet, rather than the required 75 feet setback to the OHWM of 904 feet.
L:\01 flles\01 varlances\01-017\ VarRpt.DOC
Page 5
RESOLUTION 01-008PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 71 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT
STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY IDGH WATER MARK, AND
DENYING A 2,115 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE COVERAGE AREA OF 4,422 SQUARE FEET (57.5%)
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. D. Mark Crouse (applicant/owner) has applied for variances llUiH the Zoning
Ordinance in order to permit the construction of an attached deck and paved parking
and patio area to a single family residence on property located in the R-1 (Low
Density Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following
location, to wit;
15507 Calmut Avenue NE, legally described as Lot 9, and that part of Lot 10,
North Grainwood, Scott County, MN.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #01-017PC and held hearings thereon on June 25,2001.
3. 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.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, the
proposed variance will result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air
to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase
the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair
health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning
Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
5. A legal building envelope exists that meets the required setback for the structure on
the subject lot. The applicant was directed by previous variance and building permit
conditions as to the amount of impervious surface area, such that the hardship created
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1,0 17\dnyres.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
has been created by the applicant. Reasonable use of the property exists without the
requested variances.
6. There is no justifiable hardship caused by the required lakeshore setback as
reasonable use of the property exists without the granting of the variance.
7. The granting of the variance's, as originally requested, is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The
variance will serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to
alleviate demonstrable hardship. The factors above allow for an alternative structure
to be permitted with a reduced variance or none at all.
8. The contents of Planning Case 00-017PC are hereby entered into and made a part of
the public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the
following variance's for an attached deck to an existing single family dwelling and
impervious surface area greater than 30% of the lot area, as shown in Attachment 1
Survey;
1. A 2,115 square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of 4,422
square feet (57.5%), rather than the allowed maximum area of 2,307 square feet
(30%).
2. A 71 foot variance to permit a structure setback of 4 feet from the ordinary high water
mark of904 feet, rather than the required 75 foot structure setback.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on June 25,2001.
Thomas E. V onhof, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1-0 17\dnyres.doc
2
\
\
,..
o
w
z
ST Mt-I _...,;; ~g
flI1I t\;.~'.~." '0. liE.. . " 'Z
.1 .;l/.I:"::'\.:;F....,.. 4
:.. . :'~.~::A..:..~~;ii 'r~,~- ~
.~:.,.:: ,.i~;i'!.\.d..i;:.:.. ..t-I
./'. . ..'~l..,~I,Ir, ',.1,.. SAN.'"
'.;;~.: . '~\;'. ...~~.~t.:t):M: l,r"' :;;~~..
: ..' ~:'. .:,. "TC d. O.
." " '., '9Qt:;ll6,' . 90...... 0 f
~~,t:/.....;.,:~:.:~..'. . :~~ %. ,
':",' ...... A
,,~ 6
i. . tl
e.
'. c.J .
'. ; 6 .:e,
"'. u .
.1 <1 0 to '.
'. 0. . N ..,,' '. .,.
..t.: di ~. t> . ; .:.
"TC ~I.. ..J' to. ~ ..
.'0, e' :J . \I .
t " ct.,
\--'
Ul. <J
~.
...
w
::>
z
w "
.>
<:{
\. ';
'. ~.
".:~:~ ~'~..:::'.
ATTACHMENT 1
i \0
of \.0
'\-\ \.\tlE ,.-'
~ /--\
\
\
. ~':' ~\
"
'-
,
\
of
...
..
- --/..,:--\
~, . \
';, \
'", 1-
~ ~
III
uJ
Z
:'
uJ
0:-
o
,;.
IJ'
..J
o
~
~
ij,
~
o
-:::.
\
.,
.
'.,.:
., <t
U.
.,..:'
CI,\~\N
,'.
..', .:,...
~~
. .
....:.,..--.,........ "., < ...... ..:.....'i........~,:... ......:.: "";";:." '..., . ..;....A......J.......~.,...'A. '.::.C...........H..:....M:.. ...E.........'.N...T. ...................2.. .......:...
't 1'1 ....,~;.{~:.: ;/:..~.~:.:<~':.. ". ~'..' .. .:,,:". """','1 ',. . .... ,> ':.'.: ", '/:: ",
~'..'...., ':.;,.:, :'." '. ...., :. ..'; . "'. :: ." . .,. ....<:::<.:'...:.:-. <-:...:".;:::. .'" ". .'
)"'::/';.':'.'.!.g."..~.'.'.~.':.':.:.}i;':~',:::,.:L"C, ..' ,'T '. . .... . "",:;'/" '. ..' '.. .... .'."
:~;!:~;~;;~,ij::i~0:iir,~y, " ... . ' :'~;~~Ii;~6R'\'~A 't;~, '. .' ',' "'.. /: ".'".,
:,:,:;..:..>:.;:~: '.:~:. ....:. .....~.'::>-r::...; ::>:~:..";~:~:"-:::: ...~..>..:::.::.;,~::<..,.: ......... ....:: .' ...... ,..:......' '~ '/" .'; ". ,"'. .,: ':.." ..:,:'
;.:.:"-:;,;.;....'.}.:;.;.~.;>.:.:....:.:.:..'...::.:'::< :::;.:::~'::..~:;..'.1: :.:.....:,\:...;:...:,:,:./.</. .:Imp~rVHH~S.. Sur!ac~.Calcul.a,t~,on~.. . . :.. .' "':. ,".':
:;:. ., .' \/:': :>:.;'::.\'....::;::::.,::) :.::.-:.:.~:,r~:.. :::.{.::::tr~,b.~;~U,BinJ~~~w!t~.a,ii"l!~r~g p'erm.it ~p'pll~atlon) '..(;':. ..:. "'. ..' .': '.. .......: ;'. ::.." . .'.
.:;:'::' .:: "':'\>:.i'::::~:~~/";';';';'::i:::.}F,.9t.:~1.rpr.bpet1;fes:..t;pc::ate.d.'i..n.t4e.':ShqtelandiPistrict (SD)/ 'i. '~'::,,:: : .:'.:::'., '.~ : :..... "";
.::?::':.;' :...~.:~i :,:,.:~~.:::,,:;,~:<:;:.~,<.th~.JJ~~hiU'4{.ti1Jp-ei.y{<hls.::Sut.fac'~:. .C.q'v.~iag~::.:p'e~itt~d 'In j'O: Percehi.,": :', '.' ... :':~ :,. .<:'.:.
.: ::;:':':.':"':' ~.:...."':':.~. ".;;Y.i)'.:,.:" ..<....:~:,. ..\:..' :''-'" ::"~'. . ,:;;>...<....;"":<:....:.. ,>.':.,' ...:'.' .::::'.,.:: ~., .-:-:.:::" ..' .... . .
':::;:':j':::;P.roperty~'A:ddr~'s~; ,':"<\.'6.$6:1:,:.'~"::~\~~-,i.;<~~~"":~~' '. '.
;;C:;~i.:.":';,;!}):.:;j';,;~\\,;~;::.}t'i,"~ \::.;:,/.. ,,:(r,." . o:~;' , ". . . '.' .' . . . .; ...... . ... '.' ....:~. /
'.:.::>...~...'~?t.:~~a.:......~ t)rto~~:,.:..;: '::",'. ':. ". .f....::.....Sq. F~;~~ :.)~ 30.~O...~....~......i...'~ '. :~~01 ".' :'. ....:.
:.-) :::;,'., ill ** ill * *1\1.* **:l!4.1{( i\I:"'I\4:~ l\4'ij4 *'Ifc:~l/(If:l **.* Ijtl\c J\4llflfnli*1{c *.*'~.* *.* l/il\c.* Ijc 1\c'IjC.lfI ill *-* * ~.* * ill *.*iIC:* "'* * *.* * I{( If\1fc * * * *
:V')'l)""<:"'; ):;;);',:i:'>;~:E';:'!'A.:',7~~~r~':,/{; ~*:RJri".: " ':SQ'F.;'~t. .... . ..... '..:,'; '. .,'
',......HogsE.I.:....:......"......,..,..... ." .....,......4\..{-,.X.~..."2;,\.O.. "<".= \\i.t4'., ':'. :'\ .....:.....
'?.;~:;~~~6~~~~~~;S~.::~:;:.;/:.:'~(,'~~.:,::\0()~ . .' " ,'. ..........';,.,:{ .:',;i "',;"
f;.:t;,/M ;';'. f;';:'::::h:;:i;)<{;::':'i":',:i< ::;'~. .: . · .: . .... · . ..... '" .. '.'. . .... .' ." :,.." ;,':. :~' '; .....
.) i.;,~:'.::...i, Y'. ;.. '. . ~. '.':.:. i.,...... : .'.. ....,. : '.. ::". ';.' .,.... T01A;L.,~~GI~L~ .s~~ l! CT~........!.!.....~.!.... ....z \'~ ~. " ..:., ;,;'
~~.:.~:.X:;.~:~;.:.~":~~:>:.:f,::;/:~:::/,;f~~.::..,).:::;:,:\;.;":;:;:.:,\::.~\...;.J::i..:....:..:\:~::..<..:<.'>i'.<::::.:':./'.:..::>:...:\.:".:...:. ...,<....,-...... ..::....... ,:..' , .,.. "< . "J:':';.. ..:..... ....
..:...~DE'tACaED-:BL!>GS.:...,'. .... .;....., i ..,.:,......:.-::,... '''X. . :.'>. .. . .:}. <:: .... .' ..::,::: :.' ..'
::..~J'..i'l:.;:;~..:...::~.,>~...:::.~..~.~:\:.:....,..:~;;. :t:.~'!:~~.":': '......,.I~~~ .;......::..... ":~".~"'<';'!I'';:~''I'....... .....:..:...::...~ "', .' .' . ,0:.., ..
.' .'. :"'. ....; '::;" ...(Oarase/,$hed).' .', "',"":."'- .,..;...;' . .X' '. ' "', ,. .'. .... . ..' '. ..- ::\....;......, .
<:::"':;:::~L:;":,":' '.:~/;:' ,..-::;;;:,.. ~.;:::::~....;:~::::~:.:~:' ::C ?\<~.:~:;~::;:~,: ." . ..~/' ...,.:...... I.'::'~ :'. :. .:. ;.: . :. , ",~"'..':: ...... . '.." . . . , :' ::'. :.;;'. . :. .:.' .::::' " ':; . ....., :....
","> :.,;. ...: ;....::}~., ::.: . >.,.~:-:. ,:\. ~X.: ':.::"--<.:.T.O:I:AA P;ET...~C~.~!.? :~.VI~.n~.GS!.~......""",~~~"",." "f' .'. '. '.:." .... . . .
.:< . ..c.:~' . :. ';'\;Il(':~~,::s\.~'O,S" '.:','. ..... '..' :. .:'. ....i::,. '.' .:... y . )". . .,:. . ...... ". ': . .' .' , :.:: :-..: . . ::.., '.'. .::' .:;...._::...:.~...:::...l.....:~:...."::.-.~.....:,..,.::....~.:.~.:,.:.',;..:.::.:.,.........
~.." '~~'.. .:\.. ...;.;.:;",: ,',.:." ':. ,.......,.....:;:',......... :., . ........ ..,.'.....:.:....:.::.,:...::..-
:''''':'-''OR1VEWAYIPAV~D~ARE'AS ..,...'..... ;..::.:-:.....:.,'.. <X' . ":. ...:....:::..i.=i. "1!A7:b .":' . .:.. . . ':.~, . ....
/i(.,,~'~il~)+{~:~~~fhW;>:<i'~" .X: ". ....;.'.'... ";::,,:;
::..; -..::;....:i...:(Sld~wall0'ar~fl).gA~ellS)\..::..\..,..~...,.... ;"', x.......:';.., (.....;:, . ......:-:.=:=,.",~ .-;-:: " ':""" ":-' ...:,'.. ".,
;:.:;)/'.:..:?:.:.:~.:;~. ;~;.~~'..~;,~'::'~.:~r.:~;.:\.:.,t>-:::. : .~~-t~r-.,'~:"~::;~: -.~. ~:.,r. .::. . . ..:."' :;' : : :.<." . ":' .\.' '. ': .': ::,:: ':::' :..';' . '..' ..-: ':'< . ':' ':..::;; ;~;, ":, ,::' ;
........, ..' '. ..... ..: . . " .:... ", . ; . '. .. ':':' '" ',' .TOT At p.AVED ARitAS...,...................................... '.... :.~-i::1..:b... . .::;:. "': ":.;'. .
:H:';~*~b~:Ji;bib~s:ij~hk~.':j.:):;/ \';x\;/'~: ,::'d'''( ". : .." ....: ,..., · , , d,: .'. :'\' "
:.:~.....:\.:,~.~.\.;f'~ ,': .r...,\~:.......:..~...:.:..:....< ',,; .:..;..::'.;....:...;.: ,'....,:~(........'...:I.....,' ,",. .... :..... ',' ~:.y:.....<~..:\I.:.:.\...
.1.'.'.::.(9p.enD~(:ks:.:~:~m!n..oPlllllng~etweeQ.:!:..:.....:. :;....~'..,<;....x'. '-:'~:::;::::"d "'~'>:'.-":....' ........ <..
.:.':;~;::.' "boar~s.'wi!h:'q penild~s)~~~clf~.~Jow.;.. :.?.., ..,.:..:.,:...~ : ",:'::'.:' .:. ....': :";'.::! ", ""'. ;" '.. . .,....);~.,:.::..::.:. '.. .
'..:~', ~:.'..'~~.not'cl?ri$tcjered)~.pe'!niperVl~~s).;:,:!~"""'.. : .:...... .,:.-. ....\,. .:.. '. ':.... .,..... .....;..
:\';;} 's:J'i:f~;',;;,;,;;;0~'i,g [( '~:,t,X :/': ~;\~'>~~,~; ~;i,.,;.;: ><2.., '.' . ....' . :. ..... iX ~ ~ . ,;,;'., ........ ,:: "'; . ..... ,
:.' ..." '..' '..: : :.:. ..... ..... .'.> :'. .... "'':'' ......,...... ..:..... .::: .:' ,....~. ...T.QtAL. .D~GKS,!""""",,,,~I..\t1I.'''''',,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,: :'. . . ,:..:.;. ... ,:':.'.: :-:..:....;:.,: .;.'. ..-:., :".' ;.......
" .~ ..;". '.. .'.. z .:.,',':~ :". ._.':. .',..' : ,', .T.OTAL OTHE~.....!....,...p"......l.......hH......"................ .. ,.,. .'. . .... . .
.;:.:,!'...;::;....:;..;:/.:::~:~-:::.:::~:.>:;.::/{i-.,!j.i:.~:':-::..;.:\:~::..:.,.....::(.~,~\.,;,:...;:,.l..:.<.<:..:..\:.:.:;:;.::.:....,:~..i~:.:..:..::.::~..:-,..: ".:'. .,',. :\;. . ': . . "" ., .......'.: I", .....-:;.~.........:..;; '.,
?- :":"rOTAI;r:IM:PERVlbUS SURFACE"': "'~::';-:"'::':'" < ';:.:':.' ". ....1, '94i.v..... ~~ i'f/:~:::::-:... '''''
:~,i;~ij~.~.;...':;\:>:,;'i,~Y.'..;,':.,.,:+,.~jJ ':;;;;f. .......... . 1:2.., .'n$ ':)1\ ,>:,,',
:.;,:.;:.:..~:..:..;...'~..,iir)e.~:p},;::.:~a;!~:rfe'.:~d~:'<B.:\':.~:::.:n.':;.~:.,.; rk..:~~.~;::;.~ D:~S~\~...:....':~~\.~.:..:~S.:;..:...l.:::....:-.::.::.:.,}\:.:.:'::.....:.l :.::.~:.>::.:.:>.;:..: "/::;'.'::.~.'.. .:.:~. - ., '.' .. -'. . . . . . .'. .:... .,: ~.:.' ....;::;...
~ ;;. \W:n,,~. "U.~~ ,..:';':":r;.a~:e':'\i.:'.'~: .'bl)'.../:..: ...... ... ::':')::;".,,;
::;Y\,\:~;.::.::<::: t/:,:./:,; ~:.;,:.:.;:., :..:>;.:::~~:~:::;:f.:.:.-:.\.:.~~:.;.:<.::\';~f~::y<..;::;'-,:,,:: :;..:;;,;:;:;': ;': .:,: .':::,.: :.... ::,~: :. ". ...;' '.-:': .:........:,:... '..: t....... :' :... . :"'::::,.' .\ :. .~ ' ", ".' '.. ..... .', !..>/- :',.'
'/.;8 GiiilpariY&lAf'i'\.';\'i :~0.~(j \=:'{ t~'(;; C;;~{Pi('l.. ,Pi16n~ #U;\,(1~ 't:::tiO < . .'. ; ..' . . .; . .
;i:;~~,:;!~~i\";:;);;i';'K:;':i&,:; x.:,:r~i';r;:',;;,/;';,::~;(;:;<c <>t' ./:"', . .'. . ..". ".'<: ""',' "':. '.,',' " '. ; '.
...... .
. ,'::.
.... ....' .....
"
~ :
" : j','
.....
.....~ ;.,
t,', .
.....
,",..t."
......
;;':.:~:.::'.:>..:.~:':'" -::'
,....
.
ATTACHMENT 3
j
~
1\
~
White - Building
Canary - Engineering
Pink . Planning
i
I
ii
It
I.'
TItt C'f'fttH 0' flat l..., ("oanl"
BUILDING PERMIT APPLlCATION...D.E.eART~T CHECKLIST
j
l~
r( . r( ()
NAME OF APPI.1CANT -.....1.a....." ~uJ./ ~ -" .
APPLICATION RECEIVED Ib.;),r
!t
'll
The Building, Engineering, and PlAnning Departments have reviewed the building permit
application for construction activity which is proposed at:
1..;3"0 7 ~
Accepted
Accepted With Corrections
-I-
i ~
i 1
I,
"
,
Denied I~
../ Reviewed By:~
Comments: 3-. Pf -e'~~
~A~
,.-
Date: 2- / -=s.- "7..::::..
p (t^..,,_,\. (? -- t. "L. ,.~
,
L
., -
I.
I
!..
,......,-,~....;.;..
..::J
12,);-
~
~ --=> .2...1<-.
t~... A-"'- .."
. I
c- ~f I:::>
( ..;:y' r-f(;...
~~ d..:o...\~+.c..~
/ '-,D~"C::>~_ ..s.--.)(.?~:c.(.~
I
I
I
'f,
~
~~
~.
~~,
/~'\4c:l\.1,._..,."r_ \
~LJ.....~.:. -h~\
\--........
~i..,
'-..::::l
t::..~ v-Ci..;;e.e I __
c-Lo~I.';"", '-..J
I ~
t2.c:Q
L
~ ~~~ t<....A~,c..
t.::.. :z..
I
1:~
,/t/'A,- I
,
~Ul~~
~_ ~,L):;r I .
c..N:?,...-.....)
tJ
vV'~~<..~
1,-..1
1't
1.1
"The issuance or granting of a permit or approval of plans, specifications and
computations shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of
any of the provisions of. this code .or of any other ordinance of the jurisdiction. Permits
presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or other
ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid,"
it
11
.
.
r-..n.,.v_~.__. .~.....,.. ._....._... .. ",_ _,_
,
:
'~
2ht. 'iLL JJ.t/9S'.. X'jt ~,~'
'V ,;L ~ 1.1 ILL. tr
'Jr.d-,
Tltt r.n'ff .f '110 toOk. r..n,,,
White . Building
Canary . Engineering
Pink . Planning
J
't
k
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION DEPARTMENT CHECKLIST
L
~,
!
NAME OF APPLICANT .I. ./ _
APPLICATION RECEIVED 1/ l / ;' .: -
~J'''-..) Ub.T J..!t If.r
The Building, Engineering, and Planning Departments have reviewed the building permit
application for construction activity which is proposed at:
I
~I
i i, ~ ( 7
tC~
I~
r r",~
Accepted A W / Ofl tJf ~.U;:kl(r. 0~qtfd1UJ.V-
ccepted ith Corrections vl"-c~ V\':>'~~ It
Denied ~ \}J\~ r.L 1-"'u\^'" ~J'
[}..>>Iv- \ (\ j') I l
Reviewed By: --.:Q,~J . Date:)' / - 9'S-
Com~ents; J) @1.Ab/,il'o:b 'y'JS>UUJeLUd A f t-~/lff2/7
/ J7/JI ({IAi-? $J . ~~.:~.~i.(). -Ii aU / M-fhulu htUd f" ~ .
~J/. - 6 -IL.:/AJ '7 Ff7t'1/ t.uh)' &./f?/4.5t/J <~r(//I?lh .
.~~/r.u-t ea44aq~ ( d 5/;vdrM ,;. 1It,-d SUPU4 /Hdww6--
lnWc(~ ! J(j)~/O(~ ~r:1t 4? UtdJ..
M flAAJ,t2ht.L/L..Jl!lf.WX. ~e'; ;:&vcd?CUd-
atlhUI71 k 01 fO~...j Q7t. c:U'~.
I
if!
I'
~'.
.\..'.....,.....
'J
':.,
I.'
!~
!1;
1- OIft9~ a-rarh '. iIJ .Mf40 e()~ ( ~ 9:)'/. I Z, odJau/J ,-h ~
-~QrJiM?f!fl- -5diJ(tt'J:.d M. c~1 ~IL Uaflj1L4U01-
/Ui. VA-...lf-66 - ...~ ~~ Jc(,tulrNe. ~. 6' ~~UAI) VA12l1WIC~.
UThe . issuance origranting ofa permit or approval of plans, specifications and
computations'shaILnotbecon~trued to be a . permit for, or all. approval of, any Violation of
any of the provisions of this code or of any other ordinance of the jurisdiction. Permits
presumirig to give. authority to violate or canc91 the provisions of this code or other
ordinances of the Jurisulction. shall not be valid." 6 ' 114 r
. * m[U'X ((1VLIJ~ Dr l lIe.Luty ()J1 Ofh a:f} +t~ UYl L,1 ex . U--.
it
--".~~ -- --. -" .--- ...-.--.------ -."---.---- -- _ __.. ~_,u____ _....___._ _', __ ,_. _. .__..._,__ _
e~/13/1995 11:~6
61~93e1552
JUSTUS
February 13, 1995
City of Prior Lake
9uilding Inspector
GAry Stabler
DeaI' Gary,
Kurt HAzekamp brought to my attention:
the 30% impervious surface requirement
entry roof. We will delete this piece
floor level is approximately 36" above
a stair & platform to the front door.
'drawing is required, please call me at
'Sincerely,
~
Ron BuchanAn
I -'it
PAGE 01
the building exceeds
because of the front
of roof. The first
grade which requires
If an addendu11\
938-2741.
:,
.f~
!t
!
.
...'
il
it
'it.
1-
It
t
~
t
I
1\
~
1\
~
l
'~
~.
"
~
1'" .
....... .
i
.~ " I
~.
~
~
't
"
. ,
,.,.
'"'
'-v..~
.JX
,).1\;. _
.~. '
~ ...
x
~.
~
. ~
. a
.~
-"'"~;j;;.;;L~l':
.
\
I_____f ~ --. \
... t \
"'-- ~ . ;. J) -:- - 0- .,... ,. . -"'r
II '" 0' . \
~ ~:'I \
:: '<1 I"~ .
~t'( 'G \
~",I IlJ . - ~...., II
d:. I "!- ~'_ - '-.:. \ r~ jilt'" I '1 ~ .
?~ ::i 'c-I f I .-,J
V) -.:
""
-' .::.......
_' I r ~
- " C,
""; 1 k.\ -;1 - I
J . . __a ...
...... ,. ~ .' 1
.... . I
1
""'Ii - -.- - - - ..I
tl -..!) 1
: n
~.<
ct.CO
"?
I" /..-'
-= '.0
\
\
,
:~... .....- . _._ U'" ...\
T"'" - ... - .._,.:,
~ I . I
1\ u . ~...~. .. _...l
, ~ N
I ..... '.. I
I -,..~,
I 'fo..;.. ~, I
. '1\ . I~
. .... ...
J ' '.
...< 0 l5
It I · I
- ~-!)
I 0
. I
....
...
.....
1"
..
'?
...
t 10
i:'.; ~ + Q
"t.:_:.-_..:.... C I
, "/. f - '..
~of- 8>
. ....-- '., .
'f~_ /
.,... ..
-
-. '''J -
;\.
~ .
IY
J
!~
'I"
I
\
1
8!() r
l _Jr.
j
,~.
iq
eel:
l
i
,j'}
i'
i
j,
~,~.
'J
Ii
- ,.c:::.-
I," - i- (~)
r-
\ 1 ,~-
cel.,l \'." . ,
.... -'
1 ...-.. .
! ..'
,,,-
III
--~
I ~
,-
~...... .
~ :
UoI ~ .
'I'
>.
.~
"
~:
"
%
~;
Ii
t!
~1
';: ~\
t\;l
t
'f..
1
J
. 'o' . ',~,"
'",: ,';., ,- ~" .
,.' 'i, :": '"
"
':', '" . :'''> . . "
, i. ',:" :; .~; :,' ":, " ,".,' :
' .)~~,. ..' :."--: \ ' "
..:~, ~. " ';' " "
,.1) ," . ,
. ".l;', ",'
~, .1--:, ..S-
,-' .,' :,":
':':-' :t;:".: ~< _~ -'~~vf.'~.-it~ ~~:,-,.,,{~' -4~;'~ ~~". '\,,*.~',~ ~:?-.:;{::r~~.'-'
.:~
.~"
I~
":,.',.' '.
~"" r: I,)', :';'-
.;:j~ ~".~~ ,.
. ,.:; '. ':" ,:
"">;..': >.;
:' " ';':::\:;;~'i
" 'A,' :"';;".,':"
.:, ," : .~:r::" ....,. ";',.".,
. '-" '.,','. ", ,.', ,', ;:.:
. ,.:, .,:' :',
':.\' . ,".',' ::,1." ',: ."
',' :"; ',: .;<." ",':':, ,"'::'
',' ii .:'":;,:;:;,'::"',,
": ': ',:: '., ::, '!;'~,;~ :.~ --',
.' ;', ,'.::":: :C'
, "'" \ '. i,:" . ,; ,", , -':. '::...... :" ~...'
',',.,' ' , ' ;;," ',:::,'.,
:,: . ," " ::..,'!, :
.. :~::: :., '"
., ,,:' '.' . ", " ,--, :', .'--
:"J' .;.
,:.:~;~:,;~
',"",:
"',
, ':'
v.
it
'n
--, :' ,f,
\/
'>.
:~~
'.
.'::'
'>.
,'. if,,-
'c'
,;:'
",."
- '~ it
'. .
j..,::"
i
',; :'
,"":~::' , .
,<.' c;:
',;
,."
,:.;"
~~l~ '~~ ,,:
a:;-ne
", "",:"
"..'
1~ :,' :'
:;:.' " ':
\, ".,.,;::;:
t".;
.
.
:<;
:~';;
:.;
;~,,: ,
...
:,'"
,,.: ,'.
:.e~'
in
:::,\~~~'::
,-
;:;,. ~'1V!>i..~ '1...,,,-, '-l(~-t :r 0',2"''' ~~~<'(~~f,~~.{:;-_i:-f;'''~i~~if~,"p;~Y~R;..:,~__.:;t~\w'-~:l:-'b.':-': ~'-;;-~;jj_f{r~~~,~~.i"i 'C1.-'
ATTACHMENT 5
COf' of f lot 10 _-
~.tT ,0 North line 0 _\
1. r ...--_
L-.---
I \
'I' i
,-
-\
\
\
'.
,T. AII-H9i
TOP to!'!>G
~
CU
%
c
i
C(
IN!. "'lis ......, '. ',-
..IMto ". It ~.
Q _~ ,e. "
It'
-I
. ,
'. A .8
:"f~C '1__-
. "''''~.\ .),.
",,"I'l";:i,f~!
l:,i" ~.:,). "~ ' "'1
C :...... ,- -,f, ;",
{~. ',' l'\ " -,.,'-:\.<1, .
", "",\ ,,~ 'fIt'
:\. ;,* "'. ,"~W~";.. ~'~.,jJ, '!
r'Zi'i,;~i;;:}f~ _~'! ,~~,
'1'l I' . , . " .j :"r" :> '- " ' , c1'.
"'I:i, . '~2"'. Ii.'" ,':S i'~ \
, \":"I,y't:"E,;;o,')~, '. ..' 'il '
:..'-'4'~~ _H _~I~..'.'.i,r.,-,~{J{.<I"'''.:,,~~~,.,~, "1_. .,'
'~~<.' '~;Jt:S~':~.;:.~:~t' . 2;\'c
,;:,; "":,:."~~:, l1-
'-,~ .' ..... . '~'-;'~ . 4.) 0
· ':':~',.:~~:,;;~ "0 .~
"'~'''-'''''-''''/i'''' _. !.
,\1 . .~~,.~:;;.,!. ;.~j," , l'~ \ ,_
. "i\" ~.,~,~ ; 1~:1 vJ- ~ :./~<'" ~ ."
:' ~.' ~ I,,' t ~ ,~' ~ . CI
, - r .:; . H',' 1&1
~": '> :";u, ,. ""~' J ;.
:',' .....: I~~,'!:',
':,:'<: "":"
~lt ' ~l"'" ~\~ I\.
;h.:,.,~~ ';.-r:' "
,~:
...:.... ,i,j''1h VI l;;'
'\'
'" !to to\.\..
l' \'f'll
sf. f. 0
e.oG
!i
t,
1-:
"
'.;~.~':.'
it
,I;
\, .,....
. '\
....,
i,
:,
'.
Jf
p~\~
It
''-), ~~
::;'1:
,
.
.,
~
co
"
;.oJ
0",,1
~.
I
I ./
61 t --
~- . o"W
- I I
' ... - - f 519026 ., 9 _
SW <<:or.O 0' 10
, lof e 5'1y line
-\ . lot8
'II'I1"nl of
r OF REG
,. P .
" ,
\
,
It.
I~'
"9\1.19
1-
}
\
\
\
-'f\
/
,/
'\
"., ,
"'::'.Lot;~~ ..'
. >" .
36'%bnllerviouj
r;;
',ji\
,
2768
Huuse
(2152'
616
n\:
.
~
Dri~~wat dlat
alloWs aecess to
3rdst8U
~,
\
~.
792 .
176(2%)
\
"
..,',
,I \
,<
,-. .
.-;:.-
\
\
~
,
~
;~
, ,,'ll
r;
ATTACHMENT 5
~,~
l,i70.,~'), IT'! '\(~ r;:~:- ':"~"CIT'y OF'PRIOR LAKE
i : !),~. .. . BUILDING PERMIT.
I' ,- .' I " , ,
i', i :r;e~RRARY CERTIFICATE OF ZONING COMPLIANCE
; \L\~' i \J AND UTILITY CONNECTION PERMIT C' C _ '1 7
!.. ,I Permit No. -, -.. 01-
---------
J. Whllr
~, "Ink
l Yrllow
hlr
lily
Applll'alll
:::j
'~'i
r
I,"
DIRECTIONS
SPACES NUMBERED 1 THRU 17 MUST BE FlLL::.u '" -..'
BEFORE PERMIT IS ISSUED (PIltase Print or Type and sign at bottom) .
2. SITE ADDRESS I
\ :; ':-.)C) 1 0... \ M ut
3. LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT q ~n..~ \ 0 BLOCK
ADDITION l ~ (,hJ ,.. \.' , cJ (J A
4. OWNER f.Name)
~~c1(I( Cmv.~,t'..
5. ~HITECT !('lame)
\<.01'\ K'j,:hol"c. 01\
6. BUILDER (Name)
T r t"'"ller ~+~c.
7. 1 ,'PE OF WORK Fireplace [J
New ('.onstructlon 0 AlteraUons [J
Chimney [J MIse.
6. PRvrc:n I " AREA OR ACRES 9. PROPERTY DIMENSIONS 10. CULVERT SIZE
Sq, Fl. Width Depth Yes No
I hereby certify that I haW furnished InformaUon on this appllcaUon which is to the best of my knowledge Weane! correct I also cerUfy that I am the owner or authorized agent for
the above mentioned .....~w,;1 and that an construction win conform to all exlsting state and local laws and will proceed In accordance with submltled plans. I am aware that the
'bU~,1ng l!4'I~ke ~s)l8rmft for J~ cause. Fu. ~ 'w." .., w, I hereby agree that the city officlal or a designee may enter upon the property to perform needed 'pspections.
X I J.. y--- ''[_"IV ~U--=" - 'V--J '2.U 0 0 L{ <. () /., -U <.. I/q,,-
, ~ I Ucense No. ,Dale
(Address)
,~~Ol GJ~"Hj ~
(Address)
BUILDING INFORMATION
11. SIZE OF STRUCTURE
lHfl9hl) 'If ~ (WIdth) r, . (Depth) ro,. .
'''L: r.",A. 1"( (J 7-1'1
12. NO. OF STORIES 1 \
PID 7S~0"1~ -()Ob~() I ~ty{" .. ;C. I ~ ('U T
13. TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION
VI ) r,rA
14. FLOOR AREA APPORTIONMENT USE
..! ~ 0.:\ heAYt .lWo'\ 368rt
--W.ILi"' 1 ~i'("'i\ .'ulrl '?.l, '1 r1J
. 1?O(C~ 2.1L~lp
15. NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS OR SEATS
OCCUPftNTSJ
SEATS
16, ESTIMATED VALUE r 0
~/:t~O()O J
17. COMPLETION OATE
(PJ \ iq)"
1. DATE
II ~ \ / q S-
1;-
l
. (Address) J
I S~Sy, fre"""-'I',"1 Ave
Septio [J HoaUng [J Plumbing [J
AddlUOr?( Finish Attic [J Residing [J
(Tel, No.) .
,""YU .,
(Tel. No.)
9 ~ s- 2 7 ~ I
(Tel. No.)
Y 1./0.- ~ 88 e.
Rerooflng [J Porch [J
Finish Basement [J
i,
'1
FOR ADMINISTRATIVE USE
SETBACKS: Required
Actual
F.onl
IlaCk
51C18
tilde
MATERIAL FILED WITH APPUCATlON
SOIL TESTS [J ENERGY DATA 4-
PILING LOGS [J PERCOLATION TESTS [J
PlANS & SPECsfr SETS
SURVEY -+j-- COPIES "2-.
It
,
I
PROPOSEDGRAOEFOUNQATlON
IN RELATION TO CURB OR CROWN
OF STREET
USE OF BUILDING AM ~ ~ ~
~b~\ c:;..~
'rYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: I II "'IV@
Occupancy Group A B E ,I H ~
o;_,~
OFF STREET PARKING
SPACES REO.
SPACES ON PLAN
PERMIT VALUATION ?~. OCe:::"
PLOT PLAN
[J
Ci1y.
Amount Brought Forward .................. $
Park Support Fee ........................... $
SAC ......................................... $
Collective Slrael Fee ....................... $
Sewer Tap ................................... $
License Check Fee, ....,.................... $
Ci /4 _4~
Permit Fee ................................... $
Plan Checking Fee ..'...................... $
C. J. (. ~ .......,
State Surcharge ............................. $
-~qs. ~"[
3,"'. s:-~
Penalty ....................................... $
Sepllc System ............................... $
Check ~
.~~:
'~~
I :~,
cr,S- - 2 (
i
;j/
\
"
.
,- ,
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4C
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A
VARIANCE TO IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15507 CALMUT AVENUE FOR
D. MARK CROUSE, (Case File #01-017PC)
LOT 9, AND PART OF LOT 10, NORTH GRAINWOOD
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
J_ YES NO
JULY 9, 2001
On June 25, 2001, the Planning Department held a public hearing for two
variance requests from Mr. D. Mark Crouse (applicant/owner) on the property
located at 15507 Calmut Avenue. The requests included a setback variance to
allow a deck to be setback 4 feet from the ordinary high water mark, and to
permit an impervious surface area of 4,422 square feet.
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission denied the deck variance at the public hearing on
June 25, 2001, (Attachment 1 Resolution #01-008PC). The Commission
continued the public hearing regarding the impervious surface variance to allow
the applicant more time to revise and reduce the request because the
Commission did not agree with the request for 4,422 square feet or 57.5 % of the
total lot area.
On July 3, 2001, the Planning Department received a request from the applicant
to continue the public hearing for the impervious surface variance request from
the scheduled date of July 9, to July 23, 2001. The applicant submitted the
postponement request due to the lack of time needed to provide the additional
information.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends the Planning Commission continue the public hearing
until the next scheduled meeting as requested by the applicant.
L:\01files\01variances\01-017\VrRt2.DOC Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
AL TERNA TIVES:
1. Deny the variance requested by the applicant. In this case, the Planning
Commission should direct staff to prepare a Resolution with findings denying
the Variance request.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose as requested by
the applicant.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Staff recommends alternative #2.
1. Motion and second to continue the public hearing until the next scheduled
meeting.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\VrRt2.DOC
Page 2
RESOLUTION 0l-008PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 71 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT
STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. D. Mark Crouse (applicant/owner) has applied for variances from the Zoning
Ordinance in order to permit the construction of an attached deck and paved parking
and patio area to a single family residence on property located in the R-l (Low
Density Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following
location, to wit;
15507 Calmut Avenue NE, legally described as Lot 9, and that part of Lot 10,
North Grainwood, Scott County, MN.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #01-0 17PC and held hearings thereon on June 25, 2001.
3. 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.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, the
proposed variance will result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air
to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase
the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair
health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning
Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
5. A legal building envelope exists that meets the required setback for the structure on
the subject lot, such that the hardship created has been created by the applicant.
Reasonable use ofthe property exists without the requested variances.
6. There is no justifiable hardship caused by the required lakeshore setback as
reasonable use of the property exists without the granting ofthe variance.
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1-0 17\dny rs2.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
7. The granting of the variance, as originally requested, is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The
variance will serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to
alleviate demonstrable hardship. The factors above allow for an alternative structure
to be permitted with a reduced variance or none at all.
8. The contents of Planning Case 00-017PC are hereby entered into and made a part of
the public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the
following variance for an attached deck to an existing single family dwelling, as shown in
Attachment 1 Survey;
1. A 71 foot variance to permit a structure setback of 4 feet from the ordinary high water
mark of904 feet, rather than the required 75 foot structure setback.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on June 25,2001.
Thomas E. V onhof, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\01 fiIes\O 1 variances\O 1-0 17\dny rs2.doc
2
Lemke struggling with need for additional impervious surface. Feels there is need to
provide parking. There should be additional impervious surface, but maybe not 57%.
Seems like a tough situation.
V oOOof: Questions for applicant. Remembers original variance. Boathouse is gone or
remodeled? There was an existing concrete driveway on lot. Original detached garage
was removed and tuck-under garage was raised and attached garage added to north.
Crouse explained remodeling of house. Retaining wall was built when house was raised.
V oOOof asked if lot lines go all the way back to street. Railroad right-of-way is 8' wide
between lot and Calmut Avenue. VoOOof- who did cement work. Crouse stated Lowell
Russell did cement work.
Atwood: asked for clarification of when retaining wall was built. Crouse explained.
V oOOof: Agrees with Stamson about previous variance. It is unusual lot. Section of
property between actual roadway and lot line. Appreciate applicant's comments
regarding hardship standards. Has not seen more egregious violations of ordinance and
intent of ordinance. Over 100% increase over what was allowed py original variance.
Cannot support either variance. Condition was not created by City code. Code existed in
1995 and owner was aware based on variance applications. Impervious surface is so
critical on this lot because of adjacency to lake. Fragile ecosystem is affected by runoff.
Commission has held very strongly to impervious surface because of this.
Atwood: Ifvariances are not granted, what happens to impervious surface? VoOOof
noted applicant can remove impervious surface. Horsman noted calculation does not
include right-of-way or impervious surface not on the lot.
Yunhofw6i11drec6mitiena-drIvewayoe narrowed to Width of garage~--Ciou-se-stated!
majority of impervious surface is driveway. Horsman noted surveyor~_reyise _,
rcalculations to be more specific about 'Yl:i~i~il.1~luJ!~ .lYIaxim~lll~dth o!driveway i~
\ 24' at right-of-way. Condition should be to reduce width to 24i. . .--
, __ __u ..._ _. ___. n___ ___ __._ _ --. -
---- ---- -- --
jStamson: Give applicant some -time-to figure a-way16feduc-elmpervious surface: Looic
,.--:, for a reasonable solution to reduce impervious surface. Vonhofwould agree
I n .-.--
- -
i-S'TAMSON MOYEDTQ CONTINUE 60NSIDERA.TIDN OF VARIANCE TOl
(rIV'J.l'bKVIOUSS-u:RFACETO JULY 9TH TOLOOK AT WAYS TO REDUCEi
,- IMPERVIOUS SuRFACE. SECOND BY ATWOOD. MO-TION-CARRIED4-0.
Stamson: for purposes of discussion, does not see how hardship criteria are met for deck.
Lemke: There is not much difference between 12' and 4'. Deck adds to house.
Considering where house is, feels variance is justified. Without impervious surface issue,
question is how close can deck be. Stamson noted this had been decided with original
variance. Applicant did not leave space for deck. (Discussion between Stamson and
Lemke). Crouse stated City did not inform applicant of option to move house forward to
provide for deck. Ifhe had known that then, he would have done so.
L:\Ol files\Ol plancomm\Ol pcminutes\MN06250 I.doc
Lemke: How would a person be aware of old variances? Stamson noted it is not the
City's responsibility to make these recommendations. Horsman noted staff today looks
at these issues. V onhof commented that variance resolutions are recorded with County.
Stamson noted that house was built with variances so they knew there were variances.
V onhof noted comments on building permit note previous variances.
V onhof: With regard to deck, variance criteria are not met.
MOTION BY STAMSON SECOND BY VONHOF APPROVING RESOLUTION 01-
008PC DENYING A 71 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT STRUCTURE
SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY mGH W ArbK MARK. MOTION CARRIED 3-
1 (LEMKE VOTING NO).
Horsman explained appeal process. Applicant may appeal decision of Planning
Commission to City Council within 5 calendar days.
5. Old Business:
A. Case File #01-029 - Gary Thomas Variance Resolution
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated June 25,2001
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
A public hearing was convened on May 29, 2001. After review of the applicant's request
with respect to variance hardship criteria, the Planning Commission directed staff to draft
Resolution 01-009PC appJ.vving the variances with conditions.
MOTION BY ATWOOD SECOND BY VONHOF APPROVING RESOLUTION 01-
009PC GRANTING A 2.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 54 FOOT SETBACK
FROM THE ORDINARY mGH WATER MARK RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED
56.5 FEET AS DETERMINED BY SETBACK AVERAGING; AND A 43 FOOT
VARIANCE TO PERMIT A PORCH STRUCTURE TO ENCROACH INTO A BLUFF
IMPACT ZONE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 25 FEET FROM THE TOP OF
BLUFF.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
6. New Business:
A. Case File #01-051- Vacation of the 20 foot wide easement for road purposes
located adjacent to the south side ofTH 13, from Franklin Trail to Toronto Avenue.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated June 25,2001,
on :file in the office ofthe City Planner.
L:\O I files\OI plancomrn\OI pcrninutes\MN06250 I.doc
The Prior Lake City Council initiated the vacation of the 20' wide easement for roadway
purposes located adjacent to TH 13 and to the E-Z Stop gas station, Velishek's Auto
Sales, Park Nicollet Clinic and the Hollywood Restaurant. The easement presently
functions as a frontage road serving the properties located on the south side ofTH 13
between Franklin Trail and Toronto Avenue. The City Council is scheduled to review
this matter at a public hearing on July 2,2001.
Once the ring road is constructed, there is no need for the existing easement. The
Planning staff recommended approval ofthis request subject to the condition that the
resolution vacating this easement will not be recorded until the construction of the new
road is completed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke: What happens to road. Kansier explained the City would not maintain this
section of road.
Atwood: What is reaction of other property owners. Rye noted they were not opposed,
but were concerned about timing.
Stamson: Vacation is in public interest because ring road will eliminate unsafe access.
Rye noted easement exists and statute states that City maintenance of private road for 6
years makes it public. Public interest is removing City interest in private drive.
MOTION BY STAMSON SECOND BY LEMKE TO RECOMMEND THE CITY
COUNCIL Mt'KOVE THE VACATION OF THE 20' WIDE EASEMENT FOR ROAD
PURPOSES SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE RESOLUTION
VACATING TillS EASEMENT IS NOT RECORDED UNliL THE CONSTRUCTION
OF THE RING ROAD IS COMPLETE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Request to initiate amendments to the Zoning Ordinance.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated June 25, 2001,
on file in the office of the City Planner.
The staffhas identified language in the current Zoning Ordinance that is inconsistent with
Minnesota State statutes. Some of these inconsistencies are the result of very recent
changes to the statutes. These changes include the following:
. The definition of elderly housing (1101.1000)
. The definition of congregate care (1106A.200)
. The number of City Council votes required to adopt an amendment to the Zoning
Map and the Zoning Ordinance (1108.506 and 1108.704).. The definition of an official map (1112.200)
L:\Ol fiIes\Ol plancomm\Ol pcminutes\MN06250 1 ,doc
Since the Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1999, the staffhas made a number of
interpretations on the application and intent of the ordinance. In a few cases, the staff
feels it is necessary to clarify the ordinance language to reflect these interpretations.
