HomeMy WebLinkAbout8C - Top of the Bluff Setback
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MAY 20, 2002
8C
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
DON RYE, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A
UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION TO APPROVE VARIANCES TO THE TOP OF
BLUFF SETBACK, FRONT YARD SETBACK, LOT WIDTH
AND DRIVEWAY WIDTH AT THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5584 CANDY
COVE TRAIL AND ZONED R-ISD
History: In March 2002, the Planning Department received an
application for a variance to allow the construction of a single family
home on the vacant property located at 5584 Candy Cove Trail. The
property is located in the R-I (Low Density Residential) district and in
the Shoreland District for Prior Lake. The applicant and property
owner, Mark Toohey, requested the following variances:
1. A 23.86' variance from the minimum 75' lot width at the Ordinary
High Water Elevation (OHW);
2. A 25' variance to the front yard setback requirement to allow the
structure to be setback 0' from the front property line rather than
the minimum requirement of 25 feet;
3. A variance to allow a structure to be located within the Bluff
Impact Zone;
4. A 4' variance to allow a 28' wide driveway at the right-of-way line
rather than the maximum 24 feet.
On April 22, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
consider the requested variance. The Planning Commission heard
testimony from Alison Gontarek, representing the applicant, who
noted that the property owner had gone to great effort and expense to
eliminate as many variances as possible. The Commission also heard
testimony from residents of the Candy Cove neighborhood. The
neighbors were mainly concerned about noise from Highway 13,
1:\02files\02appeal\toohey appeal\toohey cc.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
runoff into the lake and onto the neighboring property, and the size of
the proposed house.
Upon reviewing the hardship criteria, the Planning Commission
concluded there is a hardship with respect to this property in several
ways. First, the lot width is nonconforming and the applicant has no
control over the existing lot width. Second, the legal building
envelope on the lot is approximately 100 square feet in area. There is
no buildable area without variances. The Planning Commission thus
approved the variance request. A draft copy of the Planning
Commission minutes is attached to this report.
On April 29, 2002, Dale and Susan Braddy, owners of property within
350' ofthe site, submitted the attached letter appealing the decision of
the Planning Commission. This letter is consistent with the provisions
of Section 1108.408 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Current Conditions: The property located at 5584 Candy Cove Trail
was originally platted as Lot 31, Candy Cove Park, in 1921. The
property is located within the R-1SD (Low Density Residential
Shoreland) district, and is a riparian lot. The applicant does not own
either of the adjacent parcels. According to the survey submitted by
the applicant, Lot 31, Candy Cove Park is 21,856 square feet in area.
The lot is 81.47' wide at the front lot line, 51.14' wide at the OHW,
and approximately 274 feet deep on the shortest side. The front lot
line of this lot is located 90+ feet from the curb of Candy Cove Trail.
There is an excess right-of-way at this location that was originally part
of the TH 13 right-of-way, but has since been turned back to the City.
The property to the west has an easement for landscaping and access
across this excess right-of-way; the City expects to provide the same
easements to this property. This excess right-of-way also provides
access to the lots to the east of this site.
The lot is considered a nonconforming lot of record because it does not
have the minimum required lot width of90' at the front building line.
The lot also does not meet the minimum lot width of75' at the OHW.
The high point of this property is 986' MSL at the north side of the lot,
and descends to 904' MSL at the lake. The lot is considered a bluff
under the Shoreland provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The top of
bluff and the 25' bluff setback are shown on Exhibit A.
Using the required setbacks, including the front yard, side yard, and
top of bluff, this lot contains a building envelope approximately 100
square feet in area.
1 :\02fi1es\02appeal\toohey appeal\toohey cc.doc
2
The property owner is proposing to construct a single family dwelling
on this lot, as shown on Exhibit B. The proposed dwelling is a I Y2
story structure with a 20' by 22' attached garage. The footprint of the
house and garage includes 1,796 square feet. The property owner is
also proposing a 22' by 16' deck and a 19' by 18' deck, both located
on the lakeside of the house. The proposed impervious surface on the
site is 23%, which is within the allowed limits of the Zoning
Ordinance.
The property owner is proposing to place the structure on the lot so it
is located 0' from the front property line, 8.7' from the west side lot
line, 11.3' from the east side lot line, and approximately 210' from the
OHW. Although the proposed structure would be located at the front
property line, it would be at least 90' from the curb of the existing
street. This setback has been proposed in order to pull the house as far
out of the bluff as possible.
The structure is also located within the bluff impact zone. The
property owner submitted a geotechnical report, prepared by a licensed
engineer, with the variance application. This report states that slope
stability is not a concern at this location. Engineer's reports are
required by the Zoning Ordinance for any lots with a bluff, and are
usually submitted with a building permit. This report was prepared
prior to submittal of the variance application to answer any questions
about the stability of the bluff. A copy of this report is attached for
your information.
The DNR did not comment on this request. The City Engineering
Department comments are attached. The Engineering Department
comments note that the City will grant an easement for landscaping
and access across the right-of-way. In addition, the City will be
responsible for providing sewer service at the time the building permit
is issued.
The Issues: The City Council must determine if it concurs with the
Planning Commission's decision that the proposed development meets
the hardship criteria. The appellants did not include any specific or
supporting information in the letter appealing this decision.
The hardship criteria are listed in Section 1108.406 of the Zoning
Ordinance. The following includes the hardship standard as well as a
suggested finding relating to that standard.
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
1:\02fi1es\02appeal\toohey appeal\toohey cc.doc
3
would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or
exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in
developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally
permissible within the Use District in which said lot is located.
The lot was platted in 1921, prior to the existence of any Shore land
Management requirements. The applicant has no control over the
existing width of the lot at the OHW. In addition, the bluff on this
lot extends nearly to the front property line, resulting in a building
envelope of approximately 100 square feet. This is an exceptional
or extraordinary condition on this lot resulting in an undue
hardship. There is no building envelope without variances.
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 conditions applying to this lot are peculiar to this lot and to a
few other lots in the immediate area. The lot is a nonconforming
lot of record.
3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of
the owner.
Granting this variance is necessary for the preservation of a
substantial property right. The lot does not contain a building
envelope without variances.
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.
In staff s opinion, the granting of the variances would not impair
light and air, increase congestion in the streets or endanger public
safety. The applicant has submitted a geotechnical report prepared
by a registered engineer that addresses the bluff stability at this
site. The house also is set back as far out of the bluff as possible,
without going over the front property line.
5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on
the character and development of the neighborhood,
unreasonably diminish or impair established property values
in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health
safety, and comfort of the area.
The granting of the requested variances would not unreasonably
impact the character of the neighborhood.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to
the intent of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
1:\02fi1es\02appeal\toohey appeal\toohey cc.doc
4
FISCAL IMPACT:
ALTERNATIVES:
This is a nonconforming lot of record that does not include a legal
building envelope without the granting of variances. The applicant
has submitted a geotechnical report to address bluff stability.
7. The granting of the Variance will not merely serve as a
convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a
demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
The granting ofthe variances is necessary to allow a reasonable
use of this property, and to alleviate a demonstrable hardship.
8. The hardship results from the application of the provisions of
this Ordinance to the affected property and does not result
from actions of the owners of the property.
The hardship is not a result of the owner's action, but rather as a
result of the application of the ordinance.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic
hardship alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
This variance is not based on economic hardship.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission and staff recommend
approval of the requested variance on the basis the request meets the
hardship criteria in that there is no legal building envelope on the lot
without variances.
The City Attorney has reviewed the correspondence dated March 13,
2002 addressed to the Planning Commission in support of Mr.
Toohey's variance application. The City Attorney indicated no
objection to the advocacy ofMr. Toohey's counsel; however, she
disagrees with counsel's reliance on the decision in Rowell v. Board of
Adjustment of the City of Moorhead as the basis for granting the
variance. The City Attorney's objection on counsel's reliance on the
language from Rowell is noted to avoid any future precedential
reliance by counsel in unrelated applications.
Approval of the variance will allow the construction of a single family
home, thereby increasing the tax base.
The City Council has three alternatives:
1. Adopt a Resolution upholding the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve the variance requested by Mark Toohey.
2. Overturn the decision of the Planning Commission and direct the
staff to prepare a resolution overturning the decision of the
Planning Commission and denying the requested variance.
