The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-099 Variance Appeal to CC (Impervious Surface) Resolution and ~inutes & (ku~ F2Z>D-Z-t . , ~~JL,{lVl ,fJ z- D7 I L:\TEMPLATE\FILEINFO,DOC (fltrtl-U- rf;:/:. [) 1-- {/ (1 City Council Meeting Minutes January 22, 2002 (F) Consider Approval of Resolution 02.05 Authorizing Purchase of Two (2) 2002 Crown Victoria Police Interceptor Squad Cars from Minnesota Cooperative Purchasing Program. (G) Consider Approval of 2001 4th Quarter Investment Report~ (H) Consider Approval of Resolution 02.06 Approving Prior Lake Lions Club Premise Permit for Lawful Gambling. Gundlach: Asked that Item (E) be removed. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (A) - (D) AND (G) AND (H) AS PROPOSED. Bovles: Reviewed the consent agenda items. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, and Zieska, the motion carried. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA: Consider Approval of Fire Call Report for December, 4th Quarter Report, and Annual Report for 2001. Gundlach: Noted that in December 2001 the volunteer firefighters responded to 50 calls, and for the year a total of 590 calls, Thanked the volunteers for the enormous efforts they give throughout the year. Hau~: Also noted the time the Council had spent at a recent bum and what a learning experience and appreciation he had garnered from the experience. Zieska: Thanked the Council for taking to the time to see first-hand the duties involved in fire training and rescue, MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE THE ITEM AS SUBMITTED. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen and Zieska, the motion carried. PRESENTATIONS: Presentation to Retiring Council member Jim Ericson. [This Item was Removed from the Agenda] PUBLIC HEARINGS: Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the Planning Commission Denial of a Variance to the Lakeshore Setback on the Property Located at 15507 Calmut Avenue. Horsman: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. The Council took a brief recess. Pace: Explained that the agenda report identifies that the public hearing subject is different from the staff report and the issues that that report raises. The adjournment was taken to clarify that the notice required by law and distributed to property owners in fact identified the correct item for consideration with respect to the impervious surface, which it did. Zieska: Asked for clarification if the concrete cap runs right to the water's edge, and that the additional impervious surface requested was for the patio. 2 City Council Meeting Minutes January 22, 2002 Horsman: Confirmed. Gundlach: Asked what percentage of the impervious surface was the house itself before considering the driveways and patio. Horsman: Approximately 28% for the structure which was done under permit, with a maximum requirement of 30% for the total impervious surface coverage area for the lot. Hauaen: Asked what the original square footage for the house was, and then for the addition. Believed the original expansion for the house in effect doubled the size of the structure. Horsman: Did not have those numbers off-hand. Believed that assumption was correct. Gundlach: Asked staff to clarify the Planning Commission's recommendation to allow 38% impervious surface, Horsman: Explained that the Planning Commission felt that the three-car garage was approved for construction and thus there was a hardship if there was not an allowance for the driveway. Gundlach: Asked how the boat house was figured into the impervious surface calculation. Horsman: Advised that the current impervious area is approximately 57%. Further discussed that typically the DNR does not view tarped boat covers as impervious surface. Hauaen: Asked if there was any other discussion with the applicant about an alternative to the patio cap. Horsman: Most of the discussion with the applicant was through written submitted materials and the applicant's counsel, and he did not believe any brainstorming regarding alternatives took place from a staff perspective. Gundlach: Asked staff to review how this impervious surface situation came to the City's attention, Horsman: Advised that the situation started with a complaint regarding the construction of the deck, and then during follow- up it was determined that the property owner had failed to acquire a building permit for the deck, which led to the impervious surface issue, Zieska.: Asked staff to walk this particular situation through the hardship standards, Horsman: Advised of each of the nine hardship criteria and how this situation did not meet said criteria in connection with the staff report. Hauaen: Asked how this property affects or is impacted by adjacent properties, Horsman: Was not familiar with other properties in the area, and advised that his concerned was focused on the compliance ofthis property. Zieska: Advised that in his understanding there are not other properties in the area that have the extent of impervious surface as this property, 3 City Council Meeting Minutes January 22, 2002 Allison Gontarek (representing Mark Crouse): Distributed presentation materials. Discussed application of each of the nine hardship criteria, noting the presentation of alternatives, the peculiarities of the property in order to protect the property, reasonable use of the property rather than optimal use, the statement from the DNR to the homeowner that the impervious surface from the patio did not have significant impact on the lake, the improvements to the property, and that the hardship was created by changes in code rather than action of the homeowner. Further stated that the granting of the variance does not adversely impact neighboring properties, that the stabilization is not a convenience, but a protection, and that financial impact should be considered when discussion of an alternative cap should be required. Suggested that this could be an excellent site for some sort of alternate infiltration solution. Further noted that staff had not handled the application well and that there may be a due process violation. There was some discussion between Council member Zieska and Ms, Gontarek regarding the statements from the engineer's letter and the inferences that could be drawn therefrom. Ms. Gontarek admitted that while the report did not specifically recommend the cap, it did inferred by its overall content that the cap was a possible solution, Councilmember Zieska read verbatim from the engineer's letter of December, 2001 which recommended a drain tile system. Pace: Advised that if there is an alleged due process violation, the applicant should specifically state the facts as she sees them. Gontarek: Discussed the chronology and appeal process as identified in the written materials distributed. Suggested that there have been issues that should be brought to the Council's attention. Pace: Indicated that variance considerations outside this application are not relevant. Gontarek: Proposed that she has an applicant who has a significant investment in his home and is willing to explore alternative infiltration, Would hope to reduce the impervious surface below the 30%. Gundlach: Asked if the applicant has pursued providing alternative proposals to the Council. Gontarek: Advised that the applicant does not wish to incur the additional expenses unless there is an indication that the Council would be receptive. Pace: Reviewed the process to date, including the original Mr. Crouse applied for a variance to build a deck after-the-fact. The Planning Commission recommended denial. The whole process cannot be looked at in isolation, and the goal is to try to bring the violations and mistakes as close to the ordinance and code requirements. Further explained the process if the Council hypothetically approved the variance as proposed. Gontarek: Pointed out that the issue before the Council is impervious surface. Pace: Believed that the request cannot be looked at in isolation because this property has been before the Council on a number of issues where ecology of the lake is a concern. Explained the process at both the Planning Commission level, and the City Council level, neither of which are a violation of due process. Believed it is being unfair and somewhat untruthful that there is a violation of due process. Gontarek: Stated that the point is that when the governing body revised the resolution, the appeal process is compromised. Pace: Disagreed that the applicant was deprived in some way of his opportunity to appeal based upon the Planning Commission rendering its decision. 4 City Council Meeting Minutes January 22, 2002 Gontarek: Explained that the homeowner raised the structure within the same footprint and was within the required code, Petersen: Asked if there was a way to pursue considering other engineering altematives. Rve: Agreed that the engineering data may offer alternatives at some point, but that the allowances need to be set out in the ordinance in order to consider it as an option, Zieska: Understood from the reading materials regarding the proposal to use rain barrels and trenching, or combinations thereof, that the calculations still do not provide for adequate infiltration. Also discussed soil compaction. Gontarek: Advised that the engineering firm seems to believe the desired effect can be accomplished in some manner whether its through the use of rain barrels or trenching, some combination thereof, or some other alternative. The homeowner would like to get below 30%. Zieska: Noted that he is skeptical based upon the calculations. Hauaen: Advised that if the applicant is looking for a guaranty of acceptance, none will be given. Commented that the physical structure is definitely an asset, but when you circumvent the rules, you assume some risk. The City's job is to provide continuity in its regulations and in the best interest of the entire community. Believes the applicant bears the risk and cost if he wishes to bear the responsibility to provide data for consideration of any altematives. Gontarek: Believes Mr. Crouse is willing to explore the possibilities. Gundlach: Believes that it is frustrating and unfair to hear that staff has been uncooperative when the variance applications have come after construction. Asked what steps Mr. Crouse has taken to mitigate any of these issues. Gontarek: Believes that Mr. Crouse's frustration with staff is that he feels he did not get any answers as to what he needed to do. Mr. Crouse is prepared to take steps to mitigate this issue, and is merely looking to the Council for direction in that regard. Mark Crouse (15507 Calmut Stree~: Noted that he would like to find a happy resolution and mitigate the issues surrounding the impervious surface. Discussed his frustration with staff, the process, and the communication tonight. Hauaen: Suggested that Mr. Crouse direct his comments toward more productive dialogue at this point. Crouse: Advised that he is willing to spend the money for engineering analysis of the altematives, Clarified that he was advised that the concrete cap was necessary as a protection of the structure, and discussed some of the information he has received with respect to alternatives. Petersen: Would like to see some cooperation in exploring some of the alternatives. Asked the City Attorney how the Council could proceed at this point. Pace: Advised that the City ordinances do not allow the Council to accept an altemative to the impervious surface as it stands, Suggested that the City may want to complete its own study over the course of the year independent of this property owner, Further noted there are also staff time and cost implications, Ultimately, if the altemative doesn't work, there is still an enforcement action to remove the additional impervious surface. 5 City Council Meeting Minutes January 22, 2002 Crouse: Commented that from a cost perspective, he could've just removed the concrete months ago. He is trying to find a happy alternative. Tom Loftus (4215 Euclaire Tram: Commented on some of the adjacent properties in the neighborhood in comparison to Mr. Crouse's property. Asked if some consideration could be given with respect to runoff because of nearby green space, and the 400 feet of lakeshore to the north. Discussed that substandard lots on the lakeshore will continue to have these types of variance tug-of-wars. Believed that exploring a mitigation plan or study that would provide for some alternatives within the City ordinances has some benefit to both Mr. Crouse and in addressing similar situations for property owners on the lake in the future. Also noted that the property itself is unusual given its substandard size and topography. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY PETERSEN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen and Zieska, the motion carried. Gundlach: Concerned with dealing with these types of issues after-the-fact. Noted that the Watershed recommendation and City ordinance indicate that 30% impervious surface is the acceptable standard. Further noted that there may be an engineering alternative, but change the ordinance at this time is not feasible or appropriate with additional study. Believes there is little choice. Petersen: Would like to see the City and applicant find a reasonable solution, but also believes the ordinance parameters allow little room. Zieska: Commented that even though the lot is attractive, believes that the City has attempted to find a resolution. The Planning Commission approved an impervious surface up to 38%. Supported the Planning Commission decision to deny. Hauaen: Noted that the hardship criteria is determined by state statute, and that when Mr. Crouse purchased the property he should have been aware of its limitations. Even so, would like to see some sort of resolution allowing the property owner to provide information to the City for a possible alternative. Pace: Noted that the impervious surface already exists. Suggested that the Council could deny the variance, but suspend action to require the additional impervious surface removed until such time as the applicant provides and bears the cost for an alternative. Suggested authorizing her to negotiate with the applicant and his counsel to enter into an agreement by which the applicant would provide supporting engineering data at his expense to be reviewed as a possible alternative to removal of the impervious surface. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 02-07 UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A VARIANCE TO THE LAKESHORE SETBACK ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15507 CALMUT AVENUE. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, and Zieska, the motion carried. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO SUSPEND ENFORCEMENT OF REMOVAL OF THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE FOR A TEMPORARY PERIOD OF TIME AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY SIXTY DAYS TO NEGOTIATE THE TERMS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND PROPERTY OWNER BY WHICH THE APPLICANT WOULD PROVIDE SUPPORTING ENGINEERING DATA AT ITS EXPENSE FOR POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO REMOVAL. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, and Zieska, the motion carried. 6 ASSENT OF APPLICANT File # 01-017PC As Approved by Resolution # Ol-Ol1PC The undersigned hereby assents to the following: 1. I have read the conclusions and conditions of said Resolution, and I am familiar with their contents and with the content of the exhibits. 2. I fully accept all of the terms and conditions of said Resolution. 3. I understand Section 1108.400 of the Prior Lake Ordinance Code provides as follows: 1108.413 Revocation and Cancellation of a Varianc~. A Variance may be revoked and canceled if the Zoning Administrator determines that the holder of an existing Variance has violated any of the conditions or requirements imposed as a condition to approval of the Variance, or has violated any other applicable laws, ordinances, or enforceable regulation. 1108.414 After One Year. No Construction Reauired. All Variances shall be revoked and canceled if 1 year has elapsed from the date of the adoption of the resolution granting the Variance and the holder of the Variance has failed to make substantial use of the premises according to the provisions contained in the Variance. 1108.415 Mter One Year. New Construction Reauired,. All Variances shall be revoked and canceled after 1 year has elapsed from the date of the adoption of the resolution granting the Variance if a new structure or alteration or substantial repair of an existing building is required by the Variance and the holder has failed to complete the work, unless a valid building permit authorizing such work has been issued and work is progressing in an orderly way. 1108.416 Uoon Occurrence of Certain Events. If the holder of a Variance fails to make actual use of vacant land, or land and structures which were existing when the Variance was issued and no new structure, alteration or substantial repair to existing buildings was required; or if a new structure was required by the Variance and no building permit has been obtained, the Variance shall be deemed revoked and canceled upon the occurrence of any of the following events: (1) A change in the Use District for such lands is made by amendment to the Zoning Ordinance by the City Council. .. L:\O 1 files\O 1 variances\Ol-O 17\ASSENT,DOC 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave, S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER .. (2) Eminent domain proceedings have been initiated to take all or any part of the premises described in the Variance. (3) The use described in the Variance becomes an illegal activity under the laws of the United States of America or the State of Minnesota. (4) Title to all or part of land described in such Variance is forfeited to the State of Minnesota for nonpayment of taxes. (5) The person to whom the Variance was issued files a written statement in which that person states that the Variance has been abandoned. The statement shall describe the land involved or state the resolution number under which the Variance was granted. (6) The premises for which the Variance was issued are used by the person to whom the Variance was issued in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of such Variance. 4. I understand the granting by the City of this Resolution is in reliance on the representations that I will fully cU.Lllply with all of the terms and conditions of said Resolution. I understand and agree upon notice of non-compliance with any term or condition, I shall immediately cease conducting activities pursuant to the notice or will take all actions necessary to accomplish full compliance with said notice and conditions of the Resolution. (0/ ;)1/0;L DATE . ~I '777/1;~ ~, to e- sfGNA:rURE OF APPLICANT ~~Mi~_j7J ~~, SIGNATURE OF OWNER 15507 CALMUT AVENUEaADDRESS OF PROPERTY L:\Ol files\Ol variances\Ol-O1 7\ASSENT.DOC 2 RESOLUTION 02-07 RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A 16.4% VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 46.4% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AREA OF THE TOTAL LOT AREA ABOVE THE 904' ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15507 CALMUT AVENUE MOTION BY: PETERSEN SECOND BY: GUNDLACH WHEREAS, on January 22, 2002, the Prior Lake City Council considered an appeal by Mr. D, Mark Crouse of the Planning Commission's denial of a request for a 16.4% variance to permit a 46.4% impervious surface coverage area of the total lot area above the 904' Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) rather than the required maximum 30% coverage area, for the property legally described as follows: Legal Description: Lot 9, and that part of lot 10, "North Grainwood", and that part of Govemment Lot S, Section 2S, Township 11S, 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 16S,OO 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 4S.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 sa]d 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 1104.306 of the City Code in order to permit a 46.4% impervious surface coverage area of the total lot area above the 904' OHWM rather than the required minimum 30% coverage area as shown in Attachment 1 on property located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SO (Shoreland) Districts at the following location, to wit; r:\resoluti\planres\2002\02-07.doc Page I 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPOR11JNITY EMPLOYER .. 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 #01-093, and held a hearing thereon December 10,2002, 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 December 11, 2001. e, The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information contained in Case File #01-093 and Case File #01-099, and held a hearing thereon on January 22,2002, 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. The additional impervious surface reduces the infiltration/buffer area, which helps to remove pollutants from the surface water and increases potential for shoreland erosion due to additional runoff, 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, 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, There are other alternatives to providing soil stability around the structure, which do not increase the impervious surface. 