These include:
. Language to include basement egress windows as an allowable encroachment into the
side yards (1101.503 (1))
. Language to include platform decks as allowable yard encroachments (1101.503 (6 &
7) and 1104.308 (2))
The Zoning Ordinance also references technical documents, which can updated on a
regular basis. In order to ensure the reference is current, the language should be changed
to eliminate the specific edition number, and reference the current edition. This
amendment applies to the following:
. The Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) Handbook (1107.1801 (1))
Finally, after several discussions, the City Council has directed staffto relax the
certification requirements for replacement trees. This relaxation is intended to be a more
"customer-friendly" approach, especially for single-family homeowners. The
amendment affects the following provision:
. Tree Preservation Requirements, Certification of compliance with an apPJ.vved
landscaping plan (1107.2106 (5)).
The staff is also recommending an amendment to Section 1108, which would add a
procedure for site plan review. This review is presently done as part of the building
permit review for commercial projects. This amendment would formalize that procedure.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke: What is current voting requirement. Kansier noted the Zoning Ordinance
requires a 2/3 vote of the City Council. The State statute has changed this requirement to
a simple majority.
V oOOof: Staff does great job in updating ordinances and making it a living document.
Review ordinance as a result of situations.
MOTION BY STAMSON SECOND BY ATWOOD TO DIRECT STAFF TO
PREP ARE AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SCHEDULE A
PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
L:\Ol files\Ol planconnn\Ol pcminutes\MN062501.doc
Rye: Staff is waiting to hear legislatures decision on budget. It is having a very real
impact on one pending redevelup.iuent project. As currently proposed, language would
limit ability of City to provide assistance to these types ofprojects.
Stamson: Bill that looks at development costs. Rye explained bill has to do with fees
and with applying those fees to actual costs. Stamson noted bill he was referring to had
to do with property rights and compensation for effects of regulations. Rye explained the
theory behind this bill. It did not pass.
Stamson asked about progress of downtown design ordinance. Rye noted we will have a
draft this week. We are trying to schedule a workshop in conjunction with July 9th
Planning Commission meeting.
Vonhof: Asked about process of finding violations. For example, what if a building
inspector discovers building without permit. Rye stated they will be issued a stop work
order. After that, it depends on the nature ofthe violation.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:04.
L:\Ol files\Ol plancomm\Ol pcminutes\MN062S01,doc
Planning Commission Meeting
Date
PLANNING COMMISSION MINlnJ!iS
MONDAY, JUNE 25, 2001
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Vonhof called the June 25, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:32 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Stamson and
Vonhof, Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, and Zoning
Administrator Steve Horsman.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood
Criego
Lemke
Stamson
V onhof
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
Stamson: Page 3 of the minutes includes his comments; however, he was not present at
that meeting. These comments were probably from Bill Criego.
The Minutes from the May 29,2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved with
the above change.
Commissioner V onhof read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case File #01-017 - (continued) Mark Crouse is requesting variances for
impervious surface and the ordinary high water mark for the construction of a deck
on the property located at 15507 Calmut Avenue.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated June 25, 2001
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
On February 23,2001, the Planning Department received a vari~ce application from D.
Mark Crouse (applicant/owner) to allow an existing deck to remain on the property
located at 15507 Calmut Avenue. The deck was constructed in the year 2000 without a
required building permit. The deck is attached to an existing single family dwelling that
was constructed in 1995 after approval of setback variances to the front yard and the
ordinary high water mark. Upon processing this application staff determined a second
variance was required to permit the impervious surface coverage area to exceed 30
percent.
L:\Ol files\Ol plancomm\Ol pcminutes\MN062501,doc 1
On March 26,2001, the Planning Department received an e-maillivu.l the applicant to
request a postponement of this variance request from the scheduled date of March 26, to
April 23, 2001. On April 20, 2001, the applicant/owner again requested the public
hearing be rescheduled to the end of May due to business commitments. On May 29,
2001, the applicant requested the 3rd postponement of this agenda item for the June 25,
2001, meeting due to business travel. .
The applicant requests the following variances:
1) A 2,115 square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of 4,422
square feet (57.5%) rather than the permitted maximum area of2,307 square feet
(30%).
2) A 71 foot variance to allow a structure setback of 4 feet llU.lH the ordinary high water
mark (OHWM) elevation of904 feet, rather than the required setback of75 feet.
Staff received comments from the City Engineering Department and the DNR. Amount
of impervious surface affects water quality and stormwater runoff. The DNR
recommended the impervious surface be brought into compliance.
Staff concluded all of the required variance hardship criteria had not been met, and the
hardship was created by the owner when the principal structure was constructed in
violation of the building permit conditions, and by constructing the deck addition without
an approved building permit. The staff recommended denial of the two variance
requests.
Atwood asked if the impervious surface is impacted by stacking deck over concrete.
Horsman noted the deck would not be impervious surface if the concrete were not below
it.
Comments from the public:
Mark Crouse, 15507 Calmut Avenue, the applicant, stated the contractor took care of all
the variances and permits for the original structure and was in compliance. Noticed
erosion on other lake properties. Recommendation from landscaping company was to
create impervious surface to help with erosion. When he raised house, he would have
moved it ifhe could. People who did concrete work gave incorrect advice about need for
permits.
In terms of hardship standards:
1. Lot shape is weird. Cannot meet setbacks. Other lots with weird shape are within the
75' setback. According to Pat Lynch, DNR, the impact of runoff is negligible.
2. Agree with staff finding. Unusual circumstances.
3. ?
4. Agree with report.
5. Disagrees with report. Will not affect stated values. Work on his house
L:\Ol files\Ol plancomrn\Ol pcminutes\MN06250 I.doc
6. If intent is to not block views, he is not blocking view with deck.
7. The impervious surface based on patio and driveway. Intent of patio is to solidify the
retaining wall, not just convenience.
8. Hardship as a result of construction came after the house was built.
9. Financial standpoint - leave it alone.
Kurt Hazekamp, 15654 Fremont, did contracting work on house in 1995. Worked with
building official at that time. Did not know of option to move house forward; just built
house straight up to elevate above flood plain.
Dr.? Todd, new resident, 2 houses down. Work on house has added value to his property.
Including vacant lots and Windsong area, impervious surface is below 30%.
Commissioner V onhof closed the public hearing.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood: Is there a runoffissue if Wind song is included? Horsman showed plat of
Windsong on the Lake. Applicant is discussing outlots used as open space by that
development. There are vacant outlots near property used by association.
Atwood: Is there a relationship between these lots. Horsman noted they should be
separate. There is green space; however problem is on subject lot with 50% impervious
surface. Recommendation of DNR and Engineering based on idea that closer structures
get they promote "lake creep". Lake management plan is to eliminate this.
Stamson: This is a narrow and unusually shaped lot. Hardship criteria were addressed by
previous variance. It is the responsibility of owner to accommodate space for future
deck. Agrees with Engineering recommendation. Have decided lack of deck can be
hardship, but usually weigh that against magnitude of variance. 4' setback outweighs
hardship of lack of deck. Hardship criteria are not met in this case. Choices were made
that prevent construction of deck. Agree with DNR about percentage of impervious
surface. Has staff does any calculations on how to remove some impervious surface.
Horsman noted original permit, with house and driveway, was at 30%. Stamson would
like to see some reasonable amount of impervious surface. Rye noted area of house and
garage is below 30% by about 200 square feet.
Lemke: The issue before us is deck and not impervious surface. Horsman noted issue
was originally deck, but upon further investigation, staff discovered excess impervious
surface. When home was built, for some reason it was moved forward so there is only 1 '
left in original variance. Lemke commented if deck is removed, concrete still remains.
Horsman commented DNR recommendation is that it is more important to deal with
impervious surface. There is still issue of Zoning Ordinance violation. Stamson noted
they are separate issues, but dealing with both now. Lemke stated impervious surface
necessary to stabilize wall. Horsman stated properly installed retaining wall would
achieve the same purpose. This sounds like trying to preserve an older retaining wall.
L:\Ol fiIes\Ol plancomm\Ol pcminutes\MN062501.doc
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4A
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A
VARIANCE TO IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15507 CALMUT AVENUE FOR
D. MARK CROUSE, (Case File #01-017PC)
LOT 9, AND PART OF LOT 10, NORTH GRAINWOOD
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES NO
JULY 23, 2001
On June 25, 2001, the Planning Department held a public hearing for two
variance requests from Mr. D. Mark Crouse (applicant/owner) on the property
located at 15507 Calmut Avenue. The requests included a variance from the
ordinary high water mark for a deck setback, and a variance to the maximum
impervious surface area. The Planning Commission denied the deck variance at
the public hearing (Resolution #01-008PC). The Commission continued the
public hearing regarding the impervious surface variance to allow the applicant
more time to revise and reduce the request because the Commission did not
believe the applicant provided proof of hardship for the 4,422 square feet or 57.5
% of the total lot area. The original variance request was as follows:
1) A 2.115 sauare foot variance to permit an impervious surface coveraqe area
of 4.422 sauare feet (57.5%) rather than the permitted maximum area of
~.307 sauare feet (30%) [Ordinance Section 1104.306: Impervious Surface
Coverage].
On July 3, 2001, the Planning Department received a request from the applicant
to continue the public hearing for the impervious surface variance request from
the scheduled date of July 9, to July 23, 2001. The applicant submitted the
postponement request due to the lack of time needed to provide the additional
information.
L:\01files\01variances\01-017\VrRt3.DOC Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
DISCUSSION:
On July 10, 2001, the Planning staff corresponded with Mr. Crouse regarding the
additional information to be submitted for the revised variance request, and
provided him with the approved minutes for the June 25th meeting. On July 16,
2001, staff received an e-mail from the applicant explaining he was currently
business traveling and was scheduled to be in New York on the 23rd of July but
would do what he could to attend the Planning Commission meeting scheduled
for July 23, 2001 (Attachment 3 Applicant e-mail).
In addition, Mr. Crouse stated in the letter that he had met with Ron Swanson at
Valley Surveying regarding the impervious surface area as calculated from the
certificate of survey (Attachment 1 Certificate of Survey). The letter states that
Mr. Swanson included the sidewalks and calculates the total impervious surface
area to equal 600 square feet. As the sidewalks measure 4 feet in width they
are considered impervious by definition and shall be included in the total
impervious surface calculations. Sidewalks 3 feet or less in width are not
included as impervious surfaces (Attachment 2 Impervious Surface
Calculations ).
Also, Mr. Crouse states in his letter that he and others at the meeting heard the
Planning Commission mention that the applicant should attempt to reduce the
impervious surface rate down to around 45% instead of the existing rate of
57.5%. Staff has reviewed the audio tape of the public hearing and did not hear
the 45% coverage figure used by staff or the Planning Commission.
Based on his latest correspondence, the applicant is now proposing a 45%
impervious surface area. This would be accomplished by acquiring right-of-way
land from the City (old railroad right-of-way). This land area of approximately
960 square feet would be combined with the applicants lot area to lessen the
percentage of impervious area. Mr. Crouse suggests buying the property from
the City for this purpose. The staff does not have knowledge of ever allowing
public right-of-way area to be used with private property for impervious
calculations. In addition, vacation or sale of this property is another issue, and
staff does not believe this to be a possible solution as the Calmut Avenue right-
of-way is not for sale nor intended to be vacated.
Finally, the letter states that in the meeting minutes for the public hearing the
total paved impervious surface area was referred to as "patio". This does not
change the actual impervious surface area as calculated by the surveyor and
presented at the Planning Commission meeting on June 25, 2001.
The staff has determined the existing driveway is approximately 41.5 feet wide
and exceeds the allowable width of 24 feet at the front property line and through
the right-of-way to the street. This area of driveway amounts to about 375
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\ VrRt3.DOC
Page 2
square feet. In addition, the parking area along the garage wall amounts to
approximately 318 square feet and does not meet the minimum setback of 5 feet
to the side property line. By eliminating this portion of the driveway/parking area
of the existing impervious surface by 693 square feet and the sidewalk area of
about 600 square feet would reduce approximately 1 ,293 square feet of area or
16.8 % for 40.7% total impervious surface area. Also, the back yard patio area
of 570 square feet could be reduced to bring the total impervious surface area
into the 30-percentile range.
The subject lot has a total area of 7,689 square feet and allows for 2,307 square
feet of impervious surface to equal the 30% coverage area. The area for house
and garage totals 2,152 square feet. The remaining 155 square feet would
permit a driveway dimension of about 10 x 15.5 feet. This size driveway would
not extend from the garage to the front property line.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends the Planning Commission deny the applicants suggested
proposal of 45% impervious surface area as the applicant did not meet the
hardship criteria, and require the property to meet an impervious surface area
the Planning Commission deems appropriate under the circumstances. As a
condition staff recommends the applicant provide a revised survey to depict the
required impervious surface area as adopted by the Planning Commission and
the applicant shall submit a driveway permit application to the City to verify the
conditions have been met.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variance as requested by the applicant, in this case, the
Planning Commission should direct staff to draft a Resolution with findings
approving the Variance request.
2. Approve a lesser variance to impervious surface as deemed appropriate
by the Planning Commission. In this case, the Planning Commission
should direct the applicant to provide a revised survey and impervious
surface calculation worksheet identifying the area to be removed, and
direct the staff to prepare a Resolution with Findings approving the
variance request.
3. Deny the variance as requested by the applicant. In this case, the
Planning Commission should adopt the attached Resolution 01-011 PC.
4. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\VrRt3.DOC
Page 3
ACTION REQUIRED:
Staff recommends alternative #3.
1. A motion and second to adopt the attached Resolution 01-011 PC
denying the applicants request for a 57.5% impervious surface coverage
area.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\ VrRt3.DOC
Page 4
RESOLUTION Ol-Ol1PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 2,115 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT
AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AREA OF 4,422 SQUARE FEET
(57.5%)
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment ofthe City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Mr. D. Mark Crouse (applicant/owner) has applied for variances from the Zoning
Ordinance in order to permit the construction of an attached deck and paved parking
and patio area to a single family residence on property located in the R-l (Low
Density Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following
location, to wit;
15507 Calmut Avenue NE, legally described as Lot 9, and that part of Lot 10,
North Grainwood, Scott County, MN.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #01-017PC and held hearings thereon on June 25,2001 and on July 23,2001.
3. 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.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, the
proposed variance will result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air
to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase
the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair
health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning
Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
5. The applicant was directed by previous variance and building permit conditions as to
the amount of impervious surface area, such that the hardship created has been
created by the applicant. Reasonable use of the property exists without the requested
VarIances.
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1-0 17\dnyrs3 .doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
6. There is no justifiable hardship caused by the required by the ordinance as reasonable
use of the property exists without the granting of the variance.
7. The granting of the variance as requested, is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will serve
merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate
demonstrable hardship. The factors above allow for an alternative structure to be
permitted with a reduced variance or none at all.
8. The contents of Planning Case 00-017PC are hereby entered into and made a part of
the public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the
following variance for an impervious surface area greater than 30% of the lot area, as
shown in Attachment 1 Survey;
1. A 2,115 square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of 4,422
square feet (57.5%), rather than the allowed maximum area of 2,307 square feet
(30%).
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on July 23,2001.
Thomas E. V onhof, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\0 1 files\O 1 variances\Ol-O 1 7\dnyrs3.doc
2
ATTACHMENT 1
~,';' 'l~
~~ ~g:to"
.... \0
of \..0.
" \..\tIE .,--
# -/\
\
\
\
,...
o
W
%.
ST tAt-' -'!l~: g
~ f.\;~<<l8l',~" ."_m;.' .... %.
.J ':\1;-1';:\...,:.,:-, ~. :.;' 4
. ..I,:,:R'''-';1;-:;':;;. ~
-'.;'-'; . '~:1-11'1.6i,.;ti::~[. SAN. tAt-'
;;~,~; \'. .::>t~t '~tc'i
';. I '., 't~t.<il6.. ,oe.". 0
t ~ '.. ...:~;.:~, ~'i Z
, : ..~ .. -, . ...,
'.
/.
'-
,
\
w
::>
z
w "
,>
<t
"1:'
;.
../ ',.:--\
~, . \
t;, \
~~
. ")
l!!-
II'
uJ
%.
:'
uJ
a:-
o
So
\I'l
"J
~
~
..,
\I'l
~
~
.\',
\
I
)
\. ';
..'~.
'.: . :! ,. ".~'
.y J....::
..<(
U.'
,
\"
9\9."
...
CI,'tl\N
;.., .
i-~
. .
" ':' .... ........::.::../...:...:;.~"i~.-:. rOo:';:.:,..:: ::':l!". .::. '. .AT.TA"'-"~''''M;J::N ..:..'. JI.'..
... .... ,'1.: .~ '-":"'._"'~:'.:'~.':',.:':,..,....,~ ~I..:.I~ ",I':. ...
i". ;'", .:...,. ,: :..:...,-... .....~., ..:........:..:_:... '. .....;..,.....: ..~.~.. '.: '. '....;....::.. .:
.'. ;' '.::.::,\;:.::,:,;~' ....,:'.:.:::~::~:~:~.<:.~.:~'.::,::.:.~...r.<...:'.~.:.:' ~..<: :,'. .::/::;..< '~.::;;i:":'::.:j:;':}' ~ :'; '::).':; .' .., ,'. '. ",,: '. , . ,'. ..... :.,. .
~ "", ..'...."... '. " :." . "': . .... I. I",. :.... . '..
',:":,' ..::.: ':':..'
,," . .
. .:. ;." t'':. . ....
" . ....
", :" I
.... .
0,. . . . :'>':'" : "
..., ',,:',;':::\:~':"<""';; :.::<'~ ";., ..../.::.".:: .-Imp.erY10.~s.. $urface.-Calcul~,t~ons.. .'.:';: .-,,:.': ':.:~:. . :",'..: , ~.:..,.."
'.' .!.:.', <...Y." . ";':..-:': .......:...::: ...: :<.~.~__. <:.::::'(1d b~~$~bm~~~~ W!th'B.~'Udi~g p'e~.it Application)' .(.' ..:; .' ..... '.. ". .:':., ,.,' :. ':.' <',: . ."
. . ':,:: :':' "~,:/. .:\( <:.:.::.,:.....:F.o~;Al.rPrbpertles..tocated 'irt.~h.e:,Shqr.eland'District ($D):'::' ;'. .:.- :':. :;::" .... ;~..:'. '::';: ,.'. ".
_; :..~',~' ~.. :< ;'~, "3':::::';:' t~e.:-t0aXim~~:).mp'~iV.fo.u~: :Sutfac'~:. :C.q'v.~iag~.:;p'e~ltt~d 'ili '3"0' Percertt.:' '.. :,'::'::. :.: ':': :;:,. ::. ...'
. .~: ~:;; ::.:,:.,. :::'~~:~~-,;
.,.J;.:ot.A;'~a .., -.. f(\,.tD6cL. ".'. ':"~' ',', "'.. ,Sq. F~:e~ ;.-,f; 30Xo. .:.~:,,;~;..:;......!..' '. ~~o~ .,.':', , .>.
,':. *'*,.'*I\C 1!i.1jc.*'***.* ljI:;.*:l{c '1014 III +'***,'lulcljllje ljIJ\I *'IC'\i** i!4.ljI~.* tiC:* **.* =.fIlIe*.~ * I\C,* 111 Jl.C** lie *.*i1i:**'***'* lfI.* I!\:tc * * * * '.'.
'.' ,~:::;.'./.,.:~~~~~:,:..::/?<.~:;:~'.::>{::'. '>:',;'i, '...: .\:'::::LE~:dT~":'::~'::"'>;: :/.'.::.:Wrr;T~':"::':.".:' i:".:.';'-:'..:. .S.Q:.':PfET:,::......:. .... :' :., .., .i../ :.::...
.::::H6TiS}{-::'::::;',:'-;::~~,,),;';,>,',:~,';,(/\:,'" :"'~':'~/:'::'44..::x';'.~..i1:"6';~::-:' "'.'~\;;"':'-\\4:4::'" . ..,.. 'P.;" '."
.', .. t,.:'. :,r;,.:. -'.'.:- ;:':i:,:r; :'.::> ',;: :;.~::;.:>:~.::.: :.;~~:<...." . . . '.: '.:,.:. '.:::: '...;;,.... . . '. '. .'" '. . ,,' . '.t ,:~"",'" :".:.: ,....
,,~,:'/1::'~'.;'::c~::}'::."~"':/':;::"'<::< .y'.<'.:....~' ..t.~.::~:..,:.,~ ~:., ,::' ,:.<.= \:oo~ ',. .. ,: .>'.:';.'. ~;:..:: ..::. :"':...
. ATTACHED. GARAGE '.'-."> .:'~"'~"',,;,:'..':I.'X' :.'::'~''''.. .':':- '^ ':. .~',....:
. .)e'!:;;, ):;;"(f:,i>;;::j);:;~;;::,'~~';aTJ1\~~~{Pti:STRU~;...:.::,.;.j;.;;.,,;.,... ..~\~~ '>: '.'); '0'. .:.
. i; ;;~ ~::~(d: {~<': <;j\ ':. ", :):.; )\:,~.; '.:,,:<: ;<<.0', ,; ,;;:'>~:-:'; , ...'..': . ..:.:.. .": /;: ,r: : . ...;,
';DETACHEDELDOS""" ,.'..:..'.; ..I'..'.....,.'.,:.:....~.x " ,,'.."'. ..;'.' :..... ...... . .'. . ..... . .'.... ..'- '-' ,":.
... ,;,;~f)+,,~;f~1~t~J~~;~;.::;f}.:~;<~ .',':', ",,{;' ':~,;::,:':;. ,":'.\",. ':~:> .: ~ :...(;:: :;,. :,; ~f:.)<"
'..' ;. _.....>;.~... .:.... .~., i,.:.:'" ._,;. f~,.,.." ;>.;,,' ..TO:r~ P.ET;A,~D)3~DIN.G~.~....!...,..~..~........ :'. - ..'.. '.:','. ': :.' :: ,/ "'~' -:.:,-:.:
.' '.~c::a;;;ti).;~.~~~?t~S\~\is:..';-;.'.:.:..:;:;::...._:::,..<. .:,'l~'.;'>'''''~~'' '.<.~t.:...:)~;,.:.:.::..: .:'. "'-': . ,......: I ~.~:: '::.,: ,...:..:-. '. :-.:.. . ,,:,':'~'..:.;> :':'-=":.:' .;.::::.:-.
....'. ". '.;.. .;.: ,': .;..'.... .;..H..., "\,:,,,,;,::;...::..:.:~:,::.,::......:.:......-::~ .:-:.,..:.:......:..,: ;,..,.... t.,~.::':... ..,,;.....;..... .:f,~._ .~.:....:...,.:.l...,:..~'.; ,;.'...,...
DRlVEWAy.:IPAVED'AREAS" .... .'..',- '.: ...IX' .... .,'" ..,-~., '" =. 1!}."10 ..,.. ." '" I ...,. . ','
; ':"~; (P~1~t~~:p.~~~'~i ,~~;(i'ii;:/ \ ;.>;..;, .,:~? ,:;'::;",:' ',',.. . . .... ..: ; ,,,', ... d' ..; , .:.., :,:~C::: /}{~.
. . .::'., _... ,(SldeWal~arldn.g A~e~) .... ..... 7'~..'.." '~':. ":. ,.(.: :. '.... x" .,:;-:'; ." (.'. c."; ..;'; ; :~::=:' ': .; ': . . ..: ~ '-. .:", '.':'.. .:/ ',.-.:".:. "
:;, }>r ;j),~~!"~:,{;;,,~:},r:i!~T'~iL i).~~'~;..i...:I~:~;...:;,,:j,....::;...;:.: . ... .'.~-i~.\b .:(.;\t';O:';. ;
. .{)f.;!\::,-:~~;.~i~';/:~.;:::.<{}~~i.,:..><;;:(}.:~ ::;,.y.~6:~.::~~~.;':<.:~)~...::::\).:'..>.{..~:\f,~~~.:,.';:r;:.:::i~,~, .:.:..;,:~~,::.:::,:." .....:; >.....-: '. :'..':: ";! , .. ." . . :'...:..'.~...->::}.. .
'. , PATIOSIPORCHES/DECKS' ,. '.' ..,.':. "X'" ..... .' .. . I" == '. ,,:,.... .,..' ," .',. '.
,i)':~.:d~~~i1~~u;~;i:~;;~1.:~j'<~,,",:<;,; :::; \i:}~';~':, ';.;;:' ..:".,.. ':H:'.'.. ;:.' '. .:;: ..,i;:';:~:
."ar~ not cl?n~l.clered }q.):le !lTlperv1.~lJs):.:,.:, '. >." . d..' .:. .', '. . -. ..,...
.....;.jH\~j'~<;'/i:;,;:;;\'. ";;:';':t::"(T'~O~~;/:D::',i"~I::(:~S';;:~'::::;':": :':.:.~.;<:" :.~: ~. .'1::-;.:.;., ..: ,.... . .:...:":' ". ::,....\;;,::..,',;:'::.,/i;. ,.
:'" ';~: . ,.... ::"...:, :.::., . ....:!:.;.: ';:~'.: '.;' . ...'L~ ~~ . "'!~'."';~"'''~'''''~'''''";~~,,,,,,,,,,,,,~~,,.''''''''''.l'.'' . :'..' .... <.;' .:" ..' ..
;:'6~l!;.. : ' .. . '~";;:';": :':::;'f)}i,:,;': >. ,'; ., ""'" . .:
. .} ..::: :~:"_:"'.~::)'..' ,.::' ..'"' :.~,'..; ~ .'. 'x . '. -".- ..\. ~ :' '. . .
:," :'; ., ... ""~'::"~':'.,~ "'. \. ,,'.. ':,:.,' .,,_.... . . . . " .1 .
.' ".,'. .....::.,;':.....~..~~.... " ;. .:.!.\ -....~:.._ ;.... '.: ;;~_: :.'. ....::.:..,.:.....: ,.~........:~..f..~.~~.,::. . :.;,... . ",: ":':; ::. .'- '.' ' )'. . ..,. . " . '. '.' "
, ....':.::...:..;'-_,...:. ..,::-...:.... ...,... :,: . .::.i.":"..;:.~..,...': ...:...:.: .':, .., '. '" "-f .'.... ..... ::.. -.'
~. . '.... . :; ~'.'" ."",. . T.OTAL OTHER...;.....,...~......:.~~...............................;.. ........ ..\. ".
." ;..;::.;;.... .. ..:...;'.'~'.":.:"""'~" ...~.~ '. t". ~ ' ......... \.....~ ...~. ..;.'" ".':: .....:. ". -j ........ . '.. ~.
. ,7(f8Ht1~tRVI61J~"stiItrk;cli'~" j;~:-t'>.;::! .; .. .. i,'.,.' i-i"~~:..:> ;... ~:. .l.:::::'/:~:;.~::~~.::'.;L\.i-
...,., . . .' ,. . . , _' .... ..' ,. _'. .' '.' " .' . .. "',,\''-''''''''"' .-:.i "...;. .:--:'- . ' '. ::.....
:~:~~~ii~) F>: ':.:::>:,:i:::':';",>~?:/, .. . . . ....... ... I . ,. ,,(<- ....
. il~'f~tiJ~~~;;;~\,,;;,.:~J:'7'..:{:'';~~e: .\.i ..~.... '.rxI..,~\,\~..:,,::,/~:,~;,'...
'-::,i~~'::,;:\:,::::~;.~;:.-:: 'F:~:.~/~.f:;"".~,::,.<L::::'~~.)1~.~~l:\:~~(."::\.; ':;'}::;'-:::<':" ;:.'::'. :..:.\: ::':'. ::";..:<:'::::'.:" ',';:': . :., "~'-" .":' :.: .:. ,,:.: :.:, . ;;~" : :.':." ,...... '..< :.' .~:: ;.-:";/t.. .; " ;::. .
;'I:j~'~:Xl.1i'~:~~"'f:~~f):.~:~~~t,?1~t~t,;:f~~~:,.~;~q~ 'l:S :~' :';:~ :" .'.;.!:,':.i Co :~:,:":
. . ...
..,.-:
. f ~ .:.~ .
... :
;. : '.
;:;'>.::<; '/':,.,: :':..:
~". ". t' .' . ".:.
. :'.'
....
.' ..
......
'.f '.
. ..f
.. : i.
. . . ....... ~. :'.
--. f
-'-~~--....~.~J""""-""',
.....-- -~....-
Page 1 of 1
ATTACHMENT 3
Steve Horsman
-
From: Mark Crouse [Mark.Crouse@oracle.com]
Sent: Monday, July 16,2001 9:47 PM
To: Steve Horsman; Crouse,D.
Subject: Impervious Surface Variance Request
Importance: High
Steve,
I am on the east coast and just received your message. Although I'm scheduled to be in New York the
first part of next week I'm doing everything I can to try to change that meeting so I can attend the
planning commission meeting on the 23rd. Here's what I've learned :llvm meeting with Ron Swanson
at Va1~ey. Survey, correlated back to the conversation from the previous meeting with the planning
commISSIon.
On page 4 of the meeting notes under commissioner Vonhofs comments it states that, "The patio
area is 2,270 square feet. The allowed impervious surface allowed on this lot is about 2300
square feet. It is almost a 100% increase over what was allowed by the original variance in
1995." This data needs to be correctly stated, as this is inaccurate and very misleading. In fact the
patio itself is only about 600 sq ft, not 2,270. It is also a fact that all sidewalks on my property were
included in Ron's calculations, and they account for approximately 600 sq ft of the total just the same
as the patio. I would be more inclined to remove the sidewalks before removing the patio due to my
stated concern over the land settling and the security of my retaining wall. Let me also go on record
stating that this is not an old retaining wall as you suggested in the meeting, it was built as a result of
the city's requirement to elevate the structure in 1995.
Although it was not documented in the meeting notes, I and the other parties with me clearly heard
the mention of attempting to get the impervious surface rate down to around 45% from the current
57.5%. That would mean a reduction of approximately 960 sq ft from the current 4422 sq ft. In
meeting with Ron Swanson I learned that in fact the Rail Road Right of Way was not included in his
calculations, as this land is owned by the city. That's unfortunate since it represents a major portion of
my front yard which is not impervious, but rather is nicely landscaped. According to Ron that land
was all originally owned by the Schroeder's, who were the original owners of my property. I need
confirmation, but according to Ron the city bought this from the Schroeders when the street was put
in some years ago. If the city would allow me to reaquire this piece ofland it would add over 930 sq
ft of yard which would put me very close to the 960 sq ft target. I would like to pursue this option
with the city in an attempt to reach a reasonable compromise to this issue.
I will be travelling all this week, but will be checking emai1 and my voice-mail when possible. Please
let me know ifthere's anything else you need from me at this point in time. Also, in the message I
sent to you on July 5, 2001 I requested a copy of the audio tape from the previous meeting but have
not received a response on whether that is available to me. Can you please confirm this request? In
addition you mentioned from an earlier conversation that other variances granted in the past few
years for impervious surface were linked to their location next to a common-type area. I have been
advised to request the data related to any such approved variances, and will need this information
prior to our next meeting.
Regards,
Mark Crouse
7/17/01
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
~,
PLANNING REPORT
4B
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A
VARIANCE TO IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15507 CALMUT AVENUE FOR
D. MARK CROUSE, (Case File #01-017PC)
LOT 9, AND PART OF LOT 10, NORTH GRAINWOOD
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES NO
AUGUST 27, 2001
On June 25, 2001, the Planning Department held a public hearing for two
variance requests from Mr. D. Mark Crouse (applicant/owner) on the property
located at 15507 Calmut Avenue. The requests included a variance from the
ordinary high water mark for a deck setback, and a variance to the maximum
impervious surface area. The Planning Commission denied the deck variance at
the public hearing (Resolution #01-008PC). The Commission continued the
public hearing regarding the impervious surface variance to allow the applicant
more time to revise and reduce the request because the Commission did not
believe the applicant provided proof of hardship for the 4,422 square feet or
57.5% of the total lot area.
At the public hearing held on July 23, 2001, the Planning Commission again
continued the public hearing to allow time for the applicant to provide new
information that proved he also owned the old railroad right-of-way, adjacent to
the front lot line of the subject property. The applicant is requesting to be able to
add this green area, not covered by Calmut Avenue with public street and utility
easements, to his subject lot area to help reduce the percentage of impervious
surface coverage. In addition, the Planning Commission directed the applicant
to reduce his variance request for an impervious surface coverage area in the
30-percentile range (Exhibit A Survey).
As of the date of this report, August 22, 2001, no additional information has been
submitted to staff for this report.
L:\01files\01variances\01-017\VrRt4.DOC Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E" Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The original variance request is as follows:
1) A 2,115 sauare foot variance to oermit an imoervious surface coveraae area
of 4.422 sauare feet (57.5%) rather than the oermitted maximum area of
2,307 sauare feet (30%) [Ordinance Section 1104.306: Impervious Surface
Coverage].
DISCUSSION:
A building permit for the house on this lot was issued in 1995. A condition of approval of
the permit stipulated the impervious surface area was not to exceed 30 percent. It
should be noted most of the additional impervious surface area, such as the driveway
and patio, were added after the completion of the existing house.
The staff has determined the existing driveway is approximately 41.5 feet wide
and exceeds the allowable width of 24 feet at the front property line and through
the right-of-way to the street. This area of driveway amounts to about 375
square feet. In addition, the parking area along the garage wall amounts to
approximately 318 square feet and does not meet the minimum setback of 5 feet
to the side property line.
Eliminating approximately 693 square feet of this portion of the driveway/parking
area and about 600 square feet of the sidewalk area would reduce
approximately 1,293 square feet of area (16.8%) of impervious surface. The
total impervious surface area would then be 40.7% of the lot area. In addition,
the back yard patio area of 570 square feet could be reduced to bring the total
impervious surface area into the 30-percentile range (Exhibit B Impervious
Surface Worksheet).
The subject lot has a total area of 7,689 square feet and allows for 2,307 square
feet of impervious surface to equal the 30% coverage area. The area for house
and garage totals 2,152 square feet. The remaining 155 square feet would
permit a driveway dimension of about 10 x 15.5 feet. This size driveway would
not extend from the garage to the front property line.
A follow-up inspection of the subject property was conducted on August 6, 2001.
The deck and concrete impervious surface coverage area remain, as
documented on the original certificate of survey. In addition, a metal frame with
tarp boat shelter has been installed on the south side of the property. To my
knowledge, this shelter was not present on site, nor included on the original
impervious surface calculations as surveyed on December 6,2000. Also, two
docks were present with a pontoon boat tied to one dock, and a boatlift installed
next to the 2nd dock.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\VrRt4.DOC
Page 2
According to Patrick Lynch, DNR, the conditions for approval of the Windsong
Marina adjacent to the subject property, allowed only 1 dock for fishing,
swimming, and daytime docking on the appellants lot because a boat slip at the
marina was deeded to the subject property. Another condition required that no
boat lifts or swim rafts be permitted off the shoreline of the property.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by
reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary
and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict application of the terms of
this Ordinance would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional
or undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot
in a manner customary and legally permissible within the Use District in which
said lot is located.
The subject property is a nonconforming platted lot of record, but was developed
under the current ownership and they did not meet the conditions spelled out in the
building permit for the principal structure which included a maximum 30% impervious
surface coverage area.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the
property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to
other land or structures in the Use District in which the land is located.
The existing conditions of the lot area and dimensions are peculiar to the property,
and generally do not apply to most other lots within the Shoreland District. However,
when all required conditions are applied, there was an approved building permit for
the principal structure on this lot that met the 30% impervious surface area.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
The approved legal building site precluded the need for the additional variance
requests. The owner created the hardship when he decided on the building
dimensions and location of the structure, as well as the excessive paving of the
subject lot.
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of
light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in
the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
The granting of the requested variances will not impair light and air to adjacent
properties or increase congestion, danger of fire or endanger public safety.
5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the character
and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair
L:\01 files\01variances\01-017\ VrRt4.DOC
Page 3
established property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way
impair the health safety, and comfort of the area.
The granting of the variance for increased impervious surface area will adversely
affect the above stated values by reducing the infiltration/buffer area which helps to
remove the pollutants and increase the potential for shoreland erosion with
additional upland water runoff into the Prior Lake watershed and floodplain and
thereby affecting the adjacent properties.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of this
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
The granting of the variance is contrary to the intent of the Ordinance or the
Comprehensive Plan by allowing excessive impervious surface conditions than was
originally approved by the City.
7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the
applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or
difficulty.
The granting of the variance requests appears to serve as a convenience to the
applicant.
8. The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this Ordinance
to the affected property and does not result from actions of the owners of the
property .
The hardship results from the actions of the property owner when he constructed the
dwelling in 1995.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone
shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Financial considerations alone shall not be grounds for granting this variance
request. The property owner helped to create the need for these variance requests
by not following the approved conditions for the original building permit.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends the Planning Commission deny the applicants variance
request of 57.5% impervious surface area as the applicant did not meet all of the
hardship criteria, and require the property to meet an impervious surface area
the Planning Commission deems appropriate under the circumstances. As a
condition staff recommends the applicant provide a revised survey to depict the
required impervious surface area as adopted by the Planning Commission and
the applicant shall submit a driveway permit application to the City to verify the
conditions have been met.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\VrRt4.DOC
Page 4
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variance as requested by the applicant, in this case, the
Planning Commission should direct staff to draft a Resolution with findings
approving the Variance request.
2. Approve a lesser variance to impervious surface as deemed appropriate
by the Planning Commission. In this case, the Planning Commission
should direct the applicant to provide a revised survey and impervious
surface calculation worksheet identifying the area to be removed, and
direct the staff to prepare a Resolution with Findings approving the
variance request.
3. Deny the variance as requested by the applicant. In this case, the
Planning Commission should adoptthe attached Resolution 01-011PC.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Staff recommends alternative #3.
1. A motion and second to adopt the attached Resolution 01-011 PC denying
the applicants request for a 57.5% impervious surface coverage area.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\ VrRt4.DOC
Page 5
-
RESOLUTION 01-011PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 2,115 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AREA OF 4,422 SQUARE FEET (57.5%),
RAl.l1.E..." THAN T.l1.E MAXIMUM REQUIRED AREA OF 2,307 SQUARE FEET (30%)
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Mr. D. Mark Crouse (applicant/owner) has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance
in order to permit the construction of an attached deck and paved parking and patio area to a
single family residence on property located in the R-l (Low Density Residential) District and
the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit;
15507 Calmut Avenue NE, legally described as Lot 9, and that part of Lot 10, North
Grainwood, and that part of Government Lot 5, Section 25, Township 115, Range
22, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest corner of said Lot 10; thence southerly along the
westerly line of said Lots 10 and 9 and also 8', a distance of 165.00 feet to the actual
point of beginning of the land to be described; thence westerly along the north line
of said plat to the easterly right-of-way line of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and
Pacific Railroad; thence northerly along said easterly right-of-way line to its
intersection with the westerly extension of the southerly line of the northerly 45.00
feet (as measured at right angles to the northerly line) of said Lot 10; thence easterly
along said southerly line to the shoreline of Prior Lake; thence southerly along said
shoreline to the south line of said Lot 9; thence westerly along said south line of said
Lot 9, to the southwest corner thereof; thence southerly along the westerly line of
said Lot 8, to the actual point of beginning.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case
#01-017PC and held hearings thereon on June 25, 2001, July 23,2001, and August 27,2001.
3. 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.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, the proposed
variance will result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire,
and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort,
morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1-0 17\dnyrs3 ,doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S,E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
5. The applicant was directed by previous variance and building permit conditions as to the
amount of impervious surface area, such that the hardship created has been created by the
applicant. Reasonable use of the property exists without the requested variances.
6. There is no justifiable hardship caused by the required by the ordinance as reasonable use of
the property exists without the granting of the variance.
7. The granting of the variance as requested, is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will serve merely as
a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship. The
factors above allow for an alternative structure to be permitted with a reduced variance or
none at all.
8. The contents of Planning Case 00-017PC are hereby entered into and made a part of the
public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the following
variance for an impervious surface area greater than 30% of the lot area, as shown in Attachment
1 Survey;
1. A 2,115 square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of 4,422 square
feet (57.5%), rather than the allowed maximum area of 2,307 square feet (30%).
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on August 27,2001.
Thomas E. V oOOof, Commission Chair
AnbST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\0 1 files\O 1 variances\01-017\dnyrs3.doc
2
~
I
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4C
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A
VARIANCE TO IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15507 CALMUT AVENUE FOR
D. MARK CROUSE, (Case File #01-017PC)
LOT 9, AND PART OF LOT 10, NORTH GRAINWOOD
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
_X_ YES NO
SEPTEMBER 10, 2001
On June 25, 2001, the Planning Department held a public hearing for two
variance requests from Mr. D. Mark Crouse (applicant/owner) on the property
located at 15507 Calmut Avenue. The requests included a variance from the
ordinary high water mark for a deck setback, and a variance to the maximum
impervious surface area. The Planning Commission denied the deck variance at
the public hearing (Resolution #01-008PC). The Commission continued the
public hearing regarding the impervious surface variance to allow the applicant
more time to revise and reduce the request because the Commission did not
believe the applicant provided proof of hardship for the 4,422 square feet or
57.5% of the total lot area.
At the public hearing held on July 23, 2001, the Planning Commission again
continued the public hearing to August 27,2001, to allow the applicant to time
provide new information that proved he also owned the old railroad right-of-way,
adjacent to the front lot line of the subject property. The applicant is requesting
to be able to add this green area, not covered by Calmut Avenue with public
street and utility easements, to his subject lot area to help reduce the percentage
of impervious surface coverage. In addition, the Planning Commission directed
the applicant to reduce his variance request for an impervious surface coverage
area in the 30-percentile range (Exhibit A Survey).
On August 27, 2001, the applicant requested an additional continuance of the
hearing. The Planning Commission continued this item to the regular meeting on
L:\01files\01variances\01-017\VrRt5,DOC Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E" Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
September 10, 2001. As of the date of this report, September 4, 2001, no
additional information has been submitted.
The original variance request is as follows:
1) A 2.115 SQuare foot variance to permit an impervious surface covera~e area
of 4.422 SQuare feet (57.5%) rather than the permitted maximum area of
2.307 SQuare feet (30%) [Ordinance Section 1104.306: Impervious Surface
Coverage].
DISCUSSION:
A building permit for the house on this lot was issued in 1995. A condition of approval of
the permit stipulated the impervious surface area was not to exceed 30 percent. It
should be noted most of the additional impervious surface area, such as the driveway
and patio, were added after the completion of the existing house.
The staff has determined the existing driveway is approximately 41.5 feet wide
and exceeds the allowable width of 24 feet at the front property line and through
the right-of-way to the street. This area of driveway amounts to about 375
square feet. In addition, the parking area along the garage wall amounts to
approximately 318 square feet and does not meet the minimum setback of 5 feet
to the side property line.
Eliminating approximately 693 square feet of this portion of the driveway/parking
area and about 600 square feet of the sidewalk area would reduce
approximately 1,293 square feet of area (16.8%) of impervious surface. The
total impervious surface area would then be 40.7% of the lot area. In addition,
the back yard patio area of 570 square feet could be reduced to bring the total
impervious surface area into the 30-percentile range (Exhibit B Impervious
Surface Worksheet).
The subject lot has a total area of 7,689 square feet and allows for 2,307 square
feet of impervious surface to equal the 30% coverage area. The area for house
and garage totals 2,152 square feet. The remaining 155 square feet would
permit a driveway dimension of about 10 x 15.5 feet. This size driveway would
not extend from the garage to the front property line.
A follow-up inspection of the subject property was conducted on August 6, 2001.
The deck and concrete impervious surface coverage area remain, as
documented on the original certificate of survey. In addition, a metal frame with
tarp boat shelter has been installed on the south side of the property. To my
knowledge, this shelter was not present on site, nor included on the original
impervious surface calculations as surveyed on December 6, 2000. Also, two
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\VrRt5.DOC
Page 2
docks were present with a pontoon boat tied to one dock, and a boatlift installed
next to the 2nd dock.
According to Patrick Lynch, DNR, the conditions for approval of the Windsong
Marina adjacent to the subject property, allowed only 1 dock for fishing,
swimming, and daytime docking on the appellants lot because a boat slip at the
marina was deeded to the subject property. Another condition required that no
boat lifts or swim rafts be permitted off the shoreline of the property.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or where by
reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other extraordinary
and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict application of the terms of
this Ordinance would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional
or undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot
in a manner customary and legally permissible within the Use District in which
said lot is located.
The subject property is a nonconforming platted lot of record, but was developed
under the current ownership and they did not meet the conditions spelled out in the
building permit for the principal structure which included a maximum 30% impervious
surface coverage area.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the
property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to
other land or structures in the Use District in which the land is located.
The existing conditions of the lot area and dimensions are peculiar to the property,
and generally do not apply to most other lots within the Shoreland District. However,
when all required conditions are applied, there was an approved building permit for
the principal structure on this lot that met the 30% impervious surface area.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
The approved legal building site precluded the need for the additional variance
requests. The owner created the hardship when he decided on the building
dimensions and location of the structure, as well as the excessive paving of the
subject lot.
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of
light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in
the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
The granting of the requested variances will not impair light and air to adjacent
properties or increase congestion, danger of fire or endanger public safety.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\VrRt5.DOC
Page 3
5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the character
and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair
established property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way
impair the health safety, and comfort of the area.
The granting of the variance for increased impervious surface area will adversely
affect the above stated values by reducing the infiltration/buffer area which helps to
remove the pollutants and increase the potential for shoreland erosion with
additional upland water runoff into the Prior Lake watershed and floodplain and
thereby affecting the adjacent properties.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of this
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
The granting of the variance is contrary to the intent of the Ordinance or the
Comprehensive Plan by allowing excessive impervious surface conditions than was
originally approved by the City.
