The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-76 Hillcrest/Rosewood Var cZ- ~ 0710 Jnt~ ttllNbL-. Resolution and ~inutes ! . ~ /)',0 z- P ~'/1(,- fUA-b; ~-- l~ -o-z- CL -y1Uti,{.~ CJ - ?J--t5Z (2L 'ru~L1-~ ((Q1. 02-0 ('OrG L:\TEMPLA TEIFILEINFO.DOC Planning Commission Meeting July 8. 2002 Stamson pointed out staff and most Commissioners felt very strongly that there should be 10 foot division. A variance should not be granted - the ordinance should be changed. Criego agreed. The Commissioners continued to discuss the back yard versus the variance request. Criego questioned how the City addresses the issue of not damaging the neighboring property. Kansier explained it would be addressed at the building permit phase. MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE AND DIRECT STAFF TO PREP ARE A RESOLUTION. THE FINDINGS BEING IT IS A UNIQUE CORNER LOT AND SITUATION. Vote taken indicated ayes by Criego, Lemke and Atwood. Ringstad and Stamson voted nay. MOTION CARRIED. Stamson explained the appeal process. A recess was called at 7:50 p.m. The meeting 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 of the Planning Department. I 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 ofthe proposed project. Thus this work was done without a permit. An inspection ofthe 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 ".--.-_,_._.____~__,._.__.~_~_.~u _.__.__.~_____..__ 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 of the 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\Olplanning 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 ofthe 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 staffs bluffline 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 bluff was 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. If it 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. Staff will pursue this just like all other violations. We have had other violations come before the Commission which have been denied and staff has taken the next steps forward. . Horsman stated the applicant wanted to keep the wall, staffs 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 will be 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 verified. Kansier explained the City has to be consistent with all applicants. MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 02- OlOPC 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. Case #02-072 Consider an amendment to Sections 1101.400 Definitions and 1104.308 (4) Water Oriented Accessory Structures ofthe Zoning Ordinance. MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO TABLE TO THE JULY 22, 2002, MEETING. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 6. Old Business: A. Case Files #02-024 and #02-025 - Consider a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plat to be known as Timber Crest Park. The proposal includes 28.19 acres to be subdivided into 148 townhouse units located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of County Road 21 and Highway 13, on the north side of Franklin Trail and Bluff Heights Trail. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated July 8, 2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. Ray Brandt has applied for approval of a development to be known as Timber Crest Park on the property located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection ofCSAH 21 and TH 13, on the north side of Franklin Trail and Bluff Heights TraiL The property owner, Prior Lake Apartments, has also signed the application. The application includes the following requests: . Approve a Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan; . Approve a Preliminary Plat. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MN0708022.doc 14 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT August 19, 2002 --.--- - Horsrr an: Clarified that the Planning Commission action did not consider the revised survey, therefore the Council had no need t~ consider it. VOTE: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, Zieska, and LeMair, the motion carried. Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision to Deny a Variance to Allow the Impor ' of Materials, Grading and Filling within a Bluff Impact Zone. (Case File #02.076PCj Horsn Ian: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report, together with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and staff that the variance did not meet the hardship criteria. Noted that the original Stop Work order was lifted becau ie the applicant submitted a Letter of Credit that would allow the City to restore the bluff if the builder failed to do so. GUndtch: Asked how a bluff can be restored. Hors~an: Advised that the bluff has a high point of 932 feet with a 30% rate of slope. The builder would have to submit a gradi! plan for approval and identifying all corrective measures for removing the retaining walls and restoring the bluff. Advis d that the issue is to keep the boulder wall within the bluff impact zone. Gund ach: Asked if there was an opinion by staff that the wall could be removed and the bluff restored. Horslan: Stated that what determines the adequate restoration of bluff and any impacts is beyond his expertise. Mayor Haugen declared the public hearing open. Chris Deanovic (Hillcrest Homes): Stated that if the issue was a deck or some other encroachment, it would just be remOl ed. Stated this is the first time he has been in front of the Council for an after-the-fact variance. Believes that in order to ma ntain the integrity of the bluff, retaining walls are necessary. Believes that removal of the wall is contrary to the intent of the ordinance as it would adversely impact the bluff. Noted the extensive engineering for the site, and the opinion that the bluff \ lould be unaffected with the construction of the house. A subsequent engineering report advised that removing the wall '<I auld be detrimental for the bluff and the site. Also advised that the DNR is of the same opinion. Further noted that the bluff i; currently stable as evidenced by its stability during the course of recent rains. Believed that he has suffered a finane ial penalty due to the stop work order, and simply made a mistake in this case. Gundlach: Asked if the decision was made to not get a permit and expect the Council to approve the variance after the fact. Dean lvie: Believes it was an honest mistake. His concern focused on the positioning of the house with respect to the top of the bl Iff. As a developer within the City, he has a reputable history in complying with building requirements. Gunc lach: Asked about the corrective measures for the side retaining wall. Deanbvie: Advised that the easterty retaining wall was moved and re-built. Noted that the Stop Work order dealt with three issue;: (1) the southerty retaining wall, (2) the encroachment of the easterty retaining wall, and (3) the discharge of the drain Ige tube. Two of the three items were corrected. Petel,sen: Stated that his opinion was to not further disturb the bluff and that the applicant had learned his lesson. i 8 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT August 19. 2002 ---..=- -- LeMal r: Agreed that there is no merit to further disturbing the bluff. Primarily concemed with the enforcement and/or penalty for the current action. The point is that the City seemed to be circumvented and currently left with few options. Ziesk I: Noted that upon his review of the site, particularly after the extensive rains, it would not be prudent to further disturb the sit l. Agreed with Council member LeMair with respect to a penalty to deter similar action by others. Haua'm.: Believes that in relation to the hardship criteria, the variance probably wouldn't have been granted. It Is likely that the pr )perty is enhanced, but the issue is the fact that regulations cannot be circumvented. The point is the issue is bigger than t lis property. Suggested that the wall stays, but the Letter of Credit is sacrificed. Gundlach: Agreed with the Mayor's position that the variance does not meet the hardship criteria. Excluding the ramifi :ations, the law indicates that the impact of the bluff is irrelevant. The Council does not have that luxury. Dean ?vic: Believes the analogy of the deal isn't a fair comparison. If this issue was a deck, he would agree with the positi m of the Council. The issue here is the bluff. If the wall was not in a bluff, he would have just taken it out. Because this situat on seems to put us in the position of doing more hann than good by removing the wall, he is of a different opinion. Pace Asked for what purpose the Letter of Credit was posted. Dealiovic: So the City could maintain its leverage in the event the variance was denied, and the builder abandoned the proje' :t, that the City would have the funds to restore the bluff to its original condition. Pace. Clarified that if the Council, hypothetically, denies the variance, the developer would incur a cost in removing the retair ing wall and regrading. Dear ovic: Confinned and suspected that the costs wouid be in the ballpark of the $10,000 Letter of Credit. Haulen: Asked if the market value of the home changes if the wall is removed. Deal ovic: Advised that the wall does provide some aesthetic appeal which would factor into either market value or salalility. ziesla: Asked if there is currently building on the site. Dea~ovic: Advised work was started yesterday. Gun jlach: Commented that it seems the Planning Commission discussion was similar to this one. Asked why the Council sholld deviate from that detennination. Dea lovic: Advised that there was a philosophical difference between the builder and the Planning Commission as to the imp, ,ct of the retaining wall. The Planning Commission believed the retaining wall was a landscaping feature. The DNR and the I ingineering reports indicate that removal of the wall will be detrimental to the bluff. Gur dlach: Believes there is no evidence to suggest that the retaining wall is anything but landscaping. Zie~ka: Asked if there was engineering in connection with a building penn it application. 9 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT August 19, 2002 -- -------- ---- ---""""'" --. --= -- Deane yic: Advised that they did not know that retaining walls needed to be included on the site plan. Jim A bers (realtor selling the property): Believes that the builder would not have made a mistake like this on purpose. Discu! sed the definition of top of bluff and toe of bluff and the difficulty in making those calculations. The staff would not discus; the possibility of the wall being from the toe of bluff. Believes the ordinance is subjective in its definitions involving the bllff. Believes the builder respects the ordinance and that the variance request meets the hardship criteria. Also believllls forfeiture of the Letter of Credit is excessive and an unestablished policy and was intended to protect the City in the ev ~nt the builder failed to remove or restore the bluff. Asked the Councii to consider the issue from an after-the-fact perspl dive. Believed the wall added aesthetic and marketing vaiue rather than monetary value. Believes the variance reque,t is reasonable and complies with the hardship criteria. Zieskt Asked for clarification as to the separation needed between the flat area and the hillside. Albert Noted that some type of separation would be needed, and noted that with all the wet weather, the only part of the bluff t~at hasn't moved is behind that wall. LeMa r: Advised that the issue at this point is this retaining wall. Ziesk I: Noted that the large trees on the site have been in place for many years and have not eroded from the bluff, and so it doe' in't seem likely that the retaining wall is anything but aesthetic. The variance criteria don't appear to have been met. Alber!: Indicated that things have changed due to the construction of the house. Gunc :ach: Asked what position Mr. Albers would recommend the next time a situation of this type presents itself. Alber !: Believes the necessary action is to establish a policy for penalty. MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY ZIESKA TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTI:: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair. Hauc.en: Believes that valid points had been made, and that it is unnecessary to debate the amount of flow over that retair ing wall. The issues are two-fold. First, whether the hardship criteria has been met, and secondly, any penalty. Belie led Mr. Alber's point about the Letter of Credit was valid and was not intended to hold the builder hostage. MOT ON BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY LEMAIR, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 02-XX UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLAIINING COMMISSION TO DENY THE VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE IMPORT OF MATERIALS, GRADING AND FILL NG WITHIN THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14764 ROSEWOOD ROAD. Pete rsen: Believe the buiider has been penalized for the action, and that removal of the bluff was more detrimental. Gunjlach: Does not believe the hardship criteria are met in the case of this variance, and that it is not obvious that wall is beinlused for anything but aesthetics. Supported the Planning Commission decision. LeM ir: Advised that his intention was not to worsen the impact on the bluff. Did not like after-the-fact approvals and belie led a penalty was necessary. Did not support the motion. Zies (a: Commented that as distasteful as after-the-fact decision may be, did not believe there was benefit for the bluff by rem1ving the wall. i 10 ._------------_.