3) The contents of Planning Case File #01-093 and Planning Case File #01-099 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 46.4% impervious surface coverage area of the total lot area above the 904' OHWM rather than the required minimum 30% for applicant D. Mark Crouse. r: \reso I uti\p Ianres\2002\02-07 ,doc Page 2 ... ., Passed and adopted this 22nd day of January, 2002, {Seal} r:\reso luti\p lanres\2002\02..Q7 ,doc Haugen Petersen Ericson Gundlach Zieska YES X X Absent X X NO Haugen Petersen Ericson Gundlach Zieska Absent I ~.J- J/ City Manager Page 3 Original Reports L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC .' CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: AGENDA 11.Jj.M: JANUARY 22, 2002 SA STEVE HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN Arr.Jj.AL OF 1~ PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A VARIANCE TO T~ LAKE SHORE SETBACK ON 1~ PROPERTY LOCAl.Jj.,U AT 15507 CALMUT AVENUE History: On February 23,2001, the Planning Department received a variance application from Mr. D. Mark Crouse (applicant/owner) 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. Upon processing this application staff determined a second variance was required to permit the impervious surface coverage area to exceed 30 percent. A building permit for the house on this lot was issued in 1995. A condition of approval of the permit stipulated the impervious surface area was not to exceed 30 percent. It should be noted most of the additional impervious surface area, such as the driveway and patio, were added after the completion of the existing house. The variance requested would have permitted an impervious surface of 57.5% on this lot. On June 25,2001, the Planning Commission denied the deck setback variance, and on June 29, 2001, the applicant appealed the Planning Commissions denial ofthe variance. On August 20,2001, the City Council upheld the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the variance to permit a 4-foot deck structure setback from the OHWM. The subject lot has a total area of7,689 square feet and allows for 2,307 square feet of impervious surface to equal the 30% coverage area. The Planning Commission conducted public hearings on this item on June 25,2001, on July 23,2001, and on September 10,2001. Afterreview of the applicant's request with respect to the variance hardship criteria, the Planning Commission directed staff to draft a resolution approving a variance to allow an impervious surface coverage area of 36 percent. On September 24,2001, the Planning Commission reconsidered their earlier action. The Commission determined a 36% impervious surface variance would not complete the driveway to the existing garage. The Commission L:\O 1 files\O 1 appeal\O 1-099\CrsAplccrpt.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 therefore appluved a 38% impervious surface and directed staffto prepare a resolution to that effect. This variance allowed the applicant to keep a portion of an existing driveway to access his 3-stall garage, while removing the additional parking and rear yard patio areas to accomplish the 38% coverage area. (See Attachments - Certificate of Survey Dated 10/22/01; Proposed Driveway Dimensions; and the Minutes of the September 24,2001, Planning Commission meeting). The applicant did not appeal the Planning Commission's decision. On October 26, 2001, the Planning Department received a new variance application from Ms. Allison Gontarek, Huemoeller & Bates Attorneys At Law, representing Mr. D. Mark Crouse. This variance request was for an increased impervious surface coverage area of 46.4% rather than the approved 38% in order to retain the existing patio area on the lakeside of the home. The applicant submitted an engineer's report on the need for the patio area to provide soil stabilization around the structures foundation (Attachment - Applicants Hardship Narrative). The subject lot has a total area of 7,689 square feet to the 904' elevation, and allows for 2,307 square feet of impervious surface to equal the 30% coverage area. The area for the house and garage totals 2,152 square feet. The area for the proposed driveway amounts to 792 square feet, and plus 84 square feet to keep the existing front and sideyard steps totals 3,028 square feet or 39.4% impervious area. The lakeside yard patio area of 539 square feet will add 7% to the previously approved impervious surface coverage area of 38%. The total requested impervious surface coverage area equals 3,567 square feet or 46.4% of the total lot area (Attachment - Impervious Surface Worksheet). The applicant proposed a 46.4% impervious surface coverage area to permit the existing patio area to remain due to the need for a "cap" over the fill area around the home's foundation for soil stabilization, as recommended by the engineering firm Professional Engineering Consultants, Inc. (Attachment- Applicants Engineers Letter). The applicant also proposed removing 372 square feet of concrete by modifying the existing 4-foot concrete sidewalks to a maximum width of 3' as permitted under the Zoning Ordinance. Sidewalks less than 3' wide are not considered impervious surface by defmition. In addition, the applicant proposed removing approximately 186 square feet of existing driveway area in the public right-of-way, and 570 square feet of parking area along the garage on the subject lot. The City Engineering Department reviewed this request, including the engineer's letter of recommendation to allow the applicant to keep the existing patio for soil stability. The Engineering Department noted the L:\Ol files\O lappeal\Ol-099\CrsAplccrpt.DOC 2 absence of calculations in the letter to support the recommendation for the cap. The Engineering Department suggests there are alternative methods to stabilize the soils and retaining wall, which would eliminate the patio cap and the impervious surface coverage area (Attachment - City Engineering Dept. Memo). The Department of Natural Resources submitted comments on the original variance request dated 3/21/01. In essence, their main concern is the existing impervious surface coverage area of approximately 60%, which poses a problem regarding storm water runoff and lake water quality. The DNR is not supportive of issuing an after-the-fact variance, and recommends bringing the impervious coverage area into compliance which is 30% or less. In addition, he DNR is not convinced by the engineer's letter of recommendation, and suggested the City Engineer provide an independent review. However, should it be determined the patio cap is necessary for structural reasons, perhaps other non-essential hard surfaces can be eliminated in their place. Current Circumstances: On December 10,2001, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing. After reviewing staffs report, and accepting comments [rUUl the applicant's representative, the Commission determined the request did not meet eight of the required nine hardship criteria for approval and denied the variance (See Attachment draft Planning Commission Minutes from December 10, 2001). On December 11, 2001, counsel for the applicant submitted a notice of appeal of the action by the Planning Commission denying Mr. Crouse's variance application for a 46.4% impervious surface coverage area. A follow-up inspection of the subject property has been conducted. The deck and impervious surface area remain, as documented on the certificate of survey. Staff shall enforce all of the required conditions for compliance by requiring the property owner to remove the deck and excessive impervious surface area on the subject property upon a final decision by the City Council. 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 fmdings 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:\Ol files\O lappeal\O I-D99\CrsAplccrpt.DOC 3 The subject property is a nonconforming platted lot of record, but was developed by the current ownership, which did not meet the conditions spelled out in the building permit for the principal structure, which included a maximum 30% impervious surface coverage area. However, in order to construct a driveway for the approved 3-stall garage, the Planning Commission granted a 38% impervious surface coverage area. The request for a 46.4% coverage area for the patio area, while recommended by the applicant's engineer, has not been supported with calculations by the engineer. In addition, the City Engineering Department has suggested an alternative solution to the problem. 2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to other land or structures in the Use District in which the land is located. The existing conditions of the lot area and dimensions are peculiar to the property, and generally do not apply to most other lots within the Shoreland District. However, when all required conditions are applied, the approved variance for a 38% impervious surface area allows for the driveway. 3. The granting ofthe proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner, The a!,!,~u led legal building site precluded the need for the additional variance requests. The owner created the hardship when he decided on the building dimensions and location of the structure, as well as the excessive paving of the subject lot. The Planning Commission previously determined the need for some variance to impervious surface; however, the Commission determined a 38% coverage allowed the applicant reasonable use ofthe property. 4. The granting ofthe proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fIre, or endanger the public safety. The granting of the requested variances will not impair light and air to adjacent properties or increase congestion, danger of fire or endanger public safety. 5. The granting 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. L:\Ol fiIes\Ol appeal\O l-099\CrsAplccrpt.DOC 4 The granting of the variance for increased impervious surface area will adversely affect the above stated values by reducing the infiltration/buffer area, which helps to remove the pollutants and increase the potential for shoreland erosion with additional upland water runoff into Prior Lake and thereby affecting the adjacent properties. 6. The granting ofthe proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. The granting of the variance is contrary to the intent of the Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan by allowing excessive impervious surface conditions than were originally approved by a building permit (30%), and increased by Variance Resolution to 38%. 7. The granting ofthe Variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty. The granting of the variance requests appears to serve as a convenience to the applicant, since other means are available to provide soil stability around the structure. 8. The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this Ordinance to the affected property and does not result from actions ofthe owners ofthe property. The hardship results llul11 the actions of the property owner when he constructed the dwelling in 1995, and subsequently added the deck and paved areas without permits. 9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance. Financial considerations alone shall not be grounds for granting this variance request. The property owner created the need for these variance requests by not following the approved conditions for the original building permit. Conclusion:, The staff recommends the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the applicant's variance request for a 46.4% impervious surface area because the request does not meet eight of the required nine hardship criteria. The Planning Commission approved a 38% impervious surface area variance to allow the applicant to keep the existing 3-car driveway. In addition, the City Engineering Department suggested another option for shoring up the retaining wall and stabilizing the soils around the foundation that would not result in additional impervious surface area or the need for the patio cap area. ALTERNATIVES: The Council has the following alternatives: L:\O 1 files\O 1 appeal\O l-099\CrsAplccrpt.DOC 5 RECOMMENDED MOTION: REVIEWED BY: 1. Adopt Resolution 02-XX upholding the decision of the Planning Commission to deny this variance request. 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 # 1. A motion and second adopting Resolution 02-XX upholding the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a 46.4% impervious surface coverage area 1JJ. as requested by the applicant. Frank B~ Manager L:\O 1 files\O 1 appea1\O 1-099\CrsAplccrpt.DOC 6 RESOLUTION 02. RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A 16.4% VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 46.4% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AREA OF THE TOTAL LOT AREA ABOVE THE 904' ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15507 CALMUT AVENUE MOTION BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS, on January 22, 2002, the Prior Lake City Council considered an appeal by Mr. D. Mark Crouse of the Planning Commission's denial of a request for a 16.4% variance to permit a 46.4% impervious surface coverage area of the total lot area above the 904' Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) rather than the required maximum 30% coverage area, for the property legally described as follows: Legal Description: Lot 9, and that part of lot 10, "North Grainwoodn, 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; 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 1104.306 of the City Code in order to permit a 46.4% impervious surface coverage area of the total lot area above the 904' OHWM rather than the required minimum 30% coverage area 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; 1:\Olfi1es\Olappeal\Ol-099\ccres,doc Page I 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNIlY EMPLOYER 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 #01-093, and held a hearing thereon December 10, 2002. 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 December 11, 2001. e. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information contained in Case File #01-093 and Case File #01-099, and held a hearing thereon on January 22,2002. 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. The additional impervious surface reduces the infiltrationlbuffer area, which helps to remove pollutants from the surface water and increases potential for shoreland erosion due to additional runoff. 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.. 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. There are other alternatives to providing soil stability around the structure, which do not increase the impervious surface. 3} The contents of Planning Case File #01-093 and Planning Case File #01-099 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 46.4% impervious surface coverage area of the total lot area above the 904' OHWM rather than the required minimum 30% for applicant D. Mark Crouse. 1:\01 files\O 1 appeal\O l-099\ccres.doc Page 2 Passed and adopted this 22nd day of January, 2002, Haugen Petersen Ericson I Gundlach I Zieska {Seal} 1:\01 files\O 1 appeal\O l-099\ccres.doc YES Hau~en Petersen Ericson Gundlach , Zieska City Manager NO Page 3 ATTACHMEN I - CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY 1" \0 of \..0' ~~ \,..\"E. "OR A . s\\(\Cr,-oe ~'f.\ \0 . ~ ~ ~~- ~~V~ (e ~O ((\0 \ !Ie).' \'\ . ~ ,,~ \. \~ \ ~o' \ ~e " (\c.(~ e.. "'.l~ ' \ CJo ...~ ~O<<;.t(. e((\O\(\ j A ~o ~ 7 ~ \ 1 /-e ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ !fa IJ\ ~ u) o -z. 0) ~ ~ -z, u) ~ o a:. ':? c 0 ij1 o -:s:. t/', IJ\ ~ ~ o ~ cj).a\ " ~ it o ::c 3: m z -I. 1- - .------ . -a ::D o -a o en m C C ::II :c m i :c: c i m z en (5 z cn ,'1 ATTMHtIENT1 '. 9/24/01 PC MINUTES MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 01- 015PC AS PRESENTED BY STAFF. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. B. Case File #01-017 Mark Crouse Variance Resolution. Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented Resolution 01-015PC as directed by the Planning Commission at the September 10,2001 meeting. Stamson clarified the variance requiring a paved driveway. The concern was the applicant would leave the patio and return to a dirt driveway. We want to avoid that situation. Horsman responded the driveway ordinance regulates a Class 5 action. Allison Gontarek, representing the applicant, asked to be recognized. Chairman V onhof stated the public hearing was closed. MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 01-11PC. Discussion: Criego said he did not vote for this the last time based on the 36% impervious surface. Although the Commission felt the property should have a driveway and a reduced sidewalk. The applicant at the time was not prepared to reduce the impervious surface as much as the Commission wanted him to. Questioned the intent to have a driveway with normal curb entrance to a three car garage or only provide concrete to a two car garage. Stamson responded his initial Motion was for staff to determine the impervious surface percentage. The intent was for a three car garage. The issue was to redraft and not delay another two weeks. Horsman responded it would be very difficult to get pavement to the third car garage with the 36% impervious surface. Rye stated the original Motion should be modified to be consistent with the Resolution. MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECONSIDER T~ VOTE OF SEPTEMBER 10,2001 MEETING PERTAINING TO THIS ISSUE. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, .MJ:'KOVING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A MAXIMUM OF 38% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE Vv ral THE CONDITIONS THE APPLICANT SUBMIT TO THE CITY A REVISED SURVEY L:\OI files\OI plancomm\OI pcrninutes\MN09240 l.doc 9 Planning Commission Meeting September 24.2001 IDENl'll'YING THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REMAINING AND ALL CONDITIONS OF THE VARIANCE RESOLUTION BE MET INCLUDING THE CONDITION THE APPLICANT REMOVE THE CANOPY AND DOCKAGE NOT INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL SURVEY. Horsman explained the additional impervious surface and his discussions with the Department of Natural Resources regarding the dockage. Lemke commented this clarifies the Motion from two weeks ago. V onhof stated he believes the variance criteria in this matter are not met and this specific condition has been created by the property owner and will not support the Motion. Vote taken indicated ayes by Criego, Lemke, Stamson and Atwood, nays by V onhof. MOTION CARRIED. 6. New Business: A. Discuss infiltration systems and engineered runoff management. Criego recommended continuing this matter to another meeting. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: 8. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:11 p.m. Donald Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\Ol files\Ol plancomm\Ol pcminutes\MN092401 ,doc 10 HUEMOELLER'& BATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW POST OFFICE BOX 67 PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TelePhone: 952.447.2131 Facsimile: 952.447.5628 E-mail: huemoellerbatesla2aol.com OCT 2 6 2001 BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER JAMES D. BATES ALUSON J. GONTAREK OF COUNSEL: CHARLES C. HALBERG October 26, 2001 Prior Lake Planning Commission 16220 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake MN 55372 Via Hand Delivery Re: Request for variance from D. Mark Crouse for increase in impervious surface limitation for 15507 Calmut Avenue Dear Planning Commission Members: The purpose for this letter is to address the hardship criteria and the need for a variance, above the variance for 38% impervious surface granted for a reasonable driveway, on the above property. This is a situation familiar to both staff and the Commission members. We respectfully address the nine hardship criteria and how they apply to Mr. Crouse's property. ! First, Mr. Crouse's property is a narrow,'non-conforming lot, left over from a railroad right of way and other 'larger developments. It required two variances to upgrade the existing house built in 1978. Mr. Crouse took the original structure, raised it to meet the current code for elevation requirements and developed it in a manner customary within the neighborhood in which he is located. Second, when Mr. Crouse built his house, the p~.luJt issued allowed for a three car garage. At the time of construction, a hard surface driveway was not required by ordinance. It has now been determined and agreed that a reasonable driveway, allowing for access to the third garage stall increases the need for impervious surface to 38% of the lot. Similarly, there is attached a report by an engineering expert explaining the requirement for a "cap" on the area between the house and the adjacent lakeshore. The report states that raising the elevation to meet code required the exterior backfill to be raised and stabilized for structural support and erosion control. The need for additional . ~ ~ o :J: 3: m z -I I )> -a -a .... g Z u1 :J: ~ C en J: - -a z )> :D :D ~ <: m Prior Lake Planning Commission Page 2 October 26. 