HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-065 - Varriance Appeal
--:.it
:1
II
I!
APPLICA'l"10~S
&
APPLICA' 'IO~
II
I!
MA'l'blUALS
!I
II
ii
Ii
!I
Ii
1.1- "
Ji
:.
I:
ii
L:\TEMPLATE\FILEINFO.DOC
Ii
I,
n
Ii
ii
il
:i
II
"
l:-
ii
!:
.. I;
, !I
Ii
!i
!!
I,
i.i
I'
II
I:
!i
I:
!
i:
I,
"
il
..
.,
..
.
15507 CalmutAve NE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Mr. Steven Horsman
Zoning Administrator
City of Prior Lake Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Date: June 27, 2001
Dear Steve,
As per the instructions provided to me during the Planning Commission meeting on
Monday, June 25th, please accept this as my formal appeal to the Commission's
decision to deny my request for a setback variance approval, which would allow me
to keep the deck attached to my house located at 15507 Calmut Ave NE. This
request is listed in the City's records as Case File #01-017PC.
In proceeding with this appeal I have been advised that I will need a minimum of 60
days from the date I receive a copy of the minutes from the meeting to confer with
my legal counsel and prepare for the next step in this process. In addition I need to
know what steps are involved in the appeal process. Please provide this information
to me in writing along with a copy of the minutes from Monday's meeting.
Regards,
'7Jn~ ~. () L-
Mark Crouse
"_;~-.."" '~-:.'~-"_ ;, ... ',.' ..~:. ."". ._~,......~'_ .:.... ._ ",'_. _ ; .. , .. ,_<._ ~a;""'~-~"..i....... -",-' .
Resolution
and -- .. i. es .
L:\TEMPLA TE\Fll..BINFO.POC '
"
State of Minnesota )
)ss.
County of Scott )
I, Kelly Meyer, being duly sworn, as Deputy City Clerk for the City of Prior Lake, do hereby
certify that the attached RESOLUTION 01-99 is a true and correct copy of the original as
passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake at its August 20, 2001
meeting.
Date: ff?ZX{) I
Kelly Meyer
Deputy Ci~ Clerk
h:\certify.doc
---
State of Minnesota )
)ss.
County of Scott )
I, Kelly Meyer, being duly sworn, as Deputy City Clerk for the City of Prior Lake, do hereby
certify that the attached RESOLUTION 01-99 is a true and correct copy of the original as
passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake at its August 20, 2001
meeting.
Date:
O!z'{o/
h :\certify .doc
"
RESOLUTION 01.99
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO
DENY A 71.FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 4.FOOT STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER
MARK ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15507 CALMUT AVENUE
MOTION BY: Gundlach
SECOND BY: Zieska
WHEREAS,
on August 20, 2001, the Prior Lake City Council considered an appeal by Mr, D, Mark Crouse of the
Planning Commission's denial of a request for a 71 foot variance to permit a 4-foot structure setback from
the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) 904 foot elevation rather than the required minimum 75 foot
setback, for the property legally described as follows:
Legal Description:
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 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, S1. 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;
and
WHEREAS,
the City Council finds that the requested variance does not meet the standards for granting variances set
forth in Section 1108.400 of the City Code, and that the appellant has not set forth adequate reasons for
overturning the decision of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS,
the City Council has determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the requested
variances should be upheld, and said variances should be denied,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE:
1) The above recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
2) The City Council makes the following findings:
a, Mr. D, Mark Crouse applied for a variance from Section 1102.405 of the City Code in order to permit an attached deck
to a principal structure be setback 4-feet from the OHWM of 904 feet rather than the required minimum 75 feet as
r:\resoluti\planres\2001 \OI-99.doc Page I
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMpLOYER
shown in Attachment 1 on property located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland) Districts at the
following location, to wit;
15507 Calmut Avenue NE, Prior Lake MN, 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 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;
b. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case File #01-017, and held a
hearing thereon June 25,2001,
c, The Planning Commission concluded the variance request did not meet the hardship criteria and denied the request.
d, Mr, D, Mark Crouse appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 1109.400 of the
City Code on June 29, 2001. !
e, The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information contained in Case
File #01-017 and Case File #01-065, and held a hearing thereon on August 20,2001,
f. The City Council has considered the effect of the proposed variances 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 variances on the Comprehensive
Plan.
g, The City Council has determined the request does not meet eight of nine hardship criteria. There are not unique
circumstances or conditions regarding the property, Any hardship was caused by the actions of the applicant through
the design and placement of the proposed structures, There are no unique characteristics to the property that would
constitute a hardship, In 1978 the property had received two variances: 1) A 63-foot variance to permit a 12-foot
structure setback to the OHWM; and, 2) An 8-foot variance to permit a 17-foot front yard setback,
h, The denial of the requested variances does not constitute a hardship with respect to literal enforcement of the
ordinance as there exists reasonable use of the property without the variances,
3) The contents of Planning Case File #01-017 and Planning Case File #01-065 are hereby entered into and made a part of
the public record and the record of the decision for this case,
4) Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby upholds the decision of the Planning Commission
denying a variance to permit a structure setback of 4-feet from the OHWM of 904 feet rather than the required minimum
75-feet for applicant D, Mark Crouse, as shown in Attachment 1, which Attachment is incorporated herein as if fully set
forth,
r:\resoluti\planres\200 1 \0 1-99 .doc
Page 2
.
Passed and adopted this 20th day of August, 2001,
YES NO
I Mader X Mader
Petersen Petersen X
Ericson Ericson X
Gundlach X Gundlach
I Zieska X Zieska
{Seal}
r:\reso]uti\p]anres\200] \0] -99.doc
Page 3
,
RESOLUTION 01-99
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO
DENY A 71-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 4-FOOT STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER
MARK ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15507 C-ALMUT AVENUE
MOTION BY: Gundlach
SECOND BY: Zieska
WHEREAS,
on August 20, 2001, the Prior Lake City Council considered an appeal by Mr. D, Mark Crouse of the
Planning Commission's denial of a request for a 71 foot variance to permit a 4-foot structure setback from
the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) 904 foot elevation rather than the required minimum 75 foot
setback, for the property legally described as follows:
Legal Description:
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 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 Jine 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;
and
WHEREAS,
" the City Council finds that the requested variance does not meet the standards for granting variances set
forth in Section 1108.400 of the City Code, and that the appellant has not set forth adequate reasons for
overturning the decision of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS,
the City Council has determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the requested
variances should be upheld, and said variances should be denied,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE:
1) The above recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein,
2) The City Council makes the following findings:
a. Mr, D. Mark Crouse applied for a variance from Section 1102.405 of the City Code in order to permit an attached deck
to a principal structure be setback 4-feet from the OHWM of 904 feet rather than the required minimum 75 feet as
r:\resoluti\planres\2001 \Ol-99.doc Page I
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph, (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMpLOYER
~,-
shown in Attachment 1 on property located in the R.1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland) Districts at the
following location, to wit;
15507 Calmut Ave~ue NE, Prior Lake MN, 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 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;
b. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case File #01-017, and held a
hearing thereon June 25, 2001,
c. The Planning Commission concluded the variance request did not meet the hardship criteria and denied the request.
d, Mr. D, Mark Crouse appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 1109.400 of the
City Code on June 29, 2001, f
e, The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information contained in Case
File #01-017 and Case File #01-065, and held a hearing thereon on August 20,2001,
f, The City Council has considered the effect of the proposed variances 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 variances on the Comprehensive
Plan,
g. The City Council has determined the request does not meet eight of nine hardship criteria. There are not unique
circumstances or conditions regarding the property. Any hardship was caused by the actions of the applicant through
the design and placement of the proposed structures, There are no unique characteristics to the property that would
constitute a hardship,' In 1978 the property had received two variances: 1) A 63-foot variance to permit a 12-foot
structure setback to the OHWM; and, 2) An 8-foot variance to permit a 17-foot front yard setback,
h, The denial of the requested variances does not constitute a hardship with respect to literal enforcement of the
ordinance as there exists reasonable use of the property without the variances,
3) The contents of Planning Case File #01-017 and Planning Case File #01-065 are hereby entered into and made a part of
the public record and the record of the decision for this case.
4) Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby upholds the decision of the Planning Commission
denying a variance to permit a structure setback of 4-feet from the OHWM of 904 feet rather than the required minimum
75-feet for applicant D, Mark Crouse, as shown in Attachment 1, which Attachment is incorporated herein as if fully set
forth,
r:\resoluti\p1anres\200 1 \0 1.99 ,doc
Page 2
.....
Passed and adopted this 20th day of August, 2001,
YES NO
I Mader X Mader
I Petersen Petersen X
I Ericson Ericson X
I Gundlach X Gundlach
I Zieska X Zieska 1
~
{Seal}
r:\resoluti\p]anres\200] \0] -99.doc
Page 3
i
Ii
I'
II
II
II
I:
q
Ii
Reports
'I
. I:
il
. II
II
,!
Ii
II
('1;fu fAunc4t ~tL~0>4- <6--~.:-.tJ1
-- '0- "
i,
Ii
!!
L:\TEMPLATE\FILEINFO.DOC
II
'i
I'
II
. II
II
ii
'I
I:
Ii
Ii
o
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
AUGUST 20, 2001
7A
STEVE HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN Ar r.JtAL OF 1.l1E
PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A VARIANCE TO T.l1E
LAKESHORE SETBACK ON 1.l1E PROPERTY LOCAIElJ AT 15507
CALMUT AVENUE
Historv: On February 23,2001, the Planning Department received an
application from Mr. D. Mark Crouse (applicant/owner) for a variance to
allow a deck to be located 4' from the Ordinary High Water Elevation 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. The Planning Commission has not yet acted on the impervious
surface request. Consideration of the impervious surface variance is
required regardless of the outcome of this request. This appeal deals strictly
with the setback variance request.
A public hearing to consider this variance was originally scheduled for
March 26, 2001. On that date, the applicant requested a continuance until
the April 23, 2001, meeting. The applicant again requested a continuance
for the next two scheduled meetings due to business commitments. The
Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this matter on June 25,
2001. The specific variance request is as follows:
1) 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 reauired setback of 75 feet fOrdinance Section 1104.302 (4) Setback
Requirements] .
At the June 25, 2001, public hearing the Planning Commission denied the
setback variance, Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting are attached
to this report.
On June 29, 2001, the applicant appealed the Planning Commissions denial
of the deck setback variance. Consideration of this appeal was originally
L:\O 1 files\O 1 appeal\O l-065\Crouseccrpt.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
scheduled for a public hearing on August 6, 2001; however, the appellant
was unable to attend that meeting. The Council continued the hearing to
August 20th at the appellant's request. As part of the continuance we have
asked the petitioner to identify for the Council why the Planning
Commission denial is not appropriate.
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 ofthe property.
To my knowledge, this shelter was not present on site, nor included on the
original impervious surface calculations. Also, two 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 .
The Planning Commission has scheduled a continued hearing date of August
27, 2001, to address the impervious surface issue. This will allow time for
the applicant to update his survey and to revise the original variance request
and propose a reduced impervious surface coverage area in the 30-percentile
range.
Cu"ent Circumstances: North Grainwood was platted in 1947. The
subject lot is riparian and located within the R-l (Low Density Residential)
and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) Districts. The lot dimensions are
ap1-'~u"dmately 62.0 feet by 107.5 feet for a total lot area of7,689 square feet.
The lot is considered a substandard nonconforming platted lot of record.
The setback variance request was for 71 feet, to permit a structure setback of
4 feet from the 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.
Research for the variance report indicated a previous owner of the subject lot
had requested two variances that were approved on April 6, 1978. One
request was for a 63-foot variance to permit a 12-foot structure setback to
the OHWM. 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 [Attachment 2 - Variance 78-
05: A 63 foot setback variance to the OHWM (2 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 parameters of the original
L:\O 1 files\O 1 appeal\O l-065\Crouseccrpt.DOC
2
variances approved in 1978, but by moving the house location to within l' of
the variant 12 foot setback from the OHWM, this only allows for a 1 foot
deck extension from the principal structure (Attachment 3 Survey-Building
Permit 95-27). If the contractor had utilized the 17-foot front setback, as
allowed by the 1978 variance that would have provided for a deck dimension
up to approximately 7.6 feet deep.