__._--._._..~----_.._._._--'".- -"_..~._._-------_..__. City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT August 19, 2002 I Gundlach: Believed that sometimes a hard decision has to be made, and that letting the wall stay sends the wrong mess1'ge to the next guy. Haull1!!1: Commented that the ordinance may need to be reviewed. Understood the concerns of Councilrnember Gundlach. Read Wrom page 8 of the Planning Commission meeting minutes of July 8, 2002 noting that removing the boulders and imporled fill at this point may have greater potential for erosion and slope failure. Supported overtuming the Planning Comn Ilssion decision. Ziesk I: Also understood the concems of Councilmember Gundlach. Believes there are exceptions in this case that will not establish precedent. Haua m: Advised that the City Attorney has recommended a possible solution, in that the decision of the Pianning Comr.lission be upheld, but that the City not enforce the removal of the wall. Pace: Clarified that it is for the Council to decide if a variance is appropriate, but there is also a concern about selective enfon ement. Couldn't make a recommendation at this time whether not enforcing the removai of the wall was a viable solutilln. Ziesk~: Noted that considering the merits of this case, the hardship criteria could be met considering that the wall is in place and the comments of the hydrologist and engineer. Bovll!: Suggested two separate actions, the first being action to uphold the Planning Commission decision, and then the secor d to direct the City Attorney to pursue the best course of action. Zieska: Asked if there is a statutory deadline. Pace No because the variance would be denied. Ziesl.a: Asked if the developer was comfortable with a 60 day window to resolve the enforcement issue. I Dearlovic: Advised that he understands the Council's direction, but he is concerned that if the variance is denied, and enfor :ement is determined to be necessary, then he is compelled to remove the wall. PacE: Ciarified that under the case law, no two properties are ever the same, so whereas we may be seeking an injunction to ha ve a retaining wall removed that was built without a permit, the facts and circumstances of that case do not control this situaions, just as this situation would not affect future decisions. VOT:: Ayes by Gundlach, Nay by Haugen, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion failed. Pacl: Noted that the next appropriate action would be to direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact to overturn the ( ecision of the Planning Commission. MOljlON BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY LEMAIR TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION WITH FINDINGS OF FACIT TO OVERTURN THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION. VOT :: Ayes by Haugen, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, Nay by Gundlach, the motion carried. The Council took a brief recess. 11 I ____----L-_________.. City Council Meeting Minutes September 3, 2002 ----l I Herb Wensmann: Commented that he was happy with the project and believed it would be an asset in getting the downt,wn redevelopment started. Also thanked Randy Simpson for his preliminary work on the project. ! HaullPn: Read a letter dated August 30,2002, from R & K Sales Inc. in support of the project. R & K Sales also thanked the ad ninistration and staff for their support in the development process. PUBL ,C HEARINGS: NONE. I I OLD BUSINESS: Cons der Approval of a Resolution Authorizing Execution of Standard Professional Services Agreement with Bone Itroo Rosene Anderlik and Associates Inc. to Provide Construction Inspection and Construction Staking for CSAf I 42/CSAH 83 Utility Improvements. 1-arrv PODDler: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. MOTI::>N BY LEMAIR, SECOND BY PETERSEN, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 02.145 AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF STA~ DARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BONESTROO ROSENE ANDERLlK AND ASSOCIATES, INC. I BRM) TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION AND CONSTRUCTION STAKING FOR CSAH 42 AND CSAH 83 U"ILlTY IMPROVEMENTS. (CITY PROJECT #02-07) Hauaen: Questioned if there were bids from other firms. I pODller: Advised that no other bids were received. and that BRA had provided the plans and specifications for the project and t 1e project to the east. The staff was confident in their abilities. VOTr Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried. Con~ider Approval of a Resolution Reversing the Decision of the Planning Commission and Approving a Variance to AfoW Import of Materials, Grading and Filling within the Bluff Impact Zone for Hillcrest Homes (02-076). sueJan Pace (City Attomey): Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. The Council overtumed the Plan ping Commission's decision based on the Findings stated in the proposed resolution. Further advised that Chris Dea~ovic of Hillcrest Homes recognized his error and violation of permit process, noting that Deanovic agreed with the ded ,ions and wished to demonstrate his sincerity by offering a payment to the City of $2,500.00 to compensate the City for its til ne and effort in dealing with this situation. MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY LEMAIR TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 02-146 REVERSING A DECISION OF THE PLA ~NING COMMISSION TO DENY A VARIANCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1104.402 TO ALLOW THE IMP')RT OF MATERIALS, GRADING AND FILLING WITHIN THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SO (SHORELINE OVERLAY) DISTRICT IDENTIFIED AS 14714 ROSEWOOD ROAD. VO f Ayes by Haugen, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, nay by Gundiach. the motion carried. Gurldlach: Commented that he appreciated what the developer has done, but voted against overturning the Planning c01mission to be consistent with his previous vote. 2 City Council Meeting Minutes September 3, 2002 --=-------- .-- - Haua m: Commented that state statute dictates many zoning regulations. Believed it important for the City to be consistent betwe en projects and homeowners including penalties. Suggested the City Attorney and staff research a process with penal ies for zoning code violations and bring it back to the City Councii for discussion. Cons Ider Approval of Resolutions Relating to Lakefront Plaza: (1) Amendment of Vacation Resolution; (2) Tax Incre nent Financing Agreement; (3) Contract Regarding Use of City Property; and (4) Lease Agreement for Teml 'orary Sales Office. Rye: 'l.eviewed part one of the agenda item in connection with the staff report relating to the vacation of the platted alley and! utility easement. MOT ON BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO AMENDING RESOLUTION 01-137 PROVIDING FOR THE VACHTION OF THE PLATTED ALLEY AND A 20' WIDE DRAINAGE AND UTiliTY EASEMENT LOCATED IN BLOCK 9, PRlqR LAKE ORIGINAL PLAT. VOT~: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried Rye: IReviewed part two of the agenda item in connection with the staff report relating to approval of the Tax Increment Final Icing Agreement. Noted that one issue was presented after the report was written, and explained that the original agre1lment was between R&K Sales and the City was drafted but not executed. R&K has agreed to sell the site to Wen ;mann Homes with the closing scheduled for tomorrow, technically R&K still owns the property. There is no signed agre' lment between the City and Wensmann Homes. Staff recommended approval with additional language in the Contract statillg 'contingent upon transfer of title to the property from R&K Sales to Wensmann Homes." The ownership tech~icalities have then been observed. MO~ON BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY LEMAIR, AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH WE SMANN HOMES FOR THE LAKEFRONT PLAZA PROJECT CONTINGENT ON THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP FR M R&K SALES TO WENSMANN HOMES TO BE AMENDED AS STATED. VO : Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried Rye Reviewed part three of the agenda item in connection with the staff report relating to the contract for private use of publ c property. Mo'mN BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ZIESKA, TO AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT REGARDING THE USE OF I ;ITY PROPERTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAKE FRONT PLAZA. Zie,ka: Questioned the issue of storm water ponding and whether there were any provisions made for storm water ponding for f'lture developments. Rye Advised that some provisions had been made as part of this project, noting that the intent is that the pond being con: :tructed in conjunction with this project will also handle runoff from the reconstruction of that portion of Main Avenue. StO/11 water ponding for the remainder of downtown will require additional planning and engineering work in order to dev1llop some kind of long term solution. Gurldlach: Advised that the storm water ponding issues were discussed at the Watershed meeting two weeks ago, and that the Natershed is also looking for a long term solution. VO' 'E: Ayes by Haugen, Gundlach, Petersen, Zieska and LeMair, the motion carried 3 July 3, 2002 Hillcrest Homes, Inc. P.O. Box 456 Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Agenda and Agenda Report Attached is a Planning Commission Agenda and Staff Report for the July 8, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. You or your representatives are expected to attend the meeting. You will be given the opportunity to speak regarding your proposal and the staff report. The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. and is held at the Fire Station located at 16776 Fish Point Road (east of HWY 13 on the south side of CR 21). If you cannot attend the meeting, please call me so your item can be deferred to the next Planning Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me at 447 -9810. Sincerely, Connie Carfson Connie Carlson Planning Dept. Secretary Enclosure 1:ldeptworklblankfrmlmeetltr.doc 162CO Eagle Creek Ave S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 A~ EQUAL OPPORTLNIl'{ EMPLO'y'ER _. ________--.J_~_____.~._._.___.~_.__.~..____.__._._.__~___------.---..---...'.---.-...- - ~ ~CItEST( HC)MES'~ "A Builder Driven By Quality Craftsmanship and Value." DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT During placement ofrip-rap along the shoreline of this property, we also placed a row of landscape boulders along the base ofthe 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 offill 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 ofthe 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' Member of the Builders Association oflhe Twin Cities P.O. Box 456' Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 Office: 952-898-7663 . Fax: 952-898-3364' Web: www.hillcresthomesinc.com Geo EItrIln..""'" eonsun.".. 