2001 impervious surface to create a useable driveway and to provide for a cap to ensure stability between the house and the lakeshore are two conditions that arise from the unique shape, size and proximity of the lot to the adjacent lakeshore, and that do not apply, generally, to other land or structures in the Shoreland District. Third, the variance, as requested, is necessary to (1) provide access to a garage that was built under p~~.uJt, and (2) structurally support the house. Without receiving the requested variance, Mr. Crouse is denied access to his garage and his property is subject to damaging erosion. Fourth, the proposed variance will not impair in any manner either the supply of light or air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety. Fifth, attached to this letter are signed statements made by Mr. Crouse's neighbors as to the benefit his improvements to his property have had on the neighborhood. Sixth, the granting of the variance request will preserve the spirit and intent of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinances by contravening the undue hardship created by conditions unique to the property due to its shape and size and proximity to the lakeshore. Seventh, it is the expert opinion of a qualified engineer that frost action and erosion must be minimi7.ed between the structure and the retaining wall. This ~s not a convenience issue, it is a structural requirement. Eighth, the limitation of impervious surface for lots in the Shoreland District is an essential part of management of the natural resources in and around Prior Lake. However, strict application of the Ordinances creates hardship for unusual and non- confvu.uing lots. Mr. Crouse purchased an undersized platted lot of record. He applied for and was granted a P"J..uJt to raise and add on to the existing home which created approximately 28% impervious surface over his lot. He raised the house to comply with the current code for old and new elevation. Complying with the elevation requirements of the code created structural problems for the a}J}J~ oved structure. Resolving the structural problems adds to the impervious surface problem (that did not exist when the parcel was originally created and improved). Complying with new driveway requirements compounds the impervious surface problem. The hardship results from the application of the old and new ordinances requiring a paved driveway and applying the new elevation requirements to an existing building footprint. Ninth, this has been a very expensive journey for Mr. Crouse. He will have to expend more money once the variance is determined to remove concrete he paid to have . Prior Lake Planning Commission Page 3 October 26. 2001 installed. Although economic hardship alone is not the basis for approving a variance request, the statute allows consideration of the economics involved. Finally, the issue of whether the need for the variance is attributable to the applicant. We submit that the need for a variance here results from the combined impact of old and new ordinances on this property. Long after the size, shape, location and use of this property were established, a series of new laws on lot sizes, setbacks, paved driveways, minimum elevation, maximum impervious surface, and the like, have made variances a necessity. Complying with one law, requires variances of another. The problem is with the inter-related restrictions, and not with the actions of the applicant to comply with the laws. The need for a variance now arises from a previous lawful action by the applicant - ~1;,.Lllodeling an existing house with an approved building PI;,J.uJt. It does not seem that the lawful actions of a homeowner should provide the basis for the denial of a subsequent variance, where the need for the variance is the result of subsequently adopted laws. To promote the most apprv}lJ.:ate and orderly development within the community, the Minnesota statutes authorize zoning ordinances and allow for the Board of Adjustment: To hear requests for variances from the literal provision of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardshiQ because of circumstances uniaue to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. .'. Minn. Stat. ~462.357, Subd. 6(2) (emphasis added). Case law states that "[t]he statute is clearly intended to allow cities the flexibility to grant variances where . . . the property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the ordinance." Rowell v. Board of Adiustment of the City ofMoorheacL 446 N.W.2d 917, 922 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). The "correct standard is whether the proposal was reasonable under the circumstances, and would not be allowed except by granting the variances." Nolan v. City of Eden Prairie, 610 N.W.2d 697, 701 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000). Mr. Crouse should be able to use and protect his property in a reasonable manner. Accessing his garage is reasonable, preventing erosion that could destabilize his foundation is reasonable. The issue of granting a variance after the fact as opposed to consideration of a proposed use is difficult. We respectfully request the Commissioners consider whether it is reasonable to potentially compromise the structural stability of a po.:,J.uJtted home based on the timing of the request for a variance. Prior Lake Planning Commission Page 4 October 26. 2001 Based on the principles set forth under Minnesota statutes and the Rowell and Nolan decisions, we believe the Planning Commission should find as follows: 1. Literal enforcement of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinances will result in undue hardship with respect to the Crouse property because it will preclude the preservation and enjoyment of Mr. Crouse's property rights, including a driveway to serve Ills property as required by ordinance and a concrete slab that is necessary for structural support. 2. The undue hardship results from the circumstances unique to the property because of the shape and size of the lot and its proximity to the lakeshore, as evidenced by the granting of variances in 1978. 3. The undue hardship is caused by the provisions of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinances and is not the result of the actions of the owner, because the owner's use of the land is reasonable and the literal application of the ordinance would preclude such reasonable use. 4. A variance preserves the spirit and intent of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest, because the reasonable use is consistent in all respects with the existing and proposed land use in the neighborhood, and provides an enhancement to the neighborhood as a whole. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission ap'1J'.Love the requested variance to increase the impervious surface limitation on Mr. Crouse's property to 46.5% to allow for a reasonable driveway and the erosion control provided by the cap between the house and lakeshore. Ve!y truly yours, , ~.:J: Grm~ Allison J. Gontarek f{~ AJG:cak Attachments cc: D. Mark Crouse i ,''-! '~ \0 " , ~l\,,'\";."''Oe'''( " O~~. ,,,,.0 \ Ii" ,,___..----~ ~ _~,)" ", (to .'\ / 'Q"4 ,.: fto,'" // \ \1.'" " '" , , , "~':~' ~ lQ \ '" ",.,',:::..::'h.;\ 0 .0'1 \ ..,/ ,~ ' ,:; ,,:. ,.,.,"#., ~, lD " ~ ~/ "/' f!O\\ _D"",,0~"''! !Ie '. ~o'\~ ;;'01" I, " ~ } ,./f ~o \le "-("' 'f \ ,~ \ . v,' \tJ , 'Zo 19. ~ uJlj1 z, ~ 1;. a:. ~ o .., :r:. r.. III / ~ " ,,;. \ . .>( .,,.' \ / \ \ lr-~- lf9OS, \57902,6' \O"''tJ I \ "~--- s.t.',1 H.\tlE OF ,-OT .:. ',9 ,'" ' ... ,t 'til ~ ~~'\. I: '\ v~~ , " " . I :{', . :~. .,:i I . .~.., ",t~"'":::.,, ....{:... . Df,'.)('RIFT!(J!"; Al:,PROVIDED: Lof9 and that pari of Lot 10, "NORTH GRAINWOOD", and that part ofGovemml Lol ~. Section 15. Township /15. Range 22. Scott CoUflty, Mirmesotn described a~ tolluws: Commencing at the nonhwest comer of said Lot 1 (): thence southerly along the westerlv line of said Lots 10 and 9 and also 8. a distance of 165.00 teet to the actuai ATTACHMENT - IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA CITY OF PRIOR LAKE Impervious Surface Calculations (To be Submitted w'ith Building Pennit Application) For All Properties Located in the Shoreland DisL.l",t (SD). The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent. Property Address \~'So' CD.\~u-.:'"' "'" €-~"'4.. N~ Lot Area ~q ~ e.\..u C\O'-\.o Sq. Feet x 30% = .............. "Z.~o., ****.******************************************************************* HOUSE , + ATTACHED GARAGE x = SQ. FEET \ \ "" \.l LENGTH WIDTH x x \C:Sb -& TOT A(.. PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE...................... "Z. \ '60"2.. DETACHEDBLDGS (Garage/Shed) x X TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS......................~ ~~~IPAVED AREAS (Driveway-paved or not) (\~c.. S~ .. x (Sidewalk!Parking Areas)' ~ X = ,q2.. &'" = X = TOT AL P A YED A.REAS......................................... s., <. C-b~l..e ' , P A TIOSIPORCHESIDECKS (Open Decks y." min. opening between 'boards. with a pervioUs surface below, are not considered to be impervious) X = ~q x = X = TOT AL. D E CKS.............'........................................... t:;'!.~ OTHER x = X = . TOT.AL OTllER...... ........................~......................... TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER6VER:> Prepared B;U,,<.- ~ . \<I"'~ company~\\~ -5"Q.~') t?t\. ~~J.: ~lP"" I' ''7-'-0' 'Date \t)' 2.'2./-0 ( Phone # "-\\l1-'ZCSt7t) ,/ PROf. ENGR. CONSULT. 4909265 Z03 l..ITTLe CI\N,ADA ~OAD SUITE 280 SAINT PAUL MINNESOTA 55117 T8L: 651-490-92.66 PAX: 651-490..92.65 ~. ~'''l;. Jl's.'J(.:~,':~~~ ~OFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONSUl,T~Nl'S IN(;ORPoaJ>,1'I-:O October 4, 2001 Mark Crouse 15507 Calmut Ave NE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Subj: Grading Review 15507 Calmut Ave NE Prior Lake, Minnesota - PEC 15091 Deal'.' Mr. Crouse: Thi,s letter concerns our review of the grading and patio construction for the single fa~ily residential structure at the above referenced address, We 'understand the structure was built with a basement floor elevation ,lbwer than currently allowed for residential structures on the,lake~hore. Therefore, the wood framed portion of the structure wa~ rai~ed, four courses of block were added to the perimeter foundation and filt was added inside of the structure to support a lower level floor slab. Now the lower level floor slab complies with current elevation requirements. These alterations required changes to the exterior grading. On the lake side of the struoture the grading changes required t.he following engineering considerations: 1. The exterior grade had to be raised to balance the lat.eral soil loadings on the raised section of the rear foundation wall. 2. The gra.de required a cap to prevent surface wa.ter infiltration into the backfill region to reduce frost action and provide erosion control. Erosion .control was required between the shoreline and the building'. In addition to the engineering consideratio~s.where the function and maintenance considerations for t.he construction. There was a sliding glass doorway in the lower level and a need to provide maintenance access for the lake side face of the construction,. These requirements and engineering requirements were a.ccom;l>lished by constructing a near level grade with a retaining wall. The retaining wall also had a requirement to reduce lateral frost a~tion against the wall. Therefore, the top of the grade had to be capped t.o minimi~e surface water 'runoff from percolating into the subgrade soils. P.01 ~ i! o ::I: 3: m z -I I ')> -a -a .... - ~ Z ~ m z C) - z m m ::D en r- m -I -I m :D PROF. ENGR. CONSULT. 4909265 P.02 Pag., Two The pa.ved patio area fulfills the cap requirement over the backfill. It minimizes the surface water infiltration to reduce frost action in the subgrade soils and it keeps water away from the foundation. It also provides erosion protection for the subgrade. D\n'ing our observations on October 1, 2001, 'We observed a gap between the foundation wall and the patio slab. This gap should be sealed with a flexible joint sealant to prevent dirt and water migration into the gap. The saw joints in the patio also shou.ld be sealed with joint sealant. The patio slab extends to the outside edge of the retain:i.ng wall. This construction detail mi.nimizes wa.ter infiltration bAhind t.he back of the retaining wall. Ii :I:OU have any questions regarding our review, please contaot us at (351-490":,,,9266. Respectfully, Professional Enginze ing Consultants, Inc. ~I ~~.t ~]~~tt~ ~)hn F. Gislason, r., P.E. Profe5sional Engineer JFG/fm cc: Allison Gontarek 952-447-5628, Fax PROF. ENGR. CONSULT. 491219265 P.I2I1 Z03 LITTI.J:l CANADA ROAD SUITE 2110 SAINT PAUL MINNllSOTA "'111 Tal.: Cl~l 490-926Cl 'PAX: Cl3t-490-9ZIl3 : ~ I : '. '. I.: ~Ol'l';SSlQNAL F;NG1NEERJi"G CON5UL'fANTS INCClRI'UKJ\Trll) December 6. 2001 Allison Gontareck Fax - 952-447-6628 Subj: Gra.ding Revj.ew 15507 Calmut Ave NE Prior Lake, MN D~ar Ms. Gontareck: This letter concerns our review of the grading and patio construction for the single family residential structure at the above referenced address. You furnished us a copy of a memo dated December 4, 2001. from Lani Leichty, Wa.ter Resources Coordinato~, addressing our recommendations. 'l'he memo states nO engine~ring calculations had been provided to support our claim that a cap was j required to prevent water infiltration. Our recommendations on the benefjt of the cap were not determined :by calculations, they were based on experience. W;J.ter is detrimental t.o construction, especially when it free~es. We recoDlmend reducing surfa.ce water infilt.ration adjacent to construction and in areas where there is an eXoess amount of surface wa.ter infiltration, we recommend installing a tile sy~tem to dra.in away water from the construction. Wa.ter free~ing a.dja.cent. to constr.uction is verY'detrimental to the const.ruction. Expan~i'Ve forces from freezing water crack and lift foundations. Wa.ter freezing in building materials degrades the desirable features of the building material due to repeated cycles of free~ing and thawing~ The firet problem I was taught to address in buildin~ construction was '.What are YO'lt going to do with the water", "How are you going to drain it away", "How are you going to prevent it. from damaging the construction". Experience ha.s "taught I,IS to provide a cap a.round the co'nstruction with sealed joints t.o minimize surface water infilt.ration around construction. R.espectfully, Professional Engineerilg Consultants, Inc. J' eI.... f(::f,,~ (f , hn F. Gislason, J;" P.E, .... ~ Memo DATE: December 18, 2001 TO: Steve Horsman, Zoning Administrator cc: Sue McDermott, City Engineer FROM: lani leichty, Water Resources Coordinator RE: Variance Request for 15507 Calmut Avenue NE The engineering department has reviewed the variance request for the above mentioned property and has the following comments: 1) One of the land use practice goals in the Comprehensive lake Management Plan for Upper and lower Prior lake (ClMP) is to: Minimize the transport of nutrients, sediment and runoff from city streets and lands which impact the Prior Lake watershed. Action step 5-2a in the ClMP is to: Require a natural upland buffer strip around delineated wetlands and water bodies for new construction. One way of achieving this is to provide buffer strips around waterbodies. Allowing an impervious surface directly adjacent to the lake does not provide any measure for improving the quality or quantity of stormwater runoff leaving a site through filtering. 2) It is the policy of the Prior lake-Spring Watershed District to reduce the following actions that impact Prior lake: 1) activities that degrade runoff quality, 2) activities that increase rate of runoff, and 3) activities that increase the volume of stormwater runoff. Allowing these actions only exacerbates the underlying problems faced by both the City and Watershed District, which are water quality, water volume and public expenditures to improve these problems. 16200 1l<J9M~~~~varM€m&!8o~ke, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER !t i! o s:: m z -....[ . o - -I -< m z G) - z m m :D - Z C) C m ~ . s: m 3: o . .. 3) The letter dated December 6, 2001, from Professional Engineering Consultants, Inc. provided a solution to the problem of freezing water adjacent to construction. City staff agrees with their recommendation of "installing a tile system to drain away water from the construction." Another option, along with drain tile, is to remove expansive soils in the backfill region and replace them with granular soils. This will reduce the potential of frost action around the building. Installation of gutters, routed away from the building, will also help reduce water ponding adjacent to the structure. Several hundred homes a year are built in Prior Lake. Placing an impervious cap around the perimeter of the structure is not a regular practice by builders. A typical method of dealing with drainage is to install footing drain tile, use granular backfill, install a clay cap over the backfill and slope the ground away from structure. SummarY: Engineering does not support the variance as requested, 2 Al"TACHMENT - ORA.-. 12/10/01 PC MINUTES . Planning Commission Minutes December 10,2001 Criego: · No matter what this development is, the issue of traffic is going to come up. We have to believe the traffic study as it will not change the seasonal traffic. . If the developer comes back with less townhomes, the same traffic issues are going to come up. . The main issue is that this project does not conform to the PUD criteria. It does not give the community enough for what it is requesting. Atwood: . In reading over the traffic study - there is no way Duluth Avenue can handle that traffic. . One of the concerns of the neighbors is the times of the study do not reflect the true traffic of the neighborhood. Because of the school, there are more buses and parents in the area. . Regarding the street lighting narrative by the developer - The developer said he would mount the lights on the building but did not see it on the plans. . Another question is the additional 11 parking spaces. Blocks 6 and 7 will not conveniently be able to access those spaces. . Kansier said the City requires decorative and adequate lighting. MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST FOR THE APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS EAGLEWOOD EAST. DRAfT Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRTPn. MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS EAGLEWOOD EAST. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. This will go before the City Council on January 7,2001. A break was called at 8:23 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:28 p.m. B. Case #01-093 D. Mark Crouse of 15507 Calmut Avenue, is requesting a variance to exceed the allowable impervious surface coverage area. Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated December 10, 2001, on file in the office of the City Planner. The Planning Department received a variance application from Ms. Allison Gontarek, Huemoeller & Bates Attorneys At Law, representing Mr. D. Mark Crouse the owner of the property at 15507 Calmut Avenue. The applicant is requesting a 1,260 square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of3,567 square feet (46.4%) rather than the permitted maximum area of2,307 square feet (30%). L:\Olfiles\Olplancomm\Olpcminutes\MN121001.doc 11 Planning Commission Minutes December 10,2001 On October 8, 2001, the Planning Commission granted a variance for an impervious surface coverage area of38% (Resolution Ol-OIIPC). This variance allowed the applicant to keep a portion of an existing driveway to access his 3-stall garage, while removing the additional parking and rear yard patio areas to accomplish the 38% coverage area. The applicant has since received an engineer's report on the need for the lakeside patio area to provide soil stabilization around the structure foundation. The City Engineering Department reviewed this request, including the engineer's letter of recommendation to allow the applicant to keep the existing patio (cap) for soil stability. The Department noted the absence of calculations in the letter to support their recommendation for the cap. However, without conducting an analysis of the subject site, the Engineering Department does not support nor dispute the applicants engineer of record. The Department does suggest there are alternative methods to stabilize the soils and retaining wall thereby eliminating the patio cap and the impervious surface coverage area. The Department Of Natural Resources submitted comments for this report. In short, the DNR is not convinced by the engineer's letter of recommendation, and suggested the City Engineer provide an independent review. However, should it be determined the patio cap is necessary for structural reasons, perhaps other non-essential hard surfa~"es cJr~, T.' eliminated in their place. D R. A r The staff recommended the Planning Commission deny the applicant's variance request for 46.4% impervious surface area as the request does not meet all of the hardship criteria due to existing conditions on the nonconforming lot of record, the approval for a building permit to construct the existing structure with a 30% impervious surface coverage area, and the recently approved 38% impervious variance. In addition, the City Engineering Department suggested another option for shoring up the retaining wall and stabilizing the soils that would not result in additional impervious surface. Stamson questioned the assumption is going from 30% to 38% to finish the driveway. Horsman said the 38% granted was to allow the applicant to have the driveway. What came up after the fact was the letter to allow the patio. Stamson clarified that if the Commission denies this request, the applicant can still have the 3-car driveway but has to remove the patio. Criego questioned if the City Engineer came up with any recommendations. Horsman responded the City Water Resource Coordinator looked at it but did not submit a response in writing but in discussions did recommend improving the existing retaining wall or replace it to stabilize it to do the job it was intended to do and then by plantings, sod or other vegetation allowing an impervious area should not dis-stabilize the soils in that area. L:\Ol files\Ol plan~ullu\Ol pcminutes\MN121 001 ,doc 12 Planning Commission Minutes December 10.2001 Comments from the public: Allison Gontarek, representative for D. Mark Crouse, distributed a response generated by the engineer based on the staff report. One of the points in the staff report is that there were no calculations done. According to their engineer it is a water problem in this situation and not a calculation issue, it is more of keeping the structure safe from erosion. Mr. Crouse did go ahead and create the impervious surface without a variance relying on wrong information, however he did not create the hardship or the practical difficulties of this lot. He was permitted and did expand and raise the existing footprint to comply with the elevations requirements. Gontarek spoke to Lani Leichty (Water Resource Coordinator for the City of Prior Lake), who did not have a specific alternative but to possibly use drain tile and correcting the retaining wall. Both of the suggestions also have problems. The applicant suggested using alternative management runoff methods. The amount of impervious surface that is going to increase on the patio is not much. Gontarek is not disputing the variance should have been applied for but felt this was a reasonable use. They could not get the patio information for the first variance request. Mr. Crouse will correct the problems but does not want to jeopardize his home. He would like to work with the Planning Commission and come to a reasonable decision. Gontarek also said Lani Leichty felt the Watershed District requirements are becoming more of an issue. The public hearing was closed at 8:43 p.m. R FT Comments from the Commissioners: Atwood: . Not in favor of the request. The request is a gross number to be dealing with. . Supported staffs recommendation to deny. Criego: . Agreed with staff s recommendation. Stamson: . Agreed with staffs recommendation. The intent of the impervious surface regulations is to prevent water runoff from the lake. . This patio was built specifically to run water to the lake. It is direct conflict with the intent of the Ordinance. . There also seems a resistance to remove the concrete and a retaining wall that was not built appropriately, which is another lake water issue. . Other agencies familiar with the property feel there are alternatives to protect the building structure yet not defy the Ordinance or its intent. . It is an economic issue is not a hardship. . Supported rejecting this variance. L:\Olfiles\Ol planconnn\Olpcrninutes\MN121001.doc 13 Planning Commission Minutes December 10,2001 MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 01- 025PC DENYING THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO PERMIT A 46.4% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AREA. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Horsman stated the applicant has 5 business days to appeal. 6. Old Business: None 7. New Business: None D'~'R ',1, ".,;):~' ,',:-" i ,.,~ , ,",1\ Fr 8. Announcements and Correspondence: Criego requested a workshop for the Planning Commission. Rye said that was the intent with the new commissioner on board. Stamson stated the City was looking for applications for a new commissioner. Applications are available from Administration before December 18, 2001. 9. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:46 p.m. Donald Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\OI files\OI plancomm\OI pcminutes\MN121 DOI.doc 14 January 18, 2002 ALLISON GONTAREK HUEMOELLER & BATES 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL, SUITE 210 PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 RE: Agenda and Agenda Report Attached is a City Council Agenda and Staff Re'port for the January 22, 2002, 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 ofHWY 13 on the south side of CR 21). If you cannot attend the meeting or have any questions, please contact me at 447-9810. Sincerely, dV(!l/L~ Connie Carlson Planning Dept. Secretary Enclosure . 1:\deptwork\blankfnn\meeUrcc.doc 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPOR11JNITY EMPLOYER ATTACHMEN I 4 - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MEMO Memo DATE: December 4, 2001 TO: Steve Horsman, Zoning Administrator FROM: Lani Leichty, Water Resources Coordinator L.i- RE: Variance Request for 15507 Calmut Avenue NE The engineering department has the following comments pertaining to the letter from Professional Engineering Consultants, Inc. regarding the need for an impervious surface between the home and lakeside retaining wall: 1) No engineering calculations have been provided to support their claim that, without a "cap" to prevent surface water infiltration, the structure will be endangered. 2) If the main danger to the structure is the possibility of the retaining wall failing due to water infiltration, other methods are available to structurally support the embankment, while at the same time allowing surface water drainage. Granted, other options would imply additional costs to the property owner. Summarv: Engineering does not support variance as requested. 16200 IH~MISm:~~r~H~Hf.J!j~d-ake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ,ATTACHMENT - CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY ~ ,0 of \,.0' \,.,,,E. to\O~1'" t. : . s.\(\~~. · ~.plJ \0 v- .#~:..~val~ ~e' ~O,w..l!t.' .~. 'fII- ~- !tl\ ,'Z. ':J \. ,0 ~ ~ -a. ~, o ~ . C~6\ to\ CITY OF PRIOR LAKE Impervious Surface Calculations (To be Submitted whh Building Permit Application) F or All Properties Located in the Shoreland Distrlct (SD). The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent. Property Address \..r;oc::o, Co..\~uT' ~'" E.~\J(. N~ Lot Area J....l.~ q ~ ~\.u C\04.o Sq. Feet x '30% = .............. -z. ~o, **********************************************************************~* HOUSE ~ , ATIACHED GARAGE x = SQ. FEET \ \ '" "" LENGTH VlIDTH x x - \e.~ ~ TOT ALPRIN CIPLE STRUCTURE...................... "2.. \ r;."2.. , DETACHEDBLDGS (Garage/Shed) x X TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS....................... ~~~ DRIVEWAYfPAVED AREAS X (Driveway-paved or not) ~~ S~4!!a x (Sidewalk/Parking Areas)' X = ,q, &~ = = TOTAL P A YED AREAS......................................... e-, c. C-b~~ ' P A TIOSfPORCHESIDECKS (open 'Decks Yo" min. opening between boards. with a pervioUs surface below, ' are not considered to be impervious) X X = ~q = X = TOTAL D E CKS.............'........................................... ~'!>~ OTHER X X = = TOT.AL 0.1' ~R.............................~......................... TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDERbVEiD Prepared BYIJ,.,,<:,..... \<'1"~ t, " company~"Q.~') p.~. ~(,p( I ''Z..'-o' Date 't) \ 2.'2..! 0 I Phone # """,,-'Z..S,t> J CITY OF PRIOR LAKE Impervious Surface Calculations (To be Submitted w'ith Building Permit Application) For All Properties Located in the Shoreland DisL.~'"'t (SD). The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent. Property Address \S-SO, CD.\\'A.U~ ~~ t.~\J(. N~ Lot Area J....l.~ q ~ ~\..u C\O\ol.o Sq. Feet x '30% = .............. "Z. ~o, ************************************************************************ HOUSE , + ATIACHED GARAGE x = SQ. FEET \ \'-\\t LENGTH WIDTH x x \ c:.~ ~ TOT AI.-PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE...................... "2. \ 'S'2.. , DETACHEDBLDGS ' (Garage/Shed) x X TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS......................~ ~~~ DRlVEWAVIPAVED AREAS X (Driveway.;paved or not) ~ s.~ .. X (Sidewalk/Parking Areas)' ~ X = ,q2.. &'" = = TOTAL P A YED AREAS......................................... 9'~ CbW\C.>t'C-l..e ' P A TIOSIPORCHESIDECKS (Open Decks y." min., opening be~een boards. with a pervioUs surface below, are not considered to be impervious) X t2:bq X = x = TOTAL D E CKS......................................................... ~'!.~ OTHER X X = = TOT AL OTlIER.............................~......................... TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDE~ Prepared B~,,<:.'- \<'1"'~ l ~, company~ ~"Q.~ G.,) t?~. '~(..r I ''2-'-0' Date \0._ 'Z."Z..! 0 l Phone # '4.\l1-Z.c;,~ J Correspondence . L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC Page 1 of2 (. '" Steve Horsman From: Steve Horsman Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 11 :03 AM To: 'Mark Crouse' Subject: RE: Schedule Update and Related Questions Mr. Crouse; According to your e-mail do to contractor scheduling you will not be able to meet the July 31st deadline for completing the required corrections on your property. The city agrees to grant an extension until August 31. 2002, to complete the project, including removal of the deck, and removing the existing concrete as required to meet the total impervious surface coverage area of 38%. The following answers are in response to your 5 questions: Check with Nathan Briese in the Engineering Department, regarding the excavation permit for the corrections, erosion control, and establishing ground cover. The impervious concrete areas shall be replaced with pervious materials, which by definition also includes deck boards provided there is a minimum 1/4 inch separation between the boards, and the area under the boards is a pervious material. In order for you to replace any type or size of deck off your main level will require submital of a variance application and approval by the Planning Commission, The variance granted in 1978 is not valid today because the variance conditions and requirements have changed under Zoning Ordinance 1108.400, The Planning Commission must determine if your variance request meets the nine hardship criteria required for approval per Zoning Ordinance 1108.406 Issuance. The variance application handout includes the nine criteria, and you need to address the criteria as it relates to your property by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the lot, and your particular variance request. Contact the Building Department regarding old building permit files, I hope this answers your questions, and should have another request either e-mail or phone my direct dial line at 952-447-9854, Sincerely, Steve Horsman -----Original Message----- From: Mark Crouse [mailto:Mark.Crouse@oracle.com] Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 1:57 PM To: Steve Horsman; Mark Crouse Subject: Schedule Update and Related Questions Steve, I originally had Keith Silseth, Concrete Cutting & Coring, Inc., scheduled to begin removing the impervious surface at my property starting next Monday, July 22nd. Given that I need to get the excavation permit approved, and I need to remove the stairs/landing part of the deck prior to removing the concrete I have spoken to Keith and rescheduled this to take place on August 7 -8th. In addition this will give me the opportunity to develop and schedule my plan for landscaping to replace the impervious surface removed. I am now planning to complete the replacement process directly following the removal instead of having a lag time where there is potential for erosion. Here are a few questions I need your response on so I can move forward: 7/23/02 Page 2 of2 " . What is the timing for review and approval ofthe excavating permit once I have it filed? I am meeting with Keith on Friday and plan to gather the data to complete the form then, so I should be able to bring it in that day. . Do you have any updates for me on the topic we discussed last week relative to replacing the concrete patio with a platform? This has a major impact on developing my plans for replacing the impervious surface. Is there anything else I need to do relative to this question? . In developing my proposal for a revised deck, if I stay withing the boundaries of the original variance from 1978(12 foot) will I need to submit and go through the variance process? . If the new proposal does extend beyond the original variance granted, as you stated it would need to be reasonable, and I know for sure I would be required to follow the full variance request process. Who in this process can help me understand what the cities definition is of "Reasonable", so that we make this process as easy as possible for all involved and there are no miscommunications or expectations that are incvw;..ctly set? . I was looking back through the files provided to me by Curt from the rebuild proj ect in 1995 and was not able to find copies of the building permits. Who has those files, and how do I go about getting a copy? I Please send a reply via email as my availability during the daytime via phone has been extremely limited due to my schedule. I'm actively working on my detail plan, and will gladly share that with you. Let me know what level of information and communication you need. I want to be careful not to burden you with too much information as I realize your schedule is also quite full. Thanks again for your assistance on these matters. I know we'll both be happy when they're completed to everyone's satisfaction. I know I'm looking forward to being in compliance with the cities requirements. Regards, Mark Crouse 7/23/02 Page 1 of 1 ,.,. 'Steve Horsman From: Mark Crouse [Mark.Crouse@oracle.com] Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 1 :57 PM To: Steve Horsman; Mark Crouse Subject: Schedule Update and Related Questions Steve, I originally had Keith Silseth, Concrete Cutting & Coring, Inc., scheduled to begin removing the impervious surface at my property starting next Monday, July 22nd. Given that I need to get the excavation permit ap!J.Lvved, and I need to remove the stairs/1anding part of the deck prior to removing the concrete I have spoken to Keith and rescheduled this to take place on August 7 -8th. In addition this will give me the opportunity to develop and schedule my plan for landscaping to replace the impervious surface removed. I am now planning to complete the replacement process directly following the removal instead of having a lag time where there is potential for erosion. Here are a few questions I need your response on so I can move forward: What is the timing for review and approval of the excavating permit once I have it filed? I am meeting with Keith on Friday and plan to gather the data to complete the fvHH then, so I should be able to bring it in that day. Do you have any updates for me on the topic we discussed last week relative to replacing the concrete patio with a platform? This has a major impact on developing my plans for replacing the impervious surface. Is there anything else I need to do relative to this question? In developing my proposal for a revised deck, if I stay withing the boundaries of the original variance from 1978(12 foot) will I need to submit and go through the variance process? ~ . If the new proposal does extend beyond the original variance granted, as you stated it would need to be reasonable, and I know for sure I would be required to follow the full variance request process. Who in this process can help me understand what the cities definition is of "Reasonable", so that we make this process as easy as possible for all involved and there are no miscommunications or expectations that are incorrectly set? . I was looking back through the files provided to me by Curt from the rebuild project in 1995 and was not able to find copies of the building permits. Who has those files, and how do I go about getting a copy? V. c/ · c/. Please send a reply via email as my availability during the daytime via phone has been extremely limited due to my schedule. I'm actively working on my detail plan, and will gladly share that with you. Let me know what level of information and communication you need. I want to be careful not to burden you with too much information as I realize your schedule is also quite full. Thanks again for your assistance on these matters. I know we'll both be happy when they're completed to everyone's satisfaction. I know I'm looking forward to being in compliance with the cities requirements. Regards, Mark Crouse 7/22/02 Jane Kansier From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Frank Boyles Wednesday, April 03, 2002 2:50 PM Jack Haugen; Jim Petersen; Joe Zieska; Mike Gundlach; SUESAN PACE (E-mail) Jane Kansier; Steve Horsman CROUSE VARIANCE You may recall that over two months ago the city council gave Mr. Crouse a 60 day opportunity to propose a written agreement which would outline a process and timeline to prepare a plan which would address groundwater issues on his property, which he created when he exceeded the 30% impervious surface maximum. Until a few days ago we had not heard from Mr. Crouse. However, I now have confirmation from Steve Horsman that Mr. Couse has submitted a written plan for reducing the impervious surface on his lot to 38% (the amount he was granted a variance for from the Planning Commission). We are reviewing the plan. I will let you know our findings. I thought you would want to know, 1 " Jane Kansier From: Sent: To: Subject: Mark Crouse [mark.crouse@oracle.com] Tuesday, October 08, 2002 9:29 AM pat.lynch@dnr.state.mn.us; Mark Crouse Re: Permeable Solution to Impervious Surface Problem 1>::<' ~.~ ':7~:-:v;~ ntltled Attachment House rlveway1.jpg (66 KB Pat, (!;tov.st...- a.p;2',-oJL... pt- The picture did not appear in the original message, so lIve provided it as an attachment here if you care to take a look. Regards, Mark Mark Crouse wrote: > Dear Mr. Lynch, > > Hello again from Prior Lake, !tIS 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 Minnetonaka 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 1 a > practice for control of stormwater 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. I'd 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 me > and with the City of Prior Lake. I'm looking forward to bringing this > to a mutually satisfying conclusion for all. > > Sincerely, > > Mark Crouse > > > > 2 c, Steve Horsman To: Subject: Mark Crouse RE: Resolution 01-011 PC 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 1 Steve Horsman To: Subject: pat.lynch@dnr.state.mn.us Impervious surface mitigation Dear Mr. Lynch; The Crouse variance appeal for a 46.4% impervious surface coverage area was denied by the City Council on 1/22/02. However, the Council is interested in looking at possible mitigating solutions such as rain barrells, rain gardens and infiltration trenches or tubes. What is the DNR's position on such systems in regards to the potential for offsetting surface water runoff rates in relation to the percentage of impervious surface coverage area. Please respond to my e-mail address at your earliest convenience. Thankyou, Steve Horsman 1 ~- Jane Kansier From: Sent: To: Subject: Frank Boyles Thursday, February 07,20028:24 AM Sue McDermott; Jane Kansier; Bud Osmundson; Don Rye FW: Prior Lake Variance Request FYI -----Original Message----- From: Suesan Pace [mailto:space@halleland.