7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the
applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or
difficulty.
The granting of the variance requests appears to serve as a convenience to the
applicant.
8. The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this Ordinance
to the affected property and does not result from actions of the owners of the
property.
The hardship results from the actions of the property owner when he constructed the
dwelling in 1995.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone
shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Financial considerations alone shall not be grounds for granting this variance
request. The property owner helped to create the need for these variance requests
by not following the approved conditions for the original building permit.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends the Planning Commission deny the applicants variance
request of 57.5% impervious surface area as the applicant did not meet all of the
hardship criteria, and require the property to meet an impervious surface area
the Planning Commission deems appropriate under the circumstances. As a
condition staff recommends the applicant provide a revised survey to depict the
required impervious surface area as adopted by the Planning Commission and
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\VrRt5.DOC
Page 4
the applicant shall submit a driveway permit application to the City to verify the
conditions have been met.
AL TERNA TIVES:
1. Approve the variance as requested by the applicant, in this case, the
Planning Commission should direct staff to draft a Resolution with findings
approving the Variance request.
2. Approve a lesser variance to impervious surface as deemed appropriate
by the Planning Commission. In this case, the Planning Commission
should direct the applicant to provide a revised survey and impervious
surface calculation worksheet identifying the area to be removed, and
direct the staff to prepare a Resolution with Findings approving the
variance request.
3. Deny the variance as requested by the applicant. In this case, the
Planning Commission should adopt the attached Resolution 01-011 PC.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Staff recommends alternative #3.
1. A motion and second to adopt the attached Resolution 01-011 PC denying
the applicants request for a 57.5% impervious surface coverage area.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\VrRt5.DOC
Page 5
--
RESOLUTION 01-011PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 2,115 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AREA OF 4,422 SQUARE FEET (57.5%),
RAltlEK THAN TtlE MAXIMUM REQUIRED AREA OF 2,307 SQUARE FEET (30%)
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
I. Mr. D. Mark Crouse (applicant/owner) has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance
in order to permit the construction of an attached deck and paved parking and patio area to a
single family residence on property located in the R-I (Low Density Residential) District and
the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit;
15507 Calmut Avenue NE, legally described as Lot 9, and that part of Lot 10, North
Grainwood, and that part of Government Lot 5, Section 25, Township 115, Range
22, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest comer of said Lot 10; thence southerly along the
westerly line of said Lots 10 and 9 and also 8', a distance of 165.00 feet to the actual
point of beginning of the land to be described; thence westerly along the north line
of said plat to the easterly right-of-way line of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and
Pacific Railroad; thence northerly along said easterly right-of-way line to its
intersection with the westerly extension of the southerly line of the northerly 45.00
feet (as measured at right angles to the northerly line) of said Lot 10; thence easterly
along said southerly line to the shoreline of Prior Lake; thence southerly along said
shoreline to the south line of said Lot 9; thence westerly along said south line of said
Lot 9, to the southwest comer thereof; thence southerly along the westerly line of
said Lot 8, to the actual point of beginning.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case
#0 1-0 17PC and held hearings thereon on June 25, 2001, and on July 23, 2001.
3. The Board of Adjustment continued the hearing to August 27, 2001, to allow the applicant
time to present additional information.
4. The Board of Adjustment further continued the hearing to September 10,2001, at the request
of the applicant.
5. On September 10,2001, the Board of Adjustment continued the review of the application for
variances and allowed the applicant and other interested parties the opportunity to present
their views.
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\01-0 17\dnyrs4.doc
1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
6. 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.
7. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, the proposed
variance will result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire,
and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort,
morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
8. The applicant was directed by previous variance and building permit conditions as to the
amount of impervious surface area, such that the hardship created has been created by the
applicant. Reasonable use of the property exists without the requested variances.
9. There is no justifiable hardship caused by the required by the ordinance as reasonable use of
the property exists without the granting of the variance.
10. The granting of the variance as requested, is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial pwperty right of the applicant. The variance will serve merely as
a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship. The
factors above allow for an alternative structure to be permitted with a reduced variance or
none at all.
11. The contents of Planning Case 00-017PC are hereby entered into and made a part of the
public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the following
variance for an impervious surface area greater than 30% of the lot area, as shown in Attachment
1 Survey;
1. A 2,115 square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of 4,422 square
feet (57.5%), rather than the allowed maximum area of2,307 square feet (30%).
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on September 10, 2001.
Thomas E. V onhof, Commission Chair
AUhST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\01-0 17\dnyrs4,doc
2
ATTACHMENT 1
~ tORtll.R
~f \.01 ,0
... \0
Of \.0'
"'''' \.\tlE --_.~--
""" //\
\
\
\
o
W
%
ST tAH J.S-....:r.. g
RItA l\; ..~,1t\.l\r. . .,,'. ~
:. . :';~.;~!.t.':;~l!{ ";i~ ~
~\";'~: ,,'I:i~F'~.i::'~', SAt-\, tAH
';;::,;i~t ""tt
'-
,
\
UJ
::>
z
Ul
.>
<1
'.t:'
..
--/_.-:--\
'f . \
t,;, \
-,0 ~
- ...
~ ~
\/1
u.I
%
:'
u.I
It.
o
S-
\II
J
~
&:
~
l;:l
~
. ~~':. II'
,.', '
\
.,
,
I
)
\-
.. <t.
-0:.
9'.':'
, ;.
'" ',"
:, ~
~. ..', ..'~~.
- , ,... . '" ".~':
.~. . , ': '" .;,~.
~~ . ,;t ~ : ~i
"
C (\\\\ N
i:~ -;1:1
() II
- t) III
i __ ~
\ ~;), ( ;~, I ~,
1\ I I-~ ',j'.' I () ~ -\ '<J1
'\ / .....-:, ( ) ~ <1;
.. I 1 \
i.." \
- . \ \
\' \ ~J \
\ t> \
\ If \ ,\.\, S
\ N ....1'1".,
\ ~ ,AO::> \
\ ~, ,\0\ o6L~\ .
e, \ ' 0\ 9?- .', '" .,.
f-ll I I"::,l, .._"_'"
~'\I, -l' (V., _'--._. ' ,,\
.-t;3~,\\\ \\V,., /::\
------. ~ '. .' \' fi ,\
/ -~. -'--:',"\\ ~:~ \.'," \
, , \. -~, .\ !
\\\\
\7, \
,. 12
" ~
\\\\ "
, ;~~\\\,:,:, '.
~.
~~. \.
'.
\'n~<J
/1
t. '(),
( ~~, '<~\
.{:.?.... / (:
f' -t'1
~> ;
(~
i "~
.-; '.,
/
\
.\
. n,e. I -,
,. ,
,) I rf', ,',\ \
'- -:je(\'
-,'- '\";I
')\"'~'~ IS'
l:\rl'-
u
\'
lJ)
f_~~
I
\0
.~,
(,
l'
rf\
t
/
"t.
f'"\
In
<\
~~ .-
i--' (,..~
("' 1"\
~ -\
reI
\.
~./'
-
":1
rl'}
I:'
\'"
..J.
A,~
uc\
0\0 .
)j,' .
\, .:
. I /", \' , ._
\,,) _.,~\
.~,~'~f .' '/ "
. c \ , n (!op~
to ")1"'\ \ r "')
", '1, " '; ql <\ (
':, \,; . 'I"" s.~:..,." ~ \"
" -'t;,Jff ~..> \\\IPI'1-=>}' \.
.1,,,.. -.... \ rt1 \
' '-'7 .,_- ,<'-' \, ;.-. \ '
"G"J -<.... ' \ 2\
- . q II \ \ '\ r:}
.' ,(,1 C)., . .( HI I"~ 0
' - 'f ., ",""1, ~" I .,.
" cC ,<r. ""., \f.'~-:;'rl\. ' ITI
--1 'f --1 ~ ~\ ;>, ('t\ ._ \ \ . <)
~ ", 10\ :> ", \l! . ", '\"'" ,\ _' __
'.:,Ii --:>..">\'<1 \ i,n" .
.\ 00 ','\1 " \\._ \
1- OS _\~\\\' '-
c\t, '.
~:
t_.
"
z~
f<"\
U
r'
, \
\ <':,
t 1,0
\_~';j C)
'"'\-:':i "1 ., "~0~
, \~ ~,~
_\.~ t-' '1
", t,
1,"
o
r)
\
\ /:a\'"
\~1:l}.
,~'Bi~
-.,
I' ; :~r'
- f'I J., tf,~
l1J\"tur>)
11\
1-,
1_
'Z- i
fr\
"
:h
~
I
~f,'\
(l
.~ ','
,) "
1.17 \ '..
(j\ \
o 1,,;,.
" ,\ \..
';d\ _ +.
\, '\
\' '-. \
, \
\
~,\ ,',',1,.:
'<. \ '
<,;. .~
Gi\
(.~. -;;:......
,,;.;.. [I' \
1'\ \
~ \
\ (:~\
-, V,, '6 '01,1;
" c: 1 ';\:'!}.
(;\ . I -y'"\.
t:- 1Jl\
, "N. 'U\
0\... ., -f~\
-- ~
fJ) '()
~
'.
..,.
n
J;1l'>
r'"'
~:
(::.
.~\
\
\
\
. ?3 \
',,\ "'~ 90~
\ , tri':r~~
',~:J
~
"'....,
rn
z
(~ffi
, ,...-!
f1fl
f), '0""
<::1;'\1" " \
<, , ,<I . .,
~",,(\
q'il"-
In
...----'_~.....:......_ &...___....P~_ "" _...._.._.... k->4_ ........."..-....
...:.._.._..".u;..'''.......:......... ~..:&_-_.. '- p-.-.-----~~......-------_.._--
... t\';~t::.:;!;(.'(;>~:;:;,:.:..:::.y.};)':":; ,\:::'/1:.: ':;~>~.:; '}:':< . . ": ATTACHME'NT;' 2
';:~lo;t~jt;.~.f-;~;bi;l,t~;;;;;fr\;c-~w.m::y;~!Bi}:";~f,~;;~':{~;,:~';; ~~:".?[.,~;~.}:'::..;.r;,d;\:;::. ''')!/A,''':'.;~
'.' ." . I.:" ...... .... ..... .. :'.... ..' ,. . .,CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ." . . ..... ,'.' " .. ,. 'J'.
/i;' i: .:~:('~r~~~<:; :;).<;:.:;::!:/jp!'P~~9~S;.~ ~r,t~ ~~:q aI c tii;l,t{~ii~".,;;;" ;" :::' ;::')': ': ,,:i,:: ". ,.
. ,... . ......-:.:: , :..:.. . .."'.;.. ;.':':':'''::.,>: .:: !':" . : :' .,:'.': (To b_e'Submltted with BuIlding Permit Application) .:..:' . ". .,', ,-.". .'. '. .'; ." ". :'. .:.... ....: .:..... .
.,y.::.:.:t.:.:.....~,.::........::.E'....::~. ~":. ..'" .J:;:':...::.........,\..~..:..,.. ..... ~ ., .... ,'" ....:..:..... ..': . "r. ':..."..',,::;:.
:...,..: >:'.:. ..~;.,-\>._~.::.~~~;..".i,-<:):,:/,.:,9r-!:\1.1~P.~~.p.~~~.e~;.-~~.pa~~q)~ ~~~..,~~~r..ela:~d:l?~str1~t (8.1;)).>.';;. .:;.::: .> :<'.;~:,..:.,.::':.::~-"< .~>..
.~.; :/\:'I:~": :~~..>::<>. ~~.~.rp.~:;.~axI~~m:..T!tipe.rv.f:Q,uf~~!.fac~.-:9.qv.~;r.~g~);e.~itt~d 'i1l'3_0'Perc~rit/ .... ::':........:::~.::... \... ":. ":. !,<
..::',\.:.':--=:,\..:......:. ;:.::- "'::},;:::',:;-;"\.:.~,.>.:--::":..'.~;-:::~"',, '.:~::-.'.;:.~...L:.::>.:..:;:....,.:..,:;.<. .:":';).:' ,.,>:.;:' '..:..': .:.' . ":.:., . .. :. .;., '.: ;'::,:':';"" .,.:'. '.
. ,,;:.;l'top~rtY:'A'da.r~s~ ';;J~'6:1rQA;;,\",,~<~~~; "~'a. .. ". .' ". . '" . '. '''" . ". . . .'." ., ;', . ~'" . ':'~,::
';":~.Jo~i~~q'':.:~ii~~;;;Zi~,;!.:?:",/':: :'.::,; r;::'~'1.'~~ii{.~:'3~~<:.: ;;;::..:.~,. '.' .:t~~1~:'~ ....3: . ;:;'.>:.:.~:;. ..... .,: .
'-.:..,~,:..:.*'I[i:*.***.*.~.i!c.il(*.**."."':i(cI{l'i1i Ilf+:*~~'ljcl\l.*IJhlc'J\4*:*.'\l.*ili..*1Ic.**'***.*lJcl{l*.!i4**.*1Iolc.****.*"",*iIc'*:(4I{1'IICljllIICl~!IC* ** '" :.: .::"..: ..... .... "
..... .-'.,: ." '.f' .;, .:~' ....: :..;' :.:. .... ,,":' : ....; :' :,': TOTAL PlUNCIPLE.STRUCTURE....................... "Z \C:;2;.' ...... .:' '. '.. .
y;,~;,;; ;{:!.\{ r,;;c...;; j.J:(:; \.);".\ ;.} :'; '~:\:.:;,L"', ,/;". ",:~ :;.Y\>', .'::.'"..' ' .'. ' . . .:..: .' .: J<,~i\: ,:
.: . ,DETACltED.:BLOGS'....., "".., '. " :,' '. ..'.:l..., .~. ."'X .' :,';.'. ..:" .... ,..... . .:" . '''. ........... ,..., ,,' '-' .":.
:.."~;::r..,.:;.,. :.":'~':':":"':::'.;.v: .:....;.:} :"'.:."!,:.~/~.<.;): ..': .......::. '." :" .>-'::';"',':;: ~::'''''/,::. .> :.........:.>.':;:;..; .>.'.. .' . .:.... '.<::< .:~ ': '. :'. . : :"-.'. ......::. . ',' '.~ ..' ::"'- .'
.....................(Oarase/Shed), ..,.......~...,.,...:... :.... x.,.... ,..,.;'.:....... ,."" . ...."....' .,....
.:: ,\)}':::;y,;::, ~;;;~,{ ~~:;?;}:~ it"':: .~. ."', .' .,' .;' ..; .;; ..... ,. .' .' ".: ': ':'. ....... ~ ..' . "L (:',i} ; :<:?,' /.
. ,o!- .;.' ;:...;:.;.~., ':'. :'..!\:-;': . .,:;.. :~,....': ;:'.:, :TO:TA;I;J P;ET;\C~~D.:B~DIN.GS~........,......~.........' '" . ". .-' " .-.:' ,'.i .:. ':'. ,:.'
::":.:". :~~~~>\;J~~ q~ :s\~~'<i:s>:<.:)~. :..:'...:: ..'-:" .:.\.. ::.'?....:~., '.<' t. :".:.: :.~(: :..:.: :'. '. I: :....: . : ~ :,: ::... :.. :,,:, :. :'.:: :. '.:. .:.~ ..,... ;.,:. .. ':'- < .:. .;. <.:- '.
~'. .' , ". '.. . .": ." . . ..... ..;.".... . '.: :'. . :;'. :;, ':: ".: ,~:: :'. ::.;', :-,.: _. . ". : ';. . ,:.': ',' :.:' .'. '.:' ,,:" ;:...... .;' ..... ..:' :". .' ',:' .<.. . .. .: :'.:' ~ ':. .:'...- '.. ":.1.. .:.,~.,; . ; '.'. -: .
.' , DRIVEWAYIPAVEDAREAS" " .!..'..' .' 0'/ X' ...... .' ...... = 1.!J.;.i:O.... ", '" . . ", .......
'. .......;\. W;I~~;V~X'p.~~~r n~!l<; ;:,~:'. :'/' .. ;~.:::... '" >( .... :,,' ... '. . .' ...,.:.' . < .' ,;::'::";'
:......, :'.' :':-(SldeV,i~lklParki"iigArea.s)" ..~.;",i.~"" '. '''::':.~>:(/'::...'':(~)''.'.;i:::>f.i.''~,,~:'.,:...;;.:.:!F;'" .'" ...'~; ""..:,:::". . . ,. ~.. '.:::; '. .::."':',~ -;'-"",
. .i",{,;%::'i,.}:i{::: '7:/FN' ';i;.~'i:,::i1T.&tiL'p;\. \iti>'fulsS..;:2;C.;..;:...:.:....:...~.;:.: ,: '~-i1'>b . ,'.".' ..;.;".;.,. ;
.' . ..,~.: ., .. '. ~:. . .,'.. '. :. ,.,. ". ... ~. ." . ~ . ..': '. :. ; .
. .' .... :.i.. .. . ". ....:
... .... . . ...' ..' I ."::.': . ..... ...; :' .;.&.~:.~.. .: : '"
. ".:.. . . .:. t .' .
. " .' ';'.. :..l.:.._.' . ;~.. . .:";,,,,:.:,:.~..,.. ..: . ... . , :. I'. "'~.' ~ '.'
. ..' . 7 . . ~:: . ~.. .'
:",' '.' . '. ,.. '. '::'.. ;' I.....
. .. ,~~
'~:/:":."" :.~ I. .... ...~. .=...:
':.'. ..:..' /. :';: . . .
....::.'f..;:. ':'~':''-'.. :..../;.../:'::.';,.:'.:,:.',' ::":":'.:. :.:..,......'..',:'.'..:... ,: .: ". .. .:.,,:'.
'.1' ,...:..../: .T.01.AL '.DE CI{S:...;.....~..... ....................~.i..~................. i.~.u...'... .
...:...::.... ';.' ..::.;..... .','.,<. ...>;:.: ': '.' ..;....,... . . '. :.-
. . :;:' ::.... ',':/..::+~:~:': ':':: :" ,. '.' ;', ._:~.~
. ," ..Q!f?l~,\";".t;,,,<. . ..\ ~. '.
". .: . . "::,.\ :-:..:.\.::-.:"..::." :~:. <:: . ..,.::.,..... .::;;i> \ .-:i :: -< . '. .' :.:. ,'. :.;' '"
. '....~. ..:: ;...... ::..'..:...~1;.OT.AL OT~.~.E.~~.!..;.~.,...~..l!...:.~~....~~....;~.....i...................~.:.....;... .. .....
?;:rdjtt;~i1iR~6~~.S~~A2lt'. ..' '" ',:' .....
::~ri~6~JEF:).'..}. .'.: ..... ..... ..... ..... .. .' ........ .... .
;i"p;:gj~~~Rd~..C "
fJ(g~~f~'~.~:\;~'~~.~~~~~;:i~,5~"~~'(P.i~.. '.'
'{;. :.... ... '. ..: .. i:
.."
,,~ .. .
....,
. ..&.
..:::
.,..:.
. . ;. ~ , .
:..':.
..... .........::'
...\....
..', ....
.- .
. .'
" '.'
....
....
..': \
:."
. .'. ~ .'
..!......=.:
.' . '. ~~'. .
.' ..
'. . .
, ::., ..:\
.. . ~
:/1' : .' '!i~.~:~: '->:;' /. <.:/;~ ':.",/: :",:'-~,.:.::'
. . ''1'1't..-v- ..' ". '.
I ,:2.l\~
. ...J ::.
.... .
i'
..;:..~:.b:a~e:': . '\i ':"~'l \j,y ., .-
;~6j~#~~;~:L~1'b ~
~, ..
.-.
......: .? :~:~. ::~"
. .', ': .
'.
. :~;..X':
. ~'...
.::.., . .:.;: :
..;.... .
..': ;:.
.....
...... .
. .t....;.
. ~~....
. ~. ..... .
.. .'
.:.....l... .
...r;
.., ....
. .....
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
5B
CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING A
VARIANCE FOR AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
COVERAGE AREA OF 36%, FOR D. MARK CROUSE,
Case File #01-017PC
15507 CALMUT AVENUE NE
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001
The Planning Department received a variance application from property owner
Mr. D. Mark Crouse for an impervious surface coverage area of 4,422 square
feet or 57.5% of the total lot area on the property located at 15507 Calmut
Avenue NE (Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey).
The Planning Commission conducted public hearings on this item on June 25,
2001, on July 23, 2001, and on September 10, 2001. After review of the
applicant's request with respect to variance hardship criteria, the Planning
Commission directed staff to draft Resolution 01-011 PC approving the following
Variance with conditions:
1. A 461 square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of
2,768 square feet or 36% of the lot area above the 904 foot elevation
(OHWM), rather than the maximum allowable 2,307 square feet or 30%.
The following conditions must be adhered to as part of the Variance Resolution:
1. The applicant shall submit to the City of Prior Lake a revised certificate of
survey identifying the impervious surface to remain on the lot and the
impervious surface to be removed to verify all conditions of this Variance
Resolution are met.
2. Resolution 01-011 PC as adopted by the Planning Commission shall be
recorded at Scott County within 60 days of the date of approval and proof of
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E" Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
recording shall be submitted to the Planning Department along with the
acknowledged Assent Form.
RECOMMENDATION:
The attached Resolution is consistent with the Planning Commission's direction
for approval of the Variance to impervious surface coverage area. The staff
therefore recommends adoption of Resolution 01-011PC.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt the attached Variance Resolution 01-011 PC approving the Variance
with conditions that the Planning Commission deemed appropriate under the
circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A Motion and second adopting Resolution 01-011 PC approving a maximum 36%
impervious surface coverage of the lot area above the 904 foot elevation
(OHWM), with conditions.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\ VarRpt6.doc
Page 2
RESOLUTION Ol-Ol1PC
A RESOLUTION AI.r: .I.,-OVING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE COVERAGE AREA OF 36%, RAl.I::I.EJ.{ THAN l.w. MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE AREA OF 30%
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Mr. D. Mark Crouse (applicant/owner) has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance
in order to permit a paved driveway area to a single family residence with attached garage on
property located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland
Overlay) District at the following location, to wit;
15507 Calmut Avenue NE, legally described as Lot 9, and that part of Lot 10, North
Grainwood, and that part of Government Lot 5, Section 25, Township 115, Range
22, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest corner of said Lot 10; thence southerly along the
westerly line of said Lots 10 and 9 and also 8', a distance of 165.00 feet to the actual
point of beginning of the land to be described; thence westerly along the north line
of said plat to the easterly right-of-way line of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and
Pacific Railroad; thence northerly along said easterly right-of-way line to its
intersection with the westerly extension of the southerly line of the northerly 45.00
feet (as measured at right angles to the northerly line) of said Lot 10; thence easterly
along said southerly line to the shoreline of Prior Lake; thence southerly along said
shoreline to the south line of said Lot 9; thence westerly along said south line of said
Lot 9, to the southwest corner thereof; thence southerly along the westerly line of
said Lot 8, to the actual point of beginning.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case
#Ol-017PC and held hearings thereon on June 25, 2001, and on July 23,2001.
3. The Board of Adjustment continued the hearing to August 27, 2001, to allow the applicant
time to present additional information.
4. The Board of Adjustment further continued the hearing to September 10, 2001, at the request
ofthe applicant.
5. On September 10,2001, the Board of Adjustment continued the review of the application for
variances and allowed the applicant and other interested parties the opportunity to present
their views.
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1-017\aprvrs.doc I
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E" Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNllY EMPLOYER
6. 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 CUlU}-I.ehensive Plan.
7. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, the variance
will not result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties,
unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and danger
to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in
any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
8. The impervious surface area required for a driveway is such that the hardship created has not
been created by the applicant. However, there is no justifiable hardship for the additional
impervious surface area.
9. There is a justifiable hardship caused by the requirements of the ordinance, as reasonable use
of the property does not exist without the granting of the variance for a hard surface
driveway from the street to the garage, which would not be permitted without a variance.
There is no justifiable hardship for the additional impervious surface area requested.
10. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment ofa substantial
property right of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the
applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
11. The contents of Planning Case 00-017PC are hereby entered into and made a part of the
public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves the following
variance for an impervious surface area no greater than 36%, as shown in a Revised Attachment
1 Certificate of Survey:
1. A variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of 36% of the lot area above the
904 foot elevation, rather than the allowed maximum area of 30%.
The following conditions must be adhered to as part of the approved variance Resolution:
1. The applicant submit to the City of Prior Lake a revised certificate of survey identifying the
impervious surface to remain and the impervious surface to be removed to verify all
conditions of this Variance Resolution shall be met.
2. Resolution 01-011PC as adopted by the Planning Commission shall be recorded at Scott
County within 60 days of the date of approval and proof of recording shall be submitted to
the Planning Department along with the acknowledged Assent Form.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on September 24, 2001.
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1-0 17\aprvrs.doc
2
Thomas E. V onhof, Commission Chair
ArThST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\01 fiIes\O 1 variances\O 1-0 1 7\aprvrs.doc
3
,
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
PLANNING REPORT
4A
CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING A
VARIANCE FOR AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
COVERAGE AREA OF 38%, FOR D. MARK CROUSE,
Case File #01-017PC
15507 CALMUT AVENUE NE
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES X NO
OCTOBER 8, 2001
The Planning Department received a variance application from property owner
Mr. D. Mark Crouse for an impervious surface coverage area of 4,422 square
feet or 57.5% of the total lot area on the property located at 15507 Calmut
Avenue NE (Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey).
The Planning Commission conducted public hearings on this item on June 25,
2001, on July 23, 2001, and on September 10, 2001. After review of the
applicant's request with respect to the variance hardship criteria, the Planning
Commission directed staff to draft a resolution approving a variance to allow an
impervious surface of 36 %.
On September 24,2001, the Planning Commission reconsidered their earlier
action. The Commission determined a 36% impervious surface would not allow
a driveway. The Commission therefore approved a 38% impervious surface and
directed staff to prepare a resolution.
1. A variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of 38% of the lot
area above the 904 foot elevation (OHWM), rather than the maximum
allowable coverage of 30%.
The following conditions must be adhered to as part of the Variance Resolution:
1. The applicant shall submit to the City of Prior Lake a revised certificate of
survey identifying the impervious surface to remain on the lot and the
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S,E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph, (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
impervious surface to be removed to verify all conditions of this Variance
Resolution are met within 60 days of the date of approval.
2. Resolution 01-011 PC as adopted by the Planning Commission shall be
recorded at Scott County within 60 days of the date of approval and proof of
recording shall be submitted to the Planning Department along with the
acknowledged Assent Form.
RECOMMENDATION:
The attached Resolution is consistent with the Planning Commission's direction
for approval of the Variance to impervious surface coverage area. The staff
therefore recommends adoption of Resolution 01-011 PC.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt the attached Variance Resolution 01-011 PC approving the Variance
with conditions that the Planning Commission deemed appropriate under the
circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
ACTION REQUIRED:
A Motion and second adopting Resolution 01-011PC approving a maximum 38%
impervious surface coverage of the lot area above the 904 foot elevation
(OHWM), with conditions.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\VarRpt6.doc
Page 2
.-- ~.
RESOLUTION Ol-OllPC
A RESOLUTION M ~ L"OVING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE COVERAGE AREA OF 38%, RAl..t1li.R THAN .1.UJjj MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE AREA OF 30%
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Mr. D. Mark Crouse (applicant/owner) has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance
in order to permit a paved driveway area to a single family residence with attached garage on
property located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland
Overlay) District at the following location, to wit;
15507 Calmut Avenue NE, legally described as Lot 9, and that part of Lot 10, North
Grainwood, and that part of Government Lot 5, Section 25, Township 115, Range
22, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest corner of said Lot 10; thence southerly along the
westerly line of said Lots 10 and 9 and also 8', a distance of 165.00 feet to the actual
point of beginning of the land to be described; thence westerly along the north line
of said plat to the easterly right-of-way line of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and
Pacific Railroad; thence northerly along said easterly right-of-way line to its
intersection with the westerly extension of the southerly line of the northerly 45.00
feet (as measured at right angles to the northerly line) of said Lot 10; thence easterly
along said southerly line to the shoreline of Prior Lake; thence southerly along said
shoreline to the south line of said Lot 9; thence westerly along said south line of said
Lot 9, to the southwest corner thereof; thence southerly along the westerly line of
said Lot 8, to the actual point of beginning.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case
#01-017PC and held hearings thereon on June 25, 2001, and on July 23,2001.
3. The Board of Adjustment continued the hearing to August 27, 2001, to allow the applicant
time to present additional information.
4. The Board of Adjustment further continued the hearing to September 10,2001, at the request
of the applicant.
5. On September 10,2001, the Board of Adjustment continued the review of the application for
variances and allowed the applicant and other interested parties the opportunity to present
their views.
1:\0 1 fi1es\O 1 variances\Ol-Ol7\aprvrs.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E" Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
~
"
6. 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.
7. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, the variance
will not result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties,
unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and danger
to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in
any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
8. The impervious surface area required for a driveway is such that the hardship created has not
been created by the applicant. However, there is no justifiable hardship for the additional
impervious surface area.
9. There is a justifiable hardship caused by the requirements of the ordinance, as reasonable use
of the property does not exist without the granting of the variance for a hard surface
driveway from the street to the garage, which would not be permitted without a variance.
There is no justifiable hardship for the additional impervious surface area requested.
10. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment ofa substantial
property right of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the
applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
11. The contents of Planning Case 00-017PC are hereby entered into and made a part of the
public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves the following
variance for an impervious surface area no greater than 38%, as shown in a Revised Attachment
1 Certificate of Survey:
1. A variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of 38% of the lot area above the
904 foot elevation, rather than the allowed maximum area of 30%.
The following conditions must be adhered to as part of the approved variance Resolution:
1. The applicant shall submit to the City of Prior Lake a revised certificate of survey
identifying the impervious surface to remain and the impervious surface to be removed to
verify all conditions of this Variance Resolution shall be met within 60 days of the date of
approval.
2. Resolution 01-0 IIPC as adopted by the Planning Commission shall be recorded at Scott
County within 60 days of the date of approval and proof of recording shall be submitted to
the Planning Department along with the acknowledged Assent Form.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on October 8, 2001.
1:\01 fi1es\O 1 variances\Ol-Ol7\aprvrs.doc
2
..-
Thomas E. V onhof, Commission Chair
AllhST:
Donald R. Rye, Planning Director
1:\01 files\O I variances\O 1-0 17\aprvrs.doc
3
-,
Resolution
and ~inutes
(Je 1JtLfLlV&~ FZC] -C} /
f e 171A_l~&LCJ; Co v~;-~) I
t~ ~l~ )-9- oJ
1m 7~? ~7--J-?-VJ
~ l/Li~uf2"Z ~ ~ CJ-7 ~D I
fa ~ Cj~(O-o/
fa ~,~~ CJ-L<f-C)
~. DI-OtArC
U g- - ~ v ( f0LLVU.A~
L:\TEMPLATE\Fll.EINFO.DOC
RESOLUTION 01-008PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 71 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT
STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM Tl1E ORDINARY mGH WATER MARK
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment ofthe City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Mr. D. Mark Crouse (applicant/owner) has applied for variances from the Zoning
Ordinance in order to permit the construction of an attached deck to a single family
residence on property located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) District and the
SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit;
15507 Calmut Avenue NE, legally described as Lot 9, and that part of Lot 10,
North Grainwood, and that part Government Lot 5, Section 25, Township 115,
Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest comer of said Lot 10; thence southerly along
the westerly line of said Lots 10 and 9 and also 8, a distance of 165.00 feet to
the actual point of beginning of the land to be described; thence westerly
along the north line of said plat to the easterly right-of-way line of the
Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad; thence northerly along
said easterly right-of-way line to its intersection with the westerly extension of
the southerly line of the northerly 45.00 feet (as measured at right angles to
the northerly line) of said Lot 10; thence easterly along said southerly line to
the shoreline of Prior Lake; thence southerly along said shoreline to the south
line of said Lot 9; thence westerly along said south line of said Lot 9, to the
southwest comer thereof; thence southerly along the westerly line of said Lot
8, to the actual point of beginning.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in
Case #01-0l7PC and held hearings thereon on June 25,2001.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the p.lvposed 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.
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1-0 17\dny rs2.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S,E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph, (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, the
proposed variance will result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air
to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase
the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair
health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning
Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
5. A legal building envelope exists that meets the required setback for the structure on
the subject lot, such that the hardship created has been created by the applicant.
Reasonable use of the pJ.vperty exists without the requested variances.
6. There is no justifiable hardship caused by the required lakeshore setback as
reasonable use of the property exists without the granting of the variance.
7. The granting of the variance, as originally requested, is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial pJ.Uperty right of the applicant. The
variance will serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to
alleviate demonstrable hardship. The factors above allow for an alternative structure
to be permitted with a reduced variance or none at all.
8. The contents of Planning Case OO-Ol7PC are hereby entered into and made a part of
the public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the
following variance for an attached deck to an existing single family dwelling, as shown in
Attachment 1 Survey;
1. A 71 foot variance to permit a structure setback of 4 feet llutu the ordinary high water
mark of904 feet, rather than the required 75 foot structure setback.
The following condition must be adhered to as part of the appJ.oved Variance Resolution:
1. Resolution 01-008PC as adopted by the Planning Commission shall be recorded at
Scott County and proof of recording shall be submitted to the Planning Department
along with the acknowledged Assent Form.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on June 25, 2001.
-/ ~ 7, vA
Arrk1~( t Thomas E. Vonhot; Commission ~
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1-0 17\dny rs2.doc
2
..
\
,..
o
uJ
%
S1 :~T}-:',<y'. . .' ~
RP' .: '.,jo7.':'\,.!i:..,?, 4
;. '\~~~;;'r:.:,. UI
. . \:'-.;1.... '.1'... I'. ....
;.... . ,;' ~""'!.l.:\,.l~'. ';;-'0. -
. ;". '-:'1~;~f~i"lil. . .:. SAN MH
t~;.,itJ{">~, ~ .
'.
~.
i '-
ATTACHMENT 1
of \..0'- ,0
'" \..,tlE ,"--
N"'" _--- \
,
\
\
'-
,
\
w
::>
z
W....
.>.
C:t
to
--/. ...:;--\
" . \
t';l '
-,0 '1
\, ~
...
III
~
-, ~
~ ~
o ~
~
\II
J
~
o
~
,
'..:t .
..i-i' 4
. . :I\} :J,
t. Il\~ ~
i!'~ .~'" '2
r'! ')I. ..
~'il. ~
. :~~. ~
of .-
.." :t.
(...~ 0 cJ
':. uJ
'.~ ~
.~':. 'a
uJ
%
:.
\
\
"
)
. . ". ~;~. If'
" ,....,
.\".
.\-
::>
"'~
'0' .::::;,'
..':~..! ~>': . . r ?:~r't
0'
\
" \
,I'.. - \6,50 "'H '-, \.
S 1802.4' 0 \ ", ~'.
0' \0_ '>-.
~ \O~'O
S\ \00 .
0- ~
'a ~~ ~
uJ\ tf'loO
% "
:. (t. :0
~ \
~\
\
.
~: . .~,
"j
.,
....,\ TC ~
.... ,\~...
'., i. . :'~~ t
'. ~ :. . .... . :.~,
0\\\\ N
.
. .
.~.; . '.... .':: '~~::'.
'!' I . . .i(.!....ho ,.. .
'~h ,:,:,.: . '.:' .: ;:' ~.>o:;l
"
RESOLUTION Ol-OllPC
A RESOLUTION Ar L .I:\.oVING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE COVERAGE AREA OF 38%, RAu1J!.I.K THAN J.ttJj; MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE AREA OF 30%
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Mr. D. Mark Crouse (applicant/owner) has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance
in order to permit a paved driveway area to a single family residence with attached garage on
property located in the R-l (Low Density Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland
Overlay) District at the following location, to wit;
15507 Calmut Avenue NE, legally described as Lot 9, and that part of Lot 10, North
Grainwood, and that part of Government Lot 5, Section 25, Township 115, Range
22, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest corner of said Lot 10; thence southerly along the
westerly line of said Lots 10 and 9 and also 8, a distance of 165.00 feet to the actual
point of beginning of the land to be described; thence westerly along the north line
of said plat to the easterly right-of-way line of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and
Pacific Railroad; thence northerly along said easterly right-of-way line to its
intersection with the westerly extension of the southerly line of the northerly 45.00
feet (as measured at right angles to the northerly line) of said Lot 10; thence easterly
along said southerly line to the shoreline of Prior Lake; thence southerly along said
shoreline to the south line of said Lot 9; thence westerly along said south line of said
Lot 9, to the southwest corner thereof; thence southerly along the westerly line of
said Lot 8, to the actual point of beginning.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case
#01-017PC and held hearings thereon on June 25, 2001, and on July 23, 2001.
3. The Board of Adjustment continued the hearing to August 27,2001, to allow the applicant
time to present additional information.
4. The Board of Adjustment further continued the hearing to September 10,2001, at the request
of the applicant.
5. On September 10,2001, the Board of Adjustment continued the review of the application for
variances and allowed the applicant and other interested parties the opportunity to present
their views.
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1-0 17\aprvrs.doc 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
6. 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.
7. Because of conditions on the subject }-IHJperty and on the surrounding property, the variance
will not result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties,
unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and danger
to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in
any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
8, The impervious surface area required for a driveway is such that the hardship created has not
been created by the applicant. However, there is no justifiable hardship for the additional
impervious surface area.
9. There is a justifiable hardship caused by the requirements of the ordinance, as reasonable use
of the property does not exist without the granting of the variance for a hard surface
driveway from the street to the garage, which would not be permitted without a variance.
There is no justifiable hardship for the additional impervious surface area requested.
10. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment ofa substantial
property right of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the
applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
11. The contents of Planning Case 00-OI7PC are hereby entered into and made a part of the
public record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves the following
variance for an impervious surface area no greater than 38%, as shown in a Revised Attachment
1 Certificate of Survey:
1. A variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of 38% of the lot area above the
904 foot elevation, rather than the allowed maximum area of 30%.
The following conditions must be adhered to as part of the approved variance Resolution:
1. The applicant shall submit to the City of Prior Lake a revised certificate of survey
identifying the impervious surface to remain and the impervious surface to be removed to
verify all conditions of this Variance Resolution shall be met within 60 days of the date of
approval.
2. Resolution OI-OIIPC as adopted by the Planning Commission shall be recorded at Scott
County within 60 days of the date of approval and proof of recording shall be submitted to
the Planning Department along with the acknowledged Assent Form.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on October 8, 2001.
1:\01 files\Ol variances\Ol-O l7\aprvrs.doc
2
~:
~ Ij\JQ
onald R. Rye Pl '.
, annm
-----7 vi
/~ C'
Thomas E. Vonhof / · d
, Commi7"ir
l:\Olfiles\Olv .
anances\O 1-0 17\a
prvrs.doc
3
SURVEY PREPARED rOR:
MARK CROUSE
15'.107 CALMUT AVE. NE
PRIOR LAKE. MN. 55372
Valley Surveying Co" P A,
SUITE 230, FRANKLIN TRAIl. OFFICE CONDOMINIUM
16670 FRANKUM TRAIL S.E.
PRIOR LAKE, t,M""...rA 55372
TELEPHONE (612)447-2570
~
~
:::)
tn
u.
0
w
~ "
0
-
u.
-
~ .
W
0
I
~
- ~
Z
w
:E
:t:
~
~
!ci
~.;.~..
~"<lf
Ii '~.~..
V\~~,p-o-c' ~ l
ICt ,."A
,,,,,~or.'
.... ..-
~\o~
P ,
\.j).~~
...,.
_~ASI!ItOVIDED:
Lal'lIIIlIdlId.....ofLat 10, .M.....GRAlI.""~_...,.ond dlIdpulof ,.
,,,,,,SeollaaU, I'., .".-, 1I',Rmsou._cOIInIy,a:, ~., . ._'......
.~
.t. _ .'"Iltlle ,,,.,,_ofDidLatIO;_-"""YBIonsdle
.~ liaeofDid LCIlS 10 ond 9 ond aim 8,. __ of 16~.OO Ikt... thoodUll
,"""of, .,." '.", ofdlellllllllDbe( _..,7. .I.__lyatcmsthe_liaeof
Did plot lDlbe -'r risJIl--or-..., line oflbe CIdcoso. MlIwoul<<e. Sl. PoaIIIlll
PociIlc RoilRlId; _, .. _'.' atcmsllllid-'r ri8bl--or-..., line lD lis
- ,...,..:._ _lbe_, " ...:, _ O(Iho_. ""',' liaeoflbe~4'.OO
_'IS ..,,,.. llfl8hlqloslOlbollDllllerlJllne)ofsoidLat IO;"""'~
-.soidlUlllberl,lInelDlbe'- .." ofPriarLlke:....... ..,J ,'. al""8ll1ic1
,. ,..1 . lDlbe_llneo(soid Lol 9:- "~,,,.:., atcmsllllid_li1Ieoh"d
Lat9,...lbe,." ,,,, _, _tbenlof.- _" ",. ,;, .....Ibe_,liaeof....
LatI,...lbeodUllplinlo(' .L'-"'-
lIOTl!S:n.__,."." \~ 909.51 Topo(lbeaisciasp'''8..Jab
916.4 _-.pIeefcnlion
x
Pt. ....1.0'.(\.. !,,'" kl"!l,...\'. 'Nh., "U.:I\'.J.sn.....
rRO!.' IMPf,~IOU'^',i,o\ ~.....~.
Pl', .,-:.':?/.\I fl) .~.",'\o. ,.,U'CfiV100<; Il.tttA~
. 0 'llMAlh. P[~. :""l'h'U."
o
20
40
r hereoy -Ufr .... "'" "'"'01
_, "." ..,_cr_..,
dI.... __ ond _ 10m
a duIJ ~ Lond SurHy1lr
~~.~'-',!",s_'"
_ r:: ._-.l//: - ". ~
Iiato ""-"_,~~NO.IOI83
I
SCALE IN Fl!ET
0_....._0It.
.----
.
,.ILI NO
9240
BOClK...!22.. PAGE 48
ASSENT OF APPLICANT
File # 0l-017PC
As Approved by Resolution # Ol-OllPC
1. I have read the conclusions and conditions of said Resolution, and I am familiar with
their contents and with the content of the exhibits.
2. I fully accept all of the terms and conditions of said Resolution.
3. I understand Section 1108.400 of the Prior Lake Ordinance Code provides as follows:
1108.413 Revocation and Cancellation of a Variance. A Variance may be
revoked and canceled if the Zoning Administrator determines that the
holder of an existing Variance has violated any of the conditions or
requirements imposed as a condition to approval of the Variance, or has
violated any other applicable laws, ordinances, or enforceable regulation.
1108.414 Mter One Year. No Construction Reauired. All Variances shall be
revoked and canceled if 1 year has elapsed from the date of the adoption
of the resolution granting the Variance and the holder of the Variance
has failed to make substantial use of the premises according to the
provisions contained in the Variance.
1108.415 Mter One Year. New Construction Reauired. All Variances shall be
revoked and canceled after I year has elapsed from the date of the
adoption of the resolution granting the Variance if a new structure or
alteration or substantial repair of an existing building is required by the
Variance and the holder has failed to complete the work, unless a valid
building permit authorizing such work has been issued and work is
progressing in an orderly way.
1108.416 Doon Occurrence of Certain Events. If the holder of a Variance fails
to make actual use of vacant land, or land and structures which were
existing when the Variance was issued and no new structure, alteration
or substantial repair to existing buildings was required; or if a new
structure was required by the Variance and no building permit has been
obtained, the Variance shall be deemed revoked and canceled upon the
occurrence of any of the following events:
(1) A change in the Use District for such lands is made by amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance by the City Council.
L:\OI files\OI variances\O 1-01 7\ASSENT.DOC
1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
(2) Eminent domain proceedings have been initiated to take all or any
part of the premises described in the Variance.
(3) The use described in the Variance becomes an illegal activity under
the laws of the United States of America or the State of Minnesota.
(4) Title to all or part of land described in such Variance is forfeited to
the State of Minnesota for nonpayment of taxes.
(5) The person to whom the Variance was issued files a written statement
in which that person states that the Variance has been abandoned.
The statement shall describe the land involved or state the resolution
number under which the Variance was granted.
(6) The premises for which the Variance was issued are used by the
person to whom the Variance was issued in a manner inconsistent
with the provisions of such Variance.
4. I understand the granting by the City of this Resolution is in reliance on the
r':'pJ..:.sentations that I will fully comply with all of the terms and conditions of said
Resolution. I understand and agree upon notice of non-compliance with any term or
condition, I shall immediately cease conducting activities pursuant to the notice or
will take all actions necessary to accomplish full compliance with said notice and
conditions of the Resolution.
&>/ ~ 1/o~
DATE
s::\ 777/1~ Ci.o~
si~AT0RE OF APPLICANT
-kl_e MmJ-- ~-,-
SIGNATURE OF OWNER
15507 CALMUT AVENUE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY
L:\Ol files\Ol variances\O 1-0 17\ASSENT,DQC
2
........
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, MAY 29, 2001
1. Call to Order:
Chairman V onhof called the May 29, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:34 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego and V onhof, Planning
Director Don Rye, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and Recording Secretary
Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood
Criego
Lemke
Stamson
V onhof
Present
Present
Absent
Absent
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes from the May 14, 2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
Commissioner V onhof read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case File #01-017 - (continued) Mark Crouse is requesting variances for
impervious surface and the ordinary high water mark for the construction of a deck
on the property located at 15507 Calmut Avenue.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated May 29,2001
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
On March 26,2001, the Planning Department received an e-mail from the applicant to
request a postponement of this variance request from the scheduled date of March 26, to
April 23, 2001. On April 20, 2001, the applicant/owner again requested the public
hearing be rescheduled at the end of May due to business commitments.