1M POBox 21490 Minneapolis, MN 55421 Phone 763 502-99'" Fax 763 502-9946 JUlle14,2oo2 Mr. Chris DeInovic Hillei'm Homes. Inc:. P.O. Box 456 Prior Lake. MN 55372 ":'I~@~ 00~~-l I r I ' <, I: / . . IU~! JM 11. J))j RE: Site Observation Proposed HO\l8e Lot 7, Block 2, Knob Hill Prior Lake. ML...." .a Project Number: OOl.Q07t-5372.2A This report presents the resul18 of site .'." " ".lions at the property in Prior Like, Minnesota. You allthori7.ed 0\11' service on March 4, 2002. The scope of service consisted of observing and doc:IImenting the condltion. after recent landscaping at the site. On March 4, 2002, we observed the condition of existing slope at the rear of the property, between the house IIIIdcr constrUCtion and the lake. It appears the .;..... .~; portion of the .lope has been rel8tively undisturbed. At the f1attet' portion of the slope. the natural acc:ess and drainage to the lake WlIlI imJllOved. We \, !. ."".:\ thi.1ICCCSS was improved primarily by placing Imdscape boulders and some additional till on the lakeside of the acce.'IS. This was p1aecd to levellhe ac:ccss and provide surface drainage to the lal<e and away from adjacent property. In addition, boulders were placc<ron the inside (hOUllC .ide) of the acc:ess at the toe (bottom) or the slope. At this time, the boulder wall. arc on the order of2 to 5 feet high, with final gJlIding yet to be completed, In maintaining global slope stability, it is most im, ' .... : that soi I is not excavated from the toe of the slope, as this will reduc:c the resistance against sliding of the soil mass. Conversely, by placing additional weight at the toe, such as boulders and additional soli, will increase sliding resistance of the soil mass. It did not appear that soil had been n:moved &om the toe of the slope, based on our observations. The new fill and boulders p111Ced at the toe should aid in global stability. Another aspect of slope stability is surfMle erosion. The existing surfMle vegetation and trees should not be dL.;"..'., ,1 to minimize the potential for surface erosion. The surface of the steep slope 8PJI""led to be undisturbed, based on our visual observations. We recommend the existing trees and surface: vegetation ,..,:, undisturbed to minimize 1he erosion potential. " ,,-)..- Project Number: OOI-0071-S372.2A Page 2 With reprds to the improved Ialte -. we I'CI .. ".... ...4 the surtice be seeded with grass, or a surf8ce layer of c ..,.... ' .. ed aravel or other surface be placed to minimize the potential for erosion. In our opinion. the recent lanlL,.". ,', ~ mould not influeDCe the stability of the existing slope. This judgement Is based on our _ ~.,. ,ation of existing conditions. the previous subsurface exploration results, and our experience:. It should be noted, to properly anal)'lC slope stability ,.~.:.... SlL-n,,::.~ exploration at the top, midway, and at the toe oCtile slope. In addition, sophisticated triaxial testing of .... .....:ative undi~turbed smnples should be pcrfnnned. This dara should then be lIII8lymd using applicable computer lIII8l)'!lis techniques. This is beyond the work StOpe for this project. If you have any questions or if we can be offurther service, please call us at (163) 502-9945. Geo Engineering Consultants, Ine. Steven J. Olson, P.E. Geotecltnical En&ineer Geo ~".In"erIng CouulDlt"'~ 69329 " 651 772 7977 . -- ...- ---....... ............ 04/26 '02 08:36 NO.939 01/01 ~~~~ u~ r~lua ~ " lllo0.Z' SIeve Homnan Tuesday, ~ri' 09, 2002 2:S1l PM 'pal.lync/1@dnr.stllle.mn.us' 14784 ~8IIfOOd RlI. . Mr. I>lltril:k Lyncf1: I ra'?8iv8cl'1 copy afyour letI8rto Mr. Ceanovlc. .... ~'Il!il tI'1e ~irecl ~......~'oms far rip,-p 81011; the sllorellne oflhe subJIlf;! prll ~, lhanlcyou. ... ,. . The owner is P/'DP08iHS to tile City to Illlgwllle Ilouldlll'$ IncI fill plaged "lthe lower ~ian of the bluff impeCtzone to remain. J the submittal dan enginurs report &... u....;..lllhe work ~p1etecl ,md 10 follow rec:ommendallan. of lhe :::1'1 Ordlnllnce.See. 1104.402, cloes n~umillllle frDpol'l or e:.IaCllf ofmaterlllls witl'lln the bluff Imp.~~'l:one_ However. ~ 'DIllie remova' of ltle impOl'lecl m. I clo mere damage ll'Ifn lloacllb ll'le bluff. . J would app reciate yoLiiinlJUt on this f$sue. Steve Hors nan ., '.' 'lr/u;'>'Z- ~...: ~ PO&t-lt" Fa>: Note . 7671 ID."'~ I~~ / ITo 'SIe.ve~ --l..t,n--i- .~. /;..it.r~ ICoIDopl .. e.' I Phone" ,Prtcrre" :. ,FI1JC' IFa" r I M So +~~d, \AI; ~ -th.:-s, r+ i~ W\,J -f"- \; ~j ;+, is ~s+ fa ~c-- ",-,kq -IL. ~~'"c(.v'ls f<.-f Ir+ S.." . " , ~. t.r .J -tk is' p,~.:of- -iN ~ "t ss ..~:~ Nt eOS,ht ~/ ~/.pe ..,4,4,~ 1~ IJ 01& WH'S .,.. i~~,h./ "~WJ,"eel. T IN dw.,!/d S I.Aff.ri" "frAt '"' kMtr tI .J P-"'6f, r;fi1 OMe~~~~ tk. ""',;;It~ r' S ,,; lJI"r tf:- . p,Je,.. -li.1 ;.s ,Jr'A-ler ""4-- of- -".,'c/ ~C" -!~ , ,. .,,- . 61244~4245 "'> 69329 ,TElL=651 '~ 4lteA 772 7977 04/09'02 15:08 ___________---L________._____._ ---------..----.---------.. Jane Kansier From: Sent: To: Subject: Pat Lynch [pat.lynch@dnr.state.mn.us] Thursday, June 27, 2002 2:49 PM JKansier@cityofpriorlake.com; Shorsman@cityofpriorlake.com hillcrest homes variance, lot 7, block 2, knob hill (14764 rosewood road) nice hOllse. steep driveway. would make for a good Jeep commercial. I don't know what to say about this one. The applicant claims the bench a.; the bottom of the bluff existed prior to their grading the access fnd boulder work. I I did r,'quire Hillcrest Homes to correct the riprap along the shore, and ther have reportedly complied with that directive, although I have not yet made follow-up inspection. It wouli be good to consider requiring, as part of a building permit applica:ioTI, ground level photos, free of snow cover, of the shore impact irea for waterfront lots. It would have made it a lot more easy to deveLop restoration recommendations had I had them available for this one. ! At this point, it would probably do more damage to go in and tear out work pr,viously performed inconsistent with the approved grading and filling plan. I trust the city will do what's right. Pat Lyn oh DNR Sou,th Metro Area Hydrologist phone! 651.772.7917 fax , 651. 772.7977 pat.lynbh@dnr.state.mn.us 1 .-_......_---~_._--~.__._._------~----"_."- ~.' -_._-_._.__._._--_.._-_._-~---"..- #ay 1, 1999 I I ~______--L- Zoning Code >- Part or all of the feature is locaied in a Shoreland area; >- The slope rises at least 25 feet above the ordinary high water level of the water body; >- The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the ordinary high water level averages 30% or more; and >- The slope must drain toward the water body. Toe of the Bluff. The lower point of a 50 foot segment with an average slope exceeding 18%. Top of the Bluff. The highest point of the slope, as measured from the toe of the bluff, where the grade becomes less than 30%. Bluff Impact Zone. A bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff. BLUFF AND BLUFF IMPACT ZONE _20 f~_ Bluff Impact Zone Bluff (Slope- 30% or Greater) - CD -;; A l! CJ - 0 "'" on "" - .c~ 0> y Cil :c Boardinghouse. A building other than a motel or hotel where for compensation or by prearrangement for definite periods, meals or lodging are provided for 3 or more persons, but not to exceed 8 persons. Boathouse. A structure used solely for the storage of boats or boating equipment. Boulevard. That portion of a street right-of-way between the curb line and property line. Bufferyard. An area of land established to protect and screen one type of land use from another land use that is incompatible. Normally, the area is landscaped and kept in open space use. Screening techniques include the addition of vertical elements such as fences, walls, hedges, berms, or other features to mitigate the effects of incompatible land uses. City of Prior Lake llOl/p9 ~M~~I~ ! '\4 Builder Driven By Quality Craftsmanship and Value." r-i,_ r,=:: (c: I 5 ~ '. ~"" :-:;-1 !l"'\r~~~:':'~ ,~--~.:'-"-"' : :1' ' ' I ~(AUG I .1 2CD2 -.' -'~/ August 15, 2002 Steve Horseman City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 Dear Steve: Enclosed you will find the letter of credit for the retaining wall at 14764 Rosewood Road. Per our discussion this letter of credit will allow the city to release the stop work order on this site. If the City Council grants our variance for this retaining wall it is understood that the letter of credit will be returned to Hillcrest Homes, Inc. Furthermore, if the City Council denies our request for the variance and we subsequently remove the retaining wall it is understood that the letter of credit will be returned to Hillcrest Homes, Inc. It is understood t at this letter of Credit will be drawn upon only if Hillcrest Homes, Inc. does not compl)j ith t ity Council resolution regarding the retaining walL ( Builder License #20036544 . Member of the Builders Association of the Twin Cities P.O. Box 456 . Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 Office: 952-898-7663 . Fax: 952-898-3364' Web: www.hillcresthomesinc.com . .__.._._---_._._--_._-+._-----_._..-,..__._~- . ...-----.-.---,-------..... ...... . --:--._ FIRST :::EEDERAL -= BANK A Ffancial Services Company ! 1320 South Frontage Road Hastings, Minnesota 55033-2426 Phone (651) 437-6169 FAX (651) 438-3583 LETTER OF CREDIT TC: City of Prior Lake % Steven Horseman 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. Prior Lake, MN 55372 No.: Date: 14-1028638 August 15, 2002 , Der Me Horseman, We hereby issue, for the account of Hillcrest Homes, Inc. and in your favor, our Letter of Credit in the am mnt of$IO,OOO.OO, available to you by your draft draym on sight on the undersigned banle This Letter of Cn dit refers to the property located at: 14764 Rosewood Rd., Prior Lake, MN. The draft must: a) Bear the clause, "Drawn under Letter of Credit No. 14-1028638, dated August 15, 2002, of First Federal fsb." b) Be signed by the Mayor or City Manager of the City of Prior Lake. c) Be presented for payment at 1320 South Frontage Rd., Hastings, MN 55033, on or before 4:00 p.m. on November 15,2002. This Letter of Credit becomes null and void on November 15, 2002. This Letter of Credit sets forth in full our understanding which shall not in any way be modified, am~nded, amplified, or limited by reference to any document, instrument, or agreement, whether or not ref1rred to herein. , ! This Letter of Credit is not assignable. This is not a Notation Letter of Credit More than one draw mat be made under this Letter of Credit i This Letter of Credit shall be governed by the most recent revision of the Uniform Customs and Praftice for Documentary Credits, International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 400. We hereby agree that a draft drawn under, and in compliance with this Letter of Credit shall be duly hon )red upon presentation. ~-/K By: Thomas 1. Ries Senior Vice President First Federal fsb JFDIC! -.. INSURED I @ "",..."""'"'" LENOEFI I. Q Yl qI PLANNING DEPARTMENT VARIANCE APPLICATION REVIEW CHECKLIST OPEN FILE- Date Received: Alisign file number o )en and label file folder ~/ c~eate file directory under variances I , ~!tg/tJL I I I III. CHECK APPLICATION FOR COMPLETENESS I G2( "-c,)mpleted application, including the appropriate signatures I B'" Fi ing Fee I ~ N ~cessary attachments (survey, house plans, contours, etc.) ~ Li,t and labels of property owners within 350' (verify map and r~dius ) I ~'^ ritten description of specific variances requested I ~ 'e all the requested variances included? 