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 7:31 PM To: FBoyles@CityofPRIORLAKE.comi jhaugen@CityofPRIORLAKE.comi Mark.Crouse@oracle.com Cc: JEricson@CityofPRIORLAKE.comi jpetersen@CityofPRIORLAKE.comi JZieska@CityofPRIORLAKE.com; Mgundlach@CityofPRIORLAKE.com Subject: Re: Prior Lake Variance Request Dear Mr. Crouse: Please excuse my inadvertent delay in responding to your e-mail. I apologize for any inconvenience. I spoke with Ms. Gontarek on Monday regarding communicating with you directly and she did not have any problems if we did so. I understand the concern you expressed in your January 23rd e-mail regarding incurring legal fees that would be billed to the City and passed through to you. Obviously the City Manager discussed the City's pass-through policy with you. It is very difficult for me to provide you with an estimate of how many hours I think it will take to draft an agreement that I believe incorporates the intent of the City Council with regarding to enforcing the City's impervious surface requirements. Basically what the City Council agreed to when it heard your variance appeal (which was denied) was that the City Council would try to work with you to develop an agreement whereby the City would postpone requiring you to remove the impervious surface on your property in excess of the amount approved pursuant to the variance granted by the Planning Commission. During the interim we would try to work with the appropriate agency, in this case the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, to define and subsequently test alternative technologies for managing and mitigating impervious surface issues. If the DNR agreed to a study, enforcement action against you would be postponed until the study was completed and the DNR made a decision whether it would permit the City of Prior Lake to allow mitigation alternatives to achieve impervious surface requirements. Assuming the DNR's decision was positive, enforcement action would be delayed further while the Planning Commission and City Council considered whether to amend the City's zoning ordinance. Conceptually I envision the process as follows: 1. I draft an agreement between you and the City. The agreement would address the fact that your property does not meet the impervious surface requirements in the City's zoning ordinance; that you and the City agree to investigate whether the DNR is willing to consider a study regarding alterative impervious surface technologies and mitigation measures; and that you agree to remove the excess impervious surface if an agreement cannot be reached. In my opinion the lynch pin will be whether the DNR is willing to entertain the idea of a study. 2. Assuming the DNR agrees to such a study the City would work with the DNR to develop a methodology to conduct the study. All fees incurred in connection with developing the study methodology and actually conducting the study would be borne by you. Those fees would also include staff time associate in working with the DNR and any consultant that might be retained to prepare the parameters of the study and/or implement/conduct the study. 3. The agreement would specify that you agree to voluntarily remove the excess impervious surface if the DNR was not receptive to studying whether there are other methods of managing impervious surface other than limiting the amount allowed on any particular lot. As you are aware, the DNR's general rule allows 25% imperious surface, but the DNR has 1 '~ permitted the City to adopt a 30% standard. The agreement would also provide that you agree to reimburse the City for all reasonable attorneys fees and expenses associated with enforcing the agreement in the event you fail to remove the excess impervious surface, if required. Just so that you know and for purposes of full disclosure, the City would bring a civil action seeking a court order requiring removal. 4. To assure compliance with your commitment to remove the excess impervious surface, the agreement would require a form of security sufficient to assure compliance with your commitment. I think the process we agreed to embark upon is creative, but not without risk. It appears to me that the main contingency rests with the DNR. Regrettably, I am unable to give you an estimate of how much time working through this will take. But, it is not only my time that the City would require reimbursement for, but also any time incurred by City Staff. In any event, I will recommend to the City Manager that you be required to escrow funds with the City to reimburse the City for fees and expenses it will incur in working on this project with you. I would recommend an initial escrow in the range of $1500- $2500. Any unused funds would be refunded to you and conversely, additional funds would need to be escrowed if the initial amount proved insufficient. Ms. Gontarek's office inquired of me the time period to appeal of the City Council's decision. If you are considering appealing the Council's decision to district court, you may not want to pursue the "agreement and study" route at this time. However, I think it is fair that we should establish a time frame within which we earnestly begin pursuing drafting the agreement. Please let me know how you want to proceed. Obviously, we should begin work on this in the relatively near future. I look forward to hearing from you. Mark Crouse <Mark.Crouse@oracle.com> 01/23/02 12:19AM >>> Dear Sues an, Frank Boyles, City Manager, approached me at the conclusion of the Prior Lake City Council meeting to discuss the responsibility of payment for your services going forward on the matter of the impervious surface variance request for my property. It is my understanding from that conversation that any effort on your part relative to this matter going forward will result in the city billing me for your time. I asked for an idea of the dollar amount I would be responsible for, and understandingly that amount is not known at this time. I do not feel comfortable leaving this open ended, and need to find some way of being appraised of potential charges that I can then decide whether or not to incur. Therefore I request that before any billable activity take place that I be notified of the charges associated ahead of time and given the opportunity to approve those charges beforehand. Please reply to acknowledge your receipt of this message. Regards, Mark Crouse ******************************************************************************** This message and any attachments may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or authorized to receive for the recipient, you are notified that dissemination, distribution or copying of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. Thank you. ******************************************************************************** 2 Steve Horsman From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Suesan Pace [space@halleland.com] Monday, February 18, 200210:16 AM FBoyles@cityofpriorlake.com; Jkansier@cityofpriorlake.com; shorsman@cityofpriorlake.com mastercraftjim@aol.com; JEricson@cityofpriorlake.com; jhaugen@cityofpriorlake.com; JZieska@cityofpriorlake.com; Mgundlach@cityofpriorlake.com Crouse Variance 1. Steve, thanks for doing a nice job following up with the DNR concerning whether they would be receptive to "studying" alternative storm water management techniques rather than relying solely on impervious surface calculations. 2. I am assuming that Frank forwarded you a copy of my e-mail to Mr. Crouse dated February 6th. It would be helpful if you would provide me with a copy of the e-mail you sent Mr. Crouse. 3. Thank for providing me with a copy of Mr. Patrick Lynch's response to your e-mail inquiry. Based on the DNR's response it appears that they will not be receptive to alternative stormwater management techniques as a justification for granting a variance. 4. I think we should put the question to Mr. Crouse regarding whether he wants to pursue the study idea with the DNR given their likely response and the cost Mr. Crouse will incur in doing so. 5. Frank, Jane and Steve- We should transmit Mr. Lynch's response to Mr. Crouse. Would you like me to do that? ******************************************************************************** This message and any attachments may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or authorized to receive for the recipient, you are notified that dissemination, distribution or copying of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. Thank you. ******************************************************************************** 1 ,.-. - ,"- -. ~ r',;, r-.... ,._~ ~ @ u ~ ~,;\\ il:,/ FEB 8 m! r! Minnesota Dep8.J.l1uent of Natural Res~lll~ces j J DNR Waters, 1200 Warner Road, Sl Paul, MN 5 ~)Br Telephone: (651) 772-7910 Fax: (651) 772-79 7 February 6, 2002 Mr. Steve Hu&.nuan City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 RE: Impervious Surface Coverage Dear Mr. Hv..~: I received your e-mail to me late last month indicating the Prior Lake City Council is interested in looking at non- traditional methods of dealing with st.,..~I..ater runoff as it relates to limitations in the allowable~.... .~ous surfare area of lots within shoreland areas. Your e-mail asked for the DNR's perspective on the matter. Minimum statewide standards, in form of Minnesota Rules 6120.3300, limit the impervious surface coverage in a shoreland district to 25% of the lol This requirement is needed to address the water quality and water quantity impacts of st.,..~~..ater runoff due to development. It in turn reduces the likelihood that "'J~ive grading or vegetation alteration is needed, and m~intain~ a "green" look when viewed f....u.. public waters. The original shoreland regulations limited impervious surface coverage to 30%, but that was reduced to 25% when the shoreland rules revised in 1989. Studies have shown that water quality ~gins to be measurably impaired when impervious surface coverage exceeds 10%. It was deemed \ou..,~nable tQ expect development in shoreland areas could be limited to 10% or less through any zoning. ' While I "t'l'",.....:ate the Council's interest in looking for ways to mitigate increases in impervious surface, I am hesitant to suggest the DNR would look favorably on them as justification for "t'}'&v.ing variances t the ~04 .ious surface requirement for residential areas. The City of Prior Lake has already received '"l'}'...oval for relaxation of the minimum state impervious surface reqtLaw.uent Because of the level of existing devel"l'u..ent that included non-conf......u.:ng lot sizes and impervious surface coverage in excess of25%, DNR a}'}'&,... ied the city's adoption of30% (consistent with the originalru1e). In essence, the City of Prior Lake already has a blanket 5% variance to impervious surface coverage. My recommeIldation to the city is to stick with its current ordinance language requiring a variance for impervious surface coverage over 30% for residential lots. Each case should be reviewed on its own merits. If an applicant successfully argues hardship, then it would be reasonable to &&(&uL a variance. The city could require mitigative measures to offset the impacts of the L....... .ious surface variance, but the conditions of requiring such mitigation should in no way justify issuance of a variance. It must still require demonstration ofhardsbip. Use ofrain barrels, rain gardens, infiltration trenches, permeable pavement, etc., should not be discouraged in shoreland areas, but they should not be reasons for 6'(&ut.:ng variances. Many of these techniques are not effective if applied in inCuU\N~ settings, are poorly designed or installed, or are not properly maintained. I doubt city staff are interested in DNR Information: 651-296-6157 · 1-888-646-6367 · TIY: 651-296-5484 · 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity ^ Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a .... Minimum of 20% Post-Consumer Waste Steve HvJ.,)u.a8I1 Febnwy 6, 2002 Page 2 monitoring the design, installation, and maintenance of these stuu.uwater management facilities overtime to ensure conditions of a variance are met Further, greater impervious surface coverage is at the expense of woody or other vegetation that help to naturally filter s... ~:, . ..ent and utilize nutrients in stw".&&A I later. Historically, DNR has been more S\..!,!,w,,:': .re of allowing innovative st..i..,..' l.rater management t..":-:ques under a conditional use P04""':t, and for industrial/commercial }'..,,,yCrties. These tend to be larger scale, and can be monitored and evaluated over time at the landowner's' expense. They also tend to be concentrated geob'-"".t'hically, and are visible, so that a local unit of gm ............ent is better able to ensure such facilities are maintained over time. The CUP process is the "n''''.r,..,:ate tool for such matters. Thank you for soliciting DNR input regarding this matter. I would not SU~~l the city look too seriously at considering these non-traditional st.! ,.. ,L I later management techniques as justification for variance "'!'l'"Dval. We would likely view such 1mftlot ,.....Jlly. However, any and all efforts to responsibly deal with st.!"",, I later quality and quantity are to be applauded. Please call me at 651-772-7917 if you have any questions about our position on this matter. Sincerely, r: ri~,~~j;;~ Patrick J. Lynch ill : DNR Area Hydrologist c: Sue McDermott, City of Prior Lake Pete Beckius, Scott Soil & Water Conservation District Paul Nelson, Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District Steve Horsman From: Sent: To: Subject: Mark Crouse [Mark.Crouse@oracle.com] Wednesday, June 12, 2002 3:52 PM Steve Horsman; Mark Crouse Re: Assent Form Card for Mark Crouse Confirmed. Mark Steve Horsman wrote: > Mr. Crouse; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am available to meet with you at 10:00AM on Friday June 21, 2002. Please confirm this date & time. Steve Horsman -----Original Message----- From: Mark Crouse [mailto:Mark.Crouse@oracle.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 10:07 AM To: Steve Horsman; Mark Crouse Subject: Re: Assent Form Steve, As of our last correspondence I have still been travelling out of state, but have plans to fly back into Mpls on June 20th. I would like to schedule a time to meet with you on Friday the 21st. I have a meeting scheduled from 11=1:00pm, but am currently otherwise open. Please let me know when you would like to meet, and I'll confirm it on my schedule. Regards, Mark Crouse Steve Horsman wrote: > Mr. Crouse; > > I would prefer to meet with you because you must sign the Assent of > Applicant Form, acknowledging the conditions of the variance resolution, or > your impervious surface variance will be revoked. > > In addition, if the conditions of the variance resolution are not completed > within a year of the adoption date of 10/8/01, your variance again will be > revoked. > > > > > > To schedule an appointment call my direct dial # 952-447-9854 or email at > enclosed address. You should schedule an appointment with me to complete the requirements of the resolution as soon as possible, or you risk losing the impervious surface variance. 1 Steve Horsman From: Sent: To: Subject: Steve Horsman Wednesday, June 12, 2002 3:45 PM 'Mark Crouse' RE: Assent Form Mr. Crouse; I am available to meet with you at 10:00AM on Friday June 21, 2002. Please confirm this date & time. Steve Horsman -----Original Message----- From: Mark Crouse [mailto:Mark.Crouse@oracle.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 10:07 AM To: Steve Horsman; Mark Crouse Subject: Re: Assent Form Steve, As of our last correspondence I have still been travelling out of state, but have plans to fly back into Mpls on June 20th. I would like to schedule a time to meet with you on Friday the 21st. I have a meeting scheduled from 11=1:00pm, but am currently otherwise open. Please let me know when you would like to meet, and I'll confirm it on my schedule. Regards, Mark Crouse Steve Horsman wrote: > Mr. Crouse; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would prefer to meet with you because you must sign the Assent of Applicant Form, acknowledging the conditions of the variance resolution, your impervious surface variance will be revoked. or In addition, if the conditions of the variance resolution are not completed within a year of the adoption date of 10/8/01, your variance again will be revoked. You should schedule an appointment with me to complete the requirements of the resolution as soon as possible, or you risk losing the impervious surface variance. To schedule an appointment call my direct dial # 952-447-9854 or email at enclosed address. Sincerely Steve Horsman -----Original Message----- From: Mark Crouse [mailto:Mark.Crouse@oracle.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 4:17 PM To: Steve Horsman; Mark Crouse Subject: Re: Call Back Steve, Please mail the package to my home address. I have not been living there for the past few months, but have plans to get back sometime in the next month 1 r:> SJeve Horsman To: Subject: Mark Crouse RE: Assent Form Mr. Crouse; I would prefer to meet with you because you must sign the Assent of Applicant Form, acknowledging the conditions of the variance resolution, or your impervious surface variance will be revoked. In addition, if the conditions of the variance resolution are not completed within a year of the adoption date of 10/8/01, your variance again will be revoked. You should schedule an appointment with me to complete the requirements of the resolution as soon as possible, or you risk losing the impervious surface variance. To schedule an appointment call my direct dial # 952-447-9854 or email at enclosed address. Sincerely Steve Horsman -----Original Message----- From: Mark Crouse [mailto:Mark.Crouse@oracle.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 4:17 PM To: Steve Horsman; Mark Crouse Subject: Re: Call Back Steve, Please mail the package to my home address. I have not been living there for the past few months, but have plans to get back sometime in the next month or two. A friend of mine is staying at my house while I'm gone. Should I have her take the package to the county for recording, or is this something I need to do in person? Is there a deadline date when it has to be there that I need to be aware of given my travel schedule? Regards, Mark Crouse Steve Horsman wrote: > Mr. Crouse; > > Your Variance Resolution package is ready to be picked up at City Hall, and > taken to the Scott County Court House for recording at the Land Records > Office. If you prefer I can mail the Resolutions to your address at 15507 > Calmut Avenue. > > Let me know by email or call my direct dial line at 447-9854. > > Sincerely, > Steve Horsman > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Crouse [mailto:Mark.Crouse@oracle.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 3:09 PM > To: Steve Horsman > Subject: Call Back > > Steve, 1 r . > >,I received the voice mail you left for me and want to get back to you as > soon as possible. I will be in all-day meetings through the remainder of > this week and have little to no access to call you. Please reply to this > email so we can start the communication process, and let me know what > you need. If I'm unable to respond during the day I'll be sure to do so > during the evening hours. If this is something that must be communicated > via phone please let me know and I'll see if I can schedule a specific > time to step out and call you. > > Regards, > > Mark Crouse 2 Steve Horsman ...' From: Sent: To: Subject: Mark Crouse [Mark.Crouse@oracle.com] Saturday, July 13, 2002 6:05 PM Steve Horsman; Mark Crouse Re: Resolution 01-011 PC Card for Mark Crouse Steve, I have blocked 1:30-2:00pm on my schedule. The erosion control measures and plans for pervious ground cover are among the items I want to discuss and get your approval on. Thanks for the reply, look forward to seeing you on Monday. Regards, Mark Crouse Steve Horsman wrote: > 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 1 > to > the cit;1J 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 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 > > > > > > > > Steve, > > I left you a voice message last week but wanted to confirm you received -----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 2 > > 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(#'92535). 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 3 Steve Horsman From: Sent: To: Subject: Pat Lynch [pat.lynch@dnr.state.mn.us] Wednesday, January 16, 2002 8:22 AM Shorsman@cityofpriorlake.com D. Mark Crouse Impervious Surface Coverage Variance Appeal, 15507 Calmut Avenue Please refer to my earlier comments on this case. DNR considers the impervious surface coverage on the lot excessive, and recommends denial of the appeal. Consideration should be made to require removal of some exiisting impervious surface to bring existing hard surface coverage down to the minimum deemed fair and reasonable by the city. Goal should be to eliminate impervious surface over 30%. The statewide minimum standard is 25%. The DNR has provided the City of Prior Lake blanket approval to deviate from that statewide minimum by 5%. The remaining pervious surface should be planted to deep-rooting native vegetation to maximize infiltration and nutrient uptake, and minimize sediment transport. 