3. Defer this item and provide staff with specific direction.
1:\02fi1es\02appeal\toohey appeal\toohey cc.doc
5
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
The staff recommends Alternative # 1, adoption of a upholding a
decision of the Planning Commission approving the variance request
to allow the construct' n of a single family dwelling on the property
desc ibed as L 31, andy Cove Park.
1:\02fi1es\02appeal\toohey appeal\toohey cC.doc
6
RESOLUTION 02-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM LOT
WIDTH AT THE OHW, A VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK, A
VARIANCE TO THE BLUFF SETBACK, AND A VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM
DRIVEWAY WIDTH AT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
MOTION BY:
~'k
SECOND BY:
~
WHEREAS, On May 20, 2002, the Prior Lake City Council considered an appeal by Dale and Susan
Braddy of the Planning Commission's approval of a request for a variance by Mark
Toohey to locate a single family home on the vacant property located at 5584 Candy
Cove Trail, and legally described as follows:
Lot 31, CANDY COVE PARK, Scott County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, The City Council finds that the requested variances 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 approving
the requested variances should be upheld.
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. Mark Toohey has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance to allow a single family home
to be constructed on property zoned R-ISD (Low Density Residential Shoreland District), located
at 5584 Candy Cove Trail, and legally described as follows:
Lot 31, Candy Cove Park, Scott County, Minnesota
b. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variances to the minimum lot width at the
Ordinary High Water Elevation (OHW), the required front yard setback, to the bluff setback, and
to the maximum driveway width as contained in Case #0-030 and held hearings thereon on April
22, 2002.
c. The Planning Commission concluded the variance request met the hardship criteria and approved
the request.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
1:\02files\02appeal\toohey appeal\cc res.doc AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Page 1
d. Dale and Susan Braddy appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with
Section 1109.400 of the City Code on April 29, 2002.
e. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information
contained in Case File #02-030 and Case File #02-061, and held a hearing thereon on May 20,
2002.
f. The City Council considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and
welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of
fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of
the proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan.
g. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, the proposed
variance will not result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and
danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in
any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
h. There is a justifiable hardship caused by the width of the existing lot, and by the topography of the
lot, so reasonable use of the property is not possible without the granting of the variance.
1. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant.
J. The variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is necessary to alleviate
demonstrable hardship.
3) The contents of Planning Case File #02-030 and #02-061 are hereby entered into and made a part of
the public record and the record of decision for this case.
4) Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby upholds the decision of the Planning
Commission granting the following requested variances:
a) A 23.86' variance from the minimum 75' lot width at the Ordinary High Water Elevation (OHW);
b) A 25' variance to the front yard setback requirement to allow the structure to be setback 0' from
the front property line rather than the minimum requirement of 25 feet;
c) A variance to allow a structure to be located within the Bluff Impact Zone;
d) A 4' variance to allow a 28' wide driveway at the right-of-way line rather than the maximum 24
feet.
5) The following conditions shall be adhered to and subject to the issuance of a building permit for the
proposed room addition:
a) The subject site shall be developed as shown on the attached survey to ensure additional variances
are not required.
b) The permit is subject to all other City Ordinances and applicable County and State Agency
regulations.
1:\02fi1es\02appeal\toohey appeal\cc res.doc
Page 2
c) The variance must be recorded and proof of recording submitted to the Planning Department
within 60 days. An Assent Form must be signed and, pursuant to Section 1108.400 of the City
Code, the variance will be null and void if the necessary permits are not obtained for the proposed
structure within one year after adoption of this resolution.
Passed and adopted this 20th day of May 2002.
YES NO
Haugen Haugen
Gundlach Gundlach
LeMair LeMair
Petersen Petersen
Zieska Zieska
{Seal}
City Manager,
J :\02fi1es\02appeal\toohey appeal\cc res.doc
Page 3
Location rv1ap
\~
\
\
',,-
......~'.......,...<(
'~
//
//
~~ \" /
'0\0-<' (
\~--------~
\ ) --
~ 1;-/
~ ~\
~, \
\ \
~~~\ ?o',
//_____~ L
......__ Z
o
,0
n ,. II
I ir\
~)
NN C\R sE.
/'"
/
'-./"\"
.......l.__
~ ,,~
~~
~0'f.
\
\
/
N
A
200
o
200
400 Feet
Dale and Susan Braddy
5572 Candy Cove Trail SE
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
952/440-7723
April 29, 2002
Frank Boyles, City Manager
Prior Lake City Council
This is a request for an Appeal to reverse the decision of the Planning
Commission granting all variances requested by Mark Toohey to allow building on
5584 Candy Cove Trail, legally described as Lot 31, Candy Cove Park.
Dale and Susan Braddy
Adjacent Property Home Owners
Received in the Office of Frank Boyles by:
Date: ~/Z % 2- Time:
I .
;::;:;/, (v1t1~Y
/ J.' Z 5 J,/--
.._ ~lco.;U'.\VI
......... ~ LS w LS, '
I~~ al9. Wj
()
~
L.<!!
o ~-
~ '" \
- ~ -
'" X 969.8
('l~
C~
-~
'-
SHOREUNE ON 6-111-99
EXHIBIT A
I. Fl.
,. ~:.
>'1. fl.
'I. Ft.
LI.h.
.........
'I. Fl.
'.
-I
I
'cP OF FOUNDATION = 978.0
,ow FLOOR = 970.3
;ARAGE FLOOR = 977.5
~ "
BENCHt.lARK '\
TOP OF IolANHOLL
ElLV. - 971,26
8
.....M
.-....
10.- ' . '_...~ ~
~
~
-
~
~
-
-
'..
iii
:)
~ C. AS ~ rr v..urr GRAPHIC SCALE
" ~lnratHan'r
'140 ;.. IWCJt L.NCL ~ ~
\ .Il,- Qo. '"' ' . :' i: '. .1- - -
~~~~~~:~_:.77 5~"~:;..>- - -I ~~)n.
Io~ ~'%~ Qo.;'~
~ -' ~Clp.... ., - .. ~.:--:-~-
. ','~.IL.. __..
'. ,.....;:j0~.U~' l_.....;...._..~
!f ' .
..
I
~.
~
X965.9
DWG NO QlO:
~
~l
~n
~5
~i
o
Fl1
~
~ '
t<
i
c5 ~
N
~
U ~
~
\.:I ~
~ ~
f
t.t..l "X
~ ~
~
t3 ~
< ~
t.t..l ~
"l$ ;..
~
:< \.:I ~ 0
0< ~
0( 7- ~
;;: ;;... ;;:
~ ~ 1i ~
8 ~
~ I c.:
>- ""l'
" ~ ~
.;,
~ ti -
~ 0 '"
~ < 7 2
~ ;
:J: >-
~ 9 '" ~
~ 5
i
~ ~
z Z
! ..
~
~
u
"
"'0
-"'0
~I 8
~ ~
g ~
-7.
8; r
t:~~1
~ ~,~"'O
OUh\
c.~e-;'~
]5~~~
JUH
r~ ~ ~ f"~ ~ g
gE~~~o
.:;~~~~~
tiz-.u..~~
~6tiOOb
~~~~~~
c::>>>>>
:J~::!=~:!
EXHIBIT B
'"
'"
~
'"
~
~~
06
>~
~ .~
" ;:;
~ ~
~ ~'
~ ~~ ~ 11 i
i~~.:l ~~~c~
~ ~ ~ ~ ] ~ ;. .' .;.
o 2..ti~ciG-~=';
~ ;;~;g-518~~
.. ~5;.E~.e::.8~
~
o
6
o
z
~ JI\~~'
~t:::../-----=."'"
51
~ .
"
~~
~1
!11
o
o
.;
r-
en
on
I .
r-
z",r-
o ,en
I=~.
.en
o "
zHO
5"g
...0'"
~~~
o..~~
00.
....-'l:>
.C:: =
"I" ~ .
l~c, ~ i ! di L!,~' ~:_"i ~_l
...c:.-~~~~ :;~
, ni ~ ~ "" . ~,-"
> . ~; ~ ~ ~:~" ~~-~:":-" ~,~,~--- ~;-"-""".~~ -'-..;',
, -,~.,,",<~ _!_'~ --~" : :. , -
l i! lH. H.
~~i $~~ ~~ ;li -7.':
e=F. :."e'-., i.~ lI''''C c..i$;!"