The existing deck structure serves as the main level access to the lakeside of
the property. The deck's dimensions are 10 feet deep by 26 feet long with a
step down level of 9 feet by 7 feet and 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 (see Attachment 1- Survey).
The City Engineering Department submitted comments for the variance
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 lake shore; 2)
Increase impervious area adjacent to the lake, thus reducing the
infiltrationlbuffer strip, which help in removing pollutants before they reach
the lake; 3) Increase the potential for shoreline erosion with additional
upland runoff; 4) Contrary to 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 the variance
request dated 3/21/01. In essence, the main concern is the existing
impervious surface coverage area of appwximately 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 a
deck with a setback as shown on the plan.
Issues: Variance requests must be evaluated based on the hardship criteria
as listed in the City Ordinance Subsection 1108.406: Issuance. These
criteria and the suggested findings are discussed below.
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.
L:\O 1 files\O lappeal\O l-065\Crouseccrpt.DOC
3
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
vanances.
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 ofthe proposed Variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right ofthe
owner.
The approved legal buildable site precluded the need for the additional
variance requests. The owner created the hardship when he decided on
the building's dimensions and site location that did not allow for a future
deck addition. Also, the owner ignored the 30 % impervious surface
area condition as stated on the approved building permit by 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 ftre or endanger
public safety.
5. The granting ofthe 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
regulations.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the
intent of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
L:\O 1 files\O 1 appeal\OI-065\Crollseccrpt.DOC
4
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
The granting of the variances is contrary to the intent of the Zoning
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan by allowing increased
encroachment of setback regulations 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 request appears to serve as a convenience to
the applicant in order to retain the existing conditions as created by the
applicant without the required permits.
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 are not legally justifiable 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.
The Planning Commission and staff have concluded the deck setback
variance request does not meet eight of the required nine hardship criteria.
Therefore, staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal and uphold
the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the requested variance.
The Council has the following alternatives:
1. Adopt Resolution Ol-XX upholding the decision of the Planning
Commission to deny this variance,
2. Overturn the decision of the Planning Commission and direct staff to
prepare a resolution with findings of fact for approval of the variance.
3. Defer action on the appeal at this time and continue the agenda item for
specific purpose.
The staff recommends Alternative # I ,
A motion and second dopting Resolution Ol-XX upholding the decision of
the Planning Commi sion to deny a 71 foot variance to allow a structure
stack of 4 ~t fro the Ordinary High Water Mark elevation of 904 feet.
.yJ /. .
FrankUity Manager
L:\O lfiles\O 1 appea1\O 1-065\Crouseccrpt.DOC
5
RESOLUTION 01-XX
RESOLUTION OF T..tI.E PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL lJr.l10LDING A DECISION OF
T..tI.E PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A 71-FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 4-
FOOT STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM T.I::I.E ORDINARY IDGH WATER MARK ON
l..tI.E PROPERTY LOCAIElJ AT 15507 CALMUT AVENUE
MOTION BY: SECOND BY:
WHEREAS, on August 20, 2001, the Prior Lake City Council considered an appeal by Mr.
D. Mark Crouse of the Planning Commission's denial ofa request for a 71 foot
variance to permit a 4- foot structure setback from the Ordinary High Water
Mark (OHWM) 904 foot elevation rather than the required minimum 75 foot
setback, for the property legally described as follows:
Legal Description:
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 Lots 1 0 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;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the requested variance does not meet the standards
for granting variances set forth in Section 1108.400 of the City Code, and that
the appellant has not set forth adequate reasons for overturning the decision of
the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Planning Commission's decision
denying the requested variances should be upheld, and said variances should be
denied.
1:\01 files\O 1 appeal\O 1-065\ccres.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
NOW l~REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY T~ Lll ~ COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE:
1) The above recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
2) The City Council makes the following findings:
a. Mr. D, Mark Crouse applied for a variance from Section 1102.405 of the City Code in
order to permit an attached deck to a principal structure be setback 4-feet from the
OHWM of 904 feet rather than the required minimum 75 feet as shown in Attachment 1
on property located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland) Districts at
the following location, to wit;
15507 Calmut Avenue NE, Prior Lake MN, 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 Lots 1 0 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 ;
b. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case
File #01-017, and held a hearing thereon June 25, 2001.
c. The Planning Commission concluded the variance request did not meet the hardship
criteria and denied the request.
d. Mr. D. Mark Crouse appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance
with Section 1109.400 of the City Code on June 29, 2001.
e. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the
information contained in Case File #01-017 and Case File #01-065, and held a hearing
thereon on August 20,2001.
f. The City Council has considered the effect of the proposed variances 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 variances on the Comprehensive Plan.
g. The City Council has determined the request does not meet eight of nine hardship
criteria. There are not unique circumstances or conditions regarding the property. Any
hardship was caused by the actions of the applicant through the design and placement of
the proposed structures. There are no unique characteristics to the property that would
constitute a hardship. In 1978 the property had received two variances: 1) A 63-foot
1:\01 files\O 1 appeal\O 1-065\ccres.doc
Page 2
variance to permit a 12-foot structure setback to the OHWM; and, 2) An 8-foot variance
to permit a 17-foot front yard setback.
h, The denial of the requested variances does not constitute a hardship with respect to
literal enforcement of the ordinance as there exists reasonable use of the property
without the variances.
3) The contents of Planning Case File #0 1-0 17 and Planning Case File #01-065 are hereby
entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case.
4) Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby upholds the decision of the
Planning Commission denying a variance to permit a structure setback of 4- feet from the
OHWM of 904 feet rather than the required minimum 75-feet for applicant D. Mark Crouse,
as shown in Attachment 1, which. Attachment is incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
Passed and adopted this 20th day of August, 2001.
YES
NO
I Mader
I Petersen
Ericson
Gundlach
Zieska
Mader
Petersen
Ericson
Gundlach
Zieska
{Seal}
City Manager,
City of Prior Lake
1:\01 files\O lappeal\O 1-065\ccres.doc
Page 3
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, JUNE 25, 2001
1. Call to Order:
Chairman V onhof called the June 25, 2001, Planning Commission eeting to order at
6:32 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Lemke, amson and Vonhof,
Planning Director Don Rye, Planning Coordinator Jane Kan . r, and Zoning
Administrator Steve Horsman.
Atwood
Criego
Lemke
Stamso
Vo f
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
2. Roll Call:
3.
Stamson: Page 3 oft minutes includes his comments; however, he was not present at
that meeting. Thes comments were probably from Bill Criego.
The Minutes om the May 29,2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved with
the above c ange.
Co ssioner 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 llvm 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:\OI files\OI plancomm\OI pcrninutes\MN062501.doc 1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 25,2001
On March 26,2001, the Planning Department received an e-mail from the applicant to
request a postponement ofthis 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 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 ofthe 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 if he 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 of runoff is
negligible. His ptvperty is next to the Windsong Association which is not going to be
built on. He felt runoff would not be an issue. Neighborhood lots are substandard and
cannot make the setbacks but they all have decks.
L:\O 1 files\O 1 plancornm\O 1 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 lak:eshore 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:\O I files\OI plancomm\O I pcminutes\MN06250 I.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. HV.l~Hlan 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 iflot 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.
V onhof: 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 Shore land 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. HV~.3man noted calculation does not
include right-of-way or impervious surface not on the lot.
Vonhof: 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: Weare 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 staff today 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:\O I files\O I plancomm\OI pcminutes\MN06250 I.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 HIGH W AlbK 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.
se File #01-029 - Gary Thomas Variance Resolution
A.
Zoning A . 'strator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated June 25,2001
on file in the 0 ce of the City Planning Department.
A public hearing s convened on May 29,2001. After review ofthe applicant's request
with respect to vari e hardship criteria, the Planning Commission directed staff to draft
Resolution 01-009PC a roving the variances with conditions.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, COND BY VONHOF, APPROVING RESOLUTION 01-
009PC GRANTING A 2.5 F T VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 54 FOOT SETBACK
FROMTHEORDINARYHIG WATER MARK RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED
56.5 FEET AS DETERMINED B SETBACK AVERAGING; AND A 43 FOOT
VARIANCE TO PERMIT A POR STRUCTURE TO ENCROACH INTO A BLUFF
IMP ACT ZONE RATHER THAN T REQUIRED 25 FEET FROM THE TOP OF
BLUFF.
6. New Business:
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION
A. Case File #01-051 - Vacation of the 20 foot ide easement for road purposes
located adjacent to the south side ofTH 13, from Fr klin Trail to Toronto Avenue.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansierpresented the Planning port dated June 25, 2001,
on file in the office ofthe City Planner.
The Prior Lake City Council initiated the vacation of the 20' wide
purposes located adjacent to TH 13 and to the E-Z Stop gas station, lishek's Auto
Sales, Park Nicollet Clinic and the Hollywood Restaurant. The easeme t presently
functions as a frontage road serving the properties located on the south si ofTH 13
between Franklin Trail and Toronto Avenue. The City Council is schedule
this matter at a public hearing on July 2, 2001.
L:\OI files\OI plancomm\O 1 pcrninutes\MN062501.doc 6
\
\.
.
o
w
ST tA n..- ~
IlI1A t\..9:O'>:...' '.!!i1,. '... Z
, ";, ~il:!:( j;5;
';". .;: ','i.~..J'~i'",ll. ;":. SAN tA~
;'~;, .,r.:~,'i{~'~ ',~.:~~, ~,
. .,' ,oe;, 'O"'4~ I
~;, ~',_.,,:.:,1t. ' ;.~~~ /
'I' /'.
!' F\..t~ ", ~.
908.., ct.' '.
w ':, Ii. " .
- l,) . .
::> : ~ 6 "\0 ,,,,e
Z ': U -. . 6 Q(~ .
:,' "1t)~ . .t ~
- . N .. ..
w ,', ':~ d) ~ ,,. . ;.:
., > tt t\., .J . ~, ~.. "
.10..1 :> . " I
JIr t I> It. I
....... 0 . .
I-- .
III. ",
w'
W
'-
ATTACHMENT 1
~ \0
of \..0'
'" \..\tlE f"~-'
"'OR' _-
I' _-
.
,
\
.'.
.... ",
.'.
\
'.
,
\
..
;.
../_ . u___\
u.l ,
" . \
t';l I
.,., ~
.... ...
· -:i
C!t
Ul
u.l
Z
:'
u.l
!t-
o
~
III
,./
~
o
~
~
~
~
\
.,
,
[\:
.,
I
)
\, ';
,,'~,
'. ~ - '. fI
. r J...: ... ','\,:
"<(
0:. .
91..81
1.
tC t\.
'I~:~
.. ;'":.11
'J., :
.1"& - \6.50 "'fI
51802.4'0 \ .,
0' 10. ~
I-- 10 'r- (:')
Cj\ ~o .
o. ~
'5 ~~')
,1&1 \ 10 00
z "
- (t. II
.J .::1
~ \
~i
\
C "i\\ N
:;.."
, .
;.r.
ATTACHMENT 2
~,,-::_~r(:,:. ~..~-"..,..
i~3f?~:~~:~~.~:-:.:,'.; ',: :._ .~', .
;~:2.t::,Stich',,mriecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique
,;)if/~~\"- , 1'..". . " - v -, "
,;f~t;:~nu~'hifd;Jlipis caused'by proVl.s~ons of the'ordinance and is not 'the re'sult'of
V'r?>,~:,j;,acti~~;sC'o~ persons presently having an interest in my parcel.
~ '0<, ..~.: ,-,:~,~- ,". ',. . -,' . , ,
11,.'
The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance and produces
substantial justice, and is not contrary to the public interest.
',i1~~h~:::anh :~,Yt r ~;mit7f if all four requiremcn;:;::u::~5~~4<- ~ (j ~ A~
1;;,,: 'This is to certtfy 4at $ ) 1. D') was received this /:.s da{ of /J.itiJvI!JC' /'197J
~for a Variance Application Fee. R . dB IJ'A/"JL/'J/ I.",. JJ. ,
" .:,.' ece~ve Y lit/v'""'''' 1~\...tf.4..A.t7j
(~.~---------------------------------~ (----------
iNgi':',>:' . 1HIS SPACE TO BF: FILLED IN BY PLANNING COMMISSION
~~~ V
tt",'"Application for Variance Granted / \ Denied
'1.~&~1:Re~sons :
'bther Remarks-;-
.//
"-'-,,.--
,0
~'..,..J'~xr'"
.." . ..."" ", ',-
;/(;:<""::,, ";i!.'-. " ~. ,:' '.~""'.."/7' {"('\<.
atu~,~ofi'icPlanmng ,)CorIUn1Ss;1on.,~-" JL'",~, :,-.
