HomeMy WebLinkAbout4A 15507 Calmut Avenue NE Variance ReportPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: MAY 19, 2014
AGENDA #: 4A
PREPARED BY: JEFF MATZKE, PLANNER
PRESENTED BY: JEFF MATZKE
PUBLIC HEARING: YES
AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE FROM THE
MINIMUM LAKE SETBACK FOR A PROPERTY IN THE R-1 (LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT
DISCUSSION: Introduction
Matthew Prettyman & Associates is requesting a variance from the minimum lake
setback to construct an upper level deck addition on a property located at 15507
Calmut Avenue NW on the northern shores of Lower Prior Lake, east of Eau
Claire Trail. The following variances are requested:
A 66 foot variance from the required minimum 75 foot structure set-
back from the Ordinary High Water (OHM elevation of Prior Lake
(Section 1104.301)
Current Circumstances
The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential), and is guided R -LD (Urban
Low Density) on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The property
currently contains a single family home, constructed in 1978.
The applicant is proposing a deck addition and landscaping project on the site.
As detailed in the attached project narrative description, the applicant requests
the variance (which specifically relates to the upper level deck) "to create family -
friendly lakeside deck area".
In 2001, the property owner applied for impervious surface and lake setback
variances. At that time, the Planning Commission approved a variance from the
impervious surface maximum to allow up to 38% coverage of the lot area above
the 904 elevation (Resolution 01-011 PC). Also, the City Council upheld the
Planning Commission's denial of a variance from the lake setback to allow for a
deck addition (Resolution 01-099). The applicant has been previously permitted
to place a 3'x 12' deck and stairs area along the rear wall of the home which al-
lows access into the main floor of the structure (see attached 2004 survey).
As stated in the applicant's narrative, modifications to the existing lower level
platform deck area, existing retaining walls, and other landscape features may
require other building or grading permits, but they do not appear to require a
variance for these improvement modifications.
As with all requests for variances to the Shoreland District regulations, the DNR
is given the opportunity to provide comments on the request. The DNR Area
Hydrologist suggests that the applicant further minimize their encroachment on
the lake and submit a plan that is more reasonable and consistent with the
small dimensions of the lot (DNR comments are attached).
ISSUES: 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:
a. There are practical difficulties in complying with the strict terms of
the Ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with
the granting of a Variance, means the property owner proposes to
use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning
Ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute
practical difficulties.
An existing lower level deck is located on the property which affords the
property owners with the ability to maintain a sitting area lakeside. The
existing upper level small deck is currently utilized to access the upper
level of the home. Further expansion of the upper level deck would in-
crease the nonconforming lake setback creating a setback of as little as
9 feet from the 904 elevation. The applicant can utilize the property in a
reasonable manner through the usage of the existing deck areas.
b. The granting of the Variance is in harmony with the general
purposes and intent of the City Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances
and the Comprehensive Plan.
The granting of the variance is not in harmony with the general purposes
of the Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Purposes of the Zoning Or-
dinance include to "Promote the most appropriate and orderly develop-
ment of the residential, business, industrial, public land, and public areas",
to "Enhance the aesthetic character of the City"and to "conserve natural
resources and environmental assets of the com,munity". The granting of
the variance will allow for the construction of a deck area that is in very
close proximity to the lake (9 feet). In very rare occasions of past non-
conforming structures is an upper level deck this close to the 904 eleva-
tion of the lake. The lake setback is regulated to maintain structures (in-
cluding decks) at an aesthetically pleasing distance from the lake while
conserving the natural character of the Iakeshore area. In this case, a
distance of 9 feet for a new deck addition does not meet this purpose.
c. The practical difficulty is due to circumstances unique to the
property not resulting from actions of the owners of the property and
is not a mere convenience to the property owner and applicant.
Rather than alleviating a practical difficulty, the deck addition would be a
mere convenience to the owner by providing additional deck sitting ar-
eas of which the applicant currently has on the lower level deck. The
applicant has been previously permitted to place a 3'x 12' deck and
stairs area along the rear wall of the home which allows for access into
the main floor of the structure (see attached survey from 2004). A larger
deck than what is existing would not be deemed by the city as neces-
sary to access the home's upper level.
Conclusion
While City Staff does recognize the applicant's efforts to improve the property's
existing deck areas and landscape areas and does further encourage those im-
provements which would not require a variance consideration, we believe the
strict application of the lake setback does not create a practical difficulty for the
property owner to utilize the property in a reasonable manner. The applicant
proposes an upper level deck addition that would create a lake setback of 9 feet
to the 904' elevation (OHW of Prior Lake). An existing lower level deck is located
on the property which affords the property owners with the ability to maintain a
sitting area lakeside. The existing upper level small deck is currently utilized to
access the upper level of the home.