1 Steve Horsman From: Sent: To: Subject: Pat Lynch [pat.lynch@dnr.state.mn.us] Tuesday, December 04,200112:55 PM Shorsman@cityofpriorlake.com D Mark Crouse After-the-fact Variance to Impervious Surface Coverage I have commented on this particular site before, however, the letter from the consulting engineer is new. I am not an engineer, but I read with interest the engineer's grading review. I am not convinced the impervious surfaces added to the site were necessary for maintaining structural integrity of the building. I would recommend the city engineer look at the letter and provide you with an independent review. If it is determined the impervious surfaces are needed for srtuctural reasons, perhaps other non-essentail hard surfaces can be eliminated in their place. Feel free to call if you would like to discuss in any additional detail. II 1 " Jane Kansier From: Sent: To: Subject: Jane Kansier Monday, December 31,2001 8:38 AM legal Dept. Prior lake American (E-mail) Publish Notices Please publish the attached notice in the January 5, 2002 issue of the Prior lake American. If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-447-9812. Thank you. Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator City of Prior lake hearing notice. DOC 1 NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDERllt.E FOLLOWING: AN APr~AL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS DECISION TO DENY A VARIANCE FOR A 46.4% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AREA 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: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 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 overturn a decision of the Planning Commission denying a variance for a 46.4% impervious surface coverage area. 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 31 st day of December, 2001. Steven Horsman City of Prior Lake To be published in the Prior Lake American on January 5, 2002. L:\01 files\01 appeal\01-099\hearing notice. DOC 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNl1Y EMPLOYER HUEMOELLER & BATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW POST OFFICE BOX 67 PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 Telephone: 952.447.2131 Facsimile: 952.447.5628 E-mail: huemoellerbates{@.aol.com OEe , , 2001 BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER JAMES D. BATES ALLISON J. GONTAREK OF COUNSEL: CHARLES C. HALBERG December 11, 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. 01-093 Dear Mr. Rye: This letter is notice of appeal to the Prior Lake City Council from the December 10,2001 action by the Planning Commission denying Mr. Crouse's variance application for an increased impervious surface on his property. This will also confirm that the requirement to record Resolution 01-01IPC, adopted by the Planning Commission on October 8, 2001, is postponed until the above issue is resolved or withdrawn. Please forward me copies of the Planning Commission's minutes and any further staff reports prepared for the City Council meeting as they become available. Thank you for your assistance. V ~ truly yours, A':Lu.~ J J1JJt Allison J. Gontarek cc: D. Mark Crouse HUEMOELLER & BATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW POST OFFICE BOX 67 PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 Telephone: 952.447.2131 Facsimile: 952.447.5628 E-mail: huemoellerbates{@.ao1.com OCT 2 6 2001 BRYCE D. HUEMOPT J FR JAMES D. BATES ALLISON J. GONTAREK OF COUNSEL: CHARLESC.HALBERG October 26, 2001 Prior Lake Planning Commission 16220 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake MN 55372 Via Hand Delivery Re: Request for variance from D. Mark Crouse for increase in impervious surface limitation for 15507 Calmut Avenue Dear Planning Commission Members: The purpose for this letter is to address the hardship criteria and the need for a variance, above the variance for 38% impervious surface granted for a reasonable driveway, on the above property. This is a situation familiar to both staff and the Commission members. We respectfully address the nine hardship criteria and how they apply to Mr. Crouse's property . First, Mr. Crouse's property is a narrow, non-conforming lot, left over from a railroad right of way and other larger developments. It required two variances to upgrade the existing house built in 1978. Mr. Crouse took the original structure, raised it to meet the current code for elevation requirements and developed it in a manner customary within the neighborhood in which he is located. Second, when Mr. Crouse built his house, the p\:lu.uit issued allowed for a three car garage. At the time of construction, a hard surface driveway was not required by ordinance. It has now been determined and agreed that a reasonable driveway, allowing for access to the third garage stall increases the need for impervious surface to 38% of the lot. Similarly, there is attached a report by an engineering expert explaining the requirement for a "cap" on the area between the house and the adjacent lakeshore. The report states that raising the elevation to meet code required the exterior backfill to be raised and stabilized for structural support and erosion control. The need for additional Prior Lake Planning Commission Page 2 October 26. 2001 impervious surface to create a useable driveway and to provide for a cap to ensure stability between the house and the lakeshore are two conditions that arise from the unique shape, size and proximity of the lot to the adjacent lakeshore, and that do not apply, generally, to other land or structures in the Shoreland District. Third, the variance, as requested, is necessary to (1) provide access to a garage that was built under p~.L1J...it, and (2) structurally support the house. Without receiving the requested variance, Mr. Crouse is denied access to his garage and his property is subject to damaging erosion. Fourth, the proposed variance will not impair in any manner either the supply of light or air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety. Fifth, attached to this letter are signed statements made by Mr. Crouse's neighbors as to the benefit his improvements to his property have had on the neighborhood. Sixth, the granting of the variance request will preserve the spirit and intent of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinances by contravening the undue hardship created by conditions unique to the property due to its shape and size and proximity to the lakeshore. Seventh, it is the expert opinion of a qualified engineer that frost action and erosion must be minimized between the structure and the retaining wall. This is not a convenience issue, it is a structural requirement. Eighth, the limitation of impervious surface for lots in the Shoreland District is an essential part of management of the natural resources in and around Prior Lake. However, strict application of the Ordinances creates hardship for unusual and non- conforming lots. Mr. Crouse purchased an undersized platted lot of record. He applied for and was granted a p~.LLLLit to raise and add on to the existing home which created approximately 28% impervious surface over his lot. He raised the house to comply with the current code for old and new elevation. Complying with the elevation requirements of the code created structural problems for the approved structure. Resolving the structural problems adds to the impervious surface problem (that did not exist when the parcel was originally created and improved). Complying with new driveway requirements compounds the impervious surface problem. The hardship results from the application of the old and new ordinances requiring a paved driveway and applying the new elevation requirements to an existing building footprint. Ninth, this has been a very expensive journey for Mr. Crouse. He will have to expend more money once the variance is detvu.uined to remove concrete he paid to have Prior Lake Planning Commission Page 3 October 26. 2001 installed. Although economic hardship alone is not the basis for approving a variance request, the statute allows consideration of the economics involved. Finally, the issue of whether the need for the variance is attributable to the applicant. We submit that the need for a variance here results from the combined impact of old and new ordinances on this property. Long after the size, shape, location and use of this property were established, a series of new laws on lot sizes, setbacks, paved driveways, minimum elevation, maximum impervious surface, and the like, have made variances a necessity. Complying with one law, requires variances of another. The problem is with the inter-related restrictions, and not with the actions of the applicant to comply with the laws. The need for a variance now arises from a previous lawful action by the applicant - remodeling an existing house with an approved building permit. It does not seem that the lawful actions of a homeowner should provide the basis for the denial of a subsequent variance, where the need for the variance is the result of subsequently adopted laws. To promote the most appropriate and orderly development within the community, the Minnesota statutes authorize zoning ordinances and allow for the Board of Adjustment: To hear requests for variances from the literal provision of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardshin because of circumstances uniaue to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Minn. Stat. ~462.357, Subd. 6(2) (emphasis added). Case law states that "[t]he statute is clearly intended to allow cities the flexibility to grant variances where . . . the property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the ordinance." Rowell v. Board of Adiustment of the City of Moorhead. 446 N.W.2d 917, 922 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). The "correct standard is whether the proposal was reasonable under the circumstances, and would not be allowed except by granting the variances." Nolan v. City of Eden Prairie. 610 N.W.2d 697, 701 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000). Mr. Crouse should be able to use and protect his property in a reasonable manner. Accessing his garage is reasonable, preventing erosion that could destabilize his foundation is reasonable. The issue of granting a variance after the fact as opposed to consideration of a proposed use is difficult. We respectfully request the Commissioners consider whether it is reasonable to potentially compromise the structural stability of a permitted home based on the timing of the request for a variance. Prior Lake Planning Commission Page 4 October 26. 2001 Based on the principles set forth under Minnesota statutes and the Rowell and Nolan decisions, we believe the Planning Commission should find as follows: 1. Literal enforcement of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinances will result in undue hardship with respect to the Crouse property because it will preclude the preservation and enjoyment of Mr. Crouse's property rights, including a driveway to serve his property as required by ordinance and a concrete slab that is necessary for structural support. 2. The undue hardship results from the circumstances unique to the property because of the shape and size of the lot and its proximity to the lakeshore, as evidenced by the granting of variances in 1978. 3. The undue hardship is caused by the provisions of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinances and is not the result of the actions of the owner, because the owner's use of the land is reasonable and the literal application of the ordinance would preclude such reasonable use. 4. A variance preserves the spirit and intent of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest, because the reasonable use is consistent in all respects with the existing and proposed land use in the neighborhood, and provides an enhancement to the neighborhood as a whole. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission approve the requested variance to increase the impervious surface limitation on Mr. Crouse's property to 46.5% to allow for a reasonable driveway and the erosion control provided by the cap between the house and lakeshore. Very truly yours, ~<T. Gm:~ Allison J. Gontarek W~ AJG:cak Attachments cc: D. Mark Crouse I I I ~ \0 ---. ,,' ,:\\-r.<.j u"} , ~1':' \0 'P I i\~~ .'V~O (t~~ , _---->",'t'o~ Il'~O"4~"\' \,:~,.___'..-- ./ 'tl\l.~ .. . \ ,./" \ \., ." ){ ./ ;. \ w ~ ,") <II ~. o -:;. i \ I ,. . '. ; .' ~t r. ..,./...... \i<,. ~~:1\, "~,'~~,':;,~:~:, r'"~"" ,..... . ~~ , l\ , '. \'" .. "';'" " V'\,:", ' Dr,y':Rlr'TI{Jr'~ t~bPR(lVIDE[): ,j ;j J' b I Lof9 and that pari of Lot 10, "NORTH GRAINWOOD", and that part ofGovemml Lol 5. Section 15. Tm'VTlship J 15. Range 22. Scott County. Mirmesotn described a~ t"Il11WS: Commencing at the northwest comer of said Lot Ill: thence southerly along the westerly line of said Lots 10 and 9 and also 8, a distance of 16S,OO feet to the actual . - . . . .. - .. r;:-: HUEMOELLER & BATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW POST OJflflCE BOX 67 PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 Telephone: 952.447.2131 Facsimile: 952.447.5628 E-mail: huemoellerbates{Q).aol.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 Re: D. Mark Crouse - Application for Variance No. 01-017 Dear Mr. Horsman: Please consider this letter as a request for your department to disregard mY September 14 letter of appeal directed to Mr. Rye, Planning Director. We were Under the impression that a final decision had been reached at the September 10 Planning Commission meeting which required an appeal within 5 days. I apologize for the misunderstanding and appreciate you contacting me before publishing the notice. Thanks! . . ~ truly yours, 1\ /1Lv~ Allison J. Gontarek ' .: .,/ " ~iscellaneous \::- ., L:\TEMPLATE\FILEINFO.DOC ; - 1.'citJ( Farmer:Rain Barrels . .., - "';~-'~'.r:.~~~: ~':"'::':!..'~:'':,::'..~;''''-_~_:_-_'.l-; '.-:. -..(,,,....,~..+.--: ->-'0 '..~:~_;':.:''.:c:'~\'''''.;'.:'' _:-:;",:,:~.~.L..' . ,'. r','.,,! . ..". ... _ ~I~'':....'~''''''':''':':::-'_ ~..:...,_&:..:.:_"':::-_.,'':''----':. ..:::: ~,-,-.:!.....-...!..-':"'::j.o:.:::.::........=~_-L..~:"'.:_._ --'--: .:._-~ __,.:....,.__ Page lof8 .-- - ". Published by City Farmer, Canada's Office of Urban Agriculture Rain Barrels Michael Levenston Executive Director City Farmer (C) Copyright: City Farmer Food gardens need water and what better way to give plants a drink than with soft, warm, oxygen-filled rainwater o:>L.aight from the rain barrel. Even just a wee bit saved in a barrel after a storm, then transferred to a watering can, will slake the thirst of a balcony of plants. And you, the recycler, will feel especially good knowing that you are diverting water that would otherwise flow out into the storm sewers. City Farmer has been chosen by Vancouver's City Hall to display and help promote a rain barrel distribution program. City Makes Rain Barrels Available to Save Water ! City of Vancouver Rain Barrel The City of Vancouver is providing subsidized rain barrels for up to 1,000 residents under a pilot program to conserve water. The Green Barrel pilot program will offer Vancouver residents (City of Vancouver only) a 75-gallon plastic rain barrel for $58.06 including taxes. This is half the regular cost. City of Vancouver rain barrel now available to people outside Vancouver (not subsidized). (February 2001). . Residents can use the specially-designed barrels to collect rain water from downspouts for lawn and garden irrigation. http://www.cityfarmer.org/rainbarre172.html 09/08/2001 1---.-.---------'- ," i i . . . - .'. ~ ......., . .--t~...... ,". . ~ . "Gity Farmer:Rain Barrels Page 2of8 Lawn and garden watering make up almost 40 per cent of total household water use during the summer. It's expected that each barrel will save about 1,300 gallons of water during the peak summer months when demand for water is high and precipitation is low. The barrels are easy to install. They come with outlets for both watering cans and hoses, and are designed with child-proof openings. Vancouver Rainbarrel Vancouver residents can call the City's Water Conservation Hotline at 873-7350 for information on obtaining a barrel. Residents can also visit City Farmer, at the City of Vancouver's Compost Demono:>L.a.tion Garden, at 2150 Maple Street to see the rain barrels in use. Further information: Jeff Smyth jeff smythCa>city.vancouver.bc.ca Waterworks Design (604) 871-6144 Rainbarrel Links on the Internet: Thanks to Lisa Taylor of Seattle Tilth Association for many of these links. Rain Barrel Information and Sources for the Pacific Northwest The Water & Land. Division of the King County Dep8J. bent of Natural Resources Rainwater Harvestine: information City of Seattle Water Conservation information Texas Rain Harvesting Garden Watersaver "The Garden Watersaver is an automatic rain water collection system that has advantages over other rain water collecting systems. " Spruce Creek Rainsaver Rain Barrels made bv Arbour Collect Rainwater for Gardenine:. Aauariums. and Pets .. Green Culture's Water Savers http://www.cityfarmer.org/rainbarreI72.html 09/08/2001 " , ';'-~"'''.' ,'~', ',1' .. '.. "~"'.-.-. ~"..'-.'''': 'J~'..~':"_.',~ 1~.~- ;-''';''~:'::' '.-;-;.; ...~._,-.~~,~. " :~-_- ~,~'.-.'~:'-' .-"_ '.. "'r." . .... _ ':'.'''.~''~...>,...,... ..., '," ~~ ... '........:;..';.,.'. . ."Gfty Farmer:Rain Barrels Page 3 of8 Dan Borba's Rainbarrels Aooroved Rainbarrel Sunnliers Great American Rain Barrels Rain Barrels Rain Pail Real Goods Rain Barrel (Type in "Rain") Portland Rainbarrel Rain.water to Drinking Water ''The biggest issue in collecting rainwater is keeping it free of muck such as leaves, bird. droppings and dead animals, and avoiding contamination with pollutants like heavy metals and dust." From the Sustainable Hous~ "In 1996, a Sydney family set out to renovate their 100 year old terrace house in the inner- city suburb of Chippendale. With a bit of vision, some common sense, and a lot of tenacity, they built what most of us would think impossible... a house in the middle of Australia's biggest city that produces its own power and water, and reuses its sewage on site." CMHC's Healthv House in Toronto Melbourne Water Autonomous Hous~ The Campus Center for Appropriate Technology Oasis Design Ecological Design Consulting Water. Wastewater & Solar Systems Edible Lands~ing. Greywater Books City of Etobicoke Utility Engineering 399 The West Mall Etobicoke, Ontario, M9C 2Y2 Phone: (416)394-8379 . City of Toronto http://www.cityfarmer.org/rainbarreI72.html 09/08/2001 . . .,,~. " . . , ," ~~.-:.....;,....;~------,--~-,-,----,-~-,_._.:._:-. -,~~-.:...............;.....- ...~.,_..;.....,..~.....,.... " ,f'City Farmer:Rain Barrels Page4of8 Public Works 100 Queen St. West, 14th Floor Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2N2 Phone: (416) 392-7660 Fax: (416) 392-7874 Downspout Disconnection Program (Phone: (416) 392-1807 The Rain Saver from Water Conservation Technology P.O. Box ~1, Sydenham, Ontario KoH 2To Canada ! The International Rainwater Catchment Syst\~&.I""s Association (IRCSA) The IRCSA is a new association aiming to link those with an interest in the direct collection of rainwater and its storage for domestic and agricultural supply. The seeds for the establishment of the Association were first sown when the first International Rainwater Cistern Systems Conference was convened in Hawaii in June 1982 by Prof. Fok. Subsequent International Conferences have followed on a two-yearly basis and were held in the US Virgin Islands (1984), Thailand (1987), Philippines.(1989), Taiwan (1991), Kenya (1993) and China (1995). 'Whilst rainwater catchment systems have long been utilised in some parts of the Caribbean, Middle East and Ano:>L.cJia, in other places its potential has only reCently been realised. During the last decade, Thailand and Kenya, for example, have led their respective continents http://www.cityfarmer.org/rainbarreI72.html 09/08/2001 :..__..:.....__-~~~~_-'-._.., . _. _. __.~_~_h-__'_______._ ,"-City Farmer:Rain Barrels Page5of8 in demono:>L.ating the enormous potential of this technology. In Thailand more than 10 million two thousand litre ferrocement roof catchment tanks have been constructed since 1985 for domestic water supply, while in Kenya the construction oflarge (10 to 100m3) ferrocement tanks has gained popularity in many regions with thousands being built at schools, clinics and private homes. "Utilisation of rainwater catchment systems has also been spreading in other parts of Asia (e.g. Nepal, Bangladesh, India and the Philippines) as well as in Africa (e.g. Botswana, Mali and Tanzania). In industrialised countries too interest in rainwater collection is growing as demonstrated by recent developments in Australia, Hawaii and Singapore. Japan has traditionally used rainwater catchment systems and is currently making adjustments to meet the requirements of urban environments." IRCSA Membership Account: c/o International Water Resources Association 1101 West Peabody Drive Urbana IL 61801-4723 USA More Information: Mr. John E. Gould Secretary-General (IRCSA) University of Botswana P /Bag 0022 Gaborone, Botswana Further Reading: Raindrop (Newsletter of the IRCSA) Tokyo Int"... ....