The applicant e-mailed staff (May 29,2001) stating he would not be able to attend the
Planning Commission meeting. Therefore he is asking for a continuance to June 25,
2001.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO CONTINUE THE MATTER TO
JUNE 25,2001.
L:\OI files\OI plancomm\OI pcminutes\mn052901.doc 1
4-' --,
Planning Commission Meeting
May 29. 2001
The applicant has been out of town due to his business. The City has given the applicant
a dp~rn;ne is June 25, 2001 as this is the third request.
Rye pointed out there was nothing in the ordinance setting a time line. It just a matter of
process.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case File #01-029 - Gary Thomas is requesting a variance to permit a
structure setback less than the minimum requirement from the ordinary-high-water
mark and less than the minimum required setback to the top of bluff for the
property located at 5580 Fairlawn Shores Trail SE.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated May 29, 2001
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application from property owner Gary
Thomas for the construction of a porch addition in the place of an existing deck attached
to an existing single family dwelling on the }'LVPerty located at 5580 Fairlawn Shores
Trail. The principal structure is legal nonconforming dwelling because it was originally
built in the bluff impact zone before bluff setbacks were established. The applicant has
requested the following variances:
. A 2.5 foot variance to permit a porch structure setback of 54 feet to
the ordinary high water mark (904') rather than the required 56.5
foot setback as determined by setback averaging.
And
. A 43 foot variance to permit a porch structure encroachment into the
bluff impact zone rather than the required 25 foot setback from the
top of bluff
Staff determined a bluff is apparent in the side yards of the lot on both sides of the
existing structure when the bluff criteria are applied. Along the east lot line the distance
lluw the 904 foot OHWM to the 929 foot elevation contour is 52 feet with a rise of25
feet for a slope of 48%, and along the west lot line is a distance of 81 feet with a rise of
25 feet. It appears the center portion of the lot and bluffwas excavated when the original
home was built to accommodate a lower level walkout elevation of924.66 feet.
The City Engineering Department submitted comments for this report stating in essence,
approval of the requested variances is contrary to the goals of the Comprehensive Lake
Management Plan, which is to "minimize the transport of nutrients, sediment and runoff
from city streets and lands which impact the Prior Lake watershed, and promotes lake
creep, the encroachment of buildings and impervious areas towards the lakeshore ".
The Department of Natural Resources submitted comments on this request. They are not
opposed to the proposed porch addition provided the slope is determined to be stable and
L:\O I files\O I plancomm\O I pcminutes\mn05290 I.doc 2
\
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, JUNE 25, 2001
1. Call to Order:
Chairman V onhof called the June 25, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:32 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Lemke, Stamson and Vonhof,
Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, and Zoning
Administrator Steve Horsman.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood
Criego
Lemke
Stamson
V onhof
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
Stamson: Page 3 of the minutes includes his comments; however, he was not present at
that meeting. These comments were probably from Bill Criego.
The Minutes from the May 29,2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved with
the above change.
Commissioner V onhof read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case File #01-017 - (continued) Mark Crouse is requesting variances for
impervious surface and the ordinary high water mark for the construction of a deck
on the property located at 15507 Calmut Avenue.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated June 25,2001
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
On February 23,2001, the Planning Department received a variance application from D.
Mark Crouse (applicant/owner) to allow an existing deck to remain on the property
located at 15507 Calmut Avenue. The deck was constructed in the year 2000 without a
required building permit. The deck is attached to an existing single family dwelling that
was constructed in 1995 after approval of setback variances to the front yard and the
ordinary high water mark. Upon processing this application staff determined a second
variance was required to permit the impervious surface coverage area to exceed 30
percent.
L:\Ol files\O 1 plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\MN06250 1 ,doc I
Planning Commission Meeting
June 25,2001
On March 26,2001, the Planning Department received an e-mail llum the applicant to
request a postponement of this variance request from the scheduled date of March 26, to
April 23, 2001. On April 20, 2001, the applicant/owner again requested the public
hearing be rescheduled to the end of May due to business commitments. On May 29,
2001, the applicant requested the 3rd postponement of this agenda item for the June 25,
2001, meeting due to business travel.
The applicant requests the following variances:
1) A 2,115 square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of 4,422
square feet (57.5%) rather than the permitted maximum area of2,307 square feet
(30%).
2) A 71 foot variance to allow a structure setback of 4 feet from the ordinary high water
mark (OHWM) elevation of 904 feet, rather than the required setback of75 feet.
Staff received comments from the City Engineering Department and the DNR. Amount
of impervious surface affects water quality and stormwater runoff. The DNR
recommended the impervious surface be brought into compliance.
Staff concluded all of the required variance hardship criteria had not been met, and the
hardship was created by the owner when the principal structure was constructed in
violation of the building permit conditions, and by constructing the deck addition without
an approved building permit. The staff recommended denial of the two variance
requests.
Atwood asked if the impervious surface is impacted by stacking deck over concrete.
Horsman noted the deck would not be impervious surface if the concrete were not below
~ .
Comments from the public:
Mark Crouse, 15507 Calmut Avenue, the applicant, stated the contractor took care of all
the variances and permits for the original structure and was in compliance. Noticed
erosion on other lake properties. Recommendation from landscaping company was to
create impervious surface to help with erosion. When he raised house, he would have
moved it ifhe could. People who did concrete work gave incorrect advice about need for
permits.
In terms of hardship standards:
1. Lot shape is weird. Cannot meet setbacks. Other lots with weird shape are within the
75' setback. According to Pat Lynch from the DNR, the impact ofrunoffis
negligible. His property is next to the Windsong Association which is not going to be
built on. He felt runoffwould not be an issue. Neighborhood lots are substandard and
cannot make the setbacks but they all have decks.
L:\O 1 files\OI plancomm\OI pcminutes\MN062501.doc 2
Planning Commission Meeting
June 25, 2001
2. Agreed with staff finding. Unusual circumstances because of the nature of the
property.
3. Traveled around the lake and felt well over 80% of lakeshore owners have a deck. It
is customary
4. Agreed with report, the variance is not impacting the air supply.
5. Disagreed with the hardship criteria in the report. Will not affect stated values.
6. If intent is to not block views, he is not blocking view with deck.
7. The impervious surface based on patio and driveway. Intent of patio is to solidify the
retaining wall, not just convenience. (presented pictures of the property.)
8. Hardship as a result of construction came after the house was built.
9. Financial standpoint - leave it alone.
Kurt Hazekamp, 15654 Fremont, did contracting work on the house in 1995. Worked
with the building official at that time. The variance hardship was never brought up at the
time. Did not know of option to move house forward; just built house straight up to
elevate above flood plain.
Dr. Todd is a new resident who lives 4 houses down from the property. The work on the
applicant's house has added value to his property. Including the surrounding vacant lots
and Windsong area, impervious surface would be below 30%.
Commissioner V onhof closed the public hearing.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Atwood:
Is there a runoff issue if the Windsong property is included? Horsman explained
Windsong on the Lake plat layout. Applicant is discussing outlots used as open space by
that development. There are vacant outlots near property used by association.
Atwood: Is there a relationship between these lots? Horsman noted they should be
separate. The applicant is making the argument that there is a lot of vacant land adjacent
to him. However, the problem isn't here, the problem is on subject lot with 50%
impervious surface. The recommendation of DNR and Engineering is based on the idea
that the closer the structures get; "lake creep" is promoted. The Lake Management plan
is to eliminate this.
Stamson: This is a narrow and unusual shaped lot. Hardship criteria were addressed by
previous variance. It was the responsibility of owner to accommodate space for future
deck. Agreed with Engineering's recommendation. Have decided lack of deck can be
hardship, but usually weighs that against magnitude of variance. A 4 foot setback
outweighs hardship of lack of deck. The hardship criteria have not been met in this case.
Choices and decisions were made that prevent construction of deck. Agreed with the
DNR about percentage of impervious surface. Has staff does any calculations on how to
remove some impervious surface? Horsman noted the original permit taken out in 1995,
with house and some part of the driveway, was at 30%. Stamson would like to see some
L:\Ol files\Ol plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\MN062501.doc 3
Planning Commission Meeting
June 25,2001
reasonable amount of impervious surface. Rye noted area of house and garage is below
30% by about 150 square feet.
Lemke: The issue before us is deck and not impervious surface. Horsman noted the
issue was originally the deck, but upon further investigation, staff discovered excess
impervious surface. When the home was built, for some reason it was moved forward so
there is only 1 foot left in original variance. It was a violation of the original variance.
The original plan was for a deck and meets the Ordinary High Water. For whatever
reason when the house was built it changed. Lemke commented if the deck is removed,
does the concrete still remain? Horsman commented DNR recommendation is that it is
more important to deal with impervious surface. There is still issue of Zoning Ordinance
violation. Stamson noted they are separate issues, but dealing with both now. Lemke
stated impervious surface is necessary to stabilize wall. Horsman stated properly
installed retaining wall would achieve the same purpose. This sounds like his was an
older retaining wall that they are trying to save. Struggling with the need for additional
impervious surface. Felt there is a need to provide parking. There should be additional
impervious surface, but maybe not 57%. Seems like a tough situation.
V onhof: Questions for applicant. Remembered the original variance. Is the boathouse
gone or remodeled? Crouse responded he worked with Pat Lynch from the DNR to clean
it up. There was an existing concrete driveway on lot. Original detached garage was
removed and tuck-under garage was raised and attached garage added to north. Crouse
explained remodeling of house. The retaining wall was built when house was raised.
V onhof asked if lot lines go all the way back to street. Railroad right-of-way is 8' wide
between the lot and Calmut Avenue. V onhof questioned who did cement work. Crouse
stated it was Lowell Russell.
Atwood asked for clarification of when the retaining wall was built. Crouse explained
the remodeling in 1995 and the wall settling.
Vonhof: Agreed with Stamson that a number of variances were granted on this lot in
1995. It is unusual lot. There is a section of property between the actual roadway and lot
line. Appreciate applicant's comments regarding hardship standards. In 8 years of being
on the Planning Commission has not seen more egregious violations of ordinance with
regard to impervious surface. The patio area is 2,270 square feet. The allowed
impervious surface allowed on this lot is about 2,300 square feet. It is almost a 100%
increase over what was allowed by the original variance in 1995. Cannot support either
variance. City Code did not create the conditions. Code existed in 1995 and owner was
aware based on variance applications and then preceded to put in additional impervious
surface. Impervious surface is so critical on this lot because of adjacency to lake. The
fragile ecosystem is highly impacted by runoff. The Shoreland District is to protect this
area. The Commission has held very strongly to impervious surface on every individual
lot. Will not support request at this time.
L:\Ol files\O 1 plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\MN062501.doc 4
".
Planning Commission Meeting
June 25, 2001
Open discussion:
Atwood: Ifvariances are not granted, what happens to impervious surface? Vonhof
noted applicant can remove impervious surface. Horsman noted calculation does not
include right-of-way or impervious surface not on the lot.
V onhof: Recommend driveway be narrowed to width of garage. Crouse stated majority
of impervious surface is driveway. Horsman noted surveyor can revise calculations to be
more specific about what is include. Maximum width of driveway is 24 feet at right-of-
way. Condition should be to reduce width to 24 feet.
Stamson: Give applicant some time to figure a way to reduce impervious surface. Look
for a reasonable solution to reduce impervious surface. V onhof agreed.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO CONTINUE
CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE TO JULY 9,2001,
TO LOOK AT WAYS TO REDUCE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED 4-0.
V onhof: We are going to go ahead and discuss the second variance.
Stamson: Did not see how the hardship criteria in relation to the lot are met for a deck.
It hardships were addressed by the previous variance and the fact that the house was built
that does not accommodate a deck really is not a hardship under the ordinance criteria.
Did not see going back and creating variances to ordinances for that specific reason.
Lemke: There is not much difference between 12 feet and 4 feet. A deck adds to house.
A house without a deck looks odd. Considering where house is, felt the variance is
justified. Without the impervious surface issue, the question is how close to the lake can
the deck be? Stamson noted this had been decided with the original variance. Applicant
did not leave space for deck.
There was a brief discussion between Stamson and Lemke.
Crouse said the City did not inform applicant of option to move house forward to provide
for deck. Ifhe had known that then, he would have done so.
Lemke: How would a person be aware of old variances? Stamson noted it is not the
City's responsibility to make these recommendations. Horsman noted stafftoday looks
at these issues. Vonhof commented that variance resolutions are recorded with County.
Stamson noted that house was built with variances so they knew there were variances.
V onhof noted comments on building permit note previous variances.
V onhof: With regard to deck, variance criteria are not met.
L:\Ol fiIes\Ol plancomm\Ol pcminutes\MN062501.doc 5
..
Planning Commission Meeting
June 25, 2001
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY VONHOF, APPROVING RESOLUTION 01-
008PC DENYING A 71 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 4 FOOT STRUCTURE
SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY mGH WATER MARK.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Stamson, V onhof and Atwood, nay by Lemke. MOTION
CARRIED.
Horsman explained the appeal process. The applicant may appeal decision of Planning
Commission to City Council within 5 calendar days.
5. Old Business:
A. Case File #01-029 - Gary Thomas Variance Resolution
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated June 25,2001
on file in the office of the City Planning Department.
A public hearing was convened on May 29,2001. After review ofthe applicant's request
with respect to variance hardship criteria, the Planning Commission directed staff to draft
Resolution 01-009PC approving the variances with conditions.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY VONHOF, APPROVING RESOLUTION 01-
009PC GRANTING A 2.5 FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 54 FOOT SETBACK
FROM THE ORDINARY mGH WATERMARK RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED
56.5 FEET AS DETERMINED BY SETBACK AVERAGING; AND A 43 FOOT
VARIANCE TO PERMIT A PORCH STRUCTURE TO ENCROACH INTO A BLUFF
IMP ACT ZONE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 25 FEET FROM THE TOP OF
BLUFF.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
6. New Business:
A. Case File #01-051- Vacation of the 20 foot wide easement for road purposes
located adjacent to the south side ofTH 13, from Franklin Trail to Toronto Avenue.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated June 25,2001,
on file in the office of the City Planner.
The Prior Lake City Council initiated the vacation of the 20' wide easement for roadway
purposes located adjacent to TH 13 and to the E-Z Stop gas station, Velishek's Auto
Sales, Park Nicollet Clinic and the Hollywood Restaurant. The easement presently
functions as a frontage road serving the properties located on the south side of TH 13
between Franklin Trail and Toronto Avenue. The City Council is scheduled to review
this matter at a public hearing on July 2,2001.
L:\OI files\OI plancomm\Olpcminutes\MN062501.doc 6
'"
Planning Commission Meeting
-~ July 9, 2001
. Kansier stated that there are unique circumstances and would maybe have to look at
variances. But try to make it apply to most situations.
. Overall agreed with staff s recommendation.
Lemke:
. Agreed 20 feet is adequate.
. Do not create a situation where everyone who installs a sign on a graded slope has to
apply for a variance.
. Agreed the language in the ordinance is good.
. Rye suggested wording in cases where the sign is located on a slope that the short
dimension can be 20 feet and the other whatever is necessary to meet the grade.
. Agreed with the suggestion.
V onhof:
. Agreed there is a need for the proposed language.
. Be consistent.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This item will go before City Council on August 6, 2001.
C. Case File #01-017 - (continued) Mark Crouse is requesting variances for
impervious surface and the ordinary high water mark for the construction of a deck
on the property located at 15507 Calmut Avenue.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated July 9, 2001, on
file in the office of the Planning Department.
On June 25, 2001, the Planning Department held a public hearing for two variance
requests from Mr. D. Mark Crouse (applicant/owner) on the property located at 15507
Calmut Avenue. The requests included a setback variance to allow a deck to be setback 4
feet from the ordinary high water mark, and to permit an impervious surface area of
4,422 square feet.
The Planning Commission denied the deck variance at the public hearing on June 25,
2001, (Attachment 1 Resolution #01-008PC). The Commission continued the public
hearing regarding the impervious surface variance to allow the applicant more time to
revise and reduce the request because the Commission did not agree with the request for
4,422 square feet or 57.5 % of the total lot area.
On July 3, 2001, the Planning Department received a request from the applicant to
continue the public hearing for the impervious surface variance request from the
L:\O 1 files\Ol plancomm\Ol pcrninutes\MN070901.doc 7
...
Planning Commission Meeting
. July 9,2001
scheduled date of July 9, to July 23,2001. The applicant submitted the postponement
request due to the lack of time needed to provide the additional information.
The staff recommended the Planning Commission continue the public hearing until the
next scheduled meeting as requested by the applicant.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
HEARING TO JULY 23, 2001.
Stamson questioned the resolution denying the structure setback. Kansier responded it
was acted on.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
6. New Business:
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
A. Joint City CouncilJPlanning Commission meeting.
The Commission adjourned to attend the joint workshop.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\OI fiIes\O I plancomm\OI pcminutes\MN07090 l.doc
8
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, JULY 23, 2001
1. Call to Order:
Chairman V onhof called the July 23, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order at
6:30 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Stamson and
Vonhof, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and
Recording Secretary Connie Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood
Criego
Lemke
Stamson
V onhof
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes llVlU the July 9,2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
Commissioner V onhof read the Public Hearing Statement and opened the meeting.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case File #01-017 - (continued) Mark Crouse is requesting variances for
impervious surface and the ordinary high water mark for the construction of a deck
on the property located at 15507 Calmut Avenue.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated July 23,2001,
on file in the office of the Planning Department.
On July 3, 2001, the Planning Department received a request from the applicant to
continue the public hearing for the impervious surface variance request from the
scheduled date of July 9, to July 23, 2001. The applicant submitted the postponement
request due to the lack of time needed to provide the additional information.
Since the time of the report, new information has come to light with the applicant
acquiring partial railroad right-of-way, which could be used as area for the impervious
surface calculations.
The staff still recommended the Planning Commission deny the applicant's suggested
proposal of 45% impervious surface area as the applicant did not meet the hardship
L:\O 1 files\OI plancomrn\OI pcminutes\MN072301.doc 1
Planning Commission Minutes
July 23, 2001
criteria, and require the property to meet an impervious surface area the Planning
Commission deems appropriate under the circumstances.
Stamson: Questioned staff on doing research on the earlier variance stating specifically
that the impervious surface could not exceed 30%. What would happen ifthe
Commission granted a larger variance? Horsman and Kansier explained they were
different issues. The previous variances were for building and front yard setbacks.
Comments from the public:
Applicant Mark Crouse, 15507 Calmut Avenue NE, explained he met with Ron Swanson
from Valley Survey, developer Dean Morlock of the original Windsong Association and
realtor Bud Waund regarding this matter. With the new information of the additional
land, new calculations will have to be done. An attorney or title company will have to
confirm title to the property. Crouse is going to do more research on the ownership of the
property.
V onhof stated the Commission would like to continue the matter until all facts were
presented.
Crouse went on to explain the Windsong development is willing to consider selling the
property directly across the street from his property, which would help with his
impervious surface issue.
V onhof pointed out neighboring properties have had similar impervious surface issues.
Criego felt the percentage of acquired 1:'~vperty would still be above the impervious
surface regulation. It would still be a serious problem.
Horsman stated a title opinion and a revised survey would clarify the ownership of the
property .
Stamson questioned if the additional property would include the street as impervious
surface. Kansier said the City has not had any or many situations like this. V onhof said
the neighboring property did not include the street in the calculations. Because this
property was a vacated railroad right-of-way, there were other problems.
Criego questioned if the impervious surface was added to the home after the variances
were granted and without a permit. Crouse said they were. He added the driveway in
1996 or 1997, which went over the 30%. The lakeside slab was added afterward. Crouse
also stated he was not aware a permit was needed. The contractor said he did not need
any permits. Crouse said he filed an appeal on the deck decision.
Lemke questioned Crouse on how much time he would need to continue the matter.
Crouse said he would check with his mortgage company to get a legal opinion. Lemke
L:\OI files\OI plancomrn\OI pcminutes\MN072301.doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
July 23, 2001
questioned the timeline in obtaining the property from Windsong. Crouse said he would
push for that.
Kansier pointed out Windsong is a Planned Unit Development and transferring p~vperty
will cause a number of other issues. In terms of this particular site without the additional
property, the next planning commission meeting is August 13,2001.
Vonhofsuggested moving it to the August 27,2001, meeting. Kansier stated staff would
need the applicant's information by August 17.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
. No comments until the next meeting.
Criego:
. Concerned the request for impervious surface is 57.5%. This matter has gone on for
several months. Each time it is reviewed there is new information. With the new
information did not see it getting down to 30%.
. Have no problem delaying to the next meeting. Somehow the applicant needs to
know what to look for. Time and money is being added to the effort.
. There needs to be more direction. Realizes there is no solid data.
Stamson:
. Concurred with the Commission regarding the delay. There needs to be some
direction.
. Pessimistic the applicant will meet the requirements.
. Staff detailed how to get meet the requirements, given the new information. It looks
possible he could get to the 30% impervious surface.
. Applicant should research his options.
Atwood:
. Agreed. But it is hard to pick a target number without knowing what the new figures
will be.
. Continue for more information.
V onhof:
. Agreed with Stamson, there are no accurate figures. A new survey will have to be
done and the facts spelled out.
. Regarding lakeshore areas and riparian lots - felt very strongly in retaining a 30%
impervious surface.
. There is a possibility ofa solution. Continue to August 27,2001.
Criego:
. 30% impervious surface is the goal.
L:\OI files\OI plancomrn\OI pcminutes\MN072301.doc 3
.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 23, 2001
. If in fact, the railroad right-of-way does belong to the applicant, does the street get
calculated or not? Does the Planning Department feel comfortable in saying the area
is a public right-of-way? There should be clear direction.
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO CONTINUE THE MATTER TO
THE AUGUST 27, 2001, MEETING.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
5.
Old Business:
None
6. New Business:
A. Case File #01-055 Eagle Creek Development is requesting a vacation to a
drainage and utility easement located over the former Holly Court right-of-way
located on Lot 2, Block 1, Creekside Estates.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated July 23,2001 on
file in the office of the Planning Department.
Eagle Creek Development has filed an application to vacate the drainage and utility
easement located over the former Holly Court right-of-way located on Lot 2, Block 1,
Creekside Estates. The applicant is in the process of developing this site with a 24-unit
senior apartment building. Upon review ofthe building permit plans, a deck not shown
on the a1:'p~v ved site plan will encroach into the existing easement.
There is no need for the retention of the entire easement. A standard 10' wide drainage
and utility easement will be retained along the perimeter lot lines. The Planning staff
recommended approval of this request subject to the condition the applicant deed the
necessary 10' wide drainage and utility easement along the perimeter of the lot line to the
City prior to the recording of the resolution vacating this easement.
Criego questioned the need for the property owner to vacate. Kansier explained the deck
encroachment.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
. No problem with the request.
Stamson:
. Staff spelled out the situation. Supported the request.
Atwood, Lemke and V onhof:
. Agreed
L:\O 1 files\O 1 plancomrn\OI pcminutes\MN072301.doc 4
City Council Meeting Minutes
DRAFT
August 20, 2001 ,
'"
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA:
Invoices to be Paid
GUNDLACH: Asked about a payment to Barbarossa & Sons in the amount of $314,414.14.
BOYLES: Clarified that the invoice was the first progress payment on the $1.6 million Frogtown
project.
MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY ERICSON TO APPROVE THE INVOICES TO BE PAID.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried.
PRESENTATIONS:
[REMOVED] Mediacom Presentation
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Denial of a Variance to
the Lakeshore Setback on Property Located at 15507 Calmut A venue. &/- 0 r 7
KANSIER: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. Advised of the Planning
Commission and staff recommendation to deny the variance.
PETERSEN: Asked how the house met the requirements for a permit in the first place.
KANSIER: Advised that the house as originally approved met the 30% impervious surface and a
condition of approval was that there only be 30% impervious surface on the lot. The extension to the
north was not part of the original surveyor permit. The house addition to the north was within the
original setback requirement. The impervious surface issues are yet to be considered by the Planning
Commission.
ZIESKA: Asked for clarification that the house was built within the parameters of the permit issued in
1978, and that the setback problem is due to the addition of the deck. Further commented that the
deck is on the edge of the lake.
PETERSEN: Commented that the houses in the area are all very close to the lake.
MADER: Reminded the Council that the issue is whether the ordinance hardship criteria are met
.. . 0
requlnng a vanance.
Mayor Mader declared the public hearing open.
MARK CROUSE (15507 Calmut Avenue): Discussed his improvements to the property and the history
and circumstances involved. Believed that if staff had told him at the time that the elevation work was
done to move the structure closer to the street so that it could accommodate a deck, he would have
done so. He was never given that option.
2
City Council Meeting Minutes
DRAFT
August 20, 2001 ,
MADER: Asked the applicant if he had asked the City at that time about such an option.
CROUSE: Repeated that the City's instruction was to raise up the house but keep it on the original
foundation. Further briefly discussed the impervious surface issue and right-of-way easement
abutting the property. Believes that the hardship standards do apply because most of the properties
in the area are less than 75 feet from the lake, and all have decks. Believes that not having the deck
does prohibit his use and enjoyment of the property. Advised that the structures on the property do
not inhibit his neighbors use of the property, and that the improvements do not diminish property
values. Also discussed the intent of the zoning ordinance and his ability to enjoy his property.
GUNDLACH: Asked when the deck was built and if there was a permit.
CROUSE: Advised that the patio was installed in 1995 and the deck in 2000. In both cases the
contractor advised that no permit was required.
ZIESKA: Asked if in 1995, the house was built larger than what the survey disclosed, and how the
survey shows a setback of 13 feet from the OHW on the 1995 survey and is actually 1 foot from the
OHW.
CROUSE: Advised that the permit and the result of the construction work in 1995 was all according to
code. Noted that the addition to the north was bumped back 1 foot from the lake in order to meet the
setback.
RYE: Clarified that the setback for the original structure in 1978 allowed for the 13 foot setback.
ERICSON: Commented that he does not recommend building without a permit and has serious
concerns about that issue, but that it appears that the applicant has done significant work to clean up
the lakeshore and the house is on the original footprint. There seems to be less of an encroachment
on the lake than before.
GUNDLACH: Asked about the current boathouse structure.
CROUSE: Advised that the boathouse is a tarp canopy and he has been advised to include the
structure in the impervious surface calculations. Noted that removal is probably the best course so
that it is no longer an issue.
ZIESKA: Commented that he is aware that many houses on the lake have decks on substandard lots,
but asked the applicant how many of those decks does he think are within 4 feet of the Ordinary High
Water Mark.
CROUSE: Commented that he has no idea of the number, but that many are very close to the lake.
MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach, Petersen, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried.
3
..
City Council Meeting Minutes
DRAFT
August20,2001
MADER: Noted that the decision of the Council does set a precedent for future variance applications,
and that the issue is whether a hardship was created either by the ordinance or by the action of
homeowners.
GUNDLACH: Commented that it is difficult to support a variance after-the-fact, despite the
homeowner's efforts to improve his property. Advised that it has been this Council's policy to not
grant variances in these types of circumstances.
PETERSEN: Discussed that he is not happy about the impervious surface or the fact that homeowner's
do what they want and then suffer the consequences later, but believed that the deck is in place and
improves the property and it is a hardship to live on the lake and not have a deck. Supported the
applicant's appeal.
ERICSON: Commented that he did not distinguish the difference between the deck area and the patio
area. If one is allowable, the other should be allowable. Also noted that every property is unique and
that even though Council decisions do set a precedent, that doesn't necessarily mean the same
circumstances apply.
RYE: Advised that the concrete patio would count as impervious surface, but not in determining
setback.
ZIESKA: Believed it is very important for the Council to be consistent in its application of policy.
Related this circumstance to an earlier decision by the Council. Supported the Planning Commission
decision.
MADER: Discussed how difficult variance issues are. Advised that the property is unique, but not
necessarily more unique than other properties on the lake. Commented that even if there was
contractor misinformation, that is not an acceptable criteria for granting a variance. Believes that
allowing a deck at this distance from the lake amounts to carte blanche approval for anybody else
who applies for a deck on the lake. Supported the Planning Commission decision.
MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY MADER TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01-99 AFFIRMING
THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY THE VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 15507 CALMUT AVENUE.
VOTE: Ayes by Mader, Gundlach and Zieska, Nays by Petersen and Ericson, the motion carried.
The Council took a brief recess.
OLD BUSINESS: NONE.
NEW BUSINESS:
Consider Approval of a Resolution Amending the Regal Crest Conditional Use Permit to Allow
Reduced Floor Area and Two Entry Monument Signs.
.
4
.,-0, .~.~. "_~,,,,,,,,:'-'''''''''~-_-~.'''''''':''_____~-- -
Planning Commission Minutes
August 27, 2001
B. Case File #01-017 - (continued) Mark Crouse is requesting variances for
impervious surface and the ordinary high water mark for the construction of a deck
on the property located at 15507 Calmut Avenue.
Steve HV.l.::llUan stated the applicant contacted the City on August 27,2001, and requested
a continuance to the next meeting.
There were no comments from the public.
MOTION BY CRlEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO CONTINUE 1.tiJ:!, MA'll~K TO
THE SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
C. Case File #01-068 - Lawrence Baird is requesting variances to permit a
structure eave/overhang to encroach into the minimum 5 foot sideyard and an
impervious surface area greater than 30 percent for the property located at 5420
Fairl~ll.... Shores Trail.
Steve HV.l.::llUan presented the Planning Report dated August 27,2001, on file in the office
of the planning department.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Mr. Lawrence Baird for
the proposed construction ofa 6.6-foot by 14.67-foot entryway/vestibule addition to an
existing single family dwelling located at 5420 Fairlawn Shores Trail. The following
variances are being requested:
1. A 1.9 foot variance to permit a structure's eave to be located within 3.1 feet from
a side property line rather than the minimum required 5 feet.
2. A 3.9-foot variance to permit a sum of side yards of ILl-feet rather than the
required minimum sum of side yards of 15-feet.
3. A 232 square foot variance to permit a total impervious surface coverage area of
2,981 square feet (32.5%) rather than the allowable impervious surface coverage
area of 2,749 square feet (30%).
Staff concluded an alternative plan design for an entry addition of lesser scale and
reduced dimensions would work on the subject lot without the need for variances.
The DNR submitted comments recommending reducing the impervious surface.
The planning staff determined the variances requested do not meet all 9 conditions of
hardship criteria needed for the Planning Commission to approve the variance requests.
A revised and reduced entry addition plan and trade off of existing impervious surface
.
L:\O 1 files\O I plancomm\OI pcminutes\MN08270 l.doc 2
"
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10. 2001
"
MOTION BY CRlEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO DENY THE 4.5 FOOT
VARIANCE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Criego, Stamson and Atwood, nays by V onhof and Lemke.
MOTION CARRIED.
Horsman explained the appeal process.
C. Case File #01-017 - (continued) Mark Crouse is requesting variances for
impervious surface and the ordinary high water mark for the construction of a deck
on the property located at 15507 Calmut Avenue.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated September 10,
2001, on file in the office of the Planning Department.
On June 25, 2001, the Planning Department held a public hearing for two variance
requests from Mr. D. Mark Crouse (applicant/owner) on the property located at 15507
Calmut Avenue. The requests included a variance from the ordinary high water mark for
a deck setback, and a variance to the maximum impervious surface area. The Planning
Commission denied the deck variance at the public hearing (Resolution #01-008PC).
The Commission continued the public hearing regarding the impervious surface variance
to allow the applicant more time to revise and reduce the request because the
Commission did not believe the applicant provided proof of hardship for the 4,422 square
feet or 57.5% of the total lot area.
At the public hearing held on July 23,2001, the Planning Commission again continued
the public hearing to August 27, 2001, to allow the applicant time to provide new
information that proved he owned the old railroad right-of-way, adjacent to the front lot
line ofthe subject property. The applicant is requesting to be able to add this green area,
not covered by Calmut A venue with public street and utility easements, to his subject lot
area to help reduce the percentage of impervious surface coverage. In addition, the
Planning Commission directed the applicant to reduce his variance request for an
impervious surface coverage area in the 30-percentile range.
On August 27,2001, the applicant requested an additional continuance ofthe hearing.
The Planning Commission continued this item to the regular meeting on September 10,
2001. As of the date ofthis report, September 4,2001, no additional infuuuation has
been submitted.
The original variance request is as follows:
1) A 2,115 square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of 4,422
square feet (57.5%) rather than the permitted maximum area of 2,307 square feet
(30%).
L:\OI files\OI plancomm\OI pcminutes\MN091 OOI.doc 9
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10. 2001
....
A follow-up inspection ofthe subject property was conducted on August 6,2001. The
deck and concrete impervious surface coverage area remain, as documented on the
original certificate of survey. In addition, a metal frame with tarp boat shelter has been
installed on the south side ofthe property. To staffs knowledge, this shelter was not
present on site, nor included on the original impervious surface calculations as surveyed
on December 6, 2000. Also, two docks were present with a pontoon boat tied to one
dock, and a boatlift installed next to the second dock.
According to Patrick Lynch, Hydrologist, from the Department of Natural Resources, the
conditions for approval ofthe Windsong Marina adjacent to the subject property, allowed
only 1 dock for fishing, swimming, and daytime docking on the appellants lot because a
boat slip at the marina was deeded to the subject property. Another condition required
that no boat lifts or swim rafts be permitted off the shoreline of the property.
The staff recommended the Planning Commission deny the applicants variance request of
57.5% impervious surface area as the applicant did not meet all of the hardship criteria,
and require the property to meet an impervious surface area the Planning Commission
deems appropriate under the circumstances. As a condition staff recommended the
applicant provides a revised survey to depict the required impervious surface area as
adopted by the Planning Commission and the applicant shall submit a driveway permit
application to the City to verify the conditions have been met.
Comments from the public:
Bryce Huemoeller, representing the applicant who is out of town, spoke on the applied
standards for undue hardship; the applicant's overall conceptual proposal; reasons he
believes the proposal is a reasonable use and alternatives. It is their view that a hardship
exists with the reasonableness of the use. Crouse's proposal is to reduce the size of the
driveway to the 24 feet allowed by the ordinance. He would remove the concrete on the
north side of the house and the sidewalk on the southwest, bringing his impervious
surface down to about 44%. Crouse also proposes either to construct alternative
infiltration devices on the property and/or obtain drainage easements over the
neighboring property thereby reducing the runoff. He would also provide the plans and
engineers' certification indicating it meets the impervious surface conditions.
Huemoeller felt the property is a leftover parcel from the Windsong and other adjacent
develvpments. The house alone is at 29% impervious surface. He needs a driveway to
meet the ordinance. A letter submitted from the contractor indicates the patio and
retaining wall were constructed for stability. The patio is an essential component to this
house and has to stay in its existing condition. The house is consistent with other homes
in the neighborhood. Mr. Crouse's proposal to add the runoffwill meet the DNR and
City Ordinances.
Huemoeller felt the property is unique as it is located next to the common area for the
Windsong development. It has to be researched to find out if the infiltration can be
worked out with the common area of the Windsong development. The engineers'
L:\OIfi1es\Olplancomm\Olpcminutes\MN091001.doc 10
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10,2001
calculations will take around 30 to 60 days. They felt it would be reasonable for the
Planning Commission to approve a variance with the condition the 1,000 square feet of
impervious surface be removed and expand the drainage area or provide for infiltration
improvements to approximate the runoff characteristics for 30% impervious surface, or
continue the matter for another 30 days.
Huemoeller explained proposed infiltration methods. Reduce impervious surface, add
physical changes and redirect runoff.
Criego:
. Why was the sidewalk not removed on the lake side? It seems like a sidewalk going
nowhere. Huemoeller said he did not have the answer but Crouse does have an idea to
reduce it.
Atwood:
. Who owns the railroad bed? Huemoeller said it was vacated, the City owns it now.
Horsman responded the prior owner still owns the right of way. Huemoeller stated
55% of it is occupied by the City street, and went on to say the issue is that the
property is a small lot with a lot of impervious surface; some of it has to stay. What
do you do? Cut down the impervious surface, add some mechanical features that
store or infiltrate water and then try to route it somewhere else so it won't run to the
lake. Huemoeller feels these are reasonable ways to deal with a tough problem on a
small lot.
Lemke:
. How would there be continual maintenance of the mechanical systems so they remain
effective? Huemoeller responded if the applicant did receive the variance it would
have to be recorded. City inspection could be part of a condition. Then the condition
would be of record so if anyone else buys the property it is of record to continue the
maintenance.
The floor was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
. Brought up reasonable use and the standard. Huemoeller did a great job pointing out
the two extremes.
. Reasonable use in my mind is - Does the applicant have reasonable use? In this case,
the home was built without the patio. It was planned without a patio. The applicant
definitely has reasonable use.
. The history ofthe home was that the impervious surface was added later. Actually in
defiance of earlier variances requiring the property maintain 30%. That was recorded
when the home was built.
. One of the impact issues is the patio. At this time the Commission has not had time
to review the information Huemoeller presented.
L:\Olfiles\Olplancomm\Olpcminlltes\MN09IOOl.doc 11
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10,2001
. An ordinance change may be necessary. A variance process is not the way to do this.
. More time is needed.
. Overall opposed to the request.
Atwood:
. Agreed with Stamson. It should not be addressed as a variance proposal.
. Interested in Huemoeller's letter from the contractor who did the patio calling it the
lateral support for the retaining wall and house. Have the City Engineers addressed
the issue? Horsman responded they were not aware of any engineers taking the
project on other than what the applicant has claimed.
. Find that very interesting.
. The Staff Report states removing 57%. There is a discrepancy in the figures.
Huemoeller stated it is 44% without removing the patio.
. Kansier responded they would reduce it by 1,000 square feet to 44%. The Staff
Report numbers are significantly higher. They are double from what Huemoeller
proposes.
. Horsman said he took more out of the driveway than the applicant is proposing.
Lemke:
. The City permitted construction with the home and driveway over 30% impervious
surface.
. There is an ordinance stating one must have a driveway. We can't hold that against
him as far as impervious surface.
. Even with the normal driveway it would be over the 30% with conditions, the survey
and proposal do not exceed 30%.
. Kansier responded the original permit was issued with the condition the house and
driveway do not exceed 30%. The driveway was probably narrower.
. Questioned if the ordinance specifies a specific driveway size. Horsman stated the
maximum driveway is 24 feet wide at the curb.
. Not sure about taking the contractor's word at face value. You need a driveway.
. The only issue for me is the sidewalk. The existing sidewalks are over 3 feet now.
. Agreed more time is needed to look at the issue.
. The idea of using mechanical devises is intriguing. As a policy issue for the City, this
is not the place to address it.
Criego:
. The applicant has come up with a creative way to solve the problems. It is difficult.
. What is a realistic percentage? Is the filtration system proposed one that should be
accepted.
. Has a different view other than it is a policy issue. It is a variance issue. Does the
Commission want to undertake the endeavor as a variance issue rather than a policy
issue? Two different things.
. Based on what has been proposed, the structure at 40% to 44% impervious surface is
reasonable.
L:\OI files\OI plancomm\OI pcminules\M NO')l OOI.doc 12
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10. 2001
. City Council member Mike Gundlach said anything like this in an ordinance has been
going through Watershed District review seeking their approval and permits.
Granting the variance tonight would really require City Council approval as well as
Watershed approval going above and beyond what the Commission's role would be.
. Based on Gundlach's infonnation, propose allowing a variance somewhere in the
range of 40% to 44% impervious surface and go from there. Pick a number and have
the applicant fix the problem. He needs impervious surface.
V onhof:
. This proposal cannot be looked at here. This has to be evaluated by staff if there is
going to be a fair hearing.
. Recommend continuing the matter.
Stamson:
. Agreed with Criego and Lemke's gist, the house and driveway is going to be over the
30% impervious surface.
. Take the home and add a reasonable size driveway.
. The sidewalks can come into compliance.
. The big question is the patio. The engineer says it is an integral part, but the home
was built without the patio. If the patio was needed to support the home it should
have been built at the time.
. No problem allowing impervious surface for the home and a reasonable driveway.
Question the patio.
Vonhof:
. Question taking the word of a person who according to the applicant, said he didn't
know he needed a permit. And this is the person that we are relying on to say, "Yes,
this needs lateral support"? They didn't even pull a City permit for doing the work.
Stamson:
. A letter simply from a concrete company hardly implies it was done by an engineer.
. I've laid concrete and you wouldn't want to ask me about structural support.
Atwood:
. The Staff Report points out the additions to the impervious surface such as the metal
frame for the tarp boat shelter is not included in the calculations. Ref,;.~vl~ce to the
docks and boat lifts the DNR had addressed - the applicant was above and beyond
what was allowed.
. Horsman agreed. Those were conditions that changed from the last time the property
was inspected. They were not taken into account. They are not even on the survey.
The survey will have to be revised and come up with a proposal that works for the
Planning Commission.
. Question on enforcing this infiltration. I've been out there twice, how many times
will it take to correct this problem for good?
. This should be included in the Motion to continue.
L:\OIfi1es\OI plancomm\O I pcminutes\M N091 OOI.doc 13
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10.2001
Criego:
. Coming back to this committee on a once a month exercise is not the way to solve the
problem. Set an impervious surface percentage and let staff enforce.
Stamson:
. Agreed. Define the impervious surface number for the house and the driveway
There was a brief discussion on the Motion.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO RECOMMEND ALLOWING A
VARIANCE THAT IS 40% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AND THAT THE APPLICANT
ACHIEVE THAT PERCENTAGE WITH THE At-.t'KOV AL OF STAFF WITH THE
CONDITION HE ELIMINATES THE CANOPY AND DOCKAGE AS
RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
Discussion:
Stamson:
. Questioned Horsman on the driveway percentage achieved by staff. Horsman said he
remembered around 18 feet to 20 feet at the property line eliminating over half the
driveway.
. What percentage is the home and cut down driveway? Kansier responded it would be
37%.
. 40% is too much.
. The patio is the problem. The Commission does not have enough detail.
Lemke:
. Shared concern regarding a letter from a contractor that doesn't know he needs a
permit.
. Did not want to see dirt and the wall in the lake next spring because the patio was
removed.
Stamson and Atwood:
. The applicant created the problem.
. The applicant went ahead and did this without the permits.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Criego and Lemke, nays by V onhof, Stamson and Atwood.
MOTION FAILS.
Discussion:
V onhof:
. The hardship criteria are not met in any case.
. Will not support.
L:\OIfi1es\Olplancomm\Olpcminutes\MN091001.doc 14
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2001
Stamson:
. What is staffs take on the driveway? The applicant added a driveway without going
over the 30%. Ordinance requires a paved driveway. Horsman responded variances
are allowed.
. Allow a home and driveway at 37%. That is reasonable. It is a code issue.
. If the applicant came in beforehand and asked for a driveway variance, it probably
would have been granted. The patio and sidewalk would not have been allowed.
Criego:
. Agreed with Stamson on allowing the house and driveway, the only difference is on
percentage.
V onhof:
. The other issue is the lake side. This Commission should forward to City Council a
recommendation tonight. The applicant can appeal.
. The variance hardship criteria are not met. It is difficult to pick a number out for the
impervious surface.
. Agreed with Criego, the applicant has to resolve this problem.
. Prior to 1995 the lot did not have that extra concrete on it. The applicant created the
problem.
Criego:
. The other option is to deny the request.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, DIRECTING STAFF TO
PREP ARE A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE HOME PLUS THE DRIVEWAY AT
WHATEVER PERCENTAGE STAFF DEEMS APPROPRIATE WITH THE
CONDITION ANY IMPER VIOUS SURFACE ABOVE THE 30% BE DEVOTED TO
THE INSTALLATION OF THE DRIVEWAY.
Lemke:
. Better off denying the request and let the applicant appeal. This is only going to
delay an appeal.
V onhof:
Go back to the question - Are the hardship criteria met? Either they are met or not.
Stamson and Atwood agreed to amend the Motion as follows:
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO STATE THE COMMISSION
FINDS THE HARDSHIP CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET FOR A HOME AND A
REASONABLE DRIVEWAY AT 36% IMPERVOUS SURFACE WITH THE
CONDITION THE ADDITIONAL 6% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE PERCENTAGE BE
USED FOR THE DRIVEWAY; AND THE REMAINDER OF THE CONCRETE ON
THE PROPERTY BE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE.
L:\OIfi1es\Olplancomm\OI pcminutes\MN091 OOI.doc 15
Planning Commission Minutes
S">,"",.JJer 10.2001
The Staff is directed to prepare a Resolution granting the variance as stated above.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Stamson, Atwood and Lemke, nays by Vonhofand Criego.
MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
A. Case File #01-068 Lawrence Baird Variance Resolution.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented Resolutions 01-012PC and 01-014PC as
directed by the Planning Commission's at their August 27,2001, meeting.
Horsman noted the existing Exhibit is the original submitted with the variance application
and therefore does not fit the recommended side yard variance.
Stamson:
. Questioned staff's knowledge of the applicant's deck being too large. Horsman said
he looked up the permit and there were no designs on file. It was an approved deck.
. Heard second hand information the deck was built too large and mitigated down to
what it is now. Is there any information? Horsman said that information was not
with the permit.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 01-
012PC.
Stamson stated this is the decision of the Planning Commission based on the information
they received.