1111. I o B. i ~I \ I WITHIN 10 BUSINESS DAYS: A Incomplete application (I:\template\variance\incomplt.doc) N )tify applicant by mail of incomplete application and list n1lcessary submittals in order to make application complete Complete Application (I:\lemplale\variance\complele.doc) ~/A f.o/I~6l- N :>tify applicant by mail that application is complete. ir c1udes: . Tentative meeting date, time and location . Applicant is expected to attend meeting . Extension of 60 day action date to 120 days Letter \. l:\deptwork\ lankfrm\varcheck.doc ~~~l ~1I_0,' CA/ \Y ~1 I I I ~ U PLANNING DEPARTMENT VARIANCE APPLICATION REVIEW CHECKLIST IV. PrEPARE REFERRALS (I:\templatelvariancelreferral.doc) ~ S~nd referral notice of application to list of agencies and Jde partments. ~ In :Iude DNR if located in a Shoreland or Flood Plain District ~ In :Iude County Highway Dept. if adjacent to a County Road ,.. In :Iude other agencies as appropriate V. [3 3 P ~EPARE HEARING NOTICE FOR PUBLICATION (1:\ lemplate\variance\hearnote.doc) NI ltice includes: ~ Correct meeting date ~ _egal description of property ~ ?roperty Address ~ bescriPtion of variance requests s~nd notice to Prior Lake American by 12:00 NOON on VII ed nesdav 3 weeks prior to meetine date VI. plREPARE HEARING NOTICE FOR MAILING fl template\variance\mailnote.doc) [If N )tice includes: ~ Correct meeting date ~ Legal description of property ~ Property Address /~ Description of variance requests 0' V3rify map and radius again! II2r' Libel or type envelopes IIlJ" ~,ail notices at least 10 days before hearing date 1:\deptwOrk\,lankfrm\VarCheCk,dOC .~_....__......._._-_.... iP/ ($/ ~ J,ttL Nil- ( I l.o I 18'/6 L- r ) vltd~. ~ I / J,; ~J o/;:2/~./ 2 PLANNING DEPARTMENT VARIANCE APPLICATION REVIEW CHECKLIST Nl:Jtice must be mailed to: ~ Property Owner's List ~ Applicant ~ Property Owner (if other than applicant) ~ DNR (Shoreland or Flood Plain applications) VII. PREPARE PLANNING REPORT I Aj Report includes: (1:ltemplatelvariancelvarrpt.doc) ~R!alevant Facts (including any previous actions or variances) ~t! ggested Findings ~ aft Recommendation (including any conditions) ~ R 3solution for Planning Commission adoption ( see 1;\ emplatelvariancelappres.doc or 1:ltemplatelvarianceldenyres.doc) ~LI ~cation Map ~ Jrvey/Site Plan U}/ C )py of hearing notice and/or application ~Other Exhibits B. Submit report to supervisor by Tuesday before hearing date C. Mail a copy of the staff report and agenda to the applicant (and to the property owner, if different than the applicant) ~~e cover letter should include the meeting date, time and Icfation, and the fact that the applicant is expected to be present. I i I VIII. FOLLOWING PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION A. If APPROVED: o i Prepare Assent Form (1:ltemplatelvariancelassent.doc) 1:\deptwork\~lankfrm\varcheck.doc I I I 7ILin...-- ~1 ~ 717/02-- ~^'J 7/3(oZ 3 PLANNING DEPARTMENT VARIANCE APPLICATION REVIEW CHECKLIST I , I ~solution signed by Planning Commission Chair Resolution signed by Planning Director o S gned and certified resolution and assent form sent to applicant for recording (see I:\template\variance\truecopy.doc for certification form) o A Jplicant returns recorded copy of resolution and assent form or o~her proof of recording ? If DENIED: I!J Resolution signed by Planning Commission Chair ~ esolution signed by Planning Director /. In SHORELAND or FLOOD PLAIN DISTRICT: 0' si~nd copy of resolution to DNR within 10 days of Planning C Jmmission decision i '3/7/02-- IX. i 9LOSE FILE ! Abd header to file folder I Signed and recorded copy of resolution o o o o o S gned and recorded copy of assent form Planning Commission Minutes E lter in Property Management I:\deptwork\b ankfrm\varcheck.doc 4 ~ July 24, 2002 Anthony J. Stamson Planning Commission Chair 16095 Wren Court SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Dear Mr. Stamson: Enclosed are Variance Resolutions 02-008PC, 02-009PC, 02-010PC, and 02-011 PC, as adopted by the Planning Commission. Please review and sign the enclosed Resolutions and return in the self-addressed stamped envelope provided. Should you have any questions regarding this maUer, please call my direct phone number at 447-9854 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and I will assist you. Sincerely, ~. , JA , /.. ~-f"-/".-/-;z... , teven Horsman Zoning Administrator/Inspector 162QO E'~~reek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372.1714 / Ph (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTl;NITY EMPLOYER I _____...___-L__. _ 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 gradinglfilling 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. SE, Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNIlY 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 I part "In maintaining global slope stability, it is most important 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:I02FILESI02variancesI02-076\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 the 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:I02FILESI02variancesI02-076\VarRptdoc 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:I02FILESI02varlancesI02-Q76\VarRptdoc 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. I I 3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria. ACTION REQUIRED: Staff recommends Alternative #3. 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. L:I02FILESI02variancesI02-076\VarRptdoc 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. . 1:I02filesI02variancesI02-076Idnyrs.doc 16200 IEagle Creek Ave. SE, Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. ! A0; EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLO',{ER 1 (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 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 I - 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 J. Stamson, Commission Chair ATTEST: JhvJrL f2. R~, / ~p Donald R. Rye, Planning irdct6i- 1:I02filesI02variancesI02-076Idnyrs.doc 2 -____._______--L-._. .... ,..... " ':~ "- ..~, ' ~~1 \ . " "-.. \~"'r \ /"';!' r-: / , !....I // "'/ "-. --, / ....1/ en c: :IJ < m -< i'1f'~ e of Survey for: I'n...... "flU (.:2),"""!s43-' . un I I" 7aJ-1MO r.u: ..D.u.J...}..8~~T !-IOU 783-11&1 MlSOIDllOIIOACI ~F"~ _LME:.~or... .-.......;... T AR : USE EA "" 3467 I RAGEA~~~A'" '1.5~.t;olftf RCH/ PATIO - 884 sq ft lVEWAY A ." 54 s . YERAGE REA - 2 7~' 1t. -15" "C sq. ft. ;EO 3-1 0 - 2 AS-BUlL r _::::="~[lIC[ rllIII DIlMl""'T~S .'lLUNClUS flllI'4WAY " --- ! H ~ 'lch-20F ..1 . - _. 904.0CO.H~R ......TE~ EUV__~O'I 0 3-S-02 . I i I I=~"""_ I _....r,...... _.._-L,_.___ .mnrtll..lfCll.at.. ~nOOltn[V..:1lOIL .!1.A8 E1.EVA1lCINl :: x -. ~ it o ::E: 3: m Z -I ...a. I 1;; aJ ~. .;;;;EtR ~ ~n~"'C~"'\l ..... '''',"'M''_''''~ _....~,~....,,. (151JI81_lIlCrAX:AI_14SlI l*;fJi{~ rAX:7U-I8IJ .. ;;f:;, .. ..[ )_.1ll ..1/ l 1= !l _'":--:::=..~~ Certificate of S~rvey I()(; Jill I c~rC::T !:tOMES -.-. ~,~ , , LOl AREl' '" 34,678 sq. II. HOUSE A EA = 1,534 sq_ It GARAGE REA.. 884 sq. It. POOCH/ Ano '" 54 sq_ ft. g@l:R~~ ~R,~~ Co 2.730 sq. It. REVISED J~1-02 AS-BUILT __::~"~-f..~Zy"""""'OU' ,,-" _.....v"'--.. ~ 1 Inch 20 feet ~~=~ '_"n.... rvU_ ~ ......_"'-.....(._~ .-.. -... -.....- .-..1-..-.....- =- - - :: :.. :::::::.- --......,.."...-.......- ---- ..-...-....---......- _:==.:~... --=-- ~_:--:.- =r.........."<7....':.~~- -::."=":.~ ~..._..__.... --.......-.- ----..t-......-..... ~- BCM.OER RnAINING WALL __WOOORETAININGWALL __oEIflll(SrOUNOIRON UONUUENT R(~01O-2-o1I11.UFI'LJN[ ~~g :g:~8~~~"""- R(....SE:D 10-24-01 IlESTAAto RE~Sllllo-.2!>-ol ",DO (l(Q(S! HSf. D1"l. Rt'llsro'-1-1I2Loc.\1t904CONTOUR ~" ..._~' ^ Ry ~ .--'- l': fo;.n;;:T~- ;;- ~.;' ;m~ "fI( ____ ClRIIN" ItU.CfI(.1000E. TN.T 1M. OS.1IIUE...... "",,,,ro, RD'Rf;,",~'''''''' or . ......:ytE..........._.or. lOT 7. BLOCt 2, KNOB Hili .",>11te1.O<,....._,,,. IT DOn NO....-aIT to SHellY _<M'UI:NIS oil 1_""'EN~ '''''1"' AS ...0.... ~. ....""lM R. HI' oil ,................."......"..""'IIt.""'OA."......>OII1. 10,,:52.(IOA 8'-" I )>. ~ :s o J: 3: m z -I ... I G; 03 c: - !:4 en c: ~ m -< '" ~\) ..., . "OV!b . _""-\J ':':JTi CP....ofJ'n4 !(......... l).;pV EDGE or If\NOSCAPING X aOC3 ~"' 114~.X N01E: PROf'OstO Gf ~1)(S 5l1O~ PErl GRADING PLAN BY: PIONEER Y" ","<(/PI I 954.9 954.7100'" 2 9.4.5 NOTE: eunJlltlG 011.41 t./SlQNS SHOWN ARE: fOR 1l000lONML ANO VFRIICAt lOC....IIOH I X In4 .~ " ~~~W~~~E~6N~[ ARCllllECTUAl I'lMJS roo BUILDING AHlJ I 95".8 I l. I.IA~, NOI[; NO Sf'EClfIC OILS INVESIIGAllOH liAS BEEN COMf'lETED ON ltIlS to1 BY litE: ;,. IH /\.') I ~- ~ ---- SUlh'[YOn. 11 E SUl'ABlLlIY or SOIlS TO SUPP0I11 lllE SPECIfiC IlOOS( I ./ ~f PftOPO$ED IS f>lOI lIlE RESf'ONSI9llllY or lIlE SURVEVOO. 9;; , II.:::: '~< '4' 4 N01E: II11S CERlIne lIE DOCS NOT PURPORT to SlIOW [^SEldENIS OtHER TllAN I ) 1I1OSJ.: SU{)Ylt. 00 lit[ R[COOOEO N..^I. 1411 X"\ '''' '~' 1,--.' I x NOI[: CONTRACTOR 'US! VERIlY DmVEWA'( DESIGN. RETAINING WALL ~ ..- N01[: BEARINGS SIll v.tl ARE BASED ON AN ASSUMED DATUM BY OlllERS Ic., 0 J''- 'lIOn 14 o~ ~4U t'1 I' 3,.... C\I .. .,. .......... "':,. .".n........1I .....* ...-......- .-,,_...-.-..- Certificate 01 Survey for: Lor AREA = .14,678 s<1. It. HOUSE AREA"" 1,534 sq. ft. GARAGE ARE' = 884 sq. fl. PORC"! PAlO = 5-1 sq. It DRiVEWAY AI F.A ~ 2.730 sq. II. COVERAGE =15% EXIS HNG cor.nOURS PlR GrMOING PLAN (lYPICAL) OEIAll Flur-'-O"SCAll: , , > , , / , , , 2'122[,,1.....1...0.'... r.I"""..I"lt8IrIol..~!I!lI1O (n" 111-'''. rAK:II1-048II ;r.~'tH'1,~~'[' ,"21 783-1. rAX:7U-1113 HILLCRES1' HOMES ROSEWOOD ROAO. PRIOR UJ(E \ ~y r~ / _WGE or Blf ,~ t ;"~L8 RE1AINING WALL )(~'O.I .-____RETAINING WALLS ", >b,'il "l_~ ::,'".~.~ ....... ,.~,...I ~ i d"t ~i["u :J ,.~._~ 'rr~-:1---S1AIIKASE f'R rosE~:::'1 '0- 129CMP ....I. ~ -- @ 2,5~ 0 ( nOJ ,;(' / / 8Y 0.""" \\ x I 9'21H _ - PROPOSED CON '% .,- 't<>:r; /~~~ (lYrIC^L) Fii '."IY ;//~/ /// I ~( i'I'~ Z '-, )"11 It I 5 .. / Y ''''1 Vl .... N '38.8 U> " r..: C'l C'l 9:55.:1 I'n~.~ ~ ~~~I% .ll25.9 ~--~ 9'5.8 ~ 9258 \ \ , I ,,1' ; . F.O::I: or tA.!tDSCf-J"IIIG_. ['I , =:f(~' ~~~~/)M'_ BENCH MARK lor or PIPE ELEV."" , AF'PROVED """ ENGINI TTIING Dr:PT ~~=- IO?.'?o' Slgned_ ' Uai.a_ I " 'J< 9:5Vi riPE " O' IKlU " 902_-' , -ll" gOH ~1L:l J"" 932.J I 51 I 1/ ,01/' X 902.3 ./ / / I \ ~ . , ",', ( 904.0y /' 902~ './ ~ ./ , V "" ~ ~a ~ WATER ELEV.~902.3 ".f 902.1 '9:52.6 \ 932.3 \ \ \ \ \ \ -1 \tr , , , , , , , ".,...__._.--3IL lOA 0 I nOI(nHl.UE1f..ll.lILlLl' x ',902.4 -----901.U CUNIOUH ....E!lorQ<:;~ n', Inl Ic:.LE.-.ll.'ilillQIL LOWEST fLOOR ELEVA liON: 'I z 2. z.. lOP or 8IOCI< f.LF:VA liON: --.1],q_:J._._ GARAGE SLAB FI.EVAI10N' ') 30.5 ~i .' ~ ~..._.'::.~..nt:-.--W4..l.r.n.._ Geo ,...""..",.. eonu"''''' lite POBox 21490 M'"""., .Us, MN 55421 Phone 763 502-994' FIX 763 502-9946 J+-14,2oo2 f\ Jr. Chris Deanovic f illcrest Homes. Inc. P.O. Box 456 Plrior Lake. MN 55372 $: Site Observation Proposed House Lot 7. Block 2, Knob Hill Prior Lake. Mi1lJletOla Project Number. OOl.0071-5372.2A c;'... ~.~ @ 0 \v'T-~ , , Ir 1:1 I.s I I' -, , 1-",' J ,!Ii\! ..uN 17 am 1/1)1 ;UUi 1lJ) I -<-his report presents the resul18 of site ObservatiODB at the r. 'r ... -.I in Prior Lake, Minnesota. You ! uthorized our service on March 4, 2002. The scope of service consisted of observing and I ocumenting the conditions after n:ccnt landscaping at the site. I ~' March 4. 2002, we observed the condition of existing slope at the rear of the property, een the house under constrUCtion and the lake. It appears the st......~. portion of me slope been relatively undisturbed. At the flatter portion of the slope. the natural accc:ss and 'f",',>!>e to the lake WlIS impfOved. We undCl'Stand this lU:CCSS was improved primarily by placing lllldscapc boulders and some additiooallill on the lakeside of the access. This was llal:ed to level the access and provide surface drainage to the lake and away from adjacent Iroperty. In addition, boulders were placed .on the inside (house side) of the access at the toe :hottOtn) of the slope. At this time, the boulder walls arc on the order of 2 to 5 feel high, with 1nal grading yet to be completed. In maintaining global slope stability. it is most im, ... .... I that soil is not excavated from the toe ~fthe slope, as this will reduce the resistance against sliding of the soil mass. Conversely, by placing ,J~:;'. .,.al weight at the toe, such as boulders and additiooal soil. will increase sliding resistance of the soil mass. lit did not appear thai 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 $urfue erosion. The existing surfue vegetation and trees should not be disturbed to minimize: the potential for surface erosion, The surface of the steep slope appeared to be undisturbed. based on our visual observations. We recommend the existing trees and surface vegetation remain undisturbed to minimize the erosion potential. i I -----l---.