&ationaI Rainwater Utilization Conference Rainwater & You "100 Ways to Use Rainwater" by Group Raindrops Organizing Committee for the Tokyo International Rainwater Utilization Conference Sumida City Office Building 1-23-20 Azumabashi, Sumida City Tokyo 130, Japan 1995, 176 pages ..... A' _I'~.J-: I J \-.,l, I .,# r . So '-, _\' I , ,. ,- . - .. " "It is estimated that 60% of the world population will concentrate into urban areas by the middle of the 21st century. ... Population in Asia, Africa and Latin America will continue to concentrate into large cities and, as a result, those cities will http://www.cityfarmer.org/rainbarreI72.html 09/08/2001 ,,, -; -:':"~:~:I"'~:_.- ,-:'., . ..:.,.... ~.:;;.;.,...-.:.:~~~..ib.::.--....;, ":-:'~-:"'~':'i~,~':'; ..-:.> , ~____~_~.., .- -- . '":":,,,;,,:~',,,-,-,~~:;.' .: ~.::..'" :-",-,'::':"-'::",,-~.:c.:-I.<.....~c..C._,;, ... ". J'9i1;Y Farmer:Rain Barrels Page 6 of8 confront the problem "Urban Droughts and Urban Floods". ... A new rainwater culture is required in which cities can live more harmoniously with rain. " (from the forward by Makoto Murase, Conference Secretary-General) Also available from the above office: Exc,-.. ~ts of Questions & Answers Tokyo International Rainwater Utilization Conference March 1995, 41 pages The rain falling on the roof of the Sumida City Office, an 18-storey building completed in 1990, is collected in an underground 1000 m3 tank. The drainage from the bathrooms and restaurants in the building as well as the rainwater, is sterilized and used for flushing toilets. According to data from 1993, the amount of water used for flushing toilets for that year was about 13,600m3. 7000m3 of that was rainwater, and recycled drainage accounted for 4000m3. This means that within the City Office alone, 11,000m3 of water were saved during that one year. This amount is equivalent to the amount of water needed to fill approximately 55,000 family bathtubs (200 liters). Water-Saving Devices Compiled by Lone Hansen, Andrew Giles BSRIA (The Building Services Research and Information Assoc. Bracknell, Berkshire, UK i One of six reports in a series on Environmentally Friendly Systems and Products Published in October 1997, 49 pages This series of reports was funded by the Depfu.lu.t.ent of Trade and Industry and a group of industrial sponsors. Market report now available from BSRIA, priced ~250. Contact Rachel Slater or Peter Cooke Tel: +44 1344426511, Fax: +44 1344487575 PeterCo(a) bsria.co. uk The Water Saving Devices report reviews the market for these products world-wide, assesses their market potential in the UK and examines what can be done to increase the uptake of this technology. Those water saving devices analysed in the report include: . Rain water recycling products/systems . Grey water recycling products/systems . Waterless urinals " "There are two categories of waste water: grey and black water. Grey water is all http://www.cityfarmer.org/rainbarreI72.html 09/08/2001 . '-"~....:.....-..:.:"~.'- ~..:...:_.:" , . " ,.;....:.. -,' ...... ~L . . ,'-"'_ ". City Farmer:Rain Barrels Page7of8 waste water from baths, showers and hand basins, domestic appliances and fittings. Black water is fouled water from toilets and bidets. The grey water that can be recycled is approximately 26% of the average consumption in a domestic dwelling (or 4't'Ai if the washing machine is included). The water used for toilet flushing is aFFJ.oximately 33% and outside use is approximately 3% of the average consumption. Grey water for toilet flushing can be supplemented by mains or rain water. The payback time for grey water systems using waste water for toilet flushing is between 7 and 15 years depending on capital costs (e500- f:l,OOO) and based on an average price of f:l.28 per M3. The pay back time is reduced to 4-8 years in the South West where the price per M3 is f:2.30. The payback time for grey water systems is shorter than rainwater systems but the manufacturers/installers need to consider the end users per&F~On and attitude, health and safety aspects and legislation and planning permission. " Envirosink "Envirosink is an environmentally helpful additional, or secondary sink that utilises all standard plumbing fittings. Envirosink allows you to conserve the 'light' gray water from your kitchen. Envirosink is the only system that allows some catchment of water at the kitchen sink - to help fill your rain barrel in the dry season." B"'............uda "Here in B\:.u.u.uda all residential properties catch rainwater on the roof. This is constructed of lapped limestone slate on a timber frame. The water collected drains down into a water tank which is located beneath the house. The general rule of thumb is that the tank must be large enough to hold, in gallons, an amount calculated by multiplying the roof area of the house by eight and a quarter. This water collection system has been in use for many, many years." (Depa.. L..u.ent of Planning, B\:;.J..u.J.uda) Department of Planning Go"c.J..u.ment Administration Building 30 Parliament Street, Hamilton HMI2, Bc.u.u.uda Phone: (809) 295-5151 Fax: (809) 295-4100 . Rainwater Collection Systems Videotape and Booklet, revised 1995 , Morris Media Associates, Inc. 4306 Wildridge Circle Austin, Texas 78759 USA http://www.cityfarmer.org/rainbarreI72.html 09/08/2001 '.':",', ;-.:<. ~-~---,------~~...:::~ ...-:---------..-- -------------"-'----- -----...:- ~,-, -- _.'-----------------,- ------- --------- ,.' . . "City Farmer: Rain Barrels Page B ofB "Rainwater Collection Systems is the story of three families from the Texas Hill ConuL.j who collect rainwater for all their household needs, including drinking. And they would say 'especially' drinking! 'When emergency room physician Dr. Mike McElveen and his wife Kathy decided to collect enough rainwater for all their needs, their system became the model for others in their area to follow. A so page booldet accompanies each half-hour video.' Emergency Water, Soft Water, Chemical Free Water from P~~o Non mechanical rain water diverter used to collect water for chlorine se~~~ve plants. New Feature! Search Our Site .~ ~ Return to Contents' Paqe ~ Revised Kay 28, 2001 Published by City. Farmer Canada's Office of Urba~ Agriculture citvfarm@interchanae.ubc.ca "i< . http://www.cityfarmer .org/rainbarreI72.html 09/oB/2001 ~"'-,-~-" , . ' ~,' ". '. " ", ',' ~ , . __-:.-____.~'___~~'___!__...:.'__..t.>_""a__::~'_ ::,....,.:,~:;,:~::-.3:;~~.::..~_.:-:': ',!_ '::..p;.:"'i,~;,:"':'.:~:.4:~' ~.~.~ ," .~~.I'.:~~,.:....ti:.:' '$:'--~"~'~"".ij-",,;:' ...':' ~;'.'..,.,. '.J.',:~ >;.:~:........ ,"-'.L " , Rain Gardens Page 1 of 9 Visit the 'Friends of Bassett Creek' Website ---- Rain Gardens ---- - - - - This Raingarden Pam!>hlet in Adobe Acrobat PDF Format (1.2m) - - - - Gardening with Water Quality in Mind When you make a garden a "rain garden" you can improve local water quality while creating a beautiful natural area that will attract birds and butterflies. Rain gardens allow rain and snowmelt to seep naturally into the ground. This helps recharge our groundwater supply, and prevents a water quality problem called polluted runoff. Rain gardens are an important way to make our cities more attractive places to live while building urban ecological health. What makes a garden a rain garden? All it takes is a few simple steps in the following three areas: Landscapina: Rain gardens are designed with a dip at the center to collect rain and snow melt. Any degree of indentation is useful, from slight dips made with your garden trowel to large swales created by professional landscapers. Neatly trimmed shrubs, a crisp edge of lawn, stone retaining walls and other devices can be used to keep garden edges neat and visually appealing. . Location: http://www.mninter.net/-stack/rain/index.htm 09/oB/2001 ,~"c.~-~~.t ~:" ;:-:_.,.... ;~<.~:;:;::'~~:.~~.~-~~.:~ '.'- .-'. ....:.... " ~ " "-' . . ,',' - '" . ..,-~:,.....~'. ,_.'<,<;..,:~''', ;:'>.,:..",'"i:- .: _~ < :i..._,--_ _.L.... _:....~__.-:.:..::::.,~__...;__:...:..:.;:__...._:..~...::....'--'.:~.:..__,~~____~~ _ ___'.'-_"'-______-4.-.-._"'--_ , Rain Gardens , Page 2 of9 Strategic placement next to hard surfaces such as alleys, sidewalks, driveways and under gutters makes your rain garden effective. Following you will :find descriptions for how rain gardens can work in the front, side and back sections of your property. Plant choices: Hardy native species that thrive in our ecosystem without chemical fertilizers and pesticides are the best choices. Many rain ' gardens feature shrubs as well as wild flowers and grasses. As a rule, the less "turf' on lawns, the better it is from a water quality stand point -- turf- style lawns create a harder surface which does not absorb water as readily as garden areas. Also, turf-style lawns often require chemical treatments and extra water to look uniform. Yards that feature native plants, grasses and shrubs are much easier to maintain. What is polluted runoff? Polluted runoff is a big problem in urban areas where much of the ground is covered with hard surfaces such as roofs, streets, parking lots and sidewalks. Before development, rain and snow melt seeped slowly into the earth. Now water flows quickly across hard surfaces, picking up pollutants -- from organic particles, pesticides, fertilizers, gas, oil and oilier types of residue -- before dumping into storm drains. 611ce in the storm sewer system the water flows into local lakes and streams. In most cases it is not treated or cleaned in any way. Here in the Twin Cities almost all storm water eventually ends up in the Mississippi River -- our precious, world-class resource that is also the source of much of our drinking water. Front yard gardens: Gardens along the front of homes and businesses are particularly useful from a water quality and aesthetic standpoint. Their proximity to the street makes front yard gardens an effective place to collect water that has run off of your roof, yard, driveway and sidewalk before it hits the stormwater system. Because they are highly visible to people passing by . http://www.mninter.net/-stack/rain/index.htm 09/oB/2001 ,~,,"":<:::..~~_:'-':' . _:~.._:,,:.,,::,,,,,.-..._.., -~;""":. ;..... ..~-, '.L '. ~ " .' ' .' - ';,;, >'" ._'. ,~.;,..-~..~-,_.,.~- . ~ . . Rain Gardens Page 3 of9 . t on the street or sidewalk, front yard raingardens also add to the beauty of the neighborhood. . If the rainwater collection area is larger and the raingarden smaller, http://www.mninter.net/-stack/rain/index.htm 09/oB/2001 _L_"~'~~:'> :....:-';~~:'~.:.:~:.,:, .,~:~;~-'-:'~...~:~;~:..:-:.... ._;:~.-;:- ~,,:'.> ~:"~~k~' ~ J _' 7', . :...-"':'--: -.:< .".-,;..;.. :.~"',: .'~':~'~:'" ~:--,~:.~_>.,~':".', ';' . .~~ ....: .~:~...~~~~:~-: ~':''':'''-=';'-:'~':'':'':''''.;;~.::-:::~':':'':'--'::'.&.-:~-~_....:: . ' Rain Gardens Page 4 of9 then in some cases overflow or excess standing water may become a problem. Small culverts and/or swales may be useful in these cases to move excess water from one raingarden to another that has extra capacity. There may even be a CVllUllI.Jnity raingarden that receives water from a number of adjacent properties. Front yard gardens can be created: . At the end of the roof gutter to capture run off from the roof. . Along front walkway to keep runoff from traveling down the sidewalk and into the storm sewer. . Along the city sidewalk to act as a buffer between your lawn and the street. . On the city-owned boulevard to stop runoff from entering the street. Property owners with front yards that slope to the sidewalk may choose to incorporate stone walls. With the addition of wall features, collection points can become deeper and more useful from a water filtration stand point. If the wall is decorative and combined with neatly edged turf, the area will be beautiful throughout the year. Side yard gardens: Gardens along the side of your home or business can catch runoff from your roof, create a "living fence" between properties and channel runoff to front or back yard gardens. Some homeowners create wide side yard gardens that become wider still in the back yard. This style of garden can minimize the amount of "turf' in your back yard that needs to be mowed. Creating wild areas along the side of your house ensures that you can look out your window and see beautiful plants, birds and butterflies. Don't plant tall shrubs right next to your windows if you are concerned about people hiding there. Also, make sure dips for capturing runoff channel water away from your house to avoid basement flooding problems. Back yard gardens: Back yard gardens can keep water from running down the alley and into storm sewers. Like side yard gardens, back yard gardens can also help minimize the amount of high-maintenance turf-style lawn on your property. Most people place their largest gardens in the back yard. If http://www.mninter.net/-stack/rain/index.htm 09/oB/2001 -.:...-'~.~-.~ ../......,..........""'.. ,'. '. .~-~- --..&- - - _~;..__..:. __ .:..!....-'-::.:~._~.____~_"---. .....:._ ._'.' :~_.....:.~;.:.~.It.!_, ..h_ :_;:.....;.., .:.:....:.:~_... __.__.._,-'-,~~-..::..;.;.:......-..:..::... -..;.~" . ~~':''--~1___' ..;ll-- _._...:._ ___:"'. _~-'__ . . Rain Gardens Page 5 of 9 .' you already have a large back yard garden, you can easily add a water filtration component by creating dips that will hold and filter water. . In any location, a rain garden's basic feature is a dip or swale. Shrubs are often planted at the center and surrounded by wild flowers. Q: - How do I turn a section of my yard into a rain garden? A: - Simply remove sod, dig a shallow depression and plant with native plants. Q: - Don't rain gardens attract a lot of mosquitoes? A: - Not really. Mosquitoes thrive and breed in standing water. Most mosquitoes breed in places like junk-piles where there are old tires or tin cans. There is rarely standing water in a well-designed rain garden. Q: - Can I create a rain garden that doesn't look too wild or messy? . A: - The way to make a r~ garden, or any garden, appear 'well kept' is to keep the edges tidy. Tall plants and grasses tend to "flop-over" so if you want a neat silhouette, you will want to stick with short species. To keep native plants from growing too large, remember not to water them! Q: - What happens to water-tolerant plants when we have a dry spell? A: - Native plants can withstand a range of weather conditions. Native plants that do well in poorly drained soil will be fine during dry weather. Q: - How large must a rain garden be to be worthwhile? http://www.mninter.net/-stack/rain/index.htm 09/oB/2001 ..:.....;.~:--'-=--_.~"'--~~.:;_. ~~...:.~..~_... .;.. .~.; ;.: ~ ~,~.""~""'" ;"..'~;...:...-...-....:..~ _._'~~'-' .- - - - - ..- .;.' ,:"~,~,,,:::'';--;'-,,"'--~'--: '. ...:~:::..:::' ....L. _:'. __ __----'---- ___ ~ -~ - '-__ --_ _ . ' Rain Gardens Page 6of9 A: - Any water that seeps into the ground instead of running into a storm sewer helps water quality. A rain garden of any size has a positive impact. Neighborhood raingardens can provide recreation opportunities, re- create wetlands and add aesthetic value to our urban communities. Neighborhood Projects: The overall landscape pattern of our cities includes easements and small public properties. These areas are ideal for gardens that improve the ecological functioning and the aesthetic value of our communities. In the Twin Cities, our proximity to the Mississippi River and its network of tributary creeks and streams provides many opportunities for protecting this great waterway through restoration of former natural areas. Across the country, urban communities are realizing the economic, social and environmental benefits of creating stormwater filtration projects and restoring native vegetation. Twin City based efforts include work in the neighborhoods surrounding St. Paul's Lower Phalen Creek and Minneapolis' Bassett Creek -- Mississippi River tributaries that have been degraded and partially buried as storm sewers. Residents, businesses, employees and government agencies are working together to recreate natural areas and improve water quality in Lower Phalen Creek and Bassett Creek. Efforts, which are spearheaded by St. Paul's Friends of Swede Hollow and Minneapolis' Friends of Bassett Creek, include promoting rain gardens as well as: . Recreating wetlands and other natural areas. · Improving and enhancing existing parks and natural areas through removal of invasive trees, planting of native species and increasing public access. · Creating and extending public bicycle and pede,:)~~an trails to provide new recreation opportunities and connections to the Mississippi River. . Rain gardens in action! http://www.mninter.net/-stack/rain/index.htm 09/oB/2001 . '" '_ ...... ,; '~'.",," ", ~~-;.,:. _/,~_;-__:: ,; "; '. ,:-: t.' <'-.:.- '" ~'. ..,....,:.:~~ ". ~.~-~.....;..-_..._.." -~'_-~-_--:':"'_~~~:~----'---- . Rain Gardens Page 7of9 There are a number of sites where rain gardens are being installed to add beauty to our cities while capturing and filtering stormwater. Friends of Swede Hollow and the City of St. Paul are installing a rain garden demonstration site on Seventh Street near the Swede Hollow Cafe. The St. Paul Neighborhood Energy Consortium is building a rain _ garden at their new site on Selby and Dale. Through this project, an existing parking lot's impervious surfaces are being reduced by about 17 percent. To see a residential rain garden, take a look at the yard on 118 VIrginia Street (one half block north of Summit Avenue, near Western in St. Paul). The rain garden is visible from the sidewalk. Native Plants for Rain Gardens Below is a list of native plant and shrub options for wet soils in the center of rain gardens: Native Plants for Wet Soils --- Sunny Areas: . Sweet Flag - - -: - - - - (Acorns ~amus) . Giant Hyssop* - - - - - - (Agastache foeniculum) . Canada Anemone - - - - (Anemone canadensis) . Marsh Milkweed* - - - = (Asclepias incarnata) . New England Aster* - - (Aster novae-angliae) . Marsh Marigold - = - - (Caltha palustis) . Tussock Sedge - - - - (Carex stricta) . Turtlehead* - -: -: - (Chelone glabra) · Joe lYe Weed* - - - - - (Eupatorium maculatum) · Boneset: - : - : - : - (Eupatorium perfoliatum) . Queen gJ:the Prairie* : (E:ilipendula rubra} : . Sneezeweed - - - : - - (Helenium autumnale) . Bluetlag Iris - - - - - - Uris versicolor) . Soft Rush - - - - - - - Quncus effusus) . Great Blue Lobelia: - (Lobelia siphilitica) . Switchgrass*: = - = - = (F,anicum yirgatum} . Prairie Phlox: : - : - = ~hlox :Qilosa) ." . . . . http://www.mninter.net/-stack/rain/index.htm 09/oB/2001 " --~............=~-~-~ . ..'~~... .~ '.~.----'-:":-~-"""~~:'~~~.~'~-'--._- . . Rain Gardens . . Page B of9 . . . Mountain Mint - - - - - (Pycnanthemum virginianum) . River Bulrush - - - - - (Scirpus fluviatilis) . Softstem Bulrush - - - (Scirpus validus} . Riddell's Goldenrod - - (Solidago riddellii) . Tall Meadow Rue* - - - (Thalictrum dasycarpum) . Culvers Root* - - - - - (Yeronicastrum virginicum) . Golden Alexander - - - (Zizia aurea) Native Plants for ,yet Soils --- Shady Areas: . Caterpiller Sedge - - - (Carex crinita} . Cardinal Flower* = = = - (Lobelia ~dinalis) . Ostrich Fern* - - - - - (Matteuccia struthiopteris) . Virginia Bluebells - - - (Mertensia verginica) . Sensitive Fern = - - - - (Qnoclea ~ensibilis) *Likely to grow taIler than three feet. Shrubs --- Sunny or Shady Areas: . Black Chokeberry - - - (Aronia melanocarpa)". . Red Osier Dogwood - - (Cornus serecia} . Low Bush Honeysuckle - (Diervilla lonicera) . Annabelle Hydrangea - - (Hydrangea arborescense 'Annabelle') . Pussy Willow - - - - - (Salix caprea} . Blue Arctic Willow - - - (Salix purpurea 'Nanna') Shrubs --- Sunnv Areas Onlv: . . . Meadow Sweet - - - - (Spiraea alba) · Steeplebush - - = - - - (Spiraea tomentosa) . High Bush Cranberry - (Viburnum trilobum) For Durchasina native plants and seeds: .- - ...... · Prairie Restorations Inc: 888-389-4342 · Landscape Alternatives: 651-488-3142 · Prairie Moon Nursery (mail order only): 507-452-1362 http://www.mninter.net/-stack/rain/mdex.htm 09/oB/2001 - ~. ,_. ..,'__~.' ":-:'._',;.-".,~:;,~.-,:~~~.,:,:"".r;-:_. ,.' ;,,~, ;'~"'_" < . , ._.' ...1_'_ ::"'.'~,:...:,~..~J~.~:".:'~:;:"'~'_' ~-.:..._---...-. - _--:-__.._-~~..........:...._- -~ . _. --~......- -_.-....-' -'-'. -. .-- "- . ~'. Rain Gardens Page 9 of9 ... .. For infvuuation on gardening with native plants, runoff pollution prevention and workshop opportunities, call the St Paul Neighborhood Energy Consortium: 651--644-7678 For information on native plant demono:>L.ation sites, classes, youth gardening projects or starting a community garden, call the Sustainable Resources Center Urban Lands Program: 612-872-3288 Read yublished news!)aper article on a neighborhood rain gardens retrofitting project along a city street. Some Rain Garden Links: --- Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) urban runoff and rain ~ardens. --- Runoff treatment and rain 2ardens at Jordan Cove. Connecticut (EPA). --- Rain 2ardens at Port Towns. Marvland. - - --- Rain gardens at the Virginia Department of Fores~ Native plant information was supplied by Fred Rozumalski, Barr Enaineerina. Rain garden text W1itten primarily by Amy Middleton and Sarah Clark. Funding for this rain garden pamphlet was 1'." .:.:m by the McKnill'ht Foundation. Minnesota Denartment of Natural Resources and Minnesota Offtce of Environmental Assistance. m~DS '''I',:,,_od courtesy UniversitY of Minnesota Denartment of Landscane Architecture. (Maintained by Dave Stack. Ed McRoberts ;Content@ Friends of Bassett Creak; (Created by Gabs Ormsby); Update 01feb13) Please email usatstacklB.lmnlnter.netlf you notice any links or phone contacts on this webslte that have died. '. ,;jJP . http://www.mninter.net/-stack/rain/index.htm 09/08/2001 .. "0';-. .,,:" :.: ,~,_' '~j_o",', 0 ." . Demv,)~""t.:.on Site, Driveway Dry Well . . 