~.'" ~~. i~~ ~!j~
~ 1 ~ ,:; i .i~' t :J ,. 3 -
-illlllMl!\III\\lll
~_,~~~.3~1~,~~~~1,,:..i-
imlHmUHmtl1H
_ '"" 1 ~ E. , . .. , 1 · , '" ~ " ~ , ' " ,
~1II~~ji!jt1!il~tti~11
~!._4.i>-I~~~~.EiJ:~~!
_..,.... ...,_v>.l.e".i~3;';~x'~S~:!"
i..
,Ii
I:
,,~ ~t~
ila 1..1
J'I
IJ l.
4;~ ;!!ft
, /1' 1/,"$
--/ :''1/
-_! / '
~. ..?)i xi
.s. (ill- (...J'o....., - ....J{j\JL
.__- 'O\'t. J
~.: CAND" (
:~ i~.,
12-
li ~.
~~
.
i
X
~
.~
...
~
~
-
""l::
.
i
~
~ ~
~,l
." "
~ ~,
.i t5
j ~ ~ ;:
, iH
~ ~;,
.:" ;1:
,~~ ;
~.fj
iH
m
!ii
'"
Z ·
::; J.
~ ~.
". "
:> 1
~i
:..." -=
~~
= ~
::< ~
~~
CO .,
" -
.<f [;
c i
z"
<"
.... '.
'" .
HUEMOELLER & BATES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL, #210
POST OFFICE BOX 67
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
Telephone: 952.447.2131
Facsimile: 952.447.5628
E-mail: huemoellerbates@aol.com
r _-c,~~--L~~--\~: ,'l
,
q :
~flR 13 21m :f
,I ~_ :
, '-' I L:,. I
L.._--_~
BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER
JAMES D. BATES
ALLISON 1. GONT AREK
OF COUNSEL:
CHARLES C. HALBERG
March 13,2002
Prior Lake Planning Commission
16220 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake MN 55372
Via Hand Delivery
Re: Request for variances to allow a building permit for property located at 5584
Candy Cove Trail, Prior Lake, Minnesota
Dear Planning Commission Members:
Our client, Mr. Mark Toohey, purchased a non-conforming platted lot of record,
legally described as:
Lot 31, Candy Cove Park
with a street address of 5584 Candy Cove Trail, Prior Lake, Minnesota. He purchased the
lot on August 18, 1995 from Esther A. Stankovich with the intention to build a home on it, a
dream of his since childhood.
The lot is steep, sloping to the shore of Candy Cove on Prior Lake. After conferring
with the Prior Lake City Engineering and Planning Departments, Mr. Toohey's request
involves three variances to the Ordinances currently in effect:
(A) a variance from the bluff set back requirement (Ord. II 04.308(2));
(B) a variance from the width requirement at the ordinary high water mark and width
requirement at the front of the lot (Ord. II 04.302(3));
(C) a variance from the standard front yard set back (Ord. 1102.405(3)).
Prior Lake Planning Comrnission
Page 2
March 13.2002
At the suggestion of Planning staff, the house was moved forward on the lot to
minimize the impact on the bluff impact zone. Mr. Toohey has, as required by the City,
performed borings to establish the stability of the soil and the engineer's report is enclosed
with this application.
To promote the most appropriate and orderly development within the community, the
Minnesota statutes authorizes zoning ordinances and allows for the Board of Adjustment:
To hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in
instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because
of circumstances unique 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).
Based on the nine hardship criteria used by the Planning Commission to evaluate
variance requests, Mr. Toohey has significant obstacles to overcome under a strict
application of the Ordinances. It is only reasonable to grant him the ability to build his
modest, strategically placed dwelling as shown on the submitted drawings.
Under the first criteria, Mr. Toohey's lot is a non-conforming, steep and oddly shaped
platted lot of record. When Mr. Toohey originally purchased his property, access existed
across adjacent public property. Mr. Toohey has now been arbitrarily excluded from the use
of this original access. Based on this exclusion, Mr. Toohey has been assured by the City
that he will be granted access over and across a public right of way ("Tract C") for ingress
and egress purposes. In order to smooth this process, we have enclosed a proposed
Agreement for Private Improvement of Public Property between Mr. Toohey and the City
granting Mr. Toohey access and allowing a driveway improvement. As part of this variance
request, we respectfully ask that this Agreement be approved.
~
Prior Lake Planning Commission
Page 3
March 13. 2002
To overcome the practical difficulties and undue hardships associated with his
property, Mr. Toohey has developed a modest home plan which he proposes to place as far
up on his property as possible. Although the adjustment to minimize the bluff impact
created a need for a front setback variance, the buffer of Tract C was considered a mitigation
to the front setback deviation. Mr. Toohey has valiantly complied with all requests of the
City in locating his home site and his sole objective is to build a modest house and enjoy the
property he purchased.
Second, the lot and area surrounding itare steeply sloped, a condition that does not
apply generally to other land in the Use District. Soil testing has been performed at the
City's request to verify the stability of the soil (see enclosed engineer's report) and Mr.
Toohey's proposed plan places his house significantly farther back on the bluff than the
existing house to the west. Mr. Toohey has mitigated the peculiar challenges of his lot as
much as possible, possibly more than his proposed neighbors.
Third, the need for the variances is conclusive. Simply stated, without the requested
variances, Mr. Toohey is unable to build on his property. This significantly devalues the lot.
Mr. Toohey purchased a lot he was assured was "buildable." Denial of his ability to build is
a removal of a substantial property right.
Fourth, allowing Mr. Toohey to build in no way impairs the supply of light and air to
any adjacent property. As previously mentioned, Mr. Toohey is substantially back from any
neighboring houses. His proposed plan is a modest structure, placed as far back on the
property as possible. No additional congestion will result from allowing Mr. Toohey to
build his house, no additional danger of fire or to the public safety will be created.
Fifth, while Mr. Toohey's proposed plan is modest, it is well within the neighborhood
standards. Allowing him to build in no way diminishes or impairs established property
values and will actually increase the overall presence of the neighborhood. Tract C, over
which Mr. Toohey's access will run, is unsightly and overgrown. His proposal allows for
landscaping and creating a driveway, significantly improving the curb side appearance of the
property and the entrance to 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.
~
Prior Lake Planning Commission
Page 4
March 13. 2002
Seventh, this request for variances is not a convenience but a necessity. Mr. Toohey
has worked very hard with the City Engineering and Planning Departments to bring the
house as far forward as possible and made other adjustments to bring the proposed building
within Ordinance standards. The granting of variances is necessary in order for Mr. Toohey
to build on his property.
Eighth, the strict application of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinances to Mr. Toohey
property would provide for no buildable area. However, it was platted as a buildable lot.
Mr. Toohey had no part in the platting and purchased the property in good faith and in
reliance on the fact he could build a house on Candy Cove, his long held dream.
Finally, while the house will be expensive to build, Mr. Toohey is willing to assume
the cost and brings no argument regarding economic hardship, with the exception that if
variances are denied, the direct result is an unbuildable platted lot of record.
Based on the principles set forth under Minnesota statutes and the Rowell decision,
we believe the Planning Commission should find as follows:
1. Strict application of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinances will result in undue
hardship with respect to Mark Toohey's property because it will preclude the preservation
and enjoyment ofMr. Toohey's property rights, by denying him the ability to build on a
platted lot of record.
2. The undue hardship results from the circumstances unique to the property because
of the shape, size and grade of the lot.
3. The undue hardship is caused by the provisions of the Prior Lake Zoning
Ordinances and is not the result of the actions of the owner, because the owner's proposed
use of the land is reasonable and the strict application of the ordinances would preclude such
reasonable use.
4. A variance preserves the spirit and intent of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinances,
produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest, because 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.
-
Prior Lake Planning Commission
Page 5
March 13,2002
On behalf of Mr. Toohey, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission
approve: (1) the requested variance from the bluff set back ordinance, (2) the requested
variance from lot width requirements at the ordinary high water mark and at the front of the
lot, (3) the requested variance from minimum set back from the front of the lot, and (4) the
Agreement for Private Improvement of Public Property. This has been a protracted effort
and Mr. Toohey has had many obstacles to overcome before this request could be submitted.
He has unfailingly attempted to move within the channels provided for citizens and has
communicated his plans openly with City staff. We appreciate your consideration.
V9!~~illj~
Allison J. Gontarek
Enclosures
cc: Mark Toohey
.
f have reviewed the attached proposed request (Toohey Variance, #02-030) for the
following:
Water X City Code ~ Grading
Sewer X Storm Water Signs
Zoning Flood Plain ,X. County Road Access
Parks Natural Features Legal Issues
Assessment Electric Roadsl Access
Policy
Septic System Gas Building Code
Erosion Control X Other
Recommendation:
Denial
Conditional Approval
0.
