HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-122 McCoy Variance
APPLICA'l'IO~S
&
APPLICA'l'lO~
~A'l'ERlALS
L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC
HUEMOELLER, BATES & GONTAREK PLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
P.O. BOX 67
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
(952) 447-2131
Fax: (952) 447-5628
E-mail: hb{!(a).Driorlakelaw.com
JAMES D. BATES
ALLISON J. GONTAREK
BRYCED.HUEMOELLER
E-mail ofsender:jdb@priorlakelaw.com
October 7, 2003
City of Prior Lake Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Tim B. McCoy, Sr. and Jane M. McCoy
Variance Application
Enclosed are the following:
1. Variance application checklist;
2. Variance application with attached narrative and proposed agreement for use of
public property;
3. Certificate of Scott County Abstract & Title, Inc. with radius map and two sets
oflabels for property owners within 350 feet of the site;
4. Application fee of $150.00.
We request that the application be scheduled for review at the October 27 meeting
of the Planning Commission. If anything further is required, kindly contact me. Thank
you.
/r--.....
c;
JDB:dlm
Enclosures
, ,
Ii '
(
~-12003
\
\ .
UI
___-.J l./' i
I
___________.__.F
Planning Case File No.
Property Identification No.
03-{2--2-
25-297-007-0
r
City of Prior Lake
ZONING/LAND USE APPLICATION
Type of Application
o Amendment to Zoning Map
o Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Text
o Amendment to Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
o Conditional Use Permit
181 Variance
o Planned Unit Development
o Senior Care Overlay District
o Home Occupation
o Amendment or Modification to approved CUP or PUD
o Other
Applicant:
Address:
Telephone:
OCT - 1 2003
, '\
Brief description of p.ro-P9.~.ed project
(Please describe the proposed amendment, project, or
variance request. Attach additional sheets if necessary).
Request for rear and side yard setback
variances to allow replacement of a
deck, and approval of an Agreement for
Private Improvement of Public Property
to allow the deck to be built on and
above part of the applicants' property
that is subject to a utility/drainage
easement.
Please see the attached narrative and
survey.
Tim B. McCoy, Sr. and Jane M. McCoy
2830 Fox Run, Prior Lake, MN 55372
(952) 233-2795 (home) (612) 750-9184 (work)
Property Owners (if different than applicant):
Address:
Telephone: (home)
Type of Ownership: 181 Fee
(952) 233-3425 (fax)
(work)
o Contract for Deed
(fax)
D Purchase Agreement
Legal Description of Property (Attach additional sheets if necessary):
Lot 1, Block 2, The Wilds, Scott County, Minnesota
To the best of my knowledge the information ovided in this application and other material submitted is correct. In
addition, I have read the relevant sections 0 e Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand
_ II deemed comP/J~ %J}g Director or assignee.
Sig tu~ '/Y~ bay --
Ll.. . '/-l- - If') - 7 -(13
er's Signature Date
ADDITIONAL PROJECT INFORMATION
(Required for PUD, CUP and SC Overlay District applications)
Will the developers request financial assistance from the City?
DYes
o No
If yes, please describe the amount and type of assistance requested (attach additional pages if necessary).
Will anyone other than the applicant be involved in the ownership, development & management of this project?
DYes (if yes, please attach a list of the names and the role of all persons involved in the project.) D No
VARIANCE APPLICATION CHECKLIST
OCT - 7 2003
; I,
uLL--
I
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2830 Fox Run, Prior Lake
DEVELOPER: Tim B. McCoy, Sr. and Jane M. McCoy, owners
For City Use Only
Included with attached photo,
1. A complete Zoning/Land Use Application form, signed by the applicant reduced survey and proposed
and the fee owner of the property. agreement
2. A radius map and a list and 2 sets of labels of the names and addresses
of the owners of property located within 350' of the subject site. These
shall be obtained from and certified by an abstract company.
3. The required filing fee of $150.00.
4. A certificate of survey of the property showing the existing and proposed
development in relation to:
. Property lines
. Structures, both existing and proposed
. Topography
. Easements
. Ordinary High Water Mark and bluff setbacks, where applicable.
. Impervious surface calculations and lot coverage calculations.
. Setbacks for structures on adjacent lots, where setback averaging
applies
Included as separate attachment
Included
Included
5. If the survey is larger than 11" by 17", ten (10) full-scale copies of the
survey and supporting data and one I 1 "X 17" reduction of each sheet
must be provided.
Not Applicable
CERTlFICA TE OF SURVEY PREPARED FOR:
11M McCOY
2830 FOX RUN NW
PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372
VA' II="Y SU,RVEYlNG CO., P.A.
16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL SE
SUITE 230
PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372
(952) 447-2570
~
Scale
---- 132.94
*L' .
______ .mlls of Deck support
~. pOSls
N 870 00' 00" W __./\
41,. - --
t; "/' ~
_EA_SEM_E.NT2 { '1/ t \
N; '~. G.7 \
,..:
-- \
5 , /" P'?o
-J, Occ:oSco
I
I
,
~ ~UTllITY
8
('~
/
L-
- -'-
DRAINAG E
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,--------
- 15.9 _/'//'/''/'/./
./
./
./
./
./
.-'
./
::: HOUSE
./
./
./
./
,/
./
,,- I G. 0 - :;
---------': /.///./'/
.........
,<:-..
o
+
...p(/
~
.-'
w
o
o
o
o
o
rt)
o
z
./
./
.1' <1',
~~~
./
.-'
.-'
.-'
./
.-'
./
./
./
,/,/ -----.
~' 101.0"
\' '~, '
\~
\
\
\
\
"
'"
<1 ;
/'
,./
.1 ,/
./ .-'
,/ ./
.-' /'
<I '.-' GAR AG E ./
./ .-'
Ll ./ ./
, .1 ./ ,/
, :::...r ,/
. ,/ ./
./ .-'
./ ./
./ /'
'. ,/ /'
,/,/,/,/,/ /' /' '/'/M:~~'_O_' gj
I N
I ~
,
I
J 5
, C oncreJe
<I ,Driveway'
I
I
I
I
I
Ll
.1 .
<:i ,6,
'''; "
"
........
-
I
J
~
-- 30.00 --
N850 00' OO"E
-=
-
- -
o
- --
-----
"'>...-
LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS PROVlDED:f"
Lot 1, Block 2, 'THE 'NlLDS, Scott County, Minnesota. Also
showing all visible improvements and/or encroachments onto
or off from said property if any, as of this 2nd day of July,
2003.
Rev. 1016/03 To show proposed deck info.
I hereby certify that this Certificate of Survey was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Land Surveyor under the lows of the State of
~Innesota.
OCT - 1 2003
fJ&~
~Innesota License No.. 10183
Doted thls-1!::Ji.e., of J" I') , 2003
FILE NO. 9707 BOOK 238 PAGE 76
~
10
in
Feet
. DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND
o DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET AND MARKED
BY MINNESOTA LICENSE NO.1018J
: ,\
: I
'J Lf.,..
~--"""
r'{/';si~~~1;~Y~~!i;:,0i;,g;~1~J~!i~~'~:t~: 'l)t:. .' ': ". :;., ,. ..,}~~:...~..~_~." ,
t
i
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
16200 EAGLE CREEK AVE SE
PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372
(952) 447-4230, FAX (952) 447-4245
~NE~
Received of tVLl!. It:': 0 Q U..0"'L- [ 0aft>1-
h VI.! [,'-+-h' (: C \..1 " L' (
t e sum of \\/ j""':' ,\ L{:h tA./\f D{ '+i<i .t"t\V i Or.)
o \
for the purpose of
VQ)vt(,f.,../Iv/:..",/ II., /,,;'1), ill / r J' ----1-. "
. - LJc::':, (J i}v v' .........".71 u.......,
. i;'
--rl ; A l ' I 'I ^ n !,. ,', ; i
I I Vv. '1 \., (f/1J\~ /j\. f\ (~:.A _I)it....
f ..:
$
1,- C' '
~IN
: .;.
, ~ .,:
, . ,
· ~--}/i ff
1 ,:t I
t \j\_/~
,,~-~~:;;r.~.
RECEIPT # 45702
DATE: C'Y:-{-. { . 0 ?J
dollars
Invoice #
:Y~ oj
C.L.~-~
:,/\.,;"c__--.
Receipt Clerk for the City of Prior lake
AGREEMENT FOR PRIVATE IMPROVEMENT
OF PUBLIC PROPERTY
This Agreement is made this day of ,2003, between the
City of Prior Lake, Minnesota, a municipal corporation (the City), and Tim B. McCoy, Sr.
and Jane M. McCoy, husband and wife (the Owner).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Owner is the fee owner of p
Lake, Minnesota (the Property), legally described
Lot 1, Block 2, The Wilds, Scott Co
WHEREAS, the Owner's property abut
"Easement") in favor of the City, over, under and a
d utility easement (the
feet of the Property.
WHEREAS, the Owner desires t
existing deck which encroached upon
to replace a previously
WHEREAS, the Owner d
upon the kuus and conditions
oing and the mutual covenants herein, the parties agree
HTS. e Owner acknowledges that the Easement was granted
ainage and utility access and maintenance.
. The Owner may improve the Easement by constructing a deck
eck Improvement"). The Owner shall submit the plans for the Deck
ity for approval prior to commencing construction. Once approved,
t modify or deviate from the approved plans without the prior written
ity. All cost or expense to design and construct the Deck Improvements
pu this Section 2 shall be paid by the Owner, who shall indemnify, defend and hold
the City harmless from all claims, liability and expense therefor.
3. MAINTENANCE. The Owner shall perform and pay the cost of reasonable
maintenance of the Deck Improvements necessary to provide access to the Easement by the
City, including, if deemed necessary, temporary removal of all or a portion of the Deck
Improvement to allow for work to be performed on the Easement.
4. INDEMNITY. The Owner shall indemnify, defend and hold the City and its
employees, contractors, agents, representatives and attorney harmless from claims, damage,
loss, cost and expense, including attorneys' fees, which may be asserted against the City as
a result of the failure of Owner to construct the Deck Improvements in accor ce with the
approved plans and for any claims arising from Owner's failure said deck in
reasonable condition to prevent injury to persons or pro erty.
6. WAIVER OF CLAIMS. 0
and knowingly waives any and all
Easement, including but not li
except any claims which are th
its employees or agents.
, s rights to the Easement
lated to Owner's use of the
onment and diminution in value,
or willful misconduct ofthe City or
5. INSURANCE. Owner shall maintain a
provides coverage for any damage to the prope
coverage shall be on an occurrence basis and shall i
respect to the indemnity obligation in Paragraph 4
which provides the insurer will not change, non-r
without first providing the City sixty (60) days prio
the City with a Certificate of Insurance for such coverag
conditions in Sections 4 and 5 of this Agree
EAS . he Owner acknowledges the City has made
'tion of the Easement or its suitability for the Owner's
This greement is binding and shall not t~uuinate except upon
d the City, or their respective heirs, successors and assigns,
for any reason.
FECT. This Agreement shall run with the land and bind and inure
arties hereto and their respective heirs, successors and assigns.
. NTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains all the terms and conditions
relating to the Deck Improvement and replaces any oral agreements or other negotiations
between the parties. No modification of this Agreement shall be valid until it is in writing
and signed by all parties hereto.
2
11. RECORDING. The Owner shall cause this Agreement to be filed for record
within 30 days of the issuance of the building p~l1l1it for the home to be constructed on the
Owner's property. Evidence of filing shall be provided to the City within 30 days thereafter.
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
OWNER
By:
Jack Haugen, Mayor
By:
Frank Boyles, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF SCOTT )
The foregoing instrument
. 2003, by Jack H
respectively, of the City of Prior
e me this day of
, Mayor and City Manager,
mcipal corporation on its behalf.
ent was acknowledged before me this day of
Tim B. McCoy, Sr. and Jane M. McCoy, husband and wife.
NOTARY PUBLIC
Huemoeller, Bates & Gontarek PLC
16670 Franklin Trail
Prior Lake MN 55372
(952) 447-2131
3
Reviewed by City Attorney:
Suesan L. Pace
Halleland Lewis Nilan Sipkins & Johnson
220 South Sixth Street; Ste. 600
Minneapolis MN 55402-4501
4
McCoy Home - Front View
;/1
Rear View Showing Original Deck
APPLICATION OF
TIM AND JANE McCOY
FOR SIDE AND REAR SETBACK V ARIANCES AND
APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT FOR PRIVATE USE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY
Background
In May of this year, Tim and Jane McCoy bought a detached single family home at
2830 Fox Run, which abuts the fifth fairway of The Wilds golf course in the Wilds
community of Prior Lake. The home had been vacant for several months and McCoys
purchased it following foreclosure by the mortgage company. McCoys have made
substantial improvements to the house, to bring it up to the quality standards within the
neighborhood, and have made it their home. The subject of their variance application is a
need to replace a large, deteriorated deck with a new, much smaller one.
McCoys had inspected the property before the purchase and understood the house
would need substantial additional investment because ofits condition. Although construction
had been finished in 1995 and the original certificate of occupancy issued in October of
1998, the previous owners had seriously neglected the property and this, coupled with the
period of vacancy, left the house in a sorry state.
As soon as they closed on the property the McCoys began cleaning up and improving
the home. To date they have spent more than $300,000.00 in the process. In the course of
their work they found the existing deck, which extended the entire back side of the home
(please see attached photo sheet), was rotting and needed to be replaced. They removed the
bad footings and most of the existing deck, and put in the footings and support posts for a
much smaller replacement, in the reasonable beliefthat the original home and deck had been
inspected and approved as being in compliance with the Wilds P.U.D. and applicable
ordinances. At this point, though, it was brought to McCoys' attention that no original permit
had been issued to construct the original deck and that there were potential setback problems,
even with the smaller replacement. McCoys was surprised and dismayed at this development
but stopped work on the deck and immediately arranged to have the property surveyed. In
discussing the survey results and their plans with the Prior Lake City Engineering and
Planning Departments, McCoys have found that in order to build a deck of any reasonable
size they will need variances from the IS-foot rear yard setback applicable to lots in The
Wilds that abut on golf course fairways, and from the 10- foot side yard setback.
The house was built to have a deck, with a walkout door on the second level. The
original building permit file references decks "by future permit" and notes possible setback
problems, since the house alone was close to the rear yard setback line. McCoys have
reduced the planned deck size to 14 by 20 feet, which they believe is the minimum
reasonable under the circumstances. To deny the McCoys the ability to replace a deck on a
home of this scale would seriously compromise not only the McCoys but also the
neighborhood in general.
Legal Variance Standard
By statute, Minnesota cities have authority to grant variances in cases of "undue
hardship," which exists in cases where
the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions
allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances
unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will
not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall
not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the
terms of the ordinance. Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357 Subd. 6(2).
The Minnesota Court of Appeals has on several occasions been called on to interpret
the phrase "cannot be put to a reasonable use." It has repeatedly said, most recently in April
of 2003, that this means only that the landowner would like to put the land to a reasonable
use but that the proposed use is prohibited under the strict provisions ofthe zoning code. The
court has said this language does not mean a variance can only be granted where there is no
reasonable use of the property at all without the variance, because in that case the Minnesota
Constitution would compel a variance regardless of what the statute said. The variance
applied for in this case clearly falls within the Court's definition of "undue hardship."
Criteria in the Prior Lake Ordinance
Based on the nine criteria in the Prior Lake ordinances used to evaluate variance
requests, the McCoys should not be prevented from replacing the deck on their home. It is
only reasonable to grant them the ability to replace, at the smallest reasonable size, the deck
a home of this character requires.
1. Strict application of the ordinance would result in peculiar and practical
difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship in developing or using the lot in a
customary and legally permissible manner, because of the narrowness, shallowness, or
shape of the lot.
McCoys' lot is an oddly shaped platted lot of record in a neighborhood of upper
bracket homes. The homes are large and placed strategically to incorporate views ofthe golf
course and the surrounding natural areas. When McCoys purchased the house, there was a
large deck attached to the rear, overlooking the fifth fairway. Mr. McCoy, being a diligent
-2-
homeowner, dismantled the deck with the intent of replacing it with a smaller, more securely
built structure. The home was designed and built to include a deck, a necessary and nearly
universal feature of single family homes in the immediate neighborhood, and the City's
permit file anticipated construction of a deck. By strict application of the terms of the
Ordinance the McCoys are now faced with the peculiar and practical difficulty of being
unable to have any reasonable deck at all.
McCoys propose that if the requested variance is granted, the attached Agreement for
Private Improvement of Public Property between McCoys and the City be executed. As part
of this variance request, we respectfully ask that this Agreement be approved.
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.