"_<:~'~f:~7f:~~1!f1f~\,,,:"j:j1~~~1i'; ,,;, '~';,Cri'~':,~", . '. I . ,'.,' .,' ',".
.~,. J....
vI:~' .',.'0<", '.......'d ([>'
"",, .' .",'. .., .- :"
,.', ,.'., ,';2 2P, '~.;..
v.
. ~.: ~ .-; .... ~', \. .
:lJ. -<' '
.eX
~
,,).-
~ .
'. ,
'1:.......
~ 1
o"th~ l,u,t '",1 ~ . -,If ,~)'
"10 ~I. r(lt1,tJII'I;{1 /
6:..'; f t VfI{'I''' I 1 9tJ5. 3
IV,... eM; .f /.., 1 () 7. S'
I" /. ,- I
: 0
\
\
:~... .-..,- . -'- 'I.J. - ......- >\
4i!l I ' I
1\ __ _ ..,___ _. _..:
I ...... =" \
~ "- I
... ~,
~-. r' I
'J\ '. ~
..... ...
.,:." ......
'oJ
I . I f
........ ...~
I,
~'
, " -
~ C'lS \,
~
1'-- , "-
......... '
i
''''':i \, t X
~ ~
~
~
" ~
...
"
.
......
"" tI
.~
.
,;~~':::'!;.~Ll', .-
...
.....
t'
~
"
J'
;. . ,+ Ci
'V'___,_ /o.a I
"I. f - ..
~o.- B
IJ
--,.."
~ .
',--.. I
.:;-.. - -
j
~
I
i
i
fr!O r
t _Jr.
i.l
-. .,,:; -
"
L (t:
!
l.
- ,-. <::"-
I'~ .-"" ,- \. ' )
I"~ ' ~
'I ,...'
CC(I~\-""
.." -'
i -:--, .' '"
I~'
19'
'"
--~
6 'llI
- -
........
"" -... .
\(, :
U,J CQ .
.
>.
~
~
~ ~
I'
t~,
'.
L,
I
j~
I
.
,.-..~--------~--.:-'-"""---_, ~~_.~.......------->-~----'---'---" --------~ - -"-
II
ATTACHMENT 3
CO" of f I,f 10
\:'tr ,10 Norfh line 0 __
L _L----
\
I \
I
\
,T ftIIH,
'..- 91
TOP -T~'G
"0
cu
c:
Q
"0
c:
~
<
~. ""0.H.5 ,,- ......,
-1M' e. /
.. 51 .
(;) _, I'. ,
I I '
-I
ell. .
1_-
'''u
S
:~
CL
e
'-
~1' l.-
I '" o.Jlp.1..
sE.1' 6f
f. oGf.
".10
".1:
, ". ~,",'.:. ~" :,
.......
, ~~/~.
',,:\.\ '". '... ~,
tJ : ) ~~:~.~'!1-"~~
:: . ", .:,,~' --'"
'., .t'\ ,;, {-.iJt.l
- f~' .\~1t.t:.~t
;'. t":~ ,: '~~::;:tot~
::~...\ ~~\ :j'. ,.:.'.. :~
. ~~i.~
-1,'
"
,.
;.
.~,~
~ -'--~~,
~ ~""'"
\i';
\\ Co
~...J
t "<(
\.: 0
u
\
\
I
'\
II
. "
\.
>. "
:- <\
\aJ
'\
~
~,
:' 91~ ~.-,
, .
----
~\
(JI ""
, ~
\ '~
.1
;.
i
'~
1\
11
if
pft \ f
ji
'~
1
1
'j
~
I
,
\
~
U)
co
'.
-
"
..J
.' cQ ,19'-
67t. --
,.- 'O"W
- 19026 I
SW (or, of S f lof 9 -
.\ 10f 9 S'lt line 0
or lot8
W'I'J Itn-
Of I'EG
pf,
"'L'
c." 6
9\1,&
,..4
Fo,I.JI
1,46W, \
9\1,1'9
'l
\
\
f
. ~,
/
"
It,
~..-
.~~..::..~---;~;....
.~ ~
-~...
.~~w.._"";".....".,_...-_"-~___"",;,,,~.,",__.___,-,_________.... .-.------..:---.......
'; ?\,'}i~ ~;~;;}~ q~..Ei<{;..i;~.t::;;},;';';i?;i ~ },:::::i~L:,.~'"~'~;::;:':j:i.: ..... .'.: . . :';:ATTACHME'NT:; 2':'
tJi~f~:'t~;f:t~l~:~i~~~'Jf~;;~*ftt~~V;~!;J~;~;!~}L:i;t;~:{;:f;!!:.:tt~i,;"'r,,'~'~::::':f~~.;:';,~;:~>:::';,;~:.~~A',:;~'~~~
,:,:,:..~"...:";""""..q,,. :";".',,,:;~:';!"!"" .:.....'y,....'.'.:crI;)f:':O'FPRIORtAKE.:..... ....'. ,.., .:..., '. '. ..'.. .'; ,... ..
;':i't:f ;rt::~.:!~v.;; ;::j2.";; ~.~;;)?,; ,'i:\\;' >., · '.<.,,' :' :........; ";?,, (: ,::,;: .: :',,:; ~::.. : ,: ::::' ;.'.:.: ;:.,'.
".;':.,";,..:..:,',:,';.':'.,..'.,."j;:..:,...:...'..,:..:,~.!..':,~.,..J~.P~r.:v.J9~S:,~'1:lr.~~<;~:Calcul~.t~o.ns...:,.;., ,... ,,'. ":..,'.,,.: ,!...:,'.'~,...',.,.'
: :~"~'~::":':~:'\:"/;"', ):.;...:>:,::::~::.,:~~ :': \}::~~.~.: :::r.::~:(r:9;.b,~)u~~Jij~~)~!~'~.~'IMt~g P:e~:{t ~ppli~ati6~) :.:,~::~' :', "~: :' ". :.:~: ':::', :'. :.': ,':: ,":...::',:..~: ". '/~;;:. :::' ,:~.:'~' ,
I~ .~;' :":,:'::~'(:':'~ ..;.:~.:~.:.~i::,:.;'.~;.r:.(.:.:E,oi,.'.Alrp.roper:ti'efLocated'ili.the"ShorelandiDistrict tSD).::' 'i. . "::'.; '.':~. :;<'~"~ >.~:i :... ..::':,..,.
,...:. ", .'., :,...., ."..~',.". I'," ,;.'.'".,..".. '.'.' ...',.'.. "::;,:,';' ..., ~7...'.."'" "~"."..' ,"', ' \:, . '... '.,,' ,';' :.,:.,.... ..:. ..... '
I~:: :,/,::,:,;_' ',<::.;':'.:;.~ :~t'nie:'N.taxIiriuiii:':r.rnperv.{Qtis'::Sut.fac~,'C(iv.eia.ge,:P~~~.uitted ,in '30: Percent.." ',' ::',". ".::':':";" ':: . ':, ~:' C'
I?'? ;;,~{~: > ';i:i!i~';,;\:.":.: ':~;": t;,' ~y;\ i ;y~);: .:::i ::. ~\;:.>:i ::~'.: . .........;:.:, . . '.: /X:': ,e <.;.
::;::\l?l'opertY'~'A'ddt~s~.',.:::;:\.tOe:O:.:l~:;::. ::C~;A.\M.~';~:;~::~~::"'~~: '.. ..', '::'" -:,: ~:. .:...'..:'::.. <,,'.~ ',:,': '.:'" '
.. :hi;~: :!:,: Fd:,;l;J:~ti;'\:" ;. x:Q;i}r~:"'::,i:;::':::: :::~::.::;. ,:': ': .(::.. :,:. ..~.': :':{f" ;'. .:: ..: .... ..' ;': '. '... . .'.; .~;: ", 3 ;:, :~::.;fi"\;' ':
;,::".,.~o~,:A.i'~a. ......t1rto~y~;':',.... -:....., ':...', ~::'.,' .,$q.:F~:~~:....~)O~o.:,...."...~.,.......".. ,,~~~1 ..,. ", :"::"'; ,...'"
".:':::~:~'*'*ifl'l!tllitli,I(c,*'*,*-",*i\C ;',*':i\4t(4'1li *'Jjc;ilJ'lJC~'ljc.l!t.l!t'.r"I'1\C l!t:ljc:l\i*'\CiIi,.*.?Ic.* ,jC:* lit Ill., **.!ic**,* 111 ~.ljeljeljc*,* *,**'**lje"llllI* ~:tcl(c tic III '" .;:. '...',:" ' ':'" ':.
:--.:, , ::, .;; :':'::,':.;' :>:.,>u.:..~:.>:;,...y::.:;: ,;',:.;,.., ",,:;.:, ",.~,;,...~ '.'Y:';,:' ':': :,: ~'~'~, ':' .:,' : .',:' :;...,:.< ':"-'; -;' ,:. ..:.::' ,..,.;..: '..: "'.., ,:", ,:..'~ ',.i, 'f':: .",' ,,'.',":'.: .,:" ;:':,...'..:, '. .
..,. '.'., ,...,.,(,. '.' ..,...",. .' r'." ."'LENGTH " . ','.. WIDTH ." ....SQ FEET '... "...,.. .....", ,,:oo', .',
~~:i~:;~r.{~~t:t{li[t;f~!~IW~~~f:t!~I:i;.'/~ ::.~' ;};~".:~~::X~:::>:~f::l:,;~.;?:.<i;\}Y.j~:?3:7.:~,~.;
'''ATJ)\CHED'OARA:OE'''''''''' .",'.,...'..... :'..,,('.x,'.,'~,'....".... "';";'" " "'. .... ".,.'.. ". '.', .-,' '.. '.'..', '
i; {i :;jA:;;t:~:.:' f;:;;:1:it::x~-;;i;i~~?~~"'<:;.;" ~~;: : ~ i;:~:/:;' :;;:. ~ ::.:::. ':~., .... '::'. .,'.:, ,',. "\': ...): >,,\:: ;:~.:::;; ;:: .~.:;
>i"":':" ;"'1, :'~'.; :f..:".:' ::::;..~.::,: :\".<<:' ",:',.: :,'. .;: ;:' ,i"..:~R~~:,~~qI~~~"S::q~.V.CT~..~.~...!.~...',~.,'..~~..:' .', ""Z \~"2.;;..: '.',,', ,:.,..,.... "
:!:~';0 ;;~y,+:,,; ;X~ ;\(~'\i1:S;~ ;~;;':l;~ :,t{;::l; ::;$;:+/ :74n,); ~:',):;-~;.\: ~:' :~ ,: ..... : ,.:' ':) '. ...'; .'; .:..: /': '., .'. '.\ ../
'< ,.DJ3r4C~pJ;3~!?G$,.; "', " "', ..'. ,,: ',' ....:: ;. .,.. . X:,;" , '.: '".... ,', '. ~...:, ." .,,:. .,', . ,'., ':' '.',' :. ,',' ,... ,', , ,',", :
:. ..;::lh:::.\...:~<.:.~~.;..J.~:.....~......~.I'\,::.';;,.:,:i' :,t,:.~':"!'::..,;..;" ", ,',., ,,", .:'.,'. ,:;,..:. ;.:..,' ;,.',.,;..'.;;:-,. "" .;"::, , ..:,',: ':.:.:,...',.,,:.. '... ::::'..
'...,..,."",....,(OarageSheu). ..,.'.~,.\..',.,'.... ,....... x'.: ,.,., .,.,'... :.,'.'. ..,..'.,., .....', ",. " ,
':: ;}:~y,:r.~::' .'}: ~;j.;~',~::" ~::~:: }~:t"~: .;,,:;-.,.: ': :". ;;.,: : ,. , .'.;. :..';:.: : . ., ':. · .' ~... .:'. . ,f. ,:: ':' :i', : ~:?"':/:~'.:<
,,' r: : "~'" ~ :;.~' '...' :'" ~ t,:.:',; ,~'_! ~ '. .. ':~" ..,TOTAL DETAl;.I;1J!iD ;;BUlLDIN.GS,.........,............. '. .. , " ",'... ':..> ~: ,;' ',,' ,',:.'