I
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. Vonhofabstained. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO M.t'KOVE RESOLUTION 01-
014PC WITH THE REVISED PLAN.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. Vonhofabstained. MOTION CARRIED.
Applicant Larry Baird spoke that his understanding at the meeting was that a compromise
had been reached so the 3.9 foot setback would be allowed to the 5 foot setback and 14.5
feet long.
Criego respon~ed that was correct. The intent was to keep the 14.5 feet.
Horsman said as long as they mitigate. The applicant's problem was with the impervious
surface.
There was a brief discussion on the interpretation of the Resolution.
.
L:\OIfi1es\Olplancomm\OI pcmilllltes\MN091 OOI.doc 16
...
I
Planning Commission Meeting
September 24, 2001
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 01-
015PC AS PRESENTED BY STAFF.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case File #01-017 Mark Crouse Variance Resolution.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented Resolution 01-015PC as directed by the
Planning Commission at the September 10, 2001 meeting.
Stamson clarified the variance requiring a paved driveway. The concern was the
applicant would leave the patio and return to a dirt driveway. We want to avoid that
situation. Horsman responded the driveway ordinance regulates a Class 5 action.
Allison Gontarek, representing the applicant, asked to be recognized.
Chairman V onhof stated the public hearing was closed.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 01-IIPC.
Discussion:
Criego said he did not vote for this the last time based on the 36% impervious surface.
Although the Commission felt the property should have a driveway and a reduced
sidewalk. The applicant at the time was not prepared to reduce the impervious surface as
much as the Commission wanted him to. Questioned the intent to have a driveway with
normal curb entrance to a three car garage or only provide concrete to a two car garage.
Stamson responded his initial Motion was for staff to determine the impervious surface
percentage. The intent was for a three car garage. The issue was to redraft and not delay
another two weeks.
Horsman responded it would be very difficult to get pavement to the third car garage with
the 36% impervious surface.
Rye stated the original Motion should be modified to be consistent with the Resolution.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECONSIDER THE VOTE
OF SEPTEMBER 10,2001 MEETING PERTAINING TO THIS ISSUE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, APPROVING A VARIANCE TO
PERMIT A MAXIMUM OF 38% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE WITH THE
CONDITIONS THE APPLICANT SUBMIT TO THE CITY A REVISED SURVEY
L:\OI files\O 1 plancomrn\O 1 pcminutes\MN092401.doc 9
Planning Commission Meeting
September 24, 2001
IDENIJl< YING THE IMPERVIOUS SURF ACE REMAINING AND ALL
CONDITIONS OF THE VARIANCE RESOLUTION BE MET INCLUDING THE
CONDITION THE APPLICANT REMOVE THE CANOPY AND DOCKAGE NOT
INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL SURVEY.
Horsman explained the additional impervious surface and his discussions with the
Department of Natural Resources regarding the dockage.
Lemke commented this clarifies the Motion from two weeks ago.
V onhof stated he believes the variance criteria in this matter are not met and this specific
condition has been created by the property owner and will not support the Motion.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Criego, Lemke, Stamson and Atwood, nays by V onhof.
MOTION CARRIED.
6. New Business:
A. Discuss infIltration systems and engineered runoff management.
Criego recommended continuing this matter to another meeting.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:11 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\O 1 files\OI plancomrn\OI pcminutes\MN092401.doc
10
~
"
WAIVER OF 120 DAYS
MINNESOTA STATUTES SECTION 15.99, A COPY OF WHICH IS ATTACHED,
REQUIRES THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ("CITY") TO Ar.t'KOVE OR DENY A ZONING
RELAlhU APPLICATION WITIllN 60 DAYS OF RECEIVING A COMPLETED
APPLICATION. THE CITY MAY EXTEND THE TIMELINE BEFORE Hili END OF THE
60-DA Y PERIOD BY PROVIDING YOU WRITlhN NOTICE.
TIlE en y RECEIVED YOUR APPU~'LJO:ll EOR A ~~AND
DETERMINEDITWASCOMPLETEON '_ ~70I . ON :-~/lj/Vf ,
THE CITY PROVIDED YOU WITII WRrnhN NOTICE THAT IT ~S EXlhNDING THE l
TIMELINE FOR REVIEW AN ADDITIONAL 60 DAYS UNTIL ~J ~ Q...~ r .7~ 6
BY LAW, ANY EXlhNSION BEYOND C:, ~ &LtL MUST BE
Ar.t'KOVED BY THE APPkI<2AN~. YOU HAVE REQUESTEDi~D TO AN
EXlhNSION BEYOND j<SfJft. .:l2:>.2IDI THE REASON FORnih EXThNSION IS AS
FOLLOWS:
r'\ l.k:.-'{D .{' eC, tJ "v~ ~ ~~ <:'~ ybtANJQ
- (~cP- jil u ~..11," - ~ V~, ~") .
'-..- ~~ .V
1
BY SIGNING TIllS WAIVER YOU ACKNOWLEDGE:
A) RECEIVING A COPY OF MINNESOTA STATUTE SECTION 15.99;
B) THAT YOU WERE ADVISED THAT TIllS WAIVER M.t'hCTS YOUR
PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THAT YOU MAY WANT TO REVIEW IT WITII
AN ATTORNEY;
C) YOU HA VB AGREED TO THE EXlhNSION;
D) YOU WAIVE ALL RIGHTS UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTE SECTION
15.99.
SIGNATURE OF THE APPLICANT: ~ 'QT')J ~
......,
PRINT NAME OF THE APPLICANT: ":0, /V)~ 0. ~ U<S~
DATE: .3,ro{o \
I:\deptwork\blankfrm\waiver.doc
..
Article 18
DEADLllffiFORAGENCYACTION
Section 1. (15.99) (TIME DEADLINE FOR AGENCY ACTION.)
Subdivision 1. (DEFINITION.) For purposes of this section, "agency" means a department, agency, board,
commission, or other group in the executive branch of state government; a statutory of home rule charter city,
county, town, or school district; any metropolitan agency or regional entity; and any other political subdivision of
the state.
Subdivision 2. (DEADLINE FOR RESPONSE.) Except as otherwise provided in this section and
notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, an agency must appwve or deny within 60 days a written request
relating to zoning, septic systems, or expansion of the metropolitan urban service area for a permit, license, or
other governmental approval of an action. Failure of an agency to deny a request within 60 days is approval of the
request. If an agency denies the request, it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time that it denies
the request.
Subdivision 3. (APPLICATION, EXTbNSIONS.) (a) The time limit in subdivision 2 begins upon the
agency's receipt of a written request containing all information required by law or by a previously adopted rule,
ordinance, or policy of the agency. If an agency receives a written request that does not contain all required
information, the 60-day limit starts over if the agency sends notice within ten business days of receipt of the
request telling the requester what information is missing.
(b) If an action relating to zoning, septic systems, or expansion of the metropolitan urban service area requires
the approval of more than one state agency in the executive branch, the 60-day period in subdivision 2 begins to
run for all executive branch agencies on the day a request containing all required information is received by one
state agency. The agency receiving the request must forward copies to other state agencies whose approval is
required.
(c) An agency response meets the 60-day time limit if the agency can document that the response was sent
within 60 days of receipt of the written request.
(d) The time limit in subdivision 2 is extended if a state statute, federal law, or court order requires a process to
occur before the agency acts on the request, and the time periods prescribed in the state statute, federal law, or
court order make it impossible to act on the request within 60 days. In cases described in this paragraph, the
deadline is extended to 60 days after completion of the last process required in the applicable statute, law, or order.
Final approval of an agency receiving a request is not considered a process for purposes of this paragraph.
(e) The time limit in subdivision 2 is extended if; (1) a request submitted to a state agency requires prior
approval of a federal agency; or (2) an application submitted to a city, county, town, school district, metropolitan
or regional entity, or other political subdivision requires prior approval of a state or federal agency. In cases
described in this paragraph, the deadline for agency action is extended to 60 days after the required prior approval
is granted.
(t) An agency may extend the timeline under this subdivision before the end of the initial60-day period by
providing written notice of the extension to the applicant. The notification must state the reasons for the extension
and its anticipated length, which may not exceed 60 days unless approved by the applicant.
Section 2. (El'l'bCTIVE DATE.)
Section 1 is effective July 1, 1995, and applies to any written request submitted after that date.
I:\deptwork\blankfim\waiver.doc
ConQie Carlson
1=rom:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mark Crouse [Mark.Crouse@oracle.com]
Saturday, March 24, 2001 3:19 PM
ccarlson@cityofpriorlake.com; Mark Crouse
Planning Meeting Date Change Request
Card for Mark Crouse
Date: March 23, 2001
To: City of Prior Lake Planning Commission
From: D. Mark Crouse
RE: Meeting Date for Variance Request
Due to required business travel I will not be able to attend the meeting
scheduled for March 26, 2001. As I am also out of town on April 9th,
please reschedule my variance request for the meeting dated April 23,
2001. If you have any questions please call me at 952.440.5233.
Thank you for your assistance.
1
f-"
1~:"
~;.;~.~-:.
~- "t",.,~, ....
~~~:r:I;;~" ~~_'
",,-:-.,:j',i,\:;
r;:' ';:_.~~~~~;~::-T\~,;-~--;::-~'
P""'"
',!,/
,', ,,";..,
,.;,:,,' "
" ~_: :"'" ,
"',' .
'. 1Ii- ,
j
,
ATTACHMEN I 1 - CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
~ \0
of \..0'
l1'''' \..\~f.
~O~
t
~9\\~~ '0"
. ~...~ ,0 .
I~. ~i\V~ ~e
~o' au' \\.
'f$- ~ ,,0,:
,'I. ':J
\.
~c
i\e
^r..~e ...1Jt!J
Clo'< \. .,
~
~
'a,
~.
o
~
\
\
_.- ,
o 2. t:-- I \
- 1\("'"'_7 . '\OIl'H '
'57902.6 \ 'g
\ Of ,-at ... \
S'\,.'(\ l,-\NE 1. \
\e \\
\ ~ \
\ I "
\ '
\ :
.
c~e\ t'
t~~lr:;-~#~~11~1~b:~~':;o.3 o~s'"71<(? .-tk.
" ....;.:'.-,
.,',CITYOFP~OR~AKE .,';---
::, ". Impervi9us Surface Calc,ulations :' \.
, , , . . ' (To be Submitted with Building Pennit Application) :.
'" . '. ',For All Properties Located ,in the Shore land Distrlct (SD): . .
. .' . ""', ."-- --.--" . ,,-
TI,le MaxhnumImpervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 ~ercent.
.. ",
'.
.Prop'erty Add!ess \~';o1 ' ,t.,,.\~~ . ,~~ ' ~e
. . . N . .
, . Lot Area': 1,.L.-.eC1" " . .'. '.' " Sq. Feet: x 30% = .:~.."...~.... "2:~o" '..
. :***~********************************************************************
.:, .~' "~" LENGTH,":' WIDTH 'SQ. FEET
.... ::' ':..
. :",:!t . : ,"41.f ,x:L!wo' , .. " = . \l ,",U
1..'ax 2jp =,~
,x .-
..
': HOUSE
. ,
-s
\
. ATTACHED GARAGE
, ~ .
. ,
.. ..... -
. .
. T ()'f. JU;: PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE......................,. ,~l 'S 2- '
",.:DETACHEDBLDGS x
.:: ;: ,:'< ,:..'.':' '(?,~~~s~e~:., '..'. " x'.' . .
. ~ ~, . . . .' . ,.
'. . .~ "'. ..' .... :' . :TQTAL DETACHED BUIi.DINGS...........~..~.~....~.
,,1\ . ," L'.' .
~O~: " .' "
DRIVEWA YfPAVED AREAS
,,': ,....,. ,~ve~~r~:p,~"ed~~.~oP" :,:'::'
. . ...~ (Side~v~:~.~~k.i:gAreasr, ':
.; .
. '" x
1 (a\.e "
'.X .,'
. =
, X'
=
. . ..
. '
TOT At. P A 'lED, A.REAS~..~.~...~~.~...............~.............. .
1 t..(o '.
..' " .
. .....
': :PATIOSIPORCHESIDECKS,\
(Open Decks Yo" min. opening bet"ovccn
boardi with a pervioUs surface below.
.' ar.c not ,considered to be impervious)
'. X
X
.=
=
X
=
. '.
:.:' ':. T OrAL' D E CKS..........~....~..~...~......................~...........
, OTH:ER"..
..~..
x
x.
=
. . ".'
.. .. .
. . .
. ,. TOT AL OTlmR............~.......~.....~......~~...~.................
.' A'~~
I . -z.q: \ ~
I . . 'I.i'\ I
,.~OTAtIMPERVIOUS S~ACE
.'
,. ~epaied..BY.. .0eu~s
:.::~":',,:C6rii~any\~\ \i\.6u~~C\..:f.~'
, , ":..," .~": -. .... '.: " . " '..' ,:." ..' .
Date~\~~"2- ..
. Ph6rie# . ~q1- 'Z.~, 0::'
_-:9
Of \..01' \0
""",,, \.".~ !
\
\
."
,.
o
u.I
a
'\~
.:\~
sAN.tAti
\
\
\
.
"
UJ
::J
Z
UJ
~
I,';'"
~\
_ '" I)l
". z..
~ '")
~
I)l
-z..
~ ~
u.l 7
\X. ~
~ ~
\J\
I
p~
"'-,
>-
s.
~
~"\"'" .~
'" " f!If:;.
" ,\ J ~
,JL~~..
\
.
\
_.a ""'~
T,-_t~~
-----
\ \
r---r'l-.~
\
\
\ \
l--
Gov:r
'Gov"r Lo1'"" 4-
So
\,
\\
,
~
\
,
\
\
\
'.
A. 1'2-40'
c> Z"
'"
/\(~ /"'.
,,/' ",. ..-
~./ ./~.
,-." . ~~'~'"
...//~ ~. /...... // //
\, - y'/'
., .- ' " _ ".---- /-/.-
~ ~ ~e:---<--- ..., _/
~~.~ -. - ....-. /
- ---~..'" -- ~~~..~/ . .
_ ~ ." . _ _-.!P' ..----:--
. =-=----=_:--=~~ ~. .-,... /'
- ------ _.- ~-_.. -- . - . //
- --.. - _.- . -.:::::::::::::::::;"'" --~_. . ,/
- - .,- ~ - - - .~-------------/. ~ _/ /--y'
.t\l ~(i)
<.0
(10 :i~'
~t> C\
. II ~r
- ~
f'.)N
, ..
t u ~i
(I' ~
-
"
:0 \ ~
0
-
.
~
\J'\ C\
~
\
I'
--
,\0, ~~/
"
. ."'"
..
.CD
~.~.:.,
::---..~- --.
.- ::;::::... .' ~..,
#~.- ....~
"
.---
. ........
"
/.-
~
\h
."
....
_.
-.;;.------
_~ _ . M_ m" _ ,_ __ _
-_&, ,a ~ J : iJ '-' \ '. I'. ,u" . ': LJ. ' . L.. Ll: 1
~uQ,rQ,.tQ.tl .,.;:)~,_n'''~.,Q u., ~UH.a ~"-l s~~tt\._,~rJe..'1"WeeV\:IOQ" l Q. 51"ef~
. ; ..\3. I.,;'. ,',.. k'IJ \). " " .' \ _ '\ \ r, ~ . '.'
,. .'1...) d&tlCu\S.-~b" ~ff\~~\~DUm.c\&~L~., '_...
~ ~ AU' f\ '. \ ,'. l --' . b .) '\ " ' .& a b
a.,,~' l:'r(l~'.~~m~':tj!;\U~; ~'jfe&. tOe -}\4~~~ .1lJM <<.r
,..'11..r~s.1i)he. ,,4'L/twI11J/$o.~Qtob~~ .
So) , eJ~:lt:$.lh ~~ors~~-kft'~~;w. \~~\'oH~,
, ,
,,_.:_;,:.~!.~,~,~:_~,~_~..;;~i.p.....~:..' '.,~~.;I,
"".... ,,,. ."'''__~~__'___~'_'_'''_''__;_....__...m'_'__~___~_._.,_._----...--,..-........~..;__."..
--+-. '
'ff;f-l"
'" .;,.,. ~
-,'~:l-,
.1$
.of
',",
.~
.1
!! . :t"'.--,
1 ~~-,qY.-,
'!"""> I
.~ ..' -- ---
~~/~
,
~
~
~/
rt/
"'.,
11' ) ,\~......i
..,../
~ f
.~
h
(.
qt'
i-J
,~.
V
. ....
T' ~
-~
~":~'~
!,.:t.,.,
.~
.~
~
"-
'"
~,
"-"-.
~
"
-..
".
/~'"
..' ).
"i~/ jr- \..,i
,4'/"# .-\
" /. j.....
"'.~.. . /. //.. .',
,~~ ~~,"/' / .... \
Y ..~.......
"-':>\~I,-/~"
. .' .-
~ - . '
;' "'. 3. ,';"'.'.' .
. #,.",
~.. ;' .......'
.,J'
....:J.
~
-
'<>.
"~
"- \0'
.If" g'
,
"-
<1J
)"
'. · t
.: ill
tA
1\ 1i
H
,,"I:
H
! !
I g
rt
t ',#
" ~~
~H
'n
! .-;
y,f
<.'.'~ .
,!~
i*~
111
It!
m
~~t
" ih
00 Hi
iH
: l~
..'H
iU
V~
..... .;.;
,
,..9
IN
I
o
.,',r".
!
,
1'"
..-;..; ...
1
I
l-
i
T'
,
i
1
j
0,
-
'''Y'
'iJ
a..
.; !
.n
.~:
"r' I..-......~
. ...-1
, ,L,
~ :-r~
~ -~ ~-=""""~
I
'r"'"
,;~/
I
~
i!
=:::'-_l"'tl"""'""" ...,.
of!~~"'.~~ ,=;,~. '~:~.,:>.;.~"',
.. i
!
i
Ii;
!
d
l,
je
Ii
Ii
h
d
li
tr
I'i
;1
.,
; ~
t'1-
.
I
!
t
I
,
~
~.
~
!
H
(~
if
q
II
'I
.~ :'
H
il
1.1.
,I
fi
'I
If
~ )
H
$1
~ 'j
ti.
Ii
~ !
if
ji
,
~
j
I
f.
I
~
r:
,t [
rl
If
",.~...-~~ .., "':, ..~ ..~..-~
~~
(
I
!
~ailing
Information
and Lists
...
L:\TEMPLATE\FILEINFO.DOC
,,,,".,~-.-;-.r~.=....",,-~.. '."'.-~ .
1
Afif41UA" IT OF SERVICE BY MAIL
COUNTY OF SCOTI )
)ss
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
_ ~l/l/li (11 )., P h1r\ of the City of Prior Lake, . :::~ty of Scott, State of
Minnesota, bein; i";;I:W~~, says on the ]1t:-day of. f. J 2001, she served
~e a2)hed ~s~ ~f~rsons to ha. ve an interest in the rrmM,.O ~ ~ ~
PAYlY J'08''tlZ.e/ tf.o { -V II , by mailing to them a copy thereof,
close in an envelope, postage pJ.\Jpdid, and be depositing same in the post office at
Prior Lake, Minnesota, the last known address of the parties.
Subscribed and sworn to be this
day of , 2000.
NOTARY PUBLIC
..
L:\ucr 1 "rORK.\BLANKFRMIMAILAFF.DOC
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER 'nut FOLLOWING:
VARIANCE'S TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM INPERVIOUS SURFACE
COVERAGE AREA AND TO A STRUCTURE SETBACK LESS THAN 75
FEET TOniE ORDINARY IDGH WATER MARK
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTACHED DECK TO A SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-l DISTRICT (LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL) AND THE SHORELAND DISTRICT (SD) IDENIU'lliD AS 15507
CALMUT AVENUE, PRIOR LAKE, MN.
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a public
hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of
the intersection of County Road 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Tuesday, MAY 29, 2001,
at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANT: D. Mark Crouse
15507 Calmut Avenue NE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
SUBJECT SITE: 15507 Calmut Avenue NE, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as
Lot 9, atld part of Lot 10, North Grainwood, Scott County,
Minnesota
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting two variance's: one, to permit an
impervious surface coverage area of 57.5%; and second, to allow
an existing deck, attached to the principal structure, with a setback
of 4 feet from the ordinary high water mark.
If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions related to this
hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447-9810
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Planning
Commission will accept oral and/or written comments. Oral or written comments should
relate to how the 1:'~vposed construction and requested variances are or are not consistent
with the Zoning Ordinance and variance hardship criteria.
Prepared this 17th day of May, 2001.
Steven Horsman
City of Prior Lake
To be mailed on or before May 18,2001.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\MailNOTE2.DOC 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
31 ~
-------
~\
s(l~~ 3 1
2
4 ! 3
,fl~
al If>
5
9
3
2 ~
\~pSO~G 4
~~
5
7
6
2
_oca~. 0 , Va)
Pro~rty. Location
1
4
A
3
2
3
N
A
200
I
o
200
400 Feet
\
'.
/'
"
\J.1
::>
z
\J.1 .:-.'
.>
<t
ATTACHMENT 1
~ \0
of \.0'
1'\'\ \.\tlE ,"--
"'OR _-
.' --
\
\
,..
'.
,
.
\
t-
../. "-';-\
#, . \
';, "
-'" ~
~ ~
Ii,
uJ
z
:'
uJ
a:-
o
S-
III
"J
~
~
ti,
~
o
-:::.
'. . ~:'~.' ~~
.,'
\
.,
.
I
)
\. ';
,,'~.
".' ~/\ .:J':.'\
".\:
.. <t
0:
" \
~,.: ..
~ \ ~~~~
<3\ \60 .
'5 ~.t2~
~ \ ~ b
- a:. "
.J ~
~ \
~,
,
,
I
1C !\.
9'.''''
.'~s. :
",11
'.~,
9\.,:'
, '
Chill N
."
: ~~ .
~~
Shirley A. Thielen Donald L. Todd Jeffrey J. Dousette
15609 CalmutAve NE 15593 CalmutAve NE 15581 Calmut Ave NE
Prior Lake, MN 55372 Prior Lake, MN 55372 Prior Lake, MN 55372
Jerome A. Miller Karl Bohn Elizabeth M. Menne
15563 CalmutAve NE 6733 McColl Drive 4736 Garfield
Prior Lake, MN 55372 Savage, MN 55378 Minneapolis, MN 55409
H&H Land Development Rolf G. Garborg McWilliams & Associates
10315 Thomas Ave S. 4090 154th Street 14870 Granada Ave.
Bloomington, MN 55431 Prior Lake, MN 55372 Apple Valley, MN 55124
Raymond E. Casper Frank J. Worrell Lawrence G. WilJiams
4215 Eau Claire Trail NE 4185 Eau Claire Trail 15520 Calmut Ave
Prior Lake, MN 55372 Prior Lake, MN 55372 Prior Lake, MN 55372
Mark L. Kassebaum Mark A. Michael Robert W. Thompson
4085 154th Street NW 4190 Eau Claire Trail 4090 Eau Claire Circle
Prior Lake, MN 55372 Prior Lake, MN 55372 Prior Lake, MN 55372
Wayne Craig Scott G. Miller Richard S. Lovik
4167 Eau Claire Trail 4143 Eau Claire Trail NE 4139 Eau Claire Trail NE
Prior Lake, MN 55372 Prior Lake, MN 55372 Prior Lake, MN 55372
,[)/J'fL
Page 1
At'J:41UA VIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL
COUNTY OF SCOTT )
)ss
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
CoYUt\ie LM. m of the City op>nor Lake County of Scott, State of
Minnesota, being d~ ~~~, says on the \b day or1V\iriii~ ,2001, she served
t4e attached list of persons to have an interest in the -JJ.rrftt:.; . {l}r ~ ~1 ~
{ rJr~ \ *D \... D l1 , by mailing to tliem a copy thereof:
enclosed ink envelope, p6stage prepaid, and be depositing same in the post office at
Prior Lake, Minnesota, the last known address of the parties.
Subscribed and swom to be this
day of , 2000.
NOTARY PUBLIC
.
L:\U=. w'ORK\BLANKFRM\MAILAFF.DOC
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:
VARIANCE'S TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM INPERVIOUS SURFACE
COVERAGE AREA AND TO A STRUCTURE SETBACK LESS THAN 75
FEET TO THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON PROPERTY
LOCAlbU IN THE R-l DISTRICT (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) AND THE
SHORELAND DISTRICT (SD) IDENTIFIED AS 15507 CALMUT AVENUE, PRIOR
LAKE, MN.
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a public
hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of
the intersection of County Road 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday, MARCH 26,
2001, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANT: D. Mark Crouse
15507 Calmut Avenue NE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
SUBJECT SITE: 15507 Calmut Avenue NE, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as
Lot 9, and part of Lot 10, North Grainwood, Scott County,
Minnesota
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting two variance's: one, to exceed the
allowable impervious surface coverage area of 30%; and second, to
allow an existing deck, attached to the principal structure, with a
setback less than the minimum required 75 feet from the ordinary
high water mark.
If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions related to this
hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447-9810
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Planning
Commission will accept oral and/or written comments. Oral or written comments should
relate to how the proposed construction and requested variances are or are not consistent
with the Zoning Ordinance and variance hardship criteria.
Prepared this 28th day of February, 2001.
Steven Horsman
City of Prior Lake
To be mailed on or before March 15, 2001.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\PUBLlCNOTE.DOC 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
.'
5C'I~~ 3 1
2
4 3
, f'"t -
CD 0
5
8 7
3~\E~
2 ~~
,l-PS01G 4
~'
,./ 8 5
9
1
4
6 A
\,\'C.
\J''f..'C.
10
11
12
2
3 1__~ _____
~\
3
N
A
Loca'~ion Ma)
3
2
3
2
\
200
I
o
200
400 Feet
....,
""
350' ~ac ius
Crouse Variance
File #0-017
( ,
)~l~ ~\\'
"1 '\ 1 Y4 ......:
, I
~I~OSO~~ 3
2
1
~
l:i
II!
o
i
4
~\P\
G<t c:.
-' lD ';)
I-
::I
o
(
5
N
o
0(.
01
0::1
11
~
::II
o
o
12
GR,~NWC 00
1 ·
2 3 _____
------ ~\
~
N
[PID OWNER NAME
/250350020 DONALD L TODD
-./ 250350021 JEFFREY J DOUSETTE
l" 250350022 KARL & LYNDA L BOHN
V~ t250350022 KARL & LYNDA L BOHN
~0350022 KARL & LYNDA L BOHN
/fC.250350030 JEROME A & PHYLLIS A MILLER
V 250350030 JEROME A & PHYLLIS A MILLER
. ~50350030 JEROME A & PHYLLIS A MILLER
V 250350040 KARL & LYNDA L BOHN
AL250350041 ELIZABETH M MENNE
V t.(250350041 ELIZABETH M MENNE
,/ "250350050 LYNDA L BOHN
l' ..250350060 D MARK CROUSE
250350060 D MARK CROUSE
250350060 D MARK CROUSE
250350060 D MARK CROUSE
250360310
V 2523601 00 ROLF G & MARY J GARBORG
""252360140 RAYMOND E & SARMITE A CASPER
y'252360150 FRANK J & LINDA C WORRELL
..J 252360160 LAWRENCE G & SHARON WILLIAMS
.J ,252360190 MARK L & CAROLYN M KASSEBAUM
'oi 252360200 MARK A & SUSAN K MICHAEL
(1252360310 H & H LAND DEVELOPMENT
152360310 H & H LAND DEVELOPMENT
V 252360310 H & H LAND DEVELOPMENT
52360310 H & H LAND DEVELOPMENT
252790010 WAYNE & LISA CRAIG
V252790020 SCOTT G & ANNE C MILLER
( 259350400 JEROME A & PHYLLIS A MILLER
r/ 1.._259350400 JEROME A & PHYLLIS A MILLER
OWNER NAME
~
PROPERTY OWNER LIST
CROUSE VARIANCE
FILE #01-017
HOUSE # STREET
15593 CALMUT AVE NE
15581 CALMUT AVE NE
6733 MCCOLL DR
6733 MCCOLL DR
6733 MCCOLL DR
15563 CALMUT AV NE
15563 CALMUT AV NE
15563 CALMUT AV NE
6733 MCCOLL DR
4736 GARFIELD
4736 GARFIELD
6733 MCCOLL DR
15507 CALMUT AV NE
15507 CALMUT AV NE
15507 CALMUT AV NE
15507 CALMUT A V NE
OWNER ADDRESS PROPERTY ADDRESS
CITY ST ZIP ZIP4 HOUSE # STREET NAME ST TYPE DIR PLAT
PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 15593 CALMUT AV NE PLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWOOD
PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 15581 CALMUT AV NE PLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWOOD
SAVAGE MN 55378 0 PLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWOOD
SAVAGE MN 55378 0 PLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWOOD
SAVAGE MN 55378 0 PLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWOOD
PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 15563 CALMUT AV NE PLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWOOD
PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 15563 CALMUT AV NE PLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWOOD
PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 15563 CALMUT AV NE PLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWOOD
SAVAGE MN 55378 0 PLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWOOD
I MPLS MN 55409 0 PLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWOOD
I MPLS MN 55409 0 PLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWOOD
I SAVAGE MN 55378 15527 CALMUT AV NE PLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWOOD
PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 15507 CALMUT AV NE PLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWOOD
PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 15507 CALMUT AV NE PLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWOOD
PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 15507 CALMUT AV NE PLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWOOD
PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 15507 CALMUT AV NE PLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWOOD
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT BLOCK
3 1
4
5
5
5
7
8
9
9
9
9
4090 154 ST PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 4090 154 ST NW PLAT-25236 WINDSONG ON THE LAKE 7 2
4215 EAU CLAIRE TRL NE PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 4215 EAU CLAIRE TRL NE PLAT-25236 WINDSONG ON THE LAKE 1 3
4185 EAU CLAIRE TRL PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 4185 EAU CLAIRE TRL NE PLAT-25236 WINDSONG ON THE LAKE 1 4
15520 CALMUT AV PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 15520 CALMUT AV PLAT-25236 WINDSONG ON THE LAKE 2 4
4085 154 ST NW I PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 4085 154 ST NW PLAT-25236 WINDSONG ON THE LAKE 3 5
4190 EAU CLAIRE TRL I PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 4190 EAU CLAIRE TRL PLAT-25236 WINDSONG ON THE LAKE 4 5
RALPH W HEUSCHELE 8039 STOCKING RD I EMPIRE MI 49630 9794 4160 WIND SONG CIR NE PLAT-25236 WINDSONG ON THE LAKE O-L CoG
RALPH W HEUSCHELE 8039 STOCKING RD I EMPIRE MI 49630 9794 4160 WIND SONG CIR NE PLAT-25236 WINDSONG ON THE LAKE O-L CoG
RALPH W HEUSCHELE 8039 STOCKING RD I EMPIRE MI 49630 9794 4160 WIND SONG CIR NE PLAT-25236 WINDSONG ON THE LAKE O-L CoG
RALPH W HEUSCHELE 8039 STOCKING RD I EMPIRE MI 49630 9794 4160 WIND SONG CIR NE PLAT-25236 WINDSONG ON THE LAKE O-L CoG
4167 EAU CLAIRE TRL I PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 4167 EAU CLAIRE TRL NE PLAT-25279 RLS # 143 TCT A
4143 EAU CLAIRE TRL NE I PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 4143 EAU CLAIRE TRL NE PLAT-25279 RLS # 143 TCT B
15563 CALMUT AV NE I PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 0
15563 CALMUT AV NE I PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 0
mail list
OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY does hereby certify that,
according to the records of the Scott County Treasurer's office, the
following is a list of owners of the property lying within 350 feet of
the following described property:
Lot 9 and that part of Lot 10, "North Grainwood", and that part of
Government Lot 5, Section 35, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County,
Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of
said Lot 10; thence Southerly along the Westerly line of said Lots 10
and 9 and also 8, a distance of 165.0 feet to the actual point of begin-
ning of the land to be described; thence Westerly along the North line
of said plat to the Eas~er1y right-of-way line of the Chicago, Milwaukee,
St. Paul and Pacific Railroad; thence Northerly along said Easterly
right-of-way line to its intersection with the Westerly extension of the
Southerly line of the Northerly 45.00 feet (as measured at right angles
to the Northerly line) of said Lot 10; thence Easterly along said South-
erly line to the shoreline of Prior Lake; thence Southerly along said
shoreline to the South line of said Lot 9; thence Westerly along said
South line of said Lot 9, to the Southwest corner thereof; thence South-
erly along the Westerly line of said Lot 8, to the actual point of
beginning.
1. Shirley A. Thielen
15609 Ca1mut Av. NE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Property ID No. 250350010
2. Donald L. Todd
15593 Ca1mut Ave. NE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Property ID No. 250350020
3. Jeffrey J. Dousette
15581 Ca1mut Ave. NE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Property ID No. 250350021
4. Jerome A. and Phyllis A. Miller
15563 Ca1mut Av. NE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Property ID No. 250350030
Property ID No. 259350400
5. Karl and Lynda L. Bohn
6733 McColl Dr.
Savage, MN 55378
Property ID No. 250350040
Property ID No. 250350050
6. Elizabeth M. Menne
4736 Garfield
Minneapolis, MN 55409
Property ID No. 250350041
7. H & H Land Development
10315 Thomas Av. S.
Bloomington, MN 55431-3315
Property ID No. 252360310
8. Rolf G. and Mary J. Garborg
4090 154 St.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Property ID No. 252360100
9. McWilliams & Associates Inc.
14870 Granada Av.
Apple Valley,MN 55124
Property ID No. 252360110
10. Raymond E. and Sarmite A. Casper
4215 Eau Claire Trl. NE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Property ID No. 252360140
11. Frank J. and Linda C. Worrell
4185 Eau Claire Trl.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Property ID No. 252360150
12. Lawrence G. and Sharon Williams
15520 Calmut Av.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Property ID No. 252360160
13. Mark L. and Carolyn M. Kassebaum
4085 154 St. NW
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Property ID No. 252360190
14. Mark A. and Susan K. Michael
4190 Eau Claire Trl.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Property ID No. 252360200
15. Robert W. and Judith A. Thompson
4090 Eau Claire Cir.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Property ID No. 252360210
Property ID No. 252360220
16. Wayne and Lisa Craig
4167 Eau Claire Trl.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Property ID No. 252790010
17. Scott G. and Anne C. Miller
4143 Eau Claire Trl. NE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Property ID No. 252790020
18. Richard S. and Kelly K. Lovik
4139 Eau Claire Trl. NE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Property ID No. 252790030
Dated at Minneapolis, Minnesota, this 12th day of February, 2001, at 7 a.m.
Order No. AOl-52165
For: Mark Crouse
OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
By
~~t!/ W~ ~tf)L/
,
An Authorized Signature
... ... ............-......-.. -. .---.--.- ..'-. ,... .....,......
TI4B scorr COlIN1"\' OFflCES ANO ona:a SOUllCI!&.
1HU MAP IS o."4.Y TO 88 USED FOlt !lEFEIlEKCB PUlU'OSBS.
11m COUHrY AND If "GENnl AJU! NOT IUlSI'ONSIIILB fOR
ANY lN~caJRACIES CONT AINIlD 'l1-lD.ElN.
NI/2
SEe 35
.~
Q
I 'I
RIDGI 1
.1
~Di!
9'1UI 'I
1i94:l1JI
a
<3
..
'"
.!~.
~~ - .'-
.-: .
I ..- ...... -...
L . -. - .
. ,I
.
...
..
p
-... ~
....
z'
-5
CI
W1NDSONG Cf4
...n.oy A
THE
'I
ID
~ ~~~
~ -'
r //5
R22'
"T)
(TJ
tIl
~
W
N
(S)
(S)
~
l.D
~
~
D
3:
~
..... :anU'.. ~
o
r
~.-:;.tl
H.."\~
_~ 1J
~ .O',A:C
. V ({tIl
........ r
~i
tl
(TJ
~
,,~
.
q~O
~.
Q::
~
"
~
~
~
~
~
,
Ct)
FE~.13.2001
9: HAM
OLD REPUBLIC ABST DE
---
~
/
3Hl
...
'"
S)I\'O
c
~
..
~
1Il
...
"
..
oJ
~=
f=
.....:
o:i
....
..
u
?
~
-
--
.~
..
\..
Y7
o
'Ii
'll
~
..
1.0
'"
..
oJ
'"
..
:~
~ ~
~ c:'
"!I
.".'
.....
'b
:$'
,
L
,
al
..
..
..
'"
1:1
ii
...
..
o
f!'
....0
:-
..
..
ii
t
~
~
>
<(
..,,~
t
I
I
,
I
I
-y I
o
\)'
~~
,~
~
to
~
0-
~:=...-o
..-",
o
~
,:" ..,(..p
I ",~ ,
./ ,~.
'. :..:s. ~. __:;::;;---
,f/'I ,,' 'I
~ .. :!
~
.lIJ !2
Correspondence
L:\TEMPLATE\FILEINFO.DOC
March 2, 2001
D. Mark Crouse
15507 CalmutAvenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: City of Prior Lake Review for Application Completeness for Variance Application
Dear Mr. Crouse': .
On February 23, 2001 the City of Prior Lake Planning Department received a variance
application from you. Based.on the survey you submitted the following variances are necessary:
~ Structure setback to the ordinary high water mark of 904' elevation.
~ Exceeding the allowable impervious surface coverage area of 30 %.
On February 28, 2001, you proVided a written response verifying the additional variance for
impervious surface area being requested, as it was not listed on your application.
The Planning Department has determined that this application is complete and will begin formal
review. We will notify you of any pertinent issues, which may arise as a result of your internal
review and preparation of our staff report.
We have scheduled your request to be heard by the Planning Commission on March 26, 2001.
The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. and is located at the Fire Station on County Road 21 and Fish
Point Road. You or you representative is expected to be in attendance. If you cannot make the
meeting, please let me know. You will be receiving a copy of the public notice and a copy of the
staff report with recommendation prior to the meeting.
The City approval process can be substantially less than 120 days, and we intend to move this
matter through the process in a timely manner which provides a complete, professional review.
Occasionally, however, due to meeting schedules, it is sometimes necessary to extend the 60 day
review period. This letter also serves as your official notice that the City is extending the 60 day
deadline for an additional 60 days from April 28, 2001, to June 28,2001.
If you have questions please call me at (612) 447-9854.
Sincerely, I
r-~~
Steve Horsman
Zoning Administrator
I:\template\variance\complete.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 I Ph. (952) 447-4230 I Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL O....Ut\1 UNITY EMPLOYER
March 22, 2001
Mr. D. Mark Crouse
15507 Calmut Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Agenda and Agenda Report
Attached is a Planning Commission Agenda and Staff Report for the March 26, 2001
Planning Commission meeting. You or your representatives are expected to attend the
meeting. You will be given the opportunity to speak regarding your proposal and the
staff report. The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. and is held at the Fire Station located at
16776 Fish Point Road (east of HWY 13 on the south side of CR 21). If you cannot
attend the meeting, please call me so your item can be deferred to the next Planning
Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me at 447-4230.
Sincerely,
~~Ctud5~'-
Connie Carlson 1
Planning Dept. Secretary
Enclosure
I:\deptwork\blankfrm\meetltr.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
,; MEMORANDUM
.
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
CC:
SBJCT:
3/26/01
Planning Commissioners
Steve Horsman, Zoning Administator
Planning Staff
Agenda Item 4C, Variance 01-0 17PC
At the request of the applicant, D. Mark Crouse, agenda item 4~ originally
scheduled for the public hearing on :MtH~~ 211,~881 ;will be postponed until
the April 33, 300+, meeting. ~ .2tt L ~
~ ~').SOI
See attached request.
.../
. . '7
.'. : .: ;.i1e Carlson
.' "'Y'"
. -.- - ;'~:. ' '. ;..
;::::J:.;/...(~")in:
.. ......... " nt.
o ~. ..;...:... ..~ . . ... . _ _ .
. .':,:::": '1'0:
Subject:
Mark Crouse [Mark.Crouse@oracle.com]
Saturday, March 24, 20013:19 PM
ccarlson@cityofpriorlake.com; Mark Crouse
Planning Meeting Date Change Request
_-f
Card for Mark Crouse
Date: March 23, 2001
To: City of Prior Lake Planning Commission
From: D. Mark Crouse
RE: Meeting Date for Variance Request
Due to required business travel I will not be able to attend the meeting
scheduled for March 26, 2001. As I am also out of town on April 9th,
please reschedule my variance request for the meeting dated April 23,
2001. If you have any questions please call me at 952.440.5233.
Thank you for your assistance.
.
1
April 18,2001
D. Mark Crouse
15507 Calmut Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Agenda and Agenda Report
Attached is a Planning Commission Agenda and Staff Report for the April 23, 2001
Planning Commission meeting. You or your representatives are expected to attend the
meeting. You will be given the opportunity to speak regarding your proposal and the
staff report. The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. and is held at the Fire Station located at
16776 Fish Point Road (east of HWY 13 on the south side of CR 21). If you cannot
attend the meeting, please call me so your item can be deferred to the next Planning
Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me at 447-4230.
Sincerely,
~~
Connie Carlson
Planning Dept. Secretary
Enclosure
I:\deptwork\blankfrm\meetltr.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
v
~
\/
if
v
Page 1 of 1
Connie Carlson
From: Mark Crouse [Mark.Crouse@oracle.com]
Sent: Friday, April 20, 200112:50 PM
To: ccarlson@cityofpriorlake.com; shorsman@cityofpriorlake.com; Crouse,D.
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting - Date/Request for Information
Steve/Connie:
Meeting: Date
I haven't received any updates on the new date for my variance request to the planning commission,
so I wanted to share my schedule restrictions to keep you informed. I will be travelling all of next
week for business, but I am currently scheduled to be in town on May 7th and May 21 st. The end of
May is the end of the fiscal year for the company I work for, so this is the busiest time for me
travelwise.
Questions/Reauests
In preparing for the meeting I'm trying to educate myself on the issues related to the variance
requests, so that I better understand the guidelines and options available. I've come up with the
following that I need your help with:
.v"
1) In the Planning Report there are 9 Hardship Standards listed. Must all 9 standards be met for the
variance to be approved? If not all, then can the request be approved if anyone of the 9 standards are
met? What are the guidelines for approval based on the 9 criteria?
2) Can you help me understand what is meant under Hardship Standard #1 in the Planning Report
where it states, "was developed under the current ownership and they did not meet the conditions
spelled out in the building permit for the principal structure."
3) I still need to get a copy of the ordinances which spell out the setback and impervious surface
restrictions. In addition the the legal verbiage stated on the books I need to understand the cities
interpretation ofthe "intent" of these codes. The term "intent" was used in the Planning Report under
standard #5 and #6, so I want to make sure I clearly understand what the intent is for each.
4) Hardship Standard #7 regarding "convenience" is still a little unclear to me. The words,
"necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty" are also somewhat vague. Can
you help me understand this standard by restating your int\';.l.lJ1etation of it's intent or definition?
5) As a resident and lakeshore taxpayer do I have the right to access information in the cities files on
other properties? Specifically, there are several properties that are listed in the radius report that I
would like to review to confirm their setbacks and impervious surface amounts.
6) Finally, will you please provide data on the variance requests made over the past five years to the
city for both setback and impervious surface, along with the resulting outcome of these requests?
I greatly appreciate your assistance on this matter. I truly want to gain a better level of understanding
so that my time with the planning commission is of the utmost value to all parties. Thank you in
advance for your help.
Regards,
Mark Crouse
4/19/01
H=>>arLYnCii".:.".Mark Crouse"'setbSck-"8ri8nce'andimpeiViOassiiiface Coverage Variance, 1550'Y'CaTm'uCpriorIake-'--"""'Pa~e'TI
From: Pat Lynch
To: Shorsman@cityofpriorlake.com
Date: Wed, Mar 21, 2001 2:56 PM
Subject: Mark Crouse Setback Variance and Impervious Surface Coverage Variance, 15507
Calmut, Prior Lake
I am familiar with this parcel of property.
This home so close to the lake and significant concrete lot coverage represents Intense use of the lot.
There Is virtually no buffering or Infiltration opportunity for stormwater runoff.
I note the survey shows an existing platform deck on the southeast comer of the home. I doubt a
hardship argument could be made for the deck added without permit last year. Of greater concern Is the
Impervious surface coverage of about 60 % (when adding Impervious sidewalks). That represents
double the city standard, and even greater than the minimum recommended statewide standard of 25%.
In the Interest of water quality, DNR recommendation Is for removal of Impervious surface to conform
with the 30% allowable by ordinance. It Is preferable to remove as much hard surface as possible on the
lake side of the home to provide some Infiltration and buffering capacity.
DNR Is not supportive of Issuance of an after-the-fact variance for a deck with a setback as shown on the
plan. If the applicant succesfully makes a hardship case and the city does approve It, I stili recommend
bringing the impervious surface coverage In to compliance. Please call me if you'd like to discuss my
comments.
d1:do\
G-
~ .
..
\\ \~ lJ; zt~;.,;;
\\ ~ ""-.:"/,:.,
~ ,~1 ~"'/'
~ .t?{;, c'
,t; t!AY200t \~,
f; ~CEI\fEj) ~:;
~ ,--. ~,/
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLO . ~ '\~~
~,>'1'
VARIANCE'S TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM INPERVIOUS SURFACE
COVERAGE AREA AND TO A STRUCTURE SETBACK LESS THAN 75
FEET TO THE ORDINARY IDGH WATER MARK
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTACHED DECK TO A SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-l DISTRICT (LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL) AND THE SHORELAND DISTRlCT (SD) IDENu.t<llilJ AS 15507
CALMUT AVENUE, PRIOR LAKE, MN.