,o~ ~ ~-s t.+
~ e.... .>f -' ~ ' . .1....1'-; --rf"-,, ~ _ 'L 4:)
-$.0--......").~ 'c--~ _._~.,,). J.J..,...p ~_.
'l^~-^ ~J"j.~ L..J~ ':
l~ o......'2\'~o\,) I) d .
~~:r- ~~;/:;:.:; l~c.~.~
, ':.. U I'. ~_ I'.A, ") \)' ,.,'i 1'1
.....J.-P "I.. (_. ,:.~, >"f~' D i' .' ~ _ ~...-
.:..-e ~~J../'\....o n? " ""^~
~ \
Signed:
~lA-D ~cD~
--
Date:
.<.1/3/07_
I I
Please return any comments by Thursday, April 4, 2002, to
Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Phone: (612) 447-9812
Fax: (612) 447-4245
~
I :\02files \0 2varia nces\02 -030\referral. doc
Page 2
k~4DV.4jVCE SURVEYlfv'G & EjVGI~rEERIjVG co.
S["RVEYJjVG / EJVGIJVEERJjVG / GEOTECH1VICAL
~.:;()() Somh County Road 101 \tfinnetonka.. \-r.\ .:'~':;-+5
Phone 952 474 7964
Fa.."\ 952 4748267
\:ovember 20.2001
\Ir. :Vbrk Toohey
5663 136th Street Court
S<.:vage. :VIinnesota.. yJ:>J 55378
?~1one: 952 -+-+7.+860
De:.lr Mark:
A.t your request we
soil conditions on
The following IS a
have conducted a preliminary investigation of
your site at the locations you specitied.
tabulation of data about your site:
Site Address:
-...---- --
City
-------- ---.
L eg.aJ})escrjyt!_<:m:
Benchmark:
.-.-----.. -_.-
Datum:
_. - _. - .~ . _... _.. ...c.= _._. _
5584 CC1!:l.dx~ove Tr~}l SE
Prior Lake, Minnesota
--_._-_.
Lot 31. Candy_c=o~ Trail
To(' of~~ole = 971.26
the North American Datum
-- -. _..-.... - ---
-~ - ." - -.
. "~'-";""'..":~"":':'''''''-.'~:;~"T-:::.;(''::<'Y~~~~-:'-.e~~,~~-"'''';&.':~'_~:\Ir.,.,.:.~.,,~,w~,:;~._,
_,,~"'=',~_''::',-''_~~~.~~~~::'.;---'_',':~'-'";,;..-r:':'':rI'P'''::~"^?,::,,.....;;.....
lVIETHODS:
The investisration consisted of exploratory soil borings to aid in
identifvinsr soil and water conditions. We have indicated the
-' -
approximate locations of the borings on an anached site plan sketch.
Elevations are very approximate.
Borings were taken with a truck mounted C11E 45 drill rig using
solid stem continuous-Hight augers. Soils encountered in the
borings were visually and manually examined in the field by the
soils engineer. The soils are classified on the basis of texture and
plasticity in accordance with ASTM 02487 "Unified Soil
Classiiication System" and a chart explaining that system is anached.
RECOl'vr:VJENuA TIONS:
.
I SB# I TOP i "VATER IFlRivll DESCRlPTIO'\ ')F FIRST FiR:V1 SOIL ::'\COL''\TERED I
I 1 I O"':'-J. i DRY 974 Firm. bro\vn s~ncy clay (CL). some rocks. dry I
/ I
.., I 969 I DRY 969 Firm. bro\vn sandy clay (CL). some gravel I
- I
.., I 976 I DRY 976 Firm. bro\vn sandy clay (CL) I
.::J
The above table is a summarv of the soil boring results. The "SB;!f' column
~ -
indic~tes the soil boring number which corresponds to the attached site plan. The
"TOP" column indicates the assumed elevation at the top of the soil boring. The
"yV A TER" column lists the elevation at which \vater was encountered in the
borings immediately after the completion of the boring or if no water table was
encountered, ""DRY". The "FIR.i\1" column indicates the elevation at which
suitable soils were first encountered in the boring and the '"DESCRIPTION"
column describes these suitable soils.
On this site, the tirm brown sandy clay encountered at the surface is suitable for
the support of your proposed dwelling. It is our opinion that these suitable soils
are capable of supporting footings proportioned to exert a bearing pressure of no
more than 2000 pounds per square foot. It is also our opinion that these soils are
stable on slopes up to 1: 1 and the grading and drainage plan which shows
proposed contours and the existing topographic map, which shows the slope of the
existing site, shows slopes that are much t1atter, and it is therefore our opinion that
slope stability is not a concern for the proposal to place a home on the site as
shown by our grading and drainage plan.
.
STANDA.RD CAUTIONS & LIMITATIONS:
\Ve measure the depth Df ::my ground \vater that m:.lY have accumu!J.ted in the
borin~s immediareh' at comDletion of the borinQ:s. \Ve do not monitor Ihe borin~s
- . j, - -
over J per-ied of time. Borings left open are J haz::rrd to pedestrians. !eave an
opening for poilutants. and quickly cave in rendering any measurements of link
value. The \vater levels '.\'e observe are thus only::m indic::nion of an immediate
and rapid now of water into the borings indicating that drain tile system might be
over taxed in such soils. Slow int10ws may not be detected and variations in
rainfall can affect ground \v:.lter levels.
While it is our opinion that a properly designed and installed drain tile system and
submersible sump pump \.vill keep most below grade spaces dry. and should be a
standard part of all new construction, we make no guarantees in this regard.
Of necessity. the area of the borings in relation to the area of the site and the depth
of the borings are limited. Suggestions and recommendations of this report are
opinions based on data obtained trom the borings.
If upon excavation, conditions that are not consistent with the borings ::rre revealed,
it is a2:feed that vou will notify us so that we may !lather further information and
_ rtI '" .. _
modify our opinion or indicate that no modification is necessary in a written
addendum to this report; or failing to engage our services to prepare such written
addendum it is agreed that you proceed at your own peril.
I hereby certify that is report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a dulv Recistered Professional Encineer under the Laws of the State of
. - -
Minnesota.
ADY ANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO.
lo/rYiJ2IIy Je. rP o/liv2/l-
James H. Parker P.E. & P.S.. No. 9235, President
..
r~IF1ED SOIL CLASSIFICA TIO::"i SYSTE:\r
I iCLl I 1I111r;;:mic cla:,~ ,1[']0\\ iO medium plasticir:y. :;r:lVt~ly da;.s. sandy clays. silty clays. le:J.n clays
I 'SW) W~ll :;rad~d -<li'l.is ~md :;rav~ly sands. link or no tines
I
I ( SP) Poorly h'T:lJd .-.mds :J.nJ gravely sands. linle or ;10 rines
!
(GW) \Vdl :;Tadd ;r:l\~!s and gravel-sand mixtures. little or no tines
I (SC) Cla:~y ~ands. ~and--:!ay mixtures
(GC) Cbyey gravels. ;,'Tavel-sand-day mixtures
(SNl) Silty sands. sand-silt mixtures
(OL) Organic silts and or:;anic silty clays of low plasticity
(OH) Organic clays of m~dium to high plasticity
(Pt) Peat. muck. and other highly organic soils
(ML) Inorganic silts. rock t1our. silty or clayey tine sand
(CH) Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays
(MH) Inorganic silts. micaceous or diatomaceous silts. elastic silts
(GP) Poorly graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures. little or no tines
(GM) Silty gravels. gravel-sand-silt mixtures
I EXPLOR.c.1..TORY SOIL BORI~G LOG ==
,
1
II; : ';" ~~..l
?OJ
BY
i )OK,:OO!
D\ ;~
'vir. \'i~;rK . \)GiH~\
c'~;E\.:'
;);':l1f Lake. \linn~s()[J
CITY
I .:(cB"\:U
DESCR.:P;'jU\. Woo V.
,":.::\ \T:I):\ DL:Jl"f! ..