-.--'__...~..__.__~_______,_.__~_____._.,._..._~ __ ..~________..____....__,,__~.._~.._.__.._._~__.._.m'_____._,_ ~ ~ o :I: 3: m z -t w . m z G) - z m m ::D tJ) tJ) - -t m o OJ tJ) m ~ ~ (5 Z ..... m -t -t m ::D Project Number: OOI-0071-S372.2A Page 2 ~ith . 'd/'.:' to the improved lake access, we recommend the slll'fice be seeded with grass, or a ; 1urf8ce layer ofc '.". ,.. ,ed pavel or other surface be placed to minimize the, .:_"::11 for '~ion. n our opinion. the recent landscaping should not influence the stability of the existing slope. rhis judgement Is based on our observation of existing conditioos. the previou.~ subsurface . :xploration results. and our experiClll:e. :t should be noted, to properly analyw slope stability . .~..:..... sul....,-!'".e expJ01'lltion at the top, nidway, and at the toe o{the slope. In addition, sophisticated triaxial testing of ..........:.ative lndi!lturbcd samples should be ...:,.....ed. This data should then be analyzJ:d using applicable lomputer anal)'!lis teclmiques. 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. pee Engineering Consultants, Inc. Steven J. Olson, P .E. Geotechnical Engineer Geo Enlli, _., ,:JIfI Con."ltlInbl Inc , ____-1-______ . +... . " .... 1;.- ":.- -rIII""'lIrlf1g ..... .... .---.....- ......-. ---.... Certificate afi Survey for: 2t22 ["'.'pr"'~ t>rl... 1I...<h'~ HeiGh... 11M !I!Il70 (n,) 181-'''4 FAX:I81-'411 ;;1"9h':~5'4~4N.E. - 1..1) '.'.., 'All:7U-'183 HILLCRESl HOMES l / ROSEWOOO ROAD. PRIOR LI<<E _ WGE or 811 PROf'OstO anj\!JES SIlO"," PEll GRADING PLAN BY: MOOEER BUnlllNG O"dF.~. SlONS SIIO'M-l Am: roo FlOOIZONlAl AND VFRIlCl\llOCAllQH Of STmJCIUR S ONL"f. stE ARCUFlEClUAL PlANS roo BUilDING AND rOUNOA 1100 MENSlONS. NO SPEClnc t'OILS INVE!iIlGAIlON lIAS MEN COMPLETED ON. tillS 1.01 BY lllE SURVEYOR. 1Il SUlIABIlITYor SOI!.S to surraH lire: srEdnc IlOUst rRorosro IS OT IHE REsrONSlBllllY Of tUE SUI1VEYOl"! EooE Of" LANDSCAPING I X I I I I I - RE 'AINING WALL NOTE: NOTE: NOIE: NOlE: COOIRACIOO ~SI VERIFY DRIVEWAY DESIGN. NOIE: IlIFS CEl1l1rlCI\IE DOES NOT rURPOOI 10 SlIOW EASEIdENTS Ol1lm IIIAI~ lllOst: SIlO","' 00 IFtE RE:COODEO PLAT. 9l~.~ REl AINING WAll NOI[: BEMINGS SlldWN ARt BASro ON AN ASSUMED DAIUM BY OTlIEIlS r F.O~t Of \"!IOSCt.T'ltIG _ w 6 b9JU RETAINII-JG WALL ------0---- BY olUms r-....m p 09J2.6 ----~ ___----4--4.-......&........~__._____~_._.__ __._~ tOT AREA = -1-1,678 sf!. It. I.IOUSE ARE.A = 1.5.H sq. n. GARAGE ARE \ = 881 sq. It. PORCH/ PAlO = 5-1 sq. ft. DRIVEWAY Af. F..A = 2,730 sq. H. COVERAGE - 5% EXISTING corHOURS PER GRADING PLAN (lyrICAL) DETAil f.!Uf'O'SCAU' , , ) / / / / / / BENCH M^RK .Ior OF PIPE ElE V. = AFtPROVED ---.. ENGJN~[:>ING Di:F'T ~,zE~~ luZ-' SlgnecJ_;' Ua..a_ rI (~c,,?/h~II'J I;.:ok/!,itfl '- '-, "- "'" '-- "- ''--, ,<> "- ~ _ _ - -RETAINING WALLS ~",:,. ~ ::;- -SlAIRCASE PR rosEud Il CMP ~ ~-@7..5:;O .... .- BY OiliER .928.4 _ _ PRorOSED CON ""1'1 ~ ....---- (lyriCAL) ... ""~IIJlu 3: r-Vll: 03"'" x,D m III ro n e z g -t N CURB --- ~~ ~ ~ '3e.~ W r--. " C'l C'l 9J5.S Wl~~ ~ ~5:W6 ~ 23.8 ____ 925.8 ,925.8 \ \ \ I I , liJ~4 \'--." I m:l-Ipl ~.1M~~. PIPE , _1 ,. , ". 90(0 ~ 9O~.O m X-"::: c en c: ~ m -< -, ~ " lKl(.1 9023 '21.' , ,: / ":' ., BlUrt u~ "''''"1''. ~ '~;'Y / 904.0 904.0 ~ JI" 903.' ~',j (' I I 51 I 1/ " X 902..3 /' / /-'" / ,/x :;./ "'~ '/ .f /x V ",., ~ ~(j ~ 904. 902.1 '932.6 \ '31.J U2.3 \ \ \ \ \ \ -, '" .~:J. , , , , , " , \ J ~ I,.' i WATER ELEV.""902.3 904.0~ -.EROP9.AUliillllsJ: J:I FV'\.!lQtL LOWEST flOOR ELEVATION: '122. z. lOr or BlOCK HE VA lION: _l,?Q..:..:t GARAGE SLA8 FLEVA liON' '1 30.;) ~i "- ~ x ..... 902.4 ~ ..........--90".U CONIOUH 904.0 'Z. ~~ ',.., ~~ ~!-- _~:-:_~.1i'.llcr.-.nt:.14lA..tt..n Ion III I Ofll<Olll n tel/A lIf}t-J, Geo EntIIn..""" eonsubn'- lnC POBox 21490 Minneapolis, MN 55421 Phone 763 '02-994' FIX 763 502-9946 Mr. Chris Deanovic l-Jillcrest Homes, In<:. P.O. Box 456 frior Lake. MN 55372 ';, ~@ [g 0 'V :-'~--l'. "1 . \VlS 1,;.1 ., : 'I (\n .U4 173m Iii J I; ;U Ui It) I ~ i! o :I: i: m z -4 (,) IUDe14,2002 ~: Site Observation Proposed House Lot 7, Block 2, Knob Hill Prior Lake. Minnesota Project Number. 001.0071-5372.2A I In maintaining global slope stability, it is most important that soil is not excavated from the toe llfthe slope, as this will...L... the lCSistance against sliding of tile soil mass. Conversely, by placing additional weight at the toe, 900h as boulders and additional soil. will increase sliding resistance of the soil mass. m z C) Z m m :D en fA - -4 m o tD fA m :D ii ~ (5 Z .... m -4 -4 m :D 1This report presents the results of site observations at the r" .. r ... -J in Prior Lake, Minnesota. You iluthori7.ed our service on March 4, 2002. The scope of service consisted of observing and \iocumenting the conditions after recent land!lC8plng at the site. On March 4. 2002, we observed the condition of existing slope at the rear of the property, between the house under constrUCtIon and the lake. It '"..r ..,,_ the ...... .~; portion of the slope Itas been rel81ively undisturbed. At the flatter portion of the slope, the natural acc:ess and j1rainage to the lake was improved. We understand this ac:c:ess was improved primarily by placing landscape boulders and some additionallill OD the lakeside of the access. This was placed to level the ac.cess and provide surface drainage to the lake and away from adjacent property. 1n addition, boulders were place(fo1\ the inside (house side) of the access at the toe p,ouom) of the slope. At this time, the boulder walls are on the order of 2 to 5 feet high, with "nal grading yet to be completed. 't did Dot 'n "'d that soil had been removed from the toe of the slope, based on our observations. iI'he ncw fill and boulders placed at the toe should aid in global stability. Another aspect of slope stability is surfll41e erosion. The existing surfll41e vegetation and trees ~houJd not be disturbed to minimize the potential for surface erosion. The surface of the steep !dope appeared to be undisturbed, ba~ed on our visual observations. We recommend the existing trees and surface v _.. :"".:: on remain undisturbed to minimize the erosion potential. ..-" '_.....u '_ Project Number: OOI-0071-S372.2A Page 2 With, 'oII"~:' to the :....,. 'eel lake access, we recommaJd the surfice be seeded with grass, or a : surf8ce layer of comp8ded pavel or other surface be placed to minimize the potential for erosion. : ID our opinion. the recent 18JIdsc:aping should not influence the stability of the existing slope. i This jud.. .,. . ",lis based on our observation of existing conditions, the previou.~ subsurface i exploration results. and our experience. ! It lIbould be II()ted, to properly anal~ slope stability requires subsurface exploration at the top, I midway, and at the toe of the slope. ID addition, sophisticated triaxial testing of . .~. .......:ative I undi!lturbed samples should be pcrfonned. This data should then be analyzed using applicable i computer analysis techniques. This is beyond the work scope for this project. If you have any questions or if we can be offurtber service, please cal1 us at (763) 502-9945. : Goo Engineering Consultants, Inc. Steven J. Olson, P .E. Oeoteehnical En&ineer Geo Enflineerlllfl Con.,ltlIntll lnc ___,_~__.__.w____~..___ DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT '~ Builder Driven By Quality Craftsmanship and Value." . During placement ofrip-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 offill 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 i situation in regards to the drainage and slope stability. We had an engineering report completed, and it is attached. Builder License #20036544 . Member of the Builders Association of the 7\vin Cities P.O. Box 456 . Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 Office: 952-898-7663 . Fax: 952-898-3364' Web: www.hillcresthomesinc.com ~ i! o J: 3: m z -I ~ I )> ." ." ..... ~ Z ~ Z )> ::D ::D ~ <: m Steve Horsman From: Sent: To: Subject: Pal Lynch [pat.lynch@dnr.state.mn.us] Thursday. June 27, 2002 2:49 PM JKansier@cityofpriorlake.com; Shorsman@cityofpriorlake.com hillcrest homes variance, lot 7, block 2, knob hill (14764 rosewood road) nice hou~e. steep driveway. would make for a good Jeep commercial. I donlt know what to say about this one. bench ati the bottom of the bluff existed access apd boulder work. The applicant claims the prior to their grading the I did require Hillcrest Homes to correct the riprap along the shore, and thei have reportedly complied with that directive, although I have not yet ~ade follow-up inspection. It woulg be good to consider requiring, as part of a building permit applicatiion, ground level photos, free of snow cover, of the shore impact ~rea for waterfront lots. It would have made it a lot more easy to devetop restoration recommendations had I had them available for this one. At this ;point, it would probably do more damage to go in and tear out work pr~viously performed inconsistent with the approved grading and filling 'plan. I trust the city will do what's right. Pat Lynch DNR South Metro Area Hydrologist phone :651.772.7917 fax 651. 772. 7977 pat.lynqh@dnr.state.mn.us 1 = 20 Feet "- '" · *.:u-; ~~..,.,;\O: 11M ~-_- ..~u f'~TAN -. , ~..u..H. xl" ~~. ~~ t:~ ,.. N ( / x~ ",,.l" ",,~,4- "'",<:1" _ EDGE OF WAlER --- 3-5-02 -. " WATER El..EV.-901.0 3-.5-02 <<f "'''''<:.1'" ~J"VATlnN )R (LEVA nON: au B ELEVAnON: dl.S BLUFF IMPACT ZONE tOlD DISllNG b.[VATlOOoI IOlD Ii'/tOPOl!ilD fI,CIIAT\tN 1016 IlI'lAlftAGl[ AtG UllUJ'T [..I.5ID.EHT tOlD 0lI.~ now DlRtt'llOli tOttS..OHUt.IOlT IOlU CfTKT.... x - I j ------- - BOULDER RETAINING WALL ! , - WOOD RETAINING WALL ~ . - DENOTES FOUND IRON IAONUIAEN I , St/OoIIN I'ER CItADlI<Q "'-AN Ill': f'lCt<<tft lSSHO_ ,lftEfOR HORI10MTALNlD\Ol1lCAl.tCCAllOH ,LT. sa ~TlCl\lAl.. PUoHS TOft 1uUl_ IHl """" IN~G...nClNIlAS8[ENCOUl"\l1EI0N1HIS1J)'8T'll* l(folBlI.IlYOFSOILS1'D!lUPPOfl11'l1(sPWFlCItDUSE: ftlE:RESPONSIlIIUTTOIFlHESUII~ DOB MOT P\JIlf'OItT TO SHOW EA.5DltN15 0fH0l 1'K.... lHtRl:CXlItilUlI'UT. I / I r \'flllfY ORM:WAr 0($lQl .. "!ii "~i\ I . · "i\ "n I . ~ " Ii iq~ h: ~ L~ ~!~ ~i; B "a qa. '.i ~ i ~ ~ ~~~ ~i~: 5 . !~~ ~I~' ~ i ';i l!~' ~ · a;!i Eld · !l 0" g n~ ~ ~~ ,~ i 111.. :~ ~!i :0 '" ,; VI '" o 0; I ,. I !:! ell ~ ~ ~ Z ." . . " D II ~ ~ g z g ~ ~ '" 'l VI ", :0 ~ '" o ~ lT1 C ~ >: z z _ o (;) ~ - :e ;5 :0 > o ~ " Z r- j!: " r- if ~ ", Z -< iHW '"~i~i m~ II OJ I' C ." ." 3: ;g (") -f N o Z m r:~~ ~ 1"'1 _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " .. ~ , .. < , . ~ , H' " ----.-. I\) o ." .. .. .. / / /'I ~ ~~ I.~ '< S'I 9 Co ZJ- OJ I' C ." ." 3: ;g (") -f N o Z m - fS ~ '", ~4-;P '9.,~ !~ L~ , , .. - 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, umeasonably 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. 1:I02fiJesI02variancesI02-076Idnyrs.doc I 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 I Ph. (952) 447-4230 I 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 ofthe 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, 20r Anthony J. Stamson, Commission Chair ATTEST: ~ci R-. ~/ /~-" . Donald R. Rye, Planning inlet 1:I02fi1esI02variancesI02-076Idnyrs.doc 2 ring .--...;:-,.;..;",;; ,';;-;;--- (a.d1h~'t;;d!~~D~':. 1I12J 783-11180 rAll.: ~01Af:"S 783-1883 PIlIORLAK[,MIHNE'$OTA e of Survey for: .HIII r.RFST ROS("IIOCG~AO T AREA - 3 URSE AREA 4,678 sqft AGE ARE"" 1,534 . i . 'RCH/ p A "" 884 sq~ ft. IVEWA Y A TIO -= 54 ssq1 ft. VERAGE AREA "" 2 7 q':l fl. =15% ,3u sq. ft. :;EO 3-1 : -02 AS-BUILt -.. _---=..-~::.iZYllllUMlMOuS IlltuM1NOUS DRI'4WAY " "'~~ ~ ~ o :I: 3: m z -I .... I ~ OJ , ,a i1 fJ I 'V ", /...... /_..Y.." ____~~~Al[R /. .