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a public
hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of
the intersection of County Road 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Tuesday, MAY 29, 2001,
at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANT: D. Mark Crouse
15507 Calmut Avenue NE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
SUBJECT SITE: 15507 Calmut Avenue NE, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as
Lot 9, atld part of Lot 10, North Grainwood, Scott County,
Minnesota
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting two variance's: one, to permit an
impervious surface coverage area of 57.5%; and second, to allow
an existing deck, attached to the principal structure, with a setback
of 4 feet from the ordinary high water mark.
If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions related to this
hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447-9810
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Planning
Commission will accept oral and/or written comments. Oral or written comments should
relate to how the proposed construction and requested variances are or are not consistent
with the Zoning Ordinance and variance hardship criteria.
Prepared this 17th day of May, 2001.
Steven Horsman
City of Prior Lake
To be mailed on or before May 18,2001.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\MailNOTE2.DOC 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Steve Horsman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mark Crouse [Mark.Crouse@oracle.com]
Thursday, May 17,20012:15 PM
shorsman@cityofpriorlake.com; Mark Crouse
[Fwd: Planning Commission Meeting - Date/Request for Information]
f>...~
~
IlII'm,,-1
E~:::::#-
Planning Commission
Meeting. ...
Card for Mark Crouse
Steve:
After you called and we talked through the list I sent on April 20th I
thought your office was going to send the info requested as #3, the
codes and intents for impervious surface and setback. If it was already
sent unfortunately it didn't get to me, and I still need that info to
prepare. Also, as per our conversation, I'll scheduled with Linda to get
the data requested in items #6 and 7.
If you can send the codes and intents via email that would be most
helpful.
Thanks,
Mark Crouse
1
May 23,2001
Mark Crouse
15507 Calmut Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Agenda and Agenda Report
Attached is a Planning Commission Agenda and Staff Report for the May 29, 2001
Planning Commission meeting. You or your representatives are expected to attend the
meeting. You will be given the opportunity to speak regarding your proposal and the
staff report. The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. and is held at the Fire Station located at
16776 Fish Point Road (east of HWY 13 on the south side of CR 21). If you cannot
attend the meeting, please call me so your item can be deferred to the next Planning
Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me at 447-4230.
Sincerely,
~
Connie Carlson
Planning Dept. Secretary
Enclosure
I:\deptwork\blankfrm\meetltr.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. {952} 447-4230 / Fax {952} 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNI1Y EMPLOYER
15507 Calmut Ave NE
Prior lake, MN 55372
City of Prior Lake
Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Date: May 29, 2001
:i MAY 3 I 2001
jU \j:
Dear City of Prior lake Planning Department,
Please reschedule my hearing date for a variance request to June 25, 2001.
Because of work related travel conflicts this is the only date I am able to be present.
Please accept my apology for the need to reschedule this hearing again.
Unfortunately the company I work for has a fiscal year end of May 31st, and given
that my typical travel is over 80% it has made it impossible for me to meet the
previously requested dates. I look forward to meeting with you on June 25th so we
can discuss my request for the variances submitted. Thank you for your patience and
consideration.
Regards,
~~~
~/df1161
Mark Crouse
Steve Horsman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mark Crouse [Mark.Crouse@oracle.com]
Tuesday, May 29, 2001 10:34 AM
Steve Horsman; Crouse,D.
Re: May 29, 2001, Planning Commission, Request for reschedule
~
Card for Mad< Crouse
Steve,
I will submit the written request for the 25th as per this message.
Thanks,
Mark
Steve Horsman wrote:
> Mark:
>
> The only two dates the Planning Commission meets next month is June 11, and
> June 25, 2001. You must submit a request in writing, signed and dated, in
> order to reshedule your hearing to one of these dates. Fax (952-447-4245)
> and mail your request to the Planning Department at City Of Prior Lake ,
> 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE, Prior Lake, MN 55372.
>
> Any questions my direct dial line is 952-447-9854.
>
> Steve Horsman
> Zoning Administrator
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Crouse [mailto:Mark.Crouse@oracle.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 7:59 PM
> To: Steve Horsman; Crouse,D.
> Subject: Re: May 29, 2001, Planning Commission, Request for Information
>
> Thanks Steve,
>
> Unfortunately I am travelling all this week and won't get back in time to be
> able to get this information in enough time to prepare for the meeting on
> the
> 29th of May. I will be at a customers manufacturing location through the end
> of
> the week and don't have a fax number to provide you. Given that my employers
> fiscal year ends on May 31st, I've also been told by my management that I
> need
> to be prepared to travel at the last minute for any open activities, which
> puts
> me in jeopardy for the 29th.
>
> I know the form I sign has a deadline date of end-June for us to conduct
> this
> meeting. Please advise as to the potential dates in June so I can have the
> time
> to prepare once I have received the ordinances. I do know that I am
> committed
> to an out of town meeting the week of June 11-14th. What are the alternative
> meeting dates available?
>
> Regards,
1
>
> Mark Crouse
>
> Steve Horsman wrote:
>
> > Mark:
> >
> > I have mailed the information you requested on the ordinances for
> structure
> > setbacks and impervious surface area, and the intent of the city codes. I
> > will also fax them but I need your fax number.
> >
> > Any questions call my direct phone number at 952-447-9854.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Steve Horsman, Zoning Administrator
2
Steve Horsman
To:
Subject:
Mark Crouse
RE: May 29,2001, Planning Commission, Request for reschedule
Mark:
The only two dates the Planning Commission meets next month is June 11, and June 25, 2001.
You must submit a request in writing, signed and dated, in order to reshedule your hearing
to one of these dates. Fax (952-447-4245) and mail your request to the Planning Department
at City Of Prior Lake, 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE, Prior Lake, MN 55372.
Any questions my direct dial line is 952-447-9854.
Steve Horsman
Zoning Administrator
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Crouse [mailto:Mark.Crouse@oracle.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 7:59 PM
To: Steve Horsman; Crouse,D.
Subject: Re: May 29, 2001, Planning Commission, Request for Information
Thanks Steve,
Unfortunately I am travelling all this week and won't get back in time to be
able to get this information in enough time to prepare for the meeting on the
29th of May. I will be at a customers manufacturing location through the end of
the week and don't have a fax number to provide you. Given that my employers
fiscal year ends on May 31st, I've also been told by my management that I need
to be prepared to travel at the last minute for any open activities, which puts
me in jeopardy for the 29th.
I know the form I sign has a deadline date of end-June for us to conduct this
meeting. Please advise as to the potential dates in June so I can have the time
to prepare once I have received the ordinances. I do know that I am committed
to an out of town meeting the week of June 11-14th. What are the alternative
meeting dates available?
Regards,
Mark Crouse
Steve Horsman wrote:
> Mark:
>
> I have mailed the information you requested on the ordinances for structure
> setbacks and impervious surface area, and the intent of the city codes. I
> will also fax them but I need your fax number.
>
> Any questions call my direct phone number at 952-447-9854.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Steve Horsman, Zoning Administrator
1
June 20, 2001
Mark Crouse
15507 Calmut Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Agenda and Agenda Report
Attached is a Planning Commission Agenda and Staff Report for the June 25, 2001
Planning Commission meeting. You or your representatives are expected to attend the
meeting. You will be given the opportunity to speak regarding your proposal and the
staff report. The meeting begins at 6:30p.m. and is held at the Fire Station located at
16776 Fish Point Road (east of HWY 13 on the south side of CR 21). If you cannot
attend the meeting, please call me so your item can be deferred to the next Planning
Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me at 447-4230.
S~inCerelY' ..
'; ~
C . i~~r1S0n
Planning Dept. Secretary
Enclosure
//
I:\deptwork\blankfrm\meetltr.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
~,
Steve Horsman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Pat Lynch [pat.lynch@dnr.state.mn.us]
Thursday, June 21, 2001 10:25 AM
Shorsman@cityofpriorlake.com
Mark Crouse
Mark Crouse called today. He apparently is going before PC Monday night regarding his
deck and impervious surface. He was asking me about what I thought, and I let him know
that I had provided the city my comments, and was not supportive of deck or excessive
impervious. I made it clear he needed to convince PC at this point. I thought I'd
better bring this to your attention in case he tells you I said something different.
Pat Lynch
DNR South Metro Area Hydrologist
phone 651.772.7917
fax 651.772.7977
pat.1ynch@dnr.state.mn.us
1
Steve Horsman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mark Crouse [Mark.Crouse@oracle.com]
Thursday, July 05, 2001 2:15 PM
Steve Horsman; Crouse,D.
Request for Continuance
Card for Mark Crouse
Steve,
As per our phone conversation on Tuesday, July 3rd, we will need to
reschedule the continuance for the variance request related to
impervious surface. I have not been able to meet with Valley Survey to
gather the data needed to develop a proposal back to the planning
commission. In addition I will be travelling next week to Chicago for
business. Sorry I was unable to send this message to you the evening of
the 3rd or yesterday, but our email server was down for maintenance over
the holiday.
Regards,
Mark Crouse
PS: Are the minutes from the meeting available yet? If so, how can I
get a copy? Is it also possible to get a copy of the audio recording of
the meeting if the minutes do not contain full detail of the contents?
1
'..._...........'-,.~...:'~ ".'~T';.'",.,,~-..~_-"_,"<L-'.' ........ ...... <,..............;:~~-
-;"'~~.....,,,-~~................'ho.:'-~,..a;,~__~~~~"""'..':':" '~'~"~'_'" _.....:- ",:" '';''_._~'':'''':''''4'' . ,,,,~,,_____,,-,_~,,
July 5, 2001
Mark Crouse
15507 Calmut Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Agenda and Agenda Report
Attached is a Planning Commission Agenda and Staff Report for the July 9, 2001
Planning Commission meeting. You or your representatives are expected to attend the
meeting. You will be given the opportunity to speak regarding your proposal and the
staff report. The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. and is held at the Fire Station located at
16776 Fish Point Road (east of HWY 13 on the south side of CR 21). If you cannot
attend the meeting, please call me so your item can be deferred to the next Planning
Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me at 447-4230.
Sincerely,
~v~ ~'I\ QA-t~
Connie Carlson \,A,V (II
Planning Dept. Secretary
Enclosure
I:\deptwork\blankfrm\meetltr.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
.t' ~..l'.. r ., n.., . 01.,.. .. 'fi'
I r fa lJUr I
July 10, 2001
Mark Crouse
15507 Calmut Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Variance Request
Dear Mr. Crouse:
On July 9, 2001, the Planning Commission deferred consideration of your variance
request to the maximum allowed impervious surface to their meeting on July 23, 2001.
The Planning Commission continued this item to allow you time to look at ways to
reduce the amount of impervious surface on this site.
You must submit any new information to the Planning Department no later than Monday,
July 16, 2001. This will allow staff the time to review this information and prepare
agenda reports for the Planning Commission meeting.
I am also attaching a copy of the approved minutes of the June 25. 2001, Planning
Commission meeting for your information.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have questions, please contact me or
Steve Horsman directly at 952-447-4230.
Sincerely"
Q.!~
ane Kansier, AIC~l.
Planning Coordinator
1:\0111Ies\01varlances\01-017\new info.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
"lJO.-~.-~-~~- ,~",-",>';"':""~~'4..1'........&-.__.________'=a-...._"""""~'..t...l~',.;__~__':'_.__...._,~.",,",,,,-~__-L-~>o;'.~____~...~"';"'_,_~~;...:..._.;'''''':''~_;..'';~_~...-..~__..
July 18, 2001
Mark Crouse
1550fCalmut Avenue NE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Agenda and Agenda Report
Attached is a Planning Commission Agenda and Staff Report for the July 23, 2001
Planning Commission meeting. You or your representatives are expected to attend the
meeting. You will be given the opportunity to speak regarding your proposal and the
staff report. The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. and is held at the Fire Station located at
16776 Fish Point Road (east of HWY 13 on the south side of CR 21). If you cannot
attend the meeting, please call me so your item can be deferred to the next Planning
Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me at 447-4230.
Sincerely I
6nuw ~~X--
Connie Carlson 1 ~-
Planning Dept. Secretary
Enclosure
I:\deptwork\blankfrm\meetltr.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Ij"-~._" . . _.~---~..~
~~-"'~'"'-'~~-:'k___
""""~~lWIo.""",","""":''''''''''''''''C~(_~<<'~''''-__'M'_'I>'_''~'-'''..-{_'''''''~'''~''~=''_'_""'_"."~""__-"""'_.....:_~.:...._ _ ___.__....'_._-"--=.,-_... ..._........ _ ..-..-...J_"'........._..,......-'... ,_. ~~_..._,;,.:"'~._._........._,__.._
August 22, 2001
D. Mark Crouse
15507 Calmut Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Agenda and Agenda Report
Attached is a Planning Commission Agenda and Staff Report for the August 27,2001
Planning Commission meeting. You or your representatives are expected to attend the
meeting. You will be given the opportunity to speak regarding your proposal and the
staff report. The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. and is held at the Fire Station located at
16776 Fish Point Road (east of HWY 13 on the south side of CR 21). If you cannot
attend the meeting, please call me so your item can be deferred to the next Planning
Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me at 447-4230.
Sincerely, ~
, - /1
aot'l.ltlt LlLiLD)vl\
I
Connie Carlson L
Planning Dept. Secretary
Enclosure
I:\deptwork\blankfrm\meetltr.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
il
!
Steve Horsman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Importance:
Mark Crouse [Mark.Crouse@oracle.com]
Monday, August 27, 2001 4:33 PM
Horsman, Steve; Crouse,D.
Variance Request Continuance
High
13
Card for Mark Crouse
Steve,
As per our phone call this afternoon I have acquired the services of
Bryce Huemoeller to assist me. I will be travelling again this evening
and will be unable to personally attend the planning commission meeting
scheduled for tonight. Bryce has not had enough time to prepare for
tonights meeting so we need to ask for a continuance until the next
scheduled meeting date. Bryce will be representing me at that and any
subsequent meetings. Please forward any future correspondence to Bryce
as I will be relying on his services to represent my interests.
~\O~
Cordially,
Mark Crouse
,
~&~i~~Vo~
~~ II1MVv"~ ~ ~
~~~~-~VuA ~10 V'~
Pu-~:'I.~ '-.- fV~ ~ ~ d-~
VW\J'-t~1'~ ~ .
vv? ~M .dtk~ ~/~ avl ~ ltD.
-
---
~/
~'~~~
~~
1
September 5, 2001
D. Mark Crouse
15507 Calmut Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Agenda and Agenda Report
Attached is a Planning Commission Agenda and Staff Report for the September 10,
2001 Planning Commission meeting. You or your representatives are expected to
attend the meeting. You will be given the opportunity to speak regarding your proposal
and the staff report. The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. and is held at the Fire Station
located at 16776 Fish Point Road (east of HWY 13 on the south side of CR 21). If you
cannot attend the meeting, please call me so your item can be deferred to the next
Planning Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me at 447-
4230.
Sincerely,
C:b~
Connie Carlson
Planning Dept. Secretary
Enclosure
I:\deptwork\blankfrm\meetltr.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
! 1
September 19,2001
Huemoeller & Bates Law Office
16670 Franklin Trail SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Agenda and Agenda Report
Attached is a Planning Commission Agenda and Staff Report for the September 24,
2001 Planning Commission meeting. You or your representatives are expected to
attend the meeting. You will be given the opportunity to speak regarding your proposal
and the staff report. The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. and is held at the Fire Station
located at 16776 Fish Point Road (east of HWY 13 on the south side of CR 21). If you
cannot attend the meeting, please call me so your item can be deferred to the next
Planning Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me at 447-
9810.
Sincerely,
~
Connie Carlson
Planning Dept. Secretary
Enclosure
I:\deptwork\blankfrm\meetltr.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
rr::::--:--
HUEMOELLER & BATES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
POST OFFICE BOX 67
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
Telephone: 952.447.2131
Facsimile: 952.447.5628
E-mail: huemoellerbates{@aoI.com
SEP 2 6 2001
, ,
:U L'
I
-. ....'
BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER
JAMES D. BATES
ALLISON J. GONTAREK
OF COUNSEL:
CHARLES C. HALBERG
September 25, 2001
Mr. Steve HUJ..)1Uan
Prior Lake Planning Depw. bent
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake MN 55372
By Facsimile and
U.S. Mail
Re: D. Mark Crouse - Application for Variance No. 01-017
Dear Mr. Horsman:
Please consider this letter as a request for your department to disregard my
September 14 letter of appeal directed to Mr. Rye, Planning Director. We were under the
impression that a final decision had been reached at the September 10 Planning
Commission meeting which required an appeal within 5 days. I apologize for the
misunderstanding and appreciate you contacting me before publishing the notice.
Thanks!
'fer! truly yours,
,
I~)J~ ,.
Allison J. Gontarek
~::~~~~~~~~'''''''';:''''~';'':-:''''.~;,~",>>:.,;>,-;;..";::.",,,~':';,:>r-~.<,,'~~~'~:..';_;':'-:'?~ ',~ ,:,' :....,. -,', -. . ,,,"~
October 3, 2001
HUEMOELLER & SATES
Attn: Allison Gontarek
16670 Franklin Trail SE, Suite 210
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Agenda and Agenda Report
".
Attached is a Planning Commis~ion Agenda and Staff Report for the October 8, 2001
Planning Commission meeting. You or your representatives are expected to attend the
meeting. You will be given the opportunity to speak regarding your proposal and the
staff report. The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. and is held at the Fire Station located at
16776 Fish Point Road (east of HWY 13 on the south side of CR 21). If you cannot
attend the meeting, please call me so your item can be deferred to the next Planning
Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me at 447-9810.
Sincerely,
C!AJJIIW
Connie Carlson
Planning Dept. Secretary
Enclosure
.
I:\deptwork\blankfrm\meetltr.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
-,
HUEMOELLER & BATES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
POST OFFICE BOX 67
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
Telephone: 952.447.2131
Facsimile: 952.447.5628
E-mail: huemoellerbates(a).aol.com
BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER
JAMES D. BATES
ALLISON J. GONTAREK
OF COUNSEL:
CHARLES C. HALBERG
October 5, 2001
Mr. Steve Horsman
Prior Lake Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake MN 55372
Hand Delivered
Re: D. Mark Crouse - Application for Variance No. 01-017
Dear Mr. Horsman:
Enclosed please fmd a report prepared by Professional Engineering Consultants regarding
the requirement for a cap between Mr. Crouse's house and the lakeshore. We respectfully request
that the hearing on Mr. Crouse's variance request be reopened based on this new information,
obtained at the request of the Planning Commission.
This engineering analysis was obtained to satisfy the questions raised by the Planning
Commission at their September 10,2001 meeting. It is in draft form because the engineering
firm was unable to produce a final, more polished copy. I will forward you a final copy as soon
as it becomes available. I am forwarding the report to all the Planning Commissioners
individually in hopes to expedite a drawn out process.
Mr. Gislason states the need for a cap was created by the legally permitted raising of the
original structure to comply with current elevation requirements. We would appreciate the
Planning Commission taking this additional information into consideration in Mr. Crouse's
variance request.
])1:;s'
Allison J. Gontarek
cc: D. Mark Crouse
.'
I
PROF. ENGR. CONSULT.
491219265
p.el
October 4, 2001
Mark Crouse
15507 Calmut Ave NE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Subj: Grading Review
15507 Calmut Ave NE
Prior Lake, Minnesota - PEe #5091
Dear Mr. Crouse:
This letter concerns our. review ot the grading and patio
construction for the single family residential atructure ~t the
above referenced address. We understand the structure was built
with a basement floor elevation lower than currently allowed for
residential str\lctures on the lakeshore. Therefore, the wood framed
· portion of the structure WaS raised, four courses of block were
added to the perimeter foundation and fill was added inside of the
structure to support a lower level floor slab. Now the lower level
floor slab complies with current elevatj,on requirements. These
alterations required changes to the exterior grading.
On the lake side of the structure the grading changes required the
following engineering ponsiderations:
1. The exterior grade had to be raised to balance the l~teral
soil loadings on the raised section of the rear foundation
wall.
2. The grade required a. cap to prevent surface water infil tra.t.ion
into the backfill region to reduce frost action and provide
erosion control.
In addition to the engineering considerations where the function
and maintenance consider~tions for the const~uction. There was a
sliding glass doorway in the lowel: level and a need to provide
maintenance access for the lake side face of the construction.
These requirements and engineering requirements were aCGomplished
by constructing a near level grade with a retaining wall. The
retaining wall also had a requ.irement to reduce lateral frost
action against the wall. Therefore, the top of the gr~de had to be
capped to minimize surface water runoff from percolating into the
subgrade soils.
. ~.9F. E~GR. CONSULT.
4909265
P.02
Page Two
The paved patio area fulfills the cap requirement over the
backfill. It 'minimizes the surface water infiltration to reduce
frost action in the subgrade soils and it keeps water away from the
foundation. It also provides erosion protection fo~ the subgradfl.
Puring our observations on October 1, 2001. we observed a gal'
between the foundation wall and the patio slab. This ga~ should b~
sea.led with a fle~ible joint sea.lant to' prevent dirt and water
migration into the ga.p. The saw joints in the pa.tio a.l~o should
be sealed with jo tnt sealant. The pa.tio slab extends to the
outside edge of the retaining wall. This construction det.a.il
1Jlinimi ~es water infil t:t'~tion behind the back: of the retai.ning wall,
If you have any quest.ions regarding our review, please cont-.act. us
at 651-490~9266.
Respectfully,
, Professional Engineering Consultants, Inc.
John F. Gislason, Jr., P.~.
Professional Engineer
JFG/fm .
cc: Allison Gontarek
952-447-5628, Fax
OCT. 5.2001 1: 26PM
NO. 2626 P. 2
ZoIJUar Cllllt!
appeal the decision to the Board of Adjustment by filing a Notice of Appeal
with the Plaoning Department addressed to the Board of Adjustment stating
the action appealed from and stating the specific grounds for the appeal.
, '
,', . .'
1109.302 ~Public HearinC- The City shall set a Public Hearing for the appeal
by the Board of Adjustment to be held not less than 10 days nor more than 45
days after it receives a Notice of Appeal- Notice of the hearing on the appeal
before the Board of AdjustmeDt sball be given by mail to all applicants
pursuant to subsection 1109.200. A notice of hearing shall be published in
the official newspaper of the City at least 10 days before the hearing date if
the appeal involves the determination of boundary lines of a Use District.
Any interested party may appear at the public hearing in person or by agent or
attorney -
1109.303 Board of Adjustment to Decide. The Board of Adjustment shall detennine
all appeals from any written order, requirement, permit, decision, refusal, or
determination of the Zoning Administrator; and from any interpretation of The
text of this Ordinance, the location of boundaries of a Use District as shown
on the Zoning Map. The decision of the Board of' Adjusanent shall be by
resolution. The !~~C?lution shall be adoDtea bv a IDal0Jlty v^tp gf all wembe!S
present and. votin2 on tb~ issues presented bL the ~al. In making the
decision, members of the Board of Adjusunent shall consider the questions
raised in light of the general purpose of this ordinance and the CI..~6ehensive
Plan. A copy of the resolution of the Board of Adjustment shall be mailed to
the applicant.
1109.400: ApPEAL To THE CITY COUNCIL. Any o~er of affected property or
any owner of property situated wholly or panly within 350 feet of the affected,
property or any officer or department representative of the City may .appeal
the decision of the Board of Adjustment to the City Council. The appeal must
be in writing and must be filed with the Zoning Admini~trator within S
calendar days after the date of the Board of Adjustment decision. The
required fee shall be paid when the appeal request is filed. When an appeal is
received by the City. the applicant will be notified of the date and time the
City Council will hear the appeal. No appeal will be heard until all owners of
property within 350 feet of the subject property are notified of the date
scheduled for the appeal hearing. Notice'shall be provided in the manner set
out in subsection 1109.200. The City Council shall hear the appeal within 30
days of the filing of the appeal unless that period is extended wim coment of
the appellant. The City Council may reverse a decision of the Board of
Adjustment by an affirmative vote of the majority of its full membership. The
City Council shall render a decision within 30 days of the conclusion of the
appeal hearing.
City of p,jfl' 1AJr4
ll09/pS
May 1. 1999
OCT. 5.2001 1: 25PM
NO. 2626
P. 1
IfAX'l'RANSMlSSION
HUEMOELLEa & BATES
16670 Franklin Trail
Prior Lake, MN 55372
(952) 447-2131
Fax: (952) 447-5828
To:
Fax #:
Steve Horsman
Date:
Pages:
October S, 2001
1 of 2
447-4245
From: Allison J. Gontarek, Esq.
Subject; CroU5e
CONFJDENTlALlTY NOTICE: The doclmlerl#(s) accompanying this 1= cOlftain confidential information which is legally
pt'ivileged The informatiol~ is imended tml:y /01' the Ilse of the intended recipient. If you. flJ'e not the intended recipient.
you are hereby notified tMt any discloslI.1'e. tJof1')Jing, di.$tribu.tion 01' the taking of any action in reliQ1lt;Q on the cemtentt r:if
the te/ecopied i'!forml2lir)n except it~. direct riBlive", to the intended recipient nalned aboye is strictly prohibited. lfyou
have toeceivea thisfQ in error, please notify us immediflte/y by telephone to arl'dngBfor retutn o/the origing/ docl/.mentr
t(l us.
'.U... LI
11111..
~I ~11~1I1"'1.. Hl."_'
._ 1.11......11
COMMENTS:
Hi-
Attached is what we discussed. At this point there is no resolution, only a
proposed resolution up for signing on Monday_Thanks -
Allison
October 8,2001
Ms. Allison Gontarek
Huemoeller & Bates
16670 Franklin Trail
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Dear Ms. Gontarek:
The City of Prior Lake received a letter from you dated October 5, 2001, requesting that
the public hearing be reopened for Variance File 01-017PC. You included additional
information from a Professional Engineering Consultant regarding the need for a cap
(patio) between the home and lakeshore retaining wall on the property at 15507 Calmut
Avenue.
As you are aware the Planning Commission made a final decision on this matter, and
allowed the applicant to maintain a 38% impervious surface area on the subject
property, at the scheduled hearing on September 24, 2001. This provides for a driveway
to the 3-stall garage, but requires the additional impervious surface area to be removed,
including the patio area in question. The public hearing for this request has been closed
and any additional variance requests and supporting documentation shall be processed
in the form of a new variance application.
If you should have any questions regarding this matter, call my direct phone number at
447-9854 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and I will assist
you.
Sincerely,
a~ ^ ~.. .
~/j,1A ~$~~
steven Horsman
Zoning Administrator/Inspector
Enclosed: Variance Application
16200 ~~tJGreek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL oPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
': .~_.........~!.~
, . _~,_,_~.__~ .___-'_....--'..._-_.~~--_.__',,"""__'.... _ _" ."....;...___,. _ .'.'_ w._.___.....'-'.~~_ .....,1
DATE:
U9/~/o (
TO:~4-M.~ ~# 'i!J7'~Z-B
~e.k @#
.,
1~\Mr"'~.4@#
.
NUMBER OF PAGES:
~~""'\ ~' .
FROM: ..r~A.f)-
~/
(including cover)
FAX No.:
447 -4245
Notes From The Sender:
~-1VAt~ (',$1f) 4.r:~ t.{t(7-~
r
Notice of Confidentiality
The infonnation transmitted with this facsimile is confidential and is intended only
for the individual or entity designated above. If you have received this facsimile
erroneously, please notify sender immediately and destroy the transmission.
, /
'\
PLEASE CALL ~~
ALL PAGES.
AT ft'D-...l.{..LL7-qe~ IF You Do NOT RECEIVE
";'
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
~,
October 9,2001
Thomas E. Vonhof
Planning Commission Chair.
14411 Watersedge Trail -
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Dear Mr. Vonhof:
Enclosed are Variance Resolutions 01-011 PC (Approved) and 01-017PC (Approved), as
adopted by the Planning Commission on October 8, 2001. Please review and sign the
Resolutions and return in the self addressed stamped envelope provided. Also note the
Revised Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey, has not yet been submitted by the
applicant as a condition of Res. 01-011 PC. This Resolution will not be forwarded to the
applicant for recording until the City receives said attachment.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please call my direct phone
number at 447-9854 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and I
will assist you.
Sincerely,
~~I\~4'~
~en H~an
Zoning Administratorllnspector
16200 E'&~ftPEreek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
I~-~-.
!
"::"-'~ ' _.".;. '. ............::......:.. ~-A... ',.' ~ '_~_':':',~,,,,,,,,: ..._...;.-. ..~,...::~_~:~...,.,:___. -.:~.~
~ ~ " - - .., . ~,~
~~.... "....~-,:.,-.-
October 12, 2001
Ms. Allison Gontarek
Huemoeller & Bates
16670 Franklin Trail
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Variance Resolution 01-011 PC, 15507 Calmut Avenue
Dear Ms. Gontarek:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that Resolution 01-011 PC, regarding the
variance request on Mr. Crouse's property, must be recorded within 60 days at the Scott
County Land Records Office. The 60-day time limit for recording began on the adoption
date of October 8, 2001. The proof of recording shall be submitted to the Planning
Department. As a condition of the Resolution the applicant is required to submit a
I -
revised survey as an attachment. None has been submitted to date.
I am aware your client is considering re-applying for the impervious surface variance
because of the new information recently acquired from a Professional Engineering
Consultant. Its important that your client realize that time is of the essence. A revised
survey to in;clude your proposed variance request shall be submitted with the
application. .
In addition, an Assent Form that outlines the Variance conditions must be signed by all
property owners and returned to the Planning Department prior to the recording of the
Resolution.
If you should have any questions regarding this matter, call my direct phone number at
447-9854 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and I will assist
you.
Sincerely,
4.... 4z-a J-h,
Steven Horsman
Zoning Administrator/lnspector
Faxed/Mailed on 10/12/01
16200 ElYgle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
...... --
. '.'~ ." -'
......;. .;. . ~ ".-' --- r-'_ ;_......~.....: . .........~~~-:.:..'"".- " . " .~.
. . ~. ~ ~- ~ .
October 12,2001
Ms. Allison Gontarek
Huemoeller & Bates
16670 Franklin Trail
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Variance Resolution 01-011PC, 15507 Calmut Avenue
Dear Ms. Gontarek:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that Resolution 01-011 PC, regarding the
variance request on Mr. Crouse's property, must be recorded within 60 days at the Scott
County Land Records Office. The 60-day time limit for recording began on the adoption
date of October 8, 2001. The proof of recording shall be submitted to the Planning
Department. As a condition of: the Resolution the applicant is required to submit a
revised survey as an attachment. None has been submitted to date.
I am aware your client is considering re-applying for the impervious surface ,variance
because of the new information recently acquired from a Professional Engineering
Consultant. Its important that your client realize that time is of the essence. A revised
survey to include your proposed variance request shall be submitted with the
application.
In addition, an Assent Form that outlines the Variance conditions must be signed by all
property owners and returned to the Planning Department prior to the recording of the
Resolution.
If you should have any questions regarding this matter, call my direct phone number at
447-9854 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and I will assist
you.
Sincerely,
41,1... '4e- <I,...,.,
Steven Horsman
Zoning Administrator/lnspector
Faxed/Mailed on 10/12/01
16200 ~e Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
. _t..___,'~:;.yw'.
DATE:
~ (/;1-1 ~ "(
t1ijl!J.~,U!'f.!~'ii\~
TO:~.~ ~# L1'171"f'ta.Z-B
~wek @#
, .
~V'M,.~@#
c:cs
NUMBER OF PAGES:
FROM: ~ JJ)
-
'1/
I
(including cover)
-...
FAX No.:
447-4245
;
I
Notes From The Sender:
~,14~ ul0 t1r:~ L[Lf)-~5Z/.
/'
'\
Notice of Confidentiality
The information transmitted with this facsimile is confidential and is intended only
for the individual or entity designated above. If you have received this facsimile
\,rroneouSIY, please notify sender immediately and destroy the transmission. ./
PLEASE CALL ~i..~
ALL PAGES.
AT.C/..'fJ-... L{ L/.7-OZE.N IF You Do NOT RECEIVE
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN [QU;\L OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
r
Steve Horsman
To:
Cc:
Subject:
space@hlnsj.com
Frank Boyles
Mr. Crouse property at 15507 Calmut Avenue
Dear Ms. Pace;
I'm enforcing the conditions for compliance of the variance resolutions requiring the removal of a deck and impervious
surface area in excess of 38% on the subject property. Attorney Allison Gonterak no longer represents the property
owner. At the January 22, 2002, City Council meeting, I recall some discussion between you and Ms. Gonterak regarding
rain barrels to help off-set the storm water runoff from the extra 8% impervious surface area.
Please inform me of any additional conditions that you are aware of regarding this issue.
Thanks for your help on this matter.
Steve Horsman
1
}.
Steve Horsman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Steve Horsman
Tuesday, April 02, 20024:13 PM
'space@hlnsj.com'
crouse variance exhibit
Ms. Pace:
Mr. Crouse has submitted a copy of the revised certificate of survey depicting the hard surface areas to be removed, and a
maximum 38% impervious surface area to remain on the subject property at 15507 Calmut Avenue.
Any questions my e-mail addressisshorsman@cityofpriorlake.com
Thanks for your help on this matter.
Steve Horsman
1
~
Steve Horsman
To:
Subject:
space@hlnsj.
crouse variance exhibit
Ms. Pace:
Mr. Crouse has submitted a copy of the revised certificate of survey depicting the hard surface areas to be removed, and a
maximum 38% impervious surface area to remain on the subject property at 15507 Calmut Avenue.
Any questions my e-mail addressisshorsman@cityofpriorlake.com
Thanks for your help on this matter.
Steve Horsman
1
"
Steve Horsman
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Frank Boyles
Wednesday, April 03, 2002 2:50 PM
Jack Haugen; Jim Petersen; Joe Zieska; Mike Gundlach; SUESAN PACE (E-mail)
Jane Kansier; Steve Horsman
CROUSE VARIANCE
You may recall that over two months ago the city council gave Mr. Crouse a 60 day opportunity to propose a written
agreement which would outline a process and timeline to prepare a plan which would address groundwater issues on his
property, which he created when he exceeded the 30% impervious surface maximum. Until a few days ago we had not
heard from Mr. Crouse. However, I now have confirmation from Steve Horsman that Mr. Couse has submitted a written
plan for reducing the impervious surface on his lot to 38% (the amount he was granted a variance for from the Planning
Commission). We are reviewing the plan: I will let you know our findings. I thought you would want to know.
1
~iscellaneous
....
, .~
L:\TEMPLATE\FILEINFO.DOC
I i
1.;
PUBLIC ~ARING
Conducted by the Planning Commission
<r~ Z-~~Ol
The Pla:cning Commission ~elcomes your comments in this matter. In fairness to all who
choose to speak, we ask that, after speaking once, you allow everyone else to speak
before you address the Commission again and limit your comments to clairiiication or
new information. Please be awan this is the principal opportuI1ity to provide input
on this matter. Once the public h~ring is closed, further tesitmony or comment will
not be possible except under rare conditions. The City Council will not hear
additional testimony when it considers this matter. Thank you.
NAl"1E
111~..- #~--.
. ~lt 1?~-
M~( ~u.~(~
All..IW.~.uAL'fCE- PLEASE PRINT
'ADDRESS 1_
1.&~/~41~~IJ., ~1'" ~ ~~?P'
I/DL\.<. QJIfj)~ I:"'f'"udl I A-/o'r LJ:,.
II ~~--? ekLMtJi .4-V<I~~ ~~. MD 5'S?~
I I '
I I
I I
I 'I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
!
I
I
I
I
I
...._,"-,,,,..,.-..,..... .,...:.,.~............~'""I_~....-...,..."',.......J,U:.--~"~""-._'....... .
~
PROJECT NAME:
APPLICANT:
CONTACT PERSON:
PID#:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
- '..- - -
r... - .._;..#_......:.~:..-..~-,;.,..:...'~:..__...._....'....4~_.:"'~..~"...__~.:.-~ _
- . '. _.,...~. - ..' '\,-". . -' .
~:-!.:..;.~...:..:.~:.:.;__~ .,',' . -.::.~"-: /r: -.:
'.- ,'",
" j~-_.~.~:~'~~~~~..--::~~-~~~~
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORC PROJECT REVIEW CHECKLIST
V AR 01-o17PC: Variance to impervious
surface area of 57.5 %, & 4 ft. setback to the
, OHWM for deck constructed wlo permit in 2000.
I
.1 D. Mark Crouse
.i Steve Horsman
SITE INFORMATION
I 250350060
i 15507 Calmut Ave.
i R1,SD
.1
DISTRIBUTE TO:
.... Frank Boyles
i.... Sue Walsh
.... Ralph Te. s chn. er
~-Don-Rv:,.. "'
.... I Jane Kansier /
.... Bob Hutchins
~:
I .... I DNR - Pat Lynch
I I County Hwy. Dept.
hi MNDOT
ISMDC
I Mediacom Cable
I Date Received
I Complete Application
Date
I Publication Date
60 Day Review Date
.... Bud Osmundson
.... Sue McDermott
.... Lani Leichty
Inl APPLICATION FOR:
Administrative Land Division
Comprehensive Plan Amend.
Conditional Use Permit
Home Occupation
Rezoning
I Site Plan
HH-Preliminary Plat.
PUD
I II I Final Plat
I 11....1 Variance
H,--i Vacation
'_IL'_._-_-_-_
.... Dou9 Hartman
I.... Fire Chief
.... Bill O'Rourke
II .... I Minnegasco
II .... I Watershed Dist.
I ~ Telephone Co.
.... Electric CO.
II I. Met. Council
Date Distributed
I Date Distributed to
DRC
Tentative PC Date
Date Due 3/16/01
I DRC Meeting I
Tentative CC I
Date
I I
Review Extension
~
1:\01 files\01 variances\01-0 17\referral.doc
-
Page 1
~'<'~' ___'-'-''''''--'.0'- ..-....,...... ;;J:- ~.'......~_...__..w...,._......__
I have reviewed the attached proposed request V AR 01-017PC for the following:
Water
Sewer
Zoning
Parks
Assessment
Policy
Septic System
Erosion Control
Recommendation:
Comments:
City Code
Storm Water
Flood Plain
Natural Features
Electric
Grading
Signs
County Road Access
Legal Issues
Roads/Access
Gas
Other
Building Code
Approval
Denial
Conditional Approval
. .
.'_~'):., ~~ nJtL ~~/U1!.f)-u.Lj .~,.L~
..J.jQ ~F7'~ u.{ DtJr.1L _ ~
d ~ --.LD ~~.. a. .~. (\.. (l.~JN.-. d7 .
~ ,lx h.A7~..~ n1 ~~. ~.
~o~~. ('\-. ~
If .~ - "--'
.
Signed:
CCf~
Date:
o 1~11'f1
v
Please return any comments by 3/16/01, to
Steve Horsman
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Phone: (612) 447-9854
Fax: (612) 447-4245
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\01-017\referral.doc
Page 2
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER T.u.E FOLLOWING:
VARIANCE'S TO EXCEED I.u.E MAXIMUM INPERVIOUS SURFACE
COVERAGE AREA AND TO A STRUCTURE SETBACK LESS THAN 75
FEET TO THE ORDINARY IDGH WATER MARK.
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON PROPERTY
LOCATED IN THE R-l DISTRICT (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) AND THE
SHORELAND DISTRICT (SD) IDEN1.Lt<ll:!.D AS 15507 CALMUT AVENUE, PRIOR
LAKE, MN.
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a public
hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of
the intersection of County Road 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday, MARCH 26,
2001, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPLICANT: D. Mark Crouse
15507 Calmut Avenue NE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
SUBJECT SITE: 15507 Calmut Avenue NE, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as
Lot 9, and part of Lot 10, North Grainwood, Scott County,
Minnesota
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting two variance's, one to exceed the
allowed impervious surface coverage area of 30%, and second to
allow a deck constructed in the summer of 2000 to remain. The
deck is attached to an existing principal structure setback less than
the minimum required 75 feet from'the ordinary high water mark.
If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions related to this
hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447-9810
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Planning
Commission will accept oral and/or written comments. Oral or written comments should
relate to how the proposed construction and requested variances are or are not consistent
with the Zoning Ordinance and variance hardship criteria.
Prepared this 28th day of February, 2001.
Steven Horsman
City of Prior Lake
To be published in the Prior Lake American on March 10, 2001.
L:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\PUBLlCNOTE.DOC 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
:. ,,'
/: ...:' ....:.~.,~:..':... ,::::'; . ":"';''':.;'''''::.:''::,,::~ '.: "\'!'::" . :. ,:>':"':.(Tp ,b.~:~ul:!in,~~~.:w!th ~.uIJc!lng Perm.it Application) .:..;' ..,....,. .,: . .:.- :.; /. . .<. '::.'. ',; .::: :
::.~.~ :~::..:~ .\,.:.;- ::~:.: '.~. ::,::~,>?:;'>;~'/:i:.~')~pfj~~l.(p'r~p'.~;#e~:"~o~a~e.d :i:n)~~.:~hqr.e~l~~dil?(strict ($I?)':::"'i, ." ~';.;.: .;:.: .:: ::....,.:../,:.::,:::.-';' :...:::;>. ",
.?:;.:/:..::.~;.;'..: .,\ :\;'~:<. /1P:~)y:t~XIiijut~tt.rnp,ery.fQ:u~;:Sutfac~:'.C.(iy.~f~g~.J)ernjiit~0 'il). '3P:Perc~rit'.,r, .:. ....~..'. ....::.:.;...:.. '~'...' ":. ":. ~:..
~':'~::';~;/:' :...:::~ ~:.::..:..'~ ,::~::-., \:ii-~j /):.:..\(.:':,:::,:':\) .:. ~; '::': ~~'.~ ~,' "~.~::"; .:.~.:.:~'.;:' ~':.~: ~~.:~.: ",~'.;::> ...,:.:', .:;> :.:;~ :: '::~ ~:.:':'. :':' ~.:.:'. . ...... '.:. "" .' ':-::, . . .:: : ::'.: .~::.>.. :::~;:':. ..:':.:,
'?,?7~r.~9P~rtiA.'d.dt~~~',,::"xJ~~67F~. "'~\li~.;,i';:::~~l\\',~;"'~fi:~~ '," ". . : ~:.,,\..' '.';: . ,:" ....= :;~.'>:.~t
;~~:.{:i;.:~.':::~.:;;::::::'; ~~;"'f;~.~'~\.~\~tV:;:;:'~;::::: ;."'~:'Sh;:;:;f~;:~;:';(::~//:.:"\:/:<;.:::/ .:..:'::..,...:::..:~'. <}:,,~:::.;.:~.'. .:..::~.~:...:.. .:"~~ ':',.', ...~. :.... .: '. :<:," ':.> ';.:. '.::::': . .~:"..'~'\,;::;'.~:;.<::. . .' ':.: .
,~.,~::-~..!~?t.:~~a..::. :.. f0 ,.tD~~: '''. :..;, -:",'." ':. ....' . '.' ".. :, Sq. :f'~,~,t :...~. 3p.~o.,...........~.........!' :,' '..~~,o'1 "'" .... : ".;':>. . ....1 ....
:-) :::,".,.. ** ** 'IUIt.'lulr.lltljt,* i1c.'*'.Ijl:1(C *iIC "".lft:!IP.IOI."llll"'":li 1IeJ\4"t'Ijc.>>{i)/c* *.~1lt.'ICllt,'I"I4*lfc ljt 1Ie'IjC,l/I * *.* '" *.llulc * *.**.* III ***'l(clluj4l!1l/1 * *'IClIt ..:,'. ...... ' . .'. :.
~~")~:,~{:;!;;';~~J.!;;i!:;:~;::f),::;'~:'~#!~';:;/ :!\i~~~..:: ,;)j''f;q.i~T' .... ..,.... ......,::..~.i: i":'.\.'~:~.'2~'",'\
'.,. 'i .,-:HO~SE,;,; :' ::...:!....., ". ".., ;0........,. ~ ..., '..', ". ..... :. H~' .".X.,.,.: "2-'.0 ,-,. '". . \ \ &.t~ . .. 'f'. ':'. : '. '. '..' .~ : ,'.... ...... ...'
':~: :.~..t:.~.;,~;f~~'/~..~.:.;j~.::;'i~.;:<~/;:~;:~i::r~.;~:":>::~2:t>;..;', ':,",:' ;."j ::.~-z.~ /~i:;::::\~"~':";' :: '\~'''''::~:'''' 'l:otS~: ':';.. ..~ ~;'..,,~::.'.: .:.::':';.:~:.'=;~':.' ;,'.:/:~.~ ,) .):\: ~~~ :.:....:.<
'. ". ."'AT;rAC;r.lEI)' OAAA'OE" .;. .'i ','''" .... .... .,.' ,.... f' ," ~......... "'; '. . ',.,...... .' . '" ., ',' .... '.' " ..... . ,:.'
t:,:A :~~ ;L,',',;~". e}>:(;:X:~Y.~~i;g}~",~'::;~;':' );:;:~ 'i}';:;' ':; .~':. i; . i ~ ....: i'. ..... . .:.: 'i',:':; \.'::,3., 0:)::.> ;'.'r
:~i~'/':: :":'::'~.~:i:::~:':..:.;.i('.. :":~'.:. \"':"'::.: ::.:::;;' :i.",:~P1AJ.i:,~~qI~~~'S!~VCT~..~.~...!.~...~...~~!... " "'Z '~"2.;;. : '. " '. . '::, ..... '.