:~I': :!,. "A:':';:: ;" '...:~,: ", ,,'~,'::; < ~ . ~~~..\'L>;;; 7": :':,:' ::"':' ,;':' ,;;.~ ',:.:;". :,;~' :",:' ::,..- .",:: :..... :::,., :::': ';. '. ".,., ~ ,':::; .; :' 'i,:.. ; : ',': ',' ,:,:' ,'. . " ',.,>, ;":; ",t..,>,
" ..~,-,c." ,P.,;\~::":l..,.~:\:4.'O"~"'."'" '.. " "......'". '. '-' ..,',' ..,' , . .".., "',,.., ,,: ." ..,'., - .,' 't.,..
~. ':-':'. .., ':,. ..,.: ," ..'.... "::..,.., ',:/.:,::',:; ..,::,;;.~,~:,::::,::.,:".:.:...,; :;.,.,;.:'...:.:.,.".,:'.:. ;;'..,..,.. ,:"'...,::.:.., ,".;.'..,:,.,'.. ,:';'.:'~ ,:.,:.,::,...,..1" ':.,~',; .;",,-':
.." DRlVEWAYIPAVED,'AREAS': ," \ !..:,.,. ,'" ..''/,x' ...,' ",'" ":.",',' ~.= ~l:O:' " ,,'," ,.. . ' , ,'. ' ..' '.',
.~:':';;;.'..':~~f~:~~~1~~i;'~~',i,.,~..'t>;::;,:g~r~,,'.;~>;:~:',~,:. '.~:: '~..'. ....... :.... ... ." .' '.',' .'" . '. .,);;,:?,"-,;:~i~.'
..". , .....,... :,: .:<.;":.,..;,,;' '. "~::'::': :,:" .,1'OTA~ ~.AVED AREAS.................'.....................;... :~' :~-:i:'1,"'O' .,...::..:...,.:,:,\;:,i:, .
.,.,~,',.:~"...:p::;;A.::::T1:,:..::~.O;:\:s':::IP::' ',O'~iR::;:~':C::';:H;.:::.E:/S.';:!D:,<:~":E;.:~C~ .~:,~;S::":,:',.~.).:-:t,'.;,<,'~ <"::.:,.:."~"" . "~',:, ,;',.;,.; ':::t:,.~. .:, .. :':,.".'~ '
.L':o. .. ,': :',,;.::.',x, '0:.. ,:.;:,"';:-:::,
~.. . .:~...~..;... ,.,l_,.o\t. ....~.~. ".. ~'.:' ........ "'.~' . ,,',,; ..;
, <.' (Op'en'o'e'cks;':'~!~ m.!n~ OReil(rig&ei\v.e'~Jf:>
:', boards,' :'vith:a pervio.u:S"S~~llce'b.eJ[J\v.;,,: ,;"'.', ":"
.' ar~ not' co.ris(QereOl'~,~e' Iniper/i.~us),';: ." : '
. ~.:; ...,'..: .i .,' -.', '~'..'~: ~~.. ~::.: ....
',:.... :,"
.' .
I'
..'
. '. .: :. ~".
0' ~.."
.,: '. ~
., ".
~. '. .
,"X'
.:":=,,,.
-' .
.... ....
. .:.....
.';.... ." ,..
,X'
.' 0.'
,; I. .,' ,..-",
=
':.
.oll.: .' :'~. .. -: _; :..:~ ',: ..' I .. I
" TOtALD E Ci(s.~!'; :;;..;::~~,.~ ,'.. ..~..~.;.~.L.:..~......~. ............: ".
:,: ": ":<,: ':".: 1,,<';,,:"'" :;.' "\- .:::' , ;'';:.::':': . ,
: ~ ,...
','
..... p.
.' ,
,'.'<.X:;, :' :::: ',:: :-',:, .' ','
,=
.': \
. ~:I. ',: . .
.. .' .
,... .
-;:x
'\.,
,,=:
.' ,',.
.....
..' . .',
"..1 '. .: ';~' I:: . ..... -: . ,. '.. : ,;' ...-, +. . . ::. .'.: . . ., :'.. ,..;. ." . -' ,. .
'. ", ::", TOTAL OTHER..';;;;";::,. .:~'; ";,,,;~,,";:.;;. .;~ ..::..... .;;;...~.;..
.' . . . .. :', I" . ~ . . ....:. . . - .'. .' " .,... . " .... .' -'.:~ . .
:'I',(h~t:i~h>':E:RVI6ti'~;"SURFA C:E:" ... ..../'
.'rn-rr;E~~:" .... ............. ....
,.,',;"..,;'~.,',~,'i.r...:e.:p/',:'?a'.r.:;e..":d:'...B':"y'.'...'0~,/:J,:':;"~""l: ".~,':,.':<\~,.,'<;..I',.;,'- ,"" . ",,:,,;.::' :,...,,', ,"'.. ',' , ... \,.....,/.",.
. W...~\\~ .=",'P;'i....700
, ...1..... .', ,:.::,~'",,:":,". - .:. hO't! "., :.;:,: ..... ~..~.,.: '. ;.. '. ,'.::.' ~l.'. .', ..'.
'::: c;~Gpaiiy :&:JJi:;:ii'~ti:.(, ~'~:;h&'t,;:~rP;{i.,:pi;()~~#1:l;~1~ iS1 b '.. .~. . . .
, ' ..,.... ,; " . . . \ ',:.... .'.. ' .,' . '.
"
',. ..'
.:' .:.
y'
,....1
-:..,
"
t....
. 44ii>
"."
. "2..'\ \ ~
'"'
1.
.' .,.
'. : ~ ~. '.
"
j',.
.....,... .
. 'I. ';.
...:..-..--
"'-'-..""-'-_____~_a"'_\___'_ _J__.._'=":4<"':'--'__;_-.a.-~.... ..._~___ __._. _.'._~__.
~,-~--_.:....-_.....~.~ :--.
"0
U
C
Q
"
c:
~
Cot
~'''O.Hi! .... -,,0,
".".,... ,
,e-
O - - ,e. ,
I I '
" ,', - I
" " l
, ,.J: ~ c.8. 0
,,~g;. ' _I....
'~,.;.:;.';....~~....: '. .....: ...\J~::r~. v
~ 7'. . t~;~: t;"7.::,f~.:\',~ t;:
'.: - .'~ i:t '. -........t' ~~.~.. ....
,'. ' '\~ 'r., : % '
, ": " ~~~jd'ti€1' A.
'~ ..!;, ~.,' ..",...~. ~( e
',t.' 1:.I.I1"','~.~...OSJ 'wi
i.;;~". ",}~ ~G~~::;: ;;~~
:(.. - :::)-... ' ";',1' .,~,..'"
.~-:Z" . ,'. "~.'.., ';::",::,':~
"/40 ,'" - ,.,"" '.,c, __ . .\,"'~... f'........
......;.,:: .,~. .... .~. '!F' '~-flo' . ':..,,~
'.". ".'..... ' .~" ";, ""
;,..,:.\.... .'t~.:1.,t.). .~,''''''~
~'-~>, :':~' .-~~ ~:~::, >",~
:;~{~~ct:~;#;":~:~~/~::;\
,T, ,.,H91
TOP ~~~m
'; .\;
.;
...,....
.......
-',,''''
};':',: ,
"
"
.
~,
a
c"
~::
u'"
o
.... .
o en
u Itl
~ .
.-"~i:'
. "
..,.
;'"
,\~
~ -,._~~ ,
~\ .... .~: : ~'.'
" :)
\, ~
~, ...s
\~ 'c(
V, O~
\
\~
,
,
.
>. II
\&J<1
" !'
.-
9\1,19
.
"'\,.,
G," 6
911,6
t
ATTACHMENT 5
/Sf
CO,. of llOf 10
'1/ ' eO
~Of '10 Norfh IIn .
\. ..L----
\
I \
I
,
\
\ w~
, II'" ofO\JJ~f ~1150 ~5 00 'ff of \ ....1\
()41~J:' loA" '" 4 of"-,
1 r- f ,.,. Nor Ion ...... 1'0' ,01.
th lI"e OW'I~ ,x..I'S eo\.'
SOU 0 e Its I 3"[ -
lot I _150535 '
N 45l---
.-- 6 ' 4S ;j.,': I
___A~'- ,..\
~'~ ~r., .~. , ~\
\~ '900. I,."
l- '
If
'j
.
p.'f ~
\ ,tI' ylfI,\"
se.1' of
t. aGE.
~
\,
,
i:j:
1\
pR,f
i~
~
ii
~,
~
\0
CI)
S1'l~
I'll' sl .
ttolJ Uf \
.,,_t.1t:01. .,e
..~
~\
./' 9'~ --"'
, '
----
~
~..
"
--
o
'!!
.. tlQ /9"
"
.J
~
61 t - - - i
--- 'O"W I
... - - 190 26 I ..--l
SW cor, of 5 , 0 f lot 9
10' g S'ly lIne
-\ ~ lotS
'11"'1 /inti
r OF tlEG
p,
,e."
,0, I."',
1...6W, \
4
/
.'
,/
.1-'
IlbA1U~G
~O'l'lCbS
.
L:\TEMPLATE\FILEINFO.DOC
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:
AN APrJ!..AL OF TliE PLANNING COMMISSIONS DECISION TO DENY
A VARIANCE FOR AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AREA OF
57.5%
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake City Council will hold a 'public hearing at
Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the
intersection of C.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday, October 15, 2001 at 7:30
p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPELLANT:
Mr. D. Mark Crouse
15507 Calmut Avenue
Prior Lake, MN, 55372
REQUEST:
The appellant is requesting the City Council to overturn a decision
of the Planning Commission denying a variance for an impervious
surface coverage area of 57.5 % of the total lot area above the 904'
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 City Council
will accept oral and/or written comments.
Prepared this 24th day of September 2001.
Steven Horsman
City of Prior Lake
To be published in the Prior Lake American on September 29,2001.
L:\01 files\01 appeal\01-065\HearNote2.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
AN APr Ji.AL OF Tl1E PLANNING COMMISSIONS DECISION TO DENY
A VARIANCE FOR A 4 FOOT STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM Tl1E
ORDINARY IDGH WATER MARK
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake City Council will hold a public hearing at
Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the
intersection of C.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday, August 6, 2001 at 7:30 p.m.
or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPELLANT:
Mr. D. Mark Crouse
15507 Calmut Avenue
Prior Lake, MN, 55372
REQUEST:
The appellant is requesting the City Council to overturn a decision
of the Planning Commission to deny a variance for a 4 foot deck
structure setback 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 City Council
will accept oral and/or written comments.
Prepared this 18th day of July, 2001.
Steven Horsman
City of Prior Lake
To be mailed on/or before July 25, 2001.
L:\01 files\01 appeal\01-065\HRNTmaiI.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
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:
AN APrEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS DECISION TO DENY
A VARIANCE FOR A 4 FOOT STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM THE
ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake City Council will hold a public hearing at
Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the
intersection ofC.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday, August 6, 2001 at 7:30 p.m.
or as soon thereafter as possible.
APPELLANT:
Mr. D. Mark Crouse
15507 Calmut Avenue
Prior Lake, MN, 55372
REQUEST:
The appellant is requesting the City Council to overturn a decision
of the Planning Commission denying a variance for a 4 foot deck
structure setback 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 City Council
will accept oral and/or written comments.
Prepared this 18th day of July, 2001.
Steven Horsman
City of Prior Lake
To be published in the Prior Lake American on July 21,2001.
L:\01 files\01 appeal\01-004\HRNTCounciI.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
~."
~'~I
II
I, ,
1
1
I
I
I
1
Mailing
II
" il
Information
, I
1
I
I
and Li :. ts
, ..
I
I
L:\TEMPLATE\FILEINFO.DOC
M.tIUA" IT OF SERVICE BY MAIL
COUNTY OF SCOTT )
)ss
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
~. CWIovv\ of the City J1!--~or Lake, County of Scott, State of
Minnesota, being d* sworn, says on the ~ day of ~, ,2001, she served
the atta, ched list of persons to have an interest in the ~ ~N-(Mrt/~.vt..p
~O l.' 0 VIS , by mailing to them ~f thereof,
enclosed in an envelope, postage prepaid, 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:I....,.- , tlORK\BLANKFRMIMAILAFF,OOC
Loca.~.Ol Ma)
51~~ 3 1
2
4 3
\f'~
lD ~ /
5
7
9 8 -Mr.