97.. 0
973 1
9''''''7 .,
1-
971 3
970 4
969 ~ Firm, brown sandy clay (CL), some rocks, dry
968 6
967 7
966 8
965 9
964 10
963 11
962 12
961 13
Compact, brown poorly graded fine sand (SP), gravel layers
960 14
959 15
958 16
continued next page
~w - l)E;':OT[S W.-\ TER LEVEL DETECTED .n CO\[PLETI01\ OF BORI1\G. YLA. Y R1SE ! (D=DR Y)
x~ - ST A0<DARD PE\iETRA nON TEST BLOW COl':\T
.-\DVA~CE SL'RVEYING / ENGINEERING / GEOTECHNICAL
~3(}O HIGHWAY] 01 SO. MI"\iNET01\KA. :vr1~~ESOTA 55345 PHONE: 4747964
EX?LORA.TOR1t~ SOIL BORI~G LOG #
1
Ilii;~':.l PO] \\/08/:1)1)' \lr.vlar:,lc)I':'c\
.:(\:3'.0 ay D..l, T:= C...:E:\T
Prior LJ.l\.e. v[inn6ota
'-~-ry.
'- 1. .
:.: .. ". . \ ::()' ~)Li":J I DbCR:?Tit;, \V'~ v'
.^
95i Ii Compact. brown poorlv 2:raded tine sand is?). 2r:l\ellavers
956 18
Compact, brown well ~raded sand (S\\-')
955 19 -D-
~\V _ DE):OTES \VATER LEVEL DETECTED 1l..T C()1vIPLETIO~ OF BORf.\;G. :YIAY RlSE! (D=DRY)
x~ _ ST.\~Dl\RD PE>JETRATION TEST BLOW COl.");T
.-\DV.-\~CE SL"RVEYI~G / E~GI~EERI~G / GEOTECH~ICAL
5300 HIGHWAY 101 SO. \lll:--;NET01\KA. \lll"NNESOTA 55345 PHONE: 4747C)6.l
,EXPLO~A..TORY SOIL BORl~G LOG =t
..,
-
POl : . (JR, :01) ! \k \vl",rk T (\oh~:.
BY D,.)" ~E CLlE:"!
p,.ior LJk~. \v[inn~sotD.
CITY
1._' :,\' :';()" ,)l:I"!'H DESCRJPT]O~ \'y,' '\'"
969 0
968 1
967 .,
-
Firm. brown sandy clay (CL), some gravel
966 ~
~
965 ~
964 5
963 6
962 7
961 8
960 9
959 10 Compact, brown well graded sand (SW)
958 11
957 12
956 13
955 14
954 15
953 16 Compact, brown poorlv graded fine sand (SP)
continued next page
~\V _ DE:';OTES WAfER LEVEL DETECTED AT COMPLETION OF BORl:';G. :VIA Y RISE 1 (D=DRY)
'" _ ST\;-.iD:\RD PE);ETRA TION TEST BLOW COeNT
ADVANCE SVRVEYING / ENGL~EERlNG / GEOTECHNICAL
~300 HIGHWAY 101 SO. :vIf:\JNETONK:\. :v1I;-';1\ESOT.~ 55345 PHONE: 474 -q64
..
jEXPLORA.TORY SOIL BORI~G LOG #-
21
')~ll~~4J. P()J
I .iU8'-O 3'1'
'-.LI~\ r
Prior Lake. \linnt~ota
CITY
r i 0812()() I
D..I..TE
'vIr. \I<.lr:-..L~()he'.
I' : L\' \, ;.;()'\ :lIY':, DESCR..IFTIO'\; \\" ,.
952 17
951 18 Compact, brown poorly graJed fine sand (SP)
950 19 -D-
*W - DE~OTES \V,\TER LEVEL DETECTED ,\T CO\lPLETIO;\ OF BORf."G. :VIA Y R1SE ! (D=DRY)
*'\ - STA);DARD PE:'-iETR.:\ TJO:'-i TEST BLOW COL"l\T
ADVA~CE SCRVEYI~G / E~GL~EERJ~G / GEOTECH~ICAL
5300 HIGHW,A. Y 101 SO. \tl~i'iET00iKA. \'1I:\0iESOTA 55345 PHONE: J"7 -+ 7964
~
!EXPLORi\TORY SOIL BORI~G LOG #-
3
j '; I ()~ ,;.1 POJ ! i ()~, :!!O i 'vIr. \i"r~ Toohey
.'(\:~ \.;() BY DXfE CllE\iT
P:ior L.a~e. \[innesot:l
CITY
! :.:' -', \- ;( ,~, :)EPTH DE.~CRjPT!O~ \\ " \i"
9-:-6 0'
Q"':'- 1
_ i;:'
9i4 2
9i3 ..
.)
9"':''7 4 Firm, brown sandy clay (CL)
1-
9i1 5
9iO 6
969 .,
I
968 8
967 9
966 10
965 11 Compact, brown poorly graded sand (SP), some gravel
964 12
963 13
962 14
961 15
Compact, brown well graded sand (SW)
960 16
continued next page
*\\ - DE:\OTES WATER LEVEL DETECTED AT COMPLETION OF BORf.\iG. :VIA Y RISE! I D=DRY)
x:\ _ ST.\:'\DARD PE:-<ETRATION TEST BLOW COL0iT
ADVA~CE SuRVEYI~G / E~GINEERlNG / GEOTECHNICAL
5.300 HIGHWA Y 101 SO. \'IJ\."~ETONK.A. !vIINN'ESOTA 55345 PHONE: .+747964
~
.)
! l::X?LORA lORY SOIL BORI~G LOG #
j:",.::,).... PO] I Lm;,:oO] \t!r.\lar:.;':l)nh~\
. ( . '3"-0 3Y DATE CUE"-T
Pr:0r Lli-.:~. 'vlinnesota
CITY
J : : \ \ :.:(:" :JIY!!: DESCR1P: iC"- W" V"
..
i159 17 i Comoact . brown ,v~!l graded sand (5\V)
958 18
957 19
956 20
955 21 Compact, brown poorly graded fine sand (SP)
954 22
953 ~....
:..~
9-" 24 -D-
~-
=W. DE"\OTES \VA TER LEVEL DETECTED AT COMPLETION OF BORlj\iG. :VIA Y RISE! (D=DR'{)
-:--; - ST.-\;\DARD PE:\ETRATION TEST BLOW COUNT
ADV..\.. ~CE' St:RVEYING / E~GINEERING / GEOTECH:\TICAL
~300 HIGHWAY 101 SO. rvrr;-.'NETO!\iKA. MI?<NESOT A 55345 PHONE: 4747964
WI
: 1
JSL[J
. CO
-~~
;. ;-....
"'T'('\J
0,
Zl
~ I
~.
./. ---_. -
..---_...
------. .'.
-._n_ _.;____.._
.~
.... ~
.- "
I
I
\~i
-!
I
'"
"'"
'"
~
-
------...
'\.
I
~
,"w
~~~
C_'<r
~;..........
~~
C'l.
C"-JO
10
,U')
-
) .:)
E:X1SDNG
HOUSE:
EX TR A
REQUIR!
I
L
,-
'\
\,
~
f
I
:,'.:J
TRACT C, AS DESCRIBED E
SURVEYING CO. FOR THE (
PRIOR LAKE.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22. 2002
Comments from the public:
ents from the public. The floor was closed at 7:05 p.m.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, S
"A
COUNCIL APPROVE T
BLOCK 4, REGAL C
EMKE, TO RECOMMEND CITY
SURVEY FOR LOTS 22-24,
This matter I go before the City Council on May 6, 2002:
~
C. Case File #02-030 Mark Toohey is requesting a variance to the front yard
setback and bluff setback on the property located at 5584 Candy Cove Trail.
Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated April 22, 2002,
on file in the office ofthe Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application for the construction of a single
family dwelling with an attached garage for the property located at 5584 Candy Cove
Trail, and legally described as Lot 31, Candy Cove Park. The following variances are
being requested:
1. A 23.86' variance from the minimum 75' lot width at the Ordinary High Water
Elevation (OHW);
2. A 25' variance to the front yard setback requirement to allow the structure to be
setback 0' from the front property line rather than the minimum requirement of
25 feet;
3. A variance to allow a structure to be located within the BluffImpact Zone;
4. A 4' variance to allow a 28' wide driveway at the right-of-way line rather than
the maximum 24 feet.
The lot is considered a nonconforming lot of record because it does not have the
minimum required lot width of 90' at the front building line. The lot also does not meet
the minimum lot width of75' at the OHW.
The lot is considered a bluff under the Shoreland provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
Using the required setbacks, including the front yard, side yard, and top of bluff, this lot
contains a building envelope approximately 100 square feet in area.