Secondly, the variance request is not in harmony with the general purposes of
the Ordinance. Purposes of the Zoning Ordinance include to "Promote the most
appropriate and orderly development of the residential, business, industrial, pub-
lic land, and public areas", to "Enhance the aesthetic character of the City", and
to "conserve natural resources and environmental assets of the community". The
lake setback required by Ordinance is regulated to maintain structures (including
decks) at an aesthetically pleasing distance from the lake while conserving the
natural character of the lakeshore area. In this case, a distance of 9 feet for a
new deck addition does not meet this purpose.
Lastly, rather than alleviating a practical difficulty, the deck addition would be a
mere convenience to the owner by providing additional deck sitting areas of which
the applicant currently has on the lower level deck. The applicant has been pre-
viously permitted to place a 3' x 12' deck and stairs area along the rear wall of
the home which allows for access into the main floor of the structure (see at-
tached survey from 2004). A larger deck than is existing is not needed to access
the home's upper level.
Based upon these findings in this report, staff recommends denial of the re-
quested variance.
ALTERNATIVES: 1. Motion and second to approve the requested variance or any variance the
Planning Commission deems appropriate in these circumstances.
2. Motion and second to table and/or continue discussion of the item for spe-
cific purpose.
3. Motion and second to deny the variances based upon findings stated by
staff, or as further amended by the Planning Commission.
RECOMMENDED Alternative #3.
MOTIONS:
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 14-XXPC
2. Location Map & Aerial Photo
3. Survey stamp dated April 9, 2014
4. Applicant's Narrative and Information packet — stamp dated Feb 18, 2014
5. DNR Comments dated May 13, 2014
6. Resolution 01-011 PC (approving impervious surface variance)
7. Resolution 01-099 (denying lake setback variance)
8. Previous survey stamp dated December 8, 2004
4646 Dakota Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RESOLUTION 14-XXPC
A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM LAKE SETBACK FOR A PROPERTY IN THE
R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT
Motion By:
Second By:
WHEREAS, The Prior Lake Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment considered a request from Matt
Prettyman & Associates Inc. for a variance from the minimum lake setback to allow an upper level deck
addition to a property in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District at the following property:
15507 Manitou Road NW, Prior Lake, MN 55372
Lot 9, and that part of lot 10, "North Grainwood", and that part of Government Lot 5, Section 25,Township
115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest corner of said Lots 10 and 9 and also 8, a distance of 165.00 feet to the
actual point of beginning of the land to be described; thence westerly along the north line of said plat to
the easterly right-of-way line of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad; thence northerly
along said easterly right-of-way line to its intersection with the westerly extension of the southerly line of
the northerly 45.00 feet (as measured at right angles to the northerly line) of said Lot 10; thence easterly
along said southerly line to the shoreline of Prior Lake, thence southerly along said shoreline to the south
line of said Lot 9; thence westerly along said south line of said Lot 9, to the southwest corner thereof;
thence southerly along the westerly line of said Lot 8, to the actual point of beginning; .
(PID 25-035-006-0)
WHEREAS, Notice of the public hearing on said variance request was duly published in accordance with the
applicable Prior Lake Ordinances; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission proceeded to hear all persons interested in this variance request, and persons
interested were afforded the opportunity to present their views and objections related to the variance
request; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the application for the variance as contained in Case #DEV -
2014 -0005 and held a hearing thereon on May 19, 2014.
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission 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
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA as
follows:
The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein.
The Planning Commission hereby adopts the following findings:
a. There are practical difficulties in complying with the strict terms of the Ordinance. "Practical
difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a Variance, means the property owner
proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance.
Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
An existing lower level deck is located on the property which affords the property owners with the ability
to maintain a sitting area lakeside. The existing upper level small deck is currently utilized to access
the upper level of the home. Further expansion of the upper level deck would increase the
nonconforming lake setback creating a setback of as little as 9 feet from the 904 elevation. The
applicant can utilize the property in a reasonable manner through the usage of the existing deck areas.
b. The granting of the Variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the City
Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan.
The granting of the variance is not in harmony with the general purposes of the Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan. Purposes of the Zoning Ordinance include to "Promote the most appropriate and
orderly development of the residential, business, industrial, public land, and public areas", to Enhance
the aesthetic character of the City', and to 'conserve natural resources and environmental assets of the
community"
L, FM ■ =11:
15507 Calmut Avenue (Aerial Photo)
4RA'" OR0USA 7 a Valley Co#,,P.A.707CM UT A MEAUT NT o , 7
VOR L4Il, AN 5537,2
Q Land Surveyors Phone (952) 447-2570Suite
16670 F Franklin ail S.E.
Planners Fox (952) 447.-2571
Prior Loke, Minnesota 55372
LOT
lot
NOR �NGorA WOOp- ,
.Mt
NORTH �
T
_ rNORTM pT t 0
,.
SI
COR.OF
c 1
INE OF
1
l
l 1
t
1 1
l 1
1 1
1 1 _
, ts,
t Cs
,
c t
,
, l
t ,
,ME,
--SOUTH- NWOOD ApUT
- --- - _ - -- -- THE GRA OF
NOR H GTT GINE.