:)~:.:.:};;;:.:.:'~ '} ;:/'t):::f ';'}/,,):::,'\':i.~;;':;:;::~\:~;. \:;:'/~/ ;'..h.<>:.). '~:<:)':<,::::':i::::::.:j ;'>f\.::'.h, :,.'~.;.:~:.~'; ::,'::":::,:'::':'.:::' .~:, :"" :~:", :': .,:: " ~.::'~:'. ,'. <>:.: ."(' >":)':'~~~" ~."Y.'.\.:: ,.~:....
'';.' .,DETACHED:BL:J)O's':""" ..;','. ..;.,....:.....,..'.,.......,..x.... :.'..... ...;,' :.,.. .'..... . ...., . .......:'... . .. , .... .... "'." ...;.
:i~~Xtj,f;{000~~fj,t~~ff;~{~~f.i~~#~t{~.;.~2;~L;...~.:::+.;;:,:X',\~:.::?':;?;i>~.-1c.},;/
y..... . .C;.:(>'-'~.:;~p,;;~.~'e,;/~(< :S~~\();'$.' . .. ," . '.. . ..... " '. .~. .. . . ..... ..' . \.~ .' '..' ,"": '''', . . . ." .. .' ...'...... .... . ,'. _,'.. _ .... ',' "', .
':,:::'j.nRivEWAYIPAv:EP::A:REAS>.i':';-:::.:':':'::;':":;':'::':>:,:':i'~.. .;....::. ::',,:,.'. .... :';::i.i :'~'.,.. "1;iQ6: .....:. -<:": ..,:.:..:.... ';. . :'...::-....,.;.'. .:,:.~. ".' ;,'.:.. ..
';':;.~:: :\~;,~r'i}~jtiP~t~~~~ti?if}>::{/.,~.~~:.;i_<. i;~';"::'::';" : ',' .' . .;' " .... " ",',;,.' :.:..':~.~;<:,:, \. .,::: .:}(>
'.:.': '":;",~,'~.(SldewalkiParkln.gAreas),, ...1'.".:.:..:'....:...:....1...'. :....,'x ":":';..;(...';'.:, '::" :;=.,',' ..;. / ..' ': ......,::.. ",., ,:.:'.;..;:;:....'
;;>:;:7.' ;.:; ~;f:>;?\~:,;:;ih ;'~~1r%~ :c~ "., >;,~ i, ; ~;" :.~:.:'/ '. :: .. '. . . . .'. .:, ,'.., ':i;~ ,~::\ ;;;i;" '.: '
:.: ...; 'I. ..... ....: ,:., ,; . : .'.,__ ........ '.' , . .;:.":: .,.,;. >:" "T.OT A.L p.Avtn A.REAS..,....~.!-"..!~....!...................... ." . e,;-' ..1 ,.' '.' '. . '. ~:.. :.... . ".
;I~~.:'''~ ';~S~,::~>(~:'/::.,;:.: .Jz:i.::::'::/:.,>~~.:;::.::/.:~ .: :,.;/:..~..::~.:::;<~;:~.:;~:\.::<:.i:.'.:':\{...;'(\.....:'.::: :;i::"::';",~ ':': :::.\:.... ,:.,. . , ",'... .":. ,':. ,:' ".' :. '... .. ... .': ....
:.:::'.~ ~:fATI.qW?\,q~~~E~(pgq)$.. ',,"';--,:::': ",: '." ''', ~''''::~'''' ,:'.:'. '.:"'. I: .:..... ... ..' .,.' , <.,. ., :".. . '..,' '.' ::'::~:""'; :-"
~ '. ',' .... , . . '" . ..' I " .':. ',: ~','r.:.,. . ",:..' : .
....: "': ((9peri'pe~Ks:'%;~ m!n'., Q~~llir1g &:etWe~f'~:i:',,;:,. ..;' :;". :f..,( ":,. ,;,.,~.,::..:.:.:. 'Yo':'.~: :.. "';.~:':.:~:'" .... ,., ':.. . '~::;:':. :.:, ,'.. _ .:.....
11i:){ ;/d~~IJ:t!~:~!v{}~~1:if'~}?ig[illii~.:.;;:.j;:.:;;::..:..~~:...X...:.:..;;..:;.....:..,...."'.' ..... '.' :r'; '.. :":., .;.;'::....... ,'. . ..' .::.
~h;.;~:~\,:;.::::2;:'X.;:::,\::O;~~.f~~:~~~.,..~;::..:.,."..;.::;.:,,;;:....:..,;~,...;.. ." ... ','. .. .', ". ',.'; ,'"
f;. .;Jf,OTAE.1MPERVIO"US SURFACE,,:'; ::....'.,-.:....,. ;..~:.:.'i, ..44iv:..:..~~,(.:;~;.:..:~:<>':,:.>-;. ".
~{~'f~%'4~~{.V'~:;t?;:::'::~,./::.."'5;,;:..,:;.;{,:;:;,.L ....:.. ........ .. .' I." .'. '.' "',,::.::;,,',.
~~?'~?~~J~~~S;;~r/'::i,L?!.P;:>;:Y\ ,':~:~ie"l'1J<j:bn.;.~r': '.. .',: ..;:'~' ::;,
:,:':'~;~~;,~':;;:.\';::,: ::';~,: /.} ~ ~:';: ::j.' ~-'::.:.:.....,~::::::):. :;.:~ ;:::'~',~<~~;:;,I:i:,';~ ~~: ";::~:.:';' ;\.~~:.),;.~ ;'; :';: .': "::::,:,,:,,:,,,~ ::~';:';:'::::.::' '::: "', >..'\.:':. '.' .:. ,l-:',,:"':' ,.:.,' .'. ..' : '..' ~,': :.:' ': ':',;: ,; ':..:'." ":,::,,: . .. ;.:~;. . ..... ;' :.~
.;~e.bdlli~.;riy&h~\\;ifi')3i\.tG~~i:;3@Q;;j;'p,.(\:P~6ti~ lil;\;il.1; '61'6 . ......:. . ..', '>;' . :.
;J~7'~t,:i~~';:;,"'}ks ;':i,~,~t;i...tIHESj;;X\'?;:I',h(~/~,:;:~:.0'J,;\ ,>>, " . :.' . .... '..': ..' ::.'t:.;..,:.:",:., . ."" .
t:.
2
IUU/U rn~IU\L.II~
PRIOR
TELEPHONE
I n~ I L ..;). L .
LAKE, MINNESOTA 55312
(612) 447-2510
..
.\-,
C.O~tl{.~
NY! 0'1 \0
Of \.
i \0
Of \..0
\..\t\E. /
t\ORi~ __~/---\
,...
o
uJ
z
tit" 0
Sl. t\: ~~;';{~\ '. . ~
l'I.... "',I"ii1:~;';lf.'/,I,1..:;, <1
" ;; ':\' 'R:' ":-1" '1"c".. a:I
. ;', .:.:~;::~~~\~;~t;.3,i~~,:'1;Ft <1
":."1'1' ';/l~<; 'd;li!,~, SAt~. M"
. '; . '~\i{i.f "~,, ,,~{
'J " .
:' " 9Qe.::-',
I, ' . ',..' 1C
\J.1
::>
z
\J.1
>
<1
- -\
v-I '
. \
~- \
1'1
-~ '1.
~ ~}
,i.
u.l
1
-:-\
\.1
(1..
()
~
\II
~ 1 \
~-'
,
.Jl
tj
o
-
,',
\
\
.
I :J'
\.'~
"',,~.
..' '~3
<1
U'
, \
."..:'
-1- - r
-,7 \- -~-- 1
\ Ot,rY \
-::. I'l'l II
',.
~ I
i
\
I have reviewed the attached proposed request V AR 01-017PC for the following:
Water
Sewer
I Zoning
, Parks
Assessment
Policy
I Septic System
Erosion Control
Recommendation:
City Code
t/' Storm Water
Flood Plain
V I Natural Features
Electric
I Gas
Other
I Grading
Signs
County Road Access
I Legal Issues
Roads/Access
I Building Code
I
Approval
'x Denial
Conditional Approval
Comments:
~~Aga~~ ~
,.-:. '0
)-./v'-v-..ea~. lA~~ A ~
l.~ Q""fl dl!) :tJ, O'Y'\ ,,6)., t, :> ~
,(J t, ( ~ ~O-Il~)
,,) U .
Signed:
~ ~cDJL'\t\~
!./ ~
Please return any comments by 3/16/01, to
Steve Horsm~n
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Phone: (612) 447-9854
Fax: (612) 447-4245
1:\01 files\01 variances\01-017\referral.doc
~; ~Y"~~3
q .~-4.J.A Ltk-T .A
'I C
Date:
<~ Ii 'J I tJ {
-
Page 2
'. . - -- - ------..
__'-'........'_..........____,...~__....,......~.... ~ __._.___-..~...._.__'~'_._-.._.-~._". ...:",__._40__"" ..... _, -_"...___~...*__.., .
I have reviewed the attached proposed request V AR 01-017PC for the following:
Water
Sewer
Zoning
Parks
Assessment
Policy
Septic System
Erosion Control
Recommendation:
Comments:
A ()() ro val 1I )f)LdJ. ~
1\
City Code
Storm Water
Flood Plain
Natural Features
Electric
Grading
Signs
County Road Access
Legal Issues
Roads/Access
Gas
Other
Building Code
Approval
X Denial
Conditional Approval
1) Inrln~.c.~ t\e. Trn~Lrv\mL" oJ"e.o... tA~ ~I.l c.ud; tn t-ht?; 1/)1 b j -r},IA~
rp.a.k.c~ ~- \~. ~\\:~~[Ik-BOI\ (t/J.f+Il.l... 5.,. ..+.t-. I.~. ..f'" ~ rtL-1Y\OVJne-
~ol JIJ\+6:t\~ i1-qvt\, OI!.Q.nW ~ ~Q.. ~ re.l/ld~t:1cO
Z.) f'rQl!ln'te. ,~ .., rPep~. tJ.e, VI c.rno.rJ.'IIn Ut t at b,~b / tlY\ (JelViou~
. "If'.f!.... +n r^'IN7~ B-..... \i!.L,e,Sh~'If".. n ",,' .
. .., "., - '... '''' , ., "
~) If\C('p~ the.. Q()~ilaL -tt.r ~or~ivlp_ eIosidYl f~l
. u,o\~,l \lM"\t')~.
4) On t:t[fbhst t:h~~ Comfr~~-rve~ ~~ ~1e7ne-ot p~!,; ppJ. tlfJ,Jp_r
J...ov..-J.. A.sP_ PUlolL'bte-~; 1AJJ.w.. ~ in 1 'If}ihJm(~ th",_ tr~yt-Df
nY..tc\~"^-/::3. i<,p\..t/'l\~t 6J.. lano-tf- 41-~ t.'7 S-treet:-z. tN>J. /~nJs M)..,-cJ..
lnl~t i1~_ Pnc-c- J..o,.hp_ i.Ja;t;e.c")heJ~
Signed:
.~~ ~/-
~ ~
Date:
3-IZ-0)
Please return any comments by 3/16/01, to
Steve Horsman
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Phone: (612) 447-9854
Fax: (612) 447-4245
.,
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1-0 17\referral.doc
Page 2
&
,.
,
I
) ~,
'^'
"intmem"
C I T YO, P RIO R L A X E
4629 Dakota Street S.I.
Prior Lake, MN S5372
Phone (612) 447-4230 - FAX (612) 447-4245
~
INFORMAL MEMO
TO: ~/(ttj ,4,..u)t/UUm FROM: ~~-In Uavn
DATE: -2/1# !~.5 I
:~~~~~~~~~~~~05
~~~AGE: ~~ l..<I"t?$' ~~I.~
.1../77../ E.~. ~AA1.U/t.oi ~ ~~ ~ . 'd~. {I-L J~
ro. . . . ) /I f:J
/1J.4d 'M1 I". ~. ~ rr ~ . ~Lup{u1 ~ /it-
~;A~;t'~X.tf.1~t!~
..I/JAM~~A .... .... ,. Cl.}~! -AlA .iJI:.1ii.J./1 Pht..P~J.
JliM,/~~.. .Jj#~AJ.~~~ ~~
'"'~~.?d AL- tl4t..~/!1~nf_ll?/~ (~l'J1lcJ ~
d.J\ ~ ~ ,J,.Jo IIJ,~ k ~&~
~ . U
/'.2;fAt-h lrJ..tUX /l..A ./ ~ ..
I V .
,
j
1~
"
I'
.I:'
I'
11
l'
i
n
====================~=============------~=====================
REPLY FROM: ;1/1, DATE: ].,..0/)195
I
I ~:
I
!
/. J
----===_____.u=_____===____=___==~====='".,;======================
Response Required: Yes
y
No
I
l.~
,.
,
l
r.,
r
'.:
FI.E ~] .JY
!':!j,
Dear W-~ - ~~~e.Jt ~
The.structureat~Av~ has bean
authorized by the City of Prior Lake to be constructed at a lower elevation
than that dictated by Ordinance 94-05 which states that, "The garage slab
shall be constructed at an . elevation that will permit a driveway with a
minimum slope of eighteen (18) Inches above the top of curb". Therefore,
you are reminded that the driveway must be constructed so that at a point
10' horizontally from the street gutter line, the driveway isa minimum of 6"
vertically above the gutter line. If these conditions are not adhered to, you
will be required to reconstruct the driveway at your expense.
If you have any questions, please call me at City Hall, 447-4230.
Sincerely,
....
Volur ~
Verlyn Raaen
Engineering Tec/'lnician
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
'.
VR:acj
OR940S ENG
4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 I Ph. (612) 447-4230 I Fax (612) 4474245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
I
~
1r
: f~
II
j".
'I
I
I~'
~
",1
i:(i
U
it
i\ !
I
~.
I
L
1~
I"
,;:,l
J
,.
i
'~1
I
I
1i
'Ii.
I
Ii
It
!.
:~
.
~ a;.t q/tc Pc-
PROPOSAL BY D. MARK CROUSE
15507 CALMUT AVENUE NE
TO
PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION
September 10,2001
Based on the application for an increase in impervious surface on the above referenced
property, the following is proposed:
1. That approximately 1,000 square feet of concrete be removed at owner's expense;
2. That an infiltration system be designed using alternative infiltration devices or a
drainage easement be acquired for drainage rights onto the outlot immediately adjacent to
the property or some combination of infiltration system combined with drainage easement
be formulated by the owner to meet or exceed the runoff management intent of the
impervious surface limitation;
3. That the engineered design be approved by this Commission upon engineering
analysis demonstrating thatthe runoff management plan meets the 30% impervious
surface calculation for the above referenced property.
September 10, 2001
Prior Lake Planning Commission
16220 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake MN 55372
Re: Request for variance from D. Mark Crouse for increase in impervious surface
limitation for 15507 Calmut Avenue NE
Dear Planning Commission:
Unfortunately, I am not able to be here this evening. As many of you know, I am required
to travel extensively for work and I apologize for the inconvenience my travel schedule has
added over the past few months to this proceeding.
I have been involved with the develv'pu.lent of the proposal you have before you. This
letter is my commitment to remove approximately 1,000 square feet of concrete as identified on
the marked up survey, and to design a system using alternative infiltration devices to meet or
exceed the runoff management intent of the impervious surface limitation.
My intent is to have a plan with engineered calculations ready within a reasonable time
for your approval. While I originally acted on misinformation, I am willing to incur substantial
expense to mitigate the situation and simply request the opportunity to put some good ideas to
work.
Very truly yours,
Qr~~ ~
D. Mark Crouse
~
~
EXHIBIT A
Lot 9 and that part of Lot 10, "NORTH GRAINWOOD" and that part
of Government Lots 4 and 5, Section 35, Township 115, Range 22,
Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at
the northwest corner of said Lot 10; thence southerly along the
westerly line of said Lots 10 and 9 and also 8, a distance of
165.00 feet to the actual point of beginning of the land to be
described; thence westerly along the north line of said plat to
the easterly right of way line of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St.
Paul and Pacific Railroad; thence northerly along said easterly
right of way line to its intersection with the westerly
extension of the southerly line of the northerly 45.00 feet (as
measured at right angles to the northerly line) of said Lot 10;
thence easterly along said southerly line to the shoreline of
Prior Lake, thence southerly along said shoreline to the south
line of said Lot 9; thence westerly along said south line of
said Lot 9 to the southwest corner thereof; thence southerly
along the westerly line of said Lot 8 to the actual point of
beginning.
Together with easement rights for pedestrian ingress and
egress to and from Outlot C, D, E, and F, Windsong on the Lake,
Scott County, Minnesota and all riparian rights necessary to
permit the use of a Prior Lake boat slip in the private marina
located on Outlot C, Windsong on the Lake, Prior Lake, MN.
Said easement rights are more fully set forth in that certain
Declaration of Access Easement and Maintenance Covenants dated
April 13, 1994, and recorded as Document No. 334344 at the
off:ice of the County Recorder of Scott County, Minnesota, and as
Document No. 70368 in the office of the Registrar of Titles of
Scott County, Minnesota. These rights shall inure to the
benefit of purchaser's heirs, successors and assigns forever.
HUEMOELLER & BATES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
P.O. BOX 67
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
September 10, 2001
JAMES D. BATES
BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER
Telephone (952) 447-2131
Fax (952) 447-5628
Prior Lake Planning Commission
16220 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake MN 55372
Re: Request for variance from D. Mark Crouse for increase in impervious surface
limitation for 15507 Calmut Avenue
Dear Planning Commission Members:
We respectfully request that this letter be made part of the record for this hearing on the
variance request made by D. Mark Crouse for an increase in the allowable impervious surface
coverage for his home at 15507 Calmut Avenue, Prior Lake.
The purpose of this letter is to address the proposed fmdings set forth in the draft
Resolution 01-011PC and the Planning Report prepared by staff.
Proposed Finding 4 states that the proposed variance will result in impairment of the
supply of light and air to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public
streets, increase the danger of fire and danger to public safety or in any other respect be contrary
to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. This is directly contradicted by the staff s
report which states "[t]he granting ofthe requested variances will not impair light and air to
adjacent properties or increase congestion, danger of fire or endanger public safety."
To promote the most appropriate and orderly development within the community, the
Minnesota statute authorizes zoning ordinances and allows for the Board of Adjustment:
To hear requests for variances from the literal provision of the ordinance in
instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardshio because of
circumstances uniaue to the individual property under consideration, and to grant
such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping
with the soirit and intent of the ordinance.
Minn. Stat. ~462.357, Subd. 6(2) (emphasis added). Case law states that "[t]he statute is clearly
intended to allow cities the flexibility to grant variances where . . . the property owner would like
to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the ordinance." Rowell v. Board
of Adjustment of the City of Moorhead, 446 N.W.2d 917,922 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989).
Therefore, the question of undue hardshio rests on whether the proposed use is reasonable, there
are unique circumstances related to the property and the essential character of the locality will not
be disturbed by granting the variance.
Proposed Findings 5 and 6 misconstrue the legal int';'l'p.letation of "reasonable use."
Contrary to the stated findings, "reasonable use" is not interpreted as any reasonable use of the
property. Rather, the "definition of 'undue hardship' . . . requir[es] a showing that the property
owner would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the ordinance."
See Rowell, 446 N.W.2d at 922 (emphasis added). The City of Eden Prairie, when presented
with the same ink.l}lletation offered by the draft Resolution, responded that the "correct standard
is whether the proposal was reasonable under the circumstances, and would not be allowed
except by granting the variances." Nolan v. City of Eden Prairie. 610 N.W.2d 697, 701 (Minn.
Ct. App. 2000).
According to the City staff s report, there are unique circumstances related to this
property which do not apply to other lots within the Shoreland District. The lot is an undersized
platted lot of record, causing practical difficulties in using the lot in the manner customary and
legally permissible within Mr. Crouse's neighborhood.
Third, the improvements Mr. Crouse has made to his property have enhanced the
essential character of the locality. His substantial investment in his property is apparent and
completely supported by his neighbors as evidenced by their signed statements attached.
Proposed Finding 7 is not true. The permit issued to Mr. Crouse in 1995 prevents him
from having a driveway, as required by ordinance. The orimnal permit was for a house coverinll
in excess of 29% of the lot. Meetinll the re,!ui,rvment for a drivewav is not a convenience for the
applicant's benefit and a variance is necessary for Mr. Crouse to comply. Further, the slab on the
lakeside of the house was constructed to prevent erosion of the property between the house and
retaining wall. It was designed to stabilize the foundation and keep the retaining wall anchored,
as detailed by Lowell Russell in his attached statement. Mr. Crouse is committed to working
with the City to achieve a reasonable compromise within the intent of the zoning ordinances.
Based on the principles set forth under Minnesota statute and in the Rowell and Nolan
cases, we believe the Planning Commission should find as follows:
1. Literal enforcement of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinances will result in undue hardship
with respect to the Crouse property because it will preclude the preservation and enjoyment of
Mr. Crouse's property rights, including a driveway to serve his property as required by ordinance
and a concrete slab that is necessary for structural support.
2. The undue hardship results from circumstances unique to the property because of the
shape and size of the lot and its proximity to the lakeshore, as evidenced by the granting of
variances in 1978.
3. The undue hardship is caused by the provisions of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinances
and is not the result of the actions of the owner, because the owner's proposed use of the land is
reasonable and the literal application of the ordinance would preclude such reasonable use.
4. A variance preserves the spirit and intent of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinances,
produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest, because Mr. Crouse's
proposed reduction in current impervious surface combined with the use of alternative infiltration
devices will meet or exceed the management of runoff as per the intent of the impervious surface
limitations under the zoning ordinances.
5. A variance preserves the spirit and intent of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinances,
produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest, because Mr. Crouse's
proposed reasonable use is consistent in all respects with the existing and proposed land use in
the neighborhood, and provides an enhancement to the neighborhood as a whole.
We respectfully request that the Planning Commission appiVve the requested variance
contingent on the following:
1. That approximately 1,000 square feet of concrete be removed at owner's expense;
2. That an infiltration system be designed using alternative infiltration devices or a
drainage easement be acquired for drainage rights onto the outlot immediately adjacent to
the property or some combination of infiltration system combined with drainage easement
be formulated by the owner to meet or exceed the runoff management intent of the
impervious surface limitation;
3. That the engineered design is approved by this Commission upon engineering analysis
that demonstrates the runoff management plan meets the 30% impervious surface
calculation for the property.
s~
Bryce D. Huemoeller
Attachments
cc: D. Mark Crouse
~p !O 01 10:09a
Lowell Russell Concrete 9524613711
p. 1
LOWELL RUS~ELL CONCRETE, INC.
22335 WAGONWHEEL TRAIL
LAKEVILLE, MN 55044
PH.952-461-3710 FAX. 952.461-3711
staincrete.com
l)trr: 70 Itlc" CLOSE ;P,Rt1x//17/ry of T.-7'C:
lJ,4e~ tJF .l-/'tJt;/Sc TCl tt,//i TERSE tJ 6-~ AN LJ
1/8/2 TIC de.- ~L-cr/;t:JT~dN 2)1,t:"Fc/C,..e;/l/C~ of W/9t.Kd'1' r
To LfJ/CE." 7f cr/l/#//V 6- tV&C-L tdrl S Nee!' ./.JE,(.) 7CJ
.J
HtJLL) j)/72r AleX r TCl /-/ouSce> ?/J7/cJ w/tS
,LJC:S/G/I/C j) 'To /9A/eh'o/2 AA/)) /7'tJt...LJ 7ec!.'T/9/IV/)J6-
W/J C-L td/7H' {,)t:!/vCA-cTe. 6/UC.RE'Tc. U/A'5
E'X'/c/J.J)cEJfJ F;ec1/}? r/(J?/..s~ Td cJurs/~ ~ tf)"c
ICtTI-l/A///lJG 4/I9LC. 70 5'/7co /JCL U/~rE~ ..
/r '/$5 /-/.-9~ /f.,/tJ'/ L?~EA/ ,L)tJN~ EX/cP/dlC.
Zi/ll'/CF/LL It/dUL~ /-//JI/c! FI9/LJ'LJ~
~~ ]f) R~(
City of Prior Lake Planning Commission
Variance Requests for property located at 15507 Calmut Ave NE
Case File #01-017
Property Owner Comments and Opinions from neighbors within 350' radius
Mark A. Michael
4190 Eau Claire Trai!
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Planning Report Item #5 - The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably
impact on the character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably
diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area, or in any
other way impair the health safety and comfort of the area.
"The granting of the variances will adversely affect the above stated values by increasing structure encroachments
upon the lakeshore and thereby affecting the adjacent properties and the Intent of the setback averaging
regulations. "
Agree: _
Comments:
~5flk'\/
~ '(~ w~'l
Disagree: ')c
'2J"o.~, ,\/t:iYi ~~6v ~\~ ~ ~ Q,\?pt&)\('S .
'~~-+h.Q.1K"6~~'\{ "'~') 0\ ~ N..~9h~h~
Planning Report Item #7 - The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a
convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue
hardship or difficulty.
"The granting of the variance requests appears to serve as a convenience to the applicant."
Agree: _ Disagree: )(
Comments:
Should the following variances re~ested be approved?
Impervious Surface - YES: _ NO: _
Setback - YES: X NO:
COMMENTS:
,L[,/ I 6 /)
Signed: l/L.;, '-- ( /
'-
./
Dated:
r,1Z4/0i
City of Prior Lake Planning Commission
Variance Requests for property located at 15507 Calmut Ave NE
Case File #01-017
Property Owner Comments and Opinions from neighbors within 350' radius
Lawrence G. Wmiams
15520 Calmut Ave
Prior lake, MN 55372
Planning Report Item #5 - The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably
impact on the character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably
diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area, or in any
other way impair the health safety and comfort of the area.
"The granting of the variances will adversely affect the above stated values by increasing structure encroachments
upon the lakeshore and thereby affecting the adjacent properties and the Intent of the setback averaging
regulations."
Agree: _ Disagree: V
Comments:
Planning Report Item #7 - The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a
convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue
hardship or difficulty.
"The granting of the variance requests appears to serve as a convenience to the applicant."
Agree: _ Disagree: ~
Comments:
Should the following variances requCJted be approved?
Impervious Surfac~ - YES: ~ NO: _
Setback- YES: JL NO: _ .
CO~~ ~. tk rfJd ~-.a
~ '4 / Via ~
~ tWuJ ;ikJ:- atd0r J J J ~~tJ~
v (}'tv ~ --i<r - - U
~
Signed: ~~.t {;loiw Dated: ~;;.~ ~
City of Prior Lake Planning Commission
Variance Requests for property located at 15507 Calmut Ave NE
Case File #01-017
Property Owner Comments and Opinions from neighbors within 350' radius
Dona~d l. Todd
15593 Ca~mutAve NE
Prior lake! MN 55372
Planning Report Item #5 - The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably
impact on the character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably
diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area, or in any
other way impair the health safety and comfort of the area.
"The granting of the variances will adversely affect the above stated values by increasing structure encroachments
upon the lakeshore and thereby affecting the adjacent properties and the Intent of the setback averaging
regulations."
Agree: _ Disagree: /
Comments:
Planning Report Item #7 - The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a
convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue
hardship or difficulty.
"The granting of the variance requests appears to serve as a convenience to the applicant."
Disagree: V
Agree: _
Comments:
Should the following variances req~e approved?
Impervious Surface;,/' YES: _ NO: _
Setback - YES: L/"" NO:
- -
COMMENTS:
s~~1;i;
Dated: I~s-:'t:'/
City of Prior Lake Planning Commission
Variance Requests for property located at 15507 Calmut Ave NE
Case File #01-017
Property Owner Comments and Opinions from neighbors within 350' radius
Jeffrey J. Dousetlte
15581 Caimut Ave NIE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Planning Report Item #5 - The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably
impact on the character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably
diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area, or in any
other way impair the health safety and comfort of the area.
"The granting of the variances will adversely affect the above stated values by Increasing structure encroachments
upon the lakeshore and thereby affecting the adjacent properties and the Intent of the setback averaging
regulations."
Agree: _ Disagre~
Comments:
Planning Report Item #7 - The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a
convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue
hardship or difficulty.
''The granting of the variance requests appears to serve as a convenience to the applicant."
Agree: _ Disagree: .x
Comments:
Should the following variances requested be approved?
Impervious Surface - YEs: ~ NO:
Setback - YES: "" NO:
COMMENTS:
Dated: 0-?~
/ /
City of Prior Lake Planning Commission
Variance Requests for property located at 15507 Calmut Ave NE
Case File #01-017
Property Owner Comments and Opinions from neighbors within 350' radius
Scott G. Miller
4143 Eau Claire Trail NE
Prior lake, MN 55372
Planning Report Item #5 - The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably
impact on the character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably
diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area, or in any
other way impair the health safety and comfort of the area.
"The granting of the variances will adversely affect the above stated values by Increasing structure encroachments
upon the lakeshore and thereby affecting the adjacent properties and the Intent of the setback averaging
regulations."
Agree: _
Comments:
Disagree: /'
Planning Report Item #7 - The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a
convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue
hardship or difficulty.
"The granting of the variance requests appears to seNe as a convenience to the applicant."
Agree: _ Disagree:.-V'
Comments:
Should the following variances requested be approved?
Impervious Surface - YES: L NO:
Setback- YES:/' NO:
COlVIMENTS:
Signed:
~~
-
Dated: ~ \ 74 (O(
City of Prior Lake Planning Commission
Variance Requests for property located at 15507 Calmut Ave NE
Case File #01-017
Property Owner Comments and Opinions from neighbors within 350' radius
Frank J. Worrell
4185 Eau Claire Trai~
Prior lakei MN 55372
Planning Report Item #5 - The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably
impact on the character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably
diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area, or in any
other way impair the health safety and comfort of the area.
"The granting of the variances will adversely affect the above stated values by increasing structure encroachments
upon the lakeshore and thereby affecting the adjacent properties and the intent of the setback averaging
regulations."
Agree: _ Disagree~
Comments:
Planning Report Item #7 - The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a
convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue
hardship or difficulty.
"The granting of the variance requests appears to serve as a convenience to the applicant."
Agree: _ Disagre~
Comments:
Should the following variances requested be approved?
Impervious Surface - YES:~ NO:
Setback - YESV NO:
COMMENTS:
Signed:;?? A A;~ar;,a: f ~~ c.- 2 ~ - 0 I'
City of Prior Lake Planning Commission
Variance Requests for property located at 15507 Calmut Ave NE
Case File #01-017
Pronerty Owner Comments and Opinions from neighbors within 350' radius
Mark l. Kassebaum
4~35 154th Street NW
!Poor lake, MN 55372
Planning Report Item #5 - The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably
impact on the character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably
diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area, or in any
other way impair the health safety and comfort of the area.
"The granting of the variances will adversely affect the above stated values by increasing structure encroachments
upon the lakeshore and thereby affecting the adjacent properties and the Intent of the setback averaging
regulations."
Agree: _ Disagree: i
Comments:
Planning Report Item #7 - The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a
convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue
hardship or difficulty.
"The granting of the variance requests appears to serve as a convenience to the applicant."
Agree: _ Disagree: ~
Comments:
Should the following variances re~,.sted be approved?
Impervious Surf~~ - YES: ..;:-- NO: _
Setback - YES: +' NO:
COMMENTS:
Signed:
~~k~~-.
/ .
Dated:
fc /ZL/ /0/
. .
City of Prior Lake Planning Commission
Variance Requests for property located at 15507 CaImut Ave NE
Case File #01-017
Property Owner Comments and Opinions from neighbors within 350' radius
~~
4215 Eau Claire Trai~ NE
Prior lake! MN 55372
Planning Report Item #5 - The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably
impact on the character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably
diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area, or in any
other way impair the health safety and comfort of the area.
"The granting of the variances will adversely affect the above stated values by increasing structure encroachments
upon the lakeshore and thereby affecting the adjacent properties and the Intent of the setback averaging
regulations."
~ents: DiBagre([J2
Planning Report Item #7 - The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a
convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleViate a demonstrable undue
hardship or difficulty.
~an~the variance requests appears to serve as a convenience to the applicant."
-~greA~ Disagree-S),
Com;-~ l--{// -----
Should the following variances req~fsted be approved?
Impervious Surface - YES: -/!- NO: _
Setback - YES:.:f..,. NO:_
COMMENTS:
Signed:
/~
( '. .-
\"" ' I (7
~f tr.~.,1 ti..-?lL~'). ,'U~
. " ':i L........-
, "'{ff Dated:
I ~ d-- / ,]1 ~!Vl/\ Cuv./,-c
fliP. .
Ir/;;Y/Of
I
City of Prior Lake Planning Commission
Variance Requests for property located at 15507 Cabnut Ave NE
Case File #01-017
Property Owner Comments and Opinions from neighbors within 350' radius
'Jerome A. Mmer
15563 Ca~mutAve NE
Prior lakel MN 55372
Planning Report Item #5 - The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably
impact on the character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably
diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area, or in any
other way impair the health safety and comfort of the area.
"The granting of the variances will adversely affect the above stated values by Increasing structure encroachments
upon the lakeshore and thereby affecting the adjacent properties and the Intent of the setback averaging
regulations."
Agree: _ Disagree: 't..
Comments:
Planning Report Item #7 - The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a
convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue
hardship or difficulty.
"The granting ofthe variance requests appears to serve as a convenience to the applicant."
__..r'
Agree: _ Disagree: ){
Comments:
Should the following variances requ~sted be approved?
Impervious Surface - YES: 2S: NO: _
Setback - YES: ,XJ NO:
COMMENTS:
Signed:
,k~~
V
Dated:
b(zlfld f
City of Prior Lake Planning Commission
Variance Requests for property located at 15507 Calmut Ave NE
Case File #01-017
Property Owner Comments and Opinions from neighbors within 350' radius
Wayne Craig
: 1.67 EadJI Claire Trail
nor lakej MN 55372
Planning Report Item #5 - The granung of the Variance will not unreasonably
impact on the character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably
diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area, or in any
other way impair the health safety and comfort of the area.
. ''The granting of the variances will adversely affect the above stated values by Increasing structure encroachments
upon the lakeshore and thereby affecting the adjacent properties and the Intent of the setback averaging
regulations."
Disagree:'
Agree: _ ,
Comments:
Planning Report Item #7 - The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a
convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue
hardship or difficulty.
"The granting of the variance requests appears to serve as a convenience tp the applicant."
Agree: _ Disagree:'l(
Comments:
Should the fOll~W' 'variances reC{.ujsted be approved?
Impervious Su e - YES: Ji NO: _
Setback - YES: NO: _
COMMENTS:
Signed:
~/
I
Dated: fL( I/f~ 0
'.)09. i;b
'f..
bJ
::>
z
w
.>
<.t
dl
() ,
(.
.I
\..(1 .
q'. ' on
i \I.\IJSOI \~ t;;
., \[1 t. 0'
Illf\\-l 'r\U\'I Ie.:
\: III' (j\\' c: sOl.f\. 10 'i:) I ~
, '_1'\ ".111 - 0 ,,\\<. 'r I.ll"\
c, . I), \ . j\\.. ::> c"\ ()
1,\ .: :~ , p.\":' t. I. '- 00 ~ \
;!. \ 1'1\\"" ...1'( \~ ....J
() , . nil" \ . II
\0 ' " '\\\1:. .'" ,t.HSIU ;&." t. \
\'2- ' 'lJ'\:-1 t:.:.o ~3' ":1'-'
\~. \.. ,\1:.; .,"",-,:\., - ..' ......"......'. ," II 1\"
'4 \ . ' . A 8 ., , . ;/ t ~\\
" ! SMi MI'\ \ \ .. .~.r~....;~) 4'=>"- .. J ~ ~
,,;'~~\ " ') VI F'._~~>..'.,....1.~~\>.,.'i.. .' ," '1.;,:.,t\'.'::-~)"~!
'.0a.4\'\-~J I >"" II . ..' .; '\ .' \~'. 'I." '~':. ...,.- \'\ \' ~\\ :':.' II'
? I . "..."." . 1 ·
\' I ." : ' " : r" 6:- ).~ '. ;' ~:;} ;;. 1
eel ,\ t' \'.. ' '
I'l.,t.LI1 L " , '.., Ii'"
,>Oil \i>'j\.... '., " I I .', , W I J'
~ . I . ~ ,... !
\'. tt ,. ' .I ., \' jl." t.\.. II' ..'. i I I \"
\ t) . . ..I, p~v, .. ~ ~'> ':.1 - \
\ ~ e (0 .....',. ,;' iv'l" "(,f),\,I~'~t ~ , \
"J;~ ,~:" o. \~ \ \\":lf~l
9\Q.I}\ ,..it \I' [, \ ;;~;,A\',' ,...,;.\~{.{.,~ '.,~fo.
\0, \. U'~. ",\; ,~4,.. ,\ ~, ',ltt
1__ t. ,.;.)~ ,lI\'\ VI ..~. ~
\ \)l. \ . ,.-" .. .,- ~ '. \, J \~~'!
I w/ ' \-i . ~ : , \ " l\'~
\ 1,1..:1".... ': '\ .' <1 .. \ \
~'~ \\ ::'~ .' ~.'.' \ "\~ ..-
\ ;;. . , I .,J':;\{ :.0 '\'; "
.) ,_G. ~, >,.",
:i n I\..,.~,,\~~I \\"U:;\C
\. '" \ \ \. \ '.,'11 C:
o (r. " \I'
~ In '.... .'~ ,\.i:. \, '.;\1).1
\)() .:.." \.~'\"
.:~l ,\
\: ,1'.\
\. :'
,~,. \ (
1 r.. \ -'
\ ' ',' '
\' ,'; \ ,.' It " \.~- -r " ..
\~/~j'.\ ~\
,,/, 'Ii J. ;\' \\ \ \ \, .~,>.,-_.'
\"; ~ ',: ... ,}J..~:' t)O.~~'
....,-~..., ~..~~'.
.._ ;l..'~ 'I".~ -7(), '2. t ' .. I "
'~'- .'c-" I Q"\N ;
\579026 \ I \
\. E Of L.Ul I~ \9
5.\'{\.L.\N. ~\
. J) N
\ ~ \ \
.\ .~ \
\\"'_,f / :\
~ 1.\' \ "
I.
'.
\
oj"'"
~
A
l
~fl \ofl
-\
v~ \,
, \
';i. \
"")~'
o~ ~i
II'
~
z-
'~l
~
0::
(J
:f.
ll)
I
u:
-.....j
(fl
t.\-
y
,,].\
. ,
~' ;
ul
'f
\
()
-::-..
\.
,",
CI
l~ \
\-.
;..J
~
...J
4
\J
...
-1
'.il
,:>V'L.J\111t.1'<
,~'i I, elf ~ ~
,
\.
"Ie ~I..',
",\9.'/9\
. I
If) .~. C
l.1) "" C.;,
l' OJ.
\l " i.(l
~ if I ~~
.,- \I~
If) u .
110
(;l. II
...:.l
"c~~\
,"\&.~\
I'
0\
\ .
l.:-
I")
1.1
Z
-':.1 \
.'..,
;:;.
~'..,:.,.. ". ",,~'.'~,~,...~...;........ "
" ' . .'
_----:.__,__._.:...- ._......--=-_ .'_ .~____ ~----"-_'.....o..,.._.......__.,_,..~__......-
. -.. ' ".. ., .
..,;..;..-..-'-'---...--.---.....:...------'"*-----..-- ---'----:..-'---~ ----~~-
~
2ff~-laA)e~ -1)~ IorZZ.of
;;
Prior Lake - Variance Request Prep
Neighboring Prope..l~es
!fMJvrc
Lftfo/ 50-33
Jerome and Phyllis Miller
15563 CaImut Ave NE
Property ill #'s: 250350030 and 259350400
Impervious Surface %:
Setback: '-1-7 r l.ctAas fu;y <t:- ;;J 5#1Pth~1 5f III ~ rI- 23 I Yrtn VI'
Variances (What/When):7/tf Irss
Jeffrey Dousette
15581 CaImutAve NE
Property ill #: 250350021
Impervious Surface %: 3f)f6 , ,
Setback:50( /,cvtu 5 1wY".e. , Sf ~'I If) ~ ~ 30% I mfJ. $tVl~
Variances (What/When): 4-{<;),...f'h
Donald Todd
15593 CaImutAve NE
Property ill #: 250350020
Impervious Surface %: Z~ .
Setback: 51 5t teL t &)0' {pAu. i '5. 'If r:;n:t- /l &IT- .fc; ~ c.e..e. d d5-'1.~ t I1tf' - S Z-~-~ ,., ~
Variances (What/When): ct1UJ/11
Shirley Thielen
15609 Calmut Ave NE
Property ill #: 250350010 .
Impervious Surface %: '3t't
Set~ack: 9f CakL, J:)t ~1t/1..--. 3,o~~tf-lor. i I 'It> (!.15W]/1 ratto
Vanances (What/When): '7/tf7ft adm tp-f-dlvtJ-u'y,
Cj f 'If 7 S~ d ( Svu;l17 trvl1;~ "'r( / ~i I f7 ()t fh P"'1-T- OC"
J5 f I ~t({; <jj t h4 ck- ,. ..
'JeL~y'-C~1fwm p~
&n-IIY1V~t'Y7 rJt.l.~ ( ~ - /1- -t7 ~ j .
.... ...,' ....'..
"': : -:.-., :---
-. .- .-~'" ~.-.-~.
. .,--: .
. ---_.__._.......""'.._.-."_._--~_._.. -.... .....*
May need sentence to require"the similar structure material; in a .P"~ vious discussion it
was found to be common in Business Parks as opposed to Industrial Parks not to have
accessory structures. (Mr. Tremere stated this is the point the Staffhas made. The
change has to be made in the Ordinance.) supports the changes to the Ordinance.
.MOTION BY ARNOLD, SECOND BY KUYKENDALL, TO RECOMMEND CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT ORDINANCE 95-14 WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN 5a.
WIDCH SHALL READ "THE ACCESSORY BUILDING MAY BE CONSTRUCTED
WITH THE SAME MATERIALS AS THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE. IN THE
EVENT AN ACCESSORY BUILDING CANNOT BE CONSTRUCTED OF THE
SAME MATERIALS AS THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE, THE ACCESSORY
BUILDING SHALL BE TOTALLY SCREENED FROM THE PUBLIC VIEW. THE
SCREENING MUST MEET ALL APPLICABLE ZONING STANDARDS.
Discussion: Make the standards the same - either have 100% mandate or accept the
screen. Bring it up to the high architectural standards or if there is a lesser standard then
have the alternate screening. Commissioner Loftus likes City language better.
AMEND MOTION BY ARNOLD TO CHANGE BACK TO THE ORIGINAL
LANGUAGE IN Sa. OF ORDINANCE 95-14.
Commissioner V onhof would like to add a clause in the Design Standards in the Business
Park District. Amend to include language (in the first Motion).
V ote taken signified ayes by Arnold, Kuykendall, Loftus, Roseth and V onhof. MOTION
CARRIED.
MOTION BY ROSETH, SECOND BY ARNOLD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC
HEARING.
V ote taken signified ayes by Roseth, Arnold, Loftus, Kuykendall and V onhof. MOTION
CARRIED.
ITEM #2 CASE V A95-24 ROBERT AND SmRLEY TmELEN VARIANCE.
REOUEST :
The applicant is seeking the following variances located at 15609 Calmut Avenue:
1.
a front yard setback variance to allow a 21 foot setback on the
North to construct a master bedroom addition,
a front yard setback variance to allow a 2 foot setback on the South
to construct the proposed garage, and
a lakeshore variance to allow a lakeshore setback of 25 feet to
construct the proposed master bedroom and porch additions.
..
2.
3.
MN81495.DOC
PAGE 3
" -
_--.- . .,._---.......---4-........-----.-..... ...... --~-
'~,_.-._-.-- ~~).,-..-.~. ,-~'~-..:. ...""....~.... .~..
. , . .
---.--~
t .:
Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the information in the Planning Report dated
August 14, 1995. Staff research finds the hardship criteria have been met and
recommends the following:
. .;.
A}I}lJ.v/e the requested variance to allow 1) a 4 foot front yard setback variance to
allow a 21-foot setback on the North to construct a master bedroom addition, 2)
a 23 foot front yard setback variance to allow a 2 foot setback on the South
to construct the proposed garage, and 3) a 50 foot lakeshore variance to allow a
lakeshore setback of 25 feet to construct the proposed master bedroom and porch
additions.
If the variances are granted, Staff recommends the following terms or conditions:
A. The 3 easterly parcels be combined, evidence of that combination be
}lI.V lided to the City, and a covenant be placed on the resulting property
}I.lV/enting sale or transfer of the 2 20-foot strips. All this should be
completed before issuance of a building permit.
B. Removal of the portion of the existing driveway West of the proposed
garage.
A letter was read from Department of Natural Resources, Hydrologist, Patrick Lynch
stating no objection as the "variance requests permit the new additions to encroach no
further waterward than the existing deck."
Joan Waund of Edina Realty stated she is representing the new owners of the property,
Bob and Shirley Thielen. She also represented the present owners of the property, Steve
and Kim Niosi for variances requested in 1988. The Niosi's purchased the adjoining
properties north, south and the piece across Calmut Avenue last summer. The Thielens
will be purchasing these parcels with .the home. The title company has agreed to combine
the parcels and get one PID. Mrs. Waund presented a brief overview of the proposed
addition.
Comments from the audience:
Steve Niosi who lives at the residence said his original proposal was to come before the
Planning Commission and ask for the same variances. His biggest concern was the steep
driveway and for the safety of the new owners. The ramp to the lake would be taken out.
