Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9C Bluff Ordinance Amend Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 / www.cityofpriorlake.com 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: MAY 23, 2016 AGENDA #: 9C PREPARED BY: JEFF MATZKE, PLANNER PRESENTED BY: JEFF MATZKE AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1104 SHORELAND REGULATIONS OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO BLUFF AND STEEP SLOPE AREAS DISCUSSION: Introduction The purpose of this agenda item is to consider a request by City staff to amend Section 1104 (Shoreland Regulations) of the City of Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance related to bluff and steep slope areas. The primary purpose of these ordinance amendments is to consider objective criteria that would be allowed for construction within a bluff impact zone. History The most recent bluff ordinance was created in June 2009. At that time, changes were made to the required design and plan submittal requirements for work within bluff impact areas. The ordinance for bluff areas was developed in the 1990s under the policies of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Since then municipalities have adopted ordinances to coordinate with state rules. The Planning Commission held a public hearing for consideration of these amendment at their April 18, 2016 meeting. At the meeting some public comment was taken regarding general support for the flexibility of the ordinance amendments which allowed for moderate changes to existing grades and retaining walls with bluff areas. The public also indicated concerns with what was indicated as excessive permitting requirements for retaining and structural walls within bluff zones and steep slope areas. After closing the public hearing and deliberating the amendments, the Planning Commission voiced support for the overall ordinance amendments proposed. However, they directed City Staff to review other communities with similar bluff situations to identify alternate engineering requirements for permitting within bluff zones. Continuing discussion at the May 2, 2016 meeting, the Planning Commission considered additional information which City Staff received from the other communities with bluff regulations (Lakeville, Chanhassen, Inver Grove Heights, and others). These communities expressed similar practices in regards to regulations; however, they did not generally require a consulting engineer on behalf of the City for plan review and project inspection. Some cited that the engineering review depended on the scale of the project; and 2 in bluff cases, a City inspector, at a minimum, observes a project alongside a private engineer. Much like the City of Prior Lake requirement, some communities did indicate a post engineering report requirement or movement toward this type of future regulation. A few instances of bluff failures resulting in intensive erosion issues were explained and the issues were handled through code enforcement procedures to correct slope stability and erosion with the engineer, contractor, and/or property owner for the project. Current Circumstances To manage bluffs and slopes properly, communities use preventative controls including structure setbacks, erosion control methods, and storm water regulations to preserve the integrity of the steep slopes. These methods also minimize visual impact of construction and preserve natural vegetation that stabilizes slopes and preserves wildlife habitat. The City of Prior Lake restricts development within bluff and steep slope areas through setbacks and construction limitations. It is the current practice of the City to bring any project within a bluff area (including existing nonconforming properties) through a variance process on a case-by-case basis to determine the authorization of the construction. In recent months, a large number of inquiries and variance applications regarding construction in bluff areas has led City Staff to consider an alternative approach that would allow a defined amount of construction within these areas in comparison to the existing impacts on each site. Conclusion City Staff believes that the current ordinance has some subjective language that could possibly be changed to present property owners with a more direct and clear objective for the regulatory limits of the ordinance and the purpose of the ordinance. Possible changes include a degree of change that is allowed to occur for structures within bluff areas, detailed information regarding the required engineering analysis of the steep slopes, and regulations to improve existing erosion and storm water issues with construction in steep slope areas. The DNR has been consulted on these amendments and has indicated a conditional approval of the amendments pending City Council review; therefore, City Staff recommends approval of the ordinance amendments. ISSUES: After reviewing area regulations, MN State Statutes and DNR rules, City Staff has identified four main areas of possible amendments within the ordinances which regulate bluff and steep slope areas. These relate to lateral expansion of a principal structure, engineering review and analysis, stairway installation, and retaining walls and grade alterations. Lateral Expansion of Principal Structure (Subsection 1104.303) – The current ordinance does not allow any expansion of a structure into the bluff impact zone or setback areas. The DNR has crafted new rules in which conmmunities may allow a lateral expansion of the principal structure (for 3 example a side deck, porch, or small addition) to the side of a structure. The ordinance amendments proposes the permitting of such a structural expansion up to 500 square feet into the buff setback. Engineering Analysis (Subsection 1104.305) – The current ordinance requires the submittal of an engineering report regarding the bluff stability and impact of excavation, fill, or placement of structures on the site. This report shall accompany the site survey and an as built survey shall be prepared following the construction to verify the work was performed according to the plan. This Subsection allows for a waiver of the engineering report for smaller projects on sites that do not indicate previous bluff failure or erosion control issues. The amendment proposes to expand upon the allowance under the waiver requirement for stairways, retaining walls, and structures. Stairways, Lifts, and Landings (Subsection 1104.308(5)) – This section of the ordinance closely resembles State Statute; however, the regulation of Prior lake has been to restrict stairways that are constructed into t he bluff slope rather than above the slope on post footings. The amendment proposes to allow such stairways that would be constructed into the bluff slope as long as drainage, erosion control, and slope stability is achieved with the stairway design. Topographic Alterations/Grading and Filling (Subsection 1104.402) – The current City Ordinance in this subsection greatly restricted alterations of bluff areas to the exact replacement of retaining walls and current grades. The City has identified that this method may not allow for the flexibility to improve drainage patterns, provide for enhanced erosion control design and slope stability, and decrease impervious surface. While the State Statute is clear in regards to the exclusion of importing or exporting of material into a bluff zone without a variance consideration, the movement of grade and materials within the bluff slope is permitted. The amendment to this section proposes a limit of grade movement and retaining wall alterations to allow moderate changes to the current slope design which could improve the overall drainage, erosion control, and slope stability. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The amendments would allow for more flexibility for construction within bluff and steep slope areas that may result in an increase in the amount of building permits for these projects. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Motion and a second to approve an Ordinance amending Section 1104 of the Prior Lake City Code as proposed, or as may be amended by the City Council. 2. Motion and Second to approve a Resolution adopting the Summary of Ordinance and ordering the publication of said summary. 3. Motion and a second to deny the proposed amendments to Section 1104 of the Prior Lake City Code. 4. Motion and a second to table or continue discussion of the item for a specific purpose. 4 RECOMMENDED MOTION: ATTACHMENTS: Alternatives #1 and #2 1. Proposed Redline Amendments to Section 1104 2. April 18th and May 2nd Planning Commission Minutes 3. Retaining Wall Failure Photos (dated 2009) 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCE NO. XXX-16 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 1104 SHORELAND DISTRICT REGULATONS RELATING TO BLUFF AND STEEP SLOPE AREAS The City Council of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota ordains: 1. City Code Section 1104, Subsection 1104.303 is amended as follows: Bluff Impact Zones: Structures and accessory facilities, excluding stairways, lifts, and landings, shall not be placed in bluff impact zones except for the following: An expansion of a legally nonconforming principal structure that does not meet the bluff setback is permitted provided that:  The expansion is lateral to the existing intrusion into the setback and does not project any further into the setback than an extension of a line drawn along the edge of the existing intrusion;  The expanded structure is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance, consistent with the comprehensive plan and will not alter the essential character of the locality; and  The structural footprint of the expansion into the bluff setback shall not exceed 500 square feet. 2. City Code Section 1104, Subsection 1104.304 (3) is amended as follows: The Building Official, the Community Development & Natural Resources Director and the City Engineer may waive the engineer's report requirement for replacement decks, new decks or additions to existing decks, replacement retaining walls, stairways, lifts and landings, water- oriented accessory structures, and additions or new structures not exceeding 480 square feet in size under the following conditions: a. An inspection of the site does not indicate any obvious erosion conditions. b. There is no history of bluff failure on the site or on the adjacent lots. c. All required setbacks are met. 3. City Code Section 1104, Subsection 1104.308 (5d) is amended by amended as follows: Stairways, lifts and landings may be either constructed above the ground on posts or pilings, or placed into the ground, provided they are designed and built in a manner that ensures control of soil erosion, and maintains or improves drainage patterns and slope stability; 4. City Code Section 1104, Subsection 1104.402 (1) and (2) are amended as follows: (1) The exact replacement of an existing retaining wall within a bluff impact zone is permitted, provided the grade of the land within the bluff impact zone and the location and size of the retaining wall do not change and the new retaining wall will create no more impact in the bluff impact zone than was caused by the existing retaining wall. 2 (2) Grading and filling and excavation, including the import or export of materials within the bluff impact zone is not permitted. However, the movement or grading of existing materials within the bluff impact zone may be permitted subject to approval of a grading/building permit. This movement of existing grade may involve the modification of existing retaining walls or placement of retaining walls as long as the following conditions are met: a. Any new retaining walls cannot exceed 4 feet in height. b. Any additional height to existing walls cannot increase the height of the wall above 4 feet. c. Walls which exist over 4 feet in height may decrease in height but may not increase in overall height. d. Proposed drainage patterns and/or erosion control methods shall indicate an improvement over the existing conditions on the site. e. Grading, filling, and excavations in all areas within the Shoreland District necessary for the construction of structures, sewage treatment systems and driveways under validly issued construction permits for these facilities do not require the issuance of a separate grading and filling permit. However, the grading and filling standards in this subsection must be incorporated into the issuance of permits for construction of structures, sewage treatment systems and driveways. 5. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 23rd day of May, 2016. ATTEST: _________________________ __________________________ Frank Boyles, City Manager Kenneth L. Hedberg, Mayor A Summary of this Ordinance was Published in the Prior Lake American on the 4th day of June, 2016. 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 RESOLUTION 16-xxx A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 116-_____ AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY Motion By: Second By: WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, In accordance with Minnesota Statute, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding amendments to Section 1104 Shoreland Regulations of the Prior Lake City Code on April 18, 2016; and The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission, city staff reports and others pertaining to the City Code amendments; and On May 23, 2016 the City Council adopted Ordinance 116-____ amending Section 1104 of the Prior Lake City Code related to bluff and steep slope areas; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes requires publication of an Ordinance in the official newspaper before it becomes effective; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes also allows the publication of a summary of an ordinance if the City Council finds that the summary is an accurate representation of the Ordinance; and WHEREAS, The City Council desires to publish a summary of the amendments to Section 1104 of the Prior Lake City Code related to bluff and steep slope areas and has determined the publication of a summary of this ordinance will meet the intent of the statute. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA as follows: 1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein. 2. Ordinance No. 116-____ is lengthy. 3. The text of summary of Ordinance No. 116-____, attached hereto as Exhibit A, conforms to M.S. § 331A.01, Subd. 10, and is approved, and publication of the title and summary of the Ordinance will clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the Ordinance. 4. The title and summary shall be published once in the Prior Lake American in a body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type. 5. A complete text of the newly amended City Code will be available for inspection at City Hall or in the Document Center on the City of Prior Lake Website after May 23, 2016. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 23rd DAY OF MAY, 2016. 2 VOTE Hedberg Keeney McGuire Morton Thompson Aye ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Nay ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Abstain ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Absent ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ______________________________ Frank Boyles, City Manager Exhibit A SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 116-xx AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 1104 SHOREAND REGULATIONS RELATING TO BLUFF AND STEEP SLOPE AREAS The following is only a summary of Ordinance No. 116-____. The full text will available for public inspection after May 23, 2016 by any person during regular office hours at City Hall or in the Document Center on the City of Prior Lake Website. SUMMARY: The Ordinance identifies additional regulations in Section 1104 Shoreland Regulations related to bluff and steep slope areas including stairways, retaining walls, and grading and filling. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 23rd Day of May, 2016. ATTEST: _________________________ __________________________ Frank Boyles, City Manager Kenneth L. Hedberg, Mayor Summary Ordinance to be published in the Prior Lake American on the 4th day of June, 2016. Zoning Ordinance City of Prior Lake June 1, 2009 1104/p1 SECTION 1104 SHORELAND REGULATIONS SUBSECTIONS 1104.100: General Provisions 1104.200: Designation of Types of Land Use 1104.300: Zoning Provisions 1104.400: Shoreland Alterations 1104.500: Special Provisions for Commercial, Industrial, Public/Semi-Public, Agricultural and Forestry 1104.600: Water Supply and Sewage Treatment 1104.700: Conditional Uses 1104.800: Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) 1104.900: Development on Nonconforming Lots (Subsections in this exhibit were removed due to lack of significance to bluffs & steep slopes) 1104.303 Bluff Impact Zones: Structures and accessory facilities, excluding stairways, lifts, and landings, shall not be placed in bluff impact zones except for the following: An expansion of a legally nonconforming principal structure that does not meet the bluff setback is permitted provided that:  The expansion is lateral to the existing intrusion into the setback and does not project any further into the setback than an extension of a line drawn along the edge of the existing intrusion  The expanded structure is in harmony with the general purpose andintent of the ordinance, consistent with the comprehensive plan and will not alter the essential character of the locality; and  The structural footprint of the expansion into the bluff setback shall not exceed 500 square feet. 1104.304 Bluff Setbacks: The required setback from the Top of Bluff is determined as follows: 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%. 25 ’ Formatted Zoning Ordinance City of Prior Lake June 1, 2009 1104/p2 1104.305 Engineering Reports Required: On properties for which construction is proposed within a bluff impact zone or bluff setback, the applicant for a building permit and the property owner shall provide the following: (1) The applicant for a building permit on that property shall provide a report and calculations prepared and signed by a professional engineer registered by the State of Minnesota on the bluff stability and the impact any excavation, fill or placement of structures will have on the site and whether the excavation, fill, or placement of structures will cause any slope to become unstable or will impose loads that may affect the safety of structures or slopes. The report shall include the following:  The global failure plane determination of the slope substantiated by at least one soil boring at an appropriate depth and location  Analysis of the land influence zone and its intersection with the failure plane based on the soil type  The Engineer's recommendations for the proper design and maintenance of a drainage system so the site development will not interfere with adequate drainage for the site or adjacent properties, will not obstruct, damage or adversely affect existing sewer or drainage facilities, will not adversely affect the quality of stormwater runoff, will not adversely affect downstream properties, wetlands or bodies of water and will not result in erosion or sedimentation.  If the initial determination indicates that the load influence zone intersects or falls within the global failure plane, a global stability analysis of the bluff shall be required. (2) The owner of the property shall submit an as-built survey and post- construction report completed by a professional engineer registered by the State of Minnesota that the final grading of the site was completed in compliance with an approved grading plan and that the recommendations contained in the engineer's report have been adhered to. (3) The Building Official, the Community Development & Natural Resources Director and the City Engineer may waive the engineer's report requirement for replacement decks, new decks or additions to existing decks, replacement retaining walls, stairways, lifts and landings, water-oriented accessory structures, and additions or new structures not exceeding 480 square feet in size under the following conditions: a. An inspection of the site does not indicate any obvious erosion conditions. b. There is no history of bluff failure on the site or on the adjacent lots. c. All required setbacks are met. 1104.308 Placement, Design, And Height Of Structures: Zoning Ordinance City of Prior Lake June 1, 2009 1104/p3 (1) Piers and Docks: Setback requirements from the ordinary high-water mark shall not apply to piers and docks. Location of piers and docks shall be controlled by applicable state and local regulations. (2) Setback Requirements For Residential Structures: On shoreland lots that have 2 adjacent lots with existing principal structures on both such adjacent lots, any new residential structure or any additions to an existing structure may be set back the average setback of the adjacent structures from the ordinary high-water mark or 50 feet, whichever is greater, provided all other provisions of the Shoreland Overlay District are complied with. In cases where only one of the two lots adjacent to an undeveloped shoreland lot has an existing principal structure, the average setback of the adjacent structure and the next structure within 150 feet may be utilized. Setback averaging may not be utilized when an undeveloped shoreland lot is adjacent to two other undeveloped shoreland lots. In no instance shall a principal structure be located in a shore impact zone or a bluff impact zone. a. The following shall not be considered encroachments into the lakeshore or bluff setback: 1) Eaves, gutters and basement egress windows, provided they do not extend more than 2 feet into a yard; and provided such encroachment is no closer than 5 feet from any lot line. 2) Yard lights and nameplate signs for one and two family dwellings in the R-1, R-2 and R-2 districts. 3) Floodlights or other sources of light illuminating authorized signs, or illuminating parking areas, loading areas, or yards for safety and security purposes if these meet the regulations of Subsection 1107.1800. 4) Flag poles, bird baths and other ornamental features detached from the principal building which are a minimum of 5 feet from any lot line. 5) Canopies no more than 12 feet wide are permitted in the "R-3", "C-1", "C-2", "C-3" and "I-1" Districts if they are open at the sides, comply with provisions of Subsection 1101.506 and provide 14 feet of clearance if located over any access roadway or fire lane. b. The following recreational equipment shall not be encroachments on the lakeshore or bluff setback requirements: boats, boat trailers, general purpose trailers, fish houses, fire pits, utility trailers, jet skis, snowmobiles and other lake-oriented items. c. Additional regulations regarding encroachments allowed in front, rear, and side yards are located in Subsection 1101.503. d. Decks not meeting the required setbacks may be replaced if the following criteria are met: Zoning Ordinance City of Prior Lake June 1, 2009 1104/p4  The deck existed on the date the structure setbacks were established;  The replacement deck is in the same size, configuration, location and elevation as the deck in existence at the time the structure setbacks were established;  The deck is not roofed or screened; and  The existing deck is not located within an easement, right-of-way, or over a property line. (3) High Water Elevations: Structures must be placed in accordance with any flood plain regulations applicable to the site. Where these controls do not exist, the elevation to which the lowest floor, including basement, is placed must be determined as follows: a. For lakes, by placing the lowest floor at a level at least 3 feet above the highest known water level, or 3 feet above the ordinary high water level, whichever is higher; b. For rivers and streams, by placing the lowest floor at least 3 feet above the flood of record, if data are available. If data are not available, by placing the lowest floor at least 3 feet above the ordinary high-water level, or by conducting a technical evaluation to determine effects of proposed construction upon flood stages and flood flows and to establish a flood protection elevation. Under all three approaches, technical evaluations must be done by a qualified engineer or hydrologist consistent with Parts 6120.5000 to 6120.6200 governing the management of flood plain areas. If more than one approach is used, the highest flood protection elevation determined must be used for placing structures and other facilities; and c. Water-oriented accessory structures may have the lowest floor placed lower than the elevation determined in this subsection if the structure is constructed of flood-resistance materials to the flood elevation; electrical and mechanical equipment are placed above the elevation and, if long duration flooding is anticipated, the structure is built to withstand ice action and wind-driven waves and debris. (4) Water-Oriented Accessory Structures: One water-oriented accessory structure may be allowed per lot on General Development (GD) lakes that have Municipal sewer and water; provided a building permit is obtained from the City and the following criteria are met: a. On riparian lots containing a slope equal to or greater than 20% measured from the front of the principal structure to the ordinary high water mark and verified by a certificate of survey prepared b y a registered surveyor, one water-oriented structure meeting the criteria listed in this subsection is permitted with a setback of not less than 10 feet from the ordinary high water mark. Zoning Ordinance City of Prior Lake June 1, 2009 1104/p5 b. On riparian lots containing slopes less than 20%, one water-oriented accessory structure meeting the criteria listed in this subsection is permitted with a setback of not less than 50 feet from the Ordinary High Water elevation. c. The structure shall not occupy an area greater than 120 square feet, and the maximum height of the structure must not exceed 10 feet, including the roof; and d. The structure shall be located in the most visually inconspicuous portion of the lot as viewed form the surface of the lake, assuming summer, leaf- on conditions; and e. The structure shall not be designed or used for human habitation and shall not contain water supply or sewage treatment facilities. However, the structure may contain electrical and mechanical systems; and f. The structure shall be constructed of treated materials compatible with the principle structure and designed to reduce visibility as viewed from public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks or color, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions; and g. If the proposed structure will be located below the regulatory flood plain elevation, the structure shall be built compliant with applicable flood - proofing requirements of the Building Code and Section 1105 of this Ordinance; and h. Trees that are 4 inches in caliper or larger should not be removed for the erection of a water-oriented accessory structure. If removal is necessary, replacement with like trees shall be made with the approval of the Zoning Administrator. Erosion control measures shall be implemented and all disturbed vegetation replaced with sod or suitable landscaping materials; and i. The structure shall be attached to a permanent foundation so as to be immovable from its approved location. j. Water oriented accessory structures not meeting the lakeshore required setbacks may be replaced if the following criteria are met:  The structure existed legally on June 1, 2009;  The replacement structure is the same size, configuration, location, building material, and height as the structure in existence on June 1, 2009;  The existing structure is not located within an easement, right-of- way, side yard setback, or over a property line. (5) Stairways, Lifts, And Landings: Stairways and lifts are the preferred alternative to major topographic alterations for achieving access up and down Zoning Ordinance City of Prior Lake June 1, 2009 1104/p6 bluffs and steep slopes to shore areas. Stairways and lifts shall meet the following design requirements: a. Stairways and lifts shall not exceed 4 feet in width on residential lots. Wider stairways may be used for commercial properties, public open space recreational properties and planned unit developments; b. Landings for stairways and lifts on residential lots shall not exceed 32 square feet in area. Landings larger than 32 square feet may be used for commercial properties, Park/Recreation properties, and planned unit developments. The required lakeshore setback for landings shall be 10 feet measured from the ordinary high-water mark of the public water. Landings shall not project into any required side yard; c. Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts, or landings; d. Stairways, lifts and landings may be either constructed above the ground on posts or pilings, or placed into the ground, provided they are designed and built in a manner that ensures control of soil erosion, and maintains or improves drainage patterns and slope stability; e. Stairways, lifts and landings shall be located in the most visually inconspicuous portions of lots, as viewed from the surface of the public water assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, whenever practical; and f. Facilities such as ramps, lifts or mobility paths for physically handicapped persons are also allowed for achieving access to shore areas, provided that the dimensional and performance standards of Subsections 1104.308(1) through (5) are complied with in addition to the requirements of Minnesota Regulations, chapter 1340. (6) Significant Historic Sites: No structure may be placed on a significant historic site as defined by Minnesota Statutes in a manner that affects the values of the site unless adequate information about the site has been removed and documented in a public repository. (7) Steep Slopes: The City Engineer shall evaluate possible soil erosion impacts and development visibility from public waters before issuing a permit for construction of sewage treatment systems, roads, driveways, structures, or other improvements on steep slopes. When necessary, conditions must be attached to issued permits to prevent erosion and to preserve existing vegetation screening of structures, vehicles, and other facilities as viewed from the surface of public waters, assuming summer, leaf-on vegetation. 1104.400: SHORELAND ALTERATIONS: Alterations of vegetation and topography will be regulated to prevent erosion into public waters, fix nutrients, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic values, prevent bank slumping, and protect fish and wildlife habitat. Zoning Ordinance City of Prior Lake June 1, 2009 1104/p7 1104.401 Vegetation Alterations: (1) Vegetation alteration necessary for the construction of structures and sewage treatment systems and the construction of roads and parking areas regulated by Section 1104 are exempt from the vegetation alteration standards that follow. (2) Removal or alteration of vegetation, except for agricultural and forest management uses as regulated by Section 1104 is allowed subject to the following standards: a. Intensive vegetation clearing within the shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes is not allowed. Intensive vegetation clearing for forest land conversion to another use outside of these areas is allowable as a conditional use if an erosion control and sedimentation plan is developed and approved by the City Engineer in which the property is located. b. In shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes, limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees is allowed to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access and permitted water- oriented accessory structures of facilities, provided that:  The screening of structures, vehicles, or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced;  Along rivers, existing shading of water surfaces is preserved; and  The above provisions are not applicable to the removal of trees, limbs, or branches that are dead, diseased or pose safety hazards. 1104.402 Topographic Alterations/Grading And Filling: (1) The exact replacement of an existing retaining walls within a bluff impact zone is permitted, provided the grade of the land within the bluff impact zone and the location and size of the retaining wall do not change and the new retaining wall will create no more impact in the bluff impact zone than was caused by the existing retaining wall. (2) Grading and filling and excavation, including the import or export of materials within the bluff impact zone is not permitted. However, the movement or grading of existing materials within the bluff impact zone may be permitted subject to approval of a grading/building permit. This movement of existing grade may involve the modification of existing retaining walls or placement of retaining walls as long as the following conditions are met: a. Any new retaining walls cannot exceed 4 feet in height. b. Any additional height to existing walls cannot increase the height of the wall above 4 feet. c. Walls which exist over 4 feet in height may decrease in height but may not increase in overall height. Formatted: List Paragraph, Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.63" + Indent at: 1" Formatted: Font: Arial, 11 pt Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.63", First line: 0" Formatted: List Paragraph, Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.63" + Indent at: 1" Formatted: Font: Arial, 11 pt Formatted: List Paragraph, Numbered + Level: 2 + Numbering Style: a, b, c, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 1.13" + Indent at: 1.38" Zoning Ordinance City of Prior Lake June 1, 2009 1104/p8 d. Proposed drainage patterns and/or erosion control methods shall indicate an improvement over the existing conditions on the site. e. Grading, and filling, and excavations in all areas within the Shoreland District necessary for the construction of structures, sewage treatment systems and driveways under validly issued construction permits for these facilities do not require the issuance of a separate grading and filling permit. However, the grading and filling standards in this subsection must be incorporated into the issuance of permits for construction of structures, sewage treatment systems and driveways. (2) Public roads and parking areas are regulated by Subsection 1104.403. (3) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2) above, a grading and filling permit will be required for: a. The movement of more than 10 cubic yards of material on steep slopes and within the shore impact zone; and b. The movement of more than 50 cubic yards or 500 square feet. (4) The following considerations and conditions must be adhered to during the issuance of construction permits, conditional use permits, variances and subdivision approvals: a. Grading or filling in any wetland must be done in accordance with the Wetland Conservation Act. b. Alterations shall be designed and conducted in a manner that ensures only the smallest amount of bare ground is exposed for the shortest time possible; c. Erosion control best management practices shall be used, where necessary, for temporary bare soil coverage, and a permanent vegetation cover shall be established as soon as possible: d. Methods to minimize soil erosion and to trap sediments before they reach any surface water feature shall be used. e. Altered areas shall be stabilized to acceptable erosion control standards consistent with the Public Works Design Manual. f. Fill or excavated material shall not be placed in a manner that creates an unstable slope; g. Plans to place fill or excavated material on steep slopes shall be reviewed by qualified professionals for continued slope stability and shall not create finished slopes of 4:1 or greater: h. Fill or excavated material shall not be placed in bluff impact zones: Formatted: Font: Arial, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Arial, 11 pt Formatted: Font: Arial, 11 pt Zoning Ordinance City of Prior Lake June 1, 2009 1104/p9 i. Any alterations below the ordinary high water level of public waters shall first be authorized by the Commissioner of Natural Resources under Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.241. j. Alterations of topography shall only be allowed if they are accessory to permitted or conditional uses and do not adversely affect adjacent or nearby properties; and k. Placement of natural rock riprap, including associated grading of the shoreline and placement of a filter blanket, is permitted if the finished slope does not exceed 3 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical, the landward extent of the riprap is within 10 feet of the ordinary high-water level, and the height of the riprap above the ordinary high-water level does not exceed 3 feet. Page 1 of 8 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, April 18, 2016 4. Public Hearings: A. Amendments to Section 1104 (Shoreland) of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance – Consider a request to recommend Amendments that relate to regulations for bluff and steep slope areas within the Shoreland District. Planner Matzke introduced the consideration to amend Section 1104 (Shoreland Regulations) of the City of Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance related to bluff and steep slope areas. The Primary purpose of these ordinance amendments is to consider objective criteria that would be allowed for construction within a bluff impact zone. He explained the history, current circumstances, issues, alternatives and recommended motion. He presented proposed amendments to Sections 1104 and bluff cross-section exhibit. Commission Comments/Questions: Kallberg questioned the substantial jump in areas square footage and asked where is this coming from and does it need to be that great. Planner Matzke explained the number for he square footage and where the number is coming from stating it is on the waiver inclusion for the engineering requirements. He said if the number seemed high, i t is a flexible number for the Planning Commission to decide. He explained why it is on the waiver inclusion and how it benefits flexibility. He commented on bluff failure, erosion control, soil borings, size of bluffs and additions in correspondence to this number and explained the DNR’s comments to this number. Kallberg questioned the limitation on the time of year this work can be done. He explained a situation of a northern Minnesota lake, where replacing a bluff in the wrong season compromised the home in the spring and was a pricey fix. Tieman asked about importing or exporting of soils; do we allow for soil corrections at all to be made by bringing in soil. Planner Matzke replied stating there have been a few soil corrections made and he explained the situations; generally, there is stable soils at some depth. He commented on steep slopes and soil corrections, introducing new soil, compaction and stability and said it is more of an Engineering Department question. He commented on the recommendations of Geo-Technical Engineers reviews. Tieman asked if it would be a variance then. Planner Matzke replied yes, with importing or exporting material is could go through a variance process. Tieman asked on the 4-foot wall, how is the 4-foot determined. Planner Matzke explained how the 4-foot wall is determined. He talked of structural setbacks, engineering and non-slope areas. He explained a bluff zone that was 15 to 20 feet from the lake versus a 6-foot wall. Page 2 of 8 Petersen questioned the engineering fees and asked if they are for typical retaining walls that are not on a slope or bluff. He asked if the Building Department Staff makes the determination if Engineering is needed or not and questioned the outsource of Engineers. He asked if the applicant is required to get an Engineering report and then the City hires out to another Engineer. He questioned our Engineer’s capability of qualifications to engineer this rather than outsourcing. Planner Matzke explained the typical fees, stating consulting fees on the City’s end are similar. He explained the need for two Engineers review. He explained the scale of some bluff projects. He commented on the Staff’s ability for determining if Engineering is needed or not and explained different situation of slopes and how they are handled and analyzed. He explained City Staff Engineers are Civil Engineers not Structural Engineers. He gave examples of outreach in other matters that goes beyond the City Staff expertise and the ability to outsource and the costs are passed along dependent to the project. Petersen asked the difference between our engineers being capable of saying these need Civil Engineers when they are not Civil Engineers. Planner Matzke explained the review process for past practices regarding how the retaining walls and structural stabilities have been in the last 10-15 years. He explained the protection of the lake and erosion control areas. Petersen said for future reviews he would like to take a look at the kind of fill being used. He gave examples of putting down a heavy clay and no drainage on that type of fill. Kallberg asked if there is any requirement for minimum compaction requirements; in adding, moving or disturbing the soil. Planner Matzke explained there is not a specific number of compaction and said there are some general guidelines for Engineering analysis based on the slope angle. He explained the types of things the City Engineers are more consistent on and what is asked of the applicant’s hired Engineer. MOTION BY TIEMAN, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:52 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. The Motion carried. Public Comment: Jason Miller, (5614 Candy Cove Trail SE) He explained his past history with bluff zones and bluff areas. He discussed the large retaining walls on County Road Highway 13 and commented on bluff zones being too expensive in Prior Lake versus other cities. He commented on additional costs, extra Engineers, City Staff experience with basic inspections, client’s choices, responsibility for failing walls, City’s responsibility, over-seeing applicant’s hired Engineer, specifications, retaining walls around Candy Cove, rail road ties, different walls and slopes, flexibility, creativity in the bluff zones, fees not being minuscule and explained what is needed to build a retaining wall and inspection process. He gave examples of costs and reiterated the additional Engineering costs. He talked of grading guidelines being too stringent and a better way to do things. Kallberg asked Mr. Miller for clarification; was he objecting to the whole Agenda Item or just the double Engineering requirement provision. Miller said the double Engineering is his biggest objection and shared concerns about how long this fee has been in place and if it is even legal, as in some cases Council would need to approve this action. Page 3 of 8 Larson questioned the costs of the bluff on Candy Cove. He asked what the percentage or cost to what the total costs of the project for that $20,000.00 and what was the total value of the construction costs of that project? Miller said he doesn’t have those figures. Petersen asked Mr. Miller if he knew about the extra cost of the Engineering firm or if he was notified at all on this fee. Miller said no not that he was aware of. He said it is unusual for the City to make another Engineering firm check my engineering firm, at lease in retaining walls. He explained building a large commerci al building and some special inspections and who would do these inspections. Petersen asked if the City’s Engineer require any changes and if he recalled what they were. Miller replied only minor plan changes. Tieman asked Mr. Miller, how did your Professional Engineer fees compare to the City’s Professional Engineering fees. Miller replied he was paying his Engineer about half the amount to design and draw the walls, as well as take responsibility for those walls and have insurance for them. Tieman asked around $10,000.00 for his Engineer? Miller responded yes, approximately. Tim Wilfond, (17051 Sunrise Avenue SW) He stated he is a retaining wall builder/installer. He commented on Mr. Miller’s project. He explained his project and commented on material that is allowed in the City. He shared concerns of water flow, stairs, walls, bluffs, creating water falls, and engineering involvement. He commented on smaller projects and the lack of needing a permit if the retaining wall is less than four feet anywhere else in the City. He said there is only one way to build a staircase and didn’t feel that an Engineer would be necessary. Greg Thomas, (5038 Condons Street SE) He stated Mr. Wilfond is his contractor and asked Planner Matzke what the ordinance timeframe would be if these changes go through and does the scope of the bluff come into the calculations for how much engineering is needed. Planner Matzke explained the process of ordinance changes, stating he is hopeful to be finished by mid to end of May 2016 at the earliest. He commented on the scope of the bluff and how much engineering would be needed. He explained the average slope guidelines and the engineering requirements. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY TIEMAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:14 PM. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. The Motion carried. Commission Comments/Questions: Petersen stated there are four different items; however, he is concerned with engineering the most. He asked Planner Matzke why the twice payment on engineering and what other Cities are doing in the double Page 4 of 8 review process. He questioned if this is a DNR requirement and if an Engineer has had action against them due to failure. Planner Matzke explained the other cases, the City Staff confidence in review and the need for asking for additional approvals. He stated due to the recent failures and issues, there is need for additional requirements. He explained other Cities procedures and said it is per demand needed bases. He said this is not a DNR requirement and commented on a couple cases but was unsure of what kind of reimbursement was made. Petersen recapped the comments and brought out points of responsibility. He commented on avoiding the stairs, scaffolding, above ground stairs, four foot walls and flexibility, building latterly and stated the only issue he has is with the engineering report; however, is supportive of all the other things. Tieman said all that is being proposed is a good addition; adding a better definition to the process. He agrees with Commissioner Petersen on the doubling up on Engineering not making sense. Kallberg is in agreement with Commissioners Tieman and Petersen on the double engineering. He asked who is responsible for this cost on the city’s engineering and questioned the why the stairs cannot be replace with timber/railroad ties. Planner Matzke replied the City’s Engineer is put into the building cost and paid by the applicant. He explained why the different types of material, stating it is more for the grade materials. Fleming stated he feels like we should table this and for the record that the amendment p roposals for 1104.308 sub 5 and 1104.402 the Commissioners are fine with those two items, but doesn’t want to take up a motion and second on the entire package until there is a little more information. He asked for research on, similar situated communities with prescribed or similar topography, grading and bluff areas like ours and within the three to five years in these communities, how many failures there were, how did the community address to these failures from a policy and/or practice perspective and what is the cost and/or fees associated with whatever the new policy of practice was identified. Petersen said it might be hard information to come by, but would like to know what other communities with bluff situations are doing as far as the double engineering and if there were failures and why they happened. MOTION BY KALLBERG, SECONDED BY PETERSEN TO TABLE, WITH THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTION GIVEN TO STAFF AND CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION TO THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON MONDAY, MAY 2, 2016 AT 7:27P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Larson, Kallberg, Petersen and Tieman. The Motion carried. Page 5 of 8 PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, May 2, 2016 5. Old Business: A. Amendments to Section 1104 (Shoreland) of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance – City Staff is recommending the consideration of a request to recommend amendments to Section 1104 (Shoreland Regulations) of the City of Prior Lake Code regarding bluff and steep slope areas. (continued from April 18, 2016). Planner Matzke explained the purpose of this agenda item is to consider a request by City Staff to amend Section 1104 (Shoreland Regulations) of the City of Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance related to bluff and steep slope areas. The primary purpose of these ordinance amendments is to consider objective criteria that would be allowed for construction within a bluff impact zone. He explained the history, current circumstances, conclusion, issues, alternatives and recommended a motion. He presented photo examples of bluff failures, proposed amendments to Section 1104 (Shoreland Regulations) of the City Code and bluff cross-section exhibit. Engineer Poppler explained the ordinance on bluffs is separate from the retaining walls; and bluffs is what is being reviewed tonight, along with global stability calculations. He explained the retaining wall permit is separate and in 2008-2009 the process was changed to include a second three-point inspection from a Structural Engineer on how we deal with retaining walls; he gave example s of failed retaining walls and presented some photos. He explained the process of issuing permits and inspections for retaining walls and shared the hardships of failed retaining walls. He stated it is harder to resolve after construction than to have it right the first time. Planner Matzke said these walls encompass not just areas of bluff, they are in areas of bluff or any retaining wall that is in 4 feet in height and have a series of curing. He said this could be a separate matter as part of a recommendation to City Council. Commission Comments/Questions: Fleming applauded the staff for a fine job of research and commented on excessive engineering. Planner Matzke explained for the research we were looking for similar topography and slopes with the same property values. He questioned the risks that the contractors would take on and what is the risk that the Cities are willing to show with the permitting procedure. He commented on the stringent procedures the City has in result to some risks that we have had prior. He commented on a different body of Councilor’s back in 2008. Fleming asked the commissioners if Subsection 1104.305 and recommending the 1104.308 Subsection 5, and Subsection 1104.402 should stay as a package or divided. Larson questioned the retaining walls being lengthy and asked for recommendations from staff if this could be divided into different areas to get more of a benefit and to not have a major analysis for every single wall system. Page 6 of 8 Engineer Poppler explained most walls under four feet we don’t require that type of permit and explained the process for wall over four feet in height; height standpoint and what it is holding up versus the length; anytime that we are over that four feet in height or multiple tiers then the permit is required. Larson commented on a photo of a lengthy wall and said he was unsure of the height. He shared concerns of the length and conditions being more prevalent to deteriorate rather than a shorter section. He said he understands that this is not how it is calculated, but maybe this would help. Kallberg explained there are different parts to this agenda item and commented on issues of original engineering analysis reviewed, the examples shown, ten-foot high walls, slopes failing behind the walls, two different sets of permits, engineering analysis for four foot or less walls, extra costs, engineering replacement, design and height, stairways, lifts and landings, stairways built into slopes, maintenance and improving drainage patterns and stability. He asked for clarification on the wording on grading, filling and excavations within the bluff impact zone and how to differentia and define materials. Planner Matzke said we will look into the clarification on language and the intention of this is importing and exporting material within a bluff would not be permitted without a variance request. He explained the allowance for some minor modifications within the bluff area and stated it is a little confusing but will see what can be done for clarification. He explained the wording was verbatim from the State, but does see how it is complicated. He is hopeful to get a handout that will help clarify. Tieman asked if the engineering report was a Certified Engineer or what is the requirements. He asked if the other cities that were reference used a second Engineer and could this all be done through the City. Engineer Poppler replied a Licensed Professional Engineer. Planner Matzke stated no one from other cities indicated this need for a private project. He explained a private property project versus the City’s larger scaled with escrow projects. Petersen asked for clarification of a failed wall; where is the liability that the City has, why does the city care? Engineer Poppler said that because most of the retaining walls projects are on the lake. He explained different situations and said if a complaint from a neighbor came in where it is a safety issue, the code enforcement might review it and decide if it is a public nuisance, if so that is where the City gets involved. Petersen asked about the City Staff time and the main concern of erosion getting into the lake from these failed retaining walls. Engineer Poppler explained the locations of where the failures were and said they were at locations such as a special wetland (fen), new development (with homes slatted for construction), roads (against retaining wall) and future building near these walls. Petersen clarified when the city infrastructure is at risk and said this could cost a lot of money if a road disappears. Engineer Poppler explained in some cases, other cases were some were private homes. Petersen said it sounds like inspections are what works and questioned is the consulting/engineering firm doing these reviews when they are needed and asked if it is common to come up with massive errors in the applicant’s engineering reports; do we monitor this. Page 7 of 8 Engineer Poppler said he doesn’t have that information. He explained what they are looking for and commented on the soil reports. Petersen asked if the homeowner is liable for is their own soil boring; does our consulting engineer also do their own soil borings. Engineer Poppler said no. He explained what the Engineer look for; borings and the soil type calculations matches the calculations for the retaining wall. Petersen asked what kind of enforcement do we have and what time limit to get fixed or fined. Engineer Poppler explained a situation with the economic recession and the developers had walked away; so that added to the complexity of these problems. Petersen asked what if the developer was still there; is there an enforcement system. Engineer Poppler said up until a point; we have a one year walk through and we look for things. He explained after that one-year period we no longer have the security in place to deal with an issue. He commented on some of the issues weren’t the next year, rather the foundations were starting to rotate one or two years after. He clarified the difference between bluff and the retaining walls. When you are in a bluff you are dealing with global stability. Commissioner Comments Kallberg said he would like clarification of language and asked if this is a whole package and if we are recommending to the Council. Fleming explained what the recommendations could be and yes the recommendations are to the Council. Petersen said he is okay with all changes, but still is not on board with doubling on engineer’s analysis. He said doubling up on engineer report does no good if there are no inspections taking place. He likes the inspections and suggested these should be done; inspections would go a lot further than doubling up on engineering and maybe there needs to be some kind of enforcement. Fleming clarified by reading the Subsection. Petersen said thanks for the clarification and stated he would support this. Fleming said we need a philosophical alignment about the scope of project and where the threshold is where expertise needs to be brought in. Tieman he recommends all the changes to the ordinances to the Council. He said all these changes are good changes and is hopeful to address something around how the inspections and enforcement are done. Larson said it is a catch twenty-two if you change the doubling engineering and a retaining wall that explodes; who wants to take responsibility. He said it is a touchy situation and where do we put the line of where the extensive wall system or non-extensive wall system; where is that line. Kallberg stated working with Shoreland bluff situations as to what we have seen here and limitations of four-foot height walls. He said an existing wall of four feet however, can never be increased. He said the Page 8 of 8 examples don’t apply to the four-foot wall. He commented on the wavering of the engineering and said he supports all three parts of this. Fleming said he wanted to read this section to be clear, but also have on the record the general concerns. He is supporting all three of the subsections recommended for Kallberg asked about the language clarification and typo on the word structures. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECONDED BY KALLBERG TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 1104 REGARDING BLUFFS AND STEEP SLOPE AREAS WITH LANGUAGE CLARFICATION AND TYPO ON THE WORD STRUCTURES AT 7:51 P.M. VOTE: Ayes by Fleming, Kallberg, Larson, Petersen and Tieman. The Motion carried.