'\ 3
3
2 V\~
, SO~,G
\"p 4
~~ 1
5 4
A
\-\t.
11
12
2
3 1 ____
----
3
N
t\
.
PrOperty Location I
'. ,," ,,, ,"10"" ",^~ ~""" """'" "Ili,."""" "', ,I"" II" '" II"" II'; ",m"ll""""""""
3
2
\
200
,
o
200
400 Feet
..1" -
0
uJ
\'.'\\1 z
0
E\.,908'~' 0
,.,0 Z
, . <d:
:-; lP
<d:
;. \
I SAN. M\-I
'IlOa, 66 'Tco.' 0
'J( Iloe..1\(.3
'0 I
Z
ce "..
f\,.,(L~ t,
IlOS6 l" .
W ,0:: t,
ri
:::> ()
z u.. ~
~
W " (L. 1'0
i \d5 N
\ ~ <t'
\ it (I.. ,1- ..J 1'0,
\l10 ai',?
Ii "
\\- l:> ~,
\ \ tn. 't'
\vJ 1)
vJ
-,.~
,,,;-,
.;. :
....: L
" ,i',;~J
j:; .. ,- .oii, t~
of'"~ .'\'1;..:\,
,.: ',,; '\~':I~~'.":.
' .1".:'
. :' i.
:~"
, ~~!'.:~.
'or
~,>~
'./~\l~(;'
I '
"'...
'.'
."
',~ .
..'-,
;J.,
r
'.
:-".t): '
...,.,';,:. ::j.:~
!." -.
. "
"; \-
;':; ,::>
";f~"
1J"'"
, .'
~ 0) ~! ~ ...
'" <(-'"
,." ,."
" '
uF
;;.
"...-\ 1'C~
." ;,;:i <~. : 'II'..~""
,':i' ':~?,",-f. ~ ~~;.': " :~.}
0,;,' ~..... .. . r'
;,l}i;:;L~i,if;~~~ <~
, ,~,,;,;/,;~:.:.:,;,~;\;' :~:;
g
l
,
.'
~',
<3'
\J'lOSONG oN
L,NE 0' OJ1L01 ,. '" '" L,NE of
\_ 50c1" ~E 'LSD ""E s0010r ,0 " ,rS
, ,rlt.. \..A 4S 00 fi of \,
"E NO"'" "," ."
r , , E""ENS'ON " ' ,.' " ~,,;;"7
"'LI'l7'SO'S~''S~ f- \ <p'/'
, ...,_ 'Ie 'S · ..-., ' '\
.
/
//
....
~ .. '
"
. _.oJ,' , <3-'" AS.4S--'
I", " ;.
11;" ':I' '
, ,-
. 0 .~, ~90~:~ '" ~
~i2:t--t ~
. ' \
, I
\
,
\,
~.
~ & '
s\,.lI.e tL
909,0;1
:;, p,.~, (, <c, t.
. p~\O~
l-
'<'
-.0 ~
.- ...
~ ")
\f\
uJ t..-
'Z-
-:) ~
uJ ~
a::
0 '?
j;. tSl
\f\
('1
-
0
-
.-
\
\
"'"'.../ 'd.e,e
',0<0 '>JlO)
',':- \)\'..,;
"" .
, '
. e. ,
I>
... '
. i
? " \
.,
f '
.
c
o "
v '
!>
,.
b
$
o
-
"
a
\
\
\
\
o
~
<d:
U
i
u
vJ
~
\-
~
o
vJ
Z
'j
~
uJ
N
<D
(J)
-
-
"
..J
I r-- 70. 2 t:~- : \
157902.6' \O"W \
\ I \
s'\...,,\ ~\..INE Of \..OT ;.. \9
'" '
'c ~ \
\ ~ \ \
, I \
\ \ 1
\: '
,
,-- - --
\
\
\
" \
'\
"
~~\
~Sro.
~"tO~
to- ~
"b
ct."
a
i"
, .
OE~
C/).6' \'l
f'F":
~. 'J. :_,:
PID SHNAME SHNAM2
252360310 H & H LAND DEVELOPMENT RALPH W HEUSCHELE
252360100 ROLF G & MARY J GARBORG
252360310 H & H LAND DEVELOPMENT RALPH W HEUSCHELE
252360310 H & H LAND DEVELOPMENT RALPH W HEUSCHELE
252360310 H & H LAND DEVELOPMENT RALPH W HEUSCHELE
252360140 RAYMOND E & SARMITE A CASPER
250350060 D MARK CROUSE
250350060 D MARK CROUSE
250350060 D MARK CROUSE I
252360190 MARK L & CAROLYN M KASSEBAUM
250350060 D MARK CROUSE
250350050 LYNDA L BOHN
250350041 ELIZABETH M MENNE
250350041 ELIZABETH M MENNE
252360200 MARK A & SUSAN K MICHAEL
250350040 KARL & LYNDA L BOHN I
252360160 LAWRENCE G & SHARON WILLIAMS
252360150 FRANK J & LINDA C WORRELL
250350030 JEROME A & PHYLLIS A MILLER
250350030 JEROME A & PHYLLIS A MILLER
250350030 JEROME A & PHYLLIS A MILLER
259350400 JEROME A & PHYLLIS A MILLER
259350400 JEROME A & PHYLLIS A MILLER
252790010 WAYNE & LISA CRAIG
250350021 JEFFREY J DOUSETTE
250350022 KARL & LYNDA L BOHN
250350022 KARL & LYNDA L BOHN
250350022 KARL & LYNDA L BOHN
252790020 SCOTT G & ANNE C MILLER
250350020 DONALD L TODD
'J.-])N 1: - "?vvt- ~ '^ ~
v( M J!)I
r A(,Wvv\l~~ .Y~C-
fjJ1t1~~
~1 WvlG J
I SHHOUS
10315
4090
10315
10315
10315
14215
115507
115507
115507
14085
15507
6733
14736
14736
14190
16733
15520
4185
15563
115563
115563
115563
115563
14167
115581
16733
6733
6733
4143
~ v~~~
SHSTRE
THOMAS AV S
154 ST
THOMAS AV S
THOMAS AV S
THOMAS AV S
EAU CLAIRE TRL NE
CALMUT AV NE
CALMUT AV NE
CALMUT AV NE
154 ST NW
CALMUT AV NE
MCCOLL DR
GARFIELD
GARFIELD
EAU CLAIRE TRL
MCCOLL DR
CALMUT AV
EAU CLAIRE TRL
CALMUT AV NE
CALMUT AV NE
CALMUT AV NE
CALMUT AV NE
CALMUT AV NE
EAU CLAIRE TRL
CALMUT AVE NE
MCCOLL DR
MCCOLL DR
MCCOLL DR
EAU CLAIRE TRL NE
Revised Property Owner's List
Crouse Vacation
File #01-017
SHAD2 SHCITY
BLOOMINGTON
PRIOR LAKE
BLOOMINGTON
BLOOMINGTON
BLOOMINGTON
PRIOR LAKE
PRIOR LAKE
PRIOR LAKE
PRIOR LAKE
PRIOR LAKE
PRIOR LAKE
SAVAGE
MPLS
MPLS
PRIOR LAKE
SAVAGE
PRIOR LAKE
PRIOR LAKE
PRIOR LAKE
PRIOR LAKE
PRIOR LAKE
PRIOR LAKE
PRIOR LAKE
PRIOR LAKE
PRIOR LAKE
SAVAGE
SAVAGE
SAVAGE
PRIOR LAKE
PO BO SAINT PAUL
r;). 'f6? ~
IS ISHZI PROPA1
1M 55431 4160 WIND SONG
M 55372 4090 154
M 55431 4160 WIND SONG
1M 554314160 WIND SONG
1M 554314160 WIND SONG
1M 1553724215 EAU CLAIRE
M 5537215507 CALMUT
M 5537215507 CALMUT
1M 155372 15507 CALMUT
1M 1553724085 154
M 155372 15507 CALMUT
M 15537815527 CALMUT
1M 155409
1M 155409
1M 1553724190 EAU CLAIRE
1M 155378
M 155372 15520 CALMUT
M 55372 4185 EAU CLAIRE
M 55372 15563 CALMUT
M 5537215563 CALMUT
M 5537215563 CALMUT
1M 155372
M 55372
M 553724167 EAU CLAIRE
1M 5537215581 CALMUT
1M 155378
1M 155378
1M 155378
1M 155372 4143 EAU CLAIRE
1M 155124 15593 CALMUT
CIR NE
ST NW
CIR NE
CIR NE
CIR NE
TRL NE
AV NE
AV NE
AV NE
ST NW
AV NE
AV NE
TRL
AV
TRL NE
AV NE
AV NE
AV NE
TRL NE
AV NE
TRL NE
AV NE
I PRPLAT
!PLAT-25236 WINDSONG ON THE LAKE
IPLAT-25236 WINDSONG ON THE LAKE
PLAT-25236 WINDSONG ON THE LAKE
PLAT-25236 WINDSONG ON THE LAKE
IPLAT-25236 WINDSONG ON THE LAKE
IpLAT-25236 WINDSONG ON THE LAKE
IPLAT.25035 NORTH GRAINWOOD
PLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWOOD
PLAT.25035 NORTH GRAINWOOD
I PLAT-25236 WINDSONG ON THE LAKE
!PLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWOOD
IPLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWOOD
IpLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWOOD
IpLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWOOD
IPLAT-25236 WINDSONG ON THE LAKE 4
IPLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWOOD 7
PLAT-25236 WINDSONG ON THE LAKE 2 4
PLAT-25236 WINDSONG ON THE LAKE 1 4
PLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWOOD 5
PLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWOOD 5
PLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWOOD 5
I
I
IPLAT-25279 RLS # 143
IPLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWOOD
IpLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWOOD
IPLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWOOD
IpLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWOOD
IpLAT-25279 RLS # 143
I PLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWOOD
PR PR
O-L C-
7 2
O-L C-
O-L C.
O-L C-
1 3
9
9
9
3 5
9
8
5
TC A
4
TC B
3 1
Correspondence
L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC
Steye Hdtsman
w"
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Steve Horsman
Friday, July 12, 2002 2:24 PM
'Mark Crouse'
RE: Resolution 01-011 PC
Mr. Crouse;
This Monday, July 15, I will be available to meet with you at your property to discuss the
required corrections and answer any questions you might have. Around 1:30 to 2:00 PM is a
good time for me, let me know if this time works for you.
I understand you have been in contact with contractors to perform the corrections. If you
should run into a time issue regarding the contractors schedule let me know. Another thing
to keep in mind during the corrections and once they are completed, are erosion control
measures, and how you intend to establish a pervious ground cover once the impervious
surface areas are removed.
The City of Prior Lake appreciates your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Steve Horsman
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Crouse [mailto:Mark.Crouse@oracle.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 11:32 PM
To: Steve Horsman; Mark Crouse
Subject: Re: Resolution 01-011PC
Steve,
Thank you for this updated information. Unless I simply missed it somewhere
along the way in the myriad of information exchanged I was unaware of the
pending 7/31/02 deadline for these actions. I know you expressed a sense of
urgency to me recently regarding the filing of the documents with Scott County,
which I made happen as quickly as I could given my logistics. I didn't realize
then
the scope of these actions and timelines which is why I sent my original email
request
to you. I absolutely want and intend to act as a good citizen should, and intend
to take corrective actions to be in compliance. I hope this will demonstrate to
the city that my community spirit is authentic.
In that light I'd like to update you on the actions I've taken since receiving
your email on Monday(I logged off prior to the 4th of July and didn't log on
again till Monday). After reading your message I promptly contacted a contractor
who came to my house Monday to provide a bid on cutting and removing the excess
impervious surface. I just received a call from him with his cost and timing to
complete that task, and have him committed to begin the project on Monday, July
22nd. From my conversation with him I fully expect all work on that to be
completed by that Friday, July 26th.
I have a few questions to review with you to ensure that once completed the
cities expectations will be met on this matter. Would you be able to schedule
time to come to my property next Monday, July 15th, to advise me on these plans?
I will make myself available at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Mark Crouse
1
.