Craig Hinz, 4313 Grainwood Circle, lives on the south edge of the property. His concern
is aiD foot easement into the driveway which covers a street drain down to the lake. He
wouldrIRe assurance if it ever had to be repaired (the City) would not have to dig up his
propertY"to access the utilities. Mr. Hinz said he only had 72 feet of lake shore and did not
want to lose any. He has no problem with the requested variances.
MNS149S,DOC
PAGE 4
:,~>"'----'~""~""-~--"~';"..,;;~;---~--.7:"--""--' .' . .....:.7""---~...~._.;.='~~....~..._~-'" "': ~. ~~,-~",~,,~~.......:~:~..:._;~- :_,u.-...._.__--'"-.~-,... _.--~ -:-
..~'i'
Associate Planner Michael Leek addressed Mr. Hinz' concern. stating there would be
adequate area to access the easement Assistant Planner Deb Garross :further explained
the Engineering Department acquired the easement to maintain the facility they put in and
the easement area should be wide enough to accommodate any digging.
Mr. Leek indicated in his research the City never vacated the private platted driveway.
Ms. Garross explained the torrens procedure for all property owners in North Grainwood.
The City would not be involved with the exception of the old railroad right-of-way,.
which the City did acquire easements over.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Roseth: likes the concept; as long as you are not building anything bigger than the
fOvl,1JJ.~t; not going closer to the lake or street; the impervious surface is 30% verified by
Staffbased on acquiring the additional property. (Mr. Leek explained there were 7
diff~J.~.u.t surveys when Mrs. Waund brought the application in. They used the most
recent survey but it does not show the acquired Y.lU~' The impervious surface works
out to approximately 29%.)
Loftus: No comments.
Kuykendall: No concern with the proposed variances; questioned the easement not
shown on the survey; (Ms. Garross stated the surveyors as not required to show the
easements.) space between the curb to the driveway property line is approximately 22 feet
to the garage.
Arnold: Supportive as long as there are no further encroachments made; states the
property has to be combined and then amended. (Mr. Leek stated it is one of the
conditions before the issuance of the. building permit.)
Wuellner: no comments.
V onhof: believes the hardship criteria have been met; concurs will all the comments
made.
Roseth: Recommend A and B in the Resolution.
MOTION BY ROSETH, SECOND BY ARNOLD TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 95-18
AS SUBMITTED WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF ITEMS A AND B IN THE
PLANNING REPORT.
Discussion: clarification of front yard variance. New owners, Robert and Shirley Thielen
acknowledged they can never build on their parcel across the street. No accessory
structure would be on the parcel. The Commission has never acted on parcels across the
street as part of the impervious surface. It is a unique situation with the plats of
MN8149S.DOC
PAGE 5
. '.'
~....~----...---:":-
..,' ,"0" O'
.-. ~~':'~ '. .~'"''"'~~~:'.~:~-~<7<----~''':'--:-~''''
..-...........;,.....-,.............- ...,,-_._._............._...-----_._~-_.. .~ ---" _.~~.,,--'. -~........"---'._'....~ -~.__.~. --
.._.....____........-......~~.._ .' - ..__....~ ._... ._o_...__.__..-.;..~'__...... ---'--'--'"-'..--
, ..:T
.
,
. .';
Grainwood, North Grainwood, a railroad right-of-way and another parcel across the
street. It is a right-of-way not a plat of record. (Ms. Garross pointed out one of-the
recommendations was to have a covenant placed on the property which states the parcel
across the street is not buildable.) Recommend in the Motion the word "covenant" b~
changed to "encumbrance" and to include the parcel across the street. The City should
have a record when this process has been done.
Vote taken signified ayes by Roseth, Arnold, Kuykendall, Loftus and V onhof. MOTION
CARRIED.
A recess was called at8:39 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:46 p.m.
HEld #3 - CASE V A95-25 RON AND KIM ANDERSON VARIANCE REOUEST:,
The applicants are seeking the following variances for the property located on Lot
17, Grainwood Park: .
1. A variance from Section 9.3(B) of the ShoreIand Ordinance to permit a
lot area of 6,516 square feet instead of the 7,500 square foot minimum,
2. A 5 foot variance to permit a front yard setback on the East of 20 feet
instead of the required 25 feet,
3. A 31 foot variance to permit a lakeshore setback of 44 feet instead of the
required 75 feet,
4. A 5 foot variance to permit a 5 foot side yard setback on the West instead
of the required 10 feet,
5. A 12% variance to permit impervious surface coverage of 42% rather
than the 30% permitted under the Shoreland Ordinance.
Associate Planner Michael Leek presented the information in the Planning Report dated
August 14, 1995. Staff recommended denial of the application because the first hardship
criteria had not been met under the Zoning Code. The Staff also suggested a lesser
impervious surface coverage. Mr. Leek read a letter from the Department of Natural
Resources, Hydrologist, Pat Lynch, stating their objection to the variance which allows
less than 'a minimum 50 foot setback from the ordinary-high-water level. He further
recomme~ded redesigning the proposed structure to meet the Zoning Code.
Applicant, Kim Anderson, explained they had priced out a 1090 square foot house, price
of the lot, average home prices, the cost would be two and one half to three times more
per square foot for a home that size which would be a terrible financial hardship. She
feels it would devalue the property and they would never be able to sell it. It could also
affect the other lots this size around the lake. They feel what they are proposing is in the
spirit of the neighborhood. Surrounding homes are similar and the Commissioners
granted variances for them in the past. Mr. and Mrs. Anderson spoke to the neighbors
and presented a petition in support of the variances. TheoAndersons bought the lot with
the understanding from the Realtor it was a buildable lot. Mrs: Anderson said (Associate
MN8149S.DOC
PAGE 6
JUL-23-01 MON 11:18 AM
.
SCOTT CO RECORDER
FAX NO.
6124968138
P.
r;
IDlJ'r CLAIM DEED
TIllS INDKNfURll, Made ehh 14th day of Novembe.... 1980, betil'llen FAIUlING'l'OI'l-
SHAKOPEE ASSOCIAtION, INC., a ~orpo...ation U~"er the laws of the State of Hinneso~..
party of th6 Urn par~, and VICTOR SC/lROEOiR end ALICE SCHllOEDEa. hh wife, of tbe
Count1 of Scott and Seata Of MinnesOta. parti.. DE the aecond part,
W7rNIl8SETH, That the aald party 01 the tiret pa~t, In Con.ideration of
the sum of One ('1.00) Do114~ and othe~ 800d and valu.ble conaid4ration, to it 1n
hsnd paid by the said parties of the accond part. the receipt whereof 1. hereby
a~kno~ledled, does hereby Crant, Bargatn, QUlt-~laim. end Convey unto the said par-
t1.. of the .er.ond part a. Joint tenant. and nOt aa tenanta in common~ their a'-
.tsn., the survIvor of .aid partlea, and the heir. and as.lgna of the .urviYbr,
Forever, all the tract or parcel of land lYing IInd beina in the Count)' of Sc~ct and
Stete oE Minnesota. dlllcribcd a. follo~I, to-~it'
All cbae part o~ thd 8ban~gned risht-of-~8Y of the Chicdsa. ~ilwaukee. St. PaUL
and Pacifla .ailr044 Company In cOvernment ~ots 4 and ~, Section J), TOWnship 115,
ll~nBe 22. lYing easterly of e~. Ccnterlin& of the track thereof IS .how~ in Scott
County Recorder Document No. .)786f9 and lylns betweon the Wa.terly .~tension
of the aouch line of the nort~ 45 feet of Loe ID, North Crain~ood, aCcording Co
the recorded plet, end che welcerly eXtenSion of the souch line of Lot 9, Norch
Orainwood, according to the recorded plse.
Thll deed 15 Intended to CO~Yey tha Interest ot Iran cor In the aboue-delarlbed
Cract .. ac~ulred from the Chicago. "It~aukee, St. Paul and )eclClc R411road Com-
panYI EXCEPTING, however, all lalvasashle tr.ck materials thQreon and r..ervlns
Unto ..Id rallr08d, its Igenel and InJopendent contractors, che risht, 1ieenle and
priVilege to enCer upon 1.ld reel eltleo for a Period of 36$ daYI from end sfcer
NQvember 13th. 1980 for the purpola ot reMovin$ said lalvaseeble track material.
thenh\Jm.
TO HAVE ANI) TO HOLD TilE BAHE. Tosether ~Ith .11 che t1oredltamel1U and
Ap,urtenancal thereuneo belonging or In an1wila appertaining, Co thn 1.ld perttes
of the lecond part, their a..lln.. the aurvi~or ot .ald par~i.. and tho ~elK. and
a.81an. o~ A ,urvlvor, Foreve~, tho .ald partie. of t~. second part caki~g 81 Joint
tenants and.not a. tenante In common.
'.
....<
IN 'I'IST:PfONY 'iUEREgf'. tho said corporaclon hu.
cou~.d ~he.e preSente to be .aeeut~d in i~. corpo.
rate name by It. Pr..ldent and Seoreta~yI1r.a_
.U'er and It. cO'porate .ea1 CO ba ~er.unto
aftlxed the day and year flrlt aboye Written.
': ...~ '~.....~ " "
.., t"l ~. . '. ,
...1"....1'11. :.
;:: .=...... ',t. ..
~, . 1--. : .
'~-S"AKDPr.E, All
B . ~~ ~
RObtlr:.J".?rR, 'n. Pres! t .
And /~:~,~. #..~~,<~~R-<~
Roberta Scbnelder, itN ~ecretary/TreaBu~llr
.~ ..': j . :
IHC.
STATE: OF k~NNESOTA
COU~Tr Of' DAKOTA
IS.
The foresolnl In.trument wa. acknowledaed be(ore me thl. l~th day D~ Novem-
ber, 1980, by Robert .eyer., 'r..ide~t. and llobere. Schneider, Se~retary/Tree~urer.
tlr J1'a~inston-S"okopo. AUochHan. Ine:., . MlnnelOoCII corpor'ltluIt. on a.""a.LC DC the
corporation. -JL. ~ J'
~"".-..cL./ 7/..4,
...... Notary 'ullllc .~
TH1S INBTRU"E~T WAS DRAf'TED ~Y.
McftENONY6 SIlf:LDON
Attorneys at Law
ICen RDS"" Cel'lte,
Roa.mount. "lnne.ota 5'068
I . .:.:~-"."~~Ar\lNe VARIY '......
t. '. .' ;". 'n'fAn.I'\Jn~IC llll1-II:,1\Or"
.:"...:,.' ""c~~.~!~,?~\I'i:\V,.."
.~"." ....".,..-,'-,~.... f J... 'I I,,,,,,,
Sand Tox Statementa To.
Ylctor and Alte. Se:hrooder
U~g7 C.ll/RIOt Avenu/i Norr.hl!ol't
Prltlr Lakl!. MN ~~)12
HlnneSDtq State Deed Tax. $2.20
..,.,...... ~,...r.:"'_ ".. ,n. "j..
.. '. .'.. . ~
. ~ t",...v..."'.... .\
JUL-23-01 MON 11: 19 AM SCOTT CO RECORDER
FAX NO. 6124968138
P. 2
..
t~:E?l;C ARE NO DELINQU&NI. :r~
~!f'~~ and ranallll' eaterllll lAa
CL- daf 01 . IS. '&(
~
8f a A Ih~u~d'
... J'""1;:
M "T:T'" rr '", r.rPT n~ -;"
~ : ,il,III~J~ota_:.i'/~~ ~^,(AIJl.Jr.f\,
:.~" p.. I) .. c, h'.~: 0 l l 0
-- . I ~I:\:"~' tUI,... ::..~;:
.... . "fAX -- "'.uUI ,..-..__"'.......... ;
~~~.......
....., .... ... .. .... . "
.. ...._..~
I" )'1 .!!'1-
...,' II 6.L.allQql
..~ ' .. · 1~D1
.~~~~~. A~-<
.. ....
u\&!~ ~~~., ,
~.o' ~rp 1"T"/"t Of- N:)"
~c-tu.... q-....tLon,Ct..t:~..\ '.' t 5 ~~
54
,J"..
I'
:-"-""':':~-':">'~r-<'~l~' -
'".'-~~~~-_:i''''':
~~:--:';-:'-'-
. --.:..-.-
,
.
,
-
----
....
r
~ 10
o! 2 c
; ~
o
I-=----.
a
i
10 .. 8
,
Jiful"
-....
-
\~
.-
07/18/2001 WED 13:16 FAX 9524968180
SCOTT CO. ADMIN.
141 010
...
t\)
.
1
~
~
1'\-
ll!51'.2 d Caontr IIIlDdIr ". ,
&'utI CclllIIY. MIl _ ,.,
I t::I\'bl certilJ tbat dta 1IIlItIJ blraInIIt., , ", ": .' ",:' ..' '.. :' , ThlDSfer CAtercG
R.;:sr II tlIIS alfiCI~. ' :." , '.' :,.,1:::' '.' Is"..,
:19_ oIt.1~D'*-~I-" . ,:.. " , " :,,' '..' '::'..,'..,:.:..,\Wg:/~:~:}i:;~:.;;.!-2~~-"----.19 -f'/.
IIIHu.'1 n:t."I::d esz8966Z ...,,' '". pS'IMi'N'i "",': ;",:':..: ;,::/::~'\';~~:;;~',,:: " y~~
[~ ~ I J.. L_ .. '.A?' ~<,;~',::::::~:t:'.::,;::~;",:; ::, :_,;..,'~;,.,~::..:..:',:j.t:':'2,/1.,/\.. .f' , ',..,,; ":"~!'"llY Auditor
~ c.t"I, ~.. _~~~....., ..::.::\.f..-:....~.:.:.-i.....:.. :..,,' :.,:~:..:!,:.l~...:.':.~i:::&....:.:.:.:~:::~'!"";.;;,~t . ~.'A' ~~
ro.,.... ('._M ' , ' ';':;,,~l~11'~":'::~"" ..'i',t""!r ~'." ,; ,''':':1. ;>,.~, '::P;". ~ ~;'!'~"~' , ~.... ~ ~ 'r' ·
~d'l ......IlI..... .. . .,....-..\ .'......f'\:....'J'1.,. (:~..... ~t::,\ " ""~..'l...1.~'.. '\:';-~'~I ~;'"
It J! UK DftLtJABi~'::..~o~{t'i,.ii~~~'.:::~i:~ir~~~>-~'~:,\.,~, r~~~~~.i.'(~,.i p:P1~gle
person. of the:, COQnt~.;.,of~<J,yolt'i~~,:Stat'e :'of :M:l.nnel!lota'.:~"..raDtor.
hereby grants,: ::,cion:ve,y'.'.:'" ..ncl;~ ..ar'l'aD,~1I :~to"~:tb.':,..Ci,~~/;iD'f.~,~rlol' Lake.
a Dluaicipal corporilUoD.:' :lra'Dt'lie,:,;~:'ilD", ea.emciit',:,; oJf:~'th.:"'r'eal
property 1 0 eo. ted: ..in' .:;5 c~t ~ ,c~.uii~f,rrtl1iiDe~,o~a;:;"Cle~II'c~,i l?ecl, all
f 0 11 0 Ws : , .. ,:' : ':::;:i;~ ~ :+:.:~( ,:'~:~"~f~:~:~:~:~~;:~~:.~i~~~ ii::;t )/~;: :~"": ',', ....~;~{(,~,: '
That part at the ahalidoDed'..Ch1'caga},~MU"au'''e8' '" :,~,~.~au.l: aael
Pad tic Ral1w'ay: i'D" GoverDllent;;;Lot.;."4 ;,:aDd '5 .:/,Sectl'oa..,. 35.' Town.hip
116, Range 22." Scott.",~county'.'.:"M1DJ:t8.ota...."lylli'::::eailterly of' 'the
centerline theroo't "lllili::,..t'." fortl:a:: I:i:r:'; Bcott 'CouDt",::Doc~ment Number
118689 aDd 'lY1n' southez;-lY "of' ~thl( weste'rl",;,:,exteJisioD'"'of the
north line of..,tha :south, 4~",t~et::o:r Lot '~lO.>,accor,~UDg' ,to the plat
of North Grdnwo'o'd~::(oil", file ',in, the offlce,:,Df\:..~h~::;CouJity ,Recorder
. . ',' '. . ?'i" ," . ." ..~ '..1 ...
in aDd for aaiel Scott Count,. i '," 'and' lyinl ':,~~z:',~hl!jr,l~;,;ot: ...the
westerly exteDllioJl Ot" ,tbe ,south, ',liia~"::o't,;:,.ald.i;~J.'o~;~9'~'~::""aid North
Gr~inwood. " " ' ',:':":' '::,"><":::?~;~~~, ". ~:;~r:;:, ,
Saiel parcel !;lontliiiaus' '5.350 square f'e~t "m'~'r~"'~~i:~:.1~8a,~'
. . ,,' .:~::. . ..~::~I.~~..;~t~./, .
The fore,oial easemeat is,graated fo~..tbe'~D~~truction.
r$constructioD. improvem.Dt. and alteration of'~ity I!Itreets.
sanitary sewer.. water'ma1na, starm drains. utility easemeDts.
and slope essemeDts.'and, for iDgres. anel e're~. tD Dlainta1n aaid
city .treets. saDitary sewers. water maiDS. .torm draifts.
utility e8sements, aDd slope easemellts., " , ~
~~ ".-::' - ,411-.._ -I.. - ~I-
Scott ChristeDSen. attorney in
tact ~or Alice M. Schroeder
STAT! or MINNESOTA
)
)
)
liS
. " .....
, " ,
.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The foregoinl was ac~nowledged before:.e:this 25th day of
Nevember, 1991 by Scott CbrlateDsen. attorDey,lD tact for
Alice M. Schroeder.
This inB~rument was drafted by:
~ Ralph W. Heuschele
1080D tyadale Avenue South
Bloomington, MN 5542D
S12/884-5DS1
RALPH W. HEUSCHELE
1ID1'Mt~.~.
HENNEPIN COUNTY
....CaIm.~ -. 1I1.11l37
000SCR012-13-'11t1OOlI
115.001lS
.~- ,..,'~.........."",~,
..I~
~ _!"'Rf''' _ ~,.,,,. l~
......" 1/'
07/23/2001 MaN 10:50 FAX 9524988180
SCOTT co. ADMIN.
IaI 001
t!'
..
:i.." . .
," '. "\
' , '.,.
", -_' 0
~"., < '. ;,,, ". -.i."". ,
. : -' -'~' ' .. '- ...', ";.
.. _ 'J'
.- :. '-' ,,"
-""'"'- -.
. .
\
\
.
\J
~
J
at
o
~
~
'\
\
\
\
\
'.
\
\
'~', \\ \
'. \
\\:\ \, \ \ \. "
~\\ \ \ N
1~1\, . \ ".
~\\ \ \. 'i
,/\ \
.: \ '
\ \ "
\ \ 1 '
.. .' '. ... . . J2'i.:~t.~;c.',,~~~ifjll~~~~~~~~~a 117 ~.. ~ 0 ~ .
.'. '." ,:.,.r:,.'~ts~:!&;t~>::,:;~~~~t~~'_r 'T~t;>...:;.~,~...".",~ ~.~y ~, ~ ·
.. . jt-t:At(Jort1;nriisofii~~.~'t'SS:i~t.'~"Fc,::<:"', ::"?;~::~Jy~~.;,~'t~;...~,:""c' :..'.. .. ", ,~.' , . '.~
/(JII ."., 1-../ of ~;o';M-. .,:~, .>...70if:);c '" . ,,~.: '. . .
UI Vr 11'1 v..., I' -:"'2+::'.;,:.,,' '
. . /, D0r1tAld.:'Child.5. hf!ly!:'bi Of!Jrl7fy thft I rT7~de . fhG.5vr'""v'ey
desc,y-, bed in the: -plat-.af f{oR~rl t5RAJKwooO.. :haf thG-:J/",f aqreG!J
that the. 11'011 Rn~ fJ,,-v'e. bee.n plac;~d in thG qroLJnd. a-' :5/PWf1.
. . .... Re.q, ~fer'~i:J 5/lrVt{;;.
otJb~c,Yi b,d Ma -5WOf'1l 10 be.foy~ rqe th,':, 3 M day of
I( l.
r.
}
~ ~tJu
'0 ' \I .
DE.DIC,A-rTot\
I, c. 16,0 W~i land tJv1d 't1j(Jr7iG ,1'1. ~i lam wIfe, ~ . ow''1cY-~ of 01 p(;f/f of Gov'1:
Lot~, 4 tk 5 ir7 .5~(j. J~-"5-22 de.xribaJ fA:J'.fol/oiI': :5fC;J,tin~ at the tio~..ve~t c;orytt:Y" of
"GRA/N.wOOO. PAe/(" J plat of which /~ J10W.OY/ File. Ii? tI1e ofne/; of fl7e Reqi5f~y of !Je~ds of
:';coif CO Mirlrr. o>1d YI.Jrl>1/f1q If!er1ce. tlorlhwester'!V alo>1q the. E:a~f Riqhfof Way line C?f
tt[G C.I1. 51: Ptk f? Rv aY7o.. .51'. fc~t e:.a~f of;;therallt'oc;Jd ceY/fef'/'-r7(; 470. fec.f: the.~ce crt'f.
af r/qhr aV1q/~, 10 /ht: fyqc.k. /6..5 f~(;.r; fl7er7c.~ t(w'rlf payall~1 ~ 'th~ tvac.1( aY7d 66.5 fet:.1-
East- of fhG (;t;Ylfeyljrz~ fh~r?;cif 1'5. f(;(;.f; th~t1ce t( 10 10' e:.. abovf 55. ft:~r 10 ffz~ ~ho~ or
mor' LA/(e, Ih~YJGG .)outh~;,I'I a/ot7q ~aid lJho"'~ lint: abovf G2o. feet ay/d fht:l1ce .5 ~7" Jo' ""'"
10. -k.c:r to /he placc- of b~q/ninq. aOY7ta/nir7q 1.44 aCr't:.5 do dedJ'caf(; tl7G dY"/vt:Jwoy a~
j;I10W(] for' /he /lX of ff}e public, o>1d prodairq that 6aid tr'acr ;, to be, f0ovv't7 a~
Ko~-rl-\ GRA.ll'\ -
C
I .& I . J" ~ c(,,,
VV II n~5'G~ 'I
JZ
c::? ~ ?1r -' ~ ' ."I
&..
~1YJ~
. -
Iq47 . ~ppeo.y-ed bGfoff:-
duiy' ackrtowle.dq~d
ac;{- at1d dGw.
. 1i1~. WGti/~r1cJ Cltt1d
~ oufed fh(. ~bo"e.
A1Tb~t\e~'
DOfMU) QffIla
~...... ...~......
My COrI.....III:n ~AUa- 21th. 1M.
. I h~Y'Zbv (j~r;lif,/ if7af..,1 ho.v'~ el'aminaJ --t!J~.... ... ft.. ,f./~ crf tte: ~cc~9 plat or
ORI1-t G A/I"{WOOO QY1d hey-(;b y~commeY1d J!!yptiJ;~T07f1{/~ \ tJfRP~lIal C}T X:;G 80ayd
GO"T LD-r
-60'11:'" La...- 4-
'"
~ItGR.O~~' G
A. 11-4,,'
c,. 2..'
~.
r.
.so
\.
\\
,
€
"MORTH
G~Al~WOO[) ,0
Ii'\ SE.GTtot\. 35-115-2.2
5(:,~-1.1 ' Go., f1JliM..
'941 &ale I'"r5o.
~.....,.,....:."..
~
''':;/
EGAN,..
.."....-
'Ii.
, /IJ
, IIt6V
u,,8.5i1~ _oM
.. .,1'O...A'90 po
Ii- ~ 1&0'"" It
c"D.I~tD~I'8.5
o
..0
1&1-
.
. ....
1<Q
tt~
, ":eQ
. .",CQ
.,~~
~
-A --r: .
. s : s
....1 Ie, ~ · I...
... ..~.'
! I .
d:
.... .'...
:,< I....'....
. .'
...~. "':. r~
.'. ..('. :..: ;
. : ,...... I.'
:- ... .....
.
.:...,........
~
5i!
-1.-
t
P R
o
R
----- -
~
::0 U
o
~
~
~
~
\
\
\
,
I
,
,
.
I
I
I
-----
12
~
!I
I
I
~l
, I _____
'~J
. -, .... ~
I ~.
I ~~
I ~il
~ ..~~
1_.....
, ",-,
'J ·
I J
~,
. ....
:r....
........
.: ~_..,
.. .....'
. .....
. \
'., '
-.. ~
....t'
,
I
\
\.
".
"
.!'~
11
';':h ,:,~~:::~!c;
Prepared by: "::;~1i~i
Orr.Schelen.Mayeron'
& Associates, Inc:~~;t!'.
2021 East Henneptn"~.~::,}~.:",
Minneapolis, MN 55413
__~ ....___ __ _ -4_ '",-,_ - _....--~...-.........-- ..._.-".......________ _~,___=r..~ ~____ "'--"C """,,_"_-. ..=...~...... . ~
'"
OS M EASEMENT NO.
Description and Drawing
rY""f'\
OSM
84-112
I ~ ..' wu.T '1MI5 1U1"II'I. """' 01 :., WAS ,",,"'D IT ME 01
.-a ." , ... IUlIfrn5lOfol ANO 'nIAT I'" A _v IIGI$T8!II !.AND II.
.-. 1tIf !.A~ Of '"' STAn 01 MIMMIscn....
\.,A..,;V
ORR ' SCHELEN ' MAYEROS &. ASSOCIATES.INC.
a:; IllS" __p.A "" . S",1l UI. .....Ul'O..S,_sOu '~I1' .",. 131.-
.....,.... AMI, - - ~ NO. nIM
WA"" . U)MG IIG NO. 7612
- - .,. .-DAn
----
-
NOT E: Ho"o !,.' . _II was p.rfo,...d os to the preci..
tocatiOfl of tltis trocl.
wr,~~~: Victor Sctlroeaer
1~5C; Celm~: Aven~c h.E.
Prior Lal:. M~ 5:~~2
DE~C~IDTIU~ Qt [~SE~~N7:
A pe'1Toa'le~: easemE':'l: for p~~lic utility purposes over, under and across tt'lat
par: of 6cye~n~~: Lc: 4 a~: ~. Section 35, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County.
Mln~I/~5att1. oe5~~i:>e:: a';) fuliows:
Tne s:HJ:'lE~l'y 12j.oa f~: of a strip of land 16.50 feet in width lyinS
we5:erl,Y of a~I,: ac~ace~: tc Lc:s 8. 9, and 10. horth Grainwocd, according to tne
p 1 a:' Or', f i 1 E 1 r t'lfo ()~ fi Cfo o~ tne County Recoroe". xot t County. Hi nnesota a'lG
l)'inS nortne:....) c" tnfo a~;ca~ec 16.5U foot drivewa) in said North Grainwood.
Sa;c pe~o~ne~: easement co~ta;ns 1,980 ~quarE feet more or less.
~ ..,'.
';'''.
I.' :;, ~.:rt t~~ v:rr:~!i1 1r.~"~Ij~'('IH
j)) tll:3 ~lIc' ~rtr.;lrd om
, dl7 cf J:..)c' k
~_Y..... at ~.I'; "c!crck \,11-..
....r:'~~ u.
',/"'> ::~, ~0S4(\.:..: ,
.f ;'~j1.J)U.~
~' I ....-.J \1,,,,,,-,
.......11 ". . .....
'. ( /
_._I..__'-:3-~7~~_-.,"
. ":--' "";,\"I~.ItI.l.'JI!lb~~'I~'~'
\ ", ~
.. .
AVENUE
ON
c-
"7 THE LAKE ...
,10'
@l::J G)
. ,
.
.... .
.... ..
--
--~ .-
- -
l.M.T
.
/
I ~~
2 I t::J~...,"'''
I ~ ~8"
~ .tt,; ,. .t ... ..
~~ ~ :-"'. ';~
~" ~,:~.
--~~ -~ "'~
k ~~ or.
'f - -- -. -, " ...... c;, J".
I~
-
~ SA~. _ ....
"':-
.
:J
~:~:j
6
7
TH
GRAINWOOO
FU
-:::::-
. ",. .f,"
I
'--
---
. ..;."
,'.'\
~ CURV;:: DATA
1 t. = I 2 0 3~ 10"
. R = 2864.93'
L:: 627.67'
T = 3 15.1 0'
. ". .~..'
:. ..1,:.,
. '" '.~
, .-
'. I'
. .' ':'::.:~:..~~.:
,
, '
,.('J
I '
It)
:x:
'D:-.N-
~
,~
5.
....
r
l ~ ~
'0 S 2
. ~
.J Q
o
.._~t
Q
1
i ~ . 8
;.,
-J
l".-
5--
1 Jlfv:l"
""V .
-
- .
~,
......
. '
-
\~ '
----
\~,,6'f\
......~~
\\ '\""
,
07/18/2001 WED 13:17 FAX 9524968180
scan co. ADMIN.
~014
No delinquent taxes and transfer enteredj Certifica.te
of Real Estate Value ( ) filed ( '~not req,uired
Certifica~ ~f R.eal Estate Value No., ~ /
-( ~~h j.1t) ,'. .1f17.:LJ
:V"
i~. c./~ ~Ji,tLhu
'Ei" LL County Auditor
....c. /l u d 6 .' ' \' l"-\\J
by (jV1IV(..,(,.{. ~ l')\~ ~L"
'1--J P tO~>t.WJ""~- Deputy
~ 9.! '2 STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $ ~S
-.00
:J.......;o
~ Ul '-I Date: J111 v 14 . 1994
:g :~ :r.
:::) ....,
'.:.> '-. en
;:: ~: -l
:tJ ffl.')> FOR VAr..UABLECONSIDERATION. _ David E. Lewis
::: ~:) :0 a sincrlr! person
z. tp -I
- c, -t
~s.r-
T! '=0 m
:>00. < ~
.&.1.\.1- al ti
I) a ~ re proper y n
:P
IndlvldU81lsl10 Individuellsl
ur.c~~ CIi' 'DIE --......~ ~
........... ~ loll.
~ raid m! =: ~ IZ1
rEP 15 jgg~ ~! K.
(?2t~ A ~~:5t;
~~~"'= -
,~~
by
De'pW:Y
WBJ. :~=~ =IRED
,)(. WBJ.
(reserved for recording data)
-
, Grantor (JI).
(marital status)
hereby conve)' (s) and quitclaim (8) to H & H [.and Development,
a qeneral ,partnership und,~r the laws of Minnesota ,Grantee(s),
Scott ,County. Minnesota, described as fonows:
See reverse side of this document.
~
~'
.~
~
~
~1
~
~
Consideration for this transfer is less than $500.00
I am familiar with the .t'.v~Y described in this instrument and I certify that the status
and number of 'Wells on the described real ~.L"'J:"c.cL. ey have not chaTl9ed sinced the last
j:J...""viously f; 1 ~ well ctisclosure certificate.
IIf more sp_lsneeded, t;:ontin ~u) pf0~'7
_II..... with all hereditamenl& and appurtenance. belonging lh~/ " ' ./
//7ft Jot
David E. Lewis
Ar1JX R~BC'!d.~U'~fnp;F}1~iii~f,',. ~ JprrAi"I:or- ::.,:;
"~,,,~Jtt.9i.~~1':~"~ : ~,:e;1,.n)," ~ ,Vtmr!f,lr.:(11'." ,: :
. ('. . '" , .' ( t' ,"..,' , .~, J .
, ,'I"'-:....,^ "J.~' , ,...... ,"
'.'. O[E'U..,..- ...,. -":~"~";!}(I'I:~:'
"" T . ','~, u.. ... II! (~f .
I~' ;:, ,c,MP !:FJ' 1:"94 ',.}~.;,." .. . . U':):..
STATE OF> MINNESOTA-- F.B.IOIIZO .-'.'-l.'..-----~
51.
COUNTY OF E:lerlJ'lepin
The foregoing instrum.ent was acknowledged before me this /L/tJ. day of ....J 1 t 1 Y
by Oav1d E. Levis, a sin~le Derson
@..~ LOIS J. PAUL
..' "OTAI\" PUBliC. WINN&SOTl
HENNEPIN COUNTY
M, comm. ElPI",. A9r. 20. ,...
[THISINSTRUMENT wAsi'KAirTiiDBY (NAME AtfP-;'DDBESS): .
I
I
!
Ralph W. Heuschele
10800 Lyndale Ave. So.
Sloomington, MN 55420
~
~
.......
~
l_,~"
,q.S;
!:De. )Tc.?2863 Fib: tiJR"b
V~1k>S PagBJ~ ~;kJ 11./ r
loJZ>:~ OF 1F.t ~,.=~ Of TI1%,!:S
1:;;:;;1~' ~--x1 i;c :.
8'rJj~-
lzvth71m,;' J.l.uA,u.I.I..~U ~'::'J
,19..iL.
I ) , Grantor (st.
, ~ r f-/~~
RIGNAT .! OF PE' ill TAKINC AC:KJl10WLEDGMENT
Tn Statelllll t. tor thlt '10 propmy dillRl1t1,d 'Ill W. 1JI01"lUD8Dt aIIowd
bll 81llU to (lDolqdtl nun. lIInd .44no of GlIllIIe..)!
D. Mark Crouse
15507 Calmut Ave. N.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
and
United }i;)rtgage
0300 Nonnan ctr. Dr. Ste. 1000
Blcx:mci.ngton, MN 55437
loan #5143482
arid
H & H Land Devel."lt4.oe.nt
10800 Ly.rlda.le AW. So.
Bloanington, lo1N 55420
07/18/2001 WED 13:16 FAX 9524968180
SCOTT CO. ADMIN.
1aJ0ll
DECLARATION OF ACCESS EASEMENT
AND l\L\.):r.,..:6NANCE COVENAl'I'...~
"t2v 1:
THIS DECLARATION, made this I ~ , day of tJ - 1 1994, by H&H
Land Developmen~ a Minnesota general partners . p (hereinafter called the
'IDeclarant").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Declarant is the fee ",Ill M8r of the following described properties
located in Scott County, Minnesota, to.wit:
I
~1! i
.2i-~ F
~~I _~i
! 'B ~~ j
i! ~!
IE I ~
~~.a .
fi :tj
.os ,~
Iii l'il
>ot: oS
Tract A:.
Lot 9 and that part of Lot 10, plat of "NORTH GRAINWOOD1' and that
part t>f Govemment Lot 5, Section 35, Township 115, Range 22. Scott
County, Minnesota, described as fall... If.=o: CommeDciDg at the northwest
corner of said Lot 10; thence southerly along the westerly line of said
Loti 10 and 9 and also 8, a distance of 165.00 feet to the actual point of
beginning of the land to be described; thence westerly along the north ".
line of said plat to the easterly right of way line of the Chicago, ~
Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad; thence northerly along said C'2 ~
easterly right of way line to its intersection with the westerly extension ~ - lS .
of the southerly line of the northerly 45.00 feet (as mea.:......c;d at right c-, . i t 1 g
angles to the northerly line) of said Lot 10; thence easterly along the ~ ! i i "-
south line to the shoreline of Prior Lake, then southerly along the ~ i~ i i ~
shoreline to the south line of said Lot 9; thence westerly along said ;: c3 ~. .E ':::
south line of said Lot 9 to the southwest comer thereof; thence southerly ~ "0 B -G 'I \
along the 'Westerly line of said Lot 8 to the actual point of beg;nn;ng. ~ I J it ~
~
'"
i ~
e 1'3,
I~
This parcel shall be rc;f~.. ...cod to as the "Benefited PropertY' for this
Declara.tion.
Tract B:
Outlots C, D, E and F. Windsong on the Lake, Scott Cu_ty, Mixmesota.
This parcel shall be referred to as the 11&,.... ;ent Property" for this
Declaration.
'" l1l!.iREAS, the Declarant desires hereby to provide a pedestrian access
easement tor the benefit of and appurtenant to the Benefited Property, ~.......... the
Servient Prape.:... L.f.
1
07/18/2001 WED 13:17 FAX 9524968180
SCO'IT CO. ADMIN.
I4J 012
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises contained herein, the
Declarant hereby declares that the Servient Property shall be held, transferred, sold.,
conveyed, W3ed and occupied IiUbject to the conditioDS~ restrictions, covenants and
easements hereinafter set forth, which conditions, restrictions, covenants and
easements shall .nm with said real property and shall be binding upon all parties
having any right, title or interest in the Sco... t~eDt Prop",...L." or any part thereof, arid
their heirs, succesSOX'S and assigns.
1. Grant of Easement
The Declarant hereby creates and imposes over and upon the Servient
Property and grants to the present and future owners of the Benefited Property a
non-exclusive easement which.shall be appurtenant to and run with the Benefited
Property for pedestrian ingress aDd egress to and frOM the private marina as the
Windsong on the Lake Association, Inc. may extend from Outlot C to Prior Lake, and
to use and occupy one boat slip within the marina, at 110 cost to the holder of the
rights provided, however, that said easement and right to U8e the boat slip shall be
subject to all reasonable rules and regulatioDS imposed from time to !.,.....e by the
Windsong OD the Lake Association, Inc., or its successors, upon its members
regarding the Wle or the private marina, except such rules as applied to the
assessment of costs for operation, mainten.BJ1ce and replacement of marina fac:ilities.
IN WITNESS'" .ti.c;REOF, the Declarant has executed these presents the day
and year first above written.
By;
2
_ ~/18/2001 WED 13: 17 FAX 9524968180
SCaTI' co. ADMIN.
19j013
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF IfENJJE PIN )
a.,
~fOregoil1g in.1... wment was .powledged before me this /3. day of
~ , J 1994 by ,,(~Af!i-- /.." H ~f/~ ) a general
partne ofH&H La:ad Development, a MiIinesota general partnership on beha1f of the
Partnership.
",.<'tJ
--
~
~.. LOIS J. PAUL
.J' NOTARY PUBLJc:. .....NEBOT4
HENNEPJN COUNTY
." c..,., EuI_ AIIr. .. 1..
Tms INSTRUMENT WAS D~'~.a..u BY:
Lany E. Coulter
Attorney at Law
9100 W. BloOlDiDgton Freeway
Bloom:ington, MN 55431
3
- --'
_ ~ /18/2001 WED 13: 18 FAX 9524968180
SCOTT CO. ADMIN.
. IaI 016
iliAD 1\ 1 ' .-
IIN\" 't;;:~O
q >-L \'\~
~
^' -'
t '" -
.. ~- ..,.
.w.Z
..00
I ~ =n
:;: ~ FIRST AMENDMENT TO BOAT SLIP AG~, dated this ~ day of June. .1994,
~ en by and between Windsong on the Lake Association, Inc. J a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter
~ 5Z II Association") and H &. H Land Development! a :Minnesota. general partnership (hereinafter MU &. Kg).
iii'::c '
g ~ '" nr.;REAS the Association and H & H previo1lS1y executed a Boat Slip A~..~ent dated April
f _:n 13. 1994 which ~ recorded on April 18, 1994 as Document No. 334343 (the · AgreementR); and
~-
i~
.r.adT AMENDl\.fENT TO BOAT SLIP ACREEJ.\IIENT
~ ~AS, the Association and H &. H wish tD amend the A&........ment for their :mutual benc1it.
as provided below.
NOW, ',uu..dFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants conl3ined herem, the parties
hereto agree as follows:
1. The first paragraph of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety, to
read as follows:
1. Association hereby grants to H &. H, and any succeeding owner of the
property, the exclusive right to use one boat slip designated by the Association in marina
facilities prDvided by the Association on Outlot C, WindsoDg Oft the I..ake, Scott County,
Minnesota, forever. Such boat slip shall be at least ten feet wide. and shaD. bave a
sixteen foot ar.....es dock on one side; the water depth at the outer end of the boat slip
shall be at least three feet. The owner of the Property, any other occupants of the
Property, and the guests and invitees of the owner and any such additional occupants,
shall be entitled to use the boat slip and to have ingress and egress across the pI...!, 0.:. LJ
currently owned by the Association for access to the boat sUp pursuant to this
Agreement, and thexe shall be absolutely no charge; cost or expense levied, assessed Of
charged to such users for such use-
2. .RestrictiQDS on I )I,/..~n:v t1~. Subject to continued provision of the boat slip and marina
use to the owner of the Property, pursuant ~o this Boat Slip Agreement and the Declaration of Access
Easement and Maintenance Covenants dated April 13, 1994, Owner hereby covenants and aO"~ that
the use of that portion of the Property located below elevation 904 feet shall be restricted as follows:
a. No structure, te,&uk'l.I&,:.I)' or permanent, including but not limited to swim rafts, mooring
buoys, and boat lifts. may be installed ex",~.1'i. that the owners of this Propeny may install
a single linear dock not to exceed four (4) feet in width and twenty-four (24) feet in
length. '
b. No wate~lloi...oft may be moored or anchored or beached overnight at this Property.,
../kiD
~(~~
'1:2 5035 GrcUtlwaacJ J No (''Ii,
~ f'/t> I () ,.. .At!
F:U)DCS\PUD{'\OP8U7Dl6_l.AO_ . (,UI f -'- ol- 5 :is /,' f~
Go 1/ VfF'"1 IJJ ~ - /~ -rJd...
No change may be made to the cross t~n of the lake bed below elevation Dine
hundred and foUI (904) feet including. buMimited to, the placement or removal of sand
Itki'r .# ..N'tlfll /Q ~
349446
Cae.
I~S
Q1!':CZ OF ora! CQUNn aEg;llUlSB.
5C:.O'l"1' c.........~. lIItNNSSc'tJl.
Bj!''lTfW' ~ ~='r"~
.~,
~&~ Boec:1c!ll&.l\. C:OIC:.y !I..ClQ~:!u
toll
.Ileputy
07/18/2001 WED 13:18 FAX 9524968180
SCOT! CO. ADMIN.
!gJ 017
---. --------.----
. .
soil, or aggreiate to or from this Properly or installation of retaining walls, except by
permit from the MinnesOta. Department of Natural Resources.
These restrictions shall tenninate upon the earlier of (a) mutual agreement by the then Property
owner and the IIum owner of ()uIIot C. Windsong OIllhe Lake. or (b) failure of. the Associallon. or its
successors, to provide use of the boat slip and marina facilities as stipulated in this A~"""......ent.
IN "a.l.1 iESS '" .ttt!..KEOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first
written above.
H & B LAND DEVELOPMENT,
a Minnesota generdl partnership
WINDSONG ON ll1J:, LA.KE
ASSOCIATION, INC., a Minnesota
corporation
By:
By:
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
55.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
.._=...~il
.....1"11 COUNft
Mfa ,'. ....,.,..
r ' ·
The r~IA,,;,going instrument was acknowledged before me this ..2!:L day of ~,1994,
by Ralph ~. Heuschele, the PICsident of Wmdsong on the Lake Association, a corporation under the
laws of Minnesota. on behalf of the corporation.. '
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
5S.
COUNTY OF HE~~~J.N )
/J -;,~ ~
/' I/~A- ~A.~';
Notary Public ~
. ~"OGER STRA"O
_._. PIaLlO. ~A
..,".f'NEPIN COUNTY
. , --.......
I
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2!:L day of ~- , 1994,
,by D~na1d L. HaIVCY, a general partner ofH &. H Land Development, a genetafpartnership under the
laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the partnership.
pJr- p~'C- ~
Notary Public
.2.
JI:""......,ol'fJBL\OD$\17OS~U.AaR
07/18/2001 WED 13:19 FAX 952496818~__.~
---.---
----
-_.-
This insttument drafted by
Best & Flanagan (ODS) .
4000 First Bank Place
601 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4331
(612) 339..7121
P:\DOCS\1I'UBL\ODS\11016_1.AClIl
SCOTT CO. ADMIN.
IaJ 018
-3-
,.
07/18/2001 WED 13: 18 FAX 95,24968180
SCOTT CO. ADMIN.
141 015
Lot 9 and that part of Lot 10, "NOR!H GR4INWOODP and that part
of Go~ernment Lots 4 and 5, Section 35. Township 115. Range 22,
Scott county, Mi~nesota, described as follows: Commencing at
the northwest corner uf said Lot 10; thence souther.ly along the
westerly line of said Lots 10 and 9 and also 8, a distance of
165.00 feet to the actual point of beginning of the land to be
described; thence ~esterly along the north line of said plat tu
the easterly right of way line of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St.
Paul and Pacific Railroad; thence northerly along said easterly
right of way line to its intersection with the westerly
extension of the southerly line of the northerly 45.00 feet (as
measured at right angles to the nor.therly line) of said Lot 10i
thence easterly along said southerlY line to the shoreline of
Prior Lake, thence southerly along Raid shoreline to the south
line of said Lot 9; thence westerly along said south line of
said Lot 9 to the southwest corner thereof; thence southerly
along the westerly line of said Lot 8 to the actual point of
beginning.
Together with easement rights for pedestrian ingress and
egress to and from Outlot C, D. E. and F, Windsong on the Lake,
s~ott County, Minnesota and all riporiBn rights neoeSSAry to
permit the uae of a Prior Laku boat slip in the private ma~ina
located un Outlot Ot Windsong on the Lake, Prior Lake, MN.
Said ease.ent rights are more fully set forth in that certain
Declaration at" AcceSS Basement arad Mttintenance CovenAnts dated
April 13, 1994, and recorderl as Document No. 334344 at the
office of the County Recorder of S~ott Count" MinncRoLa. and as
Document No. 70368 in t.he office of the Registrar of Titles of
Scott Counly, Minnesota. These rights shall inure to the
benefit of purchaser's beirs, successors and assigns fore~er.