L\02FILES\02pJanning comm\02pcminutes\MN042202.doc 5
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 2002
The applicant is requesting variances to construct a single family dwelling on this lot.
The proposed dwelling is a 1 Y2 story structure with a 20' by 22' attached garage. The
footprint of the house and garage includes 1,796 square feet. The applicant is also
proposing a 22' by 16' deck and a 19' by 18' deck, both located on the lakeside of the
house. The proposed impervious surface on the site is 23%, which is within the allowed
limits of the Zoning Ordinance.
The DNR did not comment on this request. The City Engineering Department comments
note the City will grant an easement for landscaping and access across the right-of-way.
In addition, the City will be responsible for providing sewer service at the time the
building permit is issued.
Based on the above findings, the staff found this request meets the nine hardship criteria.
There is no legal alternative for the construction of a house on this lot. The staff
therefore recommended approval of the requested variances.
Comments from the public:
Allison Gontarek, attorney for the applicant, Mark Toohey, explained working with staff
to address their concerns. The proposed single family home is simple and the applicant
has gone to great effort and expense to make a reasonable request. He has complied in
every respect.
Ringstad questioned Toohey ifhe was promised it was a buildable lot when he purchased
the property. Toohey responded the lake setbacks have changed since he purchased the
property.
Criego questioned the decks. Toohey responded they were walkout platforms.
Criego also questioned the front yard setback. Gontarek responded there were two
alternatives. Staffhad suggested pulling the house forward so it would be as far out of
the bluff as possible.
Lemke questioned whether the number of borings were adequate for the engineer's
analysis. Staff noted the applicant had received a separate grading permit for that work.
They were restricted by the ordinance as to the location of the borings.
Bruce Thomas, a neighbor, stated he had several concerns. First, the impact on the
remaining lots. Runoff into the lake and Mr. Braddy's property. Another concern was
the proposed size of home being less than any other home in Candy Cove and that it
would not conform to the rest of the neighborhood. He also questioned the additional
noise from Highway 13 with the bluff impacted. Thomas suggested the Commissioners
go out and see the property before they make a decision.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN042202.doc 6
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22. 2002
Shelly Hines, 5540 Candy Cove Trail, stated he was not clear on the plan from the
drawings. His concern was for noise coming offthe highway with the bluff being shaved
off. He also felt the driveway would be a blind curve.
Art Shoot, lives two houses down from the property, felt that originally Mr. Braddy's
property as well as this property would be unbuildable. Noise is also an issue. He
cannot open his windows until the leaves come out on the trees. This house will not
impact the noise.
The public hearing was closed.
Kansier pointed out the City has a Tree Protection Ordinance. The Shoreland District
also restricts the type of clearing permitted on a bluff. It is not clear-cutting. The other
issue is there is no minimum size for a house or garage building pad. The applicant is
proposing a modest house that fits the limitations of the lot.
McDermott stated the Engineering Department reviewed the runoff very carefully. The
design will minimize runoff to Braddy's property. The road was recently reconstructed
and problems should not occur. Parking will only be allowed on one side of the street.
Kansier addressed Mr. Shoot's concern regarding subdividing two adjoining lots. The
other lots have been addressed. These lots are under separate ownership and not
combined. The lots were all platted long before the current ordinance.
Stamson asked staff to address the neighbor's concern for buildable lots. Kansier
explained the ordinances and property lots. Most of the lots on Candy Cove would not be
permitted under today's ordinances. She also said it takes pretty extreme conditions to
say a lot was unbuildable. Any application would be asked to provide an Engineer's
Report with a variance application to ensure the conditions on the lot would not preclude
a building.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
. Questioned staff on the streets. McDermott explained the right-of-way obtained from
MNDOT. Part of the easement was granted to Dale Braddy. If this is application is
approved, staff will take this before City Council for easement approval. McDermott
explained the potential access to the other lots.
. Questioned the access and land locking the properties. Kansier responded there
would be easement accesses recorded.
. Can understand this applicant requesting access but concerned for the other adjoining
properties.
. Kansier explained why the City requested Mr. Toohey to have an engineering report
up front.
. Questioned why the driveway would be 28 feet wide instead of 24 feet. McDermott
said it would be 24 feet at the roadway.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN042202.doc 7
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 2002
· Has been at the sight, the applicant has done his best to comply.
· It would not interfere with the quality of the lake.
· Questioned the zero lot line. Kansier explained the measurement from the bluff.
They were minimizing the effect as best as they could.
· Good application. In favor.
Lemke:
· Questioned staffwhat would happen if the surveyor was off a few inches. Kansier
explained private use of public property. It has happened before and that is how it is
addressed.
· McDermott said property boundaries are marked clearly and will make every effort to
make sure it does not happen.
· Agreed with Criego, it is a good application.
· Clarified he had been to the site.
Atwood:
· It is a good use of the property. Approve.
Ringstad:
· It meets all 9 hardships. Approve.
Stamson:
· This lot is clearly unbuildable without variances.
· Support the variances as proposed.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 02-
007PC APPROVING THE REQUESTED VARIANCES TO THE LOT WIDTH AT
THE OHW, THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, THE BLUFF SETBACK AND THE
DRIVEWAY WIDTH.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Kansier explained the appeal process.
D. Case File #02-029 Steven & Patricia Mosey are requesting variances to
permit a garage and room addition to be setback less than 25 feet to front lot line;
less than 5 feet to side lot line; a sum of side yards less than 15 feet; eave
encroachment less than 5 feet to front and side lot line; a 63.8 foot building wall
setback to side lot line less than required; and a driveway setback less than 5 feet to
side lot line for the property located at 14620 Oakland Beach Avenue SE.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated April 22,
2002, on file in the office ofthe Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application from the property owners for
the construction of an attached garage and second story addition to an existing single-
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN042202.doc 8
~ (1)
o ...t::
....... ....... ~
'C t) OJ) "0
0. 2 .5 (1)
~.......tn"'dtn
~ CI)._ ~ <1.)
08~8&
01) u ~ <1.) <1.)
~ > coj ~ ~
. .....;;> ~ rJ:1
;,... 0 0 0 .......
ro _....... ~
(1)-~....... ro
...t:: ro 0 ~ . ~
. ~ .8 ',c "0 0..
- ...... (1)
..DrJ:1"O.......~
[g~] (1)
ro ro co.....!::
"0 . C 0 OJ) E--i
_ ro ....... ~ .
(l) :> CI)'- (1)
..c;"""O a g
8 c.8 a c.8 (1)
.~ a ~ 8 ~
...... ',c rJ:1 U....!::
S ro "0 $:: C,)
8~a2~
o 0... C ro co
u~.......~"O
01)==0=
. 5 ro (1)" OJ) ~
=;,...(1)~~
= (1) 01);"= ro
~~~Q)O
~ g ~~ ~
..c: C,) "0 ~ \0
E--i 0 (1) - ~
....... ~'8-
.. N" .s c.S ~
o ~ I "0
.....0 = (1) (1)
.::-- _1 _.......
- \.~ ro OJ) ro
.~" = C,)
~ N ~ ._ 0
~N 0 rJ:1_
. .
z
o
~
Vl
Vl
~
U
Vl
~
~
CI)
(1)
C,)
~
.-
~
ro
:>
OJ)
=
.-
~
o
-
-
c.8
r/)
~
....... C,)
~ ro
0-:9
cl:: (l)
CI)
ro "d .-=,
Oa'-'
~ ~O
C,) ....... r/)
ro $:: "0
~~~
e~~
~"OC/.)
.......(1)-
C,) ;,... ro
~.- =
.J:j ~ 0
r/) ~......
....... (1) r/)
o ;,... =
,9 rJ:1 (1)
- ro S
I ........_
~~Q
....... I V)
.@ ~ ~
(1) = N
o.roO
00;;:::
.......
(1)
C,)
=
ro
......
a
:>
.......
o
c.8
I
~
N
~
~ =
..c: 0
....... ',c
ro C,)
;,... (1)
(1)" C/.)
.5 (1)
- C,)
>.=
t ~
(1) ......
0."0
80
o.~
-
8 (1)
"0 C,)
Q) Cl) ro
(1) ~ 0.
~ 'S C/.)
N 0" =
~ Cl) Cl)
. ~ 0.
;:::60
~~'U3
o S ~
rJ:1 .- coj
~.s ~
ro S "0
>. (1) (1)
(1) ..c: . =:
"0 ....... ~
'r;) = ~
~ ro (1)
o..c~
.......
~ ~ 2J
r/)O;;~
ro ro -
;""0
.......~-
.@ g-
(1) C,) =
0. ~ .2
o ~ 1)
....... 0 (1)
<1.).......C/.)
C,) ..9 Cl)
a OJ) C,)
'C = a
ro'''''' =
.::a:.a
oc.80
c.8~~
I 0.......
00 C,) (1)
V)~~
MOl
~=V)
~ro-
.
N
.
r---1
,-.
00
'-'
Cl)
C,)
~
ro
~
....... ......
(1) "0
~ Cl) ~
1..c0
- .......~
O\=a)
~O~
o "0 I .
~~V)~
o ro - 00
.-....... '-'
.......0"0
~ _ ~ Cl)
ro OJ)'''''' ~
o.~~a
~ .~ ar C/.)
OJ) t:: ~ ~
.S ~ s &
"0 = ~ 0
:;::: 0 8 ........
~ C,)...... r/)
...0 = = "0
o .- ~
ro = 8 ro
.~ (1) (1) ~
~..c..c"O
t:: ....... ....... <1.)
~ = = .=:
~ 0 ro ~
o CI) ..c ~
....... <1.) ....... (1)
(1) 3 ~ ~
C,).........cN
~ C,) ~ 0
...... 2 ~ V)
~ .......
ro CI)
:>-
....... -
o coj
c.8 =
I Q)
0\ Cl)
V)Z
~]
.
M
"
....... -
00
- -
OJ)-
=
...... =
= 0
..,..... .~
o .......
.~ u
"0 Q)
roC/.)
.
"0
o ~ rJ:1
....... ...... .......
....... ~ ~
$:: ~ Q)
8 ~]
~ s C,)
C,) ~ ro
coj 8 8
0._ C,)
t) ~ =
5 's ~
~ Q) :::
Q)..c w
t:.......~
5haM
"O..c0
~.......~
ro [) -
Q) ..c S
~~-
Q) ~ ~
a .8 .g
- C,)
Q)
C/.)
Q)
C,)
~
ro
=
......
8~
00
~~
.......
.@ :9
Q) (1)
o.~
o r/)
....... ro
Cl)
C,)
=
ro
......
a.......~
~ ~ g
o I -:9
c.8M~
I
r-
~
~ .~
~ .......
.- Q)
.:a~
I
V)
.
r---1
,-.
-
'-'
.
~
- ----..>
.
1 'Vld
,-
"0. M..L-v.Bt'ot N
"
Cj3d 0\10(j
1 ~Ol JO ~UH IS03
~ '" Lv I B t1 0 ~ N
r'
o
r- -
.. ~ 02
---...(
-'-------~
. '-, --':I
""
,
,
'-i
~
r
,~
'-.)
S~
V)~
J...::;
~~
'\0, J::
~~
1"..-' ,-
i
I
k
,
I
!
1'-.
I
f-
I
I
l__
r
---'
I J:
<.)
<I
UJ
~-"'"'I.~'t"..,
1.!)
:',J
w
(I)
:>
o
J:
VJ:
'" _0
'" oq
-w ~
-CD ~
0 ~...o
<1.10 C\lO<l.l
.~z - a. E
-q o ,...
J::::-1 ~ 0
t:~ cnOQ
oq 0000
20 (1')_-
- - ---
--S"IZ--:'-
'.
-::'~ ';
rC' I
.. I
--,
CJ
~
~
IJ'
i
'\J
j
-..
~
<:
...J
:s:.
<:
"
'-' ,
w-J
V)'"'.... I
",l. -
-.J ::'0'
0,"" -J
- :r~; ,
6 -.L .
_.~
~ I
I
-: ' ;>-
.- ('Il-,
f-------
1:::
-
:::!
o
III
\D
,.,;
; .
-. .. - --- --,-- -.--L.
\
""
D'
o
"/ I
, I I
J /;/ f
,." ,,/
. I
~ II
: j
1
--00 017--.'
3..,L ,',017 0 ~s
.01 k aun ~saM
~I
1:'
-
:t"
.:~
.. (I). '.:
. ~l
o .~'
flf-
tit.
" .)"0.)
"'. .....
... ; ~":
r..
\
t- -.;~ ,~
.':.... '..
'. t
".J;
~ .,
. ~. ......." ....
~T
.. ~
- ~1 0
-
~
2
r--------- ~
I
I
I
~ I I
I ~
I
I :r.
~ I I
I ., ~ .
en I 0 j !-a
I ;;.J
I c:1 >(l .
Z I I :J_
I
I
<( I
..J . \
a. ~---------
CJ :s- --'"
1/ ! I /.
z 5>
I
- II ~
c j ~~
...I (i) j I .
i I ~~
- I 00
:) v I ~
'--r O.~"7 1 .0',..\ I I
1 p..Q I \ I ~
m I! : 4-
, . It
I Ibd
N
I-
Z
W ---
:! I
i
I
::J: '0
~ KI C'~
\l ~
i
~ -- cZ... '0 ~
~ J.F ~ ;)
I ~
-; 'EI ~
~~ .ji
I
---.i..
~~ I, I
.1
1-j ()
c+
I
, I --J.-
II
11 II I 0
Jl i ]
.~....".".ro.." I ."'.!ol .O'.~ f
1 \1ld
-- f I b'L--
"1J
t
3 JV.:UH'lS -:.
SflONIWfi.q9 0
paap 017 M
'spaw I Z Ov --
\
CII.....--
o.-.~
I""'l' -
Q;I .
E --
.rtj (/)
If)
..
(~ ~-
,....., fr.
.~
"
-- .- ~------'---' .._--
.~ ~ o~
.-.----- -.....--..-..--..- -- -----..------
--~
..--...- -
I
,
, ...
c
j
~
~
(.)
<:
w
"~-ct.'- .
,....
I...;,J
~'J
I
V
- - J:
'" _u
'" 0 <t
-lLJ ~
- a::l _ &I)
o ;"-0
010 N 0 QI
C Z - a. E
=<t 0 ~
~...J an 0
_ 0
L. ~ ~ 00
o<r <Doo
ZO (f)_-
I
I
I
-.s 71Z :::. -
~
",,-
"
~~'''I
c.. I
~~ I
en w!::: I
::>0'
0,'" ...1
:r ~; . "f
~. I
\, .
-.
r--.;;:--,-
I '
---- ,
'. " --':"1 h.
,
i
--.J l.
I ~
(I)
, ::>
"
~. 0
:r
I
~ I
'\, I l.
)j;:)3G
L_
r
\'l)
"-.J
~
(J..
~
it3=;
:>
~
(1'
'""-
..,"
~
~
o
z "
<:
...J
::s:."
<:
0,
~'.
- - ~'Il -...
r------
lit I
.
~ ,.)t'~. ;: ..
/'r CIa ~ !
. _ o. .
~ c,.. ~___
-E--o
_ c c--
-.CX)-u:>
05 - CJ.~o
- ~ 0
...OQ~QI
,!-occoc:
-~"7- r.n:.=
I
.
.c;
..
='
o
t/)
\D
,.,;
~ I
.... -' - .. -,_.- -.-1..
\
""
0'
o
0'(
I I 3"L1/,Ol? .~S
I I 101 k aU!I IsaM
: /";'''1 \
.: cot,..., i
,..., GO
rt)
~,
: I
1
"lrA\
'~NO.)
s:'
-
5-
..'~
~~i
o :f:.:
I't.::
l~
. \',\.
. (",. .
....
-----------.:....~---_......--.,_.,_..,.
(i
~
L.q!
~ ~-
- --' ~ \
~<e. -
\II X 969.8
(i~
C~
~~
-"
t:"'..
EXHIBIT A
SHOREUHE ON 5-18-99
1.1% ~. Fl.
".,. :>'1. ~t.
:.1 hX S<j. fl.
:~: :>ol. Fl.
~."~1 S<j. h.
'-
!I.x~.. SOl. Fl.
~J ....
I
I
TCP OF FOUNDATION = 978.0
LOW FLOOR = 970.3
GARAGE FLOOR = 977.5
-
-
I..
~.
1/ ~
~ \ \, WCT c:. AS ~ IT VAW;T GRAPHIC SCALE
" Ul\C'IIIQ CD. _ 1IC an ~ ':'.
fl \ :~a."" ~\ ~... " \... _ .: I i
I~ " ,,":l~ ~ ~~~"-:t~~&G u.,"r SC;"tL~- - (Of rar)
./ op" ~+~_c,~~' 1.... - ZIl ft.
'" io~~~ a.;' A,
~ .' .,.,Clp~~ I .~. -. -. -........~
'., ~ ~.~ U~. ~.....__=:... .
~ r 1, .
BENCHMARK \
~OP OF WANHOl!
ELEV. - 971.26
.
W.W.H.
11
~
-
"....
~
X965_9
DWG NO 010:
./
~
9~
l~
\..J
,.....)
~
~
~
\n~
~
~
<J-
~
!
-
<.?
......
o
\.0
<>>
C
\.00
00
l)-
\\1
L!1
I"') co
Or.!)
o
00
II II
"<:J..J
."' 01 ~Ol lO au'l ~Sc.M ~I'
3..vC; IV~!~ 5 I
--89'2 --
~
(f).
, i.: .~~
-
o
L.
<11
C
L.
o
U,
3-
z9.
......
"
"-':"'- ......
~
'q;) ..~
. 'Jf?%~;;~:;\)~;~'>' ';i~t
,..,.., ~:.
1. V'ld
.. :1 02
, r-
-----_._~
-,-
'-:I
, :
,
,
,
'-i
"
"
, i
'\j
" I
-~ ~~ I
r'~-;
l
~
l
L_
'-
0;
L'I
,~
... \ '}
C -
:I:
<.)
<I'
UJ
" -aj---
~
- -:r::
'" _0
'" 0 c::r t
-w ~ :
'OCD = U)
"",-0
g"C N 0 QI
cz - o..E
=c::r 0 ~
.s:::...J In 0
_ 0
I..~ cnoo
o c::r CD 0 0
ZO(l')--
I
I
___ I
-.s 'IZ :::.-
"
'>J>i a
V'
... Z '"
r-- <I'
I "': ..J
L x"-
6!: .~~,
lID ,
. ,
~ '.~' ~C ..
/....1" fa ~ ~
e Ego. :""""_-i
" --0
. c e--
-"co-(O
o.~ _G..-o'O
- ~ 0
. .. 0 () '" Q.l
.!.ODCDc
-&-;-- (I)=:
t
.
w
(/)
::>
o
J:
.-('Il-..
r------
.I::.
-
~
o
Vl
\D
t'W
t1>
!
-.--,..- - -~-
\
""
~
o
~,
I I 3..d,ov.tS
------------L~ IO~ f i>U!1 IS~M
\
\
~
PETITION
We, The Undersigned howeowners on Candy Cove Trail, request that the
City Council deny the variances approved by the Prior Lake Planning
Commission to - Applicant Mark Toohey, property owner of:
Lot 31,
5584 Candy Cove Trail,
Candy Cove Park
Variances granted Approval by the Planning Commission are:
. Approve variance to the Top of the Bluff Setback
. Approve variance to the Front Yard Setback
. Approve variance to the Lot Width
. Approve variance to the Driveway Width at the Front Property line
Granting these variances will have a tremendous impact on our
neighborhood, ie. destroying the lake bluff; destroying the buffer zone on
highway 13; increasing erosion and runoff to our properties by the removal
of massive amounts of dirt, trees, and vegetation; will unreasonably impact
on the character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably
diminishing or impairing the established property values in the area; and
unreasonably impact and change the character of the lake and lakeshore.
Name
Address
Phone
jo~ P.
b4.88 ~y Cbv€" P'( 951. -L{f{v - r 1..3S
Pit<? (O~ c- ,t/-(<~
9 015..>
C}62' l.{ L{ 7,0153
'i (Z -'147 ~ Dr;;
qsj,....<..f<.tl ~ (, lD~
May 19,2002
City of Prior Lake
City Council Members
Dear Members,
My name is Jon Schlegel, ! live at 5488 Candy Cove Trail SE, Prior Lake.
Previous work commitments prevent me from attending the May 20111, City Council
Meeting, but I request that my statement be read into the record.
I am opposed to the Planning Commission Decision to approve the .4 variances
to the property owner of the lot at 5584 Candy Cove Trail. The Planning Commission
Decision will definitely impact our neighborhood and homes. I request that the City
Council overturn that Approval. and hold fast to the set ordinances and rules in place at
the time that Mr. Mark Toohey purchased this lot.
I also want to advise the Council Members of a conversation I personally had with the
property owner Mark Toohey. Mr. Toohey was standing at the lot, as ! passed by one
day. Stopping to talk, we had a conversation regarding the 5584 Candy Cove Trail lot.
Mr. Toohey explained that he owned the lot. While talking I told Mr. Toohey that it was
my understanding and knowledge as a homeowner on Candy Cove that the lot was
unbuiJdabl., and asked if he knew that when he purchased the lot. Mr.Toohey stated to
me, "I know it is an unbuildable lot, I knew that when I purchased the 10t...1 am trying to
figure out what I will have to do to get through the city variances... .AIII have to do is go
through the Crty and get the variances passed. and I will build"
We continued our conversation, but I want the Council to know, without a doubt, that Mr.
Mark Toohey purchased the lot knowing full-well that the lot was unbuildable!
Please, vote against this Planning Commission Approval, and overturn their decision.
We need to protect the Lake, our land, and our neighborhood. As homeowners we
expect our City Council to uphOld the restrictions, ordinances, and rulings in place in our
City and neighborhoods.
Thank you,
'.?~
~Schlegel
5488 Candy Cove Trail SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
952-440-0602
,
JAMES R. HILL, INC.
PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS
2500 WEST COUNTY ROAD 42, SUITE 120, 8URNSVILlE, MINNESOTA 55337 (952) 890-6044 FAX 890-6244
May 17, 2002
Mr. Dale E. Braddy
5572 Candy Cove Trail Southeast
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Lot 31, Candy Cove Park
Dear Mr. Braddy:
Per your request I have reviewed reports, ordinances and survey pertaining to the above
referenced lot.
I. The hardship was "created" with the purchase of the lot. The present owner of Lot
31 purchased the lot subject to the present ordinances. He purchased a lot with no
building envelope.
2. Setbacks in existing neighborhoods are based on averaging adjacent homes. The
adjacent setbacks do not support a "0" setback on Lot 31.
3. The soil boring logs do not indicate any blow counts. The standard penetration
test blow counts are not indicated.
4. The grading of the drive for Lot 31 will reduce the existing elevation of Lot 31
exposing the existing neighbor to Highway 13.
5. The drainage arrows and the proposed contours on the west side of Lot 31 are in
conflict. The drainage will move perpendicular to the proposed contours. Water
runs onto the adjacent lot to the west.
6. The existing elevations on the soil boring do not match the contours on the
certificate of survey by as much as 5 feet.
7. I have also shaded an additional area where grade will take place to provide
drainage from the rear of the proposed house.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me.
Respectfull y,
JAMES R. HILL, INC.
/~?lL/ t: ;%If;;'r4
Harold C. Peterson, L.S.
Vice President
HCP:hf
^ -"-"'-"~'-'~'-'-"'--'-~'-'~--'~~~-'-~-"-----.",,-,"---~,--~-,-~.,---,,~--,~.~._~---_._"~-
~'
i:;":' '.~
.tel' "
~
..
JAIl" .~
:"
'~':'.:
;"".....
.
CHMARK
IF MANHOLE
= 971.26
~=I .
'M
~
~,
fJ'J6
fJ'J7
~
9'f1
9<lO
9-1\
:' ~-
9+1 ~ ______________
9'i!i
9-16
'-
.
-96!J
-96-+
_96,
)F FOUNDA TIONi 971;i..
=-LOOR = 970.~ '
GE FLOOR = 9:77.5
~~1
;, ~~I
%1~,
%8~
"
/\Cx\
Vh
',-
EXISTING
HOUSE
r
U 0
I)'
/
--
1
~
/b
.&
W.M.H.
~
~
Z~
t;c
~ ~~~O
~ ~X969.8
~~
Ob
~ -969
~~
~
~ _qb8
~ ~67.9
~ qb1
~ -
~
~
&;
T1,'i (I)
." "'~'
~' IBED BY'
/ -.,; TRACT C, ASCODE;g: THE crN
~ )S' SURVEYING.
// ~bvc.~IOR LAKE.
/
~" /'
,\,\~'~()'5
/ .'\ J
~ro fj1
"~
~
9~-/
X965.9