Steve Horsman wrote:
,
> Mr. Crouse:
>
> As you are aware, two issues regarding zoning ordinance violations exist on
> your property at 15507 Calmut Avenue:
>
> One, the Planning Commission, and City Council, denied your variance request
> to permit the deck constructed on your property to remain. The deck
> structure shall be removed on or before July 31, 2002.
>
> Two, the impervious surface area exceeding 38% of your lot area, and as
> depicted to be removed on the revised survey, shall be removed on or before
> July 31, 2002.
>
> The City of Prior Lake would like to solicit your cooperation and community
> spirit in correcting the violations as noted. If you should have any
> questions regarding the matter, call my direct phone number at 952-447-9854,
> or email me at the return address.
>
> Sincerely,
> Steve Horsman
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Crouse [mailto:Mark.Crouse@oracle.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 10:18 AM
> To: Steve Horsman; Mark Crouse
> Subject: Resolution 01-011PC
>
> Steve,
>
> I left you a voice message last week but wanted to confirm you received
> the document number for the filing of the resolution with Scott County.
> The document number is 554094. They did give me a receipt for the filing
> fee(#192535). Do you need a copy of that receipt for your files? Are
> there any other deliverables I owe you at this point in time?
>
> Can you please confirm what needs to take place from this point forward
> so I clearly understand the process. What steps need to be taken, by
> whom(myself, the City of Prior Lake, Scott County, etc.), and on what
> timelines? I want to make sure I know what's expected of me, and by when
> so there's no confusion. The sooner I have this information and begin
> planning the better, so that I don't get caught in a situation where my
> travel conflicts with the need to accomplish something in a timeline I'm
> not logistically able to accommodate. Your guidance on this is
> appreciated.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark Crouse
2
Page 1 of 1
Steve Horsman
From: Mark Crouse [Mark.Crolise@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 from meeting with Ron Swanson
at Valley Survey, correlated back to the conversation from the previous meeting with the planning
commission.
On page 4 of the meeting notes under commissioner Vonhot's 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, p.ot 2,270. It is also a fact that all sidewalks on my property were
included in Ron's calculations, and they account for appJ.oximately 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 requh\Jwent 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 of land 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 email and my voice-mail when possible. Please
let me know iqhere'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 a.p.pJ.vved variances, and will need this information
prior to our next meeting.
Regards,
~ ~~~~~
~. f>L--C U" 'fl.f7- '-ftS)
t!g11r 'L ~ "f (JL~
Mark Crouse
7/17/01
)I.-_...~~~~~~..i:!::~,'~';.',"l.t.:~~~:"~~~~~'~""~"'~~""'"~~'---"""_____":':'~--"-"".-,~,..................,,-,",,,..-=->.-",-,-
July 19,2001
D. Mark Crouse
15507 CalmutAvenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Appeal to the City Council and the continued Impervious Surface Variance.
Dear Mr. Crouse:
On June 28,2001, you submitted a written notice appealing the Planning Commissions decision
to deny your deck setback variance (V AR File# 01-0 17PC). City Code requires an appeal to be
heard before the City Council within 30 days of the filing for the appeal, unless that period is
extended with the consent of the appellant. Based on your request that the appeal be heard no
sooner than 60 days after your receipt of the official minutes to the public hearing, the 60 days
will run out on August- 28, 2001, (minutes approved on July 9, 2001). However, State statute
requires the City to act within 60 days of receipt of a complete application.
In order to meet this deadline your appeal has been scheduled for the City Council meeting on
August 6, 2001. The meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. and is located at the Fire Station on County
Road 21 and Fish Point Road. You or your representative is expected to be in attendance. You
will be receiving a copy of the public notice and a copy of the staff report with recommendation
prior to the meeting.
Secondly, on July 16, 2001, you provided a written response for a revised variance request to
impervious surface area as directed by the Planning Commission at the June 25th hearing. You
also requested a copy of the audio tape for the June 25th meeting. The City does not have
equipment to make audio copies, but you may copy the tape with your own equipment at City
Hall. Also, video tapes are available for $8.00 a copy, contact Jim Schindler at the Prior Lake
Senior High School, the phone number is 952-447-4131.
In addition, you requested information on past variance requests for impervious surface where a
subject lot is adjacent to common property and both areas are added into the gross area for
calculation purposes. This process has only been used when the owner of the subject lot also is a
shareowner in the common property as platted in the subdivision. This is not the case in your
situation. You are welcome to come to City Hall and I'll assist you to research this information.
If you have any further questions please call me at (612) 447-9854.
2!;erelY, ~
- "~~~sman ~-'~
Zoning Administrator
1:\01files\01variances\01-017\cmpltapl.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S,E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph, (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTIJNITY EMPLOYER
Steve Horsman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mark Crouse [Mark,Crouse@oracle.com]
Thursday, August 02,2001 10:15 PM
Steve Horsman; Crouse,D.
Meeting - August 6th
Card for Mark Crouse
Steve,
I just received your letter regarding my appeal for the setback
variance. I must be in New York at mandatory meetings on August 6-8th
and will not be able to attend the meeting noted for Aug. 6th. I have
checked my calendar for the next meeting date which I believe is the
20th, and have marked that date off to try to avoid travel if at all
possible. Please confirm your receipt of this notice and let me know if
there's anything else you need from me at this point.
Regards,
Mark Crouse
1
J
r'~ [ ~np. "
J 'j~~t ~Jt3'1'1
August 2, 2001
D. Mark Crouse
15507 Calmut Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Agenda and Agenda Report
Attached is a City Council Agenda and Staff Report for the August 6, 2001, City Council
meeting. The meeting begins at 7:30 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 or have any questions, please contact me at 952-447-4230.
Sincerely,
?f:::nq. 1f~
Planning Coordinator
Enclosure
I:\deptwork\blankfrm\meetlrcc.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORl1JNITY EMPLOYER
Steve Horsman
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Steve Horsman
Thursday, August 09, 2001 11 :48 AM
'Mark Crouse'
RE: Meeting - August 6th continued to August 20th, 2001
Mark,
On August 6th, the City Council continued the public hearing for your Appeal to the August
20th meeting, as you requested in your Email dated August 2, 2001. Be advised that this
will be your last opportunity to Appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City
Council. State Statute requires the Council to act on this Appeal request within 60 days
of receipt of the application or by August 28, 2001.
Regarding your impervious surface variance request that was continued to the August 27th
Planning Commission meeting. This office must receive your revised survey and impervious
surface calculations on or before August 17, 2001, in order to include the information in
the staff report for the Planning Commissions consideration at the August 27th meeting.
In addition, the City is aware of a boat shelter that has been installed on your property.
This boat shelter is considered impervious and must be added to the impervious coverage
area for your lot.
Any questions my direct dial phone number is 952-447-9854.
Sincerely,
Steve Horsman,
Zoning Administrator
City of Prior Lake
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Crouse [mailto:Mark.Crouse@oracle.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 10:15 PM
To: Steve Horsman; Crouse,D.
Subject: Meeting - August 6th
Steve,
I just received your letter regarding my appeal for the setback
variance. I must be in New York at mandatory meetings on August 6-8th
and will not be able to attend the meeting noted for Aug. 6th. I have
checked my calendar for the next meeting date which I believe is the
20th, and have marked that date off to try to avoid travel if at all
possible. Please confirm your receipt of this notice and let me know if
there's anything else you need from me at this point.
Regards,
Mark Crouse
1
August 16, 2001
D. Mark Crouse
15507 Calmut Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Agenda and Agenda Report
Attached is a City Council Agenda and Staff Report for the August 20, 2001, City
Council meeting. The meeting begins at 7:30 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 or have any questions, please contact me at 447-4230.
Sincerely,
~~
Planning Dept. Secretary
Enclosure
I:\deptwork\blankfrm\meetlrcc,doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
August 29, 2001
D. Mark Crouse
15507 Calmut Avenue
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision
Dear Mark:
Enclosed is a copy of City Council's Resolution 01-99 upholding a decision of the
Planning Commission denying a 71-foot variance to permit a 4-foot structure setback
from the Ordinary-High- Water mark.
Sincerely,
,,---
C8vv~
Connie Carlson
Planning Dept. Secretary
cc: Bryce Huemoeller
Enc.
16200 Ea:~~fiet'8~'f~II~tWf.s'g~~.t,~8Pt!!\<lf,cMinnesota 55372-1714 / Ph, (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
HUEMOELLER & BATES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
P.O. BOX 67
PRIOR LAKE, MINNEsOTA 55372
JAMES D. BATES
BRYCED.HUEMOELLER
September 14,2001
Telephone (952) 447-2131
Fax (952) 447-5628
SEP I 4 2001
Mr. Donald R. Rye
Prior Lake Planning Director
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake MN 55372
Re: D. Mark Crouse - Application for Variance No. 01-017
Dear Mr. Rye:
This letter is a notice of appeal to the Prior Lake City Council from the September 10,
2001 action by the Planning Commission reducing Mr. Crouse's variance application for
increased impervious surface from 57.5% to 36%.
Please send me copies of the Planning Commission's minutes and the staff report for the
City Council meeting as they become available.
:ru:~urs~. Au
Allison J. Gontarek
Attorney at Law
cc: D. Mark Crouse
~._.."_.-
. r
HUEMOELLER & BATES
ATIORNEYS AT LAW
POST OFFICE BOX 67
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
Telephone: 952.447.2131
Facsimile: 952.447.5628
E-mail: huemoellerbatest.tUaol.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 Horsman
Prior Lake Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake MN 55372
By Facsimile and
U.S. Mail
i
Re: D. Mark Crouse - Application for Variance No. 01-017
Dear Mr. HO.L.)~an:
Please consider this lettef 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!
G truly yours,
Il.'/JJv~
Allison J. Gontarek
..
~.
(!/.effl~
Jane Kansier
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Pat Lynch [pat.lynch@dnr.state.mn.us]
Wednesday, October 09, 2002 3:08 PM
mark.crouse@oracle,com
JKansier@CityofPRIORLAKE.com; Shorsman@CityofPRIORLAKE,com
Re: Permeable Solution to Impervious Surface Problem
Thank you for your e-mail. I recall our conversation several months ago, You discussed some alternatives you were
considering for replacing
excess impervious surface you created without proper authorization. In
particular, you were concerned about having a surface capable of supporting a heavy trailer. We discussed two tracks,
one for each wheel of the trailer, as a possible solution that may be allowable, and
minimize the square footage of hard surface, I directed you to the
city for further discussion. Other than that, you did not request a list from me. Had you, I would have provided you with
a very short
list. It would consist of grass or other vegetation. Something
pervious. Have you been waiting for me to send you something? Let me
know if I misunderstood the reason for your call months ago.
The photo you sent with your e-mail did not look like anything that
seriously jeapordizes the strustural integrity of a nearby slab, Based
upon cursory review of it, it appears a half yard of black dirt and some seed or sod would remedy that situation, If a
permeable pavement surface was utilized there, how would that alleviate your concerns about water seeping under the
existing slab? Is not the premise that permeable pavers act much like a turf or other vegetated surface, and allow
infiltration?
There is no list of approved products for replacing removed hard surface. As I indicate above, vegetation is the
alternative.
There has been much discussion in past months about the use of permeable paving products. Vendors for such products
have presented their product to DNR staff, requesting approval and endorsement of said materials, We have not done so.
There are uncertainties as to the true effectiveness, maintenance issues, installation, design, etc. The use of such materials
is considered impervious, and I doubt the city of Prior Lake is agreeable to your replacement of concrete or asphalt with it.
You created your existing issues with impervious surface when you proceeded to add impervious surface without the
required approval through the variance process, You also have received a variance to exceed the maximum allowable
impervious surface coverage. DNR recommendation is to revert any restored impervious areas to vegetated areas of sod
or other native plant landscaping. You do not have DNR support for use of Eco-Stone or any other comparable product,
As the use of the product is monitored and the long-leu.Ll effectiveness is documented, we are willing to review the
evaluations, and may render a
favorable opinion on the products in the future.
Like you, I, too, am looking forward to bring closure to this matter.
Seems like it has been going on forever.
>>> Mark Crouse <mark.crouse@oracle.com>10/8/02 9:29 AM >>>
Pat,
The picture did not appear in the original message, so I've provided it as an attachment here if you care to take a look.
