The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7C - Bluff Impact Zone Appeal MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: AGENDA ITEM: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT l);~ AUGUST 19, 2002 7C STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE IMPORT OF MATERIALS, GRADING AND FILLING WITHIN A BLUFF IMPACT ZONE (Case file #02-076PC) DISCUSSION: History: Hillcrest Homes, LLC, installed a boulder wall and fill within a bluff impact zone during the construction ofa single-family , ' I f dwelling that was approved on October 24,2001, under Building $..- r ,,,,I e.. I. f-i1! : L~Pem:it # 01-12?6, on the. p~operty at. 1476~ R~sewood Road. The apphcant submItted a bUIldmg permIt apphcation and survey for the project, but the information provided by the builder to the City did not include the retaining wall and the grading/filling work conducted within the bluff impact zone, and drainage/utility easements as part of the proposed project. The wall and fill were done without approval from the City. Staff inspected the project, discovered the work, and notified the builder by phone on February 13, 2002. Staff followed up with a written notice the following day and posted a "Stop Work Order" with the conditions that all noted violations shall be corrected prior to removal of the stop work order. Hillcrest Homes submitted an application for a variance on June 14, 2002, to permit the import of materials and grading/filling within the bluff impact zone to construct a boulder retaining wall. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this request on July 8, 2002. A copy of the Planning Report, which outlines the request, is attached to this report. The Commission determined the variance did not meet all 9 hardship criteria. A reasonable use of the property, that is, a single family home, could be built on this lot without the need for grading, excavation or the placement of the retaining wall within the bluff impact zone, as evidenced by the approved permit. The site was not developed as proposed and approved under Building Permit # 01- 1206. The Commission denied the variance request, and adopted Resolution 02-010PC to that effect. A copy of the minutes ofthe 162e(}>f!'d~le'~F,lIYWJf.r'9~fP.\'ept~R~:Ntfunesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Planning Commission meeting on July 8, 2002, is attached to this report. Current Circumstances: On July 12,2002, the applicant submitted the attached letter appealing the Planning Commission's decision to deny the requested variance. The appeal was scheduled for hearing before the Council on August 19, 2002, as requested by the applicant and in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. The staff report to the Planning Commission recommended denial of the requested variance. This recommendation was based on the fact that there is a reasonable use of the property without the placement of fill or a retaining wall within the bluff impact zone. The approved building permit for the single family dwelling on the lot did not include any impact to the bluff. No hardship existed that prevented the applicant from constructing the single family dwelling, which the applicant detailed in the materials submitted with the single family dwelling. The applicant created the hardship by installing the boulder wall and fill in violation of Zoning Ordinance Section 1104.402. The Planning Commission agreed with staffs recommendation and denied the requested variance. The Planning Commission determined that a reasonable use of the property existed without the requested variance. The applicant was able to construct a single family dwelling without filling, excavating or constructing a boulder retaining wall within the bluff. The variance could be eliminated by removing the fill and boulders, and restoring the bluff impact zone to its original condition. The findings of fact included in this report reflect the Planning Commission's decision. Issues: The City Council must determine if it concurs with the Planning Commission's decision to deny the requested variance. Minnesota State Statutes and the City of Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance require the following hardship criteria be applied as a standard for approval of variance requests. All nine hardship criteria must be met regarding each variance request. 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 L:\02FILES\02appeal\hillcrest appeal\CCREPORT.doc 2 developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the Use District in which said lot is located. There is a reasonable use of this property without the grading, excavation and construction of a boulder wall within the bluff impact zone. The applicant applied for and was issued a building permit for a single family dwelling; the building permit application did not include any impact to the bluff. The applicant created the situation by constructing the boulder wall and backfilling in violation of the Shoreland Ordinance. 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 bluff topography is a unique condition of the property and the immediate adjoining property, and does not apply, generally, to other land in the Shoreland District. 3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner. The applicant received a building permit that permitted the construction of a single family dwelling on the property without the need for disturbing the bluff. The applicant created the hardship by changing the existing conditions of the bluff impact zone with the boulder wall and back filling. The applicant had a reasonable use of the property under the original existing conditions and topography. 4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. The granting of the variance for the importing of materials in the bluff impact zone should not impair adequate light and air to adjacent properties, nor increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety unless a bluff failure occurred. 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. L:\02FILES\02appeal\hillcrest appeal\CCREPORT.doc 3 The granting of the variance does not appear to unreasonably impact on the character and development of the neighborhood. However, should a bluff failure occur, this may impair the health safety of the area. 