-. '---- _. go..OC(>>ITOUR nch-20F eel WAl[RJ~~;t01.0 RlI~""""'~"" ~ FtOlllt nEVATlOI'f:""'no:;. !l.Alt nrVATlON: --;;;- x -. ,- ~::: =::::::.. ... _':::"U'::::,~'''''''''i PROCEDURE FOR AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE Overview: When a person wishes to maintainlbuild/construct a structure in a manner that does not comply with the requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance, a variance is required. Specific requir lments for property in each Zoning Use District are contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Section 1108.' .00 of the Code sets forth the procedure and requirements for the review of variance requests. The Code is available for review or purchase from the City's Planning Department. ; Pre-Aipplication Procedure: Prior to submitting an application for a variance, applicants are encouraged to meet with the Planning Staff to discuss the following: o Zoning requirements that apply to the property. o . Preliminary development or building plans for the property. o ; The specific criteria of the Zoning Ordinance applicable to the development or building plan. o Alternatives to the proposed development o Variance procedures. If a d~cision is made to proceed after the advisory meeting or meetings, a formal application is made. Process: Within ten (10) business days of submission of the application, the applicant will receive forma/, written notice from the City about whether the application is complete. Within 30 days of receipt of a cq>mplete application, the Planning Department will schedule a public hearing for review by the Board, of Adjustment (Planning Commission). The Board of Adjustment must approve or deny the application within 120 days of receipt ofa complete application. Timi'll{;. Public hearings are scheduled for the Board of Adjustment on the 2nd and 4th Mondays of each mon~. Complete applications must be submitted to the Planning Department at least thirty (30) days prior tb the scheduled meeting to allow publication of hearing notice. The Planning Department will publis/1 notices in the Prior Lake American and notify the applicant and other affected property owners of the date and time the proposal will be heard by the Planning Commission. Staff Report: The Planning Department will prepare a staff report which: I) explains the request; 2) reviews the criteria for granting variances as contained in the Zoning Ordinance; and 3) provides a recoITJimendation. i Hearilll!: A public hearing will be held by the Board of Adjustment (Planning Commission). The Comnilission will review the staff report and hear from the applicant. Public testimony on the request will 1:\handoots\2001 handouts\zoning\variance app.doc Page] 1620Q Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER City of Prior Lake ZONING/LAND USE APPLICA nON Planning Case File No. {Jp - () 7 h Property Identifica lllLNo... :u:::.- <:1.0- OZO-o b ~~~ U~ ~.... .... f;, j Type of Application Brief description 01 proposea project (Please describe the proposed amendment, project, or variance request. Attach additional sheets if necessary). o Amendment to Zoning Map o Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Text o Amendment to Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map o Conditional Use Permit [29 Variance o Planned Unit Development o Senior Care Overlay District o Home Occupation o Amendment or Modification to approved CUP or PUD o Other Vdll.t[1 M.u -l-o II D4 .4- Cl.lJ (~~~.~ 'I ,-' . .1. tJ>....o Applicant: Address: Telephone: 1-1 \ \I c......:...r t-tCDMG<: -r",e 1>.0, "'EoK it s (p 1/"'1 ,.;, LA It.L f--v.) (home) 952~ '''Ior 7W,"l SS"l7t. (work) '1GZr ."-3'1""t (fax) PropelJy Owners (if different than applicant): Address: Telephone: (home) Type of Ownership: Ilil' Fee (work) o Contract for need (fax) o Purchase Agreement I Legal $escription of Property (Attach additional sheets if necessary): Lo., 7 "B/oee. 'Z l.(n(}~ tJi~ I I To the best of ffi)' Jmowledge the information provided in this application and other material submitted is correct. In additiOS.' ver'ead t e relevant sections of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand that applica'o ')'iIl be Iprocessed until deemed complete by the Planning qirector or assignee. ~ I ~-l~-O? AppliclliDt's Signature Date Fee Owner~s Signature Date ADDITIONAL PROJECT INFORMATION (Required for PUD, CUP and SC Overlay District applications) Will thi! developers reqnest linancial assistance from the City? DYes o No If yes, p'ease describe the amount and type of assistance requested (attach additional pages if necessary). Will anrone other than the applicant be involved in the ownership, development & management of this project? o \f es (If yes, please attach a list of the names and the role of all persons involved in the project) 0 No 1:\handout~\2001 handouts\zoning\zoning app.doc of recQrding to the city and received a building permit within one (1) year from the date of approval or the variance becomes null and void. APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS N.01arp 11'ca:tz'onwl'll.lJeeonsidel'..e du.n tl'l itU 1lequl'I' ed .z'nrji.ol'ttUl.tion..z'.s sUilJm.I'tte d, T. he following infor anon, along With. the att<<:ehed ehe. t, is required for a .complflteapplieanon. The City also I'ese . . sthel'ight to.request additional infol' 'when needed to review an.application. · Application Fee: Check payable to the "City of Prior Lake". The filing fee is $150.00. · Signed Application: A completed application form signed by the owner or owners of the property. In~lude authorization from the property owner on the application form or by attached letter of authorization if an agent signs the application. · Ali'plication Checklist: The attached checklist identifies the necessary information. Failure to pri)vide any of the required information will result in an incomplete application. The Application Cljecklist will expedite the review of your application. Attach the checklist with the application materials. , . . . . .';) .'. ., .> ) ,. f ", .~ . .., , ., , : . , 1:\hando(lts\2001 handouts\zoning\variance app.doc Page 3 Memorandum TO: All Applicants for Land Use Applications FROM: Jane Kansier, Planning Coordinator DATE: July 18, 2001 RE: Required Information for Notification Requirements Several Land Development Applications require published notice as well as mailed notice to nearby property owners. It is the applicant's responsibility to submit a list of the names and addresses of the property owners. This list must be prepared and certified by a certified abstract company. IN ORDER TO ENSURE PROPER NOTIFICATION, ALL PROPERTY OWNERS LISTS MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A MAP IDENTIFYING THE SUBJECT SITE AND THE REQUIRED NOTIFICATION RADIUS. THE MAP, AS WELL AS THE LIST, MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A STATEMENT CERTIFYING THE LIST HAS BEEN PREPARED BY A CERTIFIED ABSTRACT COMPANY. THE STATEMENT MUST BE SIGNED BY THE ABSTRACT COMPANY. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please contact me at 447-4230. I: \handouts\certlist.doc 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. SE.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 40jPR1~O~ !~I '\(' F-. . " W I ~ \ ~~ j NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLWWING, ~NI\'ES~ ] V ARlANCES TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1104.402 TO ALLOW GRADING, FILL AND EXCAVATION WITHIN THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-l (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SD (SHORELINE OVERLAY) DISTRICT IDEN IlJ<lED AS 14764 ROSEWOOD ROAD. You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #l,located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the intersection of C.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on Monday, July 8, 2002 at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. APPLICANT: Hillcrest Homes, Inc. P.O. Box 456 Prior Lake, MN 55372 SUBJECT SITE: 14764 Rosewood Road, legally described as Lot 7, Block 2, Knob Hill. REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a variance to Section 1104.402 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow grading, fill and excavation in the bluff impact zone for the construction of a boulder retaining wall. If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions related to this hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447-4230 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Planning Commission will accept oral and/or written comments. Oral or written comments should relate to how the proposed construction and requested variances are or are not consistent with the above-listed criteria. Prepared this 18th day of June, 2002. Jane Kansier City of Prior Lake To be mailed on June 27, 2002. L:\02FILES\02variances\02-076\02-076 mn.DOC 1620~ Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PR~ I ,,~\ i ~ig; <It'i'W"'i!ii:~ NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: IN ESO VARIANCES TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1104.402 TO ALLOW GRADING, FILL AND EXCAVATION WITHIN THE BLUFF IMPACT ZONE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-l (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE SD (SHORELINE OVERLAY) DISTRICT IDE~ 111< lED AS 14764 ROSEWOOD ROAD. You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the intersection of C.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on Monday, July 8, 2002 at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. APPLICANT: Hillcrest Homes, Inc. P.O. Box 456 Prior Lake, MN 55372 SUBJECT SITE: 14764 Rosewood Road, legally described as Lot 7, Block 2, Knob HilL REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a variance to Section 1104.402 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow grading, fill and excavation in the bluff impact zone for the construction of a boulder retaining walL If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions related to this hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447-4230 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Planning Commission will accept oral and/or written comments. .oral or written comments should relate to how the proposed construction and requested variances are or are not consistent with the above-listed criteria. Prepared this 18th day of June, 2002. Jane Kansier City of Prior Lake i To be published in the Prior Lake American on June 22, 2002. L:\02FILESI02variancesI02-076\02-076 pnDOC 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER --. I......,........... .--......""......... (1I51)M1-,".rAX:U'_'_ I~-_'li'~' (812J 18J-lllllO f"'UU_Iee3 ." :~~R ..Moon~"".'y ..... _-2:::"''::..~ Certificate of $urvey for~ .HlLLCRESLHIDJFS -~-,.,,~ LOT AREjA '" 34,678 "q_ ft. HOUSe: .",R[A .. 1,534 sq. It GARAGE~REA .. 884 sq. fl. PORCH/ PATIO.. 54 sq. ft. g~~~ ~~~~.. 2.730 sq. ft. REVISED ~1-02 AS-BUILT .::::~'-=:':.."'r\.Ur<OV$ , II-..sllllll,(""y. "- ~ 1 Inch aj. 20 feet ~~. ~ l_,,-n"""I..IItINt~ --........ .._~ .-. ~--- ,_.oJ ._......_ === --......- - ---- -- - -- ....- :: ~-~~~=::':';::'-"""- -..-...... --....---....-......- --....... ,..."......-,.....-.- -..-..-..-- - __.._ __.._r._..__ --....-..... --....--..,..--.- ---- -......-..- '- ~_ltOVlDUIRETAlNINGW...LL -_WOOC)R(:1AINIOlGW.Ll ...[l[NOTESfOONOIflONlIONVlI[NT __Ufl..,.,......W..U'''''''''.IH.'........-'I;NfD_CTREP!l(...''.IIl>>o($.. _..oor........_.or, 1t(w.J([llo-2-018U.IfTUNE ~~Ig :g:1s.?!s~~l{CMPj\I.1l. IlEVlSEOlo-:zt-O'R[STAKUl Rt\'ISEDI(l-25-Ol...00OECO<S/HSE.OI.... Rt'JISE03-1-G:ZLOCAttt04OO14TOUR ~'"~." ... ~ ~-i;;;;-;;'-.T~. ..~.;--(m~ lOT 7. BLOC: 2, KNOB HILL XOTI_...._O'~ n-./IOlf'U!lf'aIlO....._lMutNT$toI... . .........""_"'l.."'--...""'''lIl0....Ofw...2OCI'. rlO;tPIOS$lt.........'-..1UIlYlIl:toI .'ttU,:r.OOA ...., i CITY OF PRIOR LAKE 16200 EAGLE CREEK AVENUE SE. PRIOR LAKE. MN 55372 TO: ru^Y1~ ~l~ Plione: Fob< Dhone: ^ tM~ "-5~lr}Y cc: . RtMARKS: D Urgent D For your review D Reply ASAP D Please comment Date: ",-) l'&"'l )} . 0 7.- Number of pages including cover sheet: From: Connie Carlson CilV of Prior Lake Phone: (952) 447-9810 (952) 447-4245 Fax Dhone: lki C)1\(1J;) / JileN~ ~ ~l)'t;/ .J ?vttt- 4\L ~+- L{;W. LtoL~..~CunJdql0/ (b. y;~ (J,D, W{~? Cbtll<<Jt . cr I CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORC PROJECT REVIEW CHECKLIST 1---- DISTRIBUTE TO: ..--rlr---APPLlCATIONFOR: i I + I Frank BoyleS- + Bud osmundson-II Administrative Land .Division I + I Sue Walsh + Sue McDermott Comprehensive Plan Amend. , ; I + I Ralph Teschner . Conditional Use Permit i I + I Chris Esser + Fire Chief I Home Occupation i I + I Bob Hutchins + Bili O'Rourke I I RezoninQ I + I Don Rye I I Site Plan ! I Jane Kansier I II I Preliminary Plat I I I II I PUD I + I DNR - Pat Lynch I Minnegasco II II I Final Plat ; I I County Hwy. Dept. II Watershed Dist. II II + I Variance ! I I MNDOT II I Telephone CO. II II I Vacation I I SMDC II I Electric CO. II II I i I I Mediacom Cable II I Met. Council__I'-LJ_ PROJECT NAME: I APPLICANT: I CONTACT PERSON: I I PID#: I LOCATION: I EXISTING ZONING: I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: I I PROJECT REQUEST: HILLCREST HOMES VARIANCE (Case File #02-076) An application for a variance to aliow grading, filiing and excavation in the bluff impact zone on the property described as Lot 7, Block 2, Knob Hill. I Hillcrest Homes, Inc. I Chris Deanovic 952-898-7663 SITE INFORMATION 25-310-020-0 14764 Rosewood Road R-1SD R-UMD Review and comment on variance application. J l I I i rOate Received .6/14/02 Date Distributed 6/18/02 Date Due 6/27102----] ! Complete Application 6118102 Date Distributed to 6/18102 DRC Meeting NA I i Date DRC I Publication Date 6/22/02 Tentative PC Date 718102 Tentative CC NA II i Date i 60 Day Review Date 8/18/02 Review Extension 10/18/02 i 1:102filesI02variancesI02-076Ireferral.doc Page 1 I have reviewed the attached proposed request (Hillcrest Homes Variancel for the following: I Water Sewer Zoning Parks Assessment Policy Septic System Erosion Control Recommendation: Comments: : Signed: City Code Storm Water Flood Plain Natural Features Electric Grading Signs County Road Access Legal Issues I Roads/Access I Building Code I Gas Other Approval Denial Conditional Approval Date: Please return any comments by Thursdav. June 27. 2002, to Jane Kansier, DRC Coordinator City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Phone: (952) 447-9812 Fax: (952) 447-4245 e-mail: jkansier@cityofpriorlake.com 1:I02fi1es\02vanancesI02-076Ireferral.doc Page 2 Jane Kansier From: Sent: To: Subjectl Jane Kansier Tuesday, June 18. 2002 11 :25 AM Legal Dept. Prior Lake American (E-mail) Hearing Notices Please PlJblish the attached hearing notices in the Prior Lake American on Saturday. June 22, 2002. If you have any question~. please contact me at 952-447-9810. Jane Ka~sier. Planning Coordinator City of Prior Lake 02!dOO ~ ~ ~ - 02-068 pn.DOC 02.076 pn.OOC 02-075 pn.DOC . 1 filE COpy June 18, 2002 Hillcrest Homes, Inc. Attention: Chris Deanovic P.O. Box 456 Prior lake, MN 55372 iRE: City of Prior lake Review for Variance Application Completeness Dear Mr. Deanovic: On Tuesday, June 18, 2002, the City of Prior lake determined all of the necessary submittals for the above application have been received. This letter serves as your official notification that the application is now complete. The City will now begin formal review of this request. At this time, you are tentatively scheduled for the July 8, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. I will notify you of any changes to that date. The City review process can be substantially less than 120 days, and we intend to move this matter through the process in a timely manner that provides a complete, professional review. Occasionally, however, due to meeting schedules, it is sometimes necessary to extend the 60-day review period. This letter also serves as your official notice that the City is extending the 60-day deadline for an additional 60 days from August 18, 2002 to October 18, 2002. If you have questions relative to the review process or related issues, please contact me directly at 447-4230. ~. Sincerely, (). . ~ , ane Kansier, AICP . Planning Coordinator cc: DRC Members 1:\02files\02variances\02-076\complete.doc Page 1 1620b Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ......~-".~~"--------,.~-_..~_......_----- . .! . ~6062 I CITY OF PRIOR LAKE 16200 EAGLE CREEK AVE SE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 (952) 447-4230, FAX (952) 447-4245 RECEIPT # 41637 DATE:;::; /Je; /02-.- Received of Ll. l '. f\ I A '""- i" ,~ - _ / J/;.-v,," ~ll'~ (..... tv' - . ....-- r."':"'" l(;u ~ /-1 ~l,.~...f.lJ~Q Jt/ ~/"\ .J- Fi f-T '-r-) '4- ....."....."-_:atI'"..... - ". ~""./ t;;u i r ' .- '_~-r \ ". dollars the sum of , for the purp~e of I I _'" .. - _ L/ !. t..../ !l..f.....'.......--c:.--'< A - ~-.. . ,~ \. .I . ,-;\1 I I \ ~___(J.,-e-"'" ___-, . -U'V Invoice # $ 1G9~ .. -. ~- Receipt Clerk for the City of Prior Lake NEW ABSTRACTS CONTINUATIONS CLOSING SERVICE REGISTERED PROPERTY ABSTRACTS TITLE INSURANCE RECORDING SERVICE SCOTT COUNTY ABSTRACT AND TITLE, INC. 223 HOLMES STREET, PO. BOX 300 SHAKOPEE. MINNESOTA 55379 DAVID E. MOONEN Phone: (952) 445-6246 Fax: (952) 445-0229 June 10, 2002 :'mlcrest Homes, Inc. . '.0. Box 456 . 'rlorLake, MN 55372 .f\.ttn: Chris Deanovic to Whom it May Concern: -I\ccording to the 2002 tax records in the Scott County Treasurer's Office, the following persons listed on Exhibit "A" are the owners of the property which lies within 350 feet of the following aescribed property: :L,ot 7, Block 2, Knob Hill, Scott County, Minnesota. (},,/\, I pavid E. Moonen president $cott County Abstract & Title, Inc. MEMBER MINNESOTA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION AGENT FOR CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY ~6 T 115N R 22W ~I Half-Sectidn ounty, Minne~ota """"""" ~ ';;;;", "'-'(". Tl ~)\ n.i... \, \\\ ' \ . I ~I ' \ . . 5 - g .ul A E' 21 ~ , , -:;r::- Jl.l, ~: 4 ' 259260180 \..0"' ~ ,pr< " -- " " '3 " " , .. , " 259260010 r 10 n V1? A PRKlR L.N<E , --t' , ... . ... ... Fool COUNTY SURVEYOR SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA June 01. 2001 . 526-115-22 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL COUNTY OF SCOTT ) )ss STATE OF MINNESOTA) rkVLltu ~ aV,;1(D(lofthe City of Prior Lake, County of Scott, State of Minnesota, being duly fworn,.says on the ~1~day of Au1--\.t...-, 2002, she serv~d the attached list of persons to have an interest in th~~~UL-- V~ -1\,~ - (tv~f.I1X:5r::1& .(2..(\ 02-- orlb ,by mailing to them a copy thereof, enclosed in an envelope, postag~repaid, and be depositing same in the post office at Prior Lake, Minnesota, the last known address of the parties. Subscribed and sworn to be this day of . 2000. NOTARY PUBLIC . l:\DEPTWORK\BLANKFRM\MAtLAFFD.DOC MIC~L C & DEBORAH L BABCOCK 4877 BEACH ST NE PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 LLOYD & VERA BERGGREN 4853 BEACH ST NE PRIORLAKEMN 55372 EVAN C & JEANNE SHADDUCK 4841 BEACH ST NE PRIoJlt LAKE MN 55372 SUSAN E HEATON 14688 ROSEWOOD RD NE PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 WILLJAM E KEEN 146961 ROSEWOOD RD NE PRIo:t LAKE MN 55372 JEFFREY D MANSFIELD 14712 ROSEWOOD RD NE PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 ROB~RT B & CINDY S STARK 147301 ROSEWOOD RD NE PRIO:~. LAKE MN 55372 WILLIAM RAE RICHARDSON, JR 14756 ROSEWOOD RD NE PRIOR LAKE MN 55372-1282 THAD E & JENNIFER HELLMAN I 4696i BLUEBIRD TRL PRIok LAKE MN 55372 JON T & LESLIE A MEYER 14680 BLUEBIRD TRL NE PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 i GREGORY & MARY J STANFORD 146831 ROSEWOOD RD NE PRIO~ LAKE MN 55372 GERALD T STUCK 14689 ROSEWOOD RD PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 , MARtE GILBERT 1780 PRINCETON ST PAUL MN 55105 HELEN A VIERLING 14310 PIKE LAKE TRLNE PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 EXHIBIT.J1P~OF~AGES DU~ B & MAMIE MELLING 4833 Bj3ACH ST NE PRIORi LAKE MN 55372 FREDERICK A WEILAND ET AL KIMBALLJDEVOY 10600VERLOOKRD MENDOTAHTS MN 55118 fhR~{I-1e-?+- i-fr~ 'b tJL EXHIBIT .A. PA~OF ";) PAGES Property ONners within 350' Hillcrest Homes Property Variance tKJ2-076 CARRIAGE ltLLS PKWY '1~H1lLSPI<WY CARRlAGE HILLs I ! 5~\ --t\ ffi' CAARlAGE HILLS PKWy \~\- --1~ = ~\ I~- -I EI !/' /-~~ ~ ~ .-, ='~ !-,I III -~ ffi- _~~ g L~ /~ *''-.. -....../'/-_. / / /~ ~ /~- / / / / ,~ $00 o 500 Feet ~ N Property Owner's List Hillcrest Homes Variance #02-076 PIDSHSRTN ~SHNA~~-SHHOUS SHSTRE 250280120 BABCOCK.MICHAEL C & OEBORAH L __ _~ 4877 BEACH ST NE 250280120 BABCOCK.MICHAEL C & OFRORAH L 4877 BEACH ST NE 250280140 BERGGREN.LLOYO & VERA- - - -..- 4853 BEACH ST NE 250280140 BERGGREN.LLOYO & VERA -. 4853 BEACH ST NE 250280140 BERGGREN.LLOYO & VE~-- 4853 BEACH ST NE 253310050 GILBERT.MARY E ., {llU ~KINce I UN 253100150 ~HEATON,SUSAN E 14688 ROSEWOOO RO NE 253100210 HELLMAN.THAO E & JENNIFER 14696 BLUEBIRD TRL 253100200 HILLCREST HOMES INC -. -- 253100160 KEEN.WILlIAM E 14696 253100170 MANSFIELD.JEFFREY 0 . 14712 PROPERlY OWNER NAME & AOORESS . R05EWOOO RO NE ROSEWOOO RO NE PROPERTY ADORe;;;; LI ~5HAD2- SHCllY-~~SfisHZiPi-IoUSGS 5TREG;, ;,IT AoTi'RhAT -I' - PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 4877 BEA,," '" Nt ~LA T .25028 CHA TONKA BEACH 5 PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 4877 BEACH 5T I~E PLA~I-25028 CHA TONKA BEACH 5 PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 4853 BEACH 5T NE PLAT.25028 CHATONKA BEACH 6. PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 4853 BEACH S I Nt ~W -25028 CHA TONKA BEACH 6- PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 4853 BEACH 5T NE PLAT-2S028 <OHATONKA BEACH 6. ST PAUL MN 55105 4893 BEACH 5T NE PLAT-25331 RL5 # 162 TI PRIOR LAKEMN 55372 14688 R05EWOOO RO NE PLAT-25310 KNOB HILL ~ PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 . 14696 BLUEBIRO TRL Nt ~LAI-25310 KNOB HILL - T PO BOX 456 PRIORLAKE~ 55372 14764 ROSEWOOORDNE ~LAT-25310KNOBHILL 7 PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 14696 ROSEWOOO RO NE PLAT-25310 KNOB HILL 3 PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 14712 ROSEWOOORO NE PLAT-25310 KNOB HILL 4 259260090 MELlING,OUANE B & MAMIE 253100220 MEYER,JON T & LESLIE A 253100190 RICHAR050N.JRWILlIAM ~._-- 4833 14680 14756 BEACH 5T NE BLUEBIRD TRL NE R05EWOOO RO NE-- PRIOR LAKE 'IN 55372 PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 PRIOR LAKE~N 55372 4833 BEACH 14680 BLUEBIRO 14756 R05EWOOO ST INE TRL ~LAT-25310 KNOB HIL'::--- 2 RO NE PLAT-:l5310 KNOB HILL 6 259260010 VIERlING.HELEN A_ 14310 PIKE LAKE TRL NE .IPRIOR LAKE~N 553~ I I 4841 BEACH 5T NE IPLAT-25028 CHATONKA BEACH 9 14683 ROSEW~u NE PLAT-25310 KNOB HILL~ 15 1473OR0SEWOOD RO ~LAT-25310 KNOB HILL - 5 14689 R05EWOOOf NE, PLAT-25310 KNOB HILL - 16 14091 EAGLE CR~_ NE 1_ I I KIMBALL J OEVOY 1060 I~~~ OVERLOOK RO ,MENOOTA HTS IMN 55118 T I I IMENDOTA HTS IMN 55118 o ~I IT I I I 259260100 WEILANO,FREDERICK A 259260100 WEILANO,FREOERICK A KIMBALL J OEVOY 1060 OVERLOOK RD o mail list . ." · PIONEER ~lt engineering .......* ---._~ --..-...--..... . 1422 tftl"p<IN D<1.. _..\..H.lvh\.....0l~\10 (151) 881-1914 FAX:681-1488 - ~..t. ~'5~~"'E. (.,2) 783-H18O fAX:783-1883 Certificate of Survey for: J...IIII r.j=?F"ST HOUI="~ ROSEWOOD lRoAO PRIOR LAKt. MINNESOTA LOT AREA ~ 34.678 sq. ft. HOUSE AREA ~ 1.534 sq. fl. GARAGE AREA = 884 sq. fl. PORCH/ PATIO = 54 sq. It, ORIVEWA Y AREA ~ 2.730 sq. ft. COVERAGE =15% REVISED 3-1-02 AS-BUILT _:::::="'~ 6&?..\::fv BI"M.IINOUS , , ' " ",. , ,~ 8rlUUlNOUS DR!\'tW,I,V. '----. Ii :K i I t J BLUFF IMPACT ZONE I w ...J~ ~ t/\ J"'" / / / .../ .../ .... ~_. . ~ 1 Inch"'" 20 Feet ;:v .... ,<..//,-_ _EtlOECKW,I,1ER _..--... - 3-5-02 ./ '- l< ............ /li ... --1KI4.0CONTOlJR '\ WA'I!R ELEV._101.0 3-~-02 ncI'lnNn ..l'IIl~ ~niAtll'lN LOWEST flOOR ElEVAnON: ~ GARAGE Sl.AB EL.!:VAllON: --!!!:!- BLUFF IMPACT ZONE ..eoo.__1lftIINGDrW.1IlIH I_OO)_._rLlVA1IlN =00lGlU__U1IUl'I'_ __llD<<l1h_fUM__ --,,- ___ __ 0>nU_ NOfE:_llII-",_m__""'_ , 100m ~=::,.:-=-':~~~'1:"..::.:t-:'''''' _A_lIIII_ I NCIII::.IOO!HCIflC-.sOt\U1lllA_,,",,'I;lJl~llNJ..LOT"'- ~M_""lJ""O#SllIl!Illl.......:lll'M~_ __IIlIT_--.znf6MIUIlW'tOll . __CUt1lfICo',1[_IIlIT_T'lO_~~_ __ClIl__......T. . MGmcrlH1'llAO:ftlllIAllT'NIf'Y_'-' ____AMIl!DlON..._llAlU" .~ _______.. BOUlDER RETAINING WALL .. WOOO RETAINING WALL . '" OENOlES FOUND IRON MONUMENT WE HEREBY CE~nl'Y TO H1UCREST tfOUES mAT _ IS A 1RUt AND COR~ECT REPRESENTA~ OF A ~OFTHEBOUNDARlESOF: J Rt:VlSEO 10-2-01 BLUff lINE REVISED 10-4-01 CONTOORS/cuP j\l.H. REVISED '0-16-01 MOVE Hst REVISED 10-24-01 RESTAKEO REVISED 10-25-01 ADD DECKSI HSE. DlM.- REVISED 3-7-02 LOCAl! 904 CONTOUR W;::-R-~-It:?~- 1'000ne. \.01'...... L::;' "-9- NG. ,.,,'<1> ~ LOT 7. BLOCK 2. KNOB HILL scan caJHTY. MlNHESDlA . IT DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW IMPROVEMENTS ORj [NCHROACHMENTS. EXCEPT AS SHOV/N. AS SI.RlVEYED BY ME 011 UNOEft MY DIRECT SUPERVISION lMlS l1lH DAY OF ~AY. 2001. 101152.ooA BAT r: ...-..