10 or 0 -.. ~ " .' . "~ _.,~o '. -." 0 ~ . -.', .... Page lofl D. Driveway Dry Well Click here to view Actual Site (Size Bokb) This drywell system serves the dual purpose of retaining and cleansing rainwater, giving it time to percolate ... '111)1fM4-1 into the ground rather than carrying motor oil and other pollutants into the storm drain system and out to our beaches and bays. Rainwater flowing down the driveway runs through a grate (see D) into a box containing sand and crushed rock that captures pollutants. Return to Demonstration Site . http://www.treepeople.org/trees/d.htm 09/oB/2001 .- - --.;.;.~.----..----------------------------------- llEARl~G ~O'l'lCES . L:\TEMPLATE\FILEINFO.DOC p~ ~ " , r;;' trJ , " , ".,' ." , , ""'v,:',, "",,,,, JrlNNESO~~ NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER lIiE FOLLOWING: AN Ax YEAL OFniE PLANNING COMMISSIONS DECISION TO DENY A VARIANCE FOR A 46.4% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AREA 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: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 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 overturn a decision of the Planning Commission denying a variance for a 46.4% impervious surface coverage area. 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 of8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The City Council will accept oral and/or written comments. Prepared this 31 8t day of December, 2001. Steven Horsman City of Prior Lake To be mailed on/or before January 11, 2002. L:\01 files\01 appeal\01-099\MailNotice.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 NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: AN APPEAL OF Tl1E PLANNING COMMISSIONS DECISION TO DENY A VARIANCE FOR A 46.4% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AREA 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, January 21, 2002 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 46.4% impervious surface coverage area. 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 27th day of December, 2001. Steven Horsman City of Prior Lake To be published in the Prior Lake American on January 5, 2002. L:\01 files\01 appeal\01-099\HrNtPubI.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 iI Ii ii II I, " Ii II ii II I' Mailing II Informatibn. !i Ii and Lists Ii ii II II I, il I( L:\TEMPLATE\Fll.ElNFO.DOC Afif41UAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL COUNTY OF SCOTT ) )ss STATE OF MINNESOTA) ~ ~ . of the City of Prior Lak~ ::ounty of Scott, State of MInnesota,. being d 'sworn, says on the l ~ day of )c,~ , 200~2 she served the attached list of ersons to have an interest in the U~~./ . ~ ~ 0 \ - O~~ ' by mailing to them a copy ereof, 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. 0vvt~~ t Subscribed and sworn to be this day of . 2000. NOTARY PUBLIC L:wer 1 vv'ORK\BLANKFRM\MAILAFF.DOC Smooth Feed Sheets™ Use template for 5161@ Shirley A. Thielen 15609 Calmut Ave. NE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Donald L. Todd 15593 Calmut Ave. NE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Jeffrey 1. Dousette 15581 CalmutAve. NE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Jerome A. and Phillis A. Miller 15563 Calmut Ave. NE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Karl and Lynda L. Bohn 6733 McColl Dr. Savage, MN 55378 Elizabeth M. Menne 4736 Garfield Minneapolis, MN 55409 H&H Land Development 10315 Thomas Ave. So. Bloomington, MN 55431-3315 Rolf G. and Mary 1. Garborg 4090 - 154th Street Prior Lake, MN 55372 McWilliams & Associates Inc. 14870 Granada Ave. Apple Valley, MN 55124 Raymond E. and Sarmite A. Casper 4215 Eau Claire Trl. NE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Frank J. and Linda C. Worrell 4185 Eau Claire Trl. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Lawrence G. and Sharon Williams 15520 Calmut Ave. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Mark L. and Carolyn M. Kassebaum 4085 - 154th Street NW Prior Lake, MN 55372 Mark A. and Susan K. Michael 4190 Eau Claire Trl. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Robert W. and Judith A. Thompson 4090 Eau Claire Cir. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Wayne and Lisa Craig 4167 Eau Claire Trl. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Scott G. and Anne C. Miller 4143 Eau Claire Trl. NE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Richard S. and Kelly K. Lovik 4139 Eau Claire Trl. NE Prior Lake, MN 55372 ~M~~~ j) \0~ " AVSRY@ Address labels Laser 5161@ Smooth Feed Sheets™ Use template for 5161(!) Shirley A. Thielen 15609 Calmut Ave. NE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Donald L. Todd 15593 Calmut Ave. NE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Jeffrey J. Dousette 15581 CalmutAve. NE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Jerome A. and Phillis A. Miller 15563 CalmutAve. NE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Karl and Lynda L. Bohn 6733 McColl Dr. Savage, MN 55378 Elizabeth M. Menne 4736 Garfield Minneapolis, MN 55409 H&H Land Development 10315 Thomas Ave. So. Bloomington, MN 55431-3315 RolfG. and Mary J. Garborg 4090 - 154th Street Prior Lake, MN 55372 McWilliams & Associates Inc. 14870 Granada Ave. Apple Valley, MN 55124 Raymond E. and Sannite A. Casper 4215 Eau Claire Trl. NE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Frank J. and Linda C. Worrell 4185 Eau Claire Trl. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Lawrence G. and Sharon Williams 15520 Calmut Ave. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Mark L. and Carolyn M. Kassebaum 4085 - 154th Street NW Prior Lake, MN 55372 Mark A. and Susan K. Michael 4190 Eau Claire Trl. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Robert W. and Judith A. Thompson 4090 Eau Claire Cir. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Wayne and Lisa Craig 4167 Eau Claire Trl. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Scott G. and Anne C. Miller 4143 Eau Claire Trl. NE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Richard S. and Kelly K. Lovik 4139 Eau Claire Trl. NE Prior Lake, MN 55372 . VJ.~ AVERY@ Address labels laser 5161@ NOV. 7.2001 10:08AM NO. 2963 P. 1 }'AX '!'RANSMISSION HUEMOELLER & BATES 16670 Franklin Trail Prior Lake, MN 55372 (952) 447-2131 Fax: (952) 447w5628 Fax#: 952-447-4245 Pages: November 7, 2001 I of 4 To: Steve Horsman/Connie Carlson Date: From; Allison 1. Gontarek. Esq. Subject: Variance Application for D. Mark Crouse CONFIDENI1AU1'Y NonCE: 71ze dor:u.men.t(s) accompa.nying this Ira contain ccmjidenril21 itifortnQtion which is legally privileged. The inlOrmaliollls intended only for the use of Eke in.tended recipiml. If you Gre not the intended recipient, YOII arB hereby notified thol any disclosure, copyifl{;, distribution or the rGking of any ilQion in reliance on 1M contents of the relecopisd infarmaJion except its direct delivery to the intended recipiw tlfJ11U!d above is strictly prohibited. lfyou have received thisfitt in. '"or, please 1I.r;Jtify us im",8tlioJely by teleplwne to amlllgefDr return of the original documttlIts to us. COMMENTS: Steve/Connie - Here is the updated list for Crouse's surrounding property owners. Of most importance is the last paragraph on the last page - no changes. Thanks for your help. Allison OLD REPUBLIC ABST DE 1...~NO. 2963 . IP: _ 2 . ... uNOV. 7. 2001,110: 08A~ ~' 1. fI/' 2. "il" V !. V Il. '= CLb L..:. \llJl.ltc D'aOlAt ~ItLI. IBSUWCI CODABY claa. barebt l:e'rl:Uy ~'hacll aecaNiDI 'e da. racol'd; of tba Il:ott COUBty '1'z~alV.~'. i Gllbs, ~ba fel1avDI 1a .. 11.1~ of Dftal'S af die pzapel'~' lytDB wttbin 3SD feet: ef ch. followDa des~r:I.~.. 'Z'Gplll"t7; Lot 9 ..d tha.t pl.!'r. ef taw: 10. -'Nort.b G~a1avOD.'I. w that: ,He of Qove%lUllIIU: Lot: S. Se.-tioll 35. lofmsld,p US. lage 12. Scott CaUII;Y, 'PI1Ue,aCa desCZ'11ted U fDlbvs: CaIIIILflIlld.tlg at: the. No~daw.lt C:Dfte~ of sa1cl Lot 10; 'tb.eaae Southerly aleq thl!! Wastl!~l)' liftt Df Bsit! 1.0;& 10 &fti 9 mu! al$j 8. . tiata1\ce of 1&5.D fest. CD t'ho utu.a1. po:l.1at Df 'beI1u.- !liue af che 2W ~o be ...cd.'n~~ai thellae Veatszl)" alng the Nardi 1111e of said pllU: 'to the 1a.t8zo1y rilll.~-of__y liDe of Ihe Ch:l~i!Lla.. Milwaukee" S,., l'a\l.1 04 l'acific IaUl'o.4; th_~B ..'naeI'17 s1"ng maU 1&&1:el'l,. light-af-war liD.. to ill tutersecttol1 w1dl toe. 1fut:8Z'17 ate1!sioa of the Sa\1tbe.rl, liIl. af eke NarQe:l)' 45.00 flit (I.I lle.lls1Ire4 lit risht a'A8~ee ta the Noztb.e:l:l, l:l.na) of .atd tat 10; thence :P.alite:rJ., l1aq sai.d Sa\1th- erl, l:lDe to 'the shareUUI af Pr:1ar t.aka: thBJl.Ce. SoaeheS:J!, alGq aald shoI'81i:A. ta 'tbe SlN.th lillt Df ia1c1 1"oc 9; thellc. lI'stG~l)' alaq Eis:i.d S"DtJl. l1Ae e1 .eU teat 9, tD the lauch".st eoftel Ike1:BO!; theacR aDutll- ed" alans ths Ve8~Brl,. U'ZU: af Gatti Lot 8. to thl: acnsJ: paint Df hes1t1ZL1as. &hUll". A. %hiW1I 156D9 Ca.1aut Av.. HI I 1:-:101' z,w. lfR 5.5372 1'~oP11'17 U 10.. lSD3S001D DOllalc1 1., fa 4. lSS93 Ce:1.Imt _.. BE ~Z'iln' Lake. D :55372. 'zopart, tD ND, t5D3JD020 JeffI'D? J. Dawr.t.te 15.581 CaImlf !v,.. D l'rI.ar !.ab. .. S.s!7Z haper1:y II) Ia. 2503:;0021 JCt'QI A. ana Jlayll18 A. KtUIlt 15S'3 Calau~ A"fI. NE hioX' Lake., . 55!'2 hvpel"t)' XI) Xg. 2S0JS0D3a hClpl:l'ty m 1'0_ 259350400 - .,. J . .........,. , 63-P 3 .. ,NO. 29 . ,''''.'~Q r.o:I ,NOY. 7. 2001.a~10:_0_8A_~ OLD ~UBLIC RBST DE LDreuca G. .i ShanD 'W111ialll 1551D CalImc AY'. JriD. lE1ka. .. ,).537Z Ir-apCl't7 J:D J'a. 2523&01'0 Jruk L. Pac! e"l"G~ 1I.. laa'.lIa_ 40sS 1.S4 It:. )11l P:c1Q' LUlh . 5S3'2 Pra,arty ID 10. 2!2J601JD ~k 4. ImIl hau. I. IUck..l 6190 !au Clairellrl. h:l.ar t.&b. . 5.5312 hD,ottT D .ell 2523&OZDO 15. Ioben'l. a.1I JaUCh A, lhbPSGa. 4090 Bau C~ai~e !Z. hlo:r Like. I1B 55 72 'rope~ty 1D 10. 2"0110 hopel1't,. XD KD. 2S236D220 v',. V 6. ~/ 7. //8. / ../ 9. / 10. r// 11. / 12. /13k / 16.. V vl( -.. ':l li'.azl a.d L)'Dd& L. 101m 67~3 Ji(cCoU Dr. S&Yl.18, KR "378 hDPel"t7 m la. 25D3S0a4D P:ta,8rc, :m 110. 250350050 lJ.1zabeth It. Jfanue 4736 G&~:Le1. lUulHlpoli.s. XI 154D9 Pte,.'Z'~, m .a. 2583S0041 I , H LaDd D...l.pmaD~ lG31S Tha....Av. s. BloDlWlgtaa. III 15431...3315 PJoapeny ID Xe. 2523603112 loll G. 04 Katy .1. ~'barl 409C1 154 Sc. lnar Lake, .. 55372 'zoo]lerc7 11) .0. 2,5236Q100 lkW:Ll1:I.amll & A!II!lDc:S.A~ea lue. 14IJ7D c:&fliia.. A'V. 1 ~1e v. fI.'tA.. 55 24 iftapel'C' 'I&a. 2523&'0110 iaJSand E. eel SUllita A. CUP'Z' 4215 Bau Cla.1re 'bl. b '~:I.~ ,... IQf 55372 hapezoll' :m lfo. 25236Q140 lrak J. aA4 LDda C. Varrell 11115 Eau ~e !'zol. PrID!: Lake. 1m 55372 hopart1 lD .a, 25Z3&01.50 C'...1 . , IJ:I a"" , uNOV, 7.20011110:08AMAM ~16. ~- 1" /18.. OLD REPUBL.IC RBST OE: W&JIUD al1ct t,1P. ~aj,1 4167 !au g],a~. 'ba.. I~!az lIake. D 55372 lropezey II) No. 2S27!JOO:"O Bcoee d. aB4 ~I c. ~l.r 6143 Il.u Clairl h'1. n Irigz' La'kl, tIK 55372 rrop.~cy ED lb. iSZ7 'OD20 I:Lchal':d s. u4_Jel1)t I. La,rik 413' E&U eldFe.~l. H! Plta~ Lake. ~ 55372 PropaZ'cy In .~. 252780030 . .. 'INO, 2963 fP, 4 Dated .~ Jliluaeapou., lIiU.,ou., t.llu 12th d~ of 'e'tazou8z'. zaal, at , a.lII. ,By Oraer RD. A01..5Z16S Fo~; ltark CJ:01l11l aLl) _VlLlC D:l:I02l& !%U D8VJaIGI emlrm OLD mUBLIC NA'.rIOIAL .........fIlI %11'DlWICI COMPAln' does he1:'aby c8:rtify chat, according tD the ~ecD~ds of the Scoee County T~easurer's'Office, cbe~e has been no change :in the above list to elace. Da~ed at Minneapolis. ~esocaJ this 5th day of N09ember. 2001. at 7 a,a. I I , -oL'D' L.c~tc 1lft!rQ'NAr. '1'ITI.J; :pIStllANClE COMPANY . I I , I Iy ,..-1~. a ~ ~ ~tbor1zed ~e: ... , , I~""" * ". OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY does hereby certify ~ha~. according to the records of the Scott County Treasurer's office. the following is a list of owners of the property lying within 350 feet of the following described property: Lot 9 and that part of Lot 10, "North Grainwoodll, and that part of Government Lot 5, Section 35, Township 115, Range 22, Scott Coun~y, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Lot 10; thence Southerly along the Westerly line of said Lots 10 and 9 and also 8, a distance of 165.0 feet to the actual point of begin- ning of the land to be described; thence Westerly along the North line of said plat to the Easterly right-ai-way line of the Chicago, Milwaukee. S~, 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 Sou~h- erly line to ~he shoreline of Prior Lake; thence Southerly along said shoreline to the South line of said Lot 9; thence Westerly along said South line of said Lot 9, to the Southwest corner thereof; thence South- erly along the Westerly line of said Lot 8, to the actual point of beginning. 1. Shirley A. Thielen 15609 Calmut Av. NE Prior Lake. MN 55372 Property ID No. 250350010 2. Donald L. Todd 15593 Calmut Ave. NE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Property ID No. 250350020 3. Jeffrey J. Dousette 15581 Calmut Ave. NE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Property ID No. 250350021 4. Jerome A. and Phyllis A. Miller 15563 Calmut Av. NE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Property ID No. 250350030 Property In No. 259350400 2'd '-'-S'ON 3a !SEIl::I :lIlSncGI alO Wd62:l l0B2'9l'S3j . 5. Kar 1 and Lynda L. Bolm 6733 McColl Dr. Savage, MN 55378 Property ID No. 250350040 Property ID No. 250350050 6. Elizabeth M. Menne 4736 Garfield Minneapolis, :MN 55409 Property ID No. 250350041 7. H & H Land Development 10315 Thomas Av. S. Bloomington, MN 55431~3315 Property ID No. 252360310 8. Rolf G. and Nary J. Garborg 4090 154 St. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Property ID No. 252360100 9. MCWilliams & Associates Inc. 14a70 Granada Av. Apple Valley) ~ S51~4 Pxoperty ID'No. 25236Q110 10. Raymond E. and Sarmite A. Casper 4215 Eau Claire Trl. NE Prior Lake. MN 55372 Property ID No. 252360140 11. Frank J. and Linda C. Worrell 4185 Eau Clai~e Trl. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Property ID No. 252360150 12. Lawrence G. aud Sharon Williams 15520 Calmut Av. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Property ID No. 252360160 13. Mark L. and Carolyu M. Kassebaum 4085 154 St. NW Prior Lake, MN 55372 Property ID No. 252360190 14. Mark A. and Susan K. Michael 4190 Eau ClairelTrl. Prior Lake, MN 55312 Property ID No. 252360200 15. Robert W. and Judith A. Thompson. 4090 Bau Claire Cir. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Property 1D No. 252360210 Property ID No. 252360220 c'd . US'ON 30 1S8~ JI18n~ alO Wd0E:1 1002'91'83.:1 .. 16. Wayne and ~isa Craig 4167 Eau Claire Trl. Prior Lake. MN 55372 Property ID No. 2527900~0 17. Scott G. and Anne C. Miller 4143 Eau Claire Trl. NE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Property ID No. 252790020 18. Richard S. and.~elly K. Lovik 4139 lau Clai~eoTrl. NE Prior Lake, ~ 55372 Property ID N9. 252790030 Dated at Minueapolis. Minnesota, this 12th day of February, 2001. at 7 a.m. Order No. AOl~52165 For: Mark Crouse P.'d US'ON OLD R&:-u,DJ,;,IC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY By ~~~ 30 1S81::1 JIl8fld3~ ClIO Wd0E:l 1002'91'S3j .. 164TH ST. NoW. 400 I Property Ovvners Within 350' Crouse Variance =i e #01-093 ~. t\OS( N~ 3 ,~"14 ef: {) g :1 _ 10 ~~ \ - o 400 800 Feet ~= I '" ~~ 11 . 12 IE I 13 \ Ir--_I/ ~ N PID OWSRTN 250350022 BOHN,KARL & LYNDA L 250350022 BOHN,KARL & LYNDA L 250350022 BOHN,KARL & LYNDA L ISHNAM2 I I I OWNER NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS SHHOUS ISHSTRE 6733 ! MCCOLL DR 6733 I MCCOLL DR 6733 MCCOLL DR 250350040 BOHN,KARL & LYNDA L 6733 MCCOLL DR 250350050 BOHN,L YNDA L I 6733 I MCCOLL DR 252360140 CASPER,RAYMONDE&SARMITEA 4215 IEAUCLAIRETRLNE 252790010 CRAlG,WAYNE & LISA I 4167 IEAU CLAIRE TRL 250350060 CROUSE,D MARK I 15507 ICALMUT AV NE 250350060 CROUSE,D MARK 15507 CALMUT AV NE 250350060 CROUSE,D MARK I 15507 ICALMUT AV NE 250350060 CROUSE,D MARK I 15507 ICALMUT AV NE 250350021 OOUSETTE,JEFFREY J I 15581 CALMUT AVE NE 252360100 GARBORG,ROLF G & MARY J 4090 154 ST 252360310 H&HLANDDEVELOPMENT !RALPHWHEUSCHELE 10315 iiiOM"ASAVS 252360310 H & H LAND DEVELOPMENT !RALPH W HEUSCHELE 10315 ITHOMAS AV S 252360310 H & H LAND DEVELOPMENT !RALPH W HEUSCHELE 10315 ImOMAS AV S 252360310 H & H LAND DEVELOPMENT I RALPH W HEUSCHELE 10315 !THOMAS AV S 252360190 KASSEBAUM,MARK L& CAROLYN M 4085 1154 ST NW 250350041 MENNE,ELIZABETH M 4736 I GARFIELD 250350041 MENNE,ELIZABETH M 4736 I GARFIELD 252360200 MICHAEl,MARK A & SUSAN K I 4190 I EAU CLAIRE TRL 250350030 MILLER,JEROME A & PHYLLIS A 15563 CALMUT AV NE 250350030 MILLER,JEROME A & PHYLLIS A 15563 CALMUT AV NE 250350030 MILLER,JEROME A & PHYLLIS A 15563 CALMUT AV NE 259350400 MILLER,JEROME A & PHYLLIS A 15563 CALMUT AV NE 259350400 MILLER,JEROME A & PHYLLIS A 252790020 MILLER,SCOTT G & ANNE C 250350020 TODD,OONALD L I 252360160 WlLLIAMS,LAWRENCE G & SHARON 252360150 WORRELLFRANK J & LINDA C I 15563 4143 CALMUT AV NE I EAU CLAIRE TRL NE 1 ICALMUT AV IEAU CLAIRE WI 15520 4185 mallllsl SHAD2 SHCIlY SAVAGE SAVAGE SAVAGE SAVAGE SAVAGE PRIOR lAKE PRIOR lAKE PRIOR lAKE PRIOR lAKE PRIOR lAKE PRIOR lAKE PRIOR lAKE PRIOR lAKE BLOOMINGTON BLOOMINGTON BLOOMINGTON BLOOMINGTON PRIOR lAKE MPLS MPLS PRIOR lAKE PRIOR lAKE PRIOR lAKE PRIOR lAKE PRIOR lAKE PRIOR lAKE PRIOR lAKE PO BOX 240755 SAINT PAUL PRIOR lAKE PRIOR lAKE Property Owners Ust Crouse Variance Case Rle #O1-ll93 PROPERTY ADDRESS S SHZI HOUSGS STREGS ISTTYGS ADIRGS PRPLAT M 55378 0 I PLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWooD M 55378 0 I PLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWooD M 55378 0 PLAT-25035 NORTH GRAlNWooD M 55378 0 PLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWooD M 55378 15527 CALMUT AV Nj; Pl.AT-26035 NORTH GRAINWooD M 55372 4215 EAU CLAIRE ITRL NE PLAT-25236 WlNDSONG ON THE lAKE M 55372 4167 EAUCLAIRE ITRL NE PLAT-25279RLS#143 '! 55372 15507 CALMUT I~" 11I1: ~LAI-~~~ 1II()~:r!::I GRAlNWooD M 55372 15507 CALMUT IAV NE I'LAI-ll>UJl>NOKI1iGRAINWooD M 55372 15507 CALMUT IAV NE PLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWooD M 55372 15507 CALMUT IAV NE PLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWooD M 55372 15581 CALMUT AV NE PLAT-25035 NORTH GRAlNWooD M 55372 -----;rooo 154 ST mv- PLAT-25236 WlNDSONG ON THE lAKE M 55431 4160 WIND SONG CIR NE PLAT-25236WINDSONI:iUNltij;i..jW; M 55431 ~WlNDSONG CIR NE PLAT-25236W1NDSONGONTHElAKE M 55431 ~ WIND SONG CIR ~ PLAT-25236 WlNDSONG ON THE lAKE M 55431 4160 WIND SONG ICIR NE PLAT-25236 WlNDSONG ON THE lAKE M 55372 4085 154 1ST NW PLAT-25236 WlNDSONG ON THE lAKE I o I 4190 EAU CLAIRE ITRL M 55409 o PLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWooD M 55409 M 55372 PLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWooD PLAT-25236 WlNDSONG ON THE lAKE M 55372 15563 CALMUT AV NE PLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWooD M 55372 15563 CALMUT AV NE PLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWooD M 55372 15563 CALMUT AV NE PLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWooD M 55372 0 M 55372 M 55372 M 55124 M 55372 M 55372 o 4143 EAU CLAIRE ITRL 15593 CALMUT IAV 15520 CALMUT IAV 4185 EAU CLAIRE ITRL NE NE PLAT-25279 RLS # 143 PLAT-25035 NORTH GRAINWooD PLAT-25236 WlNDSONG ON THE lAKE PLAT-25236 WlNDSONG ON THE lAKE NE ~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION PRLOT I PRBLK I LEGAL 1 I IVACATEDRRADJ.TOLOTS3&4, I IVACATED RR ADJ. TO LOTS 3 & 4, I IVACATEDRRADJ.TOLOTS3&4, & PIO 6 LYING N OF LINE COM SWCOR, N'ERL Y ALONG W LINE 29.93TO POB, NE TO SHORE & THERE 7 TERMINATING. 8 I I 1 13 I TCT IA I 9 I !&S47'OFLOT 10 & E'ERLY1/20FVACRR 9 I I&S47' OF LOT 10 &E'ERLY 1/20FVAC RR 9 I I&S47' OF LOT 10 &E'ERLY 1/20FVAC RR 9 I I&S47' OF LOT 10 & E'ERLY 1/20FVAC RR H---1 o-L IC-G I Q-L IC-G I Q-L I CoG O-L IC-G 3 15 I 4 5 5 5 TCT 3 2 1 5 E'ERL Y 1/2 OF VAC RR LYING BETWEEN W EXT OF S LINE OF 6 &WERL Y EXT OF S LINE OF 9 I E'ERL Y 1/2 OF VAC RR LYING BETWEEN W EXT OF S LINE OF 6 &WERL Y EXT OF S LINE OF 9 I & PIO 6 LYING S'ERL Y OF LINE COM SW COR, N'ERL Y ALONG W LINE 29.93' TO POB, NE TO SHORE LINE & THERE TERMINATlNG& E'ERL Y 1/2 OF ADJ RR TO 5 & PIO 6 LYING S'ERL Y OF LINE COM SW COR, N'ERL Y ALONG W LINE 29.93' TO POB, NE TO SHORE LINE & THERE TERMINATlNG& E'ERL Y 1/2 OF ADJ RR TO 5 & PIO 6 LYING S'ERL Y OF LINE COM SW COR, N'ERL Y ALONG W LINE 29.93' TO POB, NE TO SHORE LINE & THERE TERMINATlNG& E'ERL Y 1/2 OF ADJ RR TO 5 SECT-35 TWP-115 RNG-022 WERLY 1/2 OF VACATED RR L Y1NGBETWEEN THE WERL Y EXTENSIONS OF THE N & S LINE OF LOT 5, NORTH GRAINWOOD SECT-35 TWP-115 RNG-022 WERLY 1/2 OF VACATED RR L Y1NGBETWEEN THE WERL Y EXTENSIONS OF THE N & S LINE OF LOT 5, NORTH GRAINWOOD I I ! I IB 11 14 14