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 request for importing material in the bluff impact zone is contrary to the intent of the City Ordinance, which is to prohibit the importation of materials in the bluff impact zone. 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 requested variance serves as a convenience to the applicant because the applicant created the need for the variance by importing materials into the bluff impact zone without authorization. A reasonable use of the property existed without the need for disturbing the bluff. 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 requested bluff variance is a result of the property owner's actions, and could be eliminated by correcting the violation and removing the imported materials and restoring the area to its original condition. 9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance. Economic hardship appears to be factor here do to the expense to remove the boulders and fill, and restore the bluff impact zone to its original condition. However, variance requests are not based on economic hardship alone. Conclusion: The Planning Commission determined the requested variance did not meet all 9 hardship criteria. The need for a variance can be eliminated by removing the boulders and fill, and restoring the bluff impact zone to the original condition. An alternative site condition and reasonable use ofthe property existed prior to the importation of the fill and boulders. At the Planning Commission meeting, there was also some discussion that removing the boulder wall at this time will destabilize the bluff. There is no definitive evidence that this would be the case. However, if the City Council upholds the decision of the Planning Commission and requires removal of the boulder wall and restoration of the bluff, L:\02FILES\02appeal\hillcrest appeal\CCREPORT.doc 4 ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: REVIEWED BY: the applicant will be required to submit a grading plan, prepared by a registered professional engineer, which outlines the steps to be taken to ensure the stability of the bluff. The City Council has three alternatives: I. Adopt a resolution upholding the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the variance as requested by the applicant. The attached Resolution is consistent with this action. 2. Overturn the decision of the Planning Commission and direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact for the approval of the requested variance. 3. Table or continue consideration ofthis item for specific reasons. The staff recommends alternative # 1: A motion and second to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the requested variance to permit the import of materials and ading/filling within the bluff impact zone. L:\02FILES\02appeal\hilIcrest appeal\CCREPORT.doc 5 RESOLUTION 02-XX RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A VARIANCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1104.402 TO ALLOW THE IMPORT OF MATERIALS, GRADING AND FILLING WITHIN THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-l (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SD (SHORELINE OVERLAY) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 14764 ROSEWOOD ROAD MOTION BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS, WHEREAS, ; and Hillcrest Homes, LLC, applied for a variance from Section 1104.402 of the City Code in order to permit the import of materials, grading and filling within a bluff impact zone as shown in Attachment 1 on property located in the R-l (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland) Districts at 14764 Rosewood Road NE, Prior Lake MN, and legally described as follows: Lot 7, Block 2, Knob Hill, Scott County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS The Planning Commission reviewed the application for a variance as contained in Case File #02-076, and held hearings thereon July 8, 2002; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission concluded the variance request did not meet the hardship criteria and denied the request; and WHEREAS, Hillcrest Homes, LLC, appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 1109.400 of the City Code on July 12,2002; and WHEREAS, The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information contained in Case File #02-076 and Case File #02-089, and held a hearing thereon on August 19,2002 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 finds that the requested variance does not meet the criteria 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. 3) the City Council has determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the requested variances should be upheld, and said variances should be denied 1:\02fi1es\02appeal\hillcrest appeal\ccres.doc Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 4) The City Council makes the following findings: a. Hillcrest Homes, LLC, appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 1109.400 of the City Code on July 12,2002. b. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information contained in Case File #02-076 and Case File #02-089, and held a hearing thereon on August 19,2002. c. 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. d. The City Council has determined the request does not meet the 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 imported materials. There are no unique characteristics to the property that would constitute a hardship. e. The denial of the requested variances does not constitute a hardship with respect to literal enforcement of the ordinance as a reasonable use of the property exists without the variance. 5) The contents of Planning Case File #02-076 and Planning Case File #02-089 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case. 6) Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby upholds the decision of the Planning Commission denying variances to permit the import of materials, grading and filling within the bluff impact zone for applicant Hillcrest Homes, LLC. Passed and adopted this 19th day of August, 2002. YES NO Haugen Haugen Petersen Petersen LeMair LeMair Gundlach Gundlach Zieska Zieska {Seal} City Manager 1 :\02fi1es\02appeal\hillcrest appeal\ccres .doc Page 2 HILLCR-ESTr HOMES'~ ''A Builder Driven By Quality Craftsmanship and Value." July 12, 2002 Steve Horsman City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.B. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 Dear Steve: I am writing in regards to the planning commission denial of our variance at 14764 Rosewood Road. At this time we wish to aptfeal that denial to the City Council. However, I will be out of town on August 5 ,2002, and therefore would like to have the appeal come before the council at the following meeting. If you have any questions or require additional information please give me a call. Builder License #20036544 . Member o/the Builders Association o/the Twin Cities Po. Box 456. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 Office: 952-898-7663 . Fax: 952-898-3364 . Web: www.hillcresthomesinc.com 2"d v9EE 8S8 25S S3WOH l.S3~:J"''''IH dSO:EO 20 21 Tnr AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: INTRODUCTION: PLANNING REPORT 5C CONSIDER A VARIANCE TO ALLOW IMPORTED MATERIALS WITHIN THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE, FOR HILLCREST HOMES, INC., Case File #02-076 14764 ROSEWOOD ROAD NE STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR _X_ YES NO JULY 8,2002 The Planning Department received a variance application from Hillcrest Homes, Inc., (applicant/owner/Chris Deanovic) to permit a boulder retaining wall to remain on the property located at 14764 Rosewood Road. The boulder wall and fill were installed during the construction of a single-family dwelling that was approved under Building Permit # 01-1206. The applicant had submitted a building permit application and survey for the project, but the submitted materials did not include the retaining wall and the grading/filling work conducted within the bluff impact zone as part of the proposed project. Thus this work was done without a permit. An inspection of the project by staff discovered the work. (Attachment 1 - As Built Survey). The applicant requests the following variance: 1) A variance to permit the import of materials and grading/filling within the bluff impact zone (Ordinance Section 1104.402: Topographic Alterations/Grading And Filling). DISCUSSION: Lot 7, Block 12, Knob Hill, was platted in 1995. The subject property is located within the (R1) Low Density Residential, and (SO) (Shoreland Districts). The lot is riparian with a bluff impact zone. The platted dimensions of the lot are approximately 115' wide by 300' long for a total lot area of 34,678 square feet. The lot area above the 904-foot ordinary high water elevation is 27,151 square feet (Attachment 2 - Approved Survey). .. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.L Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER According to the attached survey, the top of bluff starts at the west lot line and follows the 930-foot elevation contour to approximately the center of the lot. The dashed line indicates the minimum 25' structure setback line from the top of bluff. The bluff impact zone is defined as "a bluff and land located within 20' from the top of a bluff', The top of the bluff begins 5' inside of the setback line and continues lakeward through the bluff to the toe of the bluff or 904' contour. The applicant installed the boulders between the 908' and 910' contours and then backfilled behind the boulders to create the retaining wall. The length of boulder wall within the bluff impact zone is approximately 120' long. The wall appears to be less than 4' in height of unbalanced backfill. In addition the applicant placed a boulder retaining wall along the east lot line from the 929' elevation to below the 904' contour at the shoreline. A portion of the wall actually encroaches over the lot line and onto the adjoining property. The applicant must remove all portions of the wall that encroaches over the lot line, and the 5' drainage utility easement that runs inside of the lot line. In addition, no portion of the retaining walls may exceed 4' in height of unbalanced back fill or the wall is defined as a structure and must meet the required setbacks. Staff has posted a "Stop Work Order" on the project until all necessary corrections have been made. The applicant submitted a narrative titled Description Of Project for this variance request. In essence, the applicant claimed to be unaware of the ordinance violation when placing a row of landscape boulders and backfilling. Also, the applicant denied cutting into the base of the slope (Attachment 4 - Applicant Narrative ). The applicant also submitted an engineer's letter by GEO Engineering Consultants dated June 14, 2002. The report addressed the impact the placement of the boulders and backfill will have on the site. The letter stated in part "In maintaining global slope stability, it is most importaot that soil is not excavated from the toe of the slope, as this will reduce the resistance against sliding of the soil mass. Conversely, by placing additional weight at the toe, such as boulders and additional soil, will increase sliding resistance of the soil mass"', The report also included recommendations regarding slope stability and surface erosion by not disturbing existing surface vegetation and trees so the site development will not interfere with adequate drainage for the site or adjacent properties (Attachment 3 - Engineers Site Observation Letter). Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for this project, the owner must provide certification from a professional engineer that the final grading of the site was completed in compliance with an approved grading plan, and that all conditions of the engineers report have been adhered to. L:\02FILES\02variances\02-076\VarRpt.doc Page 2 The City Engineering Department reviewed this variance request and has no comment. The Area Hydrologist with the Department of Natural Resources submitted comments on this request. The DNR visually inspected the site and directed the applicant to correct the riprap boulders placed along the shoreline. He reserved judgment on the work in the bluff impact zone until an engineers report was submitted, but commented that removing the boulders and imported fill at this point may have greater potential for erosion and slope failure. 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. There is no question regarding the exceptional topography for this lot and the existence of a bluff impact zone. However, the applicant created the situation by constructing t~e boulder wall and backfilling in violation of the Shoreland Ordinance. Therefore, staff feels the variance as requested does not meet this hardship standard due to the applicants unapproved land alterations. 