---.-.- L5 @ f?i li_"i ".. 11------ .( JUN I 4 2002 -.-""' I .'" *", * PlaNIIB.. ;,. engineering * "'",* LiIIIU\aalS. a\ILrMCINIIIlII oHqR1nos. uM.SCAPS: ARtmEl:t! 2422 Enterprise Drive Mel1dQlo HeIghts, MN 55120 (851) 881-11114 FAX:881-114lI8 625 Highway 10 H.E. - BlaIne UN 55434 (812) 783-1lll1O f'AX:783-11ll1J HILLCRESl HOMES J , , > / / / / / / 9315.8 10 " .....: C'l C'l 935.5 ~ ~f\) ,.., _..\di~()(),,';..... ~~ E1" ~. ''V I EDGE OF LANDSCAPING oC:) ~,\CP ....'r\ X . X ~ ,."'~ IQ,. ""--/ I 954.9 954.7 10" 9~ 4.5 I X 911....'" ",. J;. I 954.8 9 '\"' . .. 11>., 5.9 \ 92~:~i ,~~~:.~--RETAINING WALL /!l~.a..."'.11 X '\, 941.' /' 946.5 --"""''':J \~ X :<"~"11 IN J'" ~9Jh8 .. ~"..~".h:l" .- _~_",,""-'-!l44r . Iv. . 0 '., (>...';. 94:l.01"'i ....."'~,94,2:, 84JO' 'p44.1 ft'l #' ~t.\ 1 . .(.. 1145.5 C\I l{,jj>.' . /-l{-''!;/Jt/ ~:., \ I _E_----RETAINING WALLS .. "'-' .-. /r-"',,,.~,, .\ ..__~".~'!Jl{'.,"'" ..-"-, 'e4-2\ !:9-45.5 ,,,,,"fIl~V X"'.1 \:\,1, '_ . 'X2,,(' ..934""''''-' '~'.2, t;If"'.' /,,'- .. ,_ \ x. '1'1 " <;-- -STAIRCASE PROPOSED "..,9,,2 '\ -, "'\:: 12" CMP X9J17 \ ,Jtl+l"r __-- @ 2.5% :IL~O'-_, ;> f' -\ _--- BY OTHERS ~. "'.1/ I I _- ~/X~~I'. ", 92B.' _PROPOSED CONTOUR _",",' -,' ///-- (TYPICAL) ",7// // I ." C>W W ,/ ,/ /' ZUH:: / / // ~'71\. ~ ~5~ / ,,4' / tJ:r:... / / I:;:: 00 / / ~ P ,I I ~ X924., ~ / Certificate of Survey for: ROSEWOOD ROAD, PRIOR LAKE "IS7.3 954.0 ___- EDGE OF BIT NOTE: PROPOSED GRADES SHOVv'N PER QRADING PLAN BY: PIONEER NOTE; BUILOING DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE. FOR HORIZONTAL AND VERllCAL LOCATION OF STRUCTURES ONLY. SEE ARCH'TECnJAL PLANS FOR'SUILDING AND FOUNOA nON DIMENSIONS. 9~l.B NOTE: NO SPECfnc SOILS INVESnGA 110N: HAS BEEN COMPLETED ON THIS LOT BY THE SURVEYOR. UtE SUITABILITY OF S4JILS TO SUPPORT THE SPECIFIC HOUSE PROPOSED IS NOT THE RESPONSIQILlTY OF THE SURVEYOR. LOT AREA = 34,678 sq. It. HOUSE AREA = 1,534 sq. H. GARAGE AREA = 884 sq, It. PORCH/ PATIO = 54 sq. I~. DRIVEWAY AREA = 2,730 !jq, It. COVERAGE =15% ff j NOTE: nus CERllFlCA TE DOES NOT PURRORT TO SHOW EASEMENTS OTHER UlAN lHOSE SHOWN ON THE RECORDED PLAT. NOTE: CONTRACtoR MUST VERIFY DRIVEWAY DESIGN. RETAINING WALL NOTE: BEARINGS SHOWN ARE BASED ON AN ASSUMED DAruM BY OTHERS '" '" "', "', "" "" '" , EXISTING CONTOURS PER GRADING PLAN (TYPICAL) CURB ---, I , , , , , , , , , , Nur I ~ ..",. f.:"92~.S ~ , CONC, PAI10~59 .'23.11' . 925.8 " I, 925.B \ \ EOGr OF LANDSCAPING_ t ' _ BENCH MARK I - TOP OF PIPE ~ ELEV,= \ 1 , w 6 I: 933.8 RETAINING WALL ------:5-- BY OTHERS t-. ",., P g 932.6' ---- Vl-_ 8ENCH MARK 110P OF PIPE ELEV.= 'lS ? a;\ ft~' \ 901l:~ yr \ 906.8 V I , 904.0 /' ~;3 '.'.Or 902.3 902.3 903.9 X 902.3 /" /900.3 ~ '\~" :1>'\,)'f" '<-.p '032,. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~ ''& 902.1 WATER ELEV,=902.3 ,.l$.. -- EDGE OF WATER 4- 26-00 PROPOSFO HOIJSF F1FVATION . LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION: 9 Z 2.. z- TOP OF BLOCK ELEVATION: 1 30, " GARAGE SLAB ELEVATION: ') ,3(J. 5 TOB @ LOOKOUT ELEVATION: 934.4 , , , , ~ x 902.' '- , '--904,0 CONTOUR WE HEREBY CERTIFY TO HILLCREST HOMES THAT THIS IS A / TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTAlION OF A SURVEY OF THE U~ARIES OF: LOT 7, BLOCK 2, Klt-JOB HILL '.7. SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA IT DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW iMPROVEMENTS OR ENC ROACHMENTS, EXCEPT AS SHOWN, AS SURVEYED BY ME OR UNDER MY $IRECT SUPERVISION IS!1TH DAY OF MAY, 2001. SCALE : 1 INCH = 30 FEET REVISED 10-2-QI BLUFF UNE REVISED 10-4-01 CONTOURS/CMP /M.H. ~52.00 BAT / RE..,SED to-16-01 MOVE HS~ )( 000.00 DENOTES EXISTING ElEVA nON ( 000.00) DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION - - DENOTES DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT DENOTES DRAINAGE flOW DIRECTION DENOTES MONUMENT a DENOTES OFFSET HUB SIG/:O</ PIONEER E~~-;jG. PA B-I:7t~ t' ,'-. A .I",hn r> I _____ . I _----RETAINING WALLS I >t'J~l ,942.~ ''!!!:'9455 X9Je.~ \\ I' .- ~ 9JO 2 -:'. \ 'I. ~~_ '42.8 , ; 9~f:l. - ..\:~ 'ji ~-STAIRCASE , \ X9J1.7 1 ~:V!,!!_I fl:~;, ""1/' \ ..-"- ,.-- / ..- ~ "V / I // X." I - 928.4 _ - PROPOSED CONTOUR , ,,/ ,,' //- (TYPICAL) Y" / ,/ ,/ '" / // I - ~ll.l W - \ / ,/ ,/ i=UJ '= '" ,/ u AI U)::J '" / .,. -00 / / XI.. / /1--'lrJCX) / 0 / I . I 0 X924,' (/) .'" ". * Pia"." ":.. engtneermg ic. .* 2-422 Enterprise Drive Me"doto Heights. "IN 55120 .....~__............ (851) 11I-1114 FAX:I81-1481 I.MlD 1'\.liiMbs. lNlOSCAPl NICII1tClI ~ 625 Hl9hwoy 10 N.E. ~Ial"~ UN 5504- \112/ 783-11IlIO FAX:783-1l1113 HILLCRES HOMES Certificate of Survey for: ROSEWOOO ROAO. PRIOR LAKE NOTE: NOTE: EDGE or LANDSCAPING I X I I I I I PROPOSED GRAOES SflOvm PER GR~D1NG PLAN BY: PIONEER BUILDING DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE FOR UORIZONTAl AND VERTICAL LOCATION OF STRUCTURES aNl Y. SEE ARCUITE!CTUAl PLANS FOR BUILDING AND rOUNOA TlON DIMENSIONS. NOTE: NO SPECIfiC SOILS INVESnGAnON H~S BEEN COMPLETED ON rulS lOT BY nlE SURVEYOR. lHE SUITABILITY Of 5011.;5 TO SUPPORT THE SPECIFIC HOUSE PROPOSED IS NOT THE RESPONSIBiliTY Of JUE SURVEYOR. NOTE: THIS CERnnCA IE DOES NOT PURPO~T TO SHOW EASEMENTS OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN ON THE RECORDED PlAT. NOlE: CONTRACTOR MUST VERIFY DRlVEWAt( DESIGN. RETAINING WALL _ NOTE: BEARINGS SHOWN ARE BASED ON AN ASSUMED DATUM BY OTHERS LOT AREA = 34.678 sq. It. HOUSE AREA = 1,534 sq. fl. GARAGE AREA = 884 sq. It. PORCH/ PATIO = 54 sq. It. DRIVEWAY AREA = 2,730 sq. It. COVERAGE = 15% '" '" '" '",- "'" , "'" "'- , ,0 "'" q..~;l' CURB DETAIL NO I 10 SCALE , , > / / / / / / / , / v 1LI 6 It 933.8 RETAINING WALL ______&-_ BY OTHERS ~ OJ... P ____ g 932.6 1n-_ BENCH MARK TOP OF PIPE ELEV.= 942.1 ~ '5<'1;-0' O~-:q, ~Q APPROVED ........ ENGINEETlING OEflrr (f; // ~- Iv.d'''( Si9ned"/(~ - . Da;e_ I ?I' /01::, '/lyr.1' I BLUFF lI~f!;/""i; I :,~k..... ' ~, Y: /' '/ 51 .' I ..;./ 1/ J",.,t / :!I( . "1~' 'fi27~~ ,'^ ., ~ ,/x 902~ '/ ~ /x V 902.2 ~ ~a ~ 932.5 '1132.6 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ --' '" .-& ~i " l!l 904-.0 904.0,/ (/x ...... 902.4- , , ---904.0 CONTOUR 931.7' '-'pr:;r"fcn '934.4 r., \j \ r: __, r.[ 0\1','" 'r r ..' -1-' ._ , , , , , , , 904.0 Z ~, \1 //902.6 ............ ! 902.2 EDGE OF WATER 4-26-00 r:izr.et:'lh ~~t:J... Da.te ~/)g!el 11; ./~, c9l- t 2.00 -- .<l$.o I WE HEREBY CERTIFY TO HILLCREST HOMES THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF A SURVEY OF TilE Ut/ARIES OF: LOT 7, BLOCK 2, KINOB HILL 904,/ SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA I IT DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW IMPROVEMENTS OR ENC ROACHMENTS, EXCEPT AS SHOWN, AS SURVEYED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION T IS 11TH DAY OF MAY. 2001. SCALE : 1 INCH = 30 FEET I RE"1SED 10-2-01 BLUFF UNE RE"1SED 10-4-01 CONTOURS'CMP '''.H. DI:'\JI<<n tn_tll! nl lJ^'_ ..::J. I"" .tntol ..n..tr!'" nn J / "":57.3 954.0 ___-EDGE OF BIT .. 9!lU - - - - RETAINING WALL 948.5 X f iff; .'Ii". " ,X~:4:0.9 PRQPOSED 12' CMP _-- @ 2.5% - BY OTHERS -I I 92!l.5~ CONC. PAllO ~S9 1'23.8 ~~ . 925.8 , . 925.8 \ \ \ BEI'iO-1 ~dM\k. c- - TOP OF PIPE ELEV.= ., <1J. ? " ~c\\ CJv.0&~ ," \ 906.8 ~ 904.0 ,/" ~2' " tn 1+ .0<.0-:5/ 902.3 902.3 X 902.3 /' )902.3 902.1 WA TER ELEV.=902.3 PROPOSFn HOIJSF FI FVA liON LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION: '12 Z. 2- TOP OF BLOCK ELEVATION: 130,1 GARAGE SLAB ELEVATION: ') 30.5 TOB @ LOOKOUT ELEVATION: x 000.00 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVA liON ( 000.00 ) OENOTES PROPOSEO ELEVATION - - DENOTES DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT OENOTES ORAINAGE FLOW OIRECTION . - DENOTES MONUMENT B DENOTES OFFSET HUB SI!/~D./ /' PIONEE. R ENl;INfERIrfG. t' / .---""' B. t-L--vt (' ~1(~- P.A. . J DETAil NO I TO SCALE 4 '.... ~~.:.~- 1'U..,oUII.P,I..Io'IMaIlIl:" 2422 EnlerPfI.. Dtl" Mendola HlkJhl.. loiN &!U20 (11I1) III-III. FAX:III-1411 825 Hl9hway 10 N.E. ,.~" UN 55.3< (1121 7lI3-1~ FAX: 7lI3-1113 HILLCRESl' HOUES .ate of Survey for: ROSEWOOD ROAD. PRIOR LAKE oE: PROPOSEO GRADES SHO.... PER ~RADlNG PLAN BY: PIONEER aTE: BUILOING DIMENSIONS SHO.... ARIl FOR HORIZONTAL ANO \/ERTlCAL LOCATlON or STRUCTURES ONLY. SEE ARCljITECTUAL PLANS FOR BUILDING ANO FOUNOA TlON DIMENSIONS. EOGE or LANDSCAPING X I r I I I I ... as1.l 4 , NOTE: NO SPEaRC SDlLS IN\/ESTlGATljHAS BEEN COMPLETED ON mls LOT BY mE SURVEYOR. THE SutTABILITY Of OILS TO SUPPORT THE SPECIfiC HOUSE PROPOSEO IS NOT mE RESPONSI ILlTY or mE SURVEYOR. ---- RETAINING WALL . NOTE: mlS CERTlRCATE ODES NOT PURpORT TO SHOW EASEMENTS ornER mAN THOSE SHO~ ON THE RECORDEO PLAT. ..... NOTE: CONTRACTOR MUST VERifY DRlVElNAY DESIGN. I.U X ff RETAINING WALL NOTE: BEARINGS SHO.... ARE BASED ON AN ASSUMEO DATUM BY OTHERS LOT AREA = 34,67B sq. ft. HOUSE AREA = 1,534 sq. It. GARAGE AREA = BB4 sq. It. PORCH/ PAllO = 54 sq. ft. DRIVEWAY AREA = 2,730 :sq. It. COVERAGE =15% " ", '" '" "', 9'2.1 X X_40.' .... o .4&.0 . 44., ~ 14U C'l ____RETAINING WALLS Xu", ><0". 141.1, ><031.' I ... if14U "'3< ~ I! -STAIRCASE PRQI'OSED ~ 12 ClAP -- 0 2.5% .><1 _--- BY OTHERS " \ - I - 12I.X" Il . f~. __PROPOSED CONTOUR ,," ': _-- (TYPICAL) /' /' ClwW ZCIII ~8 C'l ~:r:9 GO p 5 en .... -11 .... It) / II ~ ;I X...., RIP R,.p I !,V/II" .~ ,0 ~!~ };.~ ^ 125.1 . 0' ...../~~I 125.8 \ " ,~'" , , ~~~...-'....J BENCH MARK , ... 021.& ')>"- "~l--TOf OF PIPE 'fs. "/~ / l' Elt.V.=922.32 ....... ~ c.:~-" '" R)'II.H. ~ - \ ~ _""9.57 C-Jv.~'~ "# . ''''.J I IOU ~ / I , X / / I 104.>~;3 919.S....> '/ / X911.5 /' .... ... 922.i!c )' 'A- 7 '/ ~ .>~;918.2 /" X921.: '-,- '- '- '- '- X 925.2 W 6 · 1318 RETAINING WAll______~_ BY OTHERS j.... ..~. 9-42.1 -$;-<l' 931.2 oc; ~1< "'<,,(;I X 927.5 10'.0 l( 102.3 /" /102.3 127.S . 934.' 'll32.8 , 932.3 , , , , , , ~ .'ft , , , , , , , - \ \ I I 90..0 Z. ~ ~............ 102.8 ....-- EDGE OF WATER 902.2 4- 26-00 l( ...... 802.4 .... ....- - - 904.0 CONTOUR ....0 I SCALE : 1 INCH = 30 f1'EET ~ 101152.00 BAT EROSION -- CONTROL SHEET DENOTES SIL TFENCE II 0-2-211l.llFF UNE , 8:~cItlfl~rp/ll.H. 0-24-01 RESi~ REVISED 0-25-01 ADD DEa<s1 HSE. DIll. . \ \ - \ .. !~~n' ,u ~ r I tCf \ ,1\\ " ... -It I. · ..,1r-.,\\] P\ ~ ~,'l;: L ' "'"... .'_~,__n_:~L_ ~~l .:.1 R7.IiIH'ON'B~~-i:;-''u:>i.lO'l~U_! d' - .. ~. NIIl] ,:)to l:l33NO ' S HH ....___________.____...,__.... J.'VB 'tOO.tS~lOl -' ~nolNOO TOe 3l.'f':X)1 ~O-l.-t a3S1t\3~ "bIG o3SH /5)1:)30 aav IO-<;Z-oL 03SIr\~ O])l'f'lS3l:l lO-tZ-oL a3S,^~ 3SH 3'\tw1 lO-9l-D1 03SLr\3l:l "H"Wdr<l/SHrKllNO:> LO-to-OL Q3S....~ 3Nn J.,InlB lO-z:-oL 03SV\3H "IOO?: ',l,VI'! ;10 ),'10 Hl,U S'Hl NOISI-\II3dtlS .1':>31:110 ^" ~n I/O 3l'I AS lW.3/l.l/l'lS SV 'NMOHS SV !cl~ 'SlIGl'IIOVOlllON3 HO SlN3rl~Qlldl'll MOHS 01 J.lrIOcAlfld iON SJoe .11 YiOS]NNln '.I.lNnC))uros 111H SON)I 'z )l001S 'L .t01 :.;/OS3Jll'VONr1083f<<.:lOA3\W1S II JO NOUYlNJSJlldJll J.:J)l:lHQ:) ONV 30lll v 51 SIH1 IVH.l, S3n)H .1Slll:!TIlH 01 AJIJ.l:l3:1 .uDW3H 3M. lN3~nNO" NOl:i1 QNno.:l 5310/1130 '" . 'TWM ~NIN1V131:1 0d0M - llVN. ONINI....13l:l l:l3lJl110a -, - - - - - --. - . -x lo-~-t Ot(l5-^m1l3l....14 1II\i'l'O___II'ftCI_____..... _u_~U/'I'lllCll:l.III.HD:l"_ .1VW~_ICI....,.._ _lIIJMl<I"'..-n_O.l.l_/,O~GI:IO:iL\':tW__ _ ______J1J~_.lOII._ _:u:n.-J>ll_....0l~11JJ.l..............~ _"'JO"I_ItO~o<<I.S'n'_~~:lWm4iCIII~ ~_.- ___""S1fY'l.1~_"'_AIIlRi""""'1> M:lUv:xn.......U\_,.l.JI/>l_lIIlJJlII._~___ _ _""'.......___nor..._'1lOII ....UEMD__ 1--"-- _ __IIICfU_mooGlI- ~.unLII__~= _........._'.._<..._1 _Vo\J'lII ...aa DLONJCI "'_" --n;;-- :tlOU1'A7IJ 8\'"'IS 3:l1'wn ---...-- 'NOll...^ro wo'U 1S3M01 N............~~ ~'"'...,... "......_'" l..~ OZ = 4:JUI ~ ,- ~,p I fF'> f~ , . -~ .... /- , r- / ,/ '/ ....( r '-tC/ ,.- / -./. /,)....:., ---, .......M.:I'\1l!Q5OONIl'Il'LUll -' , "" ' , ' , ,I.'l'NI]MjQ ::t~- SnoNII'WUI84/J 3OQ3~"=::T- 1"- llIns-sv ZO-l-r 03S,^3!l %SI= 3~VIl3A00 "lJ "bs OrL'~ = V311V ).VM3AlllO "lJ .bs ;.S = OllVd /H~IlOd "U .bs .ee = \"3C1\" 3~\f~\f~ .lJ .bs ;.rs'l = V311V 3SnOH .lJ .bs BL9';., = V3!lV 101 1'10SlNNII'I '3>IYI Y)lW 01',* GOCIM3SOaI ~..:InUH ~~..:ItJ~ IIIH :JOJ ,(aAJns jO alo:J!J!lJaO tQ9t-alL:XV" ~~;'9~ Wc,8J .llol~~~n 99t1-~Vg:XV" tll~-,," (Uil) lltl""""146lOKg\0jI"'" "1'O..!>d"I"llltl .....--.---... -.-.--- ....,*... 6ulJ~aulfiu,,! ":. ~l3NOld .. ..' - . .