Regards,
Mark
Mark Crouse wrote:
1
~
> Dear Mr. Lynch,
>
> Hello again from Prior Lake. It's been almost three months since I
> called you to request a list of alternatives for replacing the
> concrete that I was required to remove from my property at 15507
> Calmut Ave NE. This work has been done, and as you can see from the
> picture below this has caused an unsightly result. It also creates a
> potentially damaging condition to the remaining driveway as the
> standing water is creeping back under the existing slab which will
> weaken it.
>
> [Image]
>
>
> Since neither the DNR or City of Prior Lake were able to provide me
> with a list of approved products for replacing the removed surface,
I
> have been researching alternatives and have found one which should
> satisfy all parties. I have a hard copy of the publication listed
> below, which provides all the supporting documentation necessary to
> prove that this is a viable replacement alternative, On page 3 of
this
> publication is shown a product named Eco-Stone, manufactured by
> Borgert Products based in St. Joseph, MN. Eco-Stone was designed for
> applications where requirements for stormwater retention, or
> limitations on how much impervious surface area is allowed on site,
> are gating factors. It is currently being installed in many such
> implementations nationwide, and has been approved and is being
> installed in local(Lake Minndvuaka and others) sites as well. As
> such, I believe this is my best alternative.
>
> [Image]
>
> Technical Manuals
> Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavements Second Edition Published
> April 2000 Newly Revised Second Edition. A guide for design,
> specification, construction, and maintenance of pervious pavement made
> with
concrete
> pavers. Guides designers on using this best management practice for
> control of slvuuwater runoff and nonpoint source water pollution. 54
> pages with 36 figures, charts, and photos.
>
> The local installer for this product, Meadowood, came to my property
> yesterday and has agreed to squeeze me into their schedule for the
> middle to end of next week. This is predicated on my getting the ok
> from the DNR and City of Prior Lake. If this doesn't happen next
week
> they probably won't be able to complete the job till next spring,
> which leaves me with the mess you see above, and the potential
damage
> it may cause. lId appreciate a response from you at your earliest
> convenience on this matter. Is there any reason why you would be
> opposed to having me use Eco-Stone as my solution to replace the
> driveway surface that was removed?
>
> Pat, thanks again for the time you've allocated to this matter with
2
~iscellaneous
."
L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC
.-. -,. --~-"'._"_.--------".-...---., .-'-'-'-~~"'--" ------ -- ---:---- -----
.' ~?t
a~/13/1995 11:~6
61:!938155:!
JUSTUS
February 13, 1995
City of Prior Lake
Building Inspector
Gory Stabler
Deax' Gory,
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 Buchanon
PAGE 61
the building exceeds
because of the front
of roof. Thefirst
grade which requires
If an addendum
938-2741.
.~
I
.
~
'1
~ .j
it
I
4
.'
t
,
\-,-
it
'i
1'At\
~ ,90S' 'IS,
'0
~o..,6E>
'JC
UJ
:::>
z
UJ
~
\!'l
\ q
\ ~OSONG ON
: INe Or O'Ji\..O\ f. \j.J \-\ uNe or
\_ soc'~ \t 'LSO ,;\t sOU'o, \0 " \15
, i\"lt \... p- 45 00 f\ Of \..
,;\t "'0"';\ ,," ".~-
, "t'l.,t"'S\O"''' ,.' "':'" .'
"Ll'l1505?>'5?> f ,"'.
\ ~~_4B ~)~ ----- ,
~
'0 ISl f\..~~
0 t . 9\ 9, \0
I.!) $ ~ouse
4
0 0 L.r, 'IJ/O
i - E\... 9\0.\
"
0 c::1
w
']: ,-.
~ .. ..
u.. ' .
0 "
w
%
J N
>j <.0
(S)
w -
-
"
.J
.... -
J '..01 \ 0-""'-----
\
\
\
\
'6
o
uJ
Z
,0
\<i
,4
lIP
',4
\ sP-N Ml-\
. '
-"
~
\
'1'C e.\ \.......,.......
90.,4\"~ . J
'0
Z I
'1
<~
cB
f\.,t\.Cl .'
9086'5""... "
cr:
Ii
u'
i:' \0_'
G
,t ' tti
I . N
,cO <t'
'{c t~~ ..J t<)
91091',? .
\ .:10.. ",
t> ex: ,
,~
\ Ulp 'Ii'
\ w :0
W
~
f.
to
<::" --, ,e ~.
~:o~~
, e..JlC>'l
':~ Q\''''
s\.",e f.'~
909 ,~,
:;~h \"'.:.
". ~. ,
t:>
. \ ,l
; ~: \
" . .7.
"
o ..
!>' '
",
',~ot i,'
,,'.1~
',' "f: '" ,.l;.:r"'''
I';"',.'''i! ')J
~\', "',::',,;. ~~~'~.:
:,i<
.,' ~~:~~
"'4')
'{\;~;;
~.,
/
~.
#o~./-
'I'
\
\
\
~\, "G'!
. ..
~n\
p~\O~
.
I-
,cl
-~ ~
-; z.
~ ~
\fl
~
-z..
')
~
a:-
o
:t.
\fl
'7
\Jl
'7
~
~
t-
~~
~
.,
.,
\
\
1'r_70,2~.- : I
1 S79 0 2,6' \O"W I
\ ' I
S'L)'\ ~\..INE Of LoT;" \9
'" .
, c ~ \
\ ~ \ \
\ I \
\ \ \
\ I \
I
"
,
,-- _.-
\
\
\
" \
'\
'-:\
~~,
':R '0 CO,
~-tO~
to- ~
"b
ct."
4
\
,
,
~ ~:':.~. .
:L'..'-s ~~ ,
''1:1~, '/i<t
OEC~
CAB\ N
';" ..t
1
~~
results because of circumstances unique to my
.;, .:.~.
':L:'Thehardsfiipis caused by provisions of the' ordinance
,'}~~"'A'acti.gy,'s~,;<?fpersons presently having an interest in my
~S
and is not the result
parcel. -.
The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance and produces
substantial justice, and is not contrary to the public interest,
"--\:/~":' . .
?J~;f'-:Variance may b.e permi tt~d if all four requirement~ are met. Q, ~. /J // .
!:~(Datefldv.t~ 13/ 78 Slgnature~/"I"""v9"~ "" I.J~A~
~~i;::1his is to certify that $ ;1,0') was received this /~!{ da{ of lNtiMIC - 1'1971
~!".;:f~r a Variance Application Fee, Received By ) !(AA/.1 ~uc.tJ....{.ti/
~~~tL- .~_ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - -'- ~ -11 - - - - - - - - - -
i;~~'1~\,;':~' nns SPACE TO BJ: FILLED IN BY PLANNING COMMISSION
)</
for Variance Granted \ Denied
1J
..' " . r/'lf" A~.' ,.
~..'" ..','.' "1'
-, .. ",,"" .<>.;,.,...' ..........c; .'... ,c,,,.;,..... ,'_.. c",. ,.....,'.,.:;:..'i, '\.', , ~ , '<'" ;_ :, ': ,<', /,...
t~~of';IPi~ilfiir:cbi;irift~sYOItij~J"f.t~.i~"<'A-:: .'1yp.Al;Jl~ '~
i -f - .,..l
~#.,~t~l~<:
I.
t.I.,.-_,..
',~:i-i.';..>"'\.\: >~">;~',<';.
"'" ,:..l::',:-:::':~':"~':',L\~',.__,__.,
\~~il!~~i]i~g. o(.t~. .~:::::::9::A:::::~:S:::n:::I::=:.~~~",,~~:
::"c').glil"~,:.c!l,11ed;,:to..orderbY,. Chal.rman,/I'horkel~.on" at. 7:30, ,PM. "'!.~embers. ;Pl'~sent~:;f~.~\<
::',:;~~it~',:~;T.~~!.~;,:c.o~mlss.iorieI"s ;C!lvi 1 ~,Spe.iker,>~ohnson,>Counci l)nan:" Busse,,~~~d 'Ci~"
,X'~~~~R~~~;;;1}~~rC~~:~~aSeI'f~:"."", . ..,.. ,.' ,.,.. ,'.; " ':"., .'~,,:,:'.( ~;";";,:;.',:~:'ri::',.',,'i;;':
/.t~":);i;:f:::rh,e,:Jidnutesof ~ the :March16 ;,19 78 'PI ann in'g C()mMi~s ion were motioried)fo'
.". ". jippi.o:va.1,byJohnson',seconded by' Speiker 'and Opon 'aiote,ta:<lin.;We~~:,-:~
,- .,.. ~~~~;~~~~~~1*~~~~0;?f~~~~i:lf;/j:,8'~)"'S:' ..~;'..';.>~;.:~/., ,'" :;.:f.F";~~j.':"~.,,~;/i;~',jJi;,~(::'.;:"
~fjgr,a-set"~'~tatedtha1:"lle:'\~otlld'liketo'~add'aIli1:emj:o''?the~']t.gerr " "..".,
It~~( by~~vi}l ::1:o':df~~uss:a 'propose{'subdffi$iori'~;fof~{Ca,#~oW;,_)iriso
;!-1 O::30,PM;secoridedb'"',~,s - eiJ<er:,~aridt'" 'ori~rf:vo1:e<~:eakertmotforl'JeiJ'l';
~,~t:t;;k:l~:;;i;~:;?:,t;im;~~\}\;-~:1;",'{I~~j;~f;n~;;-:~).~~'i:;l}A~~itl~?~;;~)~:_'ff.~~~:_>?:~!.t~\i;;'~~r .',' ", ..
-,+..>~l~irst;~.itemori theagerida'wasa 'subdiviSion ''discussion'tfor,'Mr .:.c::- ,',' tla
. '/':,:;i;.-~r.;\;Schwartiis. \ propos ing":'t:odevelop"tiie 'Vl cSchroeder '.24:ac'ie(rfarm';~;~Mr.)'
f'S!?:M;~~#serrgave.a:pres entatlonsitlng' lowareas:- :grade 'probH~ms':;and:;:acces~~':t
,'.' :...,_P.-;;...~;:f..~ ,'....".?.,..'~_., -' ,-""'~"'''_:'..:. '.._C':: ','. '.;.';,' .... .,.'-.,' -.,..-.'-..".:_v"":":'" ,.' ',". ...... ..,\,..~,:.,:,.~.,.""..~:""-;",':';,:.i,,.-'~.:."""-""--'~
;::\/;;c'+Eagl~Cre,ek Avenue~'~:Mr."'Schwartz, stated-::that'hewas~1n ag'reenient.wl,~:M
?,;~>iJ"'iqi~'GiaSer!s,proposa)-as to ithe:d:rI ve'~ays:~riot:fron1:ingCon'Eag1 e"' CreeKrAyenue ,
'<:";:'\.:':County:Road21):\;questfons :were' rdsedon-the :'interceptor,"ea.:sements;~"'la
T,~~,:'~ _,","~~';~-h_;.:.$~'.. .,,-::~'(('t'.- :'. ".'_ "' _;,.' ___,;0;,. ,~':_,::- ~ , .. . .: _;, x' ;. ,;.i-:-";" :"_, '_ . ';':." ",~ .".~. ':;.;,.;:"'- '-,-. ,'. ",.:_', _ :~:. {'_', . :,: "", .' -::,', - .' .:t.~.,.~:;.t">!., : ~:-.:. -:'\li-.. _~,.,~'~ -"'-f'_
, _~~t~:"':'c~1),'~~~~s ':'.~e,1.;.-.' p01JJPa~~lo!l.,t:o~:.~t~,~ ,t.n ~7I'C,,~p.~oran ~:~Gtllln\1p1b.~x:o,:f~;~ ~M~~1!):.
'.,n)yeral1v:Le~ ofth~ Plann,l.ng C()Jnnll.s~l.on;was ~hat '~he.pla.n..lo~~;.~.,.f.e..~st.P_~;.
:, \.!!T1dthe. deyeloperwas asked to contJ.nue,worhng wl.th.staff to.:,!lork:out::~,<
,: ";anyadditionalproblems. " " ..,.'",., ,,'-"\."":"''''(';-':J.
,;: , -,.' , ","~"~\,
XNext item on the agenda was' a variance appl,ication for Mr. George Borgerdi~g:,
, A 63 . foot lakeshore setback variance ,and an 8 foot front yard va:dance are','.""
requested. for lot 9 and, the south 42 feet of lot 10, North Grainwood. The: >:J
proposal is to remove the existing buildings and replace it with a year-
round home. Mr. Graser gave a description of the parcel inovlved. Motion
was made by Speiker to grant the variance due to the fact that the new
.pwelling will encompass the old building envelope and it is a unique lot
'arid will be a permanent, year round home. Motion was seconded by Cavill
, upon a vote taken, ~otion carried.
Next item on the agenda was a Home Occupation Permit application for Mr.
Bruce Langevin. Mr. Langevin is proposing to construct light, two wheel,
horse drawn carriages at his place of residence, 16078 Cambridge Circle SE.
The parcel is zoned R-l. Planner Graser ga'/e a brief description of the::
request a '.: Mr. Langevin then stated that he !,as an air conditioning unit
and extra soundproofing in the garage. He a~so stated that the noise dt)es
';,';Il,ot bother his wife who is immediately above him in the house. A petition
<~as' thEm' given'tot}:,,;: ch~1irman with "16 signatures of the neighbo:r.s in'
opposition to the home occupation permit. Cavill motioned to Geny the
home occupation permit because ~f oppositivn of the neighbors and the
. occupation is not \in compliance with the ordinance., Motion was seconded
:.-"" ,. "'~C co",: ,J"",by;.rohnson and,ppo.A!!",V9.~~,.ia.k.en.,.!lIo~ion 'carried ~ .
,:Et:' ..:':.t'~".t'";~'~'.'L';;"~'G::r~~'.,r,1'~~l~~?~;~'!5,~~1':7 :'2$l~~~f:$~:~;~rikg~1';jdti"~f:~~~c
.__~'...;o."",_."'-:""':""-""."'~,~J.ooo-o>~-"~~~~~"",_,_.,_",,,,,,~~"'a1_~""'.."'<___'~_"__'-.-...-,-----~.--. ..-~----.-- - - -- - --
.
ATTACHMENT 3
1
i
,
~
,(
White - BuildIng
Canary . Engineering
Pink - PlannIng
Taw ("ntH 011'" I..., ("._.'7
BUILDING PERMILAPPLlCATlON..D.EfARTMENT CHECKLIST
.~
r( . If ()
NAME O.f APPI.ICANT -b., " :\~ul r -:-~ / .
APPLICATION RECEIVED Ib,;/f,
~
The Building, Engineering, and PIRnning Departments have reviewed the bUilding permit
application for construction activity which is proposed at:
1~'T8 7 ~
"
"
l'
I"
I ~
'.
Accepted
Accepted With Corrections
-I-
'Deriled - f~
..... Reviewed By:~
Comments: J-. Pf ~/'--=--<::...
~/.;.,,~
-
Date: 2- / ~ - '7 ..:::..
p II'___'\. \'2.;::: I "t!::. "'>.
I
~
/'" ,,,,~"-
.:;
R,~
~
<:'"'>--.:. .L(<-. ~~ )-\..L .. ,
I
~ ~ J.:c... \<. +.c.. ~
(":D~"u~ ..s.-.)(.?~~t.-'..
- I
c- ...4J 1_ '.:::i ~
1.2::>
,,-,
--.-:> -
Lt.
,-2...G:: ~ "
;0c4~"l,'...,:'r_ \
\ --...... '\--'
)~--" ~2.~., ~
~
~/'l"'''\ 1 Y".;:.....eJ!: I ......." /1/'.4., ,
'-......) ,'-...j
,....Lu.:~ ,...,..., u..'::';'''V' J
<......:. (
~+-/-'~}""'t.
t...::..~
f
r~~",- c-lr.:.. -t-, ,.;...~
r
f2Z i3::l-..J I r~ ~
~_ ~,L';;r I .
VV' Cd.. ~i:.. ~
l
"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,"
'0
.
.
iI
.~._.__---<oo.--~__-"---'_
, .',:: ~""";'_.-l+. _,>.""_____...~___._..~'..~. >o-~ .:..'.--....-.----,...-.....'-"............,;.......~-.~.-.-'-,.....~---. --
..,
.-, - '---....---... .. _.. -.- :..,.~
I"
~
~t kL ';';.thS-,-. ~i-' ~~,
, '\II,;l., ~ 1.1 ....'-.tr
'f-Ai-,
'(
TIM ('..,.. 01 .... ..... ('_."
White . Building
Canary . Engineering
Pink. . Planning
BUILOING PERMIT APP~ON QE.&\RTMEtiT CHECKLlSr
I
';t
I~
NAME OF APPLICANT ", .:!
APPLICATioN RECEIVED l/ // / ,:-
1JJ.J.I.....-II"'.,~ J../ I/,j
I .?
,
The Building, Engineering, and Planning Departments have reviewed the building permit
application for construction activity which is proposed at:
" : /' '7
I 'J J ~. /
j
I .' '
/,t.-.
,
'(<
?
4
/ Ofi ~( 6Uf1~~ &,qtfdlGlctL
Accepted Accepted With Corrections C rJ;i:> w;) ~ "'" It
~ \)J\~ rL ""u1,v) c.l{Q)J'
Denied V. L'O, ,/(.,.1.. j')ll c.,J"
u- \""
Reviewed By: \(dJ.I . Date:)' 1- 9J
Comments: -(1 f!/;:t' ~(l (~ c: ';:}u'1.-t~Je.'L..f.d AJf~~/J
. . 'I /l O.
/J1f)lrcl!J/~CJ .Jt; ~t(.;C l<'J -Ii. ct./J M.N:Jt..rtI..1 hnU f' -if'LL
t;1JJ./. t; 'II-~~ '7 lf7tV J..ub) 'PA.:P/~/) ,~rt//1':1A '
:st~1(UU f!t/I)U a qJl.... ( d 56vdYM -' lit,;; 5L1~.-? MdV/.Jwr,.-
lY/~j:({/(lL/) ) !1/1,(r-M1- {1a;,1-, ~Le.ua.::I1?71. CkJ ~~J...
, ..J ./ . (,' ,.
/0 4/{'AJlJ,~YU./J /;~f;. J,OL "ll//llt dt.b~hC-1t.,Y-
. IJ I , /.
air )Jt~/~ /~ 01 fOf.,j O'?t aL~t..u2,
t
~
i
;!
''I
1- O(/f)IJL8(C1,. fIl,Alf;itl1!tJ-h (M._ CfOql(~ O~Yte.~1J.---ro~~
:11 ~ or1iM7C/fl- - 5LfflCL(!lJ (rt O.1,rJifl.. (ILlWlI1{'lJ..c.'-
,1LL VA -17-66 - ~ ~I }c/,ttJhor<2. ~. g' ~~U/{0 UAitlA1"lC~.
"The issuance or granting of a permit or approval of plans, specifications and
computations shall not be construed to be a permit for, or a" approval of, any violation of
any of the provisions of this code or of any other ordinance of the jurisdiction. Permits
presuming10 give authority to violate or canc91 the provisions of this code or other
ordinances of the jurisJiction shall not be valid. II ) 6 ' 114 f a..
* !Yl{UX' (f1VLt'l,/,\ D ( ll/€.Lutl( [)Ii Qff1 cd1 +t"J UVi L,1 {/. ,
~
, .
L:\1'BMPLA.~~
,~"""'-'-,.~~~- ,-
~~\cdW~~'';'_'~~'-___'''~'_.'4~',oC__-''':_'''~'''''' a"a.....""'....#...:.._........... . "- ~.~.__,<~__._~~..,~..:.............-_...-a........ _ ~.. _~_._...-.,_.... _._ "'_'_'_'_'_'_" _"" _ ~-,.#~___~.____;.... ~"'~">.1_'. " .'--'-- ...-------~----.~
ATTACHMENT 1
,. \0
of \.0
'" \.\t,E ..--
NO"' _-,
\
\
\
,..
o
w
z
5T Mt\ _' ,."~,. g
_p.;.~!-~..,.""... ;',:,", z
." t,!, ~,", ,:. '" ..,~ .:1
. ,"\:l.:...l~'t.:;:. ~
,~;:-,: ,,~;"l1~N1'i;~~'. SAN, Mt\
'::,~;:'; '~~', ,:~:'#l~ ",l"l,}
..", ,"', 'fC..,.
": ' . :" 'to"-' . ",..
~i..':' >..',:.;:,1t: " ;;'~ ~
'.
/"
'.
,
.
\
..
\1l
::>
z
UJ
,>
<t
"1,:
..
-,/. ...:--\
" . \
t;, \
.~ ~
'lSI ~
ii,
u.l
't-
:1
u.l
IX.
o
~
\II
J
"
~
ft
~
~
o
~
. 7.':"li
,.'. .
\
!
)
\. ';
','~,
.~: ~:! ~'~'~:':
"<(
, \.)
'II.':'
"
C/\i\IN
." : ~~ .
~~
..
!~_ , ' . _._c_.,. ~_~
~.
"
~
l" ,
,.
i
.~ \. t
Y
~
"
........
"
"
.....
........
v
.
'"",..........~-'-...._...___...-"'._.,~_.-..:~...;.""_~_~:...:........o:~-...~"'_.~...,'-'-..~....~.:...__,:...;.-..___~_~~;':"", - ....:.;.....;..'.i:-:-~~..c.... ' -
:\A<'
,~
fit
-i" '
--"-..
:. ~.j,
,~'
~
~
. ti
.~
~-'~~-~':';"''''':'''''-~~_'':''~-
;j
',,<_to.
'O"H,~ l'Mt''tIU1 f
-10 ~6. rf.~(J"t;P
~1 f~vtJ{"~ I J9p5, 3
IV.... 8/f; [I", '/ () 7, S"
I" ~,-,
. :,~
,
:~... "...- . -,- '1'- "
',,~{~ ... IL- _ ...._.. "" _J I
..."' ;'\\
~ ;.: r
"'" '.........
"1--. rl I
'1\ '.~
...... ....
~ ItS
I. I
- ~..!)
I.
\
\
'.. - --->\
\
:' --. '\
I r'
-... .. .. ...- ~
... ~ \
t-- to-. J.. J; ~- .--,,- - .-....
q .... 0' : I I
~ ~: 'I \
::'<1 I ~~ .
~N ~ \
;--",1 If; . - ~-, II
<t:. I ~~' - --,I' I, rt.. j"/~ I'" ~ ,
_ 2, I' f
l:- ::; If ~
.f:~~- .-~' .'\
J I .' i --- -I
~ l' " -, I \
~ - _._ - - _..f
:: ,~ :
oN'
~K.
~<O
li")
J
,
I
I
. I
...
"
.....
1"
l.,'
....
1 .
! ~ .. . ~a+ Q
't.___._ (
"/.? - ,. .'
~o+- 5
c--- ,., .
-, ,
. , -.. _ 1
.j'-,
-:' ..:; -
,
;
fr/o r
t _ k-..
,.',
eCl:
l
, :,
I ,~
, ' \
-. c::.........
-i-U)
,I ....-
C C (.I ~\_'" ' .
-, ;t
.... -'
,-'" .
I "
''''
18'
eJ
--';
~ ~
- -
--.
'" ...... .
\(. :
l4.J CQ .
>.
"
j,
j
i;
I
.
\ \.
r
\
,?, :
..:, ~ . ,
",#,.
<~'''z .
t,,:j .
1,. " , .
';U,}'- .
;_~ '.J
~)o, .
l~~: '
-1'~
,....
. .,.-
.\.:.
.....
,...t
,.....
\.\..
....\
....-
.....
..'..
,..,"
'\.\...
QO,\.., LU,fW,,9S.N1
::III..~ ?S "f _
, ,
\~
\
~
..
I'~
I _ t&
~~~~
d)'i-~!l
!n:~..
".i:l...ca.
- lltt
.sa
ci
'0
\
--
....
.....
o.
~\::..
,...
\.\..
, / -~, I ,
-'" I I I I:' ., '" I.-I
{.., , ''"":' :..,'/ :~'.'
:'.' .....' -'-...
. .
. .u::-"
\
~
-"""
~
0 \\) ~
\ CI)
-'
ex:.
0.
:',', ,
I. ,
01'01-4 .;..-
, I
I
, I
I
I
>.
;4:
-
+.
'::;)
~l'
t\.
~~
,~ ~
~~
~~
~\.
~~
~
~
"
ell
v..
!Q
c:
.~
Q