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 bluff topography is a unique condition of the property and the immediate adjoining property, and does not apply, generally, to other land in the Shoreland District. 3. The granting of the proposed Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner because the owner created his hardship by changing the existing conditions of the bluff impact zone with the boulder wall and back filling. .. L:\02FILES\02variances\02-076\VarRpt.doc Page 3 4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. The granting of the variance for the importing of materials in the bluff impact zone should not impair adequate light and air to adjacent properties, nor increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety provided a bluff failure does not occur. 5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health safety, and comfort of the area. The granting of the variance does not appear to unreasonably impact on the character and development of the neighborhood. However, should a bluff failure occur, this may impair the health safety of the area. 6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. The granting of the variance request for importing material in the bluff impact zone is contrary to the intent of the City Ordinance, which is to prohibit the importation of materials in the bluff impact zone. 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 requested variance appears to serve as a convenience to the applicant because the applicant created the need for the variance by importing materials into the bluff impact zone without authorization. 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 requested bluff variance is a result of the property owner's actions, and could be eliminated by correcting the violation and removing the imported materials and restoring the area to its original condition. 9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance. L:\02FILES\02variances\02-076\VarRpt.doc Page 4 Financial considerations alone are not grounds for the granting of a variance request, but appear to be a consideration in this case due to the expense of removing the boulders and fill. RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that all nine-hardship criteria have not been met with respect to the requested variance to permit the import of materials and grading/filling in a bluff impact zone. The applicant created the hardship when the boulder retaining wall and fill were installed on the subject property. The site was not developed as approved under Building Permit # 01-1206. The staff therefore recommends denial of the requested variance as proposed by the applicant. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variances the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances. In this case, the Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings approving the variance requests. 2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. 3. Deny the applica~ion because the Planning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria. ACTION REQUIRED: Staff recommends Alternative #3. A Motion and second adopting Resolution 02-01 OPC denying the variance to permit the importation of material into a bluff impact zone as requested by the applicant. e L:\02FI LES\02variances\02-076\VarRpt.doc Page 5 RESOLUTION 02-010PC A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE IMPORTATION OF MATERIALS WITHIN A BLUFF IMPACT ZONE BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. Hillcrest Homes, Inc. have applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a boulder retaining wall and filling within the bluff impact zone to remain on the property located in the Low Density Residential (Rl) and Shoreland Districts (SD) at the following location, to wit; 14764 Rosewood Road NE, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as follows: Lot 7, Block 2, Knob Hill, Scott County, Minnesota. 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case #02-076PC and held hearings thereon on July 8, 2002. 3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Because of conditions on the subject property, a legal alternative does exist by removing the imported materials placed within the bluff impact zone, the proposed variance will result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. 5. The proposed variance request is a result of the property owners actions by importing materials and grading/filling within a bluff impact zone. The applicant has control over the grading and filling work completed, as such, the hardship has been created by the applicant. I: \02files\02variances\02-076\dnyrs.doc 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 6. While there is an existing structure on the lot, there is not justifiable hardship caused, and that reasonable use of the property does exist without the granting of the variance. There is a legal alternative solution for a revised grading and filling plan, and to correct the existing ordinance violation without the requested variance. 7. The granting of the variance, as determined by the Planning Commission, is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship. 8. The contents of Planning Case #02-076PC are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denys the following variance to allow the importation of materials within a bluff impact zone as shown in Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey): 1. A Variance to permit the importation of materials and grading/filling within a bluff impact zone. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on July 8, 20~ Anthony 1. Stamson, Commission Chair ATTEST: ~~c1- f2. ,e?t' /~ Donald R. Rye, Planning irJct I: \02fiJes\02 variances\02-07 6\dnyrs.doc 2 . '" If. · PiaN.... '''If eng eer g ...... . Certificate or Survey ror: HlllCRES 2122 [,.I.,..hM Dr" ~_I. .......,.. .... ~5170 (1111) 181-1'14 FAX:I81-1411 ;;.., """.iN;~",."'[' (112) 783-1180 FAX: 783-1113 HOMES APPROVED "'""\ ENGINEf::IING Oi~PT ~// ~~ /o.oz."?ot Signedf/( rt~~ l)' a..s-.- ....___.aw._ ....,,_. ~....... ROSEWOOll ROAD. PRIOR lAKE or BI r NOIE: NO SF'EClfIC SOILS INI/ESIIG^IION II^S BEEN COMPlETED ON ""S LOT BY TIlE SUR\"tVOR. lit[ SUlIA8tLUY or !;OII.S 10 surraH tilE SPECIFIC IlOUSE PROPOSED IS NOI lI1E RE5rONSI9IlJ1Y Ill" TIlE SURI/EYOR. EDGE Ill" LI\NDSCN'ING I X I I 1 I I '9'1.11 N01E, PRorOSED GIMOES SIlO""" PER GRIIOING Pl^N BY: PIONEER NOIE, 8UlI.DING OIIAr.NSlOt'S SlIOMI Am: rOIl IIORIZONIAL IINO 'lfRIIC^l LOC^TlON Ill" srnUCIURES Otll Y. SEE ARCl"IECIU^L ~LIINS FOR BUilDING AND FOUNOA lION OIIAENSlONS. - - - - RE T AINING WALL NO'IE: ""S CERTlFlC^TE DOCS NOI runl'ORr 10 SlIOW EASEIAENIS OilIER TlIAH 1I1OSJ: SlIOMl ON TIlE RECORDED PlAI. '41.' X NOIE, CONIRACIOR MUSI I/ERlrY DRII/EWAY OESlGN. RET AINING WALL NorE: BE^RlNGS SlIO"I-I I\RE B^SEO ON AN ^SSUIAED O^IUU BY OTHERS -r- o LOT AREA'" 34,678 scj. n. HOUSE AREA'" 1,534 sq. n. GARAGE AREA '" 884 sq. It. PORCII/ PAllO '" 54 sq. It. DRlVEWA Y ARF.A '" 2.730 sq. n. COVERAGE '" 15~ '" ", "" '" "" "" "', __ _ _ - -RETAINING WALLS .f ~ ~ -Sl AIRCASE PRQPOSEod 12 CMP ~ ;; - s'" Jil~fRO 928' _ _ PROPOSf.(J CON ~ ; - - (T YF'ICAL) ... -~l"W , r: ~ N ::::. ~~o m hJ Co ~ Z g -I N EXISTING CON lOURS PER GRADING PLAN (1 YF'ICAL) CURB --- - - - - - - - - - " '. 131.' 10 I'! " N N 935.5 25.9 925.8 IU.' I 925.8 \ \ \ PIPE / " / v BENCH MARK 'lOP OF PIPE ELEV.'" ---- /, /. /'/ / \g32.6 \ '31.1 \ \ \ \ \ \ -' .p ""tr , , , , , '. I /', " /' ,.p:j ! BLurr LItlfl' .j I .'.Ji.y 51/ / i 1/ /1 v '/j> . ;G'l1' '<, , -<. , , " -4 V' II 904.1 902.3 II;" d).' ~ .. '27.~ ~ 90..0,/ /)( 902~ /" v-f 902.2 ~ ~a ~ 90?.1 \ \ , I 1;" i , WA TER hEV.=902.J ~ I ,. Ifl 904.0 ({:' " 902 4 " . '- - - anA" F'ROPQSllJ..i!.9.lLSI;J.LEVA IIQtL LOWEST rLOOR ELEVA liON: 'I z 2.. Z. 101' or BLOCK ELEVATION: --Dq,:,:i,__ . 904.0 / ~ Geo Eng'".rI"" eonsu/r."fS Inc POBox 21490 Minneapolis, MN 55421 Phone 763 '02-994' Fax 763 502-9946 RE: Site Observation Proposed House Lot 7, Block 2. Knob Hill Prior Lake, Minneso1a Project Number. OOl-0071-S372.2A ~.~. , t1(@ ~ 0 ~.,v /';:::--~I "'1) ~ Ls I ~'~; i/., i I, I i :11\ I ..t'N 17 am ii/II L~' i JWI ~ i! o ::E: :s: m z -I eN June I 4, 2002 Mr. Chris Deanovic Hillcrest Homes. Inc. P.O. Box 456 Prior Lake. MN 55372 I In maintaining global slope stability, it is most important that soil is not excavated from the toe of the slope, as this win reduce the resistance against sliding of the soil mass. Conversely, by placing additional weight at the toe, such as boulders and additional soil, will increase sliding resistance of the soil mass. m z G) - z m m ::D en en - -I m o tD (J) m ::D ~ ~ - o z .... m -I -I m ::D This report presents the results of site observatioDS at the property in Prior Lake, Minnesota. You aumori7..ed our service on March 4. 2002. The scope of service consisted of observing and documenting the conditions after recent landscaping at the site. On March 4. 2002, we observed the condition of existing slope at the rear of the property I between the house under construetion and the lake. It appears the steepest portion of the slope has been relatively undisturbed. At the flatter portion of the slopc~ the natural access and drainage to the lake was improved. We understand this access was improved primarily by placing lmdscape boulders and some additional fill on the lakeside ofthc access. This was placed to levellhe access Bod provide surface drainage to the lake and away from adjacent property. In addition, boulders were placed 'on the inside (house side) of the access at the toe (bottom) of the slope. At this time, the boulder walls are on the order of2 to 5 feel high, with final grading yet to be completed. It did Dot appear that soil had been removed from the toe of the slope, based on our observations. The new fill and boulders placed at the toe should aid in global stability. Another aspect of slope stability is surface erosion. The existing surface vegetation and trees should not be disturbed to minimize the potential for surface erosion. The surface of the steep slope appeared to be undisturbed, ba.~ed on OlD' visual observations. We recommend the existing trees and surface vegetation remain undisturbed to minimize the erosion potential. -'- '- --'.- ... Project Number: OOI-0071-S372.2A Pase2 With regards to the improved lake access, we recommend the surface be seeded with grass, or a surface layer of complCted &ravel or other surface be placed to minimize the potential for erosion. In our opinion. the recent landscaping should not influence the stability of the existing slope. This judgement is based on our observation of existing conditions, the previou.~ subsurface exploration results. and oW' experience. It should be noted, to properly analyze slope stability requires subsurface exploration at the top, midway, and at the toe of the slope. In addition, sophisticated triaxial testing of representative undisturbed samples should be pcrfonncd. This dara should then be aoalyzed using applicable computer analysis techniques. This is beyond the work scope for this project. If you have any questions or if we can be offurther service, please call.us at (763) 502-9945. Geo Engineering Consultants, Inc. Steven J. Olson, P.E. Geotechnical Engineer Geo Engineering CDnsultants Ine HILLCR-ESl HOMESI~ '~ Builder Driven By Quality Craftsmanship and Hllue." DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT During placement of rip-rap along the shoreline of this property, we also placed a row of landscape boulders along the base of the slope. The placement of these boulders was two fold. First, was to provide a landscape definition between the landscaped area near the lake and the natural area on the hill. Second, was to provide an area for any washed sediment from the slope to accumulate without washing into the landscaped grass area near the lake. The placement of these boulders was not intently done to violate the ordinance. I honestly did not think what we were doing was going to cause a problem. However, upon investigation of this placement it is determined that part of the area where we placed the landscape boulders is in a bluff impact zone. Current ordinance does not allow for any grading or importation of fill in the bluff impact zone. We have graded and imported fill in this area when we placed and backfilled behind the rocks placed at the toe of the slope. A few items of importance. When installing the landscape boulders at the toe of the slope we did not cut into the base at any point in time. Nor did we create a flat yard area near the lake with the placement of the boulders. We merely placed them at the toe of the slope and backfilled behind. All previous survey show the flat area existed prior to any work we have done. At this point in time we would like to leave what work has been completed. We do not believe we have impacted the slope in any way, and in fact believe we helped the situation in regards to the drainage and slope stability. We had an engineering report completed, and it is attached. Builder License #20036544 . lv/ember of the Builders Association of the Twin Cities P.O. Box 456 . Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 ___ _...._ _......_ ....... .....,..,..... n^f""l ....""'lrA .,..,.r 1 ____.___'_.'1____..1-__.....,...~_..... .............- ~ ~ o J: s: m z -I ~ I J> -c -c r- - ~ Z -I en Z )> :c :c ~ <: m Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 2002 Stamson pointed out staff and most Commissioners felt ve trongly that there should be 10 foot diviS\,on. A variance should not be granted - the dinance should be changed. Criego agreed: The Commissioners continued to disc s the back yard versus the vanancereques. Criego questione ow the City addresses the' sue of not damaging the neighboring property. Kansier e plained it would be ad essed at the building permit phase. MOTION BY CRIEG , SECOND BY EMKE, TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE IRECT S F TO PREP ARE A RESOLUTION. THE FINDINGS BEING IT I UNI CORNER LOT AND SITUATION. riego, Lemke and Atwood. Ringstad and Stamson voted eeting resumed at 8:04 p.m. * C. Case #02-076 Hillcrest Homes, Inc. is requesting variances to allow grading, fill and excavation within the bluff impact zone on property located at 14764 Rosewood Road. Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated July 8, 2002, on file in the office ofthe Planning Department. The Planning Department received a variance application from Hillcrest Homes, Inc. to permit a boulder retaining wall to remain on the property located at 14764 Rosewood Road. The boulder wall and fill were installed during the construction of a single-family dwelling that was approved under Building Permit # 01-1206. The applicant had submitted a building permit application and survey for the project, but the submitted materials did not include the retaining wall and the grading/filling work conducted within the bluff impact zone as part of the proposed project. Thus this work was done without a permit. An inspection of the project by staff discovered the work. The applicant is requesting a variance to permit the import of materials and grading/filling within the bluff impact zone. The Area Hydrologist with the Department of Natural Resources submitted comments on this request. The DNR visually inspected the site and directed the applicant to correct the riprap boulders placed along the shoreline. He reserved judgment on the work in the bluff impact zone until an engineers report was submitted, but commented that removing the boulders and imported fill at this point may have greater potential for erosion and slope failure. Staff felt all nine-hardship criteria had not been met with respect to the requested variance to permit the import of materials and grading/filling in a bluff impact zone. The L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN0708022.doc 8 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 2002 applicant created the hardship when the boulder retaining wall and fill were installed on the subject property. The site was not developed as approved under Building Permit # 01-1206. The staff therefore recommended denial of the requested variance as proposed by the applicant. Criego asked to restate the ordinance for the side yard wall. Horsman explained. He also pointed out the retaining wall in the drainage easement. Comments from the public: Applicant Chris Deanovic, President of Hillcrest Homes, said the staff report was correct but wanted to explain the process of building on Prior Lake. Staff was correct on the description ofthe east retaining wall in the easement. The corrections have been made and will have it inspected by engineering. Also the DNR did have some requests for the retaining wall on the lake, He has done a fair amount of home construction on the lake and has never included retaining walls on the building permits. He did admit he was unaware of the ordinance. The DNR has signed off on their work. Deanovic said he did not try to sneak in a 150 foot retaining wall. The point is, now what do we do? They waited a month to hear from the City Attorney and then started to put pressure on staff. He was forced to go ahead and try to continue the project. That's when it was decided to go for a variance. He would like to deal again with the bluff ordinance. It doesn't work on this lot. Deanovic said they would like to get back on the project. Stamson reiterated Deanovic's situation. Deanovic built a retaining wall making it less steep at the base. Deanovic explained the slope vegetation and the process. He felt taking the wall out will do more harm than good. They didn't want anything washed out. One of the things the ordinance is trying to do is avoid going in and cutting out the bottom of the lake. The flat spot on the lake has always been there. It has never been touched. It is a tough site. He is also dealing with the drainage issues with staff. Criego questioned how much total fill was brought in. Deanovic said probably 10 loads, 6 for the road and 4 down to the retaining wall. The upper loads did not need permits, it was part of the building permit. The lot sat for a long time because it was a difficult lot. They are trying to work with staff for the best solution. He's had a "stop work order" on this since February. Horsman said the total footage would be 100 feet of the boulder wall in the impact zone. Criego questioned if the boulders were technically in the bluff. Kansier responded they were and Deanovic admitted he filled in the bluff which is specifically against the ordinance. Deanovic responded they had done work in the bluff area. Kansier said the City requires grading permits and this is far more than balance. The permits are very limited. It is nothing new. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN0708022.doc 9 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 2002 Atwood questioned how far the easterly wall moved. Deanovic said they moved it out about a foot from the 5 foot easement. Part of it encroached into the neighbor's property, It has been pulled back outside the easement. The current survey does not show the corrected work. Horsman said the retaining wall is higher than 4 feet in some places, therefore the wall would have to go back 10 feet. The key is to keep the walls out of the easement. Deanovic said they will make sure the wall will be 4 feet or less. Ringstad questioned what happens in the building phase when the boulder wall in the bluff impact zone. Where does the City go from here? Horsman explained a proposed survey is reviewed by the building, planning and engineering departments. In a case like this, it would have been caught and the applicant would be notified it was not permitted. To get a grading permit, the applicant would have to supply exactly what is being changed. At that time, it would be reviewed by the engineering department. Stamson questioned if this would have been approved. Horsman said it would not. Criego questioned why the wall was not caught by the building inspectors. Kansier replied it was. A resident also complained. Duane Melling, 4833 Beach Street, built the house across the street and said his view of trees have now been replaced by a three car garage surrounded by a 4 foot stone wall. The applicant has created a drainage problem with the new retaining wall. The organic soil is being washed down into the lake. If the wall exists, it will force water into a 4 to 5 foot area between the properties with the washed out of muck and topsoil. It was washing out before. Melling pointed out the water quality article in the recent Prior Lake American. What the applicant is doing is not going to solve the problem. Melling explained some of the washout on his property and suggested installing a culvert. It is a hardship for the neighbors and he would like protection. Criego asked Mr. Melling ifhe had any problems or issues with the boulder wall along the bottom of the bluff. He said it was a shock to come back this spring and see a boulder wall but understands the applicant needs to protect the waterline coming in and washing out the property. Evan Shadduck, 4841 Beach Street, felt the applicant is doing a pretty good job over all. There was an error stated earlier - the applicant has been working on the project and boulders have been moved without the City knowing it. The wall was constructed in the winter. He called the engineering department out of concern. His point is so much with the current construction as it is, two 4 inch pipes were stuck out over the retaining walls forming a pond of sand and mud. The mud was all over. Shadduck explained the pipe situation. He thanked the City for watching out for residents. But understood the contractor needs to finish his project. There has been a lot of washout since the rains. Shadduck felt the lower retaining wall does not affect the area. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN0708022.doc 10 Planning Commission Meeting July 8. 2002 Chris Deanovic said he is aware of the ponding and will take care of it. The two pieces of the tube are from the project and explained why they were there. The project still has a "stop work order" - they cannot work inside. Stamson questioned Deanovic on getting a permit for the boulder wall. Deanovic explained the process working with staff. Horsman agreed with Deanovic' s comments. Jim Albers, 16043 Northwood Road, the realtor representing the applicant, explained the bluff ordinance. Albers cited a bluff issue on Twin Island. He did not believe staff s bluff line was correct. The issue at hand is that section of wall in the bluff impact area. Albers distributed pictures taken last winter of the project. He argued with Horsman on the bluff ordinance interpretation, the top of bluff and their DNR violation issue. Albers felt the bluff definition was not clear. A brief discussion followed on the applicant's surveyor determining the top of bluff. The question is where does the builder have to remove it? Is removing it going to do more damage than has been done already? Their engineer (not the city) felt the retaining wall should be left in. Albers felt if the stop- work order had not been done, these issues would have been handled a lot faster and there would have been grass on the site and we wouldn't be dealing with the erosion issue brought up by the neighbors. Kansier stated this lot is difficult to build on. There are several files on this property with the bluff determination. The bluff line was determined at the time the building permit was issued. These are State rules and the City has to enforce them by law. The City works extensively with the DNR on the definition and interpreting it correctly. Stamson pointed out in this particular situation, a determination was made where the bluffwas and agreed to by all parties before the construction of the house. Kansier said the issue is the retaining wall. It is apparent fill was placed in the bluff impact zone wherever the Commission defines that to be. That is the issue to deal with. Duane Melling questioned ifthe wall was set back the proper distance. Kansier said there was no variance requested. If the wall is more than 4 feet in height, it has to be moved back to a minimum of 10 feet off the lot line. Ifit is less than 4 feet it has to be out of the easement. Melling also questioned the drainage on his property. Assistant City Engineer Larry Popple explained the engineering department will be working with the applicant. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: . Questioned what type of materials should be in place of the 5 foot easement to insure that the drainage goes to the lake and what would the engineering recommend. Poppler explained the culverts and drainage. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN0708022.doc 11 Planning Commission Meeting July 8. 2002 . Questioned the drainage down to the lake. Important to note that every effort is made to correct the problem with the proper materials. Kansier stated the City will monitor the problem. . Why has the City not made a recommendation? This is not a variance issue, it is a violation of the ordinance and it should either be removed for fined. . Kansier responded that in all violation cases the City gives people options. The City tells them the available options and ask them to pursue a remedy. Horsman said the City Attorney did feel a variance was an option. However, it is an after- the-fact variance created by the applicant. . Under the terms of how the Commission reviews variances, can't state this is a legitimate variance. If the Commission denies this, what remedy will the City take? Horsman explained it will depend on the Commissioners. Ordinarily the City would issue a citation and bring the applicant to court. . This was an honest error. How big an issue is this? Compared to the property and the neighbors. He didn't take the bluff away, he added boulders. Pretty straight forward. They violated an ordinance and the penalty could be $500 or $1,000. . Kansier said that is not an option. The City's job is to enforce the ordinance. The City Attorney and City Council have options. Staffwill pursue this just like all other violations. We have had other violations come before the Commission which have been denied and staffhas taken the next steps forward. . Horsman stated the applicant wanted to keep the wall, staff's position was "No, it is not a permitted use." The applicant is having his public hearing to deal with. the action. . Stamson questioned the City Council process. Kansier explained the court process. . This does not have any major impact on the bluff or lake. Does it warrant a variance? . Guidelines are to deny the variance. But this should not prolong the project. The bigger issue is the drainage on the east side of the property line. Lemke: . The DNR's comment is that removing the boulders may have greater potential for slope failure. Concerned about that. Understand the wall was built without a permit. . The reason we have the bluff ordinance is to protect the bluff. . Inspected the wall from the lake side. It appears to protect the bluff. It should stay but don't know how. . The bluff ordinance probably needs reworking. Its not for us to do, it is a State Ordinance. If someone does something to protect the bluff - I have concerns about taking the wall out. Atwood: . Agreed - not a fan of an after-the-fact variances, but if there is potential for slope failure it should stay. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN0708022.doc 12 Planning Commission Meeting July 8. 2002 . Feel strongly about erosion on the neighbors. . The applicant will deal with it. . Impression is that the City staff and the community would hold the applicant to fixing the erosion. . Grant the variance. Ringstad: . Agreed with 80% or 90% of the comments, but it was wrong, it was a mistake to put the wall in. What if we look at another variance of the same thing tomorrow? Another boulder wall in a bluff impact zone with someone saying "Gee, I didn't know, it will do more harm than good to move it now." Now we created a snowball and a precedence. . Cannot support. . Deny the request and remove all the boulders in the bluff impact zone. Stamson: . This fails greatly. The applicant created this problem. I don't like the grasping of straws for the greater potential for erosion. . This wall was not necessary for the bluff. It was put in for aesthetics. . The engineer does not say the wall is necessary. He just said it isn't doing anything to endanger the slope. He says it doesn't hurt anything being there. . Hard time granting a variance on the assumption the wall is actually doing anything. . Read Pat Lynch's DNR comment - He really doesn't know without looking at an engineer's report and that maybe that is the case. He is not saying the wall should or shouldn't be removed. . The applicant did not try to do something behind the City's back, he was careless. . Agreed with Ringstad, every time someone touches the bluff, they come here and say it's got to stay because we did it. To suddenly grant that because we think it is a minor issue, is really going in the wrong direction. People wilLbe going out building bluff in the bluff all the time. It is one of the hardest things to enforce now. Ifwe start looking at them saying "well they did it, now we're stuck with it." It is a very slippery slope. . Will not grant the variance. Atwood questioned if the Commissioners could have this looked at during the building permit stage. Kansier said the language is there. Stamson said the problem is, this was done. Ifhe would have brought it up during the building permit stage, it would have been caught. Atwood felt the applicant didn't know. Stamson said he should have asked. The language is in the ordinance. If it was in his paperwork up front, it would have been caught. Atwood felt Stamson was correct, the wall was for aesthetics. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN0708022.doc 13 Planning Commission Meeting July 8. 2002 Atwood questioned the "stop-work-order". Horsman explained the situation came about based on a complaint and further explained the corrections that needed to be done. The corrections have not been ~erified. Kansier explained the City has to be consistent with all applicants. MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 02- 010PC DENYING THE VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE IMPORTATION OF MATERIAL INTO A BLUFF IMP ACT ZONE . Vote taken indicated ayes by Stamson, Ringstad, Criego and Atwood. Lemke nay. MOTION CARRIED. Stamson explained the appeal process, A recess was called at 9:30 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:35 p.m. D. se #02-072 Consider an amendment to Sec ions 1101.400 Definitions and 1104.308 Water Oriented Accessory Structures fthe Zoning Ordinance. AMSON, SECOND BY RINGS AD, TO TABLE TO THE JULY 22, 6. Old Business: A. Case Files #02-024 nd #02-0 5 - Consider a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plat to be kno as mber Crest Park. The proposal includes 28.19 acres to be subdivided into 1 t wnhouse units located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of County Ro 21 and Highway 13, on the north side of Franklin Trail and Bluff Heights Trai Ray Brandt has appli for approval of a velopment to be known as Timber Crest Park on the property loc ed at the southeast qua ant of the intersection of CSAH 21 and TH 13, on the north s' e of Franklin Trail and Blu Heights Trail. The property owner, Prior Lake Apartme , has also signed the applicatio . The applica . on includes the following requests: . Appro e a Planned Unit Development Prelimin . App- ove a Preliminary Plat. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN0708022.doc 14