O A _of
0
d 4 d
a.
a° :. a d
a
i
�i
a �\
\
V
V\
`\\\\
V\
co
10. � \\ APRON
OF LOT S0 \\ " RCP 5�
t M O0 EE -5 TOHE LAKE \ e ,�`\\5 INS gQ2
WESEXII
T ps0NG ON
`\ c
\\
57$.24 U.7
IRZI,15'TING ,SITT ,0_4Z4
Property Area = 7,995 sq. ft.
(to elevation 904)
Existing Dwelling = 2,160 sq. ft.
Existing Paver Area = 161 sq. ft.
Existing Concrete Driveway = 886 sq. ft.
(Includes walkway north of garage)
Existing Gravel Area = 215 sq. ft.
Existing Concrete Walkways = 388 sq. ft.
(Includes Patio between decks)
Existing Hot Tub = 64 sq. ft
Existing Impervious Surface
Coverage = J,874 sq. ft. (48.47)
Maximum Coverage Allowed = 2,399 sq. ft. (307)
PROPOS�'� ,SITS' AW.'14
Property Area = 7,995 sq. ft.
(to elevation 904)
Existing Dwelling = 2,160 sq. ft.
Existing Paver Area = 161 sq. ft.
Existing Concrete Driveway = 793 sq. ft.
Fxisting Impervious Surface
Coverage = 3,114 sq. ft. (38.9%)
Maximum Coverage Allowed = 2,J99 sq. ft. (309)
ti
.0 1\\\\ `•�•� Z
Vi �\
1
1
l
\
\
�Y
�\
WEST NCRETE WALL
)RTM CO
T 9 ' \
. OF LO Q 2 Q FpO� 91.4 R GRAIN WOOD-
RAINWOOD- \
a i 579@26 INC OF LOT 9, NO ;
- _ - ;1THE SOUTHERLY
WI
� �0 YY Y
®'
00,13 iia - it
Y
3406.66 t
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.• (as provided)
Lot 9 and that port of Lot 10, "NORTH 6RAINWO00 ; and that part of Government Lot 5, Section 25, Townsh/p 115,
Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows,
Commencing at the northwest corner of sold Lot 10; thence southerly along the westerly line of sold Lots 10 and 9
and also 8, a distance of 165.00 feet to the actual point of beginning of the land to be described, thence westerly
along the north line of sold plat to the easterly right-of-way line of the Chicago, Mllwoukee, St. Paul and Pacific
Railroad,- thence northerly along said easterly right-of-way line to its lntesection with the wester/y. extension of the
southerly line of the northerly 45.00 feet (as measured at right angles to the northerly line) of sold Lot 10,• thence
easterly along sold southerly line to the shoreline of Prior Lake, thence southerly along sold shoreline to the south
line of said Lot 9, thence westerly along sold south line of sold Lot 9, to the southwest corner thereof,- thence
southerly along the westerly line of sold Lot 8, to the, actual point of begin/ng.
Also showing the location of a// visible improvements or encroachments onto or off from sold property as located in
the field the 24th day of April, 2013.
SURVEYOR'S NOTES.
DENOTES EXISTING WOOD DECK SURFACE
DENOTES EXISTING BRICK PAVER SURFACE
{ 4 DENOTES EXIS17NG CONCRETE SURFACE
DENOTES EXIShNG IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
(TO BE REMOVED)
c2=0 DENOTES EXISTING BOULDER WALL/RIP-RAP
DENOTES EXISTING KEY -STONE WALL
DENOTES EXISTING WOOD TIE WALL
DENOTES EXISTING CA TCH BASIN
O DENOTES EXISTING MANHOLE
�j DENOTES EXISTING 15" RCP APRON
Revised this 24th day of March, 2014 to st,
Proposed deck replacement as well as prop
impervious surface coverage.
0 0 5 10 1. Benchmark: Elevation 909.51 Top of the existing garage slab.
l hereby certify that this Survey was prepay
2. No title work was furnished for the preparation of this survey to verify ownership, the legal description, or the by me or under my direct supervision and
existence of any easements or encumbrances / am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under
SCALE IN FEET laws of the State of Minnesota.
DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND '^
DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET AND nesota Licen umber 42309 M
MARKED BY LICENSE NO. 42309 Dated this -Z-- day of 2014
FILE 9240 BOOK 200 PAGE-
GREG
AGE-GREG C: /Drawings/9240- Perm it.dwg
January 13, 2014
Shoreland Impact Plan
15507 Calmut Avenue Northeast
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
This proposal is for a landscaping and deck project for a lakeshore property on Prior
Lake. The address of the proposed project is 15507 Calmut Avenue Northeast
Presently, the home and all related impervious surface area occupy 45.7% of the
small lots' total square footage of 7,995 square feet. This percentage is considerably
higher than the 30% maximum coverage allowed under the present ordinance for
properties located within the Shoreland Zoning District. This impervious surface
calculation also does not take into account the existing wood deck surfaces or other
various landscape materials such as boulders, concrete "keystone" type blocks and
solid wood ties that presently occupy a majority of the property's remaining
pervious surface area. Attached is Addendum "A" which is a survey performed by
Valley Surveying Company on June 101h, 2013 (see attached). This recently
conducted survey reflects the existing situation on this property with respect to
impervious surface calculations, the home's proximity to the 904 elevation along the
shoreline and other notable items such as the wood deck areas and landscape
materials.
The property owners are pursuing this proposed project at this time for several
reasons. The primary reason is the present poor condition of the existing wood
retaining walls and wood decks. The existing wood retaining walls on the property,
especially the wall that runs somewhat parallel to the 904 elevation line, have begun
to fail and collapse in many places, With the homes' close proximity to the 904
elevation line (17 feet at the closest point), there is concern about shoreline erosion
and its' impact on the minimal amount of terrain there is between the foundation
and the lakes' shoreline, The wood deck areas have also deteriorated to the point
where they are unsafe and aesthetically undesirable. Other reasons for pursuing
this proposed project are to create a family -friendly lakeside deck area, to beautify
their property in addition to reducing the impact that their present situation has on
the lake.
Attached is Addendum "B" which reflects the proposed new project (see attached).
The proposed new project features less impervious surface and therefore, less
impact on the lake than what presently exists today.
PACE el or 1.7
The existing "ground -level" deck surfaces were previously constructed with
composite materials in such a manner that they do not effectively distribute the flow
of water run-off. These composite deck boards with virtually no gaps between
them combined with the various expanses of sidewalks, solid wood -tie steps,
keystone blocks, pavers and boulders cause concentrated water drainage flow. The
proposed projects' new design is such that allows more space for drainage as well as
distributes water run-off more evenly thus reducing the present concentrated flow.
The new planned design and the reduced square footage of impervious surface
should greatly improve the present condition of the property's shoreline and its'
water run-off impact.
To address storm water run-off, care was taken to design a special mulch planting
beds that run parallel to the 904 elevation line and are located between the edge of
the new proposed deck and boulder retaining wall. These beds will treat and
contain storm water by acting as a "buffer -zone" between the lakeshore and the
home. They also provide an excellent bed for planting shrubs or native plantings.
Attached is Addendum "C" that reflects a cross-section illustration of the special
mulch planting beds described above (see attached). These beds are designed with
a unique soil/granular stratification that not only helps with plant survival but also
has water -holding capacity in the event of a heavy or severe rainfall amount.
There are no mature trees affected by this proposed new project. Upon completion
of the deck and landscaping project, the property owner plans on planting a limited
amount of new trees along the property's north boundary line.
During construction, the installation of silt fence and other suitable erosion control
measures will be taken. Silt fence will be installed around the perimeter of the
construction area, which will manage storm water and maintain the site during the
construction period.
The property owners have spent a considerable amount of time designing and
planning this proposed new project. They have also invested in a new survey and
other professional outside assistance to help collaborate everyone's efforts put forth
on this project, Great care and consideration has been given to mitigating shoreline
erosion and controlling water run-off. The applicant has worked with City staff in
the Building Inspections Department as well as with the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources' area Hydrologist on this project. This Shoreland Impact Plan has
been created as a result of those meetings and discussions regarding this proposed
new project.
SirieAwR.*Preym�aZn_�
M
Mathew Prettyman & Associates, Inc.
P4rE_ l6 oF- /7
3 2014,
S(lR&r PR/'P,fW pm
Xrf1PR' CROUSE
1S07 CefJ?If .t 721r r
P/PIOX Ci.UP, my 6w
ADDENDUM "A"
Valley Surveying Co., P.A.
&IN 21V
f° Pm" lana uh *"N 5"n
11 \
S
•1 K �tE� '`T trs'�'y�s!
t �K °rte ° r. �•
Sf0
OCOA r rm
• wbums rta!! 02001 Two
O Ot)i M fm MNAW SET Aw
LAAM W UCDM A'O. 4M
e
rrs+�i D+.4rs i 2rao ea a
f 3[r>p ro,r J1+n7 � td1 sa 2
t.�slcaurear: ±aiL.irya rs n
(�ntwe vrw 6rc.rw aeae7)
EYiLDq 7N! hA a 61 a4 R
C*a - dela» >f J'44 M)
eti•�
r� � Ler � ✓gyp yss:+ap'1 \ � .
7K 90J°�rKt L i
ax+o9'�' ,{ f
t
r+o'FQ i�7
MVWS EXSDLG KW MIX $tWAQ-
x =-
AIwRS LtltSALG OW A4wq StwAcr
ViWJYS lbSF CO' aFW 9AMCC
--r"3
MM&S msw $act R z4u/.2F -jw {
awIFS F.C9W WM It mw
U%AL 0.' FOWDOSt (aa A--S*O) O
mntFS Ensrs.G C+Td! OASar
!W 9 G�atS�d
Rai1Z iroew' aw uve Fa! .1 lot S act3e ?A 7a.ul� 17f} O
APW7FS F+xSfi.G �wKlE'
g
Gbev�nahb at edit.p! aaav al etp!!of iq Dseecr 0Ps w+1et� bs N o*V lr7r 70 a+d i
and oaw A a Jbtaw N IFxW kaf !� lye
PPL'OfFs F�SIr+C 13'+x� A.'17g7
aNwf Pd+! ef�p N iso ird !e b�
!L e�ylatricr naf
e1 +9 Sir aad4 Dee of eaH�4t N !4a rarlr'1 !-efsey a1 ws 14�w�M. AM wM ibWYe�
$
9asaat Raecv axDafy da'►t ea!! pefa'�'r#ul-al-xrJ'F+e !e Rs letpratla+ Kb 6La vaeft9. teN' �rt o1 NLs
a�w(lek�M.y Der aI Nr nar6ltr� Aip7 Mt /ra �rN aP Ott s�p4s b C» FygWy o/em6J Le! f4 ktoL4
8w �+R D�1b xI Prkr Lem diaa�s !m='a'fY �l a'wa�+f b tl» Ayd
�thepi\aaiLe
c! sati
F"O dem a,. N ea lJ relfeb 4-!e� 1 a.w1 caner laaeoQ tre+o.
k.
talhrN N m L!W& �ymr�e*b r aux-rn:auh oa+o a..n rw,e sea p'w,-y o. aM!
die aFi Ni b
av ray
St W"IMIS At7JM
i mmf Pro buk
t Ab Msr rgrt .os iro�ldrld etr aer!
aedefaxe a +4' A+rdnu u c N DlY srey M evly mna'sL+la eA. J.y+ 0F><.YG3s e' Me
/+ars} A}at LW 9rwy .v
� ee a ny +xa! s,dLe:v
'/1L E- a of
� N s:Ret�i � Bede. ds
oww FU �_ SOG C20- ?AG£ 71
aat l /bortgs�1210 ASBt Cerg
�{� M.iTr•a M•hi• V�lTp ttyv .M�/s�,� ayt
- ADDENDUM "B"
so
it lk
r I
�S
OIL 5 1 f
lei �
� V i dt LOT NOT
is C+'�►,o
talw
�w
s,.,
ADDENDUM etc"
/5507 m"ur Avavur- mr-
"Plel6c i-AKF- j
i1j)
I FF. B I P 04
91
LAt-JbSc-APF- I>Ec4 PLA,,fj eeo5� , s&c-,no�
ly\UI-CI4 'PLA),jri(4q -aEb
P,4,1) f- /3 o r 17
3" MLJL-CI4
q'I
SLkete, Dip --r
4 WAS 444 Rocs,
Z 4cf0fdfAr-Tsb -$OIL-
UP4
1
vv$14MAO a DeAwm lay..
PMTrY/V4,Q
q-17-'13
....ww
w�wr. �.; . w� . a a 9 i� ! i 1Ls�"+��"'.wr�.AAM'►
r �yy �"� _� WfY Mil�r',,i1IYMIM■ '• .4aw.
I
» ,...r�,..r.� ..-.- .. _ #�1fuArslFiR►zwreir«-�
. w W.waw...rw ,`, r,+.rrw..�wr..r•.. , r. - .. s` M +a'r'IA L � ! !! jFil! 111f� rl M � w . '. �w...rw
,r ♦ ".I1111an1i1 /11R.lRWM�111 Ak ■'.W lk'iA1 �
,._,. - 4iR!}YrA1.AAWK1}rr1 W11Ai11AM AIr/P111/11: L. :.
:.:�n.a+wrrrrARrwrw�riw.r war lrr,r. W r
.... r.w.r�r..aw.,erw�lr.�rtr.sv
SMI is .3 i+[wrNlr � '. rORNWAMO/lllwMl
i
ter.!_
Am
A ii
,.rf Y'.Y•MYti RYf rY
�� wrrrr� '.-M f1'RAAi1 AtrKIIt a1RRIR1
;11rA1a�•arrAtAr;>,1AiAr Kw
..: e14'i1>rM k-Y7AMYR AA[Ar MM fRrrivlK -
��r�.M.�w W4iY�t�M7AYRR;i rl W,w n. whll wr��;
.r KrlalilAMy Klti-M11iM M+N rIre Mriwarll■
11 AK 1A(�r *![.A AY!WI1,1 01A RM Rrk+e Lt RM4& ,
-� ,14 AIA AL'#AR-rl 71 Yi%A'/I KII'1MAMfiR :R`w1 "4�K.rRh►i w. '
�—'"",-riwrarrxna�As:�A�rr��r.ss�r'wwAw.r�r�A�r+i�a.
via1.0
,1Ar'ai�7�Y1RK�ai1lV!%IlYi -.
Zn -M,," c ice- so4e v a
( 7V s ., 4)
6"x lo" 4 TZS47Se-
S,JFPc4:vr" Fav
Moro5e-D
��
CMTM G/!�Cn s+ AW
By
�e
u
3
K12." Cyer i Tw-Ys +
!M» ST2r4�S
2l I
GSR D's cle
%z x 10� -9p4e-l%5
5°05 NkSF°f9Cl
V 5�7v4�-'��G�ae'rW byna7S
lz 0'b
/5507 CAIW117- A WJE.. AJ . F- .
FeJOA�
�4aUSE-
•'ALL�FoormJr5 Zxb cepa -rr��
Z.`�X4 -rte 1Z x Lig � F��Taf n��� -^""—��
iL )f1a
�!Vlw
2-2,
—k
l"
e T
M o' k�
i ; y i � r
PXCIPO5E.D
(Nur A-rAcc+E-b, --®
I have reviewed the attached proposed requests for the following: 15507 Calmut Ave NE
Water
City Code
Grading
Sewer
Storm Water
Signs
Zoning
Flood Plain
County Road Access
Parks
Natural Features
Legal Issues
Assessment
Policy
Electric
Roads/Access
Septic System
Gas
Building Code
Erosion Control
Other X
DNR Shoreland Rules
Recommendation: Approval X Denial Conditional Approval
Comments:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Variances to shoreland ordinance
standards are an important tool for balancing property rights with the public's right to clean water
and healthy habitats. Mr. Prettyman initiated discussion with me in November 2013 regarding this
project. At that time I advised him that he could not rebuild a retaining wall and he would need to
transition the shoreline to rip rap and maintain the dimensions allowed, which are 30 inches
maximum diameter rock extending into the lake at a 3:1 slope. I understand that the
retaining/boulder wall was constructed without a DNR permit, which is a violation of public waters
rules. Further, I understand that the wall is failing and will need to be replaced, either now or at a
later time. It appears that the current plan would constrain the property even further so that it
would be very difficult for the landowner to adhere to DNR standards for future shoreline work.
Further, the DNR considers the existing and proposed impervious surface and encroachment on
the setback area to be excessive and, although the proposed appears to be an improvement to
existing conditions, the DNR considers the plan unreasonable due to the home's proximity to the
shoreline. MR 6120.3300 subp. 11 limits impervious surface coverage to 25%, the City of Prior
Lake has been given flexibility with 30% impervious coverage in their shoreland ordinance. Any
variance to this should be handled with mitigation.
We suggest that the applicant further minimize their encroachment on the lake and submit a plan
that is more reasonable and consistent with the small dimensions of the lot. As the existing deck
is in need of replacement, this should be viewed as an opportunity to reach a more desirable
condition. While it appears that any proposal will need a variance to the impervious surface and
setback standards, the mitigation should be commensurate with the variance, so the planted area
should be expanded from this plan while the deck surface is minimized.
I have attached the DNR guidance document on variances to impervious surface for your
reference. Please note that all five of the criteria listed on the document must be considered and
satisfied.
Signed: Jennie Skancke — DNR Area Hydrologist Date: May 13, 2014
7InNES0%
e'
Y
RESOLUTION 01-011PC
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE COVERAGE AREA OF 38%, RATHER THAN THE MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE AREA OF 30%
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota;
FINDINGS
Mr. D. Mark Crouse (applicant/owner) has applied for variances from the Zoning Ordinance
in order to permit a paved driveway area to a single family residence with attached garage on
property located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland
Overlay) District at the following location, to wit;
15507 Calmut Avenue NE, legally described as Lot 9, and that part of Lot 10, North
Grainwood, and that part of Government Lot 5, Section 25, Township 115, Range
22, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest corner of said Lot 10; thence southerly along the
westerly line of said Lots 10 and 9 and also 8', a distance of 165.00 feet to the actual
point of beginning of the land to be described; thence westerly along the north line
of said plat to the easterly right-of-way line of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and
Pacific Railroad; thence northerly along said easterly right-of-way line to its
intersection with the westerly extension of the southerly line of the northerly 45.00
feet (as measured at right angles to the northerly line) of said Lot 10; thence easterly
along said southerly line to the shoreline of Prior Lake; thence southerly along said
shoreline to the south line of said Lot 9; thence westerly along said south line of said
Lot 9, to the southwest corner thereof; thence southerly along the westerly line of
said Lot 8, to the actual point of beginning.
2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case
#01-017PC and held hearings thereon on June 25, 2001, and on July 23, 2001.
3. The Board of Adjustment continued the hearing to August 27, 2001, to allow the applicant
time to present additional information.
4. The Board of Adjustment further continued the hearing to September 10, 2001, at the request
of the applicant.
5. On September 10, 2001, the Board of Adjustment continued the review of the application for
variances and allowed the applicant and other interested parties the opportunity to present
their views.
1:\01 files\01 variances\O 1 -0 1 7\aprvrs.doc
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
6. 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.
7. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, the variance
will not result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties,
unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and danger
to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in
any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
8. The impervious surface area required for a driveway is such that the hardship created has not
been created by the applicant. However, there is no justifiable hardship for the additional
impervious surface area.
9. There is a justifiable hardship caused by the requirements of the ordinance, as reasonable use
of the property does not exist without the granting of the variance for a hard surface
driveway from the street to the garage, which would not be permitted without a variance.
There is no justifiable hardship for the additional impervious surface area requested.
10. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the
applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship.
11. The contents of Planning Case 00-017PC 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 approves the following
variance for an impervious surface area no greater than 38%, as shown in a Revised Attachment
1 Certificate of Survey:
1. A variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of 38% of the lot area above the
904 foot elevation, rather than the allowed maximum area of 30%.
The following conditions must be adhered to as part of the approved variance Resolution:
1. The applicant shall submit to the City of Prior Lake a revised certificate of survey
identifying the impervious surface to remain and the impervious surface to be removed to
verify all conditions of this Variance Resolution shall be met within 60 days of the date of
approval.
2. Resolution 01-01 IPC as adopted by the Planning Commission shall be recorded at Scott
County within 60 days of the date of approval and proof of recording shall be submitted to
the Planning Department along with the acknowledged Assent Form.
Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on October 8, 2001.
1:\01 files\O 1 variances\O 1 -01 7\aprvrs.doc 2
!F PRIG
tNNE5O
RESOLUTION 01-99
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO
DENY A 71 -FOOT VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 4 -FOOT STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER
MARK ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15507 CALMUT AVENUE
MOTION BY: Gundlach SECOND BY: Zieska
WHEREAS, on August 20, 2001, the Prior Lake City Council considered an appeal by Mr. D. Mark Crouse of the
Planning Commission's denial of a request for a 71 foot variance to permit a 4 -foot structure setback from
the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) 904 foot elevation rather than the required minimum 75 foot
setback, for the property legally described as follows:
Legal Description:
Lot 9, and that part of lot 10, "North Grainwood", and that part of Government Lot 5, Section 25, Township
115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest corner of said Lots 10 and 9 and also 8, a distance of 165.00 feet to the
actual point of beginning of the land to be described; thence westerly along the north line of said plat to
the easterly right-of-way line of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad; thence northerly
along said easterly right-of-way line to its intersection with the westerly extension of the southerly line of
the northerly 45.00 feet (as measured at right angles to the northerly line) of said Lot 10; thence easterly
along said southerly line to the shoreline of Prior Lake, thence southerly along said shoreline to the south
line of said Lot 9; thence westerly along said south line of said Lot 9, to the southwest corner thereof;
thence southerly along the westerly line of said Lot 8, to the actual point of beginning;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the requested variance does not meet the standards for granting variances set
forth in Section 1108.400 of the City Code, and that the appellant has not set forth adequate reasons for
overturning the decision of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the requested
variances should be upheld, and said variances should be denied.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE:
1) The above recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
2) The City Council makes the following findings:
a. Mr. D. Mark Crouse applied for a variance from Section 1102.405 of the City Code in order to permit an attached deck
to a principal structure be setback 4 -feet from the OHWM of 904 feet rather than the required minimum 75 feet as
raresoluti1planres12001\01-99.doc Page 1
15200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
shown in Attachment 1 on property located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SD (Shoreland) Districts at the
following location, to wit;
15507 Calmut Avenue NE, Prior Lake MN, legally described as
Lot 9, and that part of lot 10, "North Grainwood", and that part of Government Lot 5, Section 25, Township 115, Range
22, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest corner of said Lots 10 and 9 and also 8, a distance of 165.00 feet to the actual point of
beginning of the land to be described; thence westerly along the north line of said plat to the easterly right-of-way line
of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad; thence northerly along said easterly right-of-way line to its
intersection with the westerly extension of the southerly line of the northerly 45.00 feet (as measured at right angles to
the northerly line) of said Lot 10; thence easterly along said southerly line to the shoreline of Prior Lake, thence
southerly along said shoreline to the south line of said Lot 9; thence westerly along said south line of said Lot 9, to the
southwest comer thereof; thence southerly along the westerly line of said Lot 8, to the actual point of beginning ;
b. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case File #01-017, and held a
hearing thereon June 25, 2001.
c. The Planning Commission concluded the variance request did not meet the hardship criteria and denied the request.
d. Mr. D. Mark Crouse appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 1109.400 of the
City Code on June 29, 2001.
e. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information contained in Case
File #01-017 and Case File #01-065, and held a hearing thereon on August 20, 2001.
f. The City Council has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety, and welfare of the
community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the
effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variances on the Comprehensive
Plan.
g. The City Council has determined the request does not meet eight of nine hardship criteria. There are not unique
circumstances or conditions regarding the property. Any hardship was caused by the actions of the applicant through
the design and placement of the proposed structures. There are no unique characteristics to the property that would
constitute a hardship. In 1978 the property had received two variances: 1) A 63 -foot variance to permit a 12 -foot
structure setback to the OHWM; and, 2) An 8 -foot variance to permit a 17 -foot front yard setback.
h. The denial of the requested variances does not constitute a hardship with respect to literal enforcement of the
ordinance as there exists reasonable use of the property without the variances.
3) The contents of Planning Case File #01-017 and Planning Case File #01-065 are hereby entered into and made a part of
the public record and the record of the decision for this case.
4) Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby upholds the decision of the Planning Commission
denying a variance to permit a structure setback of 4 -feet from the OHWM of 904 feet rather than the required minimum
75 -feet for applicant D. Mark Crouse, as shown in Attachment 1, which Attachment is incorporated herein as if fully set
forth.
raresolutilplanres12001101-99.doc Page 2
Passed and adopted this 20th day of August, 2001.
(Seal)
YES NO
Mader
X Mader
Petersen
Petersen X
Ericson
Ericson X
Gundlach
X Gundlach
Zieska
X Zieska
lu
City Manag
r:lresolurilplanres12001\01-99.doc Page 3
0 20 40
SCALE IN FEET
0 Denotes kfxl nMmowt Mt .
• Denotes km frww +nest found
0 COpi
DF LOT
OT 10
.anRTN UNE OF 1.
8
d ON
m fele 10 be F . NDSO NE OF
O f O�LpE SOUTHT ID g, %TS
V'N1 -X • E ALSO T Ff OF L0 �s' ptlp p2's
TINE E PA H A5 00 �+t ��''
TME N0 jotA , E _ —
W�1.Y o 3� --
N1513
1 4e s - 'j
-TC 9L
"Oo sos 4 Z �'
o
NATE Tt'o�ea tNe11 f
oyeo
o be T V,OV
7
Z
W
Q
ETE Da�AN
NATE . Of CONC
.To JsEMAIN
.Cos
.- NOTE•,ea �5T0
o rernw
W
0
ST 014 0
%wis t -
O dj
4
I SARI MH\
a
4p•
a 1
V
u p
W
��cr�
e w01K .Z
NOTE' Exi a1f1 Z S101. „�Id
Wmoejv ous zo
H
Q
V
Z
j m
1!,W LAN. -
'I
NN0isr
1 PI 01 5e9
16.50
Top ?-N C
'V
Ai Od'\�°r �QeN
e
.61
°� p�E • a�t�e N ce ed
be 00 SA
ve
.a Ale°
oo
�539 k%.
i1 TE CPd�l C
t. AK G
t
sov
O W
�O j YW
o 7�
i 0
_N NOTE EXISTING DECK TO BE REMOVED
0` -----PROPOSED 3',t 12' DECK W / 3' s 12' STEPS
1,Y1� LINE OF LOT NI
S
DECY-
0 0 OAB�N
� Qin
DESCRIPTION AS PROVIDED:
Lot 9 and that part of Lot 10, 'NORTH GRAINWOOD", and that part of Government
Lot 5, Section 25, Township 115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota described as
follows:
Commencing at the northwest caner of said Lot 10; thence southerly along the
westerly line of said Lots 10 and 9 and also 8, a distance of 165.00 feet to the actual
point of beginning of the land to be described; thence westerly along the north line of
said plat to the easterly right-of-way line of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and
Pacific Railroad, thence northerly along said easterly right-of-way line to its
intersection with the westerly extension of the southerly line of the northerly 45.00
feet (as measured at right angles to the northerly line) of said Lot 10; thence easterly
along said southerly line to the s', oreline of Prior Lake; thence southerly along said
shoreline to the south line of said Lot 9; thence westerly along said south line of said
Lot 9, to the southwest comer th-.reof; thence southerly along the westerly line of said
Lot 8, to the actual point of beginming.
NOTES: Benchmark Elevation 409.51 Top of the existing garage slab
916.4 Denotes existing grade elevation
X
APPROVED
PLANNING DEPT
Sig e�—x"t'/ A.j,�ate si o -V--
DEC - 8 20M
LIQ` --- _-
REV. 12/ 7/04 TO SHOW NEW PROPOSED DECK
5 STEPS 5 NOTE ID REMOVE EXISTING DECK
REV. 3/19/02 TO REMOVE WOOD TIMBER STEPS
FROM IMPERVIOUS AREA CALLS.
REV. 10/22/01 TO SHOW IMPERVIOUS AREAS
TO REMAIN, REMOVED, MODIFIED.
1 hereby certify owl ft>Is survey
was prepared by me or under my
direct supervlslon and 110 1 am
a duly Llanmd trend Surveyor
under the bas -A Ow Stat of
FILE NO 9240 SDOK2.__ PAGE 46