Although a deck plan was not included in the survey prepared for the original building
permit, notes in the City's permit file contemplated construction of a deck extending from
the upper level, and anticipated the potential setback problems given the size of the house
relative to the lot size. The home and surrounding area consist entirely of upper bracket real
estate, a condition that does not broadly apply to other developments in the Use District. The
McCoys' lack of a reasonable deck on a home of this scale significantly impacts the
neighborhood. The McCoys have mitigated the peculiar challenges of the placement ofthe
home on the lot by reducing the size of the proposed deck to the minimum width (14 feet)
that will reasonably accommodate a standard patio table and chairs. It is also worth noting
that on its lower level the house has only lookout windows, so a patio below the planned
location of the deck would have difficult access and would block views from inside the
house.
3. The granting of the proposed variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
Without the requested variances, the McCoys have an exit that drops a full story and
creates a safety issue. Resolving this problem within City setback requirements would allow
no more than a small balcony at the side ofthe house, instead of an ordinary deck from which
McCoys could enjoy the expansive views of the golf course and surrounding area behind the
house. They have children and grandchildren who visit often, and reasonably expect to be
able to entertain guests in their home. Denial of their ability to rebuild a deck of minimum
reasonable size is a denial of a substantial property right.
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 public safety.
-3-
Allowing McCoys to rebuild the deck adjacent to the golf course fairway will in no
way affect the supply of light and air to any adjacent property, or the views from other
neighboring properties. No additional congestion will result from allowing McCoys to
rebuild the deck, nor will additional danger of fire or compromise of the public safety result.
5. Granting the variances will not unreasonably affect 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.
McCoys' inability to rebuild a reasonable deck will diminish and impair established
property values. The sight of a "walkout to nowhere" is an eyesore, and a small balcony
within the setbacks would be proportionately grotesque. Allowing McCoys to rebuild the
deck as proposed would be more likely to increase, rather than decrease, property values in
the area, and will preserve the high standards already in place.
6. Granting the proposed variances will not be contrary to the intent of this
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
Because the proposed deck abuts an open area, a golf course fairway that is expected
to remain open, the granting ofthe variance request will preserve the spirit and intent of the
Prior Lake Zoning Ordinances by preserving a reasonable and customary use enjoyed by all
properties in the neighborhood.
7. Granting the variances will not merely serve as a convenience to the
applicants but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
The variances requested are not a convenience but a necessity. McCoys have
minimized the deck size and are replacing an unsafe and much larger structure. The granting
of variances is necessary in order for McCoys to rebuild the deck to reasonable proportion
and in accordance with the home's value and the uses planned for it when it was built.
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.
McCoys had no part in the original construction of the home and purchased the
property in good faith with the reasonable belief that the existing deck had been approved
and could be replaced. They believed they could restore the home to a neighborhood asset
rather than a liability, with a smaller deck that is a necessary part of a home ofthis character.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone
-4-
shall not be grounds for granting a variance.
The variance request is not an economic issue but rather one of full reasonable use and
enjoyment of property. While the McCoys believe the value ofthe home would be reduced
without a reasonable deck, this variance request comes about because of their wish to use
their newly acquired home for their enjoyment and that of their family and guests.
Based on the Prior Lake ordinances and Minnesota legal principles that guide the
variance application process, we believe the Planning Commission should find as follows:
1. Strict application of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinances will result in peculiar and
practical difficulties with respect to Tim and Jane McCoy's property by denying them the
ability to rebuild a deck. This will preclude the preservation and enjoyment oftheir property
rights.
2. The peculiar and practical difficulties result from the circumstances unique to the
property because of the shape and size of the lot and the approved placement of the house
on the lot during original construction.
3. The peculiar and practical difficulties are caused by the provisions of the Prior
Lake Zoning Ordinances and are not the result of the actions of the owner. The owners'
proposed use of the land is reasonable and the strict application of the ordinances would
preclude such reasonable use.
4. The requested variances preserve the spirit and intent of the Prior Lake Zoning
Ordinances, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest, because the
reasonable use is consistent in all respects with the existing and proposed land use in the
neighborhood, and provides an enhancement to the neighborhood as a whole.
On behalf of Mr. and Mrs. McCoy, we respectfully request that the Planning
Commission approve: (1) the requested variance from the rear year setback, (2) the
requested variance from the side yard setback, and (3) the Agreement for Private
Improvement of Public Property. We appreciate your consideration.
James D. Bates, for
Huemoeller, Bates & Gontarek PLC
Attorneys for Tim and Jane McCoy
16670 Franklin Trail SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
(952) 447-2131
(952) 447-5628 fax
-5-
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY PREPARED FOR:
TIM ~cCOY
2830 FOX RUN NW
PRIOR LAKE. MN 55372
VAlLEY SURVE't1NG CO.. P.A.
16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL SE
SUI1E 230
PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372
(952) 447-2570
, ~.jt Limits of Deck Supparl
POI'S
N 87 0 00' 00" W -"4 \
.-ff'l-' -~
(',i / ~
_EA_SEM_ENt2 N r \
-t:: \
5', rpl/O
oJ, DtC:OStD
,
I
,
I hereby certify that thle Certlflcate of Surwy woe prepared
by me or under' my cIIrect .upervlelon and that I am a duly
L1ceneed Land Surwyor ullder the 10"" 01 the State 0.1
~Inne.ota.
~.j}61 ~
Mlnne.ata Ucense No. 10183
Dated thl.--1!:I!:i.ot J(J It:.
,
FILE NO. 9707 BOOK 238 PAGE 76
---. /32. 94
~ "-UTILItY
8
ORAINAG E
/0 r
I
I
I
I
I
l
- - --
- --
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
,
I
':77';0"''0'
, .
'-
HOUSE
'-
'-
'-
'-
"-
'\
'\
/\
" \
\
.-
:>::-
.-
.-
.-
.-
.-
.-
LI' <1:.
. Con-erefe
<1 . Drive'way .
'4 '
4
GARAGE
.-
.-
,4
-9."~
'4
, " '
':.----
,/,
/'
/'
/' ,
". ;' ,,-
"" ./ ,/ ./ ./ /' .... ,../ C ~~,_o__--, g;
N
<:t
~
o
+
<;1..
~v
.-z,
'-
"
'-
I
J
~
'--30.00 --
N850 00' CO"E
_. --
- --
~
")..~. ~;,.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS PROVlDED:~'
Lot '1. Block 2. ll-IE WILDS. Scott County. Minnesota. Also
showing all visible Improvements and/or encroachments onto
or ofL from sold property if any, os of this 2nd doy of July,
2003.
r;:: - ---~-
\ \ [', ~ .
~ Il)
\I! (
. II I, \
:jt,
20 ' , 0 10 20 I
-
. Scale In Feet
CI:f !":r ~
Rev. 10/6/03 To show," "..__.~ deck Info.
. DEN01t:S IRON MONUMENT FOUND
o DEN01t:SIRON MONUt-AEI:IT SET AND MARKED
BY MINNESOTA UCENSE NO.101BJ
III
0
0
0
0
0
If)
0 r'
.I
Z L_
I
I
I
I
I
.;;--------
- 15.9 _.1./////.....'
,
/'
,
.-
/'
,
,
~ HOUSE
,
,
/
.-
,
,
I:.:::!~:..~::... ~//// ~
I
I
I
I
J5
2003
~iscellaneous
I)lffr /) )
L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOc
,
..
Surveyor's.
Certificate
..
SURVEY FOR
DESCRIBED AS
: Mark Charles
: Lot 2, Block 2, THE WILDS, City of Prior Lake, Scott County,
Minnesota and reserving easements of record.
'\loe.f\
.-
o
,- _ C'4
S8roO'OO"[ 100.00
~'
"10'.5
...
'Y'
. ,
--15 -
"
...
~
~-- 5r------------ '1___
':; ! r-7 - - - f2J - ~=~:$ ~:~
I I ( J9 0 t I I --~
: ' I I'
~ Q11.21 ~"i9~ ~ I I - t'")
l'l ...t---~6.liQ..___~ ~l'A 250) I Y-
"<t- I. ~ 17.50 ........----=- -# ~
I I ::56.50": 0 W
:w I ~'I R
o ~tzfl 0 p ~ I 0
[\ JlO II'! ropo8ed I, 0
o I --0 2-Story q12~ 10 bQ.I b
o I r') 1JC8. d/l -l.. 15.00-"'" i' '2.1\ f>
~ II 0 ~I")
o -I'5.5Q-, 12.00 ~ Gorog. ~ I I 0
Z I I 'iO.50~ l(j I Z
*t J2.5~~I"'4 5 8 11.50 8 -1 i.5f>-
. ---___~. 0"" ,('oj 20.50
\3. t - tl-3'<Of fM:~~/'cn~.~
: ~J I~ I
: \_~--j-_J
L------------- b =9(38'01"
_ -' R=1 '75. 00 ~ 914.1
Q73./-- - N85000'OO"( 71.35 L=~.9.42
.......:---- -- -K Q14.'
q~.e
RUN
'1
10
ci
N
Exist. Home
lOB - 972.9
""
...,
_f
,..------
I
I
I
I
I
I Exist. Home
: lOB .. 978.7
I
I
I
I
L______
I
I
----__-J
..
('173.1 -
f\J
\Jl
FOX
.-'-
.-.-
2~L\.q
.-.-'
LOT SQ. FOOTAGE - 13,591
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
1
f~
BENCHMARK,
TNH t1J L.>1i
Elro . q7 3. SO
Top of Foundation
Garage Floor
Basemen t Floor
Aprox. Sewer Service
Proposed Elev.
Existing Elev.
Drainage Directions
Denotes Offset Stake =
= 97c.,.5
= C.17G..1
= 9<07.7
= '/tri f''b
=( )
'"
MIN. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
=
House Side -10
Garage Slde-5
=
Front - 25
Rear - 30
.
SCALE: 1 Inch - 30 feet
HEDLUND
JOB NO:
01R-363
PUNNING ENGINEERING SURVEYING
2005 Pin Oak Drive
Eagon, MN 55122
Phone: (651) 405-6600
fox: (651) 405-6606
I HEREBY CERTIfY lHAT lHlS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION
OF THE BOUNOARIES Of lHE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY AS SURVEYED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPER~SION AND DOES NOT'PURPORT TO BOOK:
:: ;;::~ OR ENC~ROACHMENTS'~E~~.A~ CAD f1lE:
EY . UNDGR~N,'~N~VEYOR
MINNES UCENSE NUMBER 14376 Deer-01
PAGE:
'.
.'
",... .
'.X'-:~~::\g;tJ
"l::'~i_;:::;~~<
" .:, >;~.'
.,';~.~
;; ", '.,,i' :
'..'" ;-1
. . .....
. ' , . '. . ~
,'. .: ,):~.'i':
.:.0
),:.Y
:\ ..):...' ",l,i'" ;~ ", '..
:":.'.:; ',-'
..,r ., :
: . ~;. ,:'" ::1
.....
I'.:.'
.:. '.~ I
:;.:'......,
. ~ ',',p:. , '
.. ,...., I
I:' '. ;
,"\ .
I : .~.
. -f .
. ""
t..:.
~. ~
" .
.4, :.
,;
,
',' . ,
, , ,
" ,', ~
.'
.... .
'~~ . - :
, ,
;.' I
I:;:, :(
OIl;
, 'I'
~ . , .
,
"l
':.;"
... ."'J.
~.. ~ '
" ,
\
...
',' ~
"
;",
- ,
- -
-, I VY--c...
MI1F~-1J-9S 11: 23
TlM
Me. ~r
tfi - rCiCl G
" .
..,.-tcJt
~
* PiaN.."
~ ongtn.....ing
il..**
l.ul~ 1U.~0lI' . CM~ lNGt/WlI
rEL:
(812) 681-1914 t'A^:Oo,-o~~TC!
625 HIVlumy 10 f~.E.
Blok._. MN ~54J4
(612) 763-1880 tAX: 78J-16'J
I
PARAMOUNT HOMES, INC. I
.....NtJ ~fI". l>>IDSCN'l ~rtc,..
Certifica te of Survey for:
11-J~L-. ~R
I',.L ')
(qc, ,.- 132.94
O.So_....:. .....,
I '5 I
, 0 g-_l.!!..'l 968.7~ ~
10 I ...~ . 10
~,
--u...~
I
.988.9
-...
I
-~'rVy
.
('"t '11J--~
--
L)
~/o
:J~ 10) ..,.
fIr ~.1 fj
0/- as ~
\mOPOSK~ ';\ ~ 14. /
~ "~EW. ~ N......! ~ .,l Ii
<fI. \ ~ .0... ., .,
t., " '" CD'" g 0)1
'I)... ~7& -... ~ :/' )~,!:J:
't,~ :'\ - -7'-001 --- ~
~ ' 0 '74.1 974. . ~ )~tOi MA
\ 'Ii . 'OP OF P1
~ '\.. ORAlNAGE a ./ -' ::: !LI."l-,T'"
BENCH MAR" "",>....."..7 uTH..Xrv eA9Epl.AT..-e- 5 /If
TOP or PIPE __ -- ...... MIUff PEl' "l I
f.Lf;V}l~74.'6 '4,)> ~ _ ----- - I ., ') ·
',," ;~~~ \2 _ ~~~~
'" '. '., ,~oCb~ -~ ~
OR/Vb:;- 7'17 ~~"'-rn ~... 11 el0.t II
Lor AREA- 16,405 s.F.~.t R' l~
HOUSE AREA- 3,649S.C' '~ ~ ----1
COVERAGE.:lI . '.~ 10.0 ~,:' " J
~ . , '. I I ~ '1
! ".
2
I
N
I .
I I
, I' .
.., ',.,-..1....
". ~
p~$U) QW)" SHOYI'H pfft c.RADlHO PUff en PIONEER
HOTEl DlJllDlNa;; Ol~SK.flS SJ1OMol ME. ((It H~Z(JfTAI. ANa ~
l..oc.\nOH ~ smvc1VRU CltLY. sa MCHlltCl\UL PlAHI 'OR .UI..DINO
J.HO fOONOAl1OC t'ilNmllCflS.
HO~I COtol~ WIT ..o.N 0Ill'4WA'f 0f1IGK.
HOlt: NO Sl'EoflC SOLS \tf\......~....nClH H^S IIftH (XlNf'U:1'D) Qof 1HII
lOT 8Y 1>>E SURVlYOR. llll: SUlTASlUt't 01' SQU 1'0 !iUf"I'~T 'tHE
SoPtDflC KWSI: FRCPosm II Nor 1lft N-W _~_U1Y " ntE ~
'nt$ ~l( OOQ IIOT I't.W'OItr 19
ono 1HNt 1MOBE tttOIIf CII -
.....
I'\A. t.
SCAlf:: 1 INCH .. 30
."... IIiOIIN N'C
EEl
x 000.00 Oenotes Exlstlng Elevation
( 000.00 ) Denot.. P,ropoltd Elevation .
:;;;;. _- _ Denotoa Orolno<18 & Utility Eo.cmonl
0.not08 OrolneJtJe Row D!reoUon
-.__ 0."0\.' tAonument
-a- - ()Cllotcl O"lat Hub
_ ~\)PtlSW..t1OUSE ~
Lo...t floor tlO\IGtlonl _, Cc.~,Ji
TtIp of Diode Elovatlon: ~ 77. (,
Gardgo stab EltvaUon: '.77. Z.
I
lHA T n us IS ^ lRUE AND CMREC'
."
WE HEREBY CERTIFY to PJ\RAMJtJNT fi)MES, INC.
REPRESENTATION Of A SURvEY Of THE aOUNOARIES Of:
L.O T I, BLOCK 2 , THE WILDS
SCOT r CQUl>liY, MlNNf:."SOTA
IT OO(S NOT PURPORT TO SHOW fMPROVEUE:NTS OR ENCIlt:lO CmAE:NTS. (Xa::PT AS SilO", AS
SUR~YED BY ME OR IJND(R MY DIRfC1' SUPERVISION THIS IS T OAY Of FE:8. . ~995 .
~. .'- _.~
ReVlseo ORI~WA,( 3-9" 9~ . i /' )
QHt.D. PIONEER ~.. P.A.
R . 1 /' l.........-....-
p' John C. l.. ,; L~ R". H1-"~24
~ Il ~
.
';).. 9 ?L) r-c5J( f20t--J .. .
LDT APLA - IE:~ 401.:::> rp
7-frl '~b' J=:>U~D
, ~(") AL . LI J ~J Trt.~ w\ u::&
8P - 44 - IC{u5
n. C.n.or or .1It IAk. Co.nlry
White . Building
Canary . Engineering
Pink . Planning
BUILDING P~RMIT APPUCATIQN DEfARTMfNT CHECKLIST
NAME OF APPLlCANT~~I--r~ 1i.J
.
APPLICATION RECEIVED .3 hIls-
The Building, Engineering, and Planning Departments have reviewed the building permit
~;~t~on,-f~~,::actiVity which is proposed at:
Accepted +
Accepted With Corrections
Denied
Reviewed By: _~ Date: ~3-<7::;:-
Comments: ..L, Al ~ ~"""-~~~ ~ 1r-;:::",.\.l'~D-- /\.",-<::>,/~
~~ ~~~-\- =~ ~;_J=A)/~ b~/(~~S~\\
/C-.--::.~-\- ~;- (;=- ~(~~~ ~- U ""-.=:-
'\----- \ . ~~
/"c::>~",,-~~~ \2 -'lJ-.~.p~~ S:...<:-~-=~~~<.
'.:::::::7'~
UJ~~ 0:, ~~~-\-\
~ '
({~~~ ~\~~_'\ R-=-~., u:-'~~-<- ~ \-~,~
\ ~.
~ ~ ... '- [~"'"=C FN~~ (.,;> ~"'- J.c:; ,:j~
---.
~~
....
d_
-~.
/\ -= r--..f\:O \.k~ .
.4. p(.2c:>~'~\ ~~\ ~- -~~
----
~~ t {j--~~ =-\-=c-,L~ b, ~~~\,~
I~r~~~~-\\~" ~-+W-c\~V~I\~(
liThe issuance or granting of a permit or approval of plans, specifications and
computations shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of
any of the provisions of this code or of any other ordinance of the jurisdiction. Permits
presuming to give autpority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or other
ordinances of the juriSdictio~1I not be valid.". ,] __
/6. ~<::>\\ l~,- ~~()l~~, ;e,~ ~
;- -::s '" ,... ::,p;;,..<- {, ~ .
c:
~<...J,~\ .
) . ,\
.-/ -d~/'v---~~
1\ -
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY PREPARED FOR:
TIM McCOY
2830 FOX RUN NW
PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372
UJ
:: I
&Yd
(00
,.,,~
o It)
0,
-,
~
,
/
I
--..;:..~:
:--
L
~
~
20 0
~
Scale in.
VAlLEY SURVE~NG CO.. P .A.
16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL SE
SUITE 230
PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372
(952) 447-2570
.-
-_h 132.94
___~ Limits of Deck SUpport
posts
N 87 0 00 I 00" w __I \ _-....
,41 I ~
r, I \
D_RAI_NAG_E _ _EA_SEM_ENT2
~i ' 0 \
,...:
-- \
I
/
o ~UTILlTY
8
/0 r
I
I
I
I
I
/0
l
- --
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
w
0
0
0
0
0
I't) ,-....
0 -'
Z L-
'-
~
.......
HOUSE
\
I
I
,/
,/
,/
,/
"
"
"
-"'>-.
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
'"
'"
/ /' .----.
;' 101.0'-
"
'"
'"
GARAGE '"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'" "
'" '"
'" '"
" "''''
. / / / / /' / /' /"'r Id.o",- en
------ to
I N
I ~
I
I
J5
.......
"
"-
"
\.
\
,--------
- 15.9 -.1"/,/////
/'
/'
/'
/'
/'
/'
.-
::. HOUSE
./
./
./
./
./
"
,,- 16.0-,::: .
- - - - - - - - - ~ ././ /' ./ /''':;:
4
~"
/'
,/,
<1 /'
/'
/'
./
~ ."
.-
~ ./
, .:I .-
.:~
I
I
I
I
I
.:I' ~',
<<'
o
+
, \. . ,.con-creJe ,
.,.. '\" .... ,~; or~ew~y...:
<1 ,.' \ ,,' " <1 . . .q '.4
\ .' . , '
\~:^
. <1.,
~v
,;z"
\
\
\
'\.
"
........
.......
--,-----
I
/
~
o
- --
-- 30.00 --
N850 OO~ OOIlE
---::.
.
:.~.. -~--(~.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS PROVlDEot
Lot 1, Block 2, ll-lE WILDS, Scott County, Minnesota. Also
showing 011 visible improvements and/or encroachments onto
or off from said property if 1::my, os of this 2nd day of July,
2003.
10 20
I I
Feet
I hereby certify that this Certificate cf Survey was prepared
by me cr under my direct supervlslen and that I om a duly
Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws ef the State cf
Mlnneseta.
f~& ~>-
Mlnneseta License No.. 10183
Dated thls-1!ji4 ef Jet [1 2003
FILE NO. 9707 BOOK 238 PAGE 76
. DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND
o DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET AND MARKED
BY MINNESOTA UCENSE NO.10183
MAR-13-95 11: 23
I
- ~"..."" Jt
* Pla_"
~ _ngln..,.lng
...,..*
l"'l~ ""1l~OlIS . CMl (ltIO'"RlItI
LANO ll\.AMI(llli' tNIOSC~[ /oIlIO'lm:rs
TEL:
t (812) 681-1914 tAA:OOI-g!~
62~ HI.."h~Or 10 H.E.
Blow.., MN 5:S4.H
(612) 763-1880 PAX: 78J-1a'J
I
I
Certificate of Survey for:
PARAMOUNT HOMES, INy~
qs~ '-1'-/
l).to ")
(q(, .,- 132.94
O,So-~ ... ,....
I ...... __ S5 '
, 0 Q-~8l 87~ N
-.. 96 .. Jr.i
~ - - '
ec.b:. ~ 96..7
_ 968.9
N67000'OO",
969. !S
-.... (9~...5)
'-.. .r-
2 ~7t."
,
N
10 I
I
I
J
II
()I</VG ~ 7'11 ~~
) LOT AREA- 16.405 S.I":
HOUSE AREA. 3.649 S. r:
COVERAGE::! . . ~ "So. 0 ~
^"/o
~9" .7) ~~"" "I'
./' .1."1
p7J.' .<1 _ _ 1~.1
~o/ ~5
~t: ..../ '
.i N '
,... N /~ R .
~ \ (J- )..0 = of =.
ta' .... f.& If) g ctf '
iD 'J.' 5e.1'8. _.. ~ / I~': ~
0'-:' :\- -7-- - ..
\. 0- I~O' ~-
'::J', Q 974.1 97411 ~ EflICH 1M
Pl \ '\ . :'OP OF P'I
~ " : ORAIMAGE. .I' ~ ~ f..LS.Y. ..~
9ENOt MARl( '/'-""7 ull\JTY ~AT~ 5 ri
top Of APE ..---...-'" ........ ftlItNT ffJ' ~
ElEVJl91~,'6 ~+ ;> "'-'= . ----- ---- ,I '-S "1 )
All'::'$) \Q Q !~( ~
" .,..~ ?to'IJ ,- ;.f
':'''':'\{f)~h.. ': )... --ann .. .,
, "I -u wu.... ....; ~::..~.~~
".".,~_...~~
.RU~
..\
\mp.:~i
...
,~
..--- eO ...
I ~ . .
, ,
",>,/.;,.:,:,,;,; '1;,
Ir",.: ,SID QW)U SNQ'fI'N p[J\ CRAI:llHO PLAN '''' P lONE: ER
HOTEl 1llll..Ol4l;; OlU(N~S PiOMol 10M. fOR H~ZCHTAL N#/J \fJnlCAl.
lOC411OM fI Sl'ftUC1\lIt[5 <Itl.Y. sa -'RCHlltC1\IN.. f'\AIS 'OR .....-.0
NIP fOUteDA liON '*'DC8ClNS.
HOlE, CClMlRAClUt WIT \~",'. 1lIG'4'<<A'l" oaIGM.
HOlt: NO SPEORe SOILS \I'fYE'$llO^ TlClH HAS WIN .... '.I:ltXI CJlI 1HlS
lOT BY niE SU"WYOlt nil SUlTABlU1"1' ~ SOLS TO SUPPMT 1lC
SIltoAC HOUlil: PAOPOSm 18 Nor n.t ~,"'A' ..~UdJTr" 1ltE ~
1ttS ~l( OCO ItO' ~ 'IV
OlD '1tWt 1MOIE ..... CII K
...
ftAT.
x 000.00 Oenoto8 ElClstlng ElevaUon
( 000.00 ) Denot.. Propo..d Elevation '
::;. _ _ Denotes OrolnoO. '" utUny Ea.em\tnt
Denot.. Orolna~. Flow DlreoUon
. ,.. D.not.. Monument
. 0 - Oeno\e. 01',ot Hub
SCALE : 1 JNCH - 30 EEl
--- ..... "
_ .eRuP{}~ ~~ nrv~
Lo...t rloor novatfonl ,'''~.J1
Top of Blod< EJo..-aUon: V7. (,.
...
Gca-dgo st. EltYQUon: _ 1 71. z..
.
-"..
YtL HEREBY CERTIFY TO PARAMJUN'T Ii)MES, INC.
REPRESENTAl10N Of A SURVEY Of THE BOUNOARIES OF:
LO T I I BLOCK 2 , THE WILDS
scorT COUNTY. MINNESOTA
IT DO(S NOT PURPORT TO SHOW IMPltOVEMEN15 OR (NCH~O Ct"it.4P'4TS. EXCEPT AS SHO". AS
SUR\1:YED 8Y ME OR UNDER MY DIRfCr SUPERVISION 'OilS 1ST DAY OF FEB. . .995 .
REVISEO ORI\lEWAY 3-9'" 9~ - ,/....~) .
GHED. PIONEeR ~1' P."'.
8 ' ..." 1...---.......
pill John C. l.antOn; l.s. Rea. N '.128
" ~.
.
THAT nlls IS " lRUE AND CORRECT
"RS9<<lIl"
RESOLUTION 94-06
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND THE wILDS
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
MOTION BY:
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
SECONDED BY:
the Prior Lake Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on the
6th day of January 1994, to act on a petition submitted by Prior Lake
DeveI...}'...cnt L.P.. to reduce the rear yard setback requi........ents for lots
abutting the fairways of the golf course; and
notice of the hearing on said motion has been duly published and posted in
accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes; and
the amendment will not adversely affect the land use relationship between
the golf course and homes. and the amendment is consistent with the
stated and desired objectives of the City; and
the amendment would result in an opponunity to address the full range of
the marketplace; and
the amendment is reasonable and produces substantial justice and is not
contrary to the interests of the City; and
There were no objections to the amendment by the public.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL,
THAT IT DOES HEREBY APPROVE THE AMENDMENT TO THE WILDS PUD AS
FOLLOWS:
1. The Wilds PUD text pages 41, 42, and 43 is amended to reduce the rear yard setback of
112 and 1/3 acre homesites from 25 feet to 15 feet and villa homesites from 20 feet to 5
feet, for lots located adjacent to the golf course fairways.
.
-
4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474230 Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPI.DYER
3,{o4 J v
-,
LI/ 12> - > 3jL ijJ t~O%)
_ ____._.^____k.__~
2>/ ~00 j
~)tf7g .I
;), , ~ll (p *"
~JCflq
- ~/(P 7~ vi
R ) Q ~D
~J0~
~) I 'tOrt
~ ({jO
~\ \:;>~
'J) 6~
~\Cf(Ots
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY PREPARED FOR:
TIM McCOY
2830 FOX RUN NW
PRIOR LAKE. MN 55372
..-
/
J
Lu /0 r
:: I
flfd
(00
~O
o I{)
0,
-,
<=
VALLEY SU.RVE~NG CO., P.A.
16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL SE
SUITE 230
PRIOR LAKE. MN 55372
(952) 447-2570
---- /32.94
_____"* limits of Deck support
posts
N 87 0 00' 00" w --~f\
41"" .
o
UTILITY 8
:AI~A: _ _EASEMENT2
-, --
HOUSE
I
I
I
I
" I
'"
; I
'"
'" I
/'
"''>) I
'"
" I
"
; I
'"
/' I
'/7--. -----
;~' 101.0;
5 /. Pf:iop
-..; I DeCk OSeD
I
I
I
I
.' /0 l
.......
'-
~ ""-
"
lLI
o
o
o
o
o
If)
o
z
r'
.)
L_
ItJlp(;R"!UVS; suRFA:E: 3,90_
Ho'\.-4~' d..J}o41 I
~RIVb; ~)070
A~EA" 1,::>,406 r:P
,
/
I
;<:0.
o
+
..
~
20 0
~
Scale in
10 20
r I
Feet
"-
"-
"
,
~~<
;,,'" \
\
\
,
"".
,--------
-:-- 15.9 -.I""/, /' /' /' /'./
/'
/'
/'
/'
'"
/'
/'
:; HOUSE
/'
"
/'
/'
/' ,
",'
-,,- 16.0- :;
,--------_..... ///'/'/'/.
GAR AG E
I
I
I
I
I
r
'0>]..
, A
m
<D
N
c::t
25'
~v
~
~
"
'-
-
--- J
o J
~
-- 30.00 --
N850 00' OollE
::
,,---.--
5J 1 J I
U+/-O~ \,rsmj
LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS PROVlDED:1<
Lot '1, Block 2, TriE V.~LDS. Scott County. Minnesota. Also
showing all visible improvements and/or encroachments onto
or off, from said property if any. as of this 2nd day of July.
2003.
(Cf - 1 2003
Rev. 10/6/03 To show proposed deck info.
I hereby certify that this Certificate of Survey was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of
Minnesota.
~~/Jrf) ~
IIIlnnesota LIcense No,. 10183
Dated thls-1.Yt;~ of Jli I, , 2003
FILE NO. 9707 BOOK 238 PAGE 76
. DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND
o DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET AND MARKED
BY MINNESOTA UCENSE NO.10183
'-
o 3-/)-~
Resolution
and ~inutes
..
f'
/0-;)7-03 f/(l ~
~. ()3-D (3 f~
L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOc
Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 2003
Stamson explained the appeal process.
C. Case #03-122 Tim and Jane McCoy are requesting the following variances:
A 12.1 foot variance from the required 15 foot rear yard setback and a 3.3 foot
variance from the required 10 foot side yard setback for the construction of a deck
on property located at 2830 Fox Run.
Planner Cynthia Kirchoff presented the Planning Report dated October 27,2003, on file
in the office of the City Planning Department.
Tim and Jane McCoy are requesting Variances to construct a 14 foot by 20 foot deck
addition to an existing single family dwelling on property located at 2830 Fox Run NW.
In order to construct the deck addition the following Variances are required:
1. A 12.1 foot variance from the required 15 foot rear yard setback required in The
Wilds PUD.
2. A 3.3 foot variance from the required 10 foot side yard setback required in The
Wilds PUD.
The property is zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development) and SD (Shoreland Overlay
District). The property directly abuts the fairway for the fifth hole of The Wilds Golf
Course. The Wilds was approved as a PUD, so a modification of the required rear yard
setback was approved for those lots abutting the golf course in the form of a resolution.
Instead ofthe 25 foot rear yard setback required in the R-l use district, a 15 foot setback
is permitted.
In 1995, a building permit was issued for the construction of the existing single family
dwelling. On the building permit it was noted by City staff that a deck would have
"potential setback problems." It was also noted on the building permit that proposed
impervious surface should be removed to comply with the maximum 30 percent
coverage.
The applicant is also proposing to encroach 7.1 feet into the 10 foot drainage and utility
easement that extends the length of the rear property line. In conjunction with the
variance application, the applicant is requesting to enter into a Private Use of Public
Property Agreement with the City to allow for the encroachment into the easement. This
agreement is an alternative to an easement vacation. The City Council reviews and takes
action on such agreements. It is not included with this report.
The strict application of required setbacks does not pose a practical difficulty on the
development of the property because:
1. The property owner currently has a reasonable use of the property. The
existing single family dwelling complies with all required setbacks, but the
impervious surface exceeds 30 percent of the lot area; and
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MNI02703.doc
8
Planning Commission Meeting
October 27,2003
2. A balcony can be constructed that meets all required setbacks.
The subject property has a substantially larger home than adjacent properties, and
approving the requested setback Variances would provide an advantage to one individual
property owner. Based upon the findings the staff recommended denial.
Criego questioned if the impervious surface was done at the time of the original building.
Kirchoff responded the impervious surface was noted on the survey and the planning
staff noted it was in excess ofthe 30% requirement and asked that it be reduced. The
staff did not see any inspection record in the building department file.
Criego questioned when was the deck constructed. Kirchoff responded the applicant did
not get a permit, therefore City has no information on the size. The pictures indicate it
probably ran the entire length of the home.
Lemke questioned if staff has any recommendations on how the impervious surface can
be reduced. Kirchoff responded part of the driveway could be removed as noted on the
original building permit survey.
Comments from the public:
Jim Bates, an attorney representing the McCoys, submitted letters from neighbors in
support of the request. Bates also submitted a packet of information and photographs to
the Commissioners and staff. Bates explained the McCoys purchased this home through
a foreclosure and did not have an opportunity to speak with the builder. Bates reviewed
the permit file and noted the impervious surface issue with the driveway was mentioned
but the McCoys did not have that information. If the property had to go back to the 30%
impervious surface essentially the McCoys would have to remove around 900 square feet
of driveway and that is not reasonable.
Bates said he was confused by staffs terminology "deck addition". The McCoys, permit
or not, are replacing the deck at a smaller size. It is not an addition. The McCoys
invested over $300,000 in the property. There was a lot of interior water damage and
neglect. The setbacks were reduced for properties on the golf course. This is a large
fairway and has a substantial open area. This relief was not individual to this house - the
amendment to the PUD included all the half and third acre lots that abut the golf course.
Bates went on to say the McCoys questioned Scott County on the house regulations, not
Prior Lake.
Bates stated this problem was created by a previous property owner and felt a balcony off
the side of the house is an unreasonable restriction for a house with this character. They
believe variances give City governments the opportunity relieve the strict application of
the ordinances where they are going to deny a person reasonable use ofthe property. The
applicant believes the deck is reasonable and consistent with the decks in the
neighborhood.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MNI02703.doc
9
Planning Commission Meeting
October 27,2003
Horace Allen, 2802 Fox Run, said he moved to The Wilds in 1997 when 80% of the
homes were for sale. The McCoys came into the situation with a run down home. They
believed in the community and had the vision to invest in the property. Allen said he
laughed when the McCoys told him there was an issue with the deck. It did not cross his
mind that it would not get approved. He cannot see anyone living on the golf course and
not having a reasonable size deck.
Stamson asked Allen ifhe lived next to the McCoys. Allen responded he lived across the
street.
Stamson asked Allen if the house was occupied when he moved in and did the deck exist
at that time. Allen said it was. Allen said he thought the smaller deck was a joke that
they ran out of money.
Michael Bach, 2827 Fox Run, lives across the street from the McCoys, agreed with Mr.
Allen. When he moved into The Wilds two years ago it was a touch and go situation.
The previous deck was absolutely huge. What the McCoys have done to improve the
property is great. The golf course attracts many golfers and should look the very best as
it can. This is ludicrous; we pay a significant amount of taxes to live here. The deck is
fine.
Bob Facente, 2817 Fox Run, stated he moved into his home in September and is surprise
with the improvements made by the McCoys. He saw the previous deck and can see why
it needed improvement. The deck was hazardous. Facente supports the request.
Applicant Tim McCoy felt they are not constructing a new deck, just replacing it. The
boards were rotting. He did not understand he needed a permit from the City. He talked
to the County who told him he could replace some boards and as long as he was keeping
it the same size it was probably not be an issue.
McCoy said they removed 8 tons of garbage from the home. There are no more FBI
agents outside the home or prostitution coming from the house. Now children can play
out side the house. They just want to have a reasonable size deck to enjoy. McCoy said
he talked to the owners ofthe golf course who were happy the yard was being taking care
of. He does not think a 14 foot deck as it was already there, should be reduced to a
catwalk when he is paying taxes to enjoy the golf course.
Criego asked ifthere was a door on the northeast comer ofthe family room. McCoy said
there was. There is no way to put a door on the interior wall. They don't need a large
deck and would like to see more of the yard.
Stamson questioned why the applicant is not filling out the comer ofthe deck by the
family room door. McCoy said they wouldn't have a view of the golf course fairway.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MNl02703.doc
10
Planning Commission Meeting
October 27,2003
Stamson pointed out the neighbor's house sits quite a way back. McCoy agreed but felt
the deck would not block his view ofthe golf course. They can't change the house. He
never dreamed he would have to come before a Commission to improve his property. No
one would buy a home of that price with a small deck.
Stamson pointed at the time it was built as a model it did not have a deck; it was not on
the plan. The deck was built without a permit after the homeowner bought it.
Atwood questioned what McCoy was going to do with the impervious surface issue.
McCoy felt he had nothing to do with it. Someone had to give the "okay" and gave an
occupancy permit. McCoy felt it was not fair ifhe had to tear up 900 feet of driveway on
a million dollar house. He does not feel he should have to pay for something someone
else did.
Atwood questioned who the builder was? McCoy said it was Paramount Builders who
are out of business.
McCoy felt they put a lot of money into the house and just because someone in the
neighborhood was unhappy with them, they tattled to the City. They bought what they
thought was a good home.
The hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Ringstad:
. Sounds like the McCoys have done a great deal for the home.
. Is going to agree and disagree with staff s report.
. With respect to the deck - looks like the previous owner chose to use what could
have been future deck space with an enclosed residential living space and made
the trade for all future property owners.
. It was noted on the building permit application that a potential deck problem
could exist ifthey wanted to go with that footprint, which they apparently did.
. It was unfortunate the applicant went to the wrong government agency for
answers.
. Cannot support the deck as requested.
. However, with respect with the impervious surface - does agree with the
applicant. He was not part of that issue. It appears to be the concrete with the
driveway.
. A certificate of occupancy was granted with the driveway. Okay with leaving it
as is. The homeowner bought the property in good faith.
. The deck was not part of the permitted occupancy.
Atwood:
. The impervious surface is not an issue tonight. Kirchoff said that was included as
a condition of approval.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MNl02703.doc
11
Planning Commission Meeting
October 27.2003
. If it was an issue; would agree to keep the impervious surface as is.
. Well aware this property was not alone in granting the 15 foot setback. It is a
PUD and all properties have the same setback.
. Cannot support this variance request. Very sorry for what the applicant has
improved.
. It is an addition to the house that cannot be supported - it was at a 15 foot
setback.
Lemke:
. Questioned the easement issue that still goes before the City Council. Kirchoff
responded that if the variance would be granted the applicant would have to
approach the City Council about the Private Use of Public Property Agreement.
. Looking at The Wilds PUD, it looks like the half acre sites had 15 foot setbacks
and the villa homes sites were reduced to 5 feet from the golf course. Assuming
the golf course is in agreement with the deck as they are not here tonight to
dispute it.
. I would support a 12 foot deck that would be 5 feet from the golf course like the
villa homes.
. The applicant had a deck when he bought the house. Had the applicant just
chosen to replace the deck boards, this is what we would have with no recourse to
do anything about it. He's asking for a 14 x 20 foot deck.
. There is a hardship and practical difficulty because there was a deck on the house
when he bought it.
Criego:
. Difficult situation - the applicant has upgraded the neighborhood and is trying to
do the right things. Here we are talking about a variance for an illegal deck when
he has reduced the size.
. The original deck was illegal, did not have a permit and would not have been
allowed ifbrought before the City.
. The applicant does not conform.
. Even if this passes tonight and it met the hardships, he would still have to go
through an easement process. Basically, this would be a permanent structure on an
easement with the support pillars for the deck. So that is even in question.
. We have to follow the rules. It was an illegal deck. The hardships have not been
met.
. There may be alternatives on the northwest comer ofthe porch.
. In good conscience cannot provide a variance on this request.
. The issue on the 37% impervious surface was done at the time of the development
ofthe home and not the owners fault.
. Maybe a variance should be exercised tonight to allow the increased impervious
surface.
Stamson:
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comm\03pcMinutes\MNI02703.doc
12
Planning Commission Meeting
October 27,2003
. Agreed with Criego. It is a difficult situation. The issue is not one of ordinance,
it is one of design.
. The person who designed the home did not leave space for a deck. The builder
was certainly made aware of the setbacks at the permit process.
. The variance hardships have simply not been met.
. The impervious surface overage has nothing to do with the deck variance.
. Kansier said they can't just grant an impervious surface variance without
publication. The Commission can direct staff to place a note in the building
permit file that it is a legal non-conformity.
. Staff suggested in the report ifthe variance was granted, a condition to remove
the extra impervious surface. It was not a condition that he had to remove it if the
variance was not granted.
. Questioned if the 37% impervious surface was indicated in the building plans?
Kirchoff responded that staff calculated it as part of the variance application. The
30% was an issue in the building permit application. It was over by several points
and an issue at that time.
Ringstad ask what the impervious surface requirements were at the time. Kirchoff
responded it was 30%.
Criego said the Commission has seen situations like this before when a homeowner
bought an existing home with a higher impervious surface and came with a variance
request. The applicants may want to sell the property and 37% may be a problem at that
time. What is staffs recommendation?
Kansier responded staff would have to talk to the City Attorney.
Stamson:
. The concern is it isn't legal and it existed prior to the applicant's ownership. It
didn't exist before the ordinance. The Commission has also required residents to
take out the extra impervious surface. Preference to let sleeping dogs lie.
Ringstad:
. There seems to be a sentiment that we would like to deal with this on behalf of the
McCoys and procedurally wondering how to accomplish that. Criego said staff
would have to talk to the City attorney.
MOTION BY RINGSTAD, SECOND BY ATWOOD, ADOPTING RESOLUTION 03-
13PC DENYING A 12.1 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT REAR
YARD SETBACK AND 3.3 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 10 FOOT
SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ADDITION.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Ringstad, Atwood, Criego and Stamson. Lemke nay.
MOTION CARRIED.
Stamson explained the appeal process.
L:\03 Files\03 Planning Comrn\03pcMinutes\MNI02703.doc
13
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
RESOLUTION 03-013PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 12.1 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 15
FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK AND 3.3 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED
10 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ADDITION
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Tim and Jane McCoy are requesting Variances from the Zoning Ordinance for the
construction of a deck addition on property zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and
SD (Shoreland Overlay District) at the following location, to wit;
2830 Fox Run NW
Lot 1, Block 2, The Wilds, Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for the Variances as
contained in Case #03-122PC and held a hearing thereon on October 27,2003.
3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed Variances upon
the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property
values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The shape of the lot did not preclude the original property owner from
constructing/developing the property for a single family dwelling, a legally
permissible use within The Wilds PUD. The lot has ample buildable area, so the
strict application of the setback requirements in conjunction with the lot shape did
and does not create practical difficulties. Moreover, in 1994, the property was
granted a rear yard setback modification to permit a 15 foot rear yard setback, rather
than the 25 foot rear yard setback. The existing dwelling complies with the required
15 foot rear yard and 10 foot side yard setbacks.
5. The conditions upon which the Variance requests are based are not peculiar to this
site. All properties in residential use districts have to comply with minimum rear yard
setbacks. The subject site is unique only in that it was allowed to have a 15 foot rear
yard setback because it abuts the fairway of The Wilds. Furthermore, the only
reason the Variances are requested is because the dwelling is much too large for
the lot. This does not make a peculiar situation. It was noted on the building permit
that there are "potential setback problems" for a future deck. The City
1:\03 files\03 variances\mccoy\denial resolution.doc
www.cityofpriorlake.com
1
Phone 952.447.4230 I Fax 952.447.4245
acknowledged this fact so the contractor and/or property owner would be aware of
the situation.
6. The granting of rear and side yard setback Variances is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner. In 1995, the
City issued a building permit for a single family dwelling, so the owner currently
enjoys a substantial property right. The construction of a deck was noted as a
problem. A deck is not typically an element of a reasonable use of the property.
Furthermore, a "reasonable use" is not based upon an individual property owner's
desires. The City policy makers determine the definition of reasonable use. The
City has denied setback Variances for deck additions in the past. Also, had the
applicant contacted City staff prior to purchasing the dwelling, he would have been
informed that a large deck cannot be constructed within the required setbacks.
7. The granting of the rear and side yard setback Variances will unreasonably impact
the character and development of the neighborhood by creating a new neighborhood
rear yard setback along the golf course.
8. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to "prevent overcrowding of land and undue
concentration of structures and population by regulating the use of land and
buildings and the bulk of buildings in relation to the land surrounding them." This
purpose is implemented through required minimum yard setbacks. Variances to
reduce the required minimum rear and side yard setbacks without a demonstrable
hardship or difficulty are inconsistent with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.
9. The Variances will serve as convenience to the property owner, because a small
balcony can be constructed without Variances. Requested relief is not necessary to
alleviate a demonstrable undue difficulty, but is based upon the applicant's desire to
overbuild the property.
10. The contents of Planning Case #03-122PC 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 denies the
following Variances to allow for the construction of a deck addition, as shown on Exhibit
A- Certificate of Survey:
1. A 12.1 foot variance from the 15 foot rear yard setback required in The Wilds
PUD.
2. A 3.3 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback required in The Wilds
PUD.
1:\03 files\03 variances\mccoy\denial resolution.doc
2
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on October 27, 2003.
Antho~tco~miSSion Chair
t-
ity Development Director
1:\03 files\03 variances\mccoy\denial resolution.doc
3
_;.;.;..._~...._-..,o,;..-.._._..._....-:..-_:,..:...~...--:----.,;..:"'",,;----._~"'.l,
CERlIFlCATE OF SURVEY PREPARED FOR:
TIM ~CCOY
2830 FOX RUN NW
PRIOR LAKE. MN 55372
/0 r
I
I
I
I
I
l
.""...
-<'-
o
+
......._ .I
__h 13.2. 94
~ '-UTILITY
II
Oll41N4GE
- - --
.....
.....
.....
.....
"
"
"
,
,.-\
.- \
\
4' <I:
. C onertl.
4' Driveway'
"a'
," 4
<1',<1.
1=>v
,;z".
.....
LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS PROVlDED~'
V/tUEf SURVEYING CO.. P.A.
16870 FRANKUN TRAIL SE
SUITE 230
PRIOR LAKE. NN 55372
(952) 447-2510
J I.lmlls 0' DICk .uppo,t
___ POS1S
N870 00' 00. W hi\
....r". --
E4SEMENT2 /i \ ",
N, 87
- - - -t::, . \
, HOUSE
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
'/'7:':-----,
; , 101.0'
,--------
- .5, 9 -~'l"""" /'
,
,
,
/
/
/
/
~ HOUSE
,
/
,
,
/
/
-=.::!!~~:--..~,.-'-',.
L&I
"
o
(:)
o
o
If)
o
z
,
/
/
,
/
/
~~
/
/
/
,~
"
L-
<I
'..' /'
./
4 /
/
/
/ ,
<I '/ GM14GE /
" ,.. ,.
a / /
,4" ,.
',' ~ -'
, / /
/ /
/ /
/ /
~ ,. ... -' ./ -' ,.. ,..~ ,.. '0.0... 0\
..-..--- co
I N
I .,.
I
I
j5
.<1..
I
I
I
,
I
1
I
/
.-,e
___ '--30.00--
N850 00' oo"E
-- -
- --
~
Lot " Block 2, 1rtE 'MLDS. Scott County, ~Innesota. Also
showing all visible improvements and/or encroachments onto
or off. from said property if any, as of this 2nd day of July.
200.3.
rr:, ----~~~~i~..
!! ! 'i'. !_;':_~'..::=--,...,
I'! .1
II c-
'i' (
. ! I '~
NIT . '1 ,;rr,-:
'l.."tI; (..\..;\oooU
---.-..-
--.,-/
Ii \ "
:U L.'
20 ' , 0 10 20 I
~.......~
. Scale ID r..t
. DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND
o DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET AND MARKED
BY MINNESOTA WCENSE No.l0143
--'--
Rev, 10/6/03 To show proP'*d dICk info,
I her.by eertlfy that this c.rtlfleot. of Surwy WOI prepared
by me or under my direct IUpet'lfslan and that I om Q cfuly
Ueennd Lond Surve)'Of' under the Ion of the State of
!l1nn_ota.
k....j)(jJ l~ ~
!llnn_ota Ween.. No. 10183
Doted thl'~(j' JCl Ie...
FILE NO. 9707 BOOK 238 PAGE 7&
2003
-
~
-
-
EXHIBIT A
IIEARl~G
~orl'ICES
L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOc
Page 1 of 1
Cynthia Kirchoff
From: Cynthia Kirchoff
Sent: Tuesday, October 07,20033:03 PM
To: Prior Lake American (E-mail)
Subject: McCoy Variance
Deb-
Please publish the attached notice in the October 11 th edition of the Prior Lake American.
Cynthia Kirchoff, AICP
Planner
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
(952) 447-9813
(952) 447-4245-fax
10/7/03
C:::IIA_II:::~T C:::ITr:::. ?A':ln I:nv gun Prinr I ~lco MN lon~rr\l rits.;:r-r'ints-n ~~ h~tf tif
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL
COUNTY OF SCOTT )
)ss
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
C>>vtMl-t, ~<6dV1 of the City of Prior Lake, County of Scott, State of
Minnesota, being duly sworn, says on the I c;- day of ~, 2003, she served
tttached list of persons to have an interest in the V b.J\~ J'-r'\.,u~ J
~ e.~.~() J, - ~ . , by mailing to them a copy thereof,
nclosed in an e~lope, postage prepaid, and be depositing same in the post office at
Prior Lake, Minnesota, the last known address of the parties.
Subscribed and sworn to be this
day of ,2003.
NOTARY PUBLIC
L:\DEPTWORK\BLANKFRMlMAlLAFFD,DQC
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER VARIANCES FROM THE.
ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A DECK ADDITION
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 County Road 21 and Fish Point Road), on:
Monday, October 27,2003, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting variances from the Zoning
Ordinance for the construction of a deck addition.
APPLICANT: Tim and Jane McCoy
SUBJECT SITE: 2830 Fox Run, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as part of
Lot 1, Block 2, The Wilds, Scott County, Minnesota.
If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions
related to this hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department
by calling 447-9810 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday
through Friday. The 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 Zoning
Ordinance and variance hardship criteria.
Prepared this 7th day of October 2003.
Cynthia Kirchoff, AICP, Planner
City of Prior Lake
To be published in the Prior Lake American on Saturday, October 11, 2003.
L:\03 Files\03 Variances\McCoy\Public Hearing Notice.doc
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER VARIANCES FROM THE
ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A DECK ADDITION
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 County Road 21 and Fish Point Road), on:
Monday, October 27,2003, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting variances from the Zoning
Ordinance for the construction of a deck addition.
APPLICANT: Tim and Jane McCoy
SUBJECT SITE: 2830 Fox Run, Prior Lake, MN, legally described as part of
Lot 1, Block 2, The Wilds, Scott County, Minnesota.
If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions
related to this hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department
by calling 447-9810 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday
through Friday. The 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 Zoning
Ordinance and variance hardship criteria.
Prepared this 16th day of October 2003.
Cynthia Kirchoff, AICP, Planner
City of Prior Lake
To be mailed to properly owners within 350 feet of the subject site on October
16, 2003.
L:\03 Files\03 Variances\McCoy\Mailed Noti~e.doc. 1 k
www.cny6tpnorae.com
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
NEW ABSTRACTS
CONTINUATIONS
CLOSING SERVICE
REGISTERED PROPERTY ABSTRACTS
TITLE INSURANCE
RECORDING SERVICE
SCOTT COUNTY ABSTRACT AND TITLE, INC.
223 HOLMES STREET, P.O. BOX 300 SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379
DAVID E. MOON EN
Phone: (952) 445-6246
Fax: (952) 445-0229
September 18,2003
Huemoeller, Bates & Gontarek PLC
16670 Franklin Trail
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Attn: Julie
To Whom it May Concern:
According to the 2003 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 ofthe following
described property:
L~Ck ~ Th; Wi~~ Scott County, Minnesota.
I p// J" __
David E. Moonen
President
Scott County Abstract & Title, Inc.
UN ABSTRACT
AND TiTlE, INC.
ucensed Abstractor
State of Minnesota
r:
lYJf - 1 2003
i \',
tJ t.il....,
MEMBER MINNESOTA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION
AGENT FOR CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
DA VID L & DENISE K BIHNER
2871 FOX RUN NW
PRIOR LAKE MN 55372
MICHAEL T BACH
2827 FOX RUN NW
PRIOR LAKE MN 55372
HORACE D ALLEN
2802 FOX RUN
PRIOR LAKE MN 55372
FIRST COMMERCIAL BANK
7101 78 ST W
STE 150
EDINA MN 55439-2503
DENNIS R & CHERYL A GRISWOLD
2868 FOX RUN NW
PRIOR LAKE MN 55372
MCDONALD CONSTRUCTION
7601 145 ST W
APPLE VALLEY MN 55124
DARRELL & ELIZABETH S PENNING
14442 WILDS PKWY NW
PRIOR LAKE MN 55372
{lAVERV@ Address labels
GORDAN HOMES LLC
6855 CAMBRIDGE RD
SHAKOPEE MN 55379
ROBERT J JR & SALLY M F ACENTE
5243 OVERLOOK DR
BLOOMINGTON MN 55437
JAMES G HAUER
2800 FOX RUN RD NW
PRIOR LAKE MN 55372
EDW ARD I HAZEL V FOSTER
2844 FOX RUN NW
PRIOR LAKE MN 55372
BARRY & JOYCE CAMPBELL
2896 FOX TRL
PRIOR LAKE MN 55372
SEAN M & HOLLY A PLOEGER
2900 FOX RUN NW
PRIOR LAKE MN 55372
REST AN LLC
3151 WILDS RIDGE DR NW
PRIOR LAKE MN 55372
EXHJBlT---il:P~OF?- PAGES
laser
516iID
Smooth Feed Sheets ™
SHAMROCK DEVELOPMENT INC
3200 MAIN ST
STE 300
COON RAPIDS MN 55448
MITTELSTAEDT BROTHERS CONSTR
2520 151 CT W
STE 100
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
CITY MANAGER
16200 EAGLE CREEK AV
PRIOR LAKE MN 55372
Use template for 516i~
KURT D & RENAE L KRIVITZ
9460 GARRISON WAY
EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347
MCDONALD CONSTRUCTION
7601 145 ST W
APPLE VALLEY MN 55124
EXHIBIT'j, - · PAGE ?a: d. PAGES
-115N R 22W
tion
nesota
=-.J COLIfftY ltOAO .,
.~~ .~
.
,__........~_____....-.~.__.~._____.~..__.___.-..._... 160TH sT. ~
; __ - - lW;..~..r-i-'S;W ..--.-..a-..-..-.----'-
. ' i'
jN ()JJ'rJ-IY
.{jtvctfv
I
,.
'VJeJl-,,( ,\; _____
!J Y)fl\j ~j
,
259280060 j,
i:
/I i
V i
259280031
2592800:lO
259280061
t.
j
j'
i
t
~~
r
t
I \
,..~~..
.... ,..,,,:............~--- .
I ._.
o
!:
.,
'?i
OUTlOT Y
OUTLOT I
~
.,
i
THE WILDS
I
\
1
j15
~
OUTLOT
~
400
o
400
100 Feet
COUNTY SURVEYOR
scan COUNTY, MINNESOTA
December 19. 2001
N 28-115-22
J
PIO SHSRTN 1 SHHOUS SHSTRE 1 SHAD2 1 SHST I SHZIP5 HOUSGS STREGS ISH ADIRG PRPLAT PRLO PRBL I LEGAL 1
254040690 ~lAKE,CITY OF 116200 EAGLE CREEK AV 1 IMN 155372 14059 MYSTIC LAKE 1 DR NW PLAT-25404 WILDS NORTH, THE PRK 1 SECT -28 TWP-115 RNG-022
254040200~KURT 0 & RENAE L 19460 GARRISON WAY IMN 155347 2849 COUGAR IPAT NW PLAT-25404 WILDS NORTH, THE 1 12 ISECT-28 TWP-115 RNG-022
2540402101Sl~OCK DEVELOPMENT INC 13200 1 MAIN ST STE 300 MN 155448 2835 COUGAR IPAT NW PLAT-25404 WILDS NORTH, THE 2 2 1 SECT -28 TWP-115 RNG-022
254040240.,.JWlSTAEDT BROTHERS CONS 12520 1151 CTW ISTE 100 MN 55068 2785 COUGAR IPAT INW IPLAT-25404 WILDS NORTH, THE 5 2 1 SECT -28 TWP-115 RNG-022
254040230/MCOONALD CONSTRUCTION 17601 1145 STW 1 MN 55124 2801 I COUGAR IPAT INW IPLAT-25404 WILDS NORTH, THE 4 12 ISECT-28 TWP-115 RNG-022
25404022~STAEDT BROTHERS CONS 12520 151 CT W ISTE 100 IMN 55068 2817 1 COUGAR PAT INW IPLAT-25404 WILDS NORTH, THE 3 12 1 SECT -28 TWP-115 RNG-022
LYING IN S1/2 NE1/4 OF SEC
252970851 "TAN LLC 3151 WILDS RIDGE DR NW MN 55372 0 PLAT-25297 WILDS,THE OIL K 28-115-22
- - 2529700701 MCCOY,TIM B SR & JANE M 2830 FOX RUN NW IMN 155372 28301 FOX RUN INW IPLAT-25297 WILDS,THE 11 12 1
252970080 1 ~EDWARD I HAZEL V 2844 1 FOX RUN NW MN 155372 28441 FOX RUN INW IPLAT-25297 WILDS,THE 12 12 1
252970060 ~;JAMES G 12800 1 FOX RUN RO NW MN 155372 28001 FOX RUN INW IPLAT-25297 WILDS,THE 16 11 1
252970090 ~D.DENNIS R & CHERYL 12868 1 FOX RUN NW IMN 155372 28681 FOX RUN 1 INW PLAT-25297 WILDS,THE 13 2 1
252970100_ L,BARRY & JOYCE 2896 FOX TRL MN 55372 2896 FOX ITRL INW PLAT-25297 WILDS,THE 14 2 1
252970110 ALD CONSTRUCTION 7601 145 ST W MN 55124 2908 FOX ITRL NW PLAT-25297 WILDS,THE 15 12 1
252970050fN,.LEN,HORACE 0 12802 I FOX RUN IMN 55372 2802 FOX RUN 1 NW PLAT-25297 WILDS,THE 15 11 1
252970040lfrACENTE,ROBERT J JR & SALLY 15243 1 OVERLOOK DR IMN 55437 2817 FOX RUN 1 NW PLAT-25297 WILDS,THE 14 11
252970010tSIHNER,DAVID L & DENISE K 12871 1 FOX RUN NW IMN 155372 2871 FOX RUN NW PLAT-25297 WILDS,THE 11 11
---2529700201 PETREE,DEAN M & SHARON R 2845 1 FOX RUN NW IMN 155372 2845 FOX RUN NW PLAT -25297 WILDS, THE 12 11
252970030tSACH,MICHAEL T 2827 FOX RUN NW MN 155372 28271 FOX RUN INW 1 PLAT-25297 WILDS,THE 13 11
252970150 k-oeGER,SEAN M & HOLLY A 2900 FOX RUN NW MN 155372 29001 FOX RUN INW IPLAT-25297 WILDS,THE 19 12
252970390 JllliNNING,DARRELL & ELIZABETH 114442 WILDS PKWY NW MN 155372 144421WILOS PKWI NW 1 PLAT -25297 WILDS, THE 117 13
Property Owners wit lin
350' of McCoy Variance
(
- ----
-------
\
/
0{
--~ ) (
\
f\
\
"-------
\...
t
/
------
~
/
~-~'"
/
~
----
l~
I . I I
L
N
400
,
o 400
800 Feet
I
Correspondence
L\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOc
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
November 6, 2003
Tim & Jane McCoy
2830 Fox Run
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Variances for deck addition
2830 Fox Run (Lot 1, Block 2, The Wilds)
Case File No.: 03-122
Dear Mr. & Mrs. McCoy:
Enclosed please find an executed copy of Resolution 03-013PC for the above
referenced Variance.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Cfj?1~
I
Cynthia R. Kirchoff,
Planner
Enclosure
-
.
www.cityofpriorlake.com
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
tiPRl~
E-.n~ 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
U W'" Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
~s~
October 28, 2003
Tim & Jane McCoy
2830 Fox Run
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Variances for deck addition
2830 Fox Run (Lot 1, Block 2, The Wilds)
Case File No.: 03-122
Dear Mr. & Mrs. McCoy:
This letter is to officially inform you that on October 27, 2003, the Planning
Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment, denied the following Variances
for a deck addition:
1. A 12.1 foot variance from the 15 foot rear yard setback required in The
Wilds PUD.
2. A 3.3 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback required in The
Wilds PUD.
I will provide a copy of the Resolution denying your Variance requests once it has
been executed by the Planning Commission Chair and Community Development
Director.
An owner of affected property or any property owner within 350 feet of the
affected property or any officer or department representative of the City may
appeal the decision of the Board of Adjustment to the City Council. The appeal
must be in writing and must be filed with the Zoning Administrator within 5
calendar days after the date of the Board of Adjustment decision.
If you have any questions regarding the appeal process, please feel free to
contact me at (952) 447-9813.
Sincerely,
Uyrr
Cynthia R. Kircho
Planner
~
-
-
www.cityofpriorlake.com
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
October 28,2003
Anthony Stamson
16095 Wren Court SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Dear Tony:
Enclosed please find Resolutions 03-011 PC, 03-012PC, and 03-013PC adopted
by the Planning Commission on October 27,2003. Please review, sign, and
return the resolutions the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 447-9813. Thank
you.
Sincerely,
~
Cynthia R. Kirchc"ff,
Planner
Enclosures
-
..
-
-
www.cityofpriorlake.com
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
October 22, 2003
Tim & Jane McCoy
2830 Fox Run
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Agenda and Agenda Report
Attached is a Planning Commission Agenda and Staff Report for the October 27, 2003,
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
-
I:\deptwork\blankfrm\meetltr.doc
www.cityofpriorlake.com
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
HUE MOELLER, BATES & GONTAREK PLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL
P.O. BOX 67
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
(952) 447-2131
Fax: (952) 447-5628
Writer's email address:idbfa2nriorlakelaw.com
JAMES D. BATES
ALLISON J. GONT AREK
BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER
October 24, 2003
Members of the Prior Lake Planning Commission
RE: Variance application of Tim and Jane McCoy
Case No. 03-122
Dear Planning Commission Members:
_._~....._~.__.._- .---.,
ocr 21 too3
r t ~
Enclosed are letters from Horace Allen, Michael Bach, Robert J. Facente, Jr., and
James G. Hauer, who are neighbors of our clients Tim and Jane McCoy, supporting their
application for variances to permit construction of a deck on their property. The
application is scheduled for public hearing at the Planning Commission's October 27
meeting.
Sincerely,
~~
James D. Bates
JDB:bj
Enclosures
cc: Tim and Jane McCoy
V'Cynthia Kirchoff, City of Prior Lake
I.
q~
Server & Storage
October 6,2003
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Horace Allen and I reside in The Wilds Development at 2802 Fox Run NW,
Prior Lake, MN 55372. I am the neighbor of Tim and Jane McCoy, who are located
directly across the cul-de-sac from me. Words can not express the appreciation that I
have for Tim and Jane McCoy for,making the decision to purchase the home at 2830
Fox Run NW, Prior Lake, MN, 55372 in The Wilds Development.
Tim and Jane McCoy have added the following benefits by moving into the The Wilds
Development:
1. The previous owner of the home at 2830 Fox Run NW was engaging in illegal
activities such as prostitution, loan sharking and the distribution of unethical
financial instruments.
2. The home had become a public eye sore before it was purchased by Tim and
Jane McCoyl The grass was growing wild and had become infested with weeds
and crab grass.
3. Unscrupulous and shady people were no longer sitting in the cul-de-sac waiting
for the previous owner, Richard Wallace, to come home. It should also be noted
that Richard Wallace is now serving time in prison because of the illegal activities
he was operating from his home at 2830 Fox Run NW, Prior Lake, MN 55372.
6600 France Avenue South, Suite 620 · Edina, MN 55435
Phone: 952-995-4111 . Fax: 952-831-0509
www.tsgserverandstorage.com
4. Immediately after Tim and Jane McCoy purchased the property at 2830 Fox Run
NW, they made the following investments:
a. Installed New Sod to Replace Worn Grass Areas of the Lawn
b. Killed the Weeds by Fertilizing and Nurturing the Lawn
c. Installed a New Pond in the Front Yard
d. Planted New Trees
e. Removed the Dead Shrubs and Installed New Shrubs
f. Replaced the Broken Windows
g. Installed New Garage Doors to Replaced the Old Defaced Garage Doors
h. Installed a New Front Door to Accent the Newly Painted White Trim
i. Refaced the Stucco from Flamingo Pink to Earth Tone Tan
It is my understanding that Tim and Jane McCoy need approval from the City for a
setback variance so they can enjoy the exterior of their newly remodeled home by
finishing the deck on the rear of their home.
In my opinion, it does not make any sense for someone to own a $100,000.00 home let
alone a $1,000,000.00 home without enjoying the peace and serenity of a deck
attached to the rear of their own, especially when they reside on one of the top golf
courses in the State of Minnesota.
I would like to make a formal request that the City relieve Mr. and Mrs. McCoy of the
regulations that would prevent them from having a deck attached to the rear of their
beautiful home.
In fact, Tim and Jane McCoy should be thanked for having the vision and foresight to
purchase the home at 2830 Fox Run NW despite its condition at the time of closing. It
should also be noted that Tim and Jane McCoy increased the value of every home
within our cul-de-sac and added a substantial amount to annual property tax revenues
for the governmental institutions for which it resides.
orace D. Allen
COO
September 24, 2003
City of Prior Lake
Planning Commission
I am writing this letter in an effort to assist Mr. and Mrs. Tim McCoy in their effort to
obtain approval for the completion of a deck at their residence.
Mr. and Mrs. McCoy have done extensive work in beautifying what was once a
distressed property having been vacated and left unkempt.
I have absolutely no issues with the deck that the McCoy's' intend on building, and as a
matter of fact, I believe that it is an enhancement to the home as well as the neighborhood
in general.
Sincerely, /
~:SYI) &~
Robert J. Fa~~. U
2817 Fox Run N.W.
Prior Lake, Mn
tw.
.' .~ '
ft KATHY M. PROCHASKA
I, .. 'My~:.Y~UBUC.. MINNESOTA
-... '..... lSSionExplreSJan.31,2005
ftjA~
2800 Fox Run
Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372
Phone 952-4{)3-0942
S...t'~..~.ber 29,2003
To whom it may concern:
My names is James Hauer, and I live in the city of Prior Lake, Minnesota. I am the immediate neighbor to the
West of Me Tim McCoy who bas redone the house at 2830 Fox Run. Please be advised by this correspondence that
I have no opposition to Me McCoy seeking or .......: oPing any necessary variance f. '".... the jurisdiction involved so as
to construct his deck on the North side ofhis house.
Sincerely,
James G. Hauer
September 24, 2003
To whom it may concern.
My name is Michael Bach I reside at 2827 Fox Run N.W., Prior Lake, MN
In regards to Mr. Tim McCoy who resides at 2830 Fox Run N.W.
I have NO issues with Mr. McCoy's deck at his home.
His deck is fine with me, and presents NO issues to my self, and or to my
neighbors.
I feel that Mr.McCoy's deck will help the value of my property, and will
increase the value of neighborhood.
Sincerely .
~~
~s<J>
Server & Storage
October 6,2003
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Horace Allen and I reside in The Wilds Development at 2802 Fox Run NW,
Prior Lake, MN 55372. I am the neighbor of Tim and Jane McCoy, who are located
directly across the cul-de-sac from me. Words can not express the appreciation that I
have for Tim and Jane McCoy for making the decision to purchase the home at 2830
Fox Run NW, Prior Lake, MN, 55372 in The Wilds Development.
Tim and Jane McCoy have added the following benefits by moving into the The Wilds
Development:
1. The previous owner of the home at 2830 Fox Run NW was engaging in illegal
activities such as prostitution, loan sharking and the distribution of unethical
financial instruments.
2. The home had become a public eye sore before it was purchased by Tim and
Jane McCoy! The grass was growing wild and had become infested with weeds
and crab grass.
3. Unscrupulous and shady people were no longer sitting in the cul-de-sac waiting
for the previous owner, Richard Wallace, to come home. It should also be noted
that Richard Wallace is now serving time in prison because of the illegal activities
he was operating from his home at 2830 Fox Run NW, Prior Lake, MN 55372.
6600 France Avenue South, Suite 620 · Edina, MN 55435
Phone: 952-995-4111 · Fax: 952-831-0509
www.tsgserverandstorage.com
4. Immediately after Tim and Jane McCoy purchased the property at 2830 Fox Run
NW, they made the following investments:
a. Installed New Sod to Replace Worn Grass Areas of the Lawn
b. Killed the Weeds by Fertilizing and Nurturing the Lawn
c. Installed a New Pond in the Front Yard
d. Planted New Trees
e. Removed the Dead Shrubs and Installed New Shrubs
f. Replaced the Broken Windows
g. Installed New Garage Doors to Replaced the Old Defaced Garage Doors
h. Installed a New Front Door to Accent the Newly Painted White Trim
i. Refaced the Stucco from Flamingo Pink to Earth Tone Tan
It is my understanding that Tim and Jane McCoy need approval from the City for a
setback variance so they can enjoy the exterior of their newly remodeled home by
finishing the deck on the rear of their home.
In my opinion, it does not make any sense for someone to own a $100,000.00 home let
alone a $1,000,000.00 home without enjoying the peace and serenity of a deck
attached to the rear of their own, especially when they reside on one of the top golf
courses in the State of Minnesota.
I would like to make a formal request that the City relieve Mr. and Mrs. McCoy of the
regulations that would prevent them from having a deck attached to the rear of their
beautiful home.
In fact, Tim and Jane McCoy should be thanked for having the vision and foresight to
purchase the home at 2830 Fox Run NW despite its condition at the time of closing. It
should also be noted that Tim and Jane McCoy increased the value of every home
within our cul-de-sac and added a substantial amount to annual property tax revenues
for the governmental institutions for which it resides.
/'"
orace D. Allen
COO
September 24, 2003
City of Prior Lake
Planning Commission
I am writing this letter in an effort to assist Mr. and Mrs. Tim McCoy in their effort to
obtain approval for the completion of a deck at their residence.
Mr. and Mrs. McCoy have done extensive work in beautifying what was once a
distressed property having been vacated and left unkempt.
I have absolutely no issues with the deck that the McCoy's' intend on building, and as a
matter of fact, I believe that it is an enhancement to the home as well as the neighborhood
in general.
Sincerely, V<)'
~.
2817 Fox Run N.W.
Prior Lake, Mn
eq-
, KATHY M. PROCHASKA
My ~~R.Y~UBUC. MINNESOTA
mlsslOi'l Expires Jan. 31, 2005
~ai~
-'
September 24,2003
To whom it may concern.
My name is Michael Bach I reside at 2827 Fox Run N.W., Prior Lake, MN
In regards to Mr. Tim McCoy who resides at 2830 Fox Run N.W.
I have NO issues with Mr. McCoy's deck at his home.
His deck is fine with me, and presents NO issues to my self, and or to my
neighbors.
I feel that Mr.McCoy's deck will help the value of my property, and will
increase the value of neighborhood.
Sincerely
~~
Michael~h ~
2800 Fox RIUl
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
Phone 95240).{)942
S"t"L.....ber 29,2003
To whom it may concern:
My names is James Hauer, and I live in the city of Prior Lake, Minnesota. I am the immediate neighbor to the
West of Mr Tim McCoy who bas redone the house at 2830 Fox Run. Please be advised by this cu..",,)yondence that
I have no opposition to Mr McCoy seeking or ."'....:,ring any u",..",,)sary variance from the jurisdiction involved so as
to construct his deck on the North side ofhis house.
Sincerely,
James G. Hauer
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
'~
October 8, 2003
Tim & Jane McCoy
2830 Fox Run
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Variances for deck addition
2830 Fox Run (Lot 1, Block 2, The Wilds)
Case File No.: 03-122
Dear Mr. & Mrs. McCoy:
On October 7, 2003, the City of Prior Lake received the above referenced
development review application. This letter serves as your official notification
that all of the necessary submittals have been received and the application is
complete. At this time, your variance application is scheduled for the Monday,
October 27, 2003, Planning Commission meeting. You or your representative
must attend this meeting.
The City review process can be substantially less than 120 days, and we intend
to progress in a timely manner that provides a complete and 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
December 6, 2003, to February 4, 2004.
If you have questions relative to the review process or related issues, please feel
free to contact me at (952) 447-9813.
Sincerely,
-l!c. ~
~'t~i. jrzlYJ ~
Cynthia R. Kirchoff, ICP 0
Planner
..
www.cityofpriorlake.com
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
r
reviewed the attached proposed request (McCoy Variance) for the following:
- ,,- -~-'''-'''.- ..,.,..,...,~,,,,..,,
.-"-.---." -" .,.- ,._,. -_.,--,...,""',._-,-_.~--- -------,~.,
City Code
Storm Water
Flood Plain
Natural Features
Electric
ater
Sewer
Zoning
Parks
IIi Assessment
Policy
I Septic System
L-- Erosion Control
Gas
Other
Recommendation:
X Approval
Denial
Comments:
~I"', C e.?o."" ...- ,.., ~ "h:.
Signed:
~ fl---
(/1/
Grading
Signs
County Road Access
Legal Issues
Roads/Access
Building Code
Conditional Approval
Date:
1~lltJ/03
Please return any comments by Thursday. October 16. 2003, to
Cynthia Kirchoff
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Phone: (952) 447-9813
Fax: (952) 447-4245
e-mail: ckirchoff@cityofpriorlake.com
..
1:\03 files\03 variances\mccoy\referral.doc
Page 2
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORC PROJECT REVIEW CHECKLIST
PROJECT NAME:
REQUESTS:
APPLICANT:
CONTACT PERSON:
PID#:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
PROJECT REQUEST:
I McCOY VARIANCE (Case #03..122)
The applicant is requesting the following variances:
1. 12.1 foot variance from the required 15 foot rear yard
setback and
2. 3.3 foot variance from the required 10 foot side yard
setback for the construction of a deck.
The applicant is also requesting approval of a Private Use of
Public Property Agreement to allow the deck to encroach into a
10 foot drainage and utility easement.
I Tim & Jane McCoy
Same
233-2795
SITE INFORMATION
25-297-007-0
2830 Fox Run
R-1SD
R-L/MD
Review and comment on variance application.
I DISTRIBUTE TO: inl
r+ Frank Boyles 'r Bud Osmundson In
I Sue Walsh I. Sue McDermott I I
I Ralph Teschner I. Larry Pop pIer I I
I Chris Esser I Fire Chief I I
I. Bob Hutchins II Bill O'Rourke "
. I Don Rye" II
I · I Jane Kansier 'I I I
I I I I
I DNR - Pat Lynch I I Minnegasco I
I County Hwy. Dept. I I Watershed Dist. I
I MNDOT I Telephone Co. I
SMDC II Electric Co. I
Mediacom Cable II I Met. Council II
Date Received
Complete Application
Date
Publication Date
I 60 Day Review Date
10/7/03 Date Distributed
10/7/03 Date Distributed to
DRC
10/11/03 Tentative PC Date
12/6/03
APPLICATION FOR:
- -
Administrative Land Division
Comprehensive Plan Amend.
Conditional Use Permit
Home Occupation
Rezoning
I Site Plan
I Preliminary Plat
I PUD
I Final Plat
. I Variance
I Vacation
-J
10/9/03 I Date Due 10/16/03
10/9/03 DRC Meeting NA
Review Extension 4/4/04
10/27/03 Tentative CC NA
Date
1:\03 files\03 variances\mccoy\referral.doc
Page 1
I have reviewed the attached proposed request (McCov Variance) for the following:
Water
Sewer
Zoning
Parks
Assessment
Policy
Septic System
Erosion Control
City Code
Storm Water
Flood Plain
I Natural Features
Electric
Gradin8
Signs
County Road Access
I Legal Issues
Roads/Access
I Gas
I Other
Building Code
Recommendation:
Approval Denial
~ditional Approval
P (Z-QV ,~ A-
~ T~ 0HICf-r
~ ~<J'V oF-- /l-ic ::x.v(Crq1~
~S ' A-tJjJ Pcx:n:f/'J ~ .~ ~ S~ ..
. / A) ,~J,/ ",,-1 ~~ A-,
,tft:A/.>C ~'. ~"'V7T;ff ~ /'j-Pr'cr-ll'- V
~b- /5'V~L ~ ./~~ ~,'i~
jj~ af-t::, .~ ~ri.& <9/\/
~e Wu2./J/tAfA.//!&G-~/&q?
- 1- _ ~-,
-6 ~ ll1JS~1 if ~dr6tl~ ~ N.€. /~~
. / - " I
EAsr 2{~~ <?~L.. / /
Signed: J . L/)~~ ~ ~~
j-T
Comments: (
L..
~/~
.
rNCl-U~
or:=--
. rf7EtC;;
oj
Please return any comments by Thursdav. October 16. 2003, to
Cynthia Kirchoff
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Phone: (952) 447-9813
Fax: (952) 447-4245
e-mail: ckirchoff@cityofpriorlake.com
1:\03 files\03 variances\mccoy\referral.doc
Page 2
CERTlFICA TE OF SURVEY PREPARED FOR:
TIM McCOY
2830 FOX RUN NW
PRIOR LAKE. MN 55372
VALLEY SU,RVEYlNG CO., P.A.
16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL SE
SUITE 230
PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372
(952) 447-2570
---- /32. 94
-
N 87 0 00' 00" W --:f\
, 41,.'
r; , 'I .
___ E~EM~.Nr2 ~ i~
----
~ ~UTllITY
8
DRAINAGE
4J
:: I
C\J,
1l)0
000
f'f'Jo'
o ll)
0,
-,
2:
/0 r
I
I
I
I
I
l
- --
- -'-
"
........
HOUSE
~
.........
"
\
\
---- --=--- .....
:--
"-
"\..
....
....
\.(:;.~./'''/
, ;
/ ~'\/
,..
....~
....
....
....
....-
....
....
....
....
,.. /1'-10/.0-;
~
o
+
\
--,
o <1 " .~. .d' <1
C ..d
. \. '. ,c oncreJe
fl.. ....I.~ ~ .S;~ .' , .<1. GARAGE
<1 ~ I\F ," ',A/ '"1 S' <1 ;
\ "No": ~\J,....-. <1.""~ , .d ....
.', . f'TtU::o~. SViZ-:"~J" ,~
\~" ';;.; ;
~ '.... ....
- A ,.. /' /' / /' // :'/1C~~,_0_':.. m
I N
I "'"
I
I
J 5
....
....
....
/
....-
....
/'.
",.
I
I
I
I
I
~(/
~
\
\
\
\.
"
.........
........
-
- --
- --
o
- --
.....- - 30.00 --
N850 00' OO"E
=
LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS PROVIDED:"
:,-
Lot 1, Block 2, ll-IE 'MLDS, Scott County, Minnesota. Also
showing all visible improvements and/or encroachments onto
or off" from safd property if any, as of this 2nd day of July,
2003.
~)
~
Rev. 10/6/03 To show proposed deck info.
~
\
\
"''Yo
DtCkOStD
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
w
0
0
0
0
0
I'f) r'
0 .)
Z L-
':::':::-'5~9-':"F////,//
....-
..-
....
....
....
....
....
:;: HOUSE
,-
,-
,-
....-
....-
....
....- 16.0- ,-
---------y///'/'/-":
I
/
.....Ai
=
20 0
~
Scale in
10 20
I I
Feet
I hereby certify that this Certificate of Survey was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision and that I om a duly
Licensed Land Surveyor ul1Ider the laws of the State of
~Innesota.
f~&~
IIIlnnesota License No.. 10183
Dated thls...l!ir:~ of J~ !'J ' 2003
FILE NO. 9707 BOOK 238 PAGE 76
'I
OCT - 1 2003
. DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND
o DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET AND MARKED
BY MINNESOTA LICENSE NO.1018J
j i.
IJ \.....J.l...,........ .--...---~^-
"
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
ORC PROJECT REVIEW CHECKLIST
I PROJECT NAME:
REQUESTS:
APPLICANT:
CONTACT PERSON:
I
I PID#:
I LOCATION:
I EXISTING ZONING:
I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
I
I PROJECT REQUEST:
DNR - Pat Lynch
County Hwy. Dept.
MNDOT
SMDC
Mediacom Cable
McCOY VARIANCE (Case #03-122)
The applicant is requesting the following variances:
1. 12.1 foot variance from the required 15 foot rear yard
setback and
2. 3.3 foot variance from the required 10 foot side yard
setback for the construction of a deck.
The applicant is also requesting approval of a Private Use of
Public Property Agreement to allow the deck to encroach into a
10 foot drainage and utility easement.
Tim & Jane McCoy
Same
233-2795
SITE INFORMATION
25-297-007 -0
2830 Fox Run
R-1 SD
R-UMD
Review and comment on variance application.
Minnegasco
Watershed Dist.
Telephone Co.
Electric Co.
Met. Council
APPLICATION FOR:
Administrative Land Division
Comprehensive Plan Amend.
Conditional Use Permit
Home Occupation
Rezoning
Site Plan
Preliminary Plat
PUD
Final Plat
+ Variance
Vacation
-.I
DISTRIBUTE TO: --= L I
+ Frank Boyles + Bud Osmundson
Sue Walsh + Sue McDermott
Ralph Teschner + Larry Poppler
Chris Esser Fire Chief
+ Bob Hutchins Bill O'Rourke
+ Don Rye
+ Jane Kansier
I Date Received
Complete Application
I Date
I Publication Date
I 60 Day Review Date
-
10/7/03 Date Distributed 10/9/03 Date Due 10/16/03
10/7/03 Date Distributed to 10/9/03 DRC Meeting NA
DRC
10/11/03 Tentative PC Date 10/27/03 Tentative CC NA
Date
12/6/03 Review Extension 4/4/04
---."----.. ......---
1:\03 files\03 variances\mccoy\referral.doc
Page 1
I have reviewed the attached proposed request {McCov Variance} for the following:
Water City Code Grading I
Sewer Storm Water Signs
Zoning Flood Plain County Road Access
Parks Natural Features Legal Issues
Assessment Electric Roads/Access 'I
Policy
Septic System Gas Building Code
Erosion Control Other J
-
Recommendation: Approval Denial Conditional Approval
Comments:
Signed:
Date:
Please return any comments by Thursdav. October 16. 2003, to
Cynthia Kirchoff
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Phone: (952) 447-9813
Fax: (952) 447-4245
e-mail: ckirchoff@cityofpriorlake.com
1:\03 files\03 variances\mccoy\referral.doc
Page 2
_ Ori8inal ....
, .
Keports .. . ...
L:\TBMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOc
& PRJ~
C~\ 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
U~tr1 Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
~NES~
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
SITE ADDRESS:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
CASE FILE:
I. INTRODUCTION
PLANNING REPORT
5C
CONSIDER VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A DECK ADDITION
2830 FOX RUN NW
CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, AICP, PLANNER
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
X YES NO-N/A
OCTOBER 27, 2003
03-122
Tim and Jane McCoy are requesting Variances to construct a 14 foot by 20 foot
deck addition to an existing single family dwelling on property located at 2830
Fox Run NW (Lot 1, Block 2, The Wilds).
In order to construct the deck addition shown on Attachment 3, the following
Variances are required:
1. A 12.1 foot variance from the required 15 foot rear yard setback required
in The Wilds PUD.
2. A 3.3 foot variance from the required 10 foot side yard setback required in
The Wilds PUD.
II. BACKGROUND
The property is zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development) and SD (Shoreland
Overlay District), and is guided R-L1MD (Urban Low/Medium Density Residential)
in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The property was platted as Lot 1, Block 2,
The Wilds in 1993.
Lot 1, Block 2 directly abuts the fairway for the fifth hole of The Wilds Golf
Course. The Wilds was approved as a PUD, so a modification of the required
rear yard setback was approved for those lots abutting the golf course in the form
of a resolution. Instead of the 25 foot rear yard setback required in the R-1 use
district, a 15 foot setback is permitted.
L:\03 Files\03 Variances\McCoy\PC li8pw~priorlake.com
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
1
In 1995, a building permit was issued for the construction of the existing single
family dwelling. On the building permit it was noted by City staff that a deck
would have "potential setback problems." It was also noted on the building
permit that proposed impervious surface should be removed to comply with the
maximum 30 percent coverage.
On the survey submitted with the
building permit, the dwelling was
shown 15.2 feet from the rear
property line, at its closest point.
After the dwelling was complete, a
deck was constructed on the rear,
abutting the fairway, without a
building permit. The applicant
removed that deck and
commenced the construction of a
new deck on the rear of the
dwelling as shown in the picture to
the right. Construction was
started without the issuance of a
building permit from the City. The City received a complaint about the deck
being constructed without a permit, so City staff inspected the site and issued a
"Stop Work Order." This application for setback Variances followed.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Proposal
The applicant would like to construct a 14 foot by 20 foot (280 square feet) deck
addition on the rear of the existing dwelling. The deck is proposed to maintain
the following setbacks:
I Yard
I Rear
I Side - East
Required
15'
10'
Proposed
2.9'
6.7'
The deck complies with the west side yard and front yard setbacks.
The applicant is also proposing to encroach 7.1 feet into the 10 foot drainage and
utility easement that extends the length of the rear property line. In conjunction
with the variance application, the applicant is requesting to enter into a Private
Use of Public Property Agreement with the City to allow for the encroachment
into the easement. This agreement is an alternative to an easement vacation.
The City Council reviews and takes action on such agreements. It is not included
with this report.
L:\03 Files\03 Variances\McCoy\PC Report.doc
2
B. Existing Nonconformities
Not only is the existing deck nonconforming, but also the percentage of
impervious surface exceeds 30 percent. Staff has calculated the existing
impervious surface coverage to be approximately 37 percent. Decks open to the
sky and having open joints of at least ~ inch are exempted from the calculation
of impervious surface, so the proposed deck would not increase hard surface.
Removal of proposed impervious surface was a condition of granting the original
building permit. Staff would like to see the site maintain only 30 percent hard
surface.
C. The Wilds PUD
In a Planned Unit Development (PUD) standard Zoning Ordinance setbacks may
be modified. In this case, the City Council approved an amendment to the PUD
"to reduce the rear yard setback of ~ and 1/3 homesites from 25 feet to 15 feet
and villa homesites from 20 feet to 5 feet, for lots located adjacent to the golf
course fairways." Hence, this property has already been granted a rear yard
setback to be 10 feet closer to the rear property line. The existing dwelling has
already taken advantage of that relief.
IV. ANALYSIS
A. Variance Hardship Findings
Section 1108.400 states that the Board of Adjustment may grant a Variance from
the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, provided that:
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.
The shape of the lot did not preclude the original property owner from
developing the property for a single family dwelling, a legally permissible use
within The Wilds PUD. The lot has ample buildable area, so the strict
application of the setback requirements in conjunction with the lot shape did
and does not create practical difficulties. Moreover, in 1994, the property was
granted a rear yard setback modification to permit a 15 foot rear yard setback,
rather than the 25 foot rear yard setback. The existing dwelling complies with
the required 15 foot rear yard and 10 foot side yard setbacks.
L:\03 Files\03 Variances\McCoy\PC Report.doc
3
The applicant contends that the property is an oddly shaped lot. The property
is not a traditional rectangle, but it still accommodated a large dwelling on the
property. It is not an undue hardship to not have a 14 foot by 20 foot deck.
The applicant could construct a small balcony off the existing door to allow
access to the rear and side yard.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to
the property or immediately adjoining property, and do not apply,
generally, to other land or structures in the Use District in which the
land is located.
The conditions upon which the variance requests are based are not peculiar
to this site. All properties in residential use districts have to comply with
minimum rear yard setbacks. The subject site is unique only in that it was
allowed to have a 15 foot rear yard setback because it abuts the fairway of
The Wilds. Furthermore, the only reason the Variances are requested is
because the dwelling is much too large for the lot. This does not make a
peculiar situation. It was noted on the building permit that there are "potential
setback problems" for a future deck. The City acknowledged this fact so the
contractor and/or property owner would be aware of the situation.
The applicant argues that the subject site is unique because "the home and
surrounding area consist entirely of upper bracket real estate, a condition that
does not broadly apply to other developments in the Use District." The
Comprehensive Plan states "City ordinances shall be enforced by the City
staff in an equitable and uniform manner." It appears as though the applicant
contends that the property should be treated differently because it is
considered "upper bracket real estate." Discriminatory treatment is contrary
to public policy.
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 rear and side yard setback Variances is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner. In
1995, the City issued a building permit for a single family dwelling, so the
owner currently enjoys a substantial property right. The construction of a
deck was noted as a problem. A deck is not typically an element of a
reasonable use of the property. Furthermore, a "reasonable use" is not based
upon the individual property owner's desires. The City policy makers
determine the definition of reasonable use. The City has denied setback
Variances for deck additions in the past. Also, had the applicant contacted
City staff prior to purchasing the dwelling, he would have been informed that a
large deck cannot be constructed within the required setbacks.
L:\03 Files\03 Variances\McCoy\PC Report.doc
4
The applicant states that the Variances are for an "ordinary deck" of
"minimum reasonable size." There is a question as to what is an ordinary
deck on a dwelling with a 3,641 square foot building footprint. A deck that is
attached to the dwelling is typically considered an extension of the living
space. In this case, the "ordinary deck of minimum reasonable size" was
converted to roofed/enclosed living space. To reiterate, the previous owner
utilized what could be dedicated to a deck as living space. There is no
additional buildable area remaining to build a deck. A review of dwelling
footprints in the immediate vicinity indicates the subject property has the one
of the largest homes on Fox Run and Fox Trail, with a footprint of 3,641
square feet. Of the 13 existing dwellings, only four are more than 3,000
square feet, including the attached garage. The remaining nine are less than
3,000 square feet. According to Scott County records, the largest footprint is
3,672 square feet and the smallest is 2,124 square feet.
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.
It does not appear as though the rear and side yard setback Variances will
impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or negatively
impact public safety.
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 rear and side yard setback Variances will unreasonably
impact the character and development of the neighborhood by creating a new
neighborhood rear yard setback along the golf course.
The applicant argues that the inability to rebuild a reasonable deck will
"diminish and impair established property values. The sight of a 'walkout to
nowhere' is an eyesore, and a small balcony within the setbacks would be
proportionately grotesque." The existing door is not directly visible from the
golf course. The lack of a 14 foot by 20 foot deck will not unreasonably
diminish property values in the Fox Run/Fox Trail neighborhood. The
dwelling is substantially larger than the majority of the homes in the vicinity,
so Variances for the deck will provide the property owner with more rights
than adjacent property owners.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the intent
of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
L:\03 Files\03 Variances\McCoy\PC Report.doc
5
The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to "prevent overcrowding of land
and undue concentration of structures and population by regulating the use
of land and buildings and the bulk of buildings in relation to the land
surrounding them." This purpose is implemented through required minimum
yard setbacks. Variances to reduce the required minimum rear and side
yard setbacks without a demonstrable hardship or difficulty are inconsistent
with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant argues "the granting of the variance request will preserve the
spirit and intent of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinances by preserving a
reasonable and customary use enjoyed by all properties in the
neighborhood." The property owner already has the reasonable and
customary use enjoyed by adjacent properties.
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 Variances will serve as convenience to the property owner, because a
small balcony can be constructed without Variances. Requested relief is not
necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue difficulty, but is based upon the
applicant's desire to overbuild the property.
The applicant contends that the Variances are a necessity to "rebuild a deck
to reasonable proportion and in accordance with the home's value and uses
planned for it when it was built." The survey submitted with the building
permit for the dwelling did not consider a future deck addition, so it is
assumed that one was not designed for the home. Furthermore, if a future
deck was contemplated, the builder should have reduced the size of the
dwelling footprint to comply with minimum setbacks.
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.
Although the applicant did not construct the dwelling, they designed a deck
that encroaches into the required rear and side yard setbacks. A balcony can
be constructed on the east elevation to provide access to the rear and side
yard.
The applicant states that a deck is "a necessary part of a home of this
character." If a deck was truly necessary to maintain the character of this
dwelling, it would have been designed with the home. Instead it is an
afterthought that does not comply with ordinance requirements.
L:\03 Files\03 Variances\McCoy\PC Report.doc
6
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship
alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Staff does not believe that increased development or construction costs or
economic hardship are the basis for these requests.
V. CONCLUSION
The applicant would like to construct a 14 foot by 20 foot (280 square feet) deck
addition on property zoned PUD and SO. In order to do such, rear and side yard
setback Variances are required. In conjunction with the Variance application, the
applicant is also seeking approval of a Private Use of Public Property Agreement
to allow the use of a portion of the existing 10 foot drainage and utility easement
that extends along the rear property line. This Agreement is not part of the
Variance application currently under review.
The strict application of required setbacks does not pose a practical difficulty on
the development of the property because:
1. The property owner currently has a reasonable use of the property.
The existing single family dwelling complies with all required setbacks,
but the impervious surface exceeds 30 percent of the lot area; and
2. A balcony can be constructed that meets all required setbacks.
The subject property has a substantially larger home than adjacent properties,
and approving the requested setback Variances would provide an advantage to
one individual property owner. Based upon the findings set forth in this report,
staff recommends denial.
VI. ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the variances requested by the applicant, or approve any variance
the Planning Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances.
2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose.
3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of
demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria.
VII. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends alternative #3.
However, should the Planning Commission approved the requested Variances,
staff recommends the following conditions should apply:
L:\03 Files\03 Variances\McCoy\PC Report.doc
7
1. The resolution must be recorded at Scott County within 60 days of
adoption. Proof of recording, along with the acknowledged City Assent
Form, shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
2. The building permit is subject to all other applicable city, county, and state
agency regulations.
3. The applicant shall enter into a Private Use of Public Property Agreement
with the City to allow for the encroachment into the 10 foot drainage and
utility easement.
4. Impervious surface shall be reduced to 30 percent.
VIII. ACTION REQUIRED
This request requires the following motion:
1. A motion and second adopting Resolution 03-013PC denying the 12.1 foot
rear yard setback Variance and 3.3 foot side yard setback Variance for the
construction of a deck addition.
IX. ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution 03-013PC
2. Location map
3. Survey
4. Applicant's narrative
5. Resolution 94-06
L:\03 Files\03 Variances\McCoy\PC Report.doc
8
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
RESOLUTION 03-013PC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A 12.1 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 15
FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK AND 3.3 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED
10 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ADDITION
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. Tim and Jane McCoy are requesting Variances from the Zoning Ordinance for the
construction of a deck addition on property zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and
SO (Shore land Overlay District) at the following location, to wit;
2830 Fox Run NW
Lot 1, Block 2, The Wilds, Scott County, Minnesota.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for the variance as contained
in Case #03-122PC and held a hearing thereon on October 27,2003.
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. The shape of the lot did not preclude the original property owner from
constructing/developing the property for a single family dwelling, a legally
permissible use within The Wilds PUD. The lot has ample buildable area, so the
strict application of the setback requirements in conjunction with the lot shape did
and does not create practical difficulties. Moreover, in 1994, the property was
granted a rear yard setback modification to permit a 15 foot rear yard setback, rather
than the 25 foot rear yard setback. The existing dwelling complies with the required
15 foot rear yard and 10 foot side yard setbacks.
5. The conditions upon which the variance requests are based are not peculiar to this
site. All properties in residential use districts have to comply with minimum rear yard
setbacks. The subject site is unique only in that it was allowed to have a 15 foot rear
yard setback because it abuts the fairway of The Wilds. Furthermore, the only
reason the Variances are requested is because the dwelling is much too large for
the lot. This does not make a peculiar situation. It was noted on the building permit
that there are "potential setback problems" for a future deck. The City
1:\03 files\03 variances\mccoy\denial resolution.doc
www.cityofpriorlake.com
Phone 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245
1
acknowledged this fact so the contractor and/or property owner would be aware of
the situation.
6. The granting of rear and side yard setback Variances is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner. In 1995, the
City issued a building permit for a single family dwelling, so the owner currently
enjoys a substantial property right. The construction of a deck was noted as a
problem. A deck is not typically an element of a reasonable use of the property.
Furthermore, a "reasonable use" is not based upon an individual property owner's
desires. The City policy makers determine the definition of reasonable use. The
City has denied setback Variances for deck additions in the past. Also, had the
applicant contacted City staff prior to purchasing the dwelling, he would have been
informed that a large deck cannot be constructed within the required setbacks.
7. The granting of the rear and side yard setback Variances will unreasonably impact
the character and development of the neighborhood by creating a new neighborhood
rear yard setback along the golf course.
8. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to "prevent overcrowding of land and undue
concentration of structures and population by regulating the use of land and
buildings and the bulk of buildings in relation to the land surrounding them." This
purpose is implemented through required minimum yard setbacks. Variances to
reduce the required minimum rear and side yard setbacks without a demonstrable
hardship or difficulty are inconsistent with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.
9. The Variances will serve as convenience to the property owner, because a small
balcony can be constructed without Variances. Requested relief is not necessary to
alleviate a demonstrable undue difficulty, but is based upon the applicant's desire to
overbuild the property.
10. The contents of Planning Case #03-122PC 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 denies the
following Variances to allow for the construction of a deck addition, as shown on Exhibit
A- Certificate of Survey:
1. A 12.1 foot variance from the required 15 foot rear yard setback required in The
Wilds PUD.
2. A 3.3 foot variance from the required 10 foot side yard setback required in The
Wilds PUD.
1:\03 files\03 variances\mccoy\denial resolution.doc
2
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on October 27, 2003.
ATTEST:
Anthony Stamson, Commission Chair
Donald R. Rye, Community Development Director
1:\03 files\03 variances\mccoy\denial resolution.doc
3
CERllF1CATE OF SUR,€( PREPARED FOR:
11M ~CCOY
2830 FOX RUN NW
PRIOR LAKE. MN 55372
---- 13,2. 94
-..
--
!? '-UTIliTY
a
ORA/NAG E
r - --
10
I
I
I
I
I
l
....
.....
.....
"-
"
"
'\
'\
.,.\
.. \
\
4" '.' .' 4' ":, '
. C o",ct..r,
4' Drlve'way .
'4
~
o
+
.. 4
~'.4
'....
~v
~
....
..)".. .,
LEGAL DESCRIPTlON AS PROVIDED:':
Lot 1, Block 2, '!liE WILDS, Scott County, Minnesota. Also
showing 011 visible improvements and/or encroachments onto
or off. from said property if any, os of this 2nd day of July,
200.3.
~ '-.~--:-~~ ~ i~~:
\! \ 'l 'l, :_'--:_~'..'::~__._.'
1'1 l
~ I V~
'; ~ ~
~
( ".
rsrr. "7 ,;rm
l.l.I t l.......~v
: '\
I' \,
U L./
20 ,0 10 20 I
~~... I I
. Scale III Fe.t
. DENOlES IRON MONUNENT FOUND
o DENOTES IRON MONUNENT SET AND MARKED
BY MINNESOTA UCENSE No.l0183
VN.JEf SURVE'\1NG CO., P.A.
16670 FRANKUN TRAIL SE
SUITE 230
PRIOR LAKE. loiN 55372
(952) 447-2570
I
I
I
I
,
I
,
I
, I
; I
,
, I
-: ?';f-n__-
" '01.0'
I
,
; ,
, I
,
, I
,
,
,
,
,
-:.~
- --
1
I
;Ii
___*ll/l1111 0' DOCk IUppo,t
post.
N 87 000' 00. w --i\
. ..r1.' - -
EASEMENT? ,'j \ ",
L N, S.7
- - - -t::, \
5 , /':"110,.
...../ OCC/( OSCO
,
I
I
""
..
..
..
'" GARAGE
,
<:I '
4 '
',' ,1;;
.. ,
; 1 '
" \~ ,/ :" :' (" f' .: ....1: Id.c..... m
<0
I f\I
, <t
I
I
J5
~
- - 30.00 --
Na5a 00' OO"E
,----.- -. -_..-/
Rev. 10/6/03 To ,haw p",posed dICk info.
l.IJ
o
o
o
o
o
I'fl
o
Z
r'
..
l...
,-------
- 15.9 _'"//",/",,,-t
..
..
..
..
,
..
,
:: HOUSE
,
,
,
,
,
,
'--::!!:.~:::.~..../..../"
I h....by certify that this Cettlflcate of Surwy waa prepared
by m. CI' und... my dt,act IUparAslan and that I om 0 dUly
Ucenaed Land Surveyor unci... the 10.... of the Stat. of
Nlnn..ota. _
.~~/J([) Ai._-
IIflnn..ota Uc.... No. 10183
Doted thla~of J" Ie. , 2003
FILE NO. 9707 BOOK 238 PAGE 76
-
-
EXHIBIT A
"IS94OlI"
RESOLUTION 94-06
RESOLUTION OF In1!- PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND uu. wILDS
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
MOTION BY:
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
SECONDED BY:
the Prior Lake Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on the
6th day of January 1994, to act on a petition submitted by Prior Lake
Development L.P.. to reduce the ....- yard setback requi.........ents for lots
abutting the fairways of the golf course; and
notice of the hearing on said motion has been duly published and posted in
accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes; and
the amendment will not adversely affect the land use relationship between
the golf course and homes. and the amendment is consistent with the
stated and desired objectives of the City; and
the amendment would result in an opportunity to address the full range of
the marketplace; and
the amendment is reasonable and produces substantial justice and is not
contrary to the interests of the City; and
There were no objections to the amendment by the public.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL,
THAT IT DOES HEREBY APPROVE THE AMENDMENT TO THE w!LDS PUD AS
FOLLOWS:
1. The Wilds PUD text pages 41, 42. and 43 is amended to reduce the rear yard setback-of
1(2. and 113 acre homesites from 25 feet to 15 feet and villa homesites from 20 feet to 5
feet. for lots located adjacent to the golf course fairways.
.
.
.-
APPLICABLE REGULATION
4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 4474230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL oPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
The Wilds Fairway
WILDS
~ ~kWYNW
~\
I \ \
i i \
1\
I
i
I
/\~
300
I
o
_ocation VIa) for
v1cCoy Variances
--+-
"
/
/
. .,
f-----~~ ~'~~)
/ -(
! \
300 Feet
I
-+
..
CERllF1CATE OF SUR,€( PREPARED FOR:
1U.t ~CCOY
2830 FOX RUN NW
PRIOR LAKE. MN 55372
V~ SURVEYING CO.. P.A.
16870 FRANKUN lRAlL SE
SUI1E 230
PRIOR LAKE. ~N 55372
(952) 447-2570
- - ---- 132. 94
~ '--UTiliTY
___'It limit. of Deck "'PPOft
past.
N 870 00' 00. w --,t \
-tI'-. --
,.' "-
EASEMENT7 iJ \ '\
L N, 57
- - - -t:, . \
~~ .-:-~;~{~:_--_.
I:)
:: ,('
'D r
I
I
I
I
I
l
.....
"
...--
~
o
+
~v
,;z"
"",-. J'
~
l ; \
U'
i \..:.1
20 ' . 0 10 20 I
~~
. Scale In Feet
. DENOlES IRON MONUMENT FOUND
o DENOTES'IRON MONUMENT SET AND MARKED
BY MINNESOTA UCENSE NO.101llJ
- - --
r'
"
L_
e.
DR41N4GE
- --
5' , /'.P'lOP
........, DCCk OSCD
,
I
I
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I \:::-';~9-":'V" 0',7
,
~, ;
, ,
"J ~
;l-'o~o-; ~ HOUSE
. ,
'4 G4R4GE',' ~:::!~~~::.f, N N<
. 4 '
.:~ ; I
; ; I
~///////~.-,do en
----"--.. <0
I N
I ~
,
,
JS
llJ
8
b
o
o
If)
o
z
"
"
'\,
"-
,
/\
,/ \
\
,
,
,
;
':";J
4" ~:.
. . Conerete
q , Orlvtwoy .
"4 '
, 4
.,.4
<i'.is.
"'!fl..
"
"
---
- --
I
I
/
"..
~
- - "'''- - 30 00 --
- 1'1850 Qo' OO"E
LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS PROVlDED:"
Lot I, Block 2, 'TriE WILDS. Scott County, Minnesota. Also
showing 011 visible improvements and/or encroachments onto
or off, from said property if any, as of this 2nd day of July.
2003.
N'tT - '7 ?nr;~
\:U I t..1.oo.....v
Rev. 10/6/03 To ,how proposed de::l< info.
-,/
----.. -- --.'
I her.by certify that this Certfflcote of Survey wo. prepared
by me 0<' under my d1tect IUpervl.lon ond thot I om 0 duly
Ucen.ed Land Surveyor unci., the 10Wl of the Stote of
Mlnnlloto.
· ~& A.~
!llnn'lOto We.... No. 10183
Dot.d thl. 1",1:6. elf J(J Ie.
I
FILE: NO. 9707 BOOK 238 PAGE 76
2003
SURVEY
APPLICA nON OF
TIM AND JANE McCOY
FOR SIDE AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCES AND
APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT FOR PRIVATE USE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY
Background
In May of this year, Tim and Jane McCoy bought a detached single family home at
2830 Fox Run, which abuts the fifth fairway of The Wilds golf course in the Wilds
community of Prior Lake. The home had been vacant for several months and McCoys
purchased it following foreclosure by the mortgage company. McCoys have -made
substantial improvements to the house, to bring it up to the quality standards within the
neighborhood, and have made it their home. The subject of their variance application is a
need to replace a large, deteriorated deck with a new, much smaller one.
McCoys had inspected the property before the purchase and understood the house
would need substantial additional investment because of its condition. Although construction
had been finished in 1995 and the original certificate of occupancy issued in October of
1998, the previous owners had seriously neglected the property and this, coupled with the
period of vacancy, left the house in a sorry state.
As soon as they closed on the property the McCoys began cleaning up and improving
the home. To date they have spent more than $300,000.00 in the process. In the course of
their work they found the existing deck, which extended the entire back side of the home
(please see attached photo sheet), was rotting and needed to be replaced. They removed the
bad footings and most of the existing deck, and put in the footings and support posts for a
much smaller replacement, in the reasonable belief that the original home and deck had been
inspected and approved as being in compliance with the Wilds P.D.D. and applicable
ordinances. At this point, though, it was brought to McCoys' attention that no original permit
had been issued to construct the original deck and that there were potential setback problems,
even with the smaller replacement. McCoys was surprised and dismayed at this development
but stopped work on the deck and immediately arranged to have the property surveyed. In
discussing the survey results and their plans with the Prior Lake City Engineering and
Planning Departments, McCoys have found that in order to build a deck of any reasonable
size they will need variances from the l5-foot rear yard setback applicable to lots in The
Wilds that abut on golf course fairways, and from the 10-foot side yard setback.
The house was built to have a deck, with a walkout door on the second level. The
original building permit file references decks "by future permit" and notes possible setback
problems, since the house alone was close to the rear yard setback line. McCqys have
APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE
reduced the planned deck size to 14 by 20 feet, which they believe is the minimum
reasonable under the circumstances. To deny the McCoys the ability to replace a deck on a
home of this scale would seriously compromise not only the McCoys but also the
neighborhood in general.
Legal Variance Standard
By statute, Minnesota cities have authority to grant variances in cases of "undue
hardship," which exists in cases where
the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions
allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances
unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will
not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall
not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the
terms of the ordinance. Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357 Subd. 6(2).
The Minnesota Court of Appeals has on several occasions been called on to interpret
the phrase "cannot be put to a reasonable use." It has repeatedly said, most recently in April
of2003, that this means only that the landowner would like to put the land to a reasonable
use but that the proposed use is prohibited under the strict provisions of the zoning code. The
court has said this language does not mean a variance can only be granted where there is no
reasonable use of the property at all without the variance, because in that case the Minnesota
Constitution would compel a variance regardless of what the statute said. The variance
applied for in this case clearly falls within the Court's definition of "undue hardship."
Criteria in the Prior Lake Ordinance
Based on the nine criteria in the Prior Lake ordinances used to evaluate variance
requests, the McCoys should not be prevented from replacing the deck on their home. It is
only reasonable to grant them the ability to replace, at the smallest reasonable size, the deck
a home of this character requires.
1. Strict application of the ordinance would result in peculiar and practical
difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship in developing or using the lot in a
customary and legally permissible manner, because of the narrowness, shallowness, or
shape of the lot.
McCoys' lot is an oddly shaped platted lot of record in a neighborhood of upper
bracket homes. The homes are large and placed strategically to incorporate views of the golf
course and the surrounding natural areas. When McCoys purchased the house, there was a
large deck attached to the rear, overlooking the fifth fairwa}'. Mr. McCoy, being a diligent
"
-2-
homeowner, dismantled the deck with the intent of replacing it with a smaller, more securely
built structure. The home was designed and built to include a deck, a necessary and nearly
universal feature of single family homes in the immediate neighborhood, and the City's
p~u.uit file anticipated construction of a deck. By strict application of the tenns of the
Ordinance the McCoys are now faced with the peculiar and practical difficulty of being
unable to have any reasonable deck at all.
McCoys propose that if the requested variance is granted, the attached Agreement for
Private Improvement of Public Property between McCoys and the City be executed. As part
of this variance request, we respectfully ask that this Agreement be approved.
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.
Although a deck plan was not included in the survey prepared for the original building
p~uJ.J.it, notes in the City's pennit file contemplated construction of a deck extending from
the upper level, and anticipated the potential setback problems given the size of the house
relative to the lot size. The home and surrounding area consist entirely of upper bracket real
estate, a condition that does not broadly apply to other developments in the Use District. The
McCoys' lack of a reasonable deck on a home of this scale significantly impacts the
neighborhood. The McCoys have mitigated the peculiar challenges of the placement of the
home on the lot by reducing the size of the proposed deck to the minimum width (14 feet)
that will reasonably accommodate a standard patio table and chairs. It is also worth noting
that on its lower level the house has only lookout windows, so a patio below the planned
location of the deck would have difficult access and would block views from inside the
house.
3. The granting of the proposed variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the owner.
Without the requested variances, the McCoys have an exit that drops a full story and
creates a safety issue. Resolving this problem within City setback requirements would allow
no more than a small balcony at the side of the house, instead of an ordinary deck from which
McCoys could enjoy the expansive views of the golf course and surrounding area behind the
house. They have children and grandchildren who visit often, and reasonably expect to be
able to entertain guests in their home. Denial of their ability to rebuild a deck of minimum
reasonable size is a denial of a substantial property right.
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 public safety.
-
-3-
Allowing McCoys to rebuild the deck adjacent to the golf course fairway will in no
way affect the supply of light and air to any adjacent property, or the views from other
neighboring properties. No additional congestion will result from allowing McCoys to
rebuild the deck, nor will additional danger offrre or compromise of the public safety result.
5. Granting the variances will not unreasonably affect 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.
McCoys' inability to rebuild a reasonable deck will diminish and impair established
property values. The sight of a "walkout to nowhere" is an eyesore, and a small balcony
within the setbacks would be proportionately grotesque. Allowing McCoys to rebuild the
deck as proposed would be more likely to increase, rather than decrease, property values in
the area, and will preserve the high standards already in place.
6. Granting the proposed variances will not be contrary to the intent of this
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
Because the proposed deck abuts an open area, a golf course fairway that is expected
to remain open, the granting of the variance request will preserve the spirit and intent of the
Prior Lake Zoning Ordinances by preserving a reasonable and customary use enjoyed by all
properties in the neighborhood.
7. Granting the variances will not merely serve as a convenience to the
applicants but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
The variances requested are not a convenience but a necessity. McCoys have
minimized the deck size and are replacing an unsafe and much larger structure. The granting
of variances is necessary in order for McCoys to rebuild the deck to reasonable proportion
and in accordance with the home's value and the uses planned for it when it was built.
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.
McCoys had no part in the original construction of the home and purchased the
property in good faith with the reasonable belief that the existing deck had been approved
and could be replaced. They believed they could restore the home to a neighborhood asset
rather than a liability, with a smaller deck that is a necessary part of a home of this character.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship alone
..
-4-
shall not be grounds for granting a variance.
The variance request is not an economic issue but rather one offull reasonable use and
enjoyment of property. While the McCoys believe the value of the home would be reduced
without a reasonable deck, this variance request comes about because of their wish to use
their newly acquired home for their enjoyment and that of their family and guests.
Based on the Prior Lake ordinances and Minnesota legal principles that guide the
variance application process, we believe the Planning Commission should find as follows:
1. Strict application of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinances will result in peculiar and
practical difficulties with respect to Tim and Jane McCoy's property by denying them the
ability to rebuild a deck. This will preclude the preservation and enjoyment of their property
rights.
2. The peculiar and practical difficulties result from the circumstances unique to the
property because of the shape and size of the lot and the approved placement of the house
on the lot during original construction.
3. The peculiar and practical difficulties are caused by the provisions of the Prior '....
Lake Zoning Ordinances and are not the result of the actions of the owner. The owners'
proposed use of the land is reasonable and the strict application of the ordinances would
preclude such reasonable use.
4. The requested variances preserve the spirit and intent of the Prior Lake Zoning
Ordinances, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest, because the
reasonable use is consistent in all respects with the existing and proposed land use in the
neighborhood, and provides an enhancement to the neighborhood as a whole.
On behalf of Mr. and Mrs. McCoy, we respectfully request that the Planning
Commission approve: (1) the requested variance from the rear year setback, (2) the
requested variance from the side yard setback, and (3) the Agreement for Private
Improvement of Public Property . We appreciate your consideration.
James D. Bates, for
Huemoeller, Bates & Gontarek PLC
Attorneys for Tim and Jane McCoy
16670 Franklin Trail SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
(952) 447-2131
(952) 447-5628 fax
..
..
-5-
~--......-~,-" ~
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S,E.
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714
t~..-~~....., J \..- . ,- ";'~~
....;-oR 1.. '.~. '-4,; ~-
." -1 ','b ~~-,
q:. 7- \"j.V- Ii; -U (
a.. j'" ;- IS.,
OCT /4'03 ,;:? ~
- .' ,j~
. ..."'. ..... l
~:::
~IN~} P.!l,"ETf~'
,/ 6055715
RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED
c::.=:.:. ..
C:"
- ~l
6
ROBERT J JR& SALLY M FACENTE
5243 OVERLOOK DR
BLOOMINGTON MN 55437
N
o
~
~~~.: -
FACE2~3 55~372030 iQ03 i7 iO/i7/
RETURN TO SENDER
FACENTE
28i7 FOX RUN NW
PRIOR LAKE MN 55372-3238
RETURN TO SENDER
la~~3
. . .
~ ~ i t~ ! ~ 1 ~ ~ 1: ! i f :tl! t l ~ ~ ~ ! i ~ ::: it
.: , i' 1'\ 1;\ ii' i
II III I !lId mil H llllll! h / lilt i: