The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About97-110 Zoning Appeal ~ OCT 3 I 1997 Planning Case File No. cr7 - / J 0 Property Identification No. City of Prior Lake LAND USE APPLICATION 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. i Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245 Type of Application: o Rezoning, from (present zonin~) to (proposed zoning:) o Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinance o Subdivision of Land o Administrative Subdivision o Conditional Use Permit o Variance .A~ Zof)'.0:; Hf~QJ Brief description of proposed project (attach additional sheets/narrative if desired) ~66~/ l"hh2rfre4~5/iDn ,P bl u-ff at1d 1vf of- 10 j{rf'-f S-I-7 Applicable Ordinance Section(s): Applicant(s): Address: Home Phone: Work Phone: Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants): Address: Home Phone: Work Phone: Type of Ownership: Fee _ Contract for Deed _ Purchase Agreement-----:. Legal Description of Property (Attach a copy ifthere is not enough space on this sheet): my knowledge the information provided in this application and other material submitted is correct. In ead the relevant sections of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand that n be processed until deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee. 10 ,.- :3/- 9"( Date Fee Owner's Signature Date THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL APPROVED APPROVED DENIED DENIED DATE OF HEARING DATE OF HEARING CONDITIONS: Signature of Planning Director or Designee lu-app2.doc Date - - ---~-_..._._- CITY OF PRIOR LAKE RECEIPT # 31438 , ! DATE: /0/3/ /;-7 ~-----------= dollars for the purpose of .-.-.~ '\ . 1...../ -' $ Ii .~> Receipt Clerk for the City of Prior Lake BUILDING PERMIT # BUILDING PERMIT # Building Permit Fee Plan Check Fee State Surcharge Park Support Fee SAC Plmb pmt pp# Mech Pmt mc# Mech Pmt mc# Swr/Wtr Pmt sw# Pressure Reducer Water Meter Tree Preservation Deposit Swr/Wtr Connection Fee Water Tower Fee Builder's Deposit Other Total Building Permit Fee Plan Check Fee State Surcharge Plmb Pmt pp# Mech Pmt mc# (Heating only - $65.00) (Htg & Air - $100.00) (Fireplace - $40.00) (Air - $40.00) Swr/Wtr Pmt sw # Other 1,2':'0.00 700.00 1,500.00 Total Staff Reports L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC STAFF AGENDA REPORT DATE: 5A JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER DONALD RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR CONSIDER PRESENTATION BY HILLCREST HOMES REPRESENTATIVES SUPPORTING APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE ZONING OFFICER RELATING TO BLUFF AND TOP OF BLUFF JANUARY 5, 1998 AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION: Hillcrest Homes is appealing a decision of the Zoning Officer relating to definition of BLUFF and TOP OF BLUFF. This item was originally scheduled to be heard on December 1, 1997. Because the revised Zoning Ordinance would render this request unnecessary, the item was continued by the City Council to the same date as the revised Zoning Ordinance is to be adopted or February 28, 1998 whichever is sooner. The petitioner has asked the Mayor that their presentation be heard by the Council. This matter is on the agenda as an information item not an action item. DISCUSSION: Section 5-1-7 Definitions of the City Code reads as follows: . BLUFF: A topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or embankment having the following characteristics (an area with an average slope ofless than 18 percent over a distance for 50 feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff): (A) Part or all of the feature is located in a shoreline area; (B) The slope rises at least twenty five feet (25') or more above the ordinary high-water level of the waterbody; (C) The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point twenty-five feet (25') or more above the ordinary high-water level averages thirty 1:\97files\97appeal\97-110\971IOcc4.doc 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 1:\97fi1es\97appeal\97-11 0\9711 Occ4.doc percent (30%) or greater; and (D) The slope must drain toward the waterbody. . TOP OF THE BLUFF: The higher point of a fifty foot (50') segment with an average slope exceeding eighteen percent (18%). The blufflanguage was adopted in December 1995 as part of a revision to the Shoreland Ordinance. The language adopted regarding definition of BLUFF, TOP OF BLUFF, TOE OF BLUFF and BLUFF IMP ACT ZONE are those in the DNR model ordinance. Historically, the interpretation of BLUFF and TOP OF BLUFF has been as follows (attached are corresponding surveys): 14964 Pixie Point Circle (Johnson Reiland Construction): Permit issued 5-19-95. Bluff Ordinance did not apply. By current definitions, the house is located in the bluff and would not be able to be constructed in the same location without a variance. 16594 Inguadona Beach Circle (Muriel Ruonavar): Permit issued 11-8-96. Survey with contours has no reference to BLUFF. However, there is a BLUFF on the property. The house is located on the TOP OF BLUFF and does not meet the 30' TOP OF BLUFF setback. Staff overlooked the bluff requirements. 5600 Fairlawn Shores (Hillcrest Homes): Permit issued 12-3-96. City Council approved appeal of applicant relating to setback averaging. Survey indicates TOP OF BANK.. There is a BLUFF on the lot. Would need contours to determine TOP OF BLUFF. House appears to be located within 30' TOP OF BLUFF setback. Staff overlooked the bluff requirements. 5610 Fairlawn Shores Trail (Hillcrest Homes): Permit issued 1-31-97. Survey indicated TOP OF BANK.. This is a bluff. House located within BLUFF. Staff overlooked bluff setback requirements. 16077 Northwood Road (B.I.R. Construction): Permit issued 9-19-97. This is an addition. The addition appears to be conforming. However, City Code (Section 5- 2 1:\97files\97appeal\97-11 0\9711 Occ4.doc 5-1) states that nonconforming uses may not be extended, expanded or changed unless to a conforming use. Survey indicates BLUFF LINE. Existing house is setback 30' from the bluff line. Staff assumed the survey to be correct. Would need contours to determine exactly where TOP OF BLUFF is. Existing house appears to be on TOP OF BLUFF and not meeting the 30' TOP OF BLUFF setback, thus non-conforming. 15408 Red Oaks Road (Pinnacle Partners): Permit issued 9-25-97. Survey indicates TOP OF BLUFF. Variance to TOP OF BLUFF denied by Planning Commission and City Council. Staff assumed the survey to be correct and the TOP OF BLUFF correctly located. House is actually located on the TOP OF BLUFF and doesn't meet 30' TOP OF BLUFF setback. Would need contours to determine exactly where TOP OF BLUFF is. 16033 Northwood Road (McKnight and Associates): Permit approved 12-30-97. Preliminary survey indicated TOP OF BANK and no BLUFF. Upon site visit it was discovered there was a BLUFF. Revised contour survey submitted does not indicate TOP OF BLUFF. Staffhas determined the TOP OF BLUFF to be located at the 932 contour line. Upon request of the applicant meetings were held with the DNR. DNR confirms staff interpretation. At the same time, Hillcrest Homes approached the city about building on 16091 Northwood Road and has appealed the interpretation ofthe Zoning Administrator regarding TOP OF BLUFF. McKnight and Associates have modified their plan to meet bluff setbacks. Of the seven cases noted above, one house was built before the bluff impact ordinance went into effect, three were cases where staff overlooked the bluff provisions of the code, two were cases where the staff relied on the information on the survey which later proved to be incomplete and, in the last case, the permit was finally issued for a structure whiich complies with the bluff impact zone provisions.ln the case of the three cases where the bluff provisions were overlooked, these occurred during the first three months of employment of the staff person who was reviewing the permits. Because of the concerns which have been raised regarding the application of the bluff impact provisions, staffhas 3 1:\97files\97appeal\97-110\97110cc4.doc taken the following steps to address these concerns: 1. Staff has agreed on the interpretation and method of analysis to be used in all future cases involving the bluff impact zone. 2. Staff has met with personnel from the Department of Natural Resources Division of Waters regarding our interpretation of the bluff impact provisions and they have concurred in our interpretation. 3. We are now requiring site topography shown at 1 foot contour intervals to enable a more accurate determination of the top of bluff. 4. Additional staff training will be conducted to insure correct application of the ordinance provisions. 5. Staff has contacted the Prior Lake-Spring Lake Watershed District for assistance in developing a modified bluff impact ordinance which addresses some of the concerns related to slope stability. The District has indicated they may be willing to provide assistance through their consulting engineer. The Planning Department interprets the definition of bluff as follows: . Part or all of the feature is located within the Shoreland District. . The slope rises at least 25 feet or more above the OHW, anywhere on the slope and any distance from the OHW. On Prior Lake, this means the slope rises to at least 929.0 elevation on any part of the slope on the lot. . The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluffto a point 25 feet or more above the OHW averages 30% or greater. On Prior Lake, this means that the grade on the slope from the toe to 929.0 elevation or greater is greater than 30%. This can be any distance from the OHW. . The slope must drain towards the lake. Slopes draining away from the lake are not considered bluffs. . The definition of top and toe of bluff are the highest and lowest points of 50 foot segments with slopes exceeding 18%. It is our interpretation that the entire 50 foot segment with a slope exceeding 4 1:\97files\97appeal\97-110\9711Occ4.doc 18% is part of the bluff, with the highest point being considered the TOP OF BLUFF. Because the definition of TOP OF BLUFF and TOE OF BLUFF do not specify which 50 foot segments or which slopes, the top and toe can be located anywhere on the slope, no specific distance from the OHW. The definition of TOP OF BLUFF determines what is considered part ofthe bluff and what is not. Exhibit A is a diagram of this interpretation. Exhibit B is how this interpretation relates to the specific lot in question. Hillcrest Homes contends that because the definition states ",..an area with an average slope of less than 18 percent over a distance for 50 feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff" that this area is removed from the slope before a determination on top of bluff is made. Then, when the determination for top of bluff is made, this area cannot be a part of the top of bluff because it has been eliminated by definition. Exhibit C is Hillcrest Homes' interpretation and Exhibit D is how this interpretation affects their specific lot. In meetings on October 4, 1997 and October 22, 1997, the DNR has given stafftheir interpretation of the definition of Bluff and Top of Bluff. The definitions that the city adopted in December 1995 are the same as those in the 1989 DNR Shoreland Management Regulations. The DNR has concurred with the Planning Department staff interpretation. Attached is a written response affirming their position. Staffs conclusion is that the statement about not including areas with slopes less than 18% is meant to allow construction on flat areas of lots where there may be multiple bluffs. When the top of bluff is determined to be the highest point of a 50 foot segment where the average slope exceeds 18%, the area downhill from the top of bluff must be part ofthe bluffby definition. The Planning Commission, after much discussion, felt the definitions were ambiguous and cumbersome. The minutes of the meeting are attached. Upon considering staff interpretation of the ordinance as written, they felt staff 5 interpretation was correct. They directed staffto work with the applicant in composing revised definitions and setbacks to be clear, specific and easily understood. This is to be considered with the revised Zoning Ordinance. Staff has worked with the applicant to write revised definitions. Staff, as well as the DNR, feel the proposed language is more concise and open to less varying interpretations. Attached is a copy of the proposed revision discussed at the Zoning Ordinance public hearing on November 24, 1997. The Planning Commission felt the proposed bluff language was concise and less open to varying interpretations. The Planning Commission recommended the revised bluff language be incorporated into the revised Zoning Ordinance. On December 8, 1997, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council adopt the revised Zoning Ordinance as presented with specific modifications as discussed at the hearings. The revised bluff language will be brought to the City Council as part of the revised Zoning Ordinance. Since the Planning Commission made its recommendation, the Council at a work session asked staff to contact an engineering firm to determine if there are specific engineering design guidelines which can be applied to the definition. The results of this investigation will also be brought back to the Council. Additionally, the Planning Commission heard a variance request from Hillcrest Homes to the bluff and top of bluff setback, as written in the existing City Code. The proposed variance places the proposed home at the same bluff setback as the proposed revised bluff language. While the Planning Commission empathized with the applicant on the timing of the proposed amendment, they felt the hardship criteria were not present with respect to the property. They also stated that it would be improper to grant a variance based on an ordinance recommendation yet to be approved and adopted. The variance to bluff and top of bluff setback was not appealed by Hillcrest Homes. ISSUES: The City Council must determine if they agree with the staffs interpretation of the ordinance. The issue here is not to determine where the applicants feel the bluff is and the setbacks are in relation to the proposed house, but to 1:\97files\97appeal\97-110\97110cc4.doc 6 determine if staff interpretation of the City Code is correct as written and adopted by the City Council. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Uphold the decision of the zoning officer by adopting Resolution #98-XX. 2. Uphold the position of the appellant and direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings supporting such action. 3. Hear the presentation of the petitioner and direct staff to supply additional information or place the item on a specific agenda for action. RECOMMENDATION: Alternative #3. ACTION REQUIRED: Direction to the staff 1:\97files\97appeal\97-110\97110cc4.doc 7 RESOLUTION 98-XX RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL BY HILLCREST HOMES, INC., OF A DECISION OF THE ZONING OFFICER RELATING TO BLUFF AND TOP OF BLUFF, MOTION BY: WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, SECOND BY: the Prior Lake City Council continued a hearing on the 1 st day of December, 1997, to act on an appeal by Hillcrest Homes Inc. of the Zoning Officer's interpretation of definition of BLUFF and TOP OF BLUFF to December 15, 1997; and on December 15, 1997, the Prior Lake City Council continued the hearing until February 28, 1998 or the same date as the Revised Zoning Ordinance is heard, whichever is sooner; and cl (/'-. P f! ~ovt-i J V) on January 5, 1998, the Prior Lake City Council ~kd a p'lblic he~r1Rg -t6-ftet on the appeal; and the City Council reviewed the definitions of BLUFF and TOP OF BLUFF as written and adopted in 1995; and the appellant has not set forth adequate reasons for overturning the decision of the Zoning Officer; and the Planning Commission has recommended the City Council uphold the decision of the Zoning Officer: NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE: FINDINGS 1. Hillcrest Homes Inc. appealed the decision of the Zoning Officer relating to the interpretation of BLUFF and TOP OF BLUFF as described in Section 5-1-7 of the City Code in order to permit a future residential dwelling on property located in the R-1 (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shore1and Overlay) District at the following location, to wit: 16091 Northwood Road, legally described as Lot 92, Northwood Road. 2. The Planning Commission reviewed the appeal as contained in Case File #97-110, held hearings thereon on November 10, 1997, and recommended upholding the decision of the Zoning Officer. 3. The Prior Lake City Council reviewed this appeal on January 5, 1998. 1:\97files\97appeal\97-110\ccres.doc Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ---- 4. The City Council has considered the effect of overturning the decision of the Zoning Officer 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 appeal on the Comprehensive Plan. 5. On November 10, 1997, the Planning Commission directed staff to work with the appellant to compose definitions that are less ambiguous to be considered with revisions to the Zoning Ordinance to be heard by the Planning Commission on November 24, 1997. 6. Upholding the decision of the Zoning Officer results in a legal building envelope of approximately 10,330 square feet. 7. The contents of Planning Case File #97-11 0 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby upholds the decision of the Zoning Officer and concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission that by definition of TOP OF BLUFF, area with slopes less that 18% over a distance of 50 feet, cannot be excluded from the bluff. 50 Foot areas with slopes less than 18% located only between the toe of the bluff and the top of the bluff are intended to be excluded. Passed and adopted this 5th day of January, 1998. YES NO Kedrowski Mader Peterson Schenck Vacant Kedrowski Mader Peterson Schenck Vacant {Seal} City Manager, City of Prior Lake 1:\97files\97appeal\97-110\ccres.doc Page 2 ,LL LL '0 LL Z::) O.J _m ~LL .-0 <C~Q. !:: &: e m :E ~ Q Z X,_~Z~ w - ~...... LLLL LLLL ~::) (/)ffi %8l N'ifHl 1:13l'if31:19 t 3d01S HllM lN3W93S .OS :JJ t779 :10 J:2Hid .JIJ N (I \' %8 ~ NtfHl SS31 ~ 3d01S HllM lN3W93S .OS ~ do ~i cl 0 ul= - 11)< t- - LuU- ~~ ~(.l u.U- U- u..~ ':).... -1~ <D u. Cf)o - :t \- \>" ~ ?~ L E b t9 ~O <>-0 , I~ '(: ~Ob ~"', -,'~ " '" f .,-..::.~ 80, 6C>b 0,1. ~ I" ,;,[6 1,,(, JIb "ill:, l'b <fIb (" 6 o~6 (1;>6 !:l"b c; eb he", S~b <') t' b (Eo Ie! 0 oeb- j,~b OfJ, Ifb I: E b EE h I~ Heb' . i ~ ~f:b I ~ I ~ I I l J Ir) : l 41E.h o Ir) ~ ,::l... o ...J CI:l ~_. fl o tj- ~c - ~ o Ir) o ("') in rQ in (:) ~'N ,.. ..... in N , - - in b ?- at) ,.. b N at) N Q (') in CO) Q ~ in ~ ..;.~ . '\n at) at) b CD at) CD Q ..... It) ...... Q CO in co b 0) - -0 at) _ ,~ 1\ b Q ,... m I- - In - ]: >< w 5 .:.a en - ,]: I- ~ en w - ...I a.. a.. ~ z o - ~ ~ w a: a.. -IE: w I- Z - en - u. u. t$ en 3: o ]: 4'\' 'Q,,~lJ 0/ "I. -> 7J .' /1 q ..<:\r /i./ <''4,/ ,dc ~ ~f\ 4 //;\ ,tJ /( /. ~~:./ \ '//., \0 ' \ (I / \ d':' \ I' .....7" ,- Eo. ;; ~ 0\9 /' <.a -II 'V dlJ! / ~I/i ( V 1/ I( I / , :J ~ (119 :l 0 aoJ... ~~\~ ..S ~ o~~ ..,r "., ''1:, ::"" .....--. <, "', /" (;;,. d' (~ _ -::- ~- '_:;"' - ~; 'I, \ ,I C \ ./ \ ~, - '~..~~-~:.~",,- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 10,1997 c. Case #97-110 Hillcrest Homes appeal of the decision ofthe Zoning Administrator relating to the definition of a bluffin the Shoreland District. Planner J enni Tovar presented the staff report dated November 10, 1997. Section 5-6-4 ofthe City Code provides for an appeal process from decisions ofthe Zoning Officer. The Planning Director is the Zoning Officer in Prior Lake. The action was initiated by an inquiry to the definition of a bluff and top of bluff with regards to a proposed structure on the lot. The City sent a letter to the appellant detailing the definition of a bluff and top of bluff and staffs interpretation ofthose definitions. In a letter to the city, Hillcrest Homes is appealing staffs interpretation and is providing their interpretation of the same definition. Staffs conclusion is the statement not including areas with slopes less than 18% is meant to allow construction on flat areas of lots where there may be multiple bluffs. When the top of bluff is determined to be the highest point of a 50 foot segment where the average slope exceeds 18%, the area downhill from the top of bluff must be part ofthe bluffby definition. The Department of Natural Resources concurs with staffs interpretation stated in Hydrologist, Pat Lynch's letter dated November 7, 1997. Comments from the public: Chris Deanovic, 14122 Louisiana Avenue, Savage, representing Hillcrest Homes highlighted the bluff section from the DNR Shoreland Regulations. He understands there is a bluff and went on to explain his belief of where the top of the bluff should be. He knows the DNR agrees with staffbut also indicated the ordinance is ambiguous and can be flexible. Mr. Deanovic went on to explain their proposed home stating they are trying to position their building not to obstruct their view ofthe lake (between the two neighboring structures). Their interpretation of the bluff would be a 10% slope. Winston Simonson, 16087 Northwood Road said he was present for curiosity purposes. He is a neighbor and said the house in question is 24 years old. Mr. Simonson explained he is not complaining but was interested how the new structure will affect them. He was hoping the new home would be set back so they could see the lake. Deanovic went on to explain the 50 foot segment on the back of a proposed home with a 9 foot difference. They have no desire to impact the bluff. The DNR accepts a 20 foot setback, Prior Lake 30 feet. Rye explained the City was informed by the DNR that a couple of years after they promulgated these rules with the definition the City adopted, they administratively adopted the language that talks about where one can observe the slope change from greater to lesser. Prior Lake adopted the Shoreland Rules definition. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MNIII097.DOC 4 Winston Simonson pointed out the obvious slope always referred to as a cliff on the survey. There is quite a grade to the front ofthe house compared to the back. He feels the slope should end at the front of the building. The house is going to be crowded no matter where it is placed. Mr. Simonson stated he received a variance 24 years ago. The Board at the time said he had to get written permission on each side. One neighbor refused and the other stated he had to maintain the 15 foot setback. Jim Albers, Storms Circle, pointed out staff s interpretation opposed to his interpretation ofthe bluffwith the 50 foot segments and feels the error is in the definition ofthe top of the bluff and suggested a proposed top of bluff definition: "The lower point of the closest 50 feet segment to the toe of the bluffthat has an average slope of 18% or less." He feels it is really hard to enforce because ofthe complicated definition. The DNR has two documents for the City, one regulation and a sample administrative ordinance. V onhof pointed out that surveys in the Shoreland District should have contour lines. Marv Mirsch, has a seasonal home at 15432 Red Oaks Road, permanent home in St. Paul, presented a proposed Minnesota Rules from the legislature provided by Pat Lynch ofthe DNR. One word is missing in the Prior Lake Ordinance "to find it necessary to exclude from the definition of the bluff any areas that .... with an area slope of 18% or less over a 50 foot segment. He feels the City should exclude anything 18% or less in the bluff area. Mr. Mirsch believes the ordinance interpretation is an exclusion not inclusion. Rye said Mr. Mirsch and Mr. Albers definitions are correct stating the DNR allows flexibility. But the issue is Prior Lake's definition. The bluff impact zone includes the bluff itself. Comments from the Commissioners: Kuykendall: . The definition is defined in the Shoreland Management hand book, Zoning Ordinance and DNR Rules and Model Ordinance. . The only option is to stay out of the bluff impact zone. Stamson stated the discussion is if staff s interpretation is correct. Kuykendall: . Staffs interpretation is correct. . Will recommend to redefine the definition. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MNIII097.DOC 5 Stamson: . At first agreed strictly with staff, then agreed with applicant, but after discussion this evening believe staff s interpretation is clearly correct. . The definition of bluff is really an independent description of what the top ofa bluff IS. . The staff interpreted the ordinance correctly and is backed by the DNR. Cramer: . The wording is contradicting. There is no consistency. The DNR is responsible. . The intent of the ordinance is to prevent someone from coming in the future where their home slides into the lake. . People will ask why did the City let me build in a bluff? . Staffs interpretation is correct. V onhof: . Concurs with staff and Commissioners. . It should not be that hard for residents and staff to interpret. The intent is to have bluff protection. . There is a second issue to deal with after this motion. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL TO UPHOLD THE STAFF INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE AS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Open Discussion: Kuykendall suggested having someone from the DNR come in an explain the negative impacts of this issue. We need to be educated, what steps can one take and maintain the ordinance. He believes an engineer can come in and show how to stabilize the land and meet the objectives. V onhof agreed. Some one should come up with better definitions. Stamson stated the DNR obviously did a study and this was the conclusion. His concern is the original way it was written it was fairly restricted but now administratively, the DNR has become loose in their definition. There should be bluff standards. Meet certain criteria. Stamson and Cramer's concern is the definition of the top ofthe bluff. Rye said he would be happy to meet with the applicant and go over a definition to present to City Council. Until it is changed, staffs recommendation will follow the ordinance. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MNI1 I097.DOC 6 MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO REFER THIS BACK TO STAFF FOR STUDY AND FOR STATING THE PRACTICE IN SIMILAR COMMUNITIES WITH SIMILAR ISSUES AS PART OF THE ZONING CODE ORDINANCE ON NOVEMBER 24, 1997. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO MODIFY ALL REQUIREMENTS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO HAVE ALL LOT MEASUREMENTS ROUNDED UP NO GREATER THAN .5 FEET. V onhof suggested the Zoning Administrator could make the decision. There would still be a process but could be determined administratively. Kuykendall retracted the motion and agreed to have staff come up with a practical solution. Cramer questioned the availability of the new zoning ordinance. Rye responded by the end of the week. Kuykendall wanted to bring back a previous issue of "traffic calming" on Highway 13. The Commissioners would like to reconsider changing the truck traffic routing by the State to County Road 17 to minimize the traffic on Highway 13. He suggested a study using County Road 27 and 21 to alleviate traffic. Kuykendall also suggested revisiting all traffic controls on Highway 13. This would bring in State, County and local engineers. He would like to see 4-way stop signs. 4-way stops it will force truck traffic off Highway 13 and reduce the volume of traffic. This issue should be part of a workshop after the zoning ordinance. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, THAT COUNCIL BE APPRISED OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S INTEREST IN REVIEWING THE ISSUE OF HIGHWAY 13 FROM A STRATEGIC POINT OF VIEW RELATIVE TO TRAFFIC CALMING AND THE POTENTIAL OF PULLING NEIGHBORHOODS TOGETHER INSTEAD OF SEPARATING NEIGHBORHOODS AND WE INVITE THE STATE AND COUNTY PEOPLE TO JOIN US IN WORKSHOPS. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 8. Adjournment: CHAIRMAN STAMSON ADJOURNED THE MEETING AT 8:44 P.M.. Donald Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MNII1097.DOC 7 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793 Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977 November 7,1997 Mr. Don Rye City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue, S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 RE: INTERPRETATION OF BLUFF DEFINITION IN SHORELAND AREAS Dear Mr. Rye: onate, we have had a great deal of discussion regarding bluffs within shoreland areas of the City of Prior Lake. This discussion has included the bluff failure which occurred earlier this year, as well as number of potential and proposed developments on lots where bluffs are present. The City of Prior Lake has adopted language, from Minnesota Rules, defining bluff, top of bluff, and toe of bluff. I have reviewed the City's ordinance, and have met with City staff to review the administrative procedures used to determine top and toe of bluff for specific projects. While the language in state rule is admittedly a bit cumbersome, I concur with the manner in which the city is administering the ordinance as it pertains to bluff determination. The intent of the regulations limiting development on and within the bluff and bluff impact zones is to ensure slope stability, and to preserve the natmal appearance of these topographic features in shoreland areas. The 30 foot structure setback from the top of bluff provides a minimmn distance between the bluff top and the proposed building site for the maneuvering of building materials and equipment during construction. If the existing definitions of bluff, top of bluff, and toe of bluff, as adopted, are deemed difficult to efficiently and effectively administer and enforce by city staff, the DNR would entertain, under the flexibility provisions of the Shoreland Rules, alternative definitions, provided the original intent of bluff protection is not compromised. If you have any questions, please call me at 772-7910. Sincerely, ~~6Jtl:' Patrick 1. Lynch,h Area Hydrologist c: Ed Fick, Shoreland Hydrologist DNR Information: 612-296-6157, 1-800-766-6000 . TTY: 612-296-5484,1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity ft Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a '-.I Minimum of 10% Post-Consumer Waste HHI HILLCREST HOMES, INC. 16714 Jaguar Ave.. Lakeville. Minnesota 55044 (612) 898-7663 Office (612) 898-3364 Fax .~ Builder Driven By Quality Craftsmanship and Value." Date Nov. 3,1997 Jennifer Tovar Planner Dept. Of Planning and Zoning City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Dear Jennifer: Hillcrest Homes, Inc., wishes to appeal the staff interpretation of "Top of the Blutr and the resulting impact of the staff interpretation on our property at 16091 Northwood Road. As cited from section 5-1-7 of the City code the definition of a bluff and "Top of the Blufl" are as follows: BLUFF-A topographic feature such as a hiD, cliff, or embankment having the following characteristics (an area with an average slope of less than 18 percent over a distaDce for SO feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluft): (A) Part or all of the feature is located in a shoreland area: (B) The slope rises at least twenty five feet (25') or more above the ordinary high- water level of the water body; . (C)The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point twenty-five feet (25') or more above the ordinary high-water level averages thirty percent (300.10) or greater; and (D) The slope must drain toward the water body. TOP OF THE BLUFF- The higher point of a fifty foot (50') segment with an average slope exceeding eighteen percent (18%). The definition clearly states that" an area with an average slope of less than 18% over a distance of 50' shall not be considered part of the bluff'. The 50' segment between the 933 and 941 elevation points on the easterly side of the site in question has an average slope of 16%, and therefore should not be considered part of the bluff. In addition, the DNR definition for "Top of the Bluff' from which the city has adopted their ordinance states: "Top of the Bluff' means the point on a blu:lfwhere there is, as visually observed, a clearly identifiable break in the slope, from steeper to gentler slope above. If no break in the slope is apparent, the top of bluff shall be determined to be the upper end of a 50' segment, measure on the ground, with an average slope exceeding 18 percent. Builder Lic~nse # 20036544 . Member of the Builders Association of the Twin Cities Since there is a clearly identifiable break in the slope we feel the 50 ft. segment with an average slope of 16% is not part of the bluff. We believe the low point of this 50 ft. segment clearly identifies "Top of the Bluff", and the point from which the 30 ft. bluff setback is measured. Using this setback point would place the proposed structure in an appropriate location in reference to the adjoining property structures, thus creating consistency in the neighborhood. / 'D Y eanoVlC Pres. Hillcrest Homes, Inc. Z o Ht.L. ~LI.. w3 a:m 8:u.. o wO I- I-'ZD. - -0 113_1- % (/)0 >< ~z w 0<( '%: u. u.. tn::) w..J a:m g~ ..J - :3: V\u.. ~u- ~":) \:U-1 ~GJ u..U-<. u..OC) 3~~ \i)Ci~ Lu- en'""\\. - d- \b ~cJ.a . :I :In?, .:J 0 dQ.L. ~~ u. ~ --' ~ u.. c ~ d: "- %8l NlfHl l:I3llf3l:1f> t Ie 3d01S HLIM LN3W93S .OS Z /';j Orb tEl:> I: E b E E/::, I;, hCb' I ~ <;Eb I 1 I ~ I I t ~ d I.rl ~ I - , g:1 o ..J r s. ~ C> I:> nOb ~Ob C":\'b I,,!, 80b lop" Q,Io ~ ,/, ~,t6 h,t, -SIb o;'b lIb <f'6 (" 6 OC6 I/;'~ ). ..... 'eb r;r:b f,~b S~b "?~b LEb '=> I.rl .~ ~ o ..J C/) i ~ (' :, . \ r ....... %8l NlfHl SS31 ~ 3d01S HLINl LN3W93S .OS diEb L Eb in .N fl o ~ ~c -- ~ '=> I.rl '=> M rQ ~~ (:) ..... in in .... in o ,... It) .... Q N It) N Q C"') It) C") Q 'Il:t' in 'lit -:~~ In It) It) Q CO It) co Q ...... It) " ) Q CO It) co Q 0) Q Q ,... "I"':' ( )'i b.% ( '. 'i' .r ',. /", ',' <<' W~ . :-:-.". i<'" , ~'.... !'3: ,"......, . ;;' ,::~~", ... 6~ ...,..,..,.....'.~'.!..!'....,\...,..'.. . ,.(i., ~ ;.t" ;,'~ f' . 1..".... r "'0. 0. c:( Z o ..-. .~ ~ ,W a: 0. a: W I- ;*~ - - en w :E o ::J: ~ W a: g ..J - J: .- 3: o J: Q I- - m - ::J: >< W .I.J,I} ~ UUi1 ~ @ CIo) (iiiil c:::J ~ cg; I:iiiil ~ :ff) \ \ \ \ -~ ;0 1.1) I o 'v ~/;;J ~Q ~~(\19 .,~\<a /'P <' 'S' o ~ *' de,; -o.?:::' ':;r- ~ ~ -::'\ ;' ~ ~ ,., ~ J-, ". ':\. ~. \ \ \ JO'" , ~91 ~~,~ October 31, 1997 Hillcrest Homes Attn: Chris Deanovic 14122 Louisiana Avenue Savage,~ 55378 RE: BluffInterpretation Dear Mr. Deanovic, In regards to your recent inquiry as to what constitutes a bluff, the following are definitions as cited from Section 5-1-7 of the City Code. . BLUFF: A topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or embankment having the following characteristics (an area with an average slope of less than 18 percent over a distance for 50 feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff): (A) Part or all of the feature is located in a shoreland area; (B) The slope rises at least twenty five feet (25') or more above the ordinary high-water level of the waterbody; (C) The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point twenty-five feet (25') or more above the ordinary high-water level averages thirty percent (30%) or greater; and (D) The slope must drain toward the waterbody. . TOP OF THE BLUFF: The higher point of a fifty foot (50') segment with an average slope exceeding eighteen percent (18%). Planning Department interprets the definition of bluff as follows: . Part or all of the feature is located on a riparian lot. . The slope rises at least 25 feet or more above the OHW, anywhere on the slope and any distance from the OHW. On Prior Lake, this means the slope rises to at least 929.0 elevation on any part of the slope on the lot.: . The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the OHW averages 30% or greater. On Prior Lake, this means that the grade on the slope from the toe to 929.0 elevation or greater is greater than 30%. This can be any distance from the OHW. . The slope must drain towards the lake. Slopes draining away from the lake are not considered bluffs. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER . Another significant factor in determining bluffs is a grade of 18%. The definition of top and toe of bluff are the highest and lowest points of 50 foot segments with slopes exceeding 18%. It is our interpretation that the entire 50 foot segment with a slope exceeding 18% is part of the bluff, with the highest point being considered the TOP OF BLUFF. Because the definition of TOP OF BLUFF and TOE OF BLUFF do not specify which 50 foot segments or which slopes, the top and toe can be located anywhere on the slope, no specific distance from the OHW. As per our conversation today, you can appeal this interpretation to the City Council. We will need a letter stating your appeal and how your interpretation differs from ours. Any information you can provide us on your interpretation will be helpful to the City Council and Planning Commission prior to the meeting. The next scheduled Planning Commission date is Monday, November 10, 1997. We will need your interpretation and response to this letter by Monday, November 3, 1997 to be scheduled for that meeting. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, jV1)CVJ <"'~""""'V""'.''''''''_'_'''''''""'''''-''_'~__~.~-''';''''''''~':'';''''''''~__.r",~""",.'_,;$....-,",-~...d~.,~..,,...."_~'_"""_~~oH. If;! .,.~,,----'......,........._._...._.~.~_._'-_. MEMORANDUM RE: CC: November 18, 1997 Planning Commission Don Rye, Planning Director Jenni Tovar, Planner Proposed Bluff Language Jane Kansier, Planner; Bob Hutchins, Building Official; Pat Lynch, DNR; Hillcrest Homes; Jim Albers and BUD Waund, Edina Realty; McKnight and Associates DATE: TO: FROM: Upon the direction of the Planning Commission at its November 10, 1997 meeting, the Planning Staff met with a local developer and real estate agent. The purpose of the meeting was to write revised bluff and top of bluff definitions to alleviate the cumbersome and difficult to interpret current bluff definitions. Based on this meeting, the Planning Staff is proposing the following amendments to the Shoreland and Zoning Ordinances: TOE OF BLUFF: Definition to remain the same. TOP OF BLUFF: The highest point of the slope, as measured from the toe of the bluff, where the grade is 30 percent or greater. BLUFF SETBACK: As measured from the TOP OF BLUFF, the upper end of a segment at least 25 feet in length having an average slope less than 18%. This removes the floating 50 foot segment. TOP OF BLUFF is determined as measured from the TOE OF THE BLUFF, with the slope measured between the 1 foot contours. The building setback is determined by the slope as measured from the TOP OF BLUFF (25 feet minimum), not distance to meet the intent of the ordinance. If the slope from the top of the bluff, towards the street, never drops below 18%, then the lot would be unbuildable without a variance. w .... ~ <t ~ ~ o ~ .... w (I) tt: :::> .... ~ ~ <t 11: ::) .... ~ LL. o Q. e Q w (I) o Q. o a: Q. s ~ C) I;:; nO b _ ~Ob "'Ob L,~ ':Vb 6ol. 0'4 ~ 11& 'ilL" hll, Jib "lIb (Il, <fIb 6/6 o~6 (~~ I:.rb r; Cb heb Sr:b 'J'eb l..l!!b la 8t:b '._ !,~I;, :/:/n78 :/0 dO.l. Ifb cE b EEl:, I~ IT i b' S; E b (t~ <'l '-.i - tfJEI:, 1 - It) I'" 1 .,.1 l'!l .. "I >I:JtJS.l.3S 9Nla1'nS LE.b (:) ~ f';J-l;ffJ-: '0 Ie-, ro-- (:) 'P" in (:) N It) ,.. It) N --:--.__._-----~.. ,.,,.. in o 'P" It) ,.. (:) N in N Q (") in CO') Q Ill:t in ~ ":'~ \t) It) It) Q cc It) <C Q ..... It) " (:) co It) co Q (7) Q o 'P" Lu ..... ~ ~ LLI ~ o ~ .- LLI (I) tt: ::) .... CD ~ c:t tt: ::) .... CD L&. o a. e ~ (I) o a.. o g: :/:ln78 :/0 dO.l J#O"S.L3S aNI07ms s~. .,,; .. ~ 'f Ohb o ~ ~ (6. 16~ * o <"l Ub .' * -,. oN r-- - ,. r":,.}.' :~"."' i:. I~ ~~..,- s.. -.:t:: a /:JJ,oJ, ~Ob "')Ob in LOb 80b o ,... ~()l. 0'4 .. ", r'''i> ell. 1,'6 ..sf b "J'b ('b 41b ~" 6 Ole6 (~6 (: 1:' !. c; r:" heb S~b ")~b '-eb in """ o N f , - j in N o II') Q C"') in C") Q ~ in ~ . ''iO . .. \t) in It') Q <C I I~ , in CC , Ii (:) " . I . I , ~ I it) ,...., ..~ Q CO in CO Q 0') in N .0 '::N Q ,... in """ in o o ,... "$ -,... cs /"'(/-'6 - u .. 2" I't\ ... - . :; ... ., 7 ... tr "; !: .. -; T cr in LU ~ ~ .q: >< LU ~ o .q: ~ LLI U) tt :) ..... ca )fOVll.LaS 0.. ~ ~'V.I(]1InfI II,,,,, .q: tt ::) ..... IX>> La.. o a.. ~ ~ CI) o a.. o g: ... ~ \r o ,.... .:/.:/f)J({ .:/0 f/O.J. - ,... ~ cr -. rC'\ (" -S '1: ~C' "'l"1- i6 in ,.. o N .-----~--- ~ in N o M in (") '" N o ~ /?,Jh6 ~ N ... in ~ .- ~'~-.__. .~ -It) in It') /.~...r~ o CO It') (D o '" it, "" ) (:) CO It') CO (:) 0') \- (:) o ,.... .....,_.....-...-~-:~. SURVEYS RELATING TO BLUFF INTERPRETATION ON PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BUILDING PERMITS 1:\97fiIes\97appeal\97-110\97110cc4.doc 7 I VJ ';;r I ;) \) J5-211-94 I:' :i~; : i ~ Ii:, l:i Ii:! ;{t: OM ;.:,-. ,Jch",~<.-n - If-IelCll-7d ,ri3eS <=<-bc)'ie C,d'1.De./ , '.>IO~lv q~q .. s Sb'lo. , hOJ~ ,~ bv. It- ;f) b'"f'f street / / / /] 11 I 'L i- >--.0 G .~ 'cl / ~i> ffii,7B' .....--"/ Bldg area = 2819 Sq. Ft. Lat area = 14.661 Sq. Ft. Caverage = 19.23 % ' Scale: 1" 30' _______Pixie Point Circle DESCRIPTION I hereby certify that this survey. plan. ar report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I om a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the Laws of the. State ~nesota. Date ~ Lot 13 FIRST ADDITION TO EASTWOOD Scott County, Minnesota Assumed bearings shown o Denotes Iron monument (EX~i~) ~opas~ Reg. ,No. 8140 BRANDT ENGINEERING & SURVEYING' 1600 West 143rd Street, Suite 206 Burnsville, MN 55306 (61'2) 435-1966 J5-211-94 ~ i '\ , ~ ) ~- ~ !'i ~..... .:.: :i,~ ' ':;'J!'.;f .. ..~.. I I..{; u j...J V) \~ ~ OlU f'" \,f' \- H CJ c (f) ~ l:l ....... Z '6 ~ ~ .~ L.. ) >.:l ~ ~ 0 Ii 0 t--I 0 ~ 1 0 C ~ 0 = tr.l J J '+ .~ t..t ~ 'I- $.t ~ IQ J en -- 0...; <J <.\ -0 $.t t!l 'C I;: ( tl.t ~ ~ a ~~ ") ~ 0-: ClVJ + ....... ~ ~ l'i)cS lA C' r() -:; tl.t ,{) ~ a f-\ en ~ <J \:i-= VI ::J' ~ -:> ~~ ,- 'J) ~ ~ -J If) <:>/ I:S '" I ~ -> ~ <:> VI 'll ..{:: (J- .x, Q, -\<. 52 ~ 'I/) "1< ~ i<l ............ cP"-, ..... V-.,L n '--. ~ '--. '--. , . ~ /~~ ~ ~ ;;;>-, ~ I::i -~ ~ "'"1.-/ "- ~ ~ r.q "- ~ ~1~ '\._,", .. ~~ .....\.~"II ~ ~~ n~ - \; I .. -- --; T I ~ I -,.\ ~ -<( <).(.'j -' ~ j "ll -;cl t- [) 0 <l"- S) t ~ 6 <Xl <:I' !; OJ ai ('oj -~ 'eJ; ....t ~ ~ ~1 I u: " I + '" vi " u: + z <0 vi ~ u: 9~11, . 0 u: ~ .l'- vi i= vi Vl l1...- Oc?":r, ~vi ~ 0 ~i'o <( <0 ~ ('oj I() ~Jf~ -l <0 ..- I') 0 Yo ::ic: ::> 0 -<( OJ I') II I') ""'l- I') ;;= I') ('oj ..- ~ ~ III OlLJ 'l <( "ll "-6 , ~h>, ~ I- ~ lLJ: -' II Gl ..J ClO/Clef "'-1 -<( It: -<( ,1"., n. <( :2: t- t-o t- \...., 0 It: 0 OI 0 '- W I 0 t- ...JVl t- ...:-:, IX 1:.1 <( 01 REV. 11/13/96 TO Ilbn -'4' TO PROPOSED HOUSt:;. . it: . REV. 10/24/96 Tp S~ EU'V. AT TOP OF BANI(. REV. 10/21/96 TO: .1lH'6w HSE. a DECK ON LOT 26 III TOP OF BlINK ON LOT 24. a TOE OF ; StOPE. Lot 24, l"A,I.I:l..\di'.; ';IIUH1':~)1 ~;cott conney, j\'linnf~sot(l_ Also sll~)\,odn(J the loc{.:_~',iop.. Of4 , all exi,gtin~j il'lt,lr()"'~I!lr;nt~. r")S nuc;'e)'l~d thi:1 I.?th d:ty or \July, l~~)(~. Lot Area above EL. 904.0 s~3M.q..ff. NarES' lIenel".,,,,':: H.,v"tioll ,>.:/.66 top nut of. hyd. ilt Lots 23 & /,1 NET !MPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERIlGl!' 2''7.0.'" /..h 1/(, {.1I-1ufl'<i. S SURVEY PREPARED FOR HILLCREST HOMES 16714 JAGUAR AVENUE LAKEVILLE I MN. 55044 Valley Surveying Co., PA. SUITE /20-C. 16670 FRANKLIN TRIlIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE. MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570 ~ " ~ ~T"~""~~<'" '<:~ "0 - "" -', PIy/OIy t, ? / '<2 90..?, / 96 f.......... - :'" ,.:(/~r,~ '"Aft l);o~ f-", "It'" 0: o~Or (0,. ::to,. ~J '110us(:" '; "'( L. _, I .j ~ HIJ8 EL. '9~Z .21 '~>?~r ~ ~.".?- L/ GIIRAGl. Sl ABEl 936.43 ~~--< ....IEL ~n.l0 All"' T.. "';./ 1,,,,;- " i }'" \0,11+ ,. -----. \ 9;J;Z-'- ORIV[WA)' ) 'o~ 4SH o ~ , I I / ---........ '- " / _________ / -.. 49. 9 i T.t.fL. --.....~~' 5~ I/~ea $.__ 934.6T , . T.e. n. 934.85 ' ___ 954.91 ~, II T'<::"!k:""~ 955.10 ------ 93S.19 , -------':~/'!..1..4 WN . '-"-~'!9RES ...-....... .,_~,!41l. -._~-.. nr::SCRII"J'Ti~~: 9~3.G I;f"l,;:'.+':~ .t::istiwl lll'('''-~e ~~J~~'vdtioll o I SCALE 20 4dJl36.Q) DENOTES PROPOSEI, FINISHED GR4IJE ELEVATION I _ DENOTES PROPOSED mRECTlON Of SURfACE DRIIINIIGE SEf PROPOSEr.> GARAGE SLAB liT ELEVATION 936.20 SET PROPOSED TOP Of BLOCK AT ELEVIITION 936.53 SET THE LOWEST FLOOR liT ELEVATION 92B.34 IN FEET o Donot.. '/11 inch ."" Inch iron monument nt and itarted by Lle_nse No '0183 . . Denote:'! iron monument found III Deno',,", PK. "Nail set '1t..;..fR06 I JbOU f~lrl~,i',t;} JMN 5 T rs.vr~;:.: l ~"Il' \." .. . 'iff , >f' ~ t"S-S ,<bov~ 9.:J<t.{) el i_ t 3/0('( tv 9a.7, U ur>l::now,., ..~ I.. ) , . S <JP<' tv 933>~.-s '-/t.17c' 4/(c* T<Jf' ,If bJ"h tJ.-..J4'7duJn ./ lA...Jirhtlvt t-dA tvVY~ ;~ ..... Houu I~ lv,11>i,., b1u rr. " ~'f if ,... C" :i;~ ~ \1 ; '11. 'I ',\, J ., --- I~, , ~_ 6 ~.",}J :,,',.~ " 'I~\' I, '~~ .: .,/. ..1.1 . . del J.f ), ~',' I ~' ~ Rev 10/.11/96 T.ll .hoW_le" _ o. staked on 10 /9196 roev<}o~J'~~6 aJj~I:I~~WI~r~.lIreo',. diet. r hereby certify that thi, survey WOJ ~ by me or under my dlrecl 'Il/lervi.ion lIIId IflGI 10m 0 duly licenlld' Land Surwyor undw the laws of the Stat' of Minn..ola. . . <~--- ," /' [,'7'..1 ~~~,~;.'i..~,~~/::~~;;f., rllf No ---!~~ 1'001< "._~~_....:'~A6E..2- J-h lIc..vlst HOmes en-DID e;f.oJO f-u..(\CAWfI ,:)h c)'{~ "::> SURVEY PREPARED FoR: H'LLCREST HOM E 5 16714 JAGUAR AVENUE LAKE VI L LE, MN. 55044 m::SCRIPTION: Valley Surveying Co., P. A. SUITE 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (6/2) 447 - 2570 Lot 25, FAIRLAWN SHORES, Scott County, Minnesota. And that part of Lot 26, of said plat lying westerly of the following described line: Beginning at the southwesterly corner of said Lot 26: thence northeasterly to a point on the northerly line of said Lot 26, distant 12.20. feet southeasterly of the northwesterly corner of said Lot 26, and there terminating. Also showing the location of all existing iJmprovements as. surveyed this 12th day of July, 1996. Lot Area above EL.904.0- 6,055 sq.f!. PIT IOff ~; 90< s 1..4/(e '< . /91; ~ NOTES' Benchmarlc Elevation 937.66 top nut of hyd. at Lots & 24 925.8 Denotes existing grade elevation ~ I> rr~<; o..'oVllec '1J.,.O . -;:>Iop<.. lu 9B.S .:> 4'-110 n ad (.ordnifS to c\ e k.'/'h; r<. eJ<c.c..+ <;,Jof< t() "Id'j nDli')" I';) ,,.... bluff 110t-'WoOO "j HOUSE caNST. ) ( uNDE~ TOP 8\.OC": ::6.18 G~~AGE E.L." HOUSE 9~S./g ( 925.8 ) Denotes proposed finished grade elevations REV. 1/24/97 To chclnQo proposed lop of block 01"'. REV. 1/24/97 To show f1roplo"" ploHorm a dj., to 904 on lot 24 dral' nage oRrE.Vo.,lItc9./97 To shoW propo!ied house a,'grades, Denotes proposed direction of t-inished surface ..~ The lowest floor elevation will be 928.20 Rev.10/7196 To show exIst. hse. removed. Rov. 7/31/96 To .how 101 I\roo e. dl.!. to 904.0 on od)olnlng 1015, , hereby certify fhat fhi, survey wos prepared by me or under my direct supervision and fhat , Q(t'I a du'y licensed Land Surveyor under fhe /oW, of 'ho S,.t,~ Mlnnerofo. Set the proposed garage slab at elevation 936.66 o I SCALE 20 40 I Set the top block at elevation 936.99 IN FEET Net proposed impervious coverage = 26.74 % o Donot.. 1/2 Inch . 14 Inch Iron. monument SIt and marked by Licen.e No. 10183 . Denotes iron mor1lJmenf found (I Denotes fI.IC Nail sP.t Net Lot Area = 8,055 sq. ft. Q1-0/V f'lLE No. eJS9 800K~_PAGE ~ q 1 ~ LlJ ~ 6.:1', iZ, (o(l~!--n)L;h0n I~ I (gD7'l NO.rthWJu:/ f2-d, / . (' SeS C<..lo(\l/t. qd,'1.0 . ::,Iope tv 1'33.....1 ,';. lR3,'n, -,n, <, ,'> I:JIJFF, e~:;ti(l) hov::'e. IoccA kef I'" blUff . SVrV(j ;"d,'(CtKd 13J...tJff /.../AJE ." ':" IN Ft:ET I 120 "- :;~.~ lli' \. ~..' ."" \." \..~ W }.~ ~"" ~_. SCALE r----- o 15 30 60 90 o Denotes iron monument set, see note . Denotes iron monument found ~ n Denotes board fence ~L9fi1i) Denotes existing spot elevation [f'l'l.ij) Denotes proposed e 1 eva t ion ,- -,- ~ ~:'::_:_~ Denotes concrete slab Jr_ "" .~" -~ , b--.. NOTE: /':' , Ii ~.'Il ,i.I'"' ,.....~...~ .':.~..';.'.'., ..-...... f ,. 'L .,. '. j' !!l' ~i~t, Jj;) , t' , ;..~ , ('\ \~ I ~ - ~ \ 1,"', 2". lONG IRON MONUMENT AND IDENTIFICATION DISC (ACTUAL Size) SET AT ALL POINTS INDICATED. MINN. REG. lAND SURVEYOR ".7095 ~, ~: ~ot 9B'i ;ota. ,J ~, tS Juilding Ig project. ed between the 1ich are not to in this survey ) . -/. ~~r<- rt vl p:fe- \O~ ,,~ ~er and watermain e City of Prior Je been recorded ; are contained >arate sheet. i<.'" ,..... Iii F t' "'. I~ ':~ \l.'_ 'h, 1 '~> ":.: ',' f !' . ~; ',1< 'vf>.'+-~ ~ (l'seS . ,,::>IOfe- Valley Surveyin{f Go.. P. A. SUITE /20-C, 16670 FRA'I'IKLlN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA. 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570 j"54()~ ~d OqkS Rd. 0.-100 vt. gC}."f.o /1) '1LlI.9 ;5 '1'1.110 -ihiS i:'r~ blufF . :h)fl/t'j lr1l0mc/-l'J ,,,d, {"kef'TOP or- Bl.Urr ()~D' Su.w<(j1 (yUW1 , ft2crl-o~? VOA-tlY'e/ SURVEY PREPARED FOR: PINNACLE PARTNERSHIP 1.4093 COMMERCE AVENUE N.E. PRIOR,LAKE, MN. 55372 fl'~cr7 -If <-/ S- P,' (')11C< L tz Po (fNrS rroY~ @ rn OW [g r~ mE:J~ prior E\.. 90.\.5 4 I .1 I 91 'It 'It Lo\'.e-.? Z3 ... o ! It}',. DeSCRI. PT ION: Lot \22 I\Im OIlKS, proposed hOllse \ NOmS' Benchmark Scott County, Minnesota. IIlso I' . location o( the Elevation 935.05 top of the existtng gacage slab on lot 23. 93~.6 Denotes existing grade elevation (939.0) Denot"s proposed finished grade "levations ___>- DenotM proposed direction o( (iliiohed lJur(ace dral.nnge Set the proposed garage slnb at elevation 941.07 Set the top block at elevatial 942.82 ~ The lowest floor elevatl.on wlH be 931. 79 Net Lot IIrea above e1. 904.0 ~ 7,374 sq. (t. Net proposed impervious coverage ~ 29.9. 'I; o I SCALE 30 60 'I REVISED .,4/4/96 DECK TO BLUFF DIST. REVISED 4/2197 TO SHOW HSE. FUrPED 60 GARAGE e. CABIN REMOVED. REVISED 1/30/9T TO SHOW TOr OF BAi'I<, TOE OF SLOPE 60 CABIN ON LOT 20 I herl!by Cl!rflfy 'hal 'hi, wrvey wrn preparrd by me or umhrr my. dlrert ,up.rvIJlon and thot lor,l.d duJ)' If(,'"led Land Sl/rVtyor und" 'hi I-;P"lf Sf/h'M..ol ~_ , \ L_Cj~~~ ~k<-6r,c.L-~ Doh -,-:::::r;;,.... G Ue.n., No. 1010 J IN FEET o Deno'" 1:/2 Inch ,. 14'nch Iron manumtri' If' and marked by lIe,n.. No. 10193 . . Oenofu Iron monumen' found t1l Deno'" p, K. Noll !", FIt E 110. .~ 12.~___.._ 9(>(lk ,~~"..___. rME ,2~__ SURVEY PREPARED FOR PINNACLE PARTNERSHlpValley Surveying Co., p.A. . SUITE IZO-C, 16670 fRANKLIN TRAIL 1.4198 COMMERCE AVENUE N.E. fRANKLIN TRAIL OffiCE CONDOMINIUM PR.IOR.LAKE, MN. 55372 PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570 6 (J -en - c.f'-/S . 15LJOg Qed DC{ k:S I?'::) ?Oh(( c I ~ PCt~S -- ~ Z3 pr\or '" '" LOKe .2 EL. 902.1 7 / 22/ 96 .... o ! / ,15". r I DESCRtf'TION : Lot \22 RED OIlKS, st:ott County, Minnesota. IIlso proposed house as staked' this 2nd day of '';JEl,nuary, \ NOl'I;;S' Benchmark Elevation 935.85 top of the existing 9arage slab on lot 23. location of the 93~.6 Denotes existing grade elevation (.939.0 ) Denotes proposed finished grade elevations _.... Denotes proposed dIrection of finished surface drainage :1 t\ ~ Set the proposed garag.! slab at elevation 939.19 Set lop of block In gOl'O<,le 01 elevation 939.52 Set the top block at Lookout Elevollon 01 936.68 Sel top 01 block of house 01 elevollon 942.67 The lowest floor elevation will be . 933 .46 Net Lot IIrea above el. 904.0 ~ 7,374 sq. ft. o I SCALE 30 :60 _~J IN fEET REV. 9/17/97 TO Sf10W TOP OF BLOCK ELEVATION OF HOUSE. REV. 9/15/97 TO SHOW NEW PROPOSED GRADES. REV. 9/10/97 TO SHOW NEW PROPOSED GRADES a RET. WALL a DRAIN PER BLDR. I hereby cerrlfy fhat 'hi. Jurv., wos prtpflred by me or under m)' drr'" suptrvjsjon and tho' ~om duly I,censed Land SlrVeyor under 'he ~. the Stilt. ~nnuo' I 4L-cU~::;/ ~ G' :':c.nu N,~. 'O,.:;.~ o ~e:,,~~:n'/:.Ing~l ~~~~~~ 'h~n lIe"n.. No. 10183 . Denotes Iron mO'lUment found ft Denotes P. K. UolI set O~'e FlU No. .8428 BOOK ~ PAGE 2!.-_ 41 ~ J/yc:; \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\\\} : ;,\ \ \ \ / / \"\ II(I! / / \\)/1 " I NOTE I i I III \, .d:'--. /" I EXISTING CABIN TO BE REMOVED. \ ' ~"" m.1 YJ', ,/NOTES:! /! j I / , ro'p.,.. 9,. . I f I Net LOT AR'EA : 14,163 SQ.FT ....~ ~" OF drv 0/ NET/AREA/nfE':Ev.AnoN904 = 15,347sg. ft. \ '\ ~ V ~ . BM EL 926.99 TOP GARAGE SLAB ON LOT 116 '\ ", " / 926.3 /DEN6TE~ lXl'STING GRADE ELEVATION. \ \ \, 9....0 \' ' , . / ,/ / I I I " ," '~'!4 ",.,1 / (933.6) DENOTES PROPOSED FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION. \ \" " \.. / .."~ ~ D~NOTE~ ,~ROPOSED DIRECTION OF SURFACE DRAINAGE. '... " ...0-__'' ... o' ~/ / SET GARAGE SLAB AT ELEVATION 933.00 \ ~', . .. '/ ."'. /SET/TOP' OF BLOCK AT ELEVATION 936.22 \ ".,,~ '-'.:.....'....... .,.,. ____./' ~ / /."'../ SET BASEMENT FLOOR AT ELEVATION 927.27 S>~a......~~"-:---""",!, ..r/'/ "q1-J /' ....../ // ~.~ :::----.!.. "~.~s~.? / ~o ." /~ .:..-:::- '---\ -----:.....~ -===- ~.--:- ,--- ,.q .../ ~ ..J, / -.....,-.... . ~ .. --..:::- . -r -:---" / ,6 - ~ ~~ -">-- - .-,-- "- ~.., .---'. / / OE<,. -- . :::':Plat- ~ -.~_._-' .,,__ '\/ ,/ ~~h~ ~__/ .- E:::-:.l::!-..., -'N8o..."A"'io.a~.__. : . I.M--:-r.65 012 _- --- / -'" .. ~ I ~ """'00 "W""=- ~OUTH - -,- / - _ " ,~.,.o lI:' ~~""--~55.05,::-910-', _908- "'. .. ---- --- \ -..--.. ~ ~ ----.c I~ ~ .----..,....c1 ,;-. ~~ ~ -..:-- oo.__~_ ____ ~s.oo -- --'" --- _1'1": -. .._.-~IY, S"'R .~ --- N .'......... -----.:.' [S/\f/t SltORF:l/lYF: --r-- ---:::-.... --. "F:R 000. lYo ----.:..~....~ __Q S~N. M.H. . ite55 - -004/ SURVEY PR EPARED FOR; McKNIGHT a ASSOC. 14093 COMMERCE AVENUE N.E. PRIOR LAKE, MN.55372 Valley Surveying Co., ~A. SUITE /20-C. 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE. MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447-2570 NORTH WOOD 0215.20 , ROAD 024.62 \ \ ~ ,C,EL. 025'45 T.C. EL. 925 ;08 T.e. EL. 924.72. 5870 '&9"1:: I 55 Ipla,l\' 55.15 me,os ... _-;:.... -- c-' ........, r ../ q~ I ~o, /q "- I I i I I ( \ \ \ \ . N . \ ( ':. \ GARAGE . 0" \ SLAB EL. ~~ \ 92.6.98 ~~ ~ \ \ ~l'i \ EX lSTlNG \ , \ HOUSE \ 1 1.$ " \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0- I ~, I ..... \ \ I \ I:::) \ I '- " ; I = ~ ; r------...... '-. ~ " - I l ~ = :3: ~.~ ~ 1",,,,I"OtlO .....--~ HOUS( o it') tJ ~j ;; - III ~ E ,; ..... _ _ _ I"l o g C <O~ ~ <II 0 0. 'It .!: 800 a:) ~ ..... z ~-:e : b ~ .... I ~. 3: DJo~ I I r-- i\= Ci.LlJ.2 u )' CI)~.... I -""0 , ~- .f %~~ III 0/... \DO.. l\IZ0 I LtJ , .- SHED PRIOR LAkE f:l 902.4 7/ 1 I / 97 o I SCALE 30 REV. 12/30/97 TO SHOW NEW LOCATION OF PROPOSED HOUSE. PER BLDR . REV. 12/10/97 TO SHOW NEW PROPOSED HOUSE. REV. 10 I 21/97 To show 929.0 contour REV. 10/ B /97 To show addiliona' elevat I on on top of bank REV. 9/25/97 TO SHOW PROPOSED HSE. ETC. 60 I IN FEET o Deno'" 1/2 Inch x 14 inch iron monument set and marked by . license No. 10/83 . DenoteS' iron monument found ~ Denotes P K. Nail set q)- 'i13 I ~ 0 33 AJrJr!11W(}dC! iLr/ /2c i1-)<</ S UYI/, Conwv.--s -:./-1_ W( "} DESCRIPTION: LOT. liT, NORTHWOOD, SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA. ALSO SHOWING ALL VISIBLE IMPROVEMENTS AND ENCROACHMENTS ON TO OR OFF SAID PROPERTY IF ANY. 'hereby certify that this survey wa5 prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that t om a duly IH:ensed Land Surveyor under the ~the S~:i' ota C;-? Doto licon.. No. IDI83 FILE No 8526 BODK~PAGE~ --! · "IVEY PR EPARED FOR: ,v1cKNIGHT a ASSOC. I~~~~~ C&~~~R~~. ~~~~~E N.E. / ( q7 - )J 3 Valley Surveying Co., P.A. SUITE 120-C, 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL FRANKLIN TRAIL OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PRIOR LAKE I MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (612) 447- 2570 / it; 033 "lJ0r!11Wded iZc/ OZ~.20 ROAD SlZ4x82 Orijinctl SutV~ NORTH WOOD T.e. El. 925-45 T.C. EL. 925.0; T.e. El. 024.72 o to FlnCI ., 027.8_ "'2:7.8e,".as..A-"2~ " I S87051\19" r 55 pla,t I 55.15 me,os. 1_ 926.8 .. ~ "- !i m. 0;,29 2..6,.,t'~ \ \ \ \ \ I I GARAGE I 0 SLAB EL. 0 w 92e.99 ,; > i ~ " EXISTING ;; HOUSE I ! ,::'- 1 I --) Z".041( ; \ ~4~.pAI(/ J 19K.Yf.z -'1;..r.:. Tt;;\. I" " ~1 = ;1 ~~ . II oir,D~ t II __IO~~ I o[ ......... a ;r 15 to If? - - ,~o.!..L~oO QJ ? a. 'It qrr'lP~e w :: 80000 I ' 1314 1.0'; ;; .55 of-'- ~-I. - Z N N . 9U 5 L lit : I ~I PROP &lED = " ~ I , "~~, HO. l : L'l.. · I I (...~7~ I t'--~"7 . 11~1l! I~\ \ ~ ,:- I 1 e 12-...k!.ol~ nZ4.1_~ ,~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I Df~SCRI!'TION : [.at 117, Northwood, S"ott Count}', r1innp.sotil. 111,,0 showinq all visiblp. improvements and p.ncroachment" onto 01:" oEf naid pl:"oparty if any. , 2 """. ctAA..' ~ \ \ \ \ ~ ~.OAK 95 /' Q 0 0" OAK SHED II ~ ~ ~ al -w~ 8- ~ ~i'Ji'l5 ~~~ -0.0 = ~81ii I"ziZ " >-... ...1 I I l NOTE EXISTING CABIN TO BE REMOVED. NarES : Net ~ot area = 14,163 "g. ft. Net area to elevation 904.0 = 15,347 ag. ft. "'" 'S? 92~6.3 Denotea exiating grade elevation (93~.6) DENOTES PROPOSED FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION. DENOTES PROPOSED DIRECTION OF SURFACE DRAINAGE. SET GARAGE SLAB AT ELEVATION 933.97 SET TOP OF BLOCK AT ELEVATION 934.30 SET BASEMENT FLOOR AT ELEVATION 925.40 , . 1)1.1 ~ ;" .. ~ 96S$ PRIOR EL lAkE '7/ 90Z.4 11/9'7 o I SCALE 30 60 o D,nof.., 12 inch x 14 inch Iron monument Slit and marked by Lic,n., No. 10183 . Denote$ iron monument found II Denotes P. K. NaH set REV. 9/25/97 TO SHOW PROPOS ED HSE. ETe. ---.- IN FEET FILE No. 8526 800K~PAGE~ DATE: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL FRANK BOYLES HILLCREST HOMES APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE ZONING OFFICER RELATING TO BLUFF AND TOP OF BLUFF DECEMBER 15,1997 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: At the December 1, 1997 meeting the City Council deferred action on the above referenced agenda item. The staff recommended this action to minimize variances since adoption of the new zoning ordinance was expected on December 15 and would have rendered the request moot. At the December 8 City Council work session we agreed that the zoning ordinance should not be considered by the Council on December 15. The petitioner has requested that the item be heard by the City Council on December 15 not withstanding the status ofthe zoning ordinance. I continue to believe that the reduction of variances is an appropriate public policy and accordingly this agenda item should be continued until passage of the zoning ordinance occurs (probably second meeting in January or first meeting in February). I recommend that the City Council add this request to the Consent agenda as item 4J and continue the matter until February 28, 1998 or until such time as the Zoning Ordinance is adopted whichever is sooner. A letter extending the sixty day statutory timeline has been sent to the petitioner. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: DATE: INTRODUCTION: ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDATION: ACTION REQUIRED: STAFF AGENDA REPORT JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #97-XX DENYING AN APPEAL OF HILLCREST HOMES FROM A DECISION OF THE ZONING OFFICER RELATING TO BLUFF AND TOP OF BLUFF DECEMBER 15, 1997 This item was originally scheduled on the December 1, 1997 agenda. Due to the upcoming adoption of a revised Zoning Ordinance and it's effect on this request, the item was continued until December 15, 1997 to be addressed as part of the Zoning Ordinance. However, the Zoning Ordinance is not to be discussed at the December 15, 1997 meeting. We have administratively extended the 60 day statutory deadline for decisions on zoning related items to February 28, 1998. The last meeting this item could possibly be heard is February 17, 1998 to meet the statutory deadline. Therefore, a continuation to the same meeting date as the Zoning Ordinance or February 28, 1998 whichever is sooner is appropriate. 1. Continue the item. 2. Hear the item and make a decision. 3. Other specific action as directed by the Council. Alternative #1. Motion to continue the item to the same meeting date as the revised Zoning Ordinance or February 28, 1998 whichever is sooner. Reviewe 1:\97fi1(jS,\97appeal\97-11 ffi97U Occ2.doc 1 16200 Eagle creeK Ave. ~.t:., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER FILE COpy December 12, 1997 also via fax 898-3364 Hillcrest Homes Chris Deanovic 14122 Louisiana Avenue Savage,~ 55378 RE: Appeal of Decision of Zoning Officer Dear Chris, On October 31, 1997 the City of Prior Lake received an application appealing a decision of the Zoning Officer relating to bluff and top of bluff. This item was heard by the Planning Commission on November 10, 1997 and scheduled to be heard by the City Council on December 1, 1997. Due to in process revision of the Zoning Ordinance and the future effect on this appeal and interpretation, the City Council tabled the item. The City Council anticipated reviewing the Zoning Ordinance at their December 15, 1997 meeting. However, the City Council will not be reviewing the proposed Revised Zoning Ordinance until sometime in January. Therefore, we are extending the 60 day statutory requirement for decisions on zoning applications an additional 60 days to February 28, 1997. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, O'??'vrM j~ ~;ovar Planner 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER STAFF AGENDA REPORT AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: DATE: JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #97-XX DENYING AN APPEAL OF HILLCREST HOMES FROM A DECISION OF THE ZONING OFFICER RELATING TO BLUFF AND TOP OF BLUFF DECEMBER 15, 1997 INTRODUCTION: Hillcrest Homes is appealing a decision of the Zoning Officer relating to definition of BLUFF and TOP OF BLUFF. This item was continued at the December 1, 1997 meeting pending the Zoning Ordinance workshop and City Council action on December 15, 1997. The application was submitted on October 31, 1997. The 60 day deadline ends on December 30, 1997. However, the City can extend the deadline another 60 days until February 28, 1997 if necessary. DISCUSSION: Section 5-1-7 Definitions of the City Code reads as follows: . BLUFF: A topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or embankment having the following characteristics (an area with an average slope ofless than 18 percent over a distance for 50 feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff): (A) Part or all of the feature is located in a shoreline area; (B) The slope rises at least twenty five feet (25') or more above the ordinary high-water level of the waterbody; (C) The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point twenty-five feet (25') or more above the ordinary high-water level averages thirty percent (30%) or greater; and (D) The slope must drain toward the waterbody. . TOP OF THE BLUFF: The higher point of a fifty 16200 E~~7~lE~2~P~0~:-S~~~,7pU~~~.t~ke, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 4d7-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 1:\97files\97appeal\97-1 10\97-1 10cc.doc foot (50') segment with an average slope exceeding eighteen percent (18%). Planning Department interprets the definition of bluff as follows: . Part or all of the feature is located on a riparian lot. . The slope rises at least 25 feet or more above the OHW, anywhere on the slope and any distance from the OHW. On Prior Lake, this means the slope rises to at least 929.0 elevation on any part ofthe slope on the lot. . The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluffto a point 25 feet or more above the OHW averages 30% or greater. On Prior Lake, this means that the grade on the slope from the toe to 929.0 elevation or greater is greater than 30%. This can be any distance from the OHW. . The slope must drain towards the lake. Slopes draining away from the lake are not considered bluffs. . Another significant factor in determining bluffs is a grade of 18%. The definition of top and toe of bluff are the highest and lowest points of 50 foot segments with slopes exceeding 18%. It is our interpretation that the entire 50 foot segment with a slope exceeding 18% is part of the bluff, with the highest point being considered the TOP OF BLUFF. Because the definition of TOP OF BLUFF and TOE OF BLUFF do not specify which 50 foot segments or which slopes, the top and toe can be located anywhere on the slope, no specific distance from the OHW. The definition of TOP OF BLUFF determines what is considered part ofthe bluff and what is not. Exhibit A is a diagram of this interpretation. Exhibit B is how this interpretation relates to the specific lot in question. Hillcrest Homes contends that because the definition states "... an area with an average slope of less than 18 percent 2 1:\97files\97appeal\97-1 10\97-1 10cc.doc over a distance for 50 feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff" that this area is removed from the slope before a determination on top of bluff is made. Then, when the determination for top of bluff is made, this area cannot be a part of the top of bluff because it has been eliminated by definition. Exhibit C is Hillcrest Homes' interpretation and Exhibit D is how this interpretation affects their specific lot. In meetings on October 4, 1997 and October 22, 1997, the DNR has given staff their interpretation of the definition of Bluff and Top of Bluff. The definitions that the city has adopted are the same as those in the 1987 DNR Shoreland Management Regulations. The DNR has concurred with the Planning Department staff interpretation. Attached is a written response affirming their position. Staffs conclusion is that the statement about not including areas with slopes less than 18% is meant to allow construction on flat areas of lots where there may be multiple bluffs. When the top of bluff is determined to be the highest point of a 50 foot segment where the average slope exceeds 18%, the area downhill from the top of bluff must be part of the bluffby definition. The Planning Commission, after much discussion, felt the definitions were ambiguous and cumbersome. The minutes of the meeting are attached. Upon considering staff interpretation of the ordinance as written, they felt staff interpretation was correct. They directed staffto work with the applicant in composing revised definitions and setbacks to be clear, specific and easily understood. This is to be considered with the revised Zoning Ordinance. Staff has worked with the applicant to write revised definitions. Staff, as well as the DNR, feel the proposed language is more concise and open to less varying interpretations. Attached is a copy of the proposed revision discussed at the Zoning Ordinance public hearing on November 24, 1997. The Planning Commission felt the proposed bluff language was concise and less open to varying interpretations. The Planning Commission recommended the revised bluff language be incorporated into the Revised Zoning Ordinance. There are a few different items yet to be 3 resolved with respect to the Revised Zoning Ordinance. A continuation of the discussion will take place in December. The revised bluff language will be brought to the City Council as part of the Revised Zoning Ordinance to be a topic at the December 8, 1997 council workshop. Additionally, the Planning Commission heard a variance request from Hillcrest Homes to the bluff and top of bluff setback, as written in the existing City Code. The proposed variance places the proposed home at the same bluff setback as the proposed revised bluff language. While the Planning Commission empathized with the applicant on the timing of the proposed amendment, they felt the hardship criteria were not present with respect to the property. They also stated that it would be improper to grant a variance based on an ordinance recommendation yet to be approved and adopted. If the variance to bluff and top of bluff setback is appealed by Hillcrest Homes, the Council will hear the variance appeal in late December or early January. ISSUES: The City Council must determine if they agree with the staffs interpretation of the ordinance. The issue here is not to determine where the applicants feel the bluff is and the setbacks are in relation to the proposed house, but to determine if staff interpretation of the City Code is correct as written and adopted by the City Council. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Uphold the decision of the zoning officer by adopting Resolution #97-XX. 2. Uphold the position of the appellant and direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings supporting such action. 3. Other specific action as directed by the Council. RECOMMENDATION: Alternative #1, to uphold the decision ofthe zoning officer. ACTION REQUIRED: Adoption of Resolution #97-XX affirming the decision of the zoning officer Reviewed By: Frank Boyles, City Manager 1:\97files\97appeal\97-110\97-110cc.doc 4 RESOLUTION 97-XX RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL BY mLLCREST HOMES, INe., OF A DECISION OF THE ZONING OFFICER RELATING TO BLUFF AND TOP OF BLUFF, MOTION BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS, the Prior Lake City Council conducted a hearing on the 1st day of December, 1997, to act on an appeal by Hillcrest Homes Inc. of the Zoning Officer's interpretation of definition of BLUFF and TOP OF BLUFF and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the definitions of BLUFF and TOP OF BLUFF as written and adopted in 1995; and WHEREAS, the appellant has not set forth adequate reasons for overturning the decision of the Zoning Officer; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended the City Council uphold the decision of the Zoning Officer: NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE: FINDINGS 1. Hillcrest Homes Inc. appealed the decision of the Zoning Officer relating to the interpretation of BLUFF and TOP OF BLUFF as described in Section 5-1-7 of the City Code in order to permit a future residential dwelling on property located in the R-l (Suburban Residential) District and the SD (Shoreland Overlay) District at the following location, to wit: 16091 Northwood Road, legally described as Lot 92, Northwood Road. 2. The Planning Commission reviewed the appeal as contained in Case File #97-110, held hearings thereon on November 10, 1997, and recommended upholding the decision of the Zoning Officer. 3. The Prior Lake City Council reviewed this appeal on December 15, 1997. 4. The City Council has considered the effect of overturning the decision of the Zoning Officer 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 appeal on the Comprehensive Plan. 1:\97fi!j(s\97appeal\97-110\ccres.doc Page 1 16200 Eagle creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 5. On November 10, 1997, the Planning Commission directed staff to work with the appellant to compose definitions that are less ambiguous to be considered with revisions to the Zoning Ordinance to be heard by the Planning Commission on November 24, 1997. 6. Upholding the decision of the Zoning Officer results in a legal building envelope of approximately 10,330 square feet. 7. The contents of Planning Case File #97-110 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of the decision for this case. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby upholds the decision of the Zoning Officer and concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission that by definition of TOP OF BLUFF, area with slopes less that 18% over a distance of 50 feet, cannot be excluded from the bluff. 50 Foot areas with slopes less than 18% located only between the toe of the bluff and the top of the bluff are intended to be excluded. Passed and adopted this 15th day of December, 1997. YES NO Andren Kedrowski Mader Robbins Schenck Andren Kedrowski Mader Robbins Schenck {Seal} City Manager, City of Prior Lake 1: \97files\97 appeal\97 -11 O\ccres.doc Page 2 ,LL Ott: Z::) 0...1 _tD ~LL ~O <ewe. 'I- a:e. 0 -a:1- ~ ~C Z ~~~<( LLLL LLLL t$3 CJ) m' %8~ NlfHJ. ~3J.lf3~S t 3d01S H.LIM lN3WfJ3S .DS :J3 <119 :40 J:2J~d .J.lJ N. \\ %81. NlfH.L 5531 ~ 3d01S H1./M .LN311V935 .DS ~ - d. ~~ c!. 0 ~i= - .n<. t- - \,uU- \1:)~ -s:.(l u.U- u.. U-':) ":)-1 ...J~ <D u. U')o - :t: r ..,... \Y ?~ L E. b t9 "'0 0--0 ''<: ,-;:, p~, (:) 'I:t (';)' b'fb': . OEJ. fEb CE b E E (, I~ irE!;' I ~ Sf b I t I I I I I I I ~ d V) 1 w t ~I o .~ r ~ 1- ~40\ I _..i'i:l.....: ~E.b ~Ob .:' -.- '" / ;~, D 80," 6C>1:, Q,I. ~ 1,& 'il!,'" 1-,,1, ;fIb ,,/:, l,f:, 4/6 (" 6 O~6 1lS'>6 t l:' b ~ o ~' ~C - ~ o V) o M , " o V) UJ ~ o ...J C/) 1*. ,,- i'... ' 'rC ... .:.'N N ,-' ~ (:) """" in \t) ,... in (:) ~ \t) ,... (:) N \t) N Q C") in C"') Q 'I:t in ~ -:.0 v\t) \t) \t) Q CO ~ c.c Q ,..... in "" Q CO \t) CO Q 0') (:) Q ~ co I- - co - x >< w b .:J en - .X I- ~ en w - ..J D. D. ~ Z o - ~ .- w a: D. -ct W I- Z - en - u. u. ~ In 5 .X ;,/ I r t v' ~ \iiiil B @ (a) \iiiil c::J us ...-:::l" ~ 1...::::::1 \jUi) ~~ /( 7. ~,,//.. / . -'rI F-/ ",db / f ..,/~, I / 'c \ /.//;s \ ..c.,Ij' \ (j // / , . / \ ,~'.'(J ? / \ \ ~o '.v ) d\1' / ::l ~ (119 .:I 0 cO.L. A ~~~\~ ~~ ...<,; ...,r1JV\ . '-s 'C ::-.... .::!:" ~~ - -..... ... '"' "'~ -.:" ~:- '....~, \ \ \ '\ \ \ I':: \ . \ /' '\c /k'.~ _ \ _LV'" "; -.' '?: '\. .,;., \;., "'" ~ .J-. \. \ , ~."".'''--''-''''-'<-''''~'' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 1997 C. Case #97-110 Hillcrest Homes appeal of the decision of the Zoning Administrator relating to the definition of a bluffin the Shoreland District. Planner Jenni Tovarpl'esented the staff report dated November 10,1997. Section 5-6-4 of the City Code provides for an appeal process from decisions of the Zoning Officer. The Planning Director is the Zoning Officer in Prior Lake. The action was initiated by an inquiry to the definition of a bluff and top of bluff with regards to a proposed structure on the lot. The City sent a letter to the appellant detailing the definition of a bluff and top of bluff and staffs interpretation of those definitions. In a letter to the city, Hillcrest Homes is appealing staff s interpretation and is providing their interpretation of the same definition. Staff s conclusion is the statement not including areas with slopes less than 18% is meant to allow construction on flat areas of lots where there may be multiple bluffs. When the top of bluff is determined to be the highest point of a 50 foot segment where the average slope exceeds 18%, the area downhill from the top of bluff must be part ofthe bluffby definition. The Department of Natural Resources concurs with staffs interpretation stated in Hydrologist, Pat Lynch's letter dated November 7, 1997. Comments from the public: Chris Deanovic, 14122 Louisiana Avenue, Savage, representing Hillcrest Homes highlighted the bluff section from the DNR Shoreland Regulations. He understands there is a bluff and went on to explain his belief of where the top of the bluff should be. He knows the DNR agrees with staff but also indicated the ordinance is ambiguous and can be flexible. Mr. Deanovic went on to explain their proposed home stating they are trying to position their building not to obstruct their view of the lake (between the two neighboring structures). Their interpretation of the bluff would be a 10% slope. Winston Simonson, 16087 Northwood Road said he was present for curiosity purposes. He is a neighbor and said the house in question is 24 years old. Mr. Simonson explained he is not complaining but was interested how the new structure will affect them. He was hoping the new home would be set back so they could see the lake. Deanovic went on to explain the 50 foot segment on the back of a proposed home with a 9 foot difference. They have no desire to impact the bluff. The DNR accepts a 20 foot setback, Prior Lake 30 feet. Rye explained the City was informed by the DNR that a couple of years after they promulgated these rules with the definition the City adopted, they administratively adopted the language that talks about where one can observe the slope change from greater to lesser. Prior Lake adopted the Shore land Rules definition. "" L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MNII1097.DOC 4 - - - - ._-~---'-'--- "'~'..".~"'_.""''''''''.; '..f_.........,.:..,.,.~.~.:;.;...~:......;.;..::~.. Winston Simonson pointed out the obvious slope always referred to as a cliff on the survey. There is quite a grade to the front of the house compared to the back. He feels the slope should end at the front of the building. The house is going to be crowded no matter where it is placed. Mr. Simonson stated he received a variance 24 years ago. The Board at the time said he had to get written permission on each side. One neighbor refused and the other stated he had to maintain the 15 foot setback. Jim Albers, Storms Circle, pointed out staff s interpretation opposed to his interpretation ofthe bluffwith the 50 foot segments and feels the error is in the definition of the top of the bluff and suggested a proposed top of bluff definition: "The lower point of the closest 50 feet segment to the toe of the bluff that has an average slope of 18% or less." He feels it is really hard to enforce because of the complicated definition. The DNR has two documents for the City, one regulation and a sample administrative ordinance. V onhof pointed out that surveys in the Shoreland District should have contour lines. Marv Mirsch, has a seasonal home at 15432 Red Oaks Road, permanent home in St. Paul, presented a proposed Minnesota Rules from the legislature provided by Pat Lynch of the DNR. One word is missing in the Prior Lake Ordinance "to find it necessary to exclude from the definition of the bluff any areas that .... with an area slope of 18% or less over a 50 foot segment. He feels the City should exclude anything 18% or less in the bluff area. Mr. Mirsch believes the ordinance interpretation is an exclusion not inclusion. Rye said Mr. Mirsch and Mr. Albers definitions are correct stating the DNR allows flexibility. But the issue is Prior Lake's definition. The bluff impact zone includes the bluff itself. Comments from the Commissioners: Kuykendall: . The definition is defined in the Shoreland Management hand book, Zoning Ordinance and DNR Rules and Model Ordinance. . The only option is to stay out of the bluff impact zone. Stamson stated the discussion is if staff s interpretation is correct. Kuykendall: . Staff s interpretation is correct. . Will recommend to redefine the definition. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MNl 1 l097.DOC 5 Stamson: . At first agreed strictly with staff, then agreed with applicant, but after discussion this evening believe staffs interpretation.is clearly correct. . The definition of bluff is really an independent description of what the top ofa bluff IS. . The staff interpreted the ordinance correctly and is backed by the DNR. Cramer: . The wording is contradicting. There is no consistency. The DNR is responsible. . The intent of the ordinance is to prevent someone from coming in the future where their home slides into the lake. . People will ask why did the City let me build in a bluff? . Staffs interpretation is correct. V onhof: . Concurs with staff and Commissioners. . It should not be that hard for residents and staff to interpret. The intent is to have bluff protection. . There is a second issue to deal with after this motion. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL TO UPHOLD THE STAFF INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE AS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Open Discussion: Kuykendall suggested having someone from the DNR come in an explain the negative impacts of this issue. We need to be educated, what steps can one take and maintain the ordinance. He believes an engineer can come in and show how to stabilize the land and meet the objectives. V onhof agreed. Some one should come up with better definitions. Stamson stated the DNR obviously did a study and this was the conclusion. His concern is the original way it was written it was fairly restricted but now administratively, the DNR has become loose in their definition. There should be bluff standards. Meet certain criteria. Stamson and Cramer's concern is the definition of the top of the bluff. Rye said he would be happy to meet with the applicant and go over a definition to present to City Council. Until it is changed, staff s recommendation will follow the ordinance. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MNl1 l097.DOC 6 _<,+,...,_..~...~........,;"'~.....:.....o..r.....~",:_,-..~_ _ ....;.~......"'...-..J'.......~.~.L'-..,_...~....;,.~'"""......__.,..1l-....;...,_.- . .<:ill>. . . .. .' . "':""-~",;;,,"'r""""J-_";'~"'" .";'. ". '.'.>.' , <~,.., -':. ....:.,...:c. ..~.-, ,.,' ',' < MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO REFER THIS BACK TO STAFF FOR STUDY AND FOR STATING THE PRACTICE IN SIMILAR COMMUNITIES WITH SIMILAR ISSUES AS PART OF THE ZONING CODE ORDINANCE ON NOVEMBER 24, 1997. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO MODIFY ALL REQUIREMENTS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO HAVE ALL LOT MEASUREMENTS ROUNDED UP NO GREATER THAN .5 FEET. V onhof suggested the Zoning Administrator could make the decision. There would still be a process but could be determined administratively. Kuykendall retracted the motion and agreed to have staff come up with a practical solution. Cramer questioned the availability of the new zoning ordinance. Rye responded by the end of the week. Kuykendall wanted to bring back a previous issue of "traffic calming" on Highway 13. The Commissioners would like to reconsider changing the truck traffic routing by the State to County Road 17 to minimize the traffic on Highway 13. He suggested a study using County Road 27 and 21 to alleviate traffic. Kuykendall also suggested revisiting all traffic controls on Highway 13. This would bring in State, County and local engineers. He would like to see 4-way stop signs. 4-way stops it will force truck traffic off Highway 13 and reduce the volume of traffic. This issue should be part of a workshop after the zoning ordinance. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, THAT COUNCIL BE APPRISED OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S INTEREST IN REVIEWING THE ISSUE OF illGHW A Y 13 FROM A STRATEGIC POINT OF VIEW RELATIVE TO TRAFFIC CALMING AND THE POTENTIAL OF PULLING NEIGHBORHOODS TOGETHER INSTEAD OF SEPARATING NEIGHBORHOODS AND WE INVITE THE STATE AND COUNTY PEOPLE TO JOIN US IN WORKSHOPS. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARJUED. 8. Adjournment: CHAIRMAN STAMSON ADJOURNED THE MEETING AT 8:44 P.M.. Donald Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MNl 1 I097.DOC 7 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Metro Waters -1200WamerRoad, 81. Paul, MN 55106-6793 Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977 November 7,1997 Mr. Don Rye City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue, S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 RE: INTERPRETATION OF BLUFF DEFINITION IN SHORELAND AREAS Dear Mr. Rye: Oflate, we have had a great deal of discussion regarding bluffs within shoreland areas of the City of Prior Lake. This discussion has included the bluff failure which occurred earlier this year, as well as number of potential and proposed developments on lots where bluffs are present. The City of Prior Lake has adopted language, from Minnesota Rules, defining bluff, top of bluff, and toe of bluff. I have reviewed the City's ordinance, and have met with City staff to review the administrative procedures used to determine top and toe of bluff for specific projects. While the language in state rule is admittedly a bit cumbersome, I concur with the manner in which the city is administering the ordinance as it pertains to bluff determination. The intent of the regulations limiting development on and within the bluff and bluff impact zones is to ensure slope stability, and to preserve the natural appearance of these topographic features in shoreland areas. The 30 foot structure setback from the top of bluff provides a minimwn distance between the bluff top and the proposed building site for the maneuvering of building materials and equipment during construction. If the existing definitions of bluff, top of bluff, and toe of bluff, as adopted, are deemed difficult to efficiently and effectively administer and enforce by city staff, the DNR would entertain, under the flexibility provisions of the Shoreland Rules, alternative defInitions, provided the original intent of bluff protection is not compromised. If you have any questions, please call me at 772-7910. Sincerely, '--K~~t2!/' Patrick 1. Lynch ~ Area Hydrologist c: Ed Fick, Shoreland Hydrologist .W~ @ jg OW jg ~ NOVI2mT \ 'l DNR Information: 6 I 2-296-6157, 1-800-766-6000 . TTY: 612-296-5484. 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity ft Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a '-., Minimum of 10% Post.Consumer Waste HILLCREST HOMES,. INC. 16714 Jaguar Ave. , Lakeville, Minnesota.SS044 (612) 898-7663 Office (612) 898-3364 Fax "A Builder Driven By Quality Crqftsmanship and Value. ,. Date Nov. 3,1997 Jennifer Tovar Planner Dept. OfPIanning and Zoning City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. Prior Lake, NIN 55372 BLUFF-A topographic feature such as a hill, clifT, or embankmenthaving the chara.cteristics (an area with an average slope of less than 18 percent over a feet or more shall not be considered part of the blurt): (A) Part or all of the feature is located in ashorelandarea::' (B)'J."]:leslope rises atleast twenty fivefeet (25') or more~1:x.>vethe water level of the water body; .. . ......./ (C)The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to.. ap()iIlttwenty-~~~t (25') or more above the ordinary high-water level averages thirty perc~(3.0~) or greater; and (D}.The slope must drain toward the water body. Dear Jennifer: Hill~~sEHome~~Inc..,wishes to appeal thestaifiIlferpretation resultingjtllpact()f~e staff interpretation on. our property at16091 from section 5-1:7 of the City code the definitionofa.bluff and "Top TOP OF THE BLUFF- The higher point of a fifty foot (50') segment with anave~e slope exceeding eighteen percent (18%). The.4~finition~le~irlystates that" an area with an average slopeoflessthan.18.f1~i()~~~~ce of50'shaUnotbeconsidered part oftheblufi". The 50' segment between the 933and94t elevation points on the easterly side of the site in question has an average slope of 16%, and therefore should not be considered part of the bluff In addition, the DNR definition for ''Top of the Blufi" from which the city has adopted their ordinance states: "Top of the Blufi" means the point on a bluff where there is, as visually observed, a clearly identifiable break in the slope, from steeper to gentler slope above. If no break in the slope is apparent, the top of bluff shall be determined to be the upper end of a 50' segment, measure on the ground, with an average slope exce~ 18 percent. Builder License # 20036544 . Member of the Builders Association of the Twin Cities ._.,_~.__" ~_~ ._...~__...",-.""__--",, __ '_-'-"-'" -'.u-=' ._.._.._~_.._~_........._____~~________--=""'-"'L""~"""",""-'=-~=><:'""~-- ,.,. _..~.---,,,...~._- ,.," ,'.'-" , -'C.. . .-~_ ~"-"l:';;.;:'~';'''''';' ":~~" >.... ~ ""- Since there is a clearly identifiable break in the slope we feel the 50 ft. segment with an average slope of16% is not part of the bluff We believe the low point ofthis 50 ft. segment clearly identifies "Top of the Bluff", and the point from which the 30 ft. bluff setback is measured. Using this setback point would place the proposed. structure in an appropriate location in reference to the adjoining property structures, thus creating consistency in the neighborhood. z o - ~u. ~-u.. ~::) W..J a:m o.u. ffio Ot- t-'zo. - -0 a3-t- i: (/) c >< ~z W 0 c:s: %u. t-LL. (/)::) w..J a:I:D g~ ..J - -::I: ",u.. \-u- ~':) ~-1 ~dJ u.. u.. '" u-o~ Q ':) - -Jq:",," ~c;i~ lU- ~\-u. - d- \b ':S: <.J a 'r . ::I :/n7g .:J 0 dO..L. ~~ u.. ~ -.1 ~ u. c %8l NlfHl H3ltf3HS ~ 3d01S HJ.1M J.N3VV~3S .DS ~ <t ~ \0 z ~ (:) Il:t ('d' b'fb'-: %8 ~ NlfHJ. SS31 3d01S HJ./M lN3/N93S .09 0 Q 1.1") c.., It) (>I) (:) ~ in ~ .:.:Q \C) It) It) Q (C It) (0 Q I"'- It) " Q co It) co Q 0) s. ~ C) /;)hOb r;Ob ~..... '''.'0 l.~ 80b ~"b 0,,- ~ I" ~/t6 1,1(, J/!:, OJlb ('f:, 4/6 t, /, O~6 . (t?~ .. ......,.... , ~ '" ~ o ~ 9\0 - ~ ,I.,~b Scb "')~b LEb Ie> g,~b ,- b~ Of.. Ifb i: c b EEl:; I; hE/:;' I I I S;fb I ~ I l I I t ~ cA 1.1") ~ I I ~ Q..I o '~ r ~ 1- ~. 1,0'1 ~a I ,~ ~- ,,-,.' ,-- ~E.b L~b I~R o M o 1.1") ''JW uJ Q.. o ..J Cfl '~'" ' ...... r(:) ~N (:) ~ in It) ,.. It) o """' It) ,.. o N It) N .0 o """' 1.1:~'::' ~ -, ' ~',';; '. .~ ,:;,- ......... :.~-~ t- f2 ZS;cn -. I~W 1",:",.,'- "..J 10. ,a. 'e( . Z I 0 ,~ ,~ ... w a: C- a: w I- , ~!!I!P ,~~ - - en w :E o :I: ~ W I:E: ~ ..J - :I: ~ o :I: ~ ____.....l...>'""......"'~.....;;...~~'....:~...:::.;~;~-'.~;;;.~~~~ ~ {iUil B @ w Uiii1 CJ ~ cg \iUil ~:2) J.n 41\ I ~o ~~(\19 }i: ,).. \( I / ,.)f~ \ Cb /~. C I- - m - :J: >< w <' '", -c :'" \ ~ \ \ \ \ \ /! \ ,I; \. \ () I- ~~~ ...', ~::; c;; __? ~ ~ - - , ... ~ -::", -" ~ ;:, 'i>> ~~ 'h ':C ,I, ~. ~,;- .--_._:..._-_.._-~;~.::...-.~...:.:;;..,;.....:~'~,~:-..:.~'~~' .~-_.~:'-..;.," October 31, 1997 Hillcrest Homes Attn: Chris Deanovic. 14122 Louisiana Avenue Savage, MN 55378 RE: Bluff Interpretation Dear Mr. Deanovic, In regards to your recent inquiry as to what constitutes a bluff, the following are definitions as cited from Section 5-1-7 of the City Code. . BLUFF: A topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or embankment having the following characteristics (an area with an average slope of less than 18 percent over a distance for 50 feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff): (A) Part or all of the feature is located in a shore land area; (B) The slope rises at least twenty five feet (25') or more above the ordinary high-water level of the waterbody; (C) The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluffto a point twenty-five feet (25') or more above the ordinary high-water level averages thirty percent (30%) or greater; and (D) The slope must drain toward the waterbody. . TOP OF THE BLUFF: The higher point of a fifty foot (50') segment with an average slope exceeding eighteen percent (18%). Planning Department interprets the definition of bluff as follows: . Part or all of the feature is located on a riparian lot. . The slope rises at least 25 feet or more above the OHW, anywhere on the slope and any distance from the OHW. On Prior Lake, this means the slope rises to at least 929.0 elevation on any part of the slope on the lot.: . The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the OHW averages 30% or greater. On Prior Lake, this means that the grade on the slope from the toe to 929.0 elevation or greater is greater than 30%. This can be any distance from the OHW. . The slope must drain towards the lake. Slopes draining away from the lake are not considered bluffs. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQL'AL OPPORTc.:NITY EC'v!PLOYER ...,...~.. . Another significant factor in determining bluffs is a grade of 18%. The definition of top and toe of bluff are the highest and lowest points of 50 foot segments with slopes exceeding 18%. It is our interpretation that the entire 50 foot segment with a slope exceeding 18% is part of the bluff, with the highest point being considered the TOP OF BLUFF. Because the definition of TOP OF BLUFF and TOE OF BLUFF do not specify which 50 foot segments or which slopes, the top and toe can be located anywhere on the slope, no specific distance from the OHW. As per our conversation today, you can appeal this interpretation to the City Council. We will need a letter stating your appeal and how your interpretation differs from ours. Any information you can provide us on your interpretation will be helpful to the City Council and Planning Commission prior to the meeting. The next scheduled Planning Commission date is Monday, November 10, 1997. We will need your interpretation and response to this letter by Monday, November 3, 1997 to be scheduled for that meeting. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, jC7l)CbU .'....._...-...-...-~_. .~---....-'-......-<. -iv-DJ'V\ Qt.,- I), I,'n - \Ui-f</<t~_.j:J;L~ .G. ...~'. .'"'....~~..~. / MEMORANDUM RE: CC: November 18, 1997 Planning Commission Don Rye, Planning Director Jenni Tovar, Planner Proposed Bluff Language Jane Kansier, Planner; Bob Hutchins, Building Official; Pat Lynch, DNR; Hillcrest Homes; Jim Albers and BUD Waund, Edina Realty; McKnight and Associates DATE: TO: FROM: Upon the direction of the Planning Commission at its November 10, 1997 meeting, the Planning Staff met with a local developer and real estate agent. The purpose of the meeting was to write revised bluff and top of bluff definitions to alleviate the cumbersome and difficult to interpret current bluff definitions. Based on this meeting, the Planning Staff is proposing the following amendments to the Shoreland and Zoning Ordinances: TOE OF BLUFF: Definition to remain the same. TOP OF BLUFF: The highest point of the slope, as measured from the toe of the bluff, where the grade is 30 percent or greater. BLUFF SETBACK: As measured from the TOP OF BLUFF, the upper end of a segment at least 25 feet in length having an average slope less than 18%. This removes the floating 50 foot segment. TOP OF BLUFF is determined as measured from the TOE OF THE BLUFF, with the slope measured between the 1 foot contours. The building setback is determined by the slope as measured from the TOP OF BLUFF (25 feet minimum), not distance to meet the intent of the ordinance. If the slope from the top of the bluff, towards the street, never drops below 18%, then the lot would be unbuildable without a variance. -----.~,'- .'~ " . . .-, ~. LU ..J a.. ~ ~ >< LLI ~ (.) ~ ~ LU (I) ~ ..J ~ o z ~ LL. ~ ..J ~ LL. o a.. o ..... o LLI (I) o a.. o a: a.. :/:Jn78 :10 dO.l. diEb >lOtf81.3S DN/Q1/n8 Lib (:) ~ /-;;' ~b'-: . -~ .~-"_.--_........_.. s ~Ob "'>06 C?j, :Vf, 6o{, 0,1. ~/~' , fl{, nIl, ..s I b OJ'b ('b <f'b t; 6 O~6 I"G'~ I:.rb heb S'Eb '? 'f?b t...eb /.;> (J O(;!b '.- bC>f:, Ifb t: E b Ez h 1:1 /rib' C;fb f$~ '" ~ - l~ 1('\4 I ~l ~I ... "'1 o 1r1) ro.. (:) .N (:) ~ ~ It) ,... It) N :f-.' ~~ >. . It) o ~ It) ,... (:) N It) N Q ~ in M (:) ~ in ~ .~ --"0 .. \0 It) It) o (,Q It) (C Q ,..... It) ,... Q CO It) CO Q 0') - '0 It) - ~ 0') . II (:) o ,.. .~ ",. ._~< IJ.I .... ~ <t ~ ~ o <t ~ LLI CI) It: ~ ..... en ~ <t It ~ ..... en LL. o a.. o t- O LLI CI) o Q. o ex: Q. -- ~ .~- ..... S -:r:: a I;] ho b t;; ob d:in78 dO dOl. ") () b LOb 80", 6c>fo o,l. e- ~~ ~, t:/fo hI/, .s, b "" I' ('f:, 0 <fIb i~ [, Oe6 (~6 I::. 't" b -SIb "S. (So ill I (II I I I.. ~ '" L 0 "" ~ I / " * '/ . -'- N /N r- M - I JlOV8.J.3S f)NI07/ne -- .$ "lc' in o ~ in .... o C\I in N o V') Q c.., in C"':l o 'I::Z' in -:t ~~ .. ~ in It:) o <:) ~ <0 Q " ~ ,.... (:, co ,~" in 1:0 0 ~ Ohb ~ \. ~~i L- a iC') , \t) o ,... .0 .~.~ in .... o itf'" ~ .~' C'f'\ ,iif,. '7 in N . . o Q ,.... --"",-_~~~:.:.-'....M ,. '" -, .~- -"~~--~~~-~-- ,.'. ---'-~. -- . .._-- ?. -::!:.: C) - -; v v !: T 7' r a- ~ c:r - v - .. G'" ;r- ei "" ... e- it, - ~ r ~ a- o ,... LU -l ~ ~ ~ ~ (J <C ~ LU CI) It ::) ..... CQ ~ <C tt ::;, -J Q1 LL. o Q.. ~ fil (I) o Q.. o ct a. - ..~ -. "" "or ~ ~\ ~ "'S' $" 0" ~ ,... .:f.:ff)7f/ .:fO c/o./. /;, o N '-" S-<.~ ---- ~ 10 C\I I~(I-, 6 o e") I t I t ~ it) M o ~ 17,J h 6 )[;JYflJ:as ON/(]JIDa l~ 4.4 it) ~ ~ N .. -, ~Cb "\0 It) 10 /. ~~~ o (0 It) <0 Q ,...., it, ,..., o CO It) co Q 0') (:) ,... in ,... \~ o -0 ,... ---. .. ..._- '''-~..~. f;' SENT BY: DNR . lETRO; 11 -24-97 11 :57; 6127727573 => 6124474245; #2/2 Minnesota Departrnenl of Nal ural Resources Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793 Telephone: (612) 772.7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977 November 24,1997 ~ Ms. Jenni Tovar, Planner City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 RE: PROPOSED BLUFF DEFINITION REVISIONS Dear Ms. Tovar: 1 have reviewed the proposed revisions to the definitions of loe ofhluj[. lOp afbluff: and bluffsethack for purposes of ~ your shacJand zoning ordinance. As I had expressed. to Don Rye in my November 7. 19971ettcr. the Jangyage amtaincd in lhe state shoreland regulations, which the city has previously adopted., is somewhat difficult to administer. The changes you propose, as defined in your November 11, J 991 IDa'DO to the Planning Commission, n:pn:sa'11 reasonable a1tc:matives to the existing language in your ordmanc.c. In addition to the d~1injtion changes, the city is proposing to relax the sctbadc: from the top of blWI' from the current 30 feet to 2.5 feet. This reduction oHive feet should not m.aJ.a'ially affect the intf:D1 ofthc bluff protection Janguage, provided the provisions regarding building, grading. tilling and vegetalion alteration within the bluff impact 1.one (tlH: bluff itself and land within 20 fecllandwal'd of the top of blutl) are retained. The DNR is not. opposed. to the proposed t.aning amc:ndmenLs. and the relaxation of the bluff setback standard can be approved through implanc:ot.lltion of1he flexibility provisians of the state sborcJand rules. If the City Council proceeds with approval of the proposed amendments, please forward a copy c1f the resolution to mc. If you have any questions. plcase call me at 772~ 7910. SincereJy, \~-~~aJ2--_..'. Palrick 1. Lynch JII An:a Hydrologist c: Ed Fick, ShorcJand Hydrologist J)Nr~ Illi""nn"lklll: (d~.111l1-til.'i'f. '-XOl.l 7(,(, ()(J()(1 , TTV: "'I:' ),/(, ~.;l:S~. J-X()IH1.~71(1.~I.1 . \1\ 1=''1".11 (Jr'lpulhIlHI~ 1~1iI"lu~\'1' '-"'lhl\!"lu~.'. Dh,'a;\il" .... l'lllltl.:d 1111 J{,,\ \\ h.dr":,\pcl ("IIlI;J~IIII1~..1 Ci..1 ;\'(imll1l1l11)H It'f.t 1'\)..t-CUIIM~IlI,!r '","a-':II' AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: INTRODUCTION: PLANNING REPORT 6C CONSIDER APPEAL OF HILLCREST HOMES FROM A RULING OF THE ZONING OFFICER RELATING TO DEFINITION OF A BLUFF AND TOP OF BLUFF (Case File #97 -105) 16091 NORTHWOOD ROAD JENNITOVAR,PLANNER JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR~ _ YES l NO-N/A U . NOVEMBER 10, 1997 Section 5-6-4 of the City Code provides for an appeal process from decisions of the Zoning Officer. The Planning Director is the Zoning Officer in Prior Lake. The action was initiated by an inquiry to the definition of a bluff and top of bluff with regards to a proposed structure on the lot. Attached is a letter to the appellant detailing the definition of a bluff and top o.f bluff and staff's interpretation of those definitions. In a letter to the city, Hillcrest Homes is appealing staff's interpretation and is providing their interpretation of the same definition. DISCUSSION: Section 5-1-7 Definitions of the City Code reads as follows: . BLUFF: A topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or embankment having the following characteristics (an area with an average slope of less than 18 percent over a distance for 50 feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff): (A) Part or all of the feature is located in a shoreline area; (B) The slope rises at least twenty five feet (25') or more above the ordinary high-water level of the waterbed; (C) The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point twenty-five feet (25') or more above the ordinary high-water level averages thirty percent (30%) or greater; and (D) The slope must drain toward the waterbed. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER -- -- ------------------------------ . TOP OF THE BLUFF: The higher point of a fifty foot (50') segment with an average slope exceeding eighteen percent (18%). Planning Department interprets the definition of bluff as follows: . Part or all of the feature is located on a riparian lot. . The slope rises at least 25 feet or more above the OHW, anywhere on the slope and any distance from the OHW. On Prior Lake, this means the slope rises to at least 929.0 elevation on any part of the slope on the lot. . The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the OHW averages 30% or greater. On Prior Lake, this means that the grade on the slope from the toe to 929.0 elevation or greater is greater than 30%. This can be any distance from the OHW. . The slope must drain towards the lake. Slopes draining away from the lake are not considered bluffs. . Another significant factor in determining bluffs is a grade of 18%. The definition of top and toe of bluff are the highest and lowest points of 50 foot segments with slopes exceeding 18%. It is our interpretation that the entire 50 foot segment with a slope exceeding 18% is part of the bluff, with the highest point being considered the TOP OF BLUFF. Because the definition of TOP OF BLUFF and TOE OF BLUFF do not specify which 50 foot segments or which slopes, the top and toe can be located anywhere on the slope, no specific distance from the OHW. Exhibit A is a diagram of this interpretation. Exhibit B is how this interpretation relates to the specific lot in question. Hillcrest Homes contends that because the definition states that "...an area with an average slope of less than 18 percent over a distance for 50 feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff' that this area is removed from the slope before a determination on top of bluff is made. Then, when the determination for top of bluff is made, this area cannot be a part of the top of bluff because it has been eliminated by definition. Exhibit C is Hillcrest Homes' interpretation and Exhibit D is how this interpretation affects their specific lot. In meetings on October 22, 1997 and October 4,1997, the DNR has given staff their interpretation of the definition of Bluff and Top of Bluff. The definitions that the city has adopted are the same as those in the 1987 DNR Shoreland Management Regulations. The DNR has verbally concurred with the Planning Department staff interpretation, and is providing a written response affirming their position. L:\97FILES\97 APPEAL\97 -110\97-11 OPC.DOC Page 2 Staff's conclusion is that the statement about not including areas with slopes less than 18% is meant to allow construction on flat areas of lots where there may be multiple bluffs. When the top of bluff is determined to be the highest point of a 50 foot segment where the average slope exceeds 18%, the area downhill from the top of bluff must be part of the bluff by definition. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend to the City Council that it uphold the staff interpretation of the ordinance. 2. Recommend to the City Council that it accept the appeal and find that Hillcrest Homes' interpretation of the ordinance is correct. 3. Defer action on this request for specific reasons. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No.1. ACTION REQUIRED: Motion and second expressing the opinion of the Planning Commission. L:\97FI LES\97 APPEAL \97-110\97-11 OPC.DOC Page 3 ------------------ 50' SEGMENT WITH SLOPE ~ LESS THAN 18% \\ . N ur PAIZ.T OF 8Ll>FF c-,933 .el ~ Q ..... o Q- - .-. ---c7\'--- i - fc; "21 ~ J .~. I '~ ii _~ . I ) 'J VI ~ t l I I I I I I q 3 5 t I __.1 'N U\ N,":" QJ ..... u:! u:! ..... Q ,.... - 'Jo I AC ~ ~ ~ ~ A"\ - ~ \ C/') L o -e m 50' SEGMENT WITH SLOPE ~ GREATER THAN 18% <0 0 Q) U\ (X) Q ...., UI ...... 0 CJ) U\ 0) 0 U\ UI U\ e>t' -- ~ U! ~ Q to) U\ Co.) 0 N u:! N Q ..... U\ ..... Q U\ q37 VI ~ '13/p w ~ alen E);! ."." ."." ~'r~. Z.... ::::t em - ....::D m o -a .... -a~)> o~ "'==i aI- ..0 c:Z "'0 ."." //31 el &J:?3 q 3:( q3; "30 . -\ :t. - oc..fl 1'\ ~~ r- c:. c:." "'"." ." LJ~ ~tt\ -on, _ -1 (:U' - -; c-:. o ~ ~~ · tt\ "P - :t:. ~ o\\i "k i' ~ VI ~ c.;~. """'J 9$ J ~ 9:ilo 9 '7 91;> "l'7 9/10 91S- ., <J,'i 9/J.3 " i "'0 "ta,,; ~o8' ~~. ) co -. "# }2~ 15 \ :}. qos \) "" ',,";~-//\\ 0.(~" \\ ./ \ l' \ c \ 't, '\' '1) \ ......::, ,"", \:<~ \,;" .~ '()o.JL- S"~ :.:~_;. .::.;;. - c;,: C' "'.:. c,. .. ,. -rof' 0 F 6/.1) F F \V- ~ I f, '"J )( I " """ "^ I - I I I } ... .I j' I l / 1\ / rJlV- / I .r..'/ / " ,., /' ~,0 1- ../ v', \ //, t'/; \ / .;) \ / /J)' I &, / . \ ~~ ,,/ ) " / ~/,11'r-' / 'lI~ /- /' ~~ ~ \3) ~ m t:::l ~ ('i') @ g ~ ~/ .....1/ ,4-/ '>(~, 0' \J' v""i " / . /1.--' . /v ",-1P'"" _ v /? -:/ fL A~ (ftf}' .\ ~ / ~\ .~r, _-...~'"' ",-..--,,-. .-...... "~ .-- -~.._.--:--"--:..,,.,..,., :I: o ~ ~ )> ." ." - (J) - Z -I m :xL ." :2J m i'1 ~ - o z ~ ." ." .... - m en -I o -I :t' - en 6 -. m >< :t - OJ - -I OJ .. "......._ _n .".,.~_...._~,.,_...._...........-~- -..-- ,.. -- Q Q U! - :. )1 CO - U\ 0 <0 Q ClQ U\ CO ~ ...., U\ -....! Q 0) U\ en Q U\ U\ U\ <:;>: -' ~ U! .tl. ~ Co) U\ Co.) VI Q ~ -- Q 9ZiO ? '7 911' <J17 9/r., '7 IS' 9 ~/'i 9/~3 "I ~ "0 'el ,o(? -- ~ ... U\ w ~ 8' 0\0 k f' I':!J N U\ N ~ ... U\ Z;.)} Q. '_: :.,p Ul qOj N,- ~J .--' --0\ .- ~ (- - ~ i'~ ...... \l21 ~ J ~. I~ 1m I I VI ~ t l I I l I I I q 3 5 ~ l -'~ : C/') l o ""0 m VI ~ ,93'1 . el '133 '1 3 ~ &]3/ "30 ,;<; -' q~o o I?/ 9<:17 9.;< (p 9;,S 9<;'i -It 33 . e.I .tl. ~ 50' SEGMENT WITH SLOPE LESS THAN 18% it .J d c.1 Z 50' SEGMENT WITH SLOPE ~ -. ~ GREATER THAN 18% '137 -d ~ ~ en iP o .." ~ r- c -n (;f~ \\ x - r- iO~ .,,0 tIJ:D r-m c:~ ." .-rl:r )>0 m zS: em ~ -I CJ) - 0-= to -az,=i -I Om 0 .,,:D OJ-a r-:D c:m .,,~ -n~ - o Z · TfJP fJ f:' ~LlJF F . o~; tt\ -p - '1\ ~ V) -t\1 ~~(j:) ~:b~ ~o"" ""- ." ." cps r-t't\ ct't't -a -\ -nV\ ''\ :'L" '-( t. ~ .~ ~. '-:., ./ '-::.. '--> m >< :z: - tD - -I C s _ ;.. .;; .~ - c/ ,P ...' ~ s- -')- V ,:'-:. ,'~ /\/ rJ/>' ./ -u..;' I^"*:.E fi, . " e..-' ."..11."1':>; 'j' . ~" i/r ~rJ- ~ b\~ / /~"p J I / .J: J . ), / ~ / J\ I ' ^' I ,/,t. // ,f'g vff 6'" o~ c;v,'\o I t1? uy. ~- \ \ / \ / rf'o/ \ /. / ,0 \ . :7JJ / / -&: / / ~:;{ // ~"f\r' ,Jl f7)D / " .,/ '/ )/ \ ....,. " ~-1 '/ !j :4'/ ,~ 'I<' 0' 'oj t7i , ~ frY -.\\7 /,/ ,1 vY ,. ()4- A1- (j;;J \ .\iY _.. .'" "'_""~ 'C'..' _......_-'::'_-,.-~' ~ ::t o ~ J: - r- n ~ m ~ :z: o 3: m (J) - - Zt~ -I' m ~ ." :D m ~- ~ -- o z )> ." ." r-.".; -~", m\f....'. ot,' ~ ~_.: C/):.; 1 l -11 01 -1.1 :Et" _.;, 'ft. ,. v,,~_. t;!If' '. ........ ". .: . ~:i ; - ~~:'-:' October 31, 1997 Hillcrest Homes Attn: Chris Deanovic 14122 Louisiana Avenue Savage,~ 55378 RE: Bluff Interpretation . Dear Mr. Deanovic, In regards to your recent inquiry as to what constitutes a bluff, the following are definitions as cited from Section 5-1-7 of the City Code. . BLUFF: A topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or embankment having the following characteristics (an area with an average slope ofless than 18 percent over a distance for 50 feet or more shall not be considered part ofthe bluff): (A) Part or all ofthe feature is located in a shore land area; (B) The slope rises at least twenty five feet (25') or more above the ordinary high-water level of the waterbody; (C) The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluffto a point twenty-five feet (25') or more above the ordinary high-water level averages thirty percent (30%) or greater; and (D) The slope must drain toward the waterbody. . TOP OF THE BLUFF: The higher point of a fifty foot (50') segment with an average slope exceeding eighteen percent (18%). Planning Department interprets the definition of bluff as follows: . Part or all of the feature is located on a riparian lot. . The slope rises at least 25 feet or more above the OHW, anywhere on the slope and any distance from the OHW. On Prior Lake, this means the slope rises to at least 929.0 elevation on any part of the slope on the lot.: . The grade ofthe slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the OHW averages 30% or greater. On Prior Lake, this means that the grade on the slope from the toe to 929.0 elevation or greater is greater than 30%. This can be any distance from the OHW. . The slope must drain towards the lake. Slopes draining away from the lake are not considered bluffs. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQCAL OPPORT-';NlTY EMPLOYER . Another significant factor in determining bluffs is a grade of 18%. The definition oftop and toe of bluff are the highest and lowest points of 50 foot segments with slopes exceeding 18%. It is our interpretation that the entire 50 foot segment with a slope exceeding 18% is part of the bluff, with the highest point being considered the TOP OF BLUFF. Because the definition of TOP OF BLUFF and TOE OF BLUFF do not specify which 50 foot segments or which slopes, the top and toe can be located anywhere on the slope, no specific distance from the OHW. As per our conversation today, you can appeal this interpretation to the City Council. We will need a letter stating your appeal and how your interpretation differs from ours. Any information you can provide us on your interpretation will be helpful to the City Council and Planning Commission prior to the meeting. The next scheduled Planning Commission date is Monday, November 10, 1997. We will need your interpretation and response to this letter by Monday, November 3, 1997 to be scheduled for that meeting. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, j~ ,,____ _,"__,>,..'_~._,"_-,..-.'__--o;'-,",.-~_-.,.._ .--...---_.,.~...."""''''---'.'' \ HILLCREST HOMES, INC. 16714 Jaguar Ave.. Lakeville. Mmnesota55044 (612) 898-7663 Office (612) 898-3364 Fax .~ Builder Driven By Quality Craftsmanship and Value." Date Nov. 3,1997 Jennifer Tovar Planner Dept. Of Planning and Zoning City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Dear Jennifer: .... ~l,fo~InC.,wishes toapp..l ih<istaJf~nof"T!!P1.;r~lt~ ~"" resultingimpactof~he staff interpretation on our property at 16091"N9~'Y09~'ii'~~ from~ctioIl5-1-7 of the City code the deflliitionof a. bluffand~'T op of1lt~~l~j~~;~~~ows: ,BLUFF-A topographic feature. such as a hill, c~or embankmerithaving the~~~~~g charllc~s (all area with all av~rageslope of less thllll 18 pe~~t;;!V~r a d~!lr 50 feet or more shaUnot be conside.red part of the bluff): . ..... .'>/> . . (A}Part or all of the feature is located in a shorelandarea:; . ,., (B) The slope risesatleast twenty five feet (25') or nio~.~lJg've the o~~ water level of the water body; ........ ......................... iii (C)The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluffto~pointtwentyt~.>> (25') or more above the ordinary high-water level averages thirty perc~.~?'~) or greater; and (DYThe slope must drain toward the water body. TOP OF THE BLUFF- The higher point ofa fifty foot (50') segment with anll'v~.~e slope exceeding eighteen percent (18%). ., The definition clearly states that " an are~with an average slope.of1esst~~l~~.~~~~~ce of 50' shall not be considered part of the bluff'. The 50' segmentbetweenthe933ll11di9.i:tll elevation points on the easterly side of the site in question has an average slope of 16%, and therefore should not be considered part of the bluff. In addition, the DNR definition for "Top of the Bluff' from which the city has adopted their ordinance states: "Top of the Bluff' means the point on a bluff where there is, as visually observed, a clearly identifiable break in the slope, from steeper to gentler slope above. If no break in the slope is apparent, the top of bluff shall be determined to be the upper end of a 50' segment, measure on the ground, with an average slope exceeding 18 percent. Builder License # 20036544 · Member of the Builders Association of the Twin Cities -- - -- -- --- -- --- ---- -- - - - --- - - - - - --..------- -~-- , _,..,........ -:.._..~...,._..~ .__._.. ._.........._;..L. .J, 'Since there is a clearly identifiable break in the slope we feel the 50 ft. segment with an average slope of 16% is not part ofthe bluff. We believe the low point of this 50 ft. segment clearly identifies "Top of the Bluff", and the point from which the 30 ft. bluff setback is measured. Using this setback point would place the proposed structure in an appropriate location in reference to the adjoining property structures, thus creating consistency in the neighborhood. .1 Pres. Hillcrest Homes, Inc. ---------------- Resolution and Minutes L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC C. Case #97-110 Hillcrest Homes appeal of the decision of the Zoning Administrator relating to the definition of a bluffin the Shoreland District. Planner Jenni Tovar presented the staff report dated November 10, 1997. Section 5-6-4 of the City Code provides for an appeal process from decisions of the Zoning Officer. The Planning Director is the Zoning Officer in Prior Lake. The action was initiated by an inquiry to the definition of a bluff and top of bluff with regards to a proposed structure on the lot. The City sent a letter to the appellant detailing the definition of a bluff and top of bluff and staffs interpretation of those definitions. In a letter to the city, Hillcrest Homes is appealing staffs interpretation and is providing their interpretation of the same definition. Staff s conclusion is the statement not including areas with slopes less than 18% is meant to allow construction on flat areas oflots where there may be multiple bluffs. When the top of bluff is determined to be the highest point of a 50 foot segment where the average slope exceeds 18%, the area downhill from the top of bluff must be part of the bluffby definition. The Department of Natural Resources concurs with staffs interpretation stated in Hydrologist, Pat Lynch's letter dated November 7, 1997. Comments from the public: Chris Deanovic, 14122 Louisiana Avenue, Savage, representing Hillcrest Homes highlighted the bluff section from the DNR Shoreland Regulations. He understands there is a bluff and went on to explain his belief of where the top of the bluff should be. He knows the DNR agrees with staff but also indicated the ordinance is ambiguous and can be flexible. Mr. Deanovic went on to explain their proposed home stating they are trying to position their building not to obstruct their view of the lake (between the two neighboring structures). Their interpretation of the bluff would be a 10% slope. Winston Simonson, 16087 Northwood Road said he was present for curiosity purposes. He is a neighbor and said the house in question is 24 years old. Mr. Simonson explained he is not complaining but was interested how the new structure will affect them. He was hoping the new home would be set back so they could see the lake. Deanovic went on to explain the 50 foot segment on the back of a proposed home with a 9 foot difference. They have no desire to impact the bluff. The DNR accepts a 20 foot setback, Prior Lake 30 feet. Rye explained the City was informed by the DNR that a couple of years after they promulgated these rules with the definition the City adopted, they administratively adopted the language that talks about where one can observe the slope change from greater to lesser. Prior Lake adopted the Shoreland Rules definition. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MNIII097.DOC 4 Winston Simonson pointed out the obvious slope always referred to as a cliff on the survey. There is quite a grade to the front ofthe house compared to the back. He feels the slope should end at the front of the building. The house is going to be crowded no matter where it is placed. Mr. Simonson stated he received a variance 24 years ago. The Board at the time said he had to get written permission on each side. One neighbor refused and the other stated he had to maintain the 15 foot setback. Jim Albers, Storms Circle, pointed out staffs interpretation opposed to his interpretation of the bluffwith the 50 foot segments and feels the error is in the definition ofthe top of the bluff and suggested a proposed top of bluff definition: "The lower point of the closest 50 feet segment to the toe of the bluffthat has an average slope of 18% or less." He feels it is really hard to enforce because of the complicated definition. The DNR has two documents for the City, one regulation and a sample administrative ordinance. V onhof pointed out that surveys in the Shoreland District should have contour lines. Marv Mirsch, has a seasonal home at 15432 Red Oaks Road, permanent home in St. Paul, presented a proposed Minnesota Rules from the legislature provided by Pat Lynch of the DNR. One word is missing in the Prior Lake Ordinance "to find it necessary to exclude from the definition of the bluff any areas that .... with an area slope of 18% or less over a 50 foot segment. He feels the City should exclude anything 18% or less in the bluff area. Mr. Mirsch believes the ordinance interpretation is an exclusion not inclusion. Rye said Mr. Mirsch and Mr. Albers definitions are correct stating the DNR allows flexibility. But the issue is Prior Lake's definition. The bluff impact zone includes the bluff itself. Comments from the Commissioners: Kuykendall: . The definition is defined in the Shore land Management hand book, Zoning Ordinance and DNR Rules and Model Ordinance. . The only option is to stay out of the bluff impact zone. Stamson stated the discussion is if staffs interpretation is correct. Kuykendall: . Staff s interpretation is correct. . Will recommend to redefine the definition. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MNIII097.DOC 5 Stamson: · At first agreed strictly with staff, then agreed with applicant, but after discussion this evening believe staff s interpretation is clearly correct. · The definition of bluff is really an independent description of what the top ofa bluff IS. · The staff interpreted the ordinance correctly and is backed by the DNR. Cramer: · The wording is contradicting. There is no consistency. The DNR is responsible. · The intent of the ordinance is to prevent someone from coming in the future where their home slides into the lake. · People will ask why did the City let me build in a bluff? . Staffs interpretation is correct. V onhof: . Concurs with staff and Commissioners. . It should not be that hard for residents and staff to interpret. The intent is to have bluff protection. . There is a second issue to deal with after this motion. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY CRAMER, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL TO UPHOLD THE STAFF INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE AS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Open Discussion: Kuykendall suggested having someone from the DNR come in an explain the negative impacts ofthis issue. We need to be educated, what steps can one take and maintain the ordinance. He believes an engineer can come in and show how to stabilize the land and meet the objectives. V onhof agreed. Some one should come up with better definitions. Stamson stated the DNR obviously did a study and this was the conclusion. His concern is the original way it was written it was fairly restricted but now administratively, the DNR has become loose in their definition. There should be bluff standards. Meet certain criteria. Stamson and Cramer's concern is the definition ofthe top of the bluff. Rye said he would be happy to meet with the applicant and go over a definition to present to City Council. Until it is changed, staffs recommendation will follow the ordinance. L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MNll1 097 .DOC 6 MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO REFER THIS BACK TO STAFF FOR STUDY AND FOR STATING THE PRACTICE IN SIMILAR COMMUNITIES WITH SIMILAR ISSUES AS PART OF THE ZONING CODE ORDINANCE ON NOVEMBER 24, 1997. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 7. Announcements and Correspondence: MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, TO MODIFY ALL REQUIREMENTS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO HAVE ALL LOT MEASUREMENTS ROUNDED UP NO GREATER THAN .5 FEET. V onhof suggested the Zoning Administrator could make the decision. There would still be a process but could be determined administratively. Kuykendall retracted the motion and agreed to have staff come up with a practical solution. Cramer questioned the availability of the new zoning ordinance. Rye responded by the end of the week. Kuykendall wanted to bring back a previous issue of "traffic calming" on Highway 13. The Commissioners would like to reconsider changing the truck traffic routing by the State to County Road 1 7 to minimize the traffic on Highway 13. He suggested a study using County Road 27 and 21 to alleviate traffic. Kuykendall also suggested revisiting all traffic controls on Highway 13. This would bring in State, County and local engineers. He would like to see 4-way stop signs. 4-way stops it will force truck traffic off Highway 13 and reduce the volume of traffic. This issue should be part of a workshop after the zoning ordinance. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY VONHOF, THAT COUNCIL BE APPRISED OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S INTEREST IN REVIEWING THE ISSUE OF HIGHWAY 13 FROM A STRATEGIC POINT OF VIEW RELATIVE TO TRAFFIC CALMING AND THE POTENTIAL OF PULLING NEIGHBORHOODS TOGETHER INSTEAD OF SEPARATING NEIGHBORHOODS AND WE INVITE THE STATE AND COUNTY PEOPLE TO JOIN US IN WORKSHOPS. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 8. Adjournment: CHAIRMAN STAMSON ADJOURNED THE MEETING AT 8:44 P.M.. Donald Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary L:\97FILES\97PLCOMM\PCMIN\MNIII097.DOC 7 Q~ ~5 . . . . . . . . . 1598.DOC Upon a vote, ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, nay Schenck, the motion carried. PRESENTATIONS: A. Consider Presentation by Hillcrest Home Representatives Supporting an Appeal from the Decision of the Zoning Officer Relating to Bluff and Top of Bluff. City Manager Boyles introduced the item. Because the new zoning ordinance has not yet been adopted, and the new ordinance would render this request moot, Hillcrest Homes representatives wanted to address the City Council as an information item. Jim Albers of 14992 Storm Circle, representing Hillcrest Homes, addressed the Council. He said on October 31st, they asked the Planning Staff to identify the legal building envelope. This is an appeal to the zoning officer. On November 10th they were heard by the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission voted in support of staff's recommendation. He said an ambiguity in the bluff ordinance is created by the words "shall not" which appear in the ordinance. He read the ordinance from the Prior Lake City Code. He presented a diagram showing the lot and where the water and sewer were fed into the lot. Mayor Mader asked if the existing house had been removed. Mr. Albers said the removal started today. He showed another diagram of the lake end of the lot. He showed where the lot, a flight of stairs, and the portion the surveyor has identified as top of bluff. He identified one foot elevation marks. He said the existing house was there since 1950. The neighboring house was to the west. He said the Planning staff wants the new house to go behind the neighboring house. Mayor Mader asked about the red lines on the map. Mr. Albers said it showed where the pending zoning ordinance provisions on the bluff would place the house. He identified what staff identified as top of bluff and where staff would have Hillcrest put the house. Mr. Albers handed out a scale drawing of a cross section of the east side of the property. He said the red area was 30% or greater slope. The yellow area was 50 feet with a slope of 18% or less. The existing structure in relation to the Ordinary High Water Mark is 46 feet from the 904 line. He would like to build 101 feet from the 904 line. Staff wants Hillcrest to build 128 feet from the 904 line. He said staff changed its application of current ordinance. He said all diagrams he prepared were from information he got from staff. He showed another map of a project on 5600 Fairlawn Shores. He said the staff report overlooked a bluff impact issue. He showed lot 22 which had a permit approved. The red and yellow zone overlap. It has a visually identified top of bank. If staff correctly applied the ordinance, the homeowners would not have been able to build on that lot. The staff would like Council to believe they did not know this. The builder had to reconstruct the bluff to satisfy City zoning, planning, and building. He said City Staff visited the site and should have applied it in their situation as well. Mr. Albers handed out transparencies. He highlighted in dark red where the staff wanted him to build. He said the Red Oaks site was above his elevation and showed the red line where to build. He went through all transparencies. He pointed out a site that should have had a variance. He pointed out a setback within the bluff area, and showed four lots that were within the bluff area. He said staff's previous interpretation was that the surveyor marked top of bank and then marked 30 foot setback. Now they have included the slope of 18% or less. He said the Planning Staff would like them to believe it was one issue. He said there were issues of whether the current ordinance was ambiguous. He said staff has carelessly and inconsistently applied the ordinance. He said they believe the problem is the ordinance. He requested the Council take immediate action on the appeal. Councihnember Kedrowski said he was concerned about the staff report. He asked if the ordinance was interpreted differently. Planning Director Rye said in these cases the bluff ordinance was overlooked. In two others, the reference to the surveyor's indication of top of bank was accepted by staff as proper and correct information, and turned out to be inaccurate. 4 . 1598.DOC . Mayor Mader said it was perplexing to know how to respond to it. He said the information presented makes it clear that Hillcrest Homes had one set of information and others had another. He said the issue of granting variances includes hardship issues. At this time the ordinance does not exist. A fourth question he had was in the case of the bluff ordinance as it originally existed what was its primary purpose. . Planning Director Rye said there were two major criteria, slope stability and water quality. Appearance of lake shore from lake is another criteria. . Mayor Mader asked City Engineer Ilkka whether there was engineering software that dealt with slope design. He asked how much of an effort would it take to verify whether the proposed house location would create landslide? . City Engineer Ilkka said he would be reluctant to take it on in-house. . Mayor Mader said it would appear from the proposal that the location of the house is positive. He said the distance from the lake should not contribute to the landslide. He would like City Engineer Ilkka to confIrm that there won't be a landslide and bring the issue to the next meeting. . City Attorney Pace said there are two things happening. She said the applicant has not requested a variance. She said the question is whether or not the Council concurs with the staffs interpretation of the bluff ordinance. . Mayor Mader said his interpretation is that while the ordinance is not clear, staff is correctly interpreting it. The DNR agreed with the interpretation. He said he would rather deal with a variance. . City Attorney Pace said the alternative is to adopt the bluff ordinance before adopting zoning ordinance. . Councilmember Kedrowski said his problem with that is when asking for some interpretations to be brought in from the City Engineer, the question is whether it is a realistic timeline for adoption of the ordinance. . Mr. Albers said that his examples of Bluff mentioned earlier were not the only ones. He said what concerns him is the current application could render 20-25% of the houses on the lake non-conforming. He said staff was applying an extreme application of its interpretation. The DNR revised theirs in 1991 to include visual top of bank. The City's ordinance does not. He said the other thing was the sewer comes in on the lake side of the house. The demolition was scheduled over a month ago. He said it was needlessly delayed by something that is going to happen anyway. He requested the Council act to allow Hillcrest to proceed based on past applications of ordinance. . City Attorney Pace suggested acceleration by creating a Bluff Ordinance that would no longer be part of zoning ordinance, or applying for a variance. . Mayor Mader said the fact that staff mistakenly interpreted the ordinance doesn't mean it should duplicate the mistake. He said staff could bring a Bluff ordinance to the next Council meeting. He said one of the things they discussed at a workshop is technical provisions that prevent landslides into the lake. He asked City Engineer Ilkka how long it would take to address soil provisions. . City Engineer Ilkka said the concern is every lake lot has a different soil type. . Planning Director Rye said another approach is to identify certain parameters, and require certification from the applicant's engineer that satisfies design criteria. . Mayor Mader said it could set worse-case situation such as sand, in the event a particular site has better soil conditions. With all of the discussion and proposals, none of them have gone through Engineering. Planning Director Rye said keep in mind when the DNR set standards it reviewed slope stability issues, and that is available. 5 · Councilmember Kedrowski said looking at the ordinance, he did not want to make it so technical and cumbersome to be able to do anything. · Mayor Mader said what he would suggest is that between now and the next meeting that Planning and Engineering bring a revised ordinance dealing with the slope in the Lake shore area. MOTION BY MADER SECOND BY SCHENCK TO DIRECT STAFF TO REVISE BLUFF ORDINANCE TO REFLECT SLOPE REQUIREMENTS IN THE LAKE SHORE AREA AND RETURN TO THE CITY COUNCIL AT THE JANUARY 20TH MEETING. Upon a vote, ayes by Kedrowski, Mader, Petersen and Schenck, the motion carried. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Public Hearing on the Implementation and Results of an Economic Development Grant from the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development and Transmitting Semiannual Progress Report. · City Manager Boyles introduced the item. He said a report was submitted in case the public has issues or concerns. · Mayor Mader opened the public hearing. He asked if there were any comments from the public. There were none. MOTION BY SCHENCK SECOND BY KEDROWSKI TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Upon a vote, ayes by Kedrowski, Mader, Petersen, and Schenck, the motion carried. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY SCHENCK TO APPROVE THE IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS OF AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GRANT FROM THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. Upon a vote, ayes by Kedrowski, Mader, Petersen, and Schenck, the motion carried. B. Tax Increment Financing Hearings to Consider: 1) Approval of Resolution 98-03 Approving Modification of Tax Increment Financing District 2-1 Relating to Keyland Homes 2) Approval of Resolution 98-04 Approving Modification of Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-6 Relating to NBC Products, Inc. 3) Approval of Resolution 98-05 Approving the Creation of Tax Increment Financing District 2-9 Relating to Roberts Foods. . City Manager Boyles introduced the item. He said modifying TIF district 2-1 would allow for the acquisition ofa property by Keyland Homes and another 15,000 square foot building. The 2-6 modification involves NBC products, 1.03 acres to an existing 2 acre parcel. The law requires a ten day notice, which has been given. The modification of new districts require the school district and County be advised. He asked Consultant Guenette to comment. The EDA has reviewed and recommended the proposals. . Consultant Guenette reviewed the location of the proposed TIF districts, modifying 2-1 and 2-6. TIP 2-1 covers a 1.7 acre piece. The developer wants to add the 1/2 acre piece. In the 2-1 proposal the developer wants to acquire 1/2 acre, and will purchase it at $2.04 per square foot, $250, initially, and $10,000 over next several years. In exchange for negotiated purchase, the developer wants the City to expand the TIP district established in 1993. It would terminate in the year 2003. There is approximately six years left on the life of the district. Keyland Homes does not have a definitive date. In exchange for the purchase agreement, the City would expand TIP at some point in next four years. He said the developer would expand between 5,000 and 15,000 square feet. . Mayor Mader asked about TIP 2-1, page 7. The $66,531 is City's cost through the period of time that it is in a TIP District. 1598.DOC 6 Correspondence L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC HILLCREST HOMES, INC. 16714 Jaguar Ave., Lakeville, Minnesota 55044 (612) 898-7663 Office (612) 898-3364 Fax .~ Builder Driven By Quality Craftsmanship and Value." ern C . s DeanoVlc President January 27, 1998 Jenny Tovar Planning Department City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Dear Jenny: Hillcrest Homes, Inc. is withdrawing its request to case # 97-110 to appeal a decJ.si.9 the zoning officer relating to interpretation of bluff and top ofbfu:ff on the prop located at 16091 Northwood Road. If you have any questions, or need additional information, please contact me at , , , , \~~l FEB - 2 ~ , ;\' I':' ,i, ; 'I il01 Builder License # 20036544. Member of the Builders Association of the Twin Cities FAX#: q~oo ~ '--')47- J..{7 3S-- <61 ~- ~ 3{pL/ DATE: J -d -IS! .j im rrl ~~S TO: ch,...-($ j~lh~(<" FROM: ~ nn,-Tovevr SUBJECT: ()) uPf ~' freS97Ic:..Aon (JJ ri::intAJ<, I''S ,'1'1 VY1 aJ i TIME: Message: ~ yvO J \,1st 0- evn /ncJer -the, W C cl J /.tJ oct J A) c?/fn w:vd t ~ cj- s+ be. ('t JOe VJ vCr ( ('1 w;/{ f (ec.ord/,r1 ,tOr +0 ) 5 S {JarJU ym,'-f Number of pages sent including this page: 3cr FAX#: L-j 00 "lld-rt777 DATE: 10 -~J~) TO: :fat ~~(10 ___ FROM: ~hfLA--.; \ Ol~ SUBJECT: ~( uN ~Jr rrdcdt?Jv1 TIME: Message: \$ Chtfs ~ r{r~ lv+{, (S+-~ (c {/rv ~ ' {,PI'tl !lvide t/S wt~ LA \ ~ ' m j/lJa - 'J2. (/.i II +~ In 'r,). ih;$ vV/-rL be OJ-) ;UD _ I O.f1 f q q 7 r!fc(lJnJ/1- (jW1~S~ CL Number of pages sent including this page: ~ Mayor Lee Andren City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake MN 55372 ~~~D/l ~ illc~O :.. r ~ ' ~ December 26, 1997 Dear Mayor Andren, The fIrst lot labeled a "Bluff Lot" on Prior Lake was the Red Oaks Lot which was appealed to the City Council on Jlme 16th. This was not the fIrst lot that was scrutinized for a bluff. The fIrst was a lot on Inguadona Beach in January-February of 1996, by Don Rye and staff. The Fairlawn Shores lots to which I referred in the June 16th appeal of Red Oaks were also scrutinized for a bluff by Don Rye and staff. You challenged my comparison of Red Oaks to F airlawn on the basis that F airlawn was not a bluff lot. I am enclosing a survey of Lot 17 Northwood, which has slightly less slope and height than Fairlawn, which Planning now says is a bluff lot. Needless to say, I'm confused. The buyer of this lot, who designed a nice home to be built with a 75' setback, is also confused when told he must build with over 140' setback - where there will be little view of the lake since the lot has 8' of negative grade to the street. This lot was reviewed with Planning on July 24, 1997 with a setback set at 50'. The buyer designed a home with a 75' setback only to have his building permit, which he submitted on October 2, 1997, rejected. Needless to say, we are confused. Sincerely, c;id 5#~ Bud Waund PS: The enclosed photocopies have been reduced to approximately the same scale so they are comparable visually, as well as with a ruler. ~'~' " ~ """ ~"- , 7'" " ,il h ~~ '\~" 'O, \:'1' ~I'I\'I / ~:-: ~ ~ ~,Ill :, ' '~:': I( l.... o~ (ltc", -~ <0 0.., ""> ~ :,."... r <6 <0,. ~ ~.~ ) ,. ''"~ //' 9Z 6 6 , 'I ~8~ r. :/ 1(0 ~.".O:. I., 0 ........':..:::--..::::::.- / (~'}'~('~" . l'~':; , VS(" I ~. ~ :::..... .../... <,J 1'"00", ,. ''''-.... 92~: .' "-... - 1-At( 1-((: 0 / r... ..~ :................. ' . /'" O~ (C~ I ~4J i ........~'-::..r- C''rOIyO/v . / ,- ..:::-~"""-- (0 <3 I' _ltJ ,;; / -----g~"'::_ I/)ClJ Q , ~.'.,,:)""''''~ '" - .......... ,,' '1' :', ) , ...~...:Q ...),. .1:ii-'t:./-"'_: to.,. :r/;:' :;;:~;:) 11l'~U ,0." I~-,.- ... ..........._...~ .>2" "(' -"-;;!:J' ~~ ~-~~ j / .-<' i,-a : _ ' . , I. 9 [l llt40 I " . Z1 (~" ott'IC. r/,.. J'F)/;": "~"~onus "/f.'.,~ ~ '11~~'~~";~o"'O) G^R^t:/ ",:,~! (ill """', l.., I&o/(<.~ ) (;,/ . /::' ! N 4i / o. r""-:..J ~ - . :.."'- _:i fJ"Gl:l \::t~. IIV9 tL . , - _6.0.: ~ \)3' 1 .,' / C'. ~!1.10 4 !:'/';//.J.. 'IO':-ptf.{ -~. '9-:8' ,./ "O'~b . " .: I i ',i6'~ -r-/.. I \O,~I\ /; : / " "':.!!)93'4.1"'~-:""''''1.. I ' -"l(,{)::_... (lR1Vlwi\., REV. 11113/,lIe;To' AOO .' TO PROPOSElJ HOUSE. REV. 10124/96 To SHOW ELEV. 1\ T TOP Of !lANK. REV. 10121(.96 TO SHOW HSE. a OECK ON ,LOT 26 a Tor OF BAt4K ON LOT 24. a TOE OF SLOPE. Lot 24. f^I1l1.^WN SlluUI';:;, :;cott Coul1ty. Nilll1e"otil. ^lHo "hLl"iny the lcx:atiol' of aU exinti'"j i'''iKOV''tnl'l1tc; ,"" 'H'l"vl'y.,d this Uth day of ..lllly, 19'J6. Lot Area above EL, 904.0 a7,~!.q.ff. NET IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COvERAGE' iT, 0 % t-K1l'ES' Belldllll('l"\ Elevdtioll 'JJ'I.t-'~; top Ilut of. hyd. at Lot..~ /..3 & ;~tJ H.JPjllcREST HOMES 16714;I'iJAGUAFI AVENUE LAKE,V,ILLE, MN. 55044 ',X'I: ~.:;,:.j;;; Valley Surveying Co., p.A. SUITE /20.C, /6G 70 FRANKLIN TRAIL FIfANKUN TRAil. OFFICE CONDOMINIUM PH/OIl U\/(E. MINNESOTA 55372 TELEPHONE (GI2) 447 _ 2570 I , l;~Jh :l"i: . ~ '1, PlY/OfT> .. . ,., . / I;. ')'.) ;;1;" :;ii;' _,I . , . ;,.... I" "/(1'. i:J , ~ ~. ~ f') ~. --<----- -" I I 15.PINC .:X: lIufllL. 9H.6~ ./ '(l~ -15" () ~ ----- ", -'49 . -----.. '5 9'7, TC [,---j ^, () .P/' "'-'os . .-..-,\'76" [II ". ..,. OJ '..._..~<^'" ,. '.c ". . .'o!"'-.lY 9"4. 60s -___..... r.;..f~ 935.10 - 9."'" .34.81 . ~.'-'!~4WN --~""--~f!<?Rc S --. ...._~R4/1. ------.. - 9..5.n . ':1-1 ',' ~"'ti JIt .) .., DESCIU P'n UH : ; I ! i ,\ :j 11 , o r SCALE 9JJ.6 1Jf!llolen exlstill<l ql"ild(! el '?VilliOll ~ I 4~ DENOTES PROPOSED FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION I --~ OENOTES PROl'DSEO OIRECTlON l'F SURF^CE DR^INAGE SET PROPOSE[) GdRAGE SL^[J AT ELEVATION 936,20 SET PflOPOSEO TOP OF BLOCK AT ELEV^T10N 936 53 SET TilE LOWEST FLOOR AT ELEV^TlON 926.34 20 - IN FEET o O.no", Ilz .Inch . r~ Ineh iron monument .., ond morhd by lic,"" No. 10183 . , Oenoln iron monurn~ht found ~ Oenolu P k. Nail set '-4k 5 ~ /G ~2h I ~--...... r-,J"~ " # .." 1- '; '5.\,iiI &' \t ,,~ 't!' 1., 4Ii j 0,. '" R~V ~/1I1.9G..J.9 lhow pn>polld ........ O. II0kl onI0/9",fJ, , Rtv~ 131/98' To .hoW 101 AIf<l & dl.1. 10 ~D4.0 on odJolnln9 loll. , , I hmby wHly tho' Illti"''''rJdl pr~ by mt or tind~r my dirK' ILptrV;"o.. and tho, I om 0 duly I,ctn,ed lond St.twyW unci" 'h. ,loW: 01 the Slott-or M'n~.o~. ~ ..1-. ....~~. ,', .'~'~ "',j.tV~.r~.,.,~'\;; Dol. _ i -1<;" . ",., lie,n.. No. /0183 rll ~ NI"l 6359 1'IIr.1" 219 Rnn/( GARAGE SLAB EL. 9t6,P9 o o cO I i OJ > ii: o ,.: iii o OJ OIl o .. o 0: .. DESCIUPl'ION: r~ot 117, NOl:"thwood, Scott County, rHnnnsol nIl visible lmpt"ovements ilnd encroachment: anid propet"ty if any. 2..04K ),. \ 2..04K l' (D~ ,*,1 / ~"oT 5...r..7~ \ ~I""~~ ;;.. ) \ , . 1 .::l ' ,... ..... ::: I. "4jO "i : 24.0AK 95 ~~ _ " ~ G4RAGE 0 Q 0 S" OAK b ~ ~ ~\ I Ii N " 1) ~ -E ~ : I :~_["" (~Is.eI~,O o E q- I~' "OIe"0~"8z~'B:W7 ~ 0 a.. " ' 'Z7 II ..'I"f - g ~ ~ :; 1 9,... ti ~ " .911.5 Ql I iii ' 3. 1:- ' HO IE , @- I'O~' SHED /, 7.1 ~.~:l... ..- . 'I ~j~~:;' ') 1~., '~: '\ I~ ~I!! J~! I i~' ,1 e 12....k~~ .' \ I "<, UZ4.T! I \ ,. I;Q 9120,0" 'x,: ' . t 'I --.,... l\-.:.I 9i,,:. /1, \ , "" : ,I I, I ,... ..... d1 -w.... o. ~ , Uq- C/)"".... ,......'.'0 ....... QI EN.S ,0.0 - l{lO.... wOC/) NZO I W ~NOTE I EXISTING CABIN TO BE REMOVED. I , .. >-" '-/ \ t ..~ , i I':J NarES: Net Lot nrea = 14,163 nq. ft. Net at"ea to elevation 904.0 = 15,347 sq. [ BM EL. 926,99 TOP GARAGE SLAB ON LOT 116 926.3 Denotes e>eisting gradn n1evation ~ (933.6) DENOTES PROPOSED FINISHED GRADE EL ,. DENOTES PROPOSED DIRECTION OF SURFf SET GARAGE SLAB AT ELEVATION 933. SET TOP OF BLOCK AT ELEVATION 93' SET BASEMENT FLOOR AT EL,EVATIOI 50.Q ---it ~ \ Bill PI:: Ij>~ ~51 rJRe.a... roc . I.M. 6.65 TH --55.05_ ~ Z 9655 PRIOR--- -----;-~. 514 k E 7 aQ, 97 60 I 30 i IN o I SCALE I hereby cerl by me or und 10m 0 duly" ~'he5 r;:: // /, REV,' 10/21/97 To show 929.0 contour REV. 10/8 /97 To show addillonal elevollon on lop or bank REV. 9/25/97 TO SHOW PROPOS ED HSE. ETe. FEET o Denot.. 1/2 Inch II 14 Inch Iron monument set and marked by License No IOIR,'i ~ MEMORANDUM RE: CC: November 18, 1997 Planning Commission Don Rye, Planning Director Jenni Tovar, Planner Proposed Bluff Language Jane Kansier, Planner; Bob Hutchins, Building Official; Pat Lynch, DNR; Hillcrest Homes; Jim Albers and BUD Waund, Edina Realty; McKnight and Associates DATE: TO: FROM: Upon the direction of the Planning Commission at its November 10, 1997 meeting, the Planning Staff met with a local developer and real estate agent. The purpose of the meeting was to write revised bluff and top of bluff definitions to alleviate the cumbersome and difficult to interpret current bluff definitions. Based on this meeting, the Planning Staff is proposing the following amendments to the Shoreland and Zoning Ordinances: TOE OF BLUFF: Definition to remain the same. TOP OF BLUFF: The highest point of the slope, as measured from the toe of the bluff, where the grade is 30 percent or greater. BLUFF SETBACK: As measured from the TOP OF BLUFF, the upper end of a segment at least 25 feet in length having an average slope less than 18%. This removes the floating 50 foot segment. TOP OF BLUFF is determined as measured from the TOE OF THE BLUFF, with the slope measured between the 1 foot contours. The building setback is determined by the slope as measured from the TOP OF BLUFF (25 feet minimum), not distance to meet the intent of the ordinance. If the slope from the top of the bluff, towards the street, never drops below 18%, then the lot would be unbuildable without a variance. LLLL OLL Z::) 0-1 _m ~LL ~O <( w ~ eto !:: 8:..... al :f ~ c Z ~:~~< LLLL LLLL ~::J (/)ffi 3d01S H.LIM l.N3W~3S .DS :1j(779 dQ .L'2Jtid .J.{) N. \\ %8 t NttHl 5531 \Y :IdOlS Hl.IM l.N3W~35 .DS ~ - ~ ~~ e:! 0 ~ i= - tf) "< t- - l\)U- UJ~ -s:.(.l u..u.. u.. u..~ "'::)-1 -1<0 Q;; u. f/10 - :t: r o ~ (~ b~b': .. 0 II M ~ I. r II I r . ~ I 0 l V) t . seb d) ~b (eb /~ 8cb- !,C'b OEb fEb CE b [E ~ /';:hEb' C;n qF..b U.l ~ o 1 - C/) J, ~.' In N s -:::::. C) I;) nOb r;;Ob In " '" 20& 0 .,.. It) ,... 0 C\I It) N -- 0 V) M In I: ~ in ~ ~60b .. !~.: b ,- ... I,:,':J I ~/b nl{, -J I L <' - 'I b (16 I <J 16 016 O!!:6 IG'" -:~-.:::o Lt') It) It) o c.c It') CD <:) ,...., It) '" <:) eo It) CO <:) 0') - rO '::N - '0 In _ . 0) 1\ o ,... It') ,... It) o o .,.. CD I- - CO - J: X W b ...I t/) - X t- O t- t/) W - ...I a.. a.. ~ z o - ~ ~ w a: a.. -a:: w I- Z - t/) - LL LL ~ t/) ~ o :I: /:- Q< -ow <-.{/ -- J 4/' \(,\ ,o{/ >A 4 //;: ,'( \.\. Q,'J)) .-1 '. I, -;-7' 7J j; C ",,~ C1 . i,; 1,,- / ,.I- I) "'::--.. ~~ '0 /. '1/ y'", '(/' - 1J dI / (, , '(' l< a...e. ,i" :l:l (119 ~ 0 JOl.. (:>\~ 1~ .\-')5 ..,r'D~ '" 's, ,~ <- "" ..... ~.::.\ "' \ '-" \ ~:t \~ ,I '. ,.../ _~~~I I! II I' I' il J V"l.a I u f - III rm'! :.' I -,.g, !~ 0_. .rjJ, - :~" 1- ~JO\ I .~ iD.. z o - ~u. ~"U. ~:> W..J a: CO CLLL fEo (.)1- I-'ZCL - -0 co_I- i: ffi c >< ::! z W 0<( .::J: \L I-LL (/)=:J W..J a: CO OLL ::10 - :r: V\\L \- u- ~":) ~-1 ~. ~ u.. U- """ u..o~ o ':) - ....l~\- ~cl< lU- cn\-u- - d- \b :r. <.J.a 'r . ~~ ~.:J 0 dO..1..~.~ ~~ u.. ~ -J ~ u.. a ~ <i: P- %8 ~ NlfH.L 1:l3.Llf3I,Jf) ~ 3d015 H.1./M lN3WEJ35 .0 9 b 2: ~ %8 ~ NtfHl 5531 3d01S H.LIM .LN3W93S ,09 o 'l::t /-;;;" bCb'- LEh /;?f-,Ob r;.Cb t;".... " '" i..-~ 20b ~60b --, l, ~ II~ ~/!6 h I ~ b ..s I b t7; I' (,. {" 0 <fIb bl" O!':6 [ .E f.:, (;: h E b Sfb i .1 I I I t I o ~ If. - . ..:::. c --. -- V"l u.l ~ o , C/) ~ * r, , .-..; - .0 _N o ~ U') It) ,... --- ---~ --- ._-----~-~~--- - l.j o ~ It) ,... o N U') N 0 0 V"l C":) It) M 0 'l::t U') ~ -:,'~ \0 It') It') 0 c.o It) co 0 '" It) " ) " 0 co It) CQ 0 0') It) 0 - ; 0) [\ '" - 0 0 ~ (:.~;I; ~O'- ~~~i. ':......, . ,~tn c:__ li~ I- o .... ~ffi ~.!'- :~ ..J 0- 0. <C Z o -- ,~ ~ w a: Q. a: w I- ",z - en w ~ o :I: l- tA W a: g ....I - J: -3: 110 ~ A ~ L.l\ ~f ~' ,('\ '(J '--A ,0 /"'i' /.y I; , ;; '- li 0/ / / ,..(. (1_" ,A, ,;' / , / r&Ile;' .v~, '" ( \ (,;, (j' \ \ ;., ".~.~ / \, \\... '.fl A (,v / ..,r;'v I ,,/ II If,' / ,/ ;' '11'! 'v I '.[ , f,' / I J ! iL ,1, { I / ~o (\19 ~~ (\\~ . T;~ -t'0J(r c ... - In - :t: >< W .- ..~ -"" ".... c' c; -- :;' ~. :' - S <--- -;" ~ ~~. ./) ;;..' , "'~ ,", ". - --,. s..:. '\, \ J'~ \\ · 6,,,-,_ \L~'~ -- ------- ----- -------- ------- ------- -- ----- Section 5-1-7 Definitions of the City Code reads as follows: . BLUFF: A topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or embankment having the following characteristics (an area with an average slope of less than 18 percent over a distance for 50 feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff): (A) Part or all of the feature is located in a shoreline area; (B) The slope rises at least twenty five feet (25') or more above the ordinary high-water level of the waterbody; (C) The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point twenty-five feet (25') or more above the ordinary high-water level averages thirty percent (30%) or greater; and (0) The slope must drain toward the waterbody. . TOP OF THE BLUFF: The higher point of a fifty foot (50') segment with an